Bullying and cyberbullying represent complex social and psychological phenomena that inflict lasting harm on victims across interpersonal, school, workplace, and online contexts. While traditional bullying typically occurs face-to-face, cyberbullying expands aggression into digital and networked spaces, allowing anonymity, permanence of content, and limitless audiences (Smith et al., 2008; Kowalski et al., 2014). Within both domains, repeated harassment and dehumanising labels—such as calling someone “crazy”—serve as mechanisms of domination, stigmatization, and identity erosion. These practices can generate profound psychological harm, disrupt social belonging, and reinforce structural prejudices regarding mental health (Haslam, 2006; Corrigan & Watson, 2002).
This article is about those CHEAP insult towards me by Politicians.
2. Bullying: Definitions and Mechanisms
2.1 Bullying as Intentional, Repetitive Aggression
Bullying is widely defined as intentional harm, repeated over time, occurring within a power imbalance (Olweus, 1993; Swearer & Hymel, 2015). Power may be physical, social, relational, or institutional. Forms of bullying include:
-
Physical (hitting, pushing)
-
Verbal (insults, threats)
-
Social/relational (exclusion, rumours)
-
Psychological manipulation (gaslighting, intimidation)
The repetitive nature of attacks reinforces domination, gradually weakening the victim’s self-concept, resilience, and social support systems (Hawker & Boulton, 2000).
2.2 Harassment as a Chronic Social Stressor
Repeated harassment operates similarly to chronic stress exposure. Persistent negative interactions predict depression, anxiety, academic decline, and psychosomatic symptoms (Arseneault, 2018). Harassment also creates an environment of fear and unpredictability, known to elicit trauma responses (McLaughlin et al., 2017).
3. Cyberbullying: Amplification Through Technology
3.1 Characteristics of Cyberbullying
Cyberbullying involves “aggression that is intentionally and repeatedly carried out in an electronic context against a person who cannot easily defend themselves” (Kowalski et al., 2014). Key features include:
-
Anonymity, which reduces accountability (Vandebosch & Van Cleemput, 2009).
-
Persistency, as digital traces remain accessible indefinitely.
-
Wide dissemination, allowing humiliation to be replayed repeatedly.
-
24/7 reach, preventing victims from finding physical safe spaces.
These characteristics make cyberbullying potentially more psychologically damaging, since victims experience continuous exposure to aggression (Slonje & Smith, 2008).
3.2 Digital Shaming and Dehumanisation
Online platforms facilitate “context collapse” (boyd, 2014), where diverse audiences merge, amplifying humiliation. Dehumanising comments—such as “he is crazy,” “she is worthless,” or “he is like an animal”—gain speed and visibility, entrenching social stigma (Williams, 2019).
4. Dehumanising Labels and the Psychology of Stigma
4.1 Dehumanisation as a Social Process
Dehumanisation involves denying others full humanness, stripping them of dignity, moral worth, or complexity (Haslam, 2006). Dehumanising language, including phrases like “he is crazy,” reinforces infrahumanisation (seeing someone as less capable of reason, emotion, or self-control) and animalistic dehumanisation (likening them to irrational beings).
4.2 Link Between Labels and Mental Health Stigma
Labels such as “crazy,” “insane,” or “mad” evoke longstanding cultural stereotypes equating mental illness with danger, instability, or incompetence (Corrigan & Watson, 2002). When used as bullying tools, they:
-
reinforce shame and silence around mental health,
-
damage the victim’s sense of identity,
-
discourage seeking help (Corrigan, 2004),
-
strengthen group norms by positioning the victim as “other” or “lesser.”
Such labels function as identity attacks, aiming to undermine credibility and social belonging (Goffman, 1963).
4.3 Repeated Labeling as Psychological Violence
Repetition is critical. Studies show that recurrent negative labeling affects:
-
self-esteem (Rosenberg, 1979),
-
internalised stigma (Livingston & Boyd, 2010),
-
self-fulfilling prophecy effects, where individuals begin to embody imposed stereotypes (Hammond, 2012).
Thus, calling someone “crazy” repeatedly is not merely an insult but a form of psychological violence with cumulative harm.
5. Repeated Harassment and Power Dynamics
5.1 Control, Domination, and Humiliation
Repeated harassment operates as a system of control. Bullies use consistent aggression to maintain dominance, isolate victims socially, and damage their credibility among peers (Rodkin & Espelage, 2007). In workplaces or schools, repeated labeling serves to “fix” the victim into a subordinate role.
