this post was submitted on 05 Dec 2024
733 points (91.4% liked)

Showerthoughts

30345 readers
1450 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: 1

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
    • If you feel strongly that you want politics back, please volunteer as a mod.
  4. Posts must be original/unique
  5. Adhere to Lemmy's Code of Conduct

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
 

It appears that in every thread about this event there is someone calling everyone else in the thread sick and twisted for not proclaiming that all lives are sacred and being for the death of one individual.

It really is a real life trolley problem because those individuals are not seeing the deaths caused by the insurance industry and not realizing that sitting back and doing nothing (i.e. not pulling the lever on the train track switch) doesn't save lives...people are going to continue to die if nothing is done.

Taking a moral high ground and stating that all lives matter is still going to costs lives and instead of it being a few CEOs it will be thousands.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Zorque@lemmy.world -4 points 1 month ago (4 children)

Well sure, if we just kill everyone we don't like, clearly things will magically get better.

How do we define that, though? Cause every decision made will make someone unhappy, no matter how much good it might do. Are you going to step up and decide what's right or wrong?

[–] Cruxifux@feddit.nl 18 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Already have. I think killing CEOs who contribute to endless human suffering is right, and defending those people from those who’s lives they’ve ruined unjustly is wrong. Next question.

[–] Hobbes@startrek.website 1 points 1 month ago

Yep. It's pretty simple and straightforward.

[–] SharkEatingBreakfast@sopuli.xyz 12 points 1 month ago

kill everyone we don't like

Kill people who purposefully, pointedly, and knowingly cause harm, human suffering, and sign death warrants for people who could have otherwise survived. Robbing life and money from families whose kids or parents need treatment, and sending these people into bankruptcy. Or straight-up denying life-saving treatments.

And these people know they're killing people, but they don't care because they're making so much money off of it.

So no. It's not "everyone we don't like." It's people who purposefully profit from doing harm at the cost of human lives.

[–] Aceticon@lemmy.world 5 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

This isn't a "Is killing a person that insulted you right or wrong?" moral conundrum, it's a "If you could kill Hitler after he had started exterminating people, would that be right or wrong?" moral conundrum.

Most people who would say "it's the wrong thing to do" for the first one would say "it's the right thing to do" for the second.

Mind you, the really right thing to do on the situation with this CEO would have been for the State to do its fucking job and protect the people from mass murderers like him, but it refuse to do so, hence here we are in a bad situation.

[–] Cruxifux@feddit.nl 8 points 1 month ago

EXACTLY. These guys are trying to pose this conundrum in such a ridiculous disingenuous way. Like “if we allow someone to kill a person who has systemically killed untold numbers of people then what’s next, killing a baby?!” its absolutely baffling how these people think that’s an argument based in any level of reality or logic.

[–] inv3r510n@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago

It was a bit messy for the French but they haven’t had a king since.