You did the right thing. If it was the 1900s and everyone else was to give their child cigarettes, they might get bullied for having no cigarettes, but you know what is best and you stuck with it
Also you are not getting bullied because you don’t have cigarettes or smartphones, but because you lack self confidence and because you are perceived as social weak (your friends and random bystanders would not come to your help).
You did the right thing. If it was the 1900s and everyone else was to give their child cigarettes, they might get bullied for having no cigarettes, but you know what is best and you stuck with it
Also you are not getting bullied because you don’t have cigarettes or smartphones, but because you lack self confidence and because you are perceived as social weak (your friends and random bystanders would not come to your help).
You have completely misunderstood this and are trying to overlay some bizarre Andrew Tate-esque psychobabble to explain your misunderstanding.
What? I talk just from my own experience.
You have drawn an incorrect conclusion about the specifics of the social mechanics and cited it as “from your experience” after presenting it as fact.
You could simply have a poor grasp of social mechanics, or be misinformed, misunderstood the original premise but ultimately it doesn’t really matter.
You implied lack of conformity and participation is not a cause of bullying - it absolutely is, its probably the original cause of most bullying.
A lot of words to say that you disagree, without actually explaining why bullies are not targeting kids who are at social disadvantage.
https://www.mouser.com/blog/Portals/11/mrb-singularity-f1.png