FriendOfDeSoto

Depends on your definition of common. When the movable type printing press came to the British Isles, the available characters didn't include the thorn so printers used the y as a stand-in. It was the beginning of the end and all "ye olde shoppe" signs are just a snapshot of a particular time in history.

You read the story. They said he died of exhaustion. It's the Daily Mail. It doesn't have to be true what they say.

I think if your mind is sufficiently obsessive you can override all the natural countermeasures your body uses to get you to r&r. You pass a point of no return and you fall asleep but that's the end. Not allowing people to sleep is a form of torture that can kill. Much like starving someone.

This guy allegedly also smoked and drank like an idiot. That couldn't have been helpful under the circumstances.

Did he really do them though? The reason why this is within the scope of belief is the fact that there's no conclusive evidence that removes reasonable doubt by contemporary standards.

Let's say it's all exactly as it says in the four different versions that are somehow considered canon and none of it is a millennia old game of telephone: did he choose to do them? Did his dad force him? Could he maybe not have had free will in this regard? Do we know about all the miracles? Maybe there were more! Would it be fair for us today to judge him based on incomplete records?

I think the sound you're hearing is a bunch of people creating throwaway accounts for this one. Not me though. I'm a saint.

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.

Just by origin of the word polyglot means you have many tongues. Tongues is of course well established as a stand-in for languages. If you can speak more than one, you fall under the definition.

I think people have attached more to the term than just that though. I'm thinking of well traveled and culturally sensitive as well. Somebody who would be alright no matter where you dropped them.

How many languages can your better half say good morning in? She might just be trying to pay you a compliment and you with your humilis gloriatio are not having it. In any case, I wouldn't recommend going back to her with arguments obtained from a random group of internet users to settle your interpersonal disagreement.

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.

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.

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.

I would say that's technically not a bad joke. It just doesn't come across well given the context of this thread.

You should maybe indicate if you're critical of this exploitation or in favor. If it's the latter it would be easier for the mods. And if it's the former you would lessen the inherent yuckiness people feel when reading this.

Let's say you're right and you've prevented the birth of Adolf or altered him to send him to another life trajectory. Who is to say that there wouldn't be another mad person, naturally a man, who would rise to power and commit similar if not even worse crimes. It's not only the person that made the fuehrer possible, it's also everything happening in the world, especially politics at the time. So you've bumped Adolf but you've created Anton who was similarly radicalized but he wasn't a landscape painter, he was a physics major and he made Germany develop nuclear weapons much faster. So now you have to go back and disturb Anton's conception. Which brings about fuehrer Armin and so forth. You might be stuck in a time loop you'll never be able to stop because you can't control all the variables.