this post was submitted on 26 Feb 2026
194 points (90.4% liked)

Showerthoughts

41332 readers
424 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
 

Inheriting their worldview from consensus or comfort, never having to earn it through actual thought.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] SenK@lemmy.ca 2 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Wow, that’s… not quite what I meant. The goal isn’t to reject objective reality, it’s to question how we define it and who gets to decide what counts as “real.” Pushing people to explore their own perspectives is one thing, but encouraging pure solipsism just replaces one dogma with another. Let’s not throw the baby out with the bathwater, yeah?

[–] Grail@multiverse.soulism.net 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

There is no compromising with an ideology that is inherently uncompromising in nature. It's the paradox of tolerance. Realists will never make room for experiences that defy their idea of objective reality. If they did, they wouldn't be realists. That's why in order to create room for everyone's experiences and freedom, we must destroy consensus reality. We need to kill objectivism in order to have a subjective multiverse with free exchange of ideas. Realists violate that social contract.

[–] SenK@lemmy.ca 3 points 1 month ago (1 children)

If objective reality doesn't exist, then your definition of 'subjective' is just a consensus-based hallucination you inherited from your own comfort. How do you know your 'multiverse' isn't just a realist's cage you haven't recognized yet? Your own argument destroys the premise upon which it rests. Also, what if my subjective experience includes what I would characterize as objective reality? You would be imposing your own definition on to me, again destroying your own premise.

[–] Grail@multiverse.soulism.net 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Do you want to argue so that we can both learn from each other or do you want to argue so you can change My mind?

[–] SenK@lemmy.ca 2 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Neither. I just enjoy picking apart philosophical arguments.

[–] Grail@multiverse.soulism.net 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Alright, well I'm happy to engage with that. I know it's not a realist's cage because I'm actively maintaining My subjective world and making choices about what to believe on a daily and weekly and yearly basis. I'm being an active agent in a way that realists don't. They let society tell them what is objectively true. I don't care about that, I'm asking Myself what is useful to believe.

[–] SenK@lemmy.ca 2 points 1 month ago (1 children)

How do you define what a realist cage is without being informed by objective reality?

[–] Grail@multiverse.soulism.net 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)
[–] SenK@lemmy.ca 3 points 1 month ago (1 children)

If you define this subjectively, from where comes the wording "we must" and "we need to" in your earlier messages?

Your words: "we must destroy consensus reality" "We need to kill the idea of objective reality"

In your world of free, subjective experience first, are people not allowed to form consensus that disagrees with your subjective ideals?

[–] Grail@multiverse.soulism.net 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

That's right, I'm willing to go to war and kill people over subjective differences of opinion. For example, the Nazis thought genocide is good. The allies thought it was bad. I think the allies were right to kill people over that subjective difference of opinion.

[–] SenK@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 month ago

So we got right back to where we started.

I rather practice Buddhism.