“BRING BACK bullying” is a phrase I often see tossed around in the comment sections—usually framed as harmless humor, but often used to suggest that people who do not fit the “norm” deserve to be mocked. As a result, people who post niche interests quickly become the subject of online jokes.

What seems humorous at first quickly reveals itself as a recurring, normalized form of harm. In practice, this takes shape in the comment sections, where the so-called “campaign” to bring back bullying allows users to excuse targeted ridicule.

Those who make these little jabs often dismiss such actions as satire, banter, or blunt honesty, yet their impact lingers far longer than the joke.

According to studies, digital harassment affects young people’s well-being and confidence. This is evident in cyberbullying victims who have pointed out that their anxiety, depression, and lasting emotional strain are linked to the ridicule they receive online.

Still, awareness regarding the harmful effects of cyberbullying has done little to change online behavior. Instead, users in the comment sections make excuses like “people are too soft now.” Meanwhile, the remark “it’s just a joke,” becomes a convenient scapegoat that shifts attention away from what was said.

A part of what makes this online culture so easy to sustain is the distance between anonymous accounts and the victims. Behind screens, people feel less accountable for what they say, as anonymity creates the illusion that actions carry no weight.

In digital spaces, saying things you would never say out loud and mocking those you would normally leave alone both become easier—after all, you will never have to face them. Distance brings detachment, and detachment makes cruelty easier to justify. Still, what remains is a space where harm feels tolerated, even as it builds up.

This culture, however, is not simply the result of individual intent or personal morality—it is structural. Online platforms are designed to reward engagement, often elevating the most humiliating remarks. Such remarks spread further as comments that provoke strong reactions gain more traction.

Over time, this shapes what feels acceptable in social media. What once felt excessive begins to feel ordinary—cruelty, repeated enough, becomes culture.

Moreover, reports from organizations such as the United Nations Children’s Fund highlight how widespread and harmful online bullying remains. Similarly, campaigns in spaces like the LGBTQIA+ community also call for a collective resistance against bullying, urging people to make kindness visible.

In moments when harm is called out publicly, there often is a brief time when people agree on what should not be tolerated. Solidarity is shared, and harm is openly rejected. But when the day passes, the moment also dies. The same spaces return to the same patterns, the same targets, the same jokes.

This cycle raises an uncomfortable question: If people already recognize harmful behavior when it is clearly labeled, why do they ignore these actions, excuse ridicule as humor, or avoid speaking up when those same actions are disguised as banter or satire?

Arguments that bullying “builds character” continue to persist in conversations about humor and toughness. However, people do not grow from being reduced to a punchline, and children do not learn to grow a backbone when they are subjected to such laughter. 

What “bring back bullying” reveals is less about humor and more about a willingness to normalize exclusion and dismiss harm. When the cost of a joke is someone else’s self-worth, it becomes a question of what we are willing to normalize—and who we are willing to overlook in the process.

In the end, it is not about who gets the last laugh, but who is left to bear the cost of it.

Isabel Candida Gonzales is a Diplomacy and International Relations senior at the Ateneo de Manila University, expected to graduate in 2026. Advocating for more inclusive spaces, she explores how power dynamics influence inclusion and exclusion among peers.

Editor’s Note: The views and opinions expressed by the opinion writer do not necessarily state or reflect those of the publication.