this post was submitted on 01 Mar 2026
10 points (63.9% liked)

Showerthoughts

40907 readers
634 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
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Protoknuckles@lemmy.world 16 points 3 days ago (2 children)

Plenty of monsters with support systems, plenty of decent people who have been beaten down by life and left to fend on their own.

[–] morto@piefed.social 6 points 3 days ago (1 child)

Plot twist: op was ironic, meaning that with a large enough support network, even mosters can manipulate the public opinion to appear as decent people, while without such network, even decent people can be unjustly flagged as monsters and will be helpless to prove their innocence

[–] SenK@lemmy.ca 5 points 3 days ago

I wasn't ironic but you make a very important point: "even mosters can manipulate the public opinion to appear as decent people,"

This, or, "monsters" can manipulate the public to the point that what their opinion of what is "good" is accepted as a fact. See: religious extremism. See: fucking TRUMP.

Which then leads to: "even decent people can be unjustly flagged as monsters and will be helpless to prove their innocence"

[–] SenK@lemmy.ca 0 points 3 days ago (2 children)

‘Plenty of monsters with support systems’ - so were they inherently monsters? If yes, then they couldn’t help it, like a polar bear can’t help hunting. We don’t call polar bears ‘monsters.’ We call them predators, which is what humans become when their ‘support’ teaches them cruelty, not care.

‘Plenty of decent people beaten down by life’ - same logic. No inherent goodness, just luck: someone, somewhere, showed them ‘don’t be cruel’ before it was too late.

I don’t believe in inherent good or evil.

[–] Protoknuckles@lemmy.world -1 points 3 days ago (1 child)

You don't have to be shown. All it takes to be a good person is empathy. All it takes to be a bad one is its lack.

[–] SenK@lemmy.ca 2 points 3 days ago (2 children)

That statement dangerously oversimplifies human behavior and stigmatizes neurodivergent individuals, particularly those on the autism spectrum, who may experience empathy differently but are not inherently "bad."

[–] Anuttara@leminal.space 3 points 3 days ago (1 child)

omg thank u!!!!!!!!!!!

i was bullied for being "evil witch" when i was in school cuz i was autist and there was the meme that autists "can't feel empathy". i was like... watching cartoons and saw the "bad guys" and i thought i wasn't like them... but then at school they told me i was?? it was awful

thank u for saying this

[–] SenK@lemmy.ca 2 points 3 days ago

Yeah I have read on empathy and mental health issues. Good vs. Evil aside, it's a terrible and ableist lens to view people through. Sorry you had to go through that.

[–] Protoknuckles@lemmy.world 0 points 3 days ago (1 child)

They may experience it differently, but if they can act on it, they will be good people. Without being able to act on empathy, no matter how you perceive it, you cannot be good, and refusing to act with empathy towards people and other lives on earth is bad.

[–] SenK@lemmy.ca 1 point 3 days ago (1 child)

So if someone literally cannot "act" in some way, you get to decide if they are good or evil?

[–] ageedizzle@piefed.ca 0 points 3 days ago (1 child)

How else can you judge someone’s character if not by their actions?

[–] SenK@lemmy.ca 1 point 3 days ago

How about not judging? How about just asking if they cause harm or not, and how to prevent that harm.

[–] GalacticSushi@piefed.blahaj.zone 0 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (1 child)

I think the point they were making is that a decent support system is not the sole determining factor as your post suggests.

Even your counterarguments rest on the assumption that this is true. You suggest that if it's not a support system they must be "inherently" good or evil, completely ignoring the more likely possibility that there are countless other variables that could factor into what kind of person someone becomes.

[–] SenK@lemmy.ca 1 point 3 days ago (1 child)

Even your counterarguments rest on the assumption that this is true. You suggest that if it’s not a support system they must be “inherently” good or evil, completely ignoring the more likely possibility that there are countless other variables that could factor into what kind of person someone becomes.

Like what? You have inherent factors (genes) or environment (the support network, "the village that raises the child" etc.).

[–] ageedizzle@piefed.ca 0 points 3 days ago (1 child)

A lot of this comes down to people’s free will. If you could perfectly analyze the reasons for every decision a person makes then those decisions would hardly be free.

[–] SenK@lemmy.ca 0 points 3 days ago (1 child)

You'd have to now prove that free will is real.

[–] ageedizzle@piefed.ca 0 points 3 days ago (1 child)

I can’t prove that to you. And you can’t prove it’s not real, either. This debate has been at a standstill since the Ancient Greeks started discussing it. I just took it for granted in my previous comment because the vast majority of people, including professional philosophers, see here) believe it to be real.

[–] SenK@lemmy.ca -1 points 3 days ago (1 child)

That's not how burden of proof works. Just because a lot of people (particularly those with culturally Christian backgrounds...) "believe" it's real, doesn't make it so.

[–] ageedizzle@piefed.ca 0 points 3 days ago (1 child)

Like I said in my previous comment, I can’t prove anything to you. And if it wasn’t obvious, I’m not trying to prove anything to you. I’m certainly not saying that free will is real because people believe in it. I’m not saying you have the burden of proof. I’m not trying to persuade you and I’m not looking for a debate.

All I was saying that, in casual conversation, it’s probably fine to speak as if it’s real because very few people will actually take objection to that.

And that has nothing to do with Christianity either. You’ll notice from that survey that the majority of professional philosophers are actually atheists too. In fact, one of the philosophers who is responsible for popularizing atheism in revent decades, Daniel Dennett, someone who is literally one of the founders of the new atheism movement, is a big proponent of free will and has written entire books on it.

[–] SenK@lemmy.ca 0 points 3 days ago (1 child)

Dennett is just a determinist who really, really doesn't want to admit he is one (probably because he'd have to admit he's wrong and everyone hates doing that, particularly white men at the top of their fields). I've read him and watched his debates.

I said "culturally Christian". You can't just shake off the centuries of Christian philosophy that has informed Western thought by just "not believing in God". One of the symptoms of that specifically is the belief in free will, as Christianity requires there to be some kind of a pure, untarnished essentiality to people that can choose to be evil or good. It's been hammered into us in media since we were kids, baked into everyday language.

[–] ageedizzle@piefed.ca 1 point 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (1 child)

Dennett openly admits he’s a determinist, you’d know that if you actually read his books. He’s literally the world’s leading proponent of compatibilism (determinism being compatible with free will). Determinists can believe in free will.

Edit for clarification

[–] SenK@lemmy.ca 1 point 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (1 child)

He's a compatibilist. Which I admit we can then break down into compatibilist determinist, which is a different thing from a (hard) determinist.

Which I characterize as a determinist who really doesn't want to admit to being one.

[–] ageedizzle@piefed.ca 1 point 3 days ago (1 child)

Which I characterize as a determinist who really doesn't want to admit to being one.

This is not very charitable of you. Its also simply inaccurate. If they didn’t already openly admit to being determinists then they would, by definition, not be compatibilists

[–] SenK@lemmy.ca 1 point 3 days ago (1 child)

Alright, you win the argument.

[–] ageedizzle@piefed.ca 1 point 3 days ago

Okay. Sorry if I seemed a but harsh in my earlier messages. After I sent those I was thinking about it and realized I probably went a bit too hard.

I see you’re from lemmy.ca. It’s good to see another Canadian on here. Thanks for contributing to the fediverse. I hope you feel welcome here