Insult isn't even a crime :P
edit: Shouldn't be a crime.
Unpopular Opinion: Adults that can't handle insults are overgrown children. Most of the time insults are to the detriment of the person insulting anyway.
this post was submitted on 04 Feb 2026
29 points (82.2% liked)
Showerthoughts
40155 readers
721 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
That very much depends on your jurisdiction.
Depend who you insult
If you read the classical texts defending freedom of speech (Mill, Spinoza, Kant, et.c.), you'll see that the point was supposed to be to get as many ideas as possible up on the table, so they can be rationally discussed and considered.
They were quite clear that harassment, shaming and other ways of shutting people up, goes against this purpose - and while they might not want the government to get involved, I don't think they'd have a big problem with platforms doing content moderation to prevent those sorts of things.
Surely we aren't striving for quantity over quality. Because that's where this sorta leads
That's exactly the idea. The process of rational discussion and consideration is supposed to take care of the quality.
Obviously this was before the birth of the internet, and also before the birth of the think tank :l
Maybe there should be quality criteria for what constitutes an idea worth discussing. Not every social media post is an idea.
I agree. And criteria for the moderators too of course.
AFAIK censorship isn't a crime at all, and insults can be* over here
*if they are 'hate speech' which I am not sure if is defined in law or not
Depends on the country. Hate speech is defined in Canadian law I think
I'm shooting for an objective, real-value kind of perspective here.
Not really. Censorship is not only about political opinions. Banning child pornography is a form of censorship, but I doubt anyone sane would dare to argue that that's a bad thing. (if anyone reading thinks otherwise, please do me a favour and go jump off a bridge, the world would be better place without you)
But even if we focus on political discourse, consider the paradox of tolerance. If we lived in an ideal society, censorship would not be necessary. But we don't, there are people that are more than happy to take away other's rights and freedom of opinion. A functional society must be intolerant of the intolerant and not give them a platform.
Edit: I'm not going to pretend that I know exactly where tolerant opinions end and intolerant opinions begin, but I know that both exist, and I believe we must censor the intolerant ones
The paradox of tolerance disappears when you look at it as a social contract. "I agree to tolerate your weirdness, that doesn't significantly affect me, if you do the same in turn." Add in "If you back me when someone breaks the contract, and I will back you in turn." and you get a very good basis to build on. You end up with a few grey areas, but 95% is obvious.
This ignores the case of a private insult delivered to a moderator, pre or post censorship.
I'm beginning to suspect this thread is just you having a personal grudge and vagueposting about it.
Jump for that low hanging fruit little buddy
Also I want make crystal clear, after seeing which of my posts that does not get positive rating & the ignorance here, by far, far & far too many members, I do not care what rating the post of this awesome post, presoak@lazysoci.al, is!
BINGO, but not all communication is the same, some is in fact harmful people in minority of power structures, like speech of 1930s-current ‘Nazis’ & speech of the past-current USA politicians, Ex-President used his speech to media & the world to incite The USA-NATO & Ukraine VS Russia War & ‘The Crazy Don’, his administration & The Rep. ‘Crazy Capitalist’ Party speech to current sick actions.