this post was submitted on 11 Jan 2026
135 points (98.6% liked)
Showerthoughts
39181 readers
972 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
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Spoiler: every narrator is 'unreliable' (ie biased and subjective) - just as every real person is. Everyone sees and spins the same events a different way.
For example: ICE claims they HAD to shoot Rene Good, because she was a domestic terrorist who was going to run him over.
And everybody ELSE saw the video and said ICE is full of shit.
See? Different perspectives.
You can write omniscient narrators that state the objective truth of the story. They're only biased in the sense that language itself is interpretive. Personally I find that to be a redundant argument.
yes but not everyone is the same distance from the objective reality of some things.
bad actors also deliberate misrepresent things to push forward an agenda, most people aren't doing this.
That's the entire point of citation, repeatable experiment, and peer review. The only way we can ever touch at reliability is cross-referential consensus.
Of course, consensus doesn't automatically mean truth if the consensers aren't all being self interrogative and critically thinking.
Certainly, but it's the only real starting place