Seeing as how that describes most of us, it's an argument against democracy.
this post was submitted on 26 Feb 2026
3 points (80.0% liked)
Showerthoughts
40907 readers
623 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:
- Both “200” and “160” are 2 minutes in microwave math
- When you’re a kid, you don’t realize you’re also watching your mom and dad grow up.
- More dreams have been destroyed by alarm clocks than anything else
Rules
- All posts must be showerthoughts
- The entire showerthought must be in the title
- 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
- Posts must be original/unique
- 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
Totally. Especially today people hole up in their tiny bubbles and echo chambers. Any challenges to their worldview and beliefs are rejected as woke, cultural Marxist, far left, fascist, racist, bigotry, etc. Being able to endure and process the emotions that come up, when you’re challenged is a skill people across the political spectrum have less and less. Emotions are endlessly validated regardless of facts, to the detriment of society and everyone’s wellbeing at large. The celebration of victimhood is toxic for everyone and keep them disempowered. It’s not just the left. The right has its whole „white genocide“ myth, and endless conspiracy theories about powerful evil elites.
It’s extremely prevalent here on Lemmy/Piefed as well. Actual discussion between opposing viewpoints is rare, and usually cut short by mods.
People should just talk to and more importantly listen to each other.
It’s extremely prevalent here on Lemmy/Piefed as well. Actual discussion between opposing viewpoints is rare, and usually cut short by lemmy.ml and lemmy.world and rarely lemmy.blahaj.zone/dbzero/niche-non-political-communities-that-don't-need-political-discussion-anyway mods.
Fixed that for ya.
It's pretty normal.
Maybe there's a way to present the strange idea as gently and sweetly as possible, to avoid triggering their rejection reflex.
There is but you gotta think on your feet as it were and even then you don't always succeed. When I was last hospitalized I knew my silicone laces were psych safe but I didn't bother trying to explain it to the employee; I just asked if they could take them out. They poked at them for a few seconds before realizing and I got to wear my own shoes for the rest of my stay. You gotta give people juuust enough info to sneak the realization in there and it's a suuuper hard (and moving) target to hit.
Gentle as lambs and subtle as serpents, as they say.
I like your theory.
I was a pretty big believer in inception approach. If they think it is their idea they will be on board.
Now I think people only want to learn/believe things they see from their own personal bubble of "trusted source(s)". Anything else can't be correct or I'd have heard about it already.
Yeah "it came from me or my people" means that it is harmless and everything else is Satan. There's probably a psychological breakdown of that somewhere.
(Flip that assumption and you have the plot for half of all horror movies)
It's the MAGA slogan: Don't bother me with facts, my mind is made up.
It's 99% of Lemmy and everybody else too. It's how people are.
Yep, whole lot of people echo what they read in they're social media echo chambers. Feelings and opinions thrown around like they are facts.
Granted this problem has always existed but I believe the overuse of the internet and social media has made it worse.
Prime example, bunch my friends who would definitely be Democrat voters (just bring it up as they are very much not maga supporters), despite me bringing up research showing the very clear negative side effects that Facebook had on people even 10+ years ago... Every last one of them ignored it and each one thought they were the exception.
So, loosely speaking, social media has created a plague of mass insanity.
What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence.
That's like 95% of humanity
Yep. It's especially cringe when people ignore centuries of philosophical discussion. Often smugly.
Great example is when people refer to Richard Dawkins' books as proof that there is no god. Nothing like a Reddit atheist to make me embarrassed to not believe in god.
There are also many definitions of god, and Dawkins engages with all of them. Dawkins is much more strongly opposed do theism, than deism for example. He engages with philosophical ideas about god.
Dawkins argues that we don’t need god to explain the universe, life, or anything else. He further goes on to argue that religious belief in god trains people to be irrational fanatics, which damages society, progress, science. In the end Dawkins says, there’s no proof for the existence of god, and that we would all be better off without religion. However IIRC Dawkins recognizes that religious belief can have positive psychological effects.
The new atheists have become their own subculture with its own values. The online new atheist scene also attracts people who love to argue, provoke, and pick fights. Contrarians and skeptics are not the same, but can overlap.
There‘s also a pipeline that goes like this: new atheism > anti religion > anti islam > white nationalism
The issue here is that the left has abandoned its opposition to religion, especially regarding Islam, in the name of anti-racism and intersectional identity politics. So these people are rejected by the left and driven to the right.
Great example is when people refer to Richard Dawkins' books as proof that there is no god
As was said earlier by someone else, that which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
I've never witnessed an atheist making such an argument. Usually it's the theists getting hung up on him because they are used to appealing to authority figures and project.
Lucky you?
I don't think it's luck.
It is. Buy a lotto ticket.
I unironically think the braindead atheism online greatly contributed to the rise of Christian nationalism we've been seeing in the past decade...
