this post was submitted on 25 May 2025
43 points (89.1% liked)
Asklemmy
48243 readers
358 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- !lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~
founded 6 years ago
MODERATORS
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.
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.
Only an idiot would spend their time trying to figure out who the biggest idiot is.
That's a very good point
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.
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.
Nothing wrong with pointing out when someone is being an idiot. They can go on being an idiot, but at least the truth is out in the open, where it needs to be.
I'm still going to say the idiot
it's idiots all the way down
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
And I like the rain. 😁
Whoever hired/invited the idiot.
in an idiot war both parties are idiots
what a twist!
The person yelling. Why are you yelling? Will yelling somehow upload the “correct” (you approved) knowledge into their heads? An “idiot” is often someone just doing something differently but even in the case where they are just an idiot, it’s not like they chose to be an idiot, you might as well be yelling at them for their hair color.
Two options:
A: Me for reading that instead of preparing for work
B: I won't engage with nwither of those persons. Carry on and ignore them.
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.
Perp walks. Teachers in school in front of class. Other kids in school being mean. Public dress downs at work. I'm sure there are more. Not all perps walked reoffend. Kids get their shit together because they don't want to be made to look silly in front of their peers. I think for some employees this works similarily.
Shaming only works if the shamed feels any. The doublers-down are often the ones who don't feel shame. So it was the wrong tool for the job. Won't work on 47 if you know what I mean.
Just to clarify: I would personally put this tool in the "break glass in case of last resort" section of the tool box. But I've worked with bosses who didn't put these restrictions on themselves and it can work.
You could question their leadership qualities if you wanted to. That's a benefit of arm chairing this stuff in an internet forum.
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 was shooting for "neutral you".
I think you missed.
I assumed that you were also a fan.
You know what you do when you assume, don't you?
Thus any course of action that happens to also serve it warrants scrutiny.
If that's what you think I'm surprised you asked the question in the first place considering one of the binary choices you provided is essentially d-humping. Your mind is already made up. I also feel you're moving the goal posts. You asked who is more idiotic, not whose behavior should be under more scrutiny.