5.2 Role of Social Groups and Bystanders
Social group processes—such as conformity, group reinforcement, and bystander silence—intensify victimisation (Salmivalli, 2010). Dehumanising labels often function as group markers, inviting others to join in the harassment.
6. Psychological and Social Consequences
6.1 Mental Health Outcomes
Victims of bullying and cyberbullying experience increased risks of:
-
depression and anxiety (Klomek et al., 2010),
-
post-traumatic stress symptoms (Idsoe et al., 2012),
-
suicidal ideation (Holt et al., 2015),
-
social withdrawal and academic decline (Arseneault et al., 2010).
The harms are magnified when dehumanising language targets identity traits such as mental health, disability, or cognitive functioning.
6.2 Long-Term Impacts
Longitudinal evidence shows that bullying victims in childhood continue to experience poorer job prospects, lower educational attainment, and higher psychiatric vulnerability decades later (Takizawa et al., 2014).
7. Conclusion
Bullying and cyberbullying are not isolated acts but sustained patterns of domination, humiliation, and identity-based aggression. Repeated harassment and dehumanising labels such as “he is crazy” systematically erode victims’ psychological integrity, reinforce harmful stereotypes, and intensify the social power imbalance between aggressor and target. Recognizing the seriousness of linguistic dehumanisation is crucial to designing interventions that protect individuals, dismantle stigma, and promote respectful social ecosystems across physical and digital spaces.
References
- Arseneault, L. (2018). Annual Research Review: The persistent and pervasive impact of being bullied in childhood and adolescence. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 59(4), 405–421.
- Arseneault, L., Bowes, L., & Shakoor, S. (2010). Bullying victimization in youths and mental health problems. Psychological Medicine, 40(4), 717–729.
- boyd, d. (2014). It’s Complicated: The Social Lives of Networked Teens. Yale University Press.
- Corrigan, P. W. (2004). How stigma interferes with mental health care. American Psychologist, 59(7), 614–625.
- Corrigan, P. W., & Watson, A. (2002). Understanding the impact of stigma. World Psychiatry, 1(1), 16–20.
- Goffman, E. (1963). Stigma: Notes on the Management of Spoiled Identity. Prentice Hall.
- Hammond, M. D. (2012). The role of stigma in self-fulfilling prophecies. Social Psychology Quarterly, 75(3), 228–243.
- Haslam, N. (2006). Dehumanization: An integrative review. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 10(3), 252–264.
- Hawker, D. S., & Boulton, M. (2000). Twenty years’ research on peer victimization. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 41(4), 441–455.
- Holt, M. K., Vivolo-Kantor, A., Polanin, J. R., Holland, K. M., DeGue, S., & Matjasko, J. L. (2015). Bullying and suicidal ideation. Pediatrics, 135(2), e496–e509.
- Idsoe, T., Dyregrov, A., & Idsoe, E. (2012). Bullying and PTSD symptoms. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 40(6), 901–911.
- Klomek, A. B., Sourander, A., & Gould, M. (2010). The association of suicide and bullying. International Journal of Adolescent Medicine and Health, 22(2), 235–251.
- Kowalski, R. M., Giumetti, G. W., Schroeder, A., & Lattanner, M. R. (2014). Bullying in the digital age. Psychological Bulletin, 140(4), 1073–1137.
- Livingston, J. D., & Boyd, J. E. (2010). Internalized stigma of mental illness. Social Science & Medicine, 71(12), 2150–2161.
- Olweus, D. (1993). Bullying at School. Blackwell.
- Rodkin, P. & Espelage, D. (2007). Peer influences in bullying. School Psychology Review, 36(3), 312–332.
- Rosenberg, M. (1979). Conceiving the Self. Basic Books.
- Salmivalli, C. (2010). Bullying and the peer group. Annual Review of Psychology, 61, 121–145.
- Slonje, R., & Smith, P. K. (2008). Cyberbullying: Another main type of bullying? Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 49(2), 147–154.
- Smith, P.K., Mahdavi, J., Carvalho, M., & Tippett, N. (2008). Cyberbullying: its nature and impact. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 49(4), 376–385.
- Swearer, S. M., & Hymel, S. (2015). Understanding bullying. American Psychologist, 70(4), 344–353.
- Takizawa, R., Maughan, B., & Arseneault, L. (2014). Adult health outcomes of childhood bullying. American Journal of Psychiatry, 171(7), 777–784.
- Vandebosch, H., & Van Cleemput, K. (2009). Cyberbullying among youngsters. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 12(4), 499–509.
- Williams, M. L. (2019). Hate Crime and Dehumanization in Online Spaces. Routledge.
