this post was submitted on 20 Feb 2026
265 points (96.5% liked)
Showerthoughts
40656 readers
1173 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
Agree. Which is why I get so irrationally annoyed when sharing a good piece of journalism that's not catering to ad-clicks and the peanut gallery here grabs their torches and pitchforks while shouting "PaYwALL!" despite me posting the gist of the article in the post body (enough to get the gist but not the full article for copyright reasons). It's one of several reasons why I don't even bother anymore.
Like, good journalism costs money. That money's gotta come from somewhere if you want good journalists to be able to eat and keep doing what they do.
How can I tell they’re good journalists without reading their stuff first?
By reading the gist that OP provided and deciding if you want to read more.
What if I want to read more but not enough to go find my wallet and hand over personal information?
What if you want a cookie, but not enough to go to the grocery store and buy some cookies?
Then you don't get any fucking cookies.
I fixed that for you:
What if you want a cookie, but not enough to go to the grocery store and buy some cookies, after showing your ID card for its number to be written up?
The difference being that good journalism doesn’t die because I’m too lazy to get a cookie.
Well, no. It dies because you're unwilling to fund it. Because apparently finding your wallet is too much effort.
And multiply that times a few hundred million lazy humans and now you know why real journalism is dying.
It’s not a viable business model because people are people.
It's not a viable business model because of capitalism, not because of human nature.
You're describing a form of the tragedy of the commons.
Totally. If people didn’t have to worry about material needs it would solve a lot of things.
when you (and others) do that, it is the best thing on the news/science/sharing articles communities. lets me know whether the article is something i'm interested in reading and something i can comment intelligently on or just something i can shitpost about. i really appreciate it, just thought i'd let you know
Attach the whole article to the post. Copy/paste has been around longer than the author. "Look at what I can read and you can't" isn't good for discussion. Author wants food? Let them eat cake.
So you don't think journalists should be paid for their work?
Journalists are being silenced by their work being behind paywalls. I am stretching the meaning of the word "work" here on account of today's LLMs doing the heavy lifting. I have grown skeptical of journalists consistently putting out organic prose.
Are we stealing their lunch by copying a whole article to discuss something in a niche online community? I can get past some paywalls by disabling Javascript for that site and I'll still see ads. I'll gladly steal the toothpick shoved through an olive off the top of their shit sandwich. Subscription paywalls are a cancer growing in the arteries of the information superhighway.
So you think news should be a privilege for the rich?
You didn't answer my question. Do you think journalists shouldn't be paid for their work?
those of us who can afford to should pay for the news. for those of us who can't afford it, there are a lot of ways around paywalls.