this post was submitted on 23 Jun 2025
394 points (93.4% liked)

Showerthoughts

35376 readers
1459 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
 

For all their "christianity", republicans in the US are pretty hypocritical.

Jesus actually teached that everybody deserves to get fed and housed. That everybody deserves healthcare. That people should care for other people in their community. That is essentially the core principles of socialism.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] jaybone@lemmy.zip 2 points 9 hours ago (2 children)

The New Testament has been around for a couple of thousand years. The concept of socialism has only been around for less than 200.

I wonder, if religion survives for another thousand years, what will people then say Jesus taught regarding various other isms that have yet to be constructed.

[–] pocker_machine@lemmy.world 4 points 9 hours ago (1 children)

I’m not religious. But your point doesn’t make sense. Being around X number of years doesn’t contradict with the possibility of one idea being a part of the other. I guess that’s what the user is trying to say, but I’m not sure how factual it is.

[–] jaybone@lemmy.zip 0 points 9 hours ago (1 children)

It’s an observation. Is it not an accurate one? I’m not sure how it “makes sense” or not.

But the implication is, someone might use religious text to endorse some other concept. Does that make the concept more or less valid? Does that make the religious text more or less valid? I don’t know.

[–] pocker_machine@lemmy.world 5 points 9 hours ago

To be clear, OP is not questioning the validity either. You are, and that’s a separate discussion.

If I tell you “playing with fire is risky”, and then you bring up an old book to me where is it written “playing with fire is risky”, the discussion is not about whether I told you that from the book. It is not about whether my advice is valid or the book is valid. The discussion is just that people who had read the book should have already known “playing with fire is risky”.

[–] Meltdown@lemmy.world 2 points 8 hours ago

If one set of ideological principles conforms to another, why is it relevant if one of them hasn't been given a specific name yet? Are the principles not still comparable?