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:
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.
Respectfully and gently, this sounds like confirmation bias. Do we have any non-anecdotal supportive data? Or anything more substantial than "this just feels kind of right"?
Yup this is truthiness rather than truth
Agreed but it is just a shower thought; I'm not sure we need to hold shower thoughts to a high standard of capital T Truth
Anything presented as a factual claim needs to be true. OP didn't pose it as a shower thought, they presented it as if it was a fact. A shower thought would be "I think there might be..."
Shower FACTS
Did you not see the comm?
What "comm" are you referring to?
"Comm" generally refers to "Community", roughly analogous to a "subreddit" or "subforum". It refers, in this case, to the /c/showerthoughts community we're currently in.
K, and what's your point? You apparently haven't read the other comments on this page
My guy, I'm just letting you know what they meant by "Comm" because you seemed to be confused by it. I think their argument is generally fallacious at best, and disingenuous at worst.
Though, I suppose it's understandable to feel attacked when that seems to be all people want to do in here.
I wonder if this could be proven with data.
None of those links do anything to discredit the claim, though.
That's if you automatically assume the claim is true without evidence, though. Which wasn't the original commenter's position. The original position was whether you could prove OPs titular claim with data.
Thus far? The answer seems to be "Nope."
That's because thus far no one has provided any data that's relevant to either side of the argument.
Aggregated lists of the "best" blockbusters with women leads are irrelevant to the discussion.
Then why take it as given that the claim needs to be proven false, rather than the other way around? Your mind seems to be made up before any reliable proof has even been presented.
I did no such thing. That's you extrapolating incorrectly.
Literally all I said was that the provided information isn't relevant to the discussion.
No, you said it doesn't prove that the claim is false. Which isn't even what they did. They expressed doubt and provided links supporting their doubt.
And my point was that their links didn't support their doubt.
Pointing out someone's argument is flawed doesn't mean you support the other side of the argument.
Did it not? It showed, at the very least to them, that there were a large number of female led blockbusters. To have more sexual predators in lead roles than that would take quite a significant amount. Certainly leads to doubt in my mind.
Why, in your opinion, is their opinion invalid because of this?
Again, a "best of" list of 20 some odd movies spanning many years based on the author's opinion doesn't support the doubt they were expressing because it doesn't provide enough information.
Of course it does. The links show there's a huge number of blockbusters with women leads. So the onus is on the person making the original claim for it to be believed
But a high number of blockbusters with female leads still doesn't contradict the claim.
The claim wasn't that there aren't any blockbusters with female leads, it was that there are more with men who are also sexual predators.
And those links don't even show that there's a high number of blockbusters with female leads. They're just an aggregated list of the best profitable movies with female leads. You need to have the grand total of blockbusters, and the total number of blockbusters with female leads to draw that conclusion.
So youre saying it doesn't prove anything, and thus OPs original claim is yet to be proven false. Or more importantly, proven true.
Yes, I'm saying the data provided has no relevance to the discussion one way or the other.
well, I mean, is there a time in Hollywood where you can go before and effectively everyone is a sexual predator?
wait until you find out about billionaires and presidents
if women want to be equal in society, then why do they lead fewer criminal pedophile conspiracies?
Hold my beer. /j
"Pizzagate was a wild leap forward in social equality " is one hell of a take
yes friend here is the /s you were hoping for, i don't actually support this literal take
Oh I didn't mean it as a bad thing. It's just ...one hell of a take. I wish to subscribe to the chaos.
I think having an easy time to get girls can cause a guy to treat them badly. Probably the same for girls, but girls dont have the physical capability to hurt a man the same way.
If they did, we would see the same thing i believe. Its not really about gender, its just that men are physically stronger. Women are just as bad as men when it comes to being evil. Its actually more obvious today due to social media also.
The days when girls were seen as little loving beautiful princesses are pretty much over today. They treat men like garbage just as much as the other way around.
I guess its human nature for some people to become evil.
The one area where men and women are equally abusive is with children. It really does just come down to physical strength creating a power imbalance.
Executive producers usually have overall control of the process, including cast selection in which they can override the casting director and pick their ~~bias~~ actor.
Good people are too busy to become celebrities.
Think of the drama/music losers in high school, then think what they would do if they were popular all of a sudden.
You can say the same about athletes but they’re usually popular already and just pricks.
drama/music losers
as opposed to the losers who don't join anything and do nothing with their lives huh?
You can say the same about athletes but they’re usually popular already and just pricks.
yeah bet you're a REAL GEM.
No, I was an athlete. That made me a giant prick.