220
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 11 Aug 2026
220 points (97.0% liked)
Showerthoughts
43236 readers
660 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 3 years ago
MODERATORS
When political violence is normalized on one side already, why shouldn't the other fight back?
Because the cycle of violence always escalates and is ultimately self-defeating.
Does it though? Read back through history
So defending yourself is self-defeating?
Interesting take...
No, that would be a most uncharitable interpretation of what I've been saying (and rather a loaded question.)
There's never been a successful revolution?
Violent revolutions have a huge risk of producing prolonged violence, authoritarianism, or other disastrous outcomes, even if they succeed in overthrowing the old regime.
On the other hand here are some successful non-violent revolutions: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colour_revolution
Nonviolent revolutions generally produce better institutional outcomes than violent ones (it's science).
Also watch out for selection bias - we tend to remember revolutions that became enormous historical events. Check out this table of pitiful forgotten revolutions and note how many "Suppression of the rebellion" there are: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_peasant_revolts
That depends on how you define success. It also depends on how you define revolution. If the French Revolution can be defined as ending when Napoleon crowned himself Emperor, then I think that qualifies as a failed revolution.
But there's been successful revolutions, so the cycle of violence does not always escalate.
The cycle will escalate until it is broken. How long it runs before it gets broken might be a useful part in defining "successful revolution": the successful ones break the cycle of violence as early as possible.
Violence is inescapable.
Do you eat food? That is an act of violence.
Not all acts of violence use physical force; not all uses of physical force are acts of violence.
Did the food consent to being harvested?
No, because no food can, other than arguably humans, but that's usually illegal.
I would count killing and eating an animal as a non-violent, physically forceful act, all else being equal. I realize that puts me at odds with many vegetarians and vegans, but in the context of violence against other human beings, I'm not sure what you're getting at.