Only an idiot would spend their time trying to figure out who the biggest idiot is.
That’s a very good point
Stupidity is contagious. If everyone is given an equal voice, words of the wise will be drowned out by the thunderous rumble of morons.
Some still try.
The saying I heard was “Don’t argue with an idiot. They’ll drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience.”
I heard “don’t argue with a pigeon, they will shit all over the place and play chess” and those words cut deep.
in an idiot war both parties are idiots
what a twist!
Yelling at a rock won’t change it into a rocking chair, neither does yelling at a rock change you a rock.
Behavior and nature are separate, it’s dumb to argue with idiots, but acting like an idiot once doesn’t make you one (necessarily)
I wonder if Confucius was really just a shit poster before the internet
Confucius was really just a shit poster before the internet
I heard he was pretty big in /c/showerthoughts.
If we have defined “idiotic” to a sufficiently objective degree, I think the idiot wins the race. The shouter - although not in the best manner - is at least trying to make the idiot aware of their transgression. It’s a reaction to the idiotic behavior, not out of the blue. And while it will not work in correcting the idiot’s behavior all the time, there is at least the chance that the reaction is memorable to the idiot - public shaming is s powerful tool - which could lead to reflection, and thus prevent a recurrence. It’s these small odds that tilt this seesaw of a question for me.
public shaming is s powerful tool - which could lead to reflection
Have you ever seen this happen? In my experience, the idiot is more likely to double down.
Surely you have better things to do with your time than correct idiots. And it serves the monkey urge to dominance-hump. So regard your motive there with great suspicion.
So I wonder what “you” you, and from here on that means you personally unless otherwise stated, are referring to. Are you ascribing idiot-shouting behavior to me personally? Or are you referring to the neutral “you,” which can be replaced with “one?” The reason I’m wondering is that I have given no indication that I shout at idiots but your reply could be incorrectly construed in such a way that I do. Which then doesn’t make the motive warning any clearer also. Because it could be a interpreted as meaning I like to be “dominance-humping” and I ought to reflect on that. Or that my reasoning is too Darwinistic. Or that I shouldn’t judge tight calls by small statistical margins. Or that I like correcting people? Etc. It just isn’t clear.
If this was pointed at my personally then you in particular and one in general should keep in mind that the person answering a binary question of the calibre “Which is worse, the plague or cholera?” doesn’t necessarily need to be suffering from either disease to make an assessment. So looping back to your OG query: I would say it’s better not to shout at anyone in general. But I’m also sure you and I after careful deliberation could agree on some exceptions relating to your query that aren’t monkey business. E.g. the idiot could be in danger, the idiot could be a racist abusing the marginalized, the idiot could be hard of hearing, etc. This sort of longer discussion isn’t encouraged by a binary prompt.
So I wonder what “you” you, and from here on that means you personally unless otherwise stated, are referring to. Are you ascribing idiot-shouting behavior to me personally? Or are you referring to the neutral “you,” which can be replaced with “one?”
I was shooting for “neutral you”.
The reason I’m wondering is that I have given no indication that I shout at idiots but your reply could be incorrectly construed in such a way that I do. Which then doesn’t make the motive warning any clearer also. Because it could be a interpreted as meaning I like to be “dominance-humping” and I ought to reflect on that. Or that my reasoning is too Darwinistic. Or that I shouldn’t judge tight calls by small statistical margins. Or that I like correcting people? Etc. It just isn’t clear.
Dominance humping is immensely popular among us humans. I assumed that you were also a fan. Thus any course of action that happens to also serve it warrants scrutiny.
I’m still going to say the idiot
Whoever hired/invited the idiot.
Intent and result matter. If the goal is to provide broader perspective and that is accomplished even to a minimal degree, perhaps neither is the idiot. The idiot is the onlooker trying to decide who’s who
Just let society decay without doing and saying anything. “We don’t judge”, “everyone’s free to do whatever they want!”, right? That’s the Western way.
I like your fire
Yelling is idiotic.
Like all aggression, resorting to yelling is an act of impotence.
When someone is attacked by aggression they will defend themselves. They will counter attack whatever it is you’re yelling about and make up reasoning to justify their own stance. Even if it’s wrong, because in their mind the actual topic is less relevant than fighting your aggression.
Yelling is only useful if you are trying to prevent an accident and you’re unsure if they can hear you.
