this post was submitted on 12 Apr 2026
352 points (95.6% liked)

Showerthoughts

41673 readers
1574 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:

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
  4. Posts must be original/unique
  5. 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
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] OwOarchist@pawb.social 82 points 5 days ago (8 children)

Its illegal in the USA to advocate for the violent overthrow of the government

Technically, it isn't. As long as you're not being terribly specific about when and how it should be done, and as long as you're not 'inciting' people to do it.

But if you want to argue -- in a more abstract and academic context -- that the US government should be violently overthrown, that's perfectly legal and well protected under the 1st amendment.

[–] bridgeenjoyer@sh.itjust.works 41 points 5 days ago (1 children)

I really hope no one takes it into their own hands to destroy all data centers and the billionaire oligarchs that own them. They'd be an absolute hero probably! Can't have that oh no.

[–] unitedwithme@lemmy.today 19 points 5 days ago (2 children)

Haha this is there sort of thing that got me permabanned from Reddit! 🀣

[–] BannedVoice@lemmy.zip 10 points 5 days ago (3 children)

Same! I got permabanned for saying we should slash tires of ICE agent vehicles so they can’t kidnap people and drive off. Also the reason for the username here.

load more comments (3 replies)

Well its true ! I'd really hate for someone on the right side of history to accidentally destroy these data centers and all the bought off politicians responsible for them! That'd be really bad. It would be a detriment to the shareholders which we adore

load more comments (6 replies)
[–] possiblylinux127@lemmy.zip 22 points 4 days ago (3 children)

It is not illegal in the slightest as we are protected by the first amendment

"Let's overthrow the government"

I'm not going to jail over some random remarks

[–] Squizzy@lemmy.world 7 points 4 days ago (1 children)

Them amendments are so well protected too. Didnt the government gun down a nurse for excercising their right to bear arms freedom of assembly?

[–] SippyCup@lemmy.world 5 points 4 days ago (1 children)

The government has executed scores of people for exercising their right to bare arms.

Turns out you only have the rights the police are willing to respect. Which means you don't actually have any.

[–] Doom@lemmy.world 1 points 3 days ago

Now now, if you are in the protected minority of red hats all the rights absolutely apply to you. Along with some bonus rights that aren't even in the constitution. Funny how that works.

[–] SippyCup@lemmy.world 6 points 4 days ago (1 children)

You put it in quotes. Like a big ole scaredycat

Let's overthrow the government, hang all the billionaires from highway overpasses, and set anyone who resists us on fire.

...

In... In Minecraft

[–] possiblylinux127@lemmy.zip 6 points 4 days ago

Let's overthrow the government

[–] themaninblack@lemmy.world 5 points 4 days ago

But imminent incitement to violence will get you got

[–] Sunflier@lemmy.world 4 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (1 children)

It really depends.

Merely saying that the administration needs to be guillotined isn't illegal because its protected by the Constitution's First Amendment.

However, such rhetoric loses such protection when it starts to manifest a particularity. So, saying "Guillotine Republicans because they fucking deserve it" is protected. Statements like "Guillotine Republican X at his address Y an Z p.m." is not.

Jan6 be there, will be wild

[–] Duamerthrax@lemmy.world 7 points 4 days ago
[–] insomniac_lemon@lemmy.cafe 24 points 5 days ago (5 children)
[–] marighost@piefed.social 6 points 5 days ago

Rest in peace Mr. Moore.

[–] redsand@infosec.pub 1 points 3 days ago

Sig Semper Tyranus. Came here to post this. And to spread the conspiracy of his death as he would want. He may have truely fallen trying to climb down his 3rd floor balcony but I'm not going to buy that until I see the video that supposedly exists

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] JcbAzPx@lemmy.world 8 points 4 days ago (2 children)

Advocating is not illegal; inciting is.

[–] EightBitBlood@lemmy.world 7 points 4 days ago

Unless you're an oligarch of course. Then you can J6, Doge, destroy half the Whitehouse, etc.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Iusedtobeanalien@lemmy.world 6 points 4 days ago (1 children)

Citizens united made it probable that foreign governments would act through intermediaries to pay for US policy against the American peoples interests

[–] Saprophyte@lemmy.world 2 points 4 days ago

Here's a neat and totally unrelated random website I found!

https://www.trackaipac.com/

[–] nocturne@slrpnk.net 19 points 5 days ago (3 children)

I always thought the 2nd was so the government had a militia to call upon should we be invaded.

