this post was submitted on 26 Feb 2026
182 points (90.6% liked)

Showerthoughts

40762 readers
543 users here now

A "Showerthought" is a simple term used to describe the thoughts that pop into your head while you're doing everyday things like taking a shower, driving, or just daydreaming. The most popular seem to be lighthearted clever little truths, hidden in daily life.

Here are some examples to inspire your own showerthoughts:

Rules

  1. All posts must be showerthoughts
  2. The entire showerthought must be in the title
  3. No politics
    • If your topic is in a grey area, please phrase it to emphasize the fascinating aspects, not the dramatic aspects. You can do this by avoiding overly politicized terms such as "capitalism" and "communism". If you must make comparisons, you can say something is different without saying something is better/worse.
    • A good place for politics is c/politicaldiscussion
  4. Posts must be original/unique
  5. Adhere to Lemmy's Code of Conduct and the TOS

If you made it this far, showerthoughts is accepting new mods. This community is generally tame so its not a lot of work, but having a few more mods would help reports get addressed a little sooner.

Whats it like to be a mod? Reports just show up as messages in your Lemmy inbox, and if a different mod has already addressed the report, the message goes away and you never worry about it.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Inheriting their worldview from consensus or comfort, never having to earn it through actual thought.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] SenK@lemmy.ca 9 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

I get what you’re saying, but you’re kind of setting up a strawman yourself here here. Not every idea deserves endless debate, sure, it’s about the habit of dismissing things as "stupid" without even considering them. Sure, lizard people and bricks fixing teeth are absurd. But those examples are extreme on purpose, and they don’t really address the core of people rejecting ideas out of hand just because they’re unfamiliar or uncomfortable. If an idea is actually bad, it will fall apart under scrutiny. But if the default response is just "that’s dumb," we’re not thinking critically, we’re just avoiding the work, and worse, we are participating in a culture where it's okay to do so. Which is exactly what leads to people getting (and abusing) terrible ideas.

Remedy to stupidity isn't LESS critical thinking.

[–] SpiffyPotato@feddit.uk 11 points 1 day ago (2 children)

But those examples are extreme on purpose

Yes they were! And you’re right, we need to allow ourselves to be challenged, to consider ideas outside of our comfort zone, but we also need to able to reject ideas that are not being posited in good faith.

This is the joy of debate, to question statements and receive nuanced answers in reply.

[–] Yliaster@lemmy.world 6 points 1 day ago (3 children)

How do you determine what's not in good faith?

I would imagine this would tie to values, but do those become the unquestionable object, then?

[–] SpiffyPotato@feddit.uk 8 points 1 day ago

That’s a great question and I’m not sure I have a definitive answer. For lack of better description, it would be the vibe I got from them:

  • Do I feel like they’re being deliberately argumentative.
  • Do I feel like they’re trying to twist my words in an unkind way.
  • Are they looking for ways to find offence in what I’ve said.
[–] clean_anion@programming.dev 2 points 1 day ago

I assume good faith unless clear evidence indicates otherwise. I try to adopt a more general version of WP:AGF in life.

[–] lastlybutfirstly@lemmy.world 3 points 1 day ago (1 children)

How do you determine what’s not in good faith?

I personally always assume good faith. I can't read people's minds. On the Internet, I can't even see facial expressions or hear how they're saying it. It's like that Key and Peele text message sketch.

[–] Yliaster@lemmy.world 1 points 17 hours ago (1 children)

Even with MAGAts and the wave of red that's ever-present online?

[–] lastlybutfirstly@lemmy.world 1 points 10 hours ago (1 children)

When one assumes bad faith, one is assuming guilt. That isn’t fair. I have found it better to assume innocence, to adopt Judge Blackstone’s ratio over Judge Dredd’s.

[–] Yliaster@lemmy.world 1 points 3 hours ago (1 children)

I think it's fair to assume those when people openly support a movement that visibly takes away the rights of marginalized groups and kills innocent people.

[–] lastlybutfirstly@lemmy.world 1 points 1 hour ago

In some discussions, faith, good or bad, doesn’t matter. If a politician says that ducks have three feet, whether they say that in good faith or not, it’s wrong. So it’s still best to assume good faith and logically explain how it is incorrect. To respond to such a statement with an accusation is a fallacy.

[–] SenK@lemmy.ca 4 points 1 day ago

Oh my gosh, thank you for responding this way 😭

I feel like on Lemmy it's really difficult to ever post anything but total agreement without it immediately becoming an argument. Glad we found common ground!