Whilst this statement has some merit, its problem is that you’re setting up a precursor to a straw-man argument. This is because who defines “challenging ideas”. This allows anyone to come up with a supposed challenging idea, then call anyone who doesn’t engage in it “an intellectual nepobaby”.
For example, should I engage in the “challenging idea” that the world is run by lizard people?
What about the “challenging idea” that throwing bricks in peoples faces will fix their teeth?
It's bad because it MIGHT be used as a low-effort defense?
Almost, the two parts that make it problematic to me are:
- It can be used used as a low-effort defence
- The defence is a personal attack
Ah, actually
The defence CAN BE INTERPRETED AS a personal attack.
That gate has 2 locks.
This is the same "good faith" argument that cultists, religious recruiters, libertarians, and racists use.
You don't have to engage with morally abhorrent arguments out of loyalty to some platonic ideal of intellectualism. You're allowed to tell people to fuck off.
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.
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.
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?
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.
Even with MAGAts and the wave of red that's ever-present online?
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.
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.
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.
The analogy you're providing is fallacious because unlike nonsensical singular statements about ducks (an ethically neutral statement), what we're actually getting is people consistently defending various forms of hate that endangers minorities and marginalized people. They rarely, if ever - and it is my opinion that this almost never occurs - respond to reason. People being purposefully obtuse and heartless within discussions do not really deserve logical vigour or effort. You could try, but it's a waste of time and energy, and it'll just put one in a bad mood.
Even with an ethical element tied to the statement, an accusation of bad faith is a bit of a non sequitur.
A: We should torture ducks and masturbate to their suffering because they have three feet.
B: You are acting in bad faith.
This is still a fallacious analogy because it's clearly exaggerated/fictitious and nobody argues like this. If it was instead:
A: We should torture indigenous people by killing their offspring in front of them.
B: You are acting in bad faith
Is totally acceptable - anyone arguing something like point A is most certainly not engaging in a ''good faith'' discussion, it's plain common sense that they aren't.
If you want to argue in terms of strict ''logic'', ''faith'' isn't even something that would ever ''follow'' from a statement anyway, so to say that following a statement with ''you're acting in bad faith'' is a ''non-sequitur'' is a meaningless statement. Unless you're reducing bad faith actors to people coming up and saying, ''hey everyone, I'm acting in bad faith!'' (which the vast majority of bad faith actors do not do) - which is ridiculous.
I'm trying to discuss things in pure logic so as to emotionally unload the reasoning. Bad faith means they are being deceitful. Whether someone says "Hello. You look nice to day." or "we should torture indigenous people" how can one glean that they don't truly believe that? Though the second one is so outlandish, I would assume it's satire since I assume innocence.
Unless you’re reducing bad faith actors to people coming up and saying, ‘‘hey everyone, I’m acting in bad faith!’’ (which the vast majority of bad faith actors do not do) - which is ridiculous.
It's been my experience they eventually do. If someone is telling me I look nice and I take it as a genuine compliment, but they're acting in bad faith, that's going to drive them up the fucking wall that I'm so dumb that I don't assume bad faith like they do.
someone says “we should torture indigenous people” how can one glean that they don’t truly believe that?
It's generally safe to assume they mean it, unless proven otherwise. People make hateful and racist remarks all the time, sadly, and it's almost invariably a consistent pattern of behaviour that goes beyond plausible deniability. The line of reasoning you've provided me reads as strangely apologetic and bordering solipsistic.
I would assume it’s satire
Even if the hateful remarks are understood to be ''a joke'', I don't think that's any less damning. These are not the type of things to joke about, and most reasonable and/or decent people realize that.
It’s been my experience they eventually do. If someone is telling me I look nice and I take it as a genuine compliment, but they’re acting in bad faith, that’s going to drive them up the fucking wall that I’m so dumb that I don’t assume bad faith like they do.
Can you give me an example of something like that playing out on a serious real-life topic such as politics/race/genocide etc?
It’s generally safe to assume they mean it, unless proven otherwise.
The sentence you're replying to completely agrees with this. I think you misread it.
Even if the hateful remarks are understood to be ‘‘a joke’’, I don’t think that’s any less damning. These are not the type of things to joke about, and most reasonable and/or decent people realize that.
I was thinking in terms of Jonathan Swift's A Modest Proposal or someone adopting a Colbert-style character, like the one from his old show.
Can you give me an example of something like that playing out on a serious real-life topic such as politics/race/genocide etc?
With politics, it usually comes in the form of verbal abuse.
How do you respond to verbal abuse without assuming bad faith?
That's what I'm saying. If someone is verbally abusing you, it's a sign they are being deceptive.
makes sense.
Do you extend this reasoning to corrupt institutions? Eg: people saying, "fuck ice".