FriendOfDeSoto

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.

Ich wollte meine immer schon mal grün streichen.

If you enter into starting a family, adding kids through whatever means, and you think this should not alter the relationship, you have another think coming. Kids are hard work. First your focus is to keep them alive and out of trouble. And over time this gradually shifts towards them not becoming a-holes. This takes energy and time, a lot of it. And that's the most common reason why some couples have much less bedroom fun. They're exhausted. They're stressed. People behave differently when they're exhausted and stressed. Raising kids is a marathon, not a sprint. Ideally, it's a series of never ending gut wrenching crises until they move out. And truth is it doesn't even end there. Some relationships handle this better, some don't. None stay the same. If you think that your current childless relationship is any indication of how this would work with children, and you measure it by loving attention and how much sex you're having you're looking at the sky to measure the sea level. Get your head out of the clouds. You have to look at how you handle problems under pressure together. How you can support each other and not look at it as transactional. If that works, you stand a chance of a less bumpy transition into a functional family life.

Of course, every relationship is different. There are many other factors that will play a part and make shit even more complicated. I'm fairly confident though that I'm more right than wrong here with my generalizations.

You couldn't survive such a radical personality change? Yours changed too. You will probably not win any argument on the assumption that your partner changed into a version is their folks while you stayed the exact same. You're just the frog in the pot who didn't notice it got hotter.

I'm a still married father of two.