[–] justdaveisfine@piefed.social 15 points 5 days ago

It is, mostly.

It was basically the state's right to have an armed militia so that they may remain a free state.

[–] AdamEatsAss@lemmy.world 10 points 5 days ago (3 children)

The second amendment states "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution It gives the states the ability to have their own local military as well as private citizens the right to own weapons. Both of these were things the colonial power had outlawed prior to the revolution. The idea was to explicitly list things the previous tyrannical government had done to ensure the new government could not do the same thing. Now language and technology changes which leads to the current debate on gun rights in the USA.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] daannii@lemmy.world 15 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago) (3 children)

Well some historians say the 2nd amendment isn't about guns, which everyone already had back then, but says states should have their own military.

"Bear arms" means militarization. Not owning a gun. But using a gun.

https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/how-nra-rewrote-second-amendment

It actually was the nra lobbying that changed public and legal interpretation.

Owning a gun does little against tyranny.

But a state militia does.

That's what it actually meant.

https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/how-nra-rewrote-second-amendment

[–] psx_crab@lemmy.zip 3 points 5 days ago (1 children)

Doesn't seems like it say "firearm" as well, so right to bear arm could just mean having a bear as a friend.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] PragmaticOne@lemmy.world 9 points 4 days ago (1 children)

Could you just please get on and do it. Get rid of that orange twat.

[–] DeathByBigSad@sh.itjust.works 4 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (3 children)

Sorry, I don't wanna get accused of being a "CCP Spy trying to sabotage destabalize America" and then DHS will declare my family as foreign terrorists, then have ICE raid my house and deport my dad, a non-citizen.

Cuz in this country, whenever a non-white person does something, everyone who looks like that is getting targeted in hate crimes...

Then the entire Chinese diaspora community would be like: "Why did this loser have to stir the pot and ruin it for the rest of us?"


This problem on the white dudes who voted him in.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] spuriousMoot@lemmy.zip 12 points 5 days ago (2 children)

Owning and carrying guns is not for overthrowing the government. That's absurd. It is however very profitable to convince people that's the case if you happen to be selling guns.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] lmmarsano@group.lt 2 points 3 days ago

That's news to their earliest founding document

That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government

right to revolution

But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government

is a duty. So, their declaration of independence is illegal?

[–] BenLeMan@lemmy.world 9 points 5 days ago

Just to bring everyone up to speed, the current interpretation of the 2nd Amendment is that the whole spiel about a militia is basically irrelevant. Source: Supreme Court decision in DC v. Heller (2008).

Love it or hate it, them's the facts. That said, plenty of other decisions have been overturned at a later date. Like the one that made black people less than equal to whites in Dredd Scott v. Sanford or the endorsement of segregation in Plessy v. Ferguson. So things might change at some point.

[–] Danarchy@lemmy.nz 8 points 5 days ago

It’s perfectly fine to advocate for a silent but violent overthrow. They can have my beans when they pull my cold, dead finger

[–] Kolanaki@pawb.social 9 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago)

Even if it wasn't written down as a law before hand, a failed coup would still end up being considered illegal by the government that won against the coup.

Just as violently rising up against tyranny doesn't need to be explicity written down as legal for it to become legal if the revolution succeeds.

History and laws are written by the victorious.

[–] WoodScientist@lemmy.world 2 points 4 days ago (1 children)

Here's a mad nerd sniping problem:

Imagine we took the 2nd Amendment completely literally. It is now unconstitutional to prohibit the ownership of any weapon, no matter the scale. Owning even thermonuclear weaponry is legal.

There hasn't exactly been a lot of free market innovation in the field of nuclear weapons design. There hasn't been a whole lot of competition in the field. And the government is optimizing for security, safety, and effectiveness, but not cost. But imagine if we did make it legal for private citizens to own nukes. Just how cheaply could they be made, if we applied the normal principals of mass production to them? Would they always be the playthings of the ultra wealthy, or could some Henry Ford of hydrogen bombs put a nuke in every garage?

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] GreenKnight23@lemmy.world 5 points 5 days ago

Its illegal in the USA to advocate for the violent overthrow of the government,

if you fail, it is.

[–] pfried@reddthat.com 1 points 3 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

Those weapons aren't meant to facilitate acts of rebellion. According to the 2nd Amendment, they're meant to be used for exactly the opposite: "the security [emphasis added] of [the] free State."

Full text of the 2nd Amendment follows:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

load more comments
view more: next β€Ί