It's a term used to describe a group of people. This is just making up stuff to get offended by.
this post was submitted on 15 Jun 2025
-27 points (30.4% liked)
Showerthoughts
35178 readers
740 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 2 years ago
MODERATORS
would you rather be called servants, slaves, serfs.
When I am at work, I am a worker. This reeks of “whataboutism”
I gave you an upvote.
I could see a case for using "working person" instead of "worker." It's definitely not the sort of thing that's agreed to be exploitative language (yet?) though.
What I do for sure bristle at a lot more is referring to people as "resources." Like, when planning a project, discussing how many "resources" can be "put on the project". Definitely feels dehumanizing.
"Workers" is not dehumanizing. But if they were called "tools" then it would be. Worker generally implies human. Just like dancer. Or singer. Or artist. Or any other human activity title.
A humans' union?
We cannot fight alienation by linguistic means alone.
"Dock workers", "construction worker" are relevant terms and replacing the terms with imprecise labels like "construction human" has the risk of even further reduction, because now not only is people's work activity tied to their label, but their humanity.
I agree that women are still being objectified and that's bad. I don't agree with workers being dehumanized by being referred to as such. "Workers of the world, unite!" was a big rallying cry. For some people, it's an identity-establishing part of life that they're using manual labor and not fart into a desk chair all day. They take pride in being working class.
If by referring to a group of working folks is dehumanizing then we cannot talk about people like housekeepers, street sweepers, nurses, or engineers either. They're people too. And I don't see "people with job X" catching on in the language either.
Also, even if "people with job X" caught on, that wouldn't actually achieve anything. The impression or image in your head that you get when you hear "people who work in a factory" vs. "factory workers" is the same, even if the wording deliberately makes reference to people.
I appreciate what the intention is behind it, just like with "people with disabilities" vs. "disabled people", but it doesn't address the societal issues that result in the actual discrimination/problematic views.
This is more of a theoretical argument, but from a linguistic perspective there's a common misconception that language shapes our perception of reality, when in fact it's the other way round. If you talk about subject X which is looked down on for whatever reason, the commonly used word for it can take on a derogatory tone, which leads to well-meaning people using a more positive word. This is commonly seen with words for women in patriarchal societies, and it leads to a cycle of neutral words becoming derogatory and polite words becoming the new standard, until that word becomes derogatory and has to be replaced in turn. None of this is to say we shouldn't be careful with the language we use, and in fact it's a good way of signalling respect, but I just want to highlight that adopting new terminology is itself won't achieve much.
What do you suggest instead?
Probably "unemployed and collecting" if I had to guess
Which is technically correct but falls way short of addressing the problem.
As all identity politics, it looks at individual discrimination instead of the broader system which fetishizes exploitation of everyone and everything.
Capitalism has to go. Socialism is the answer.
For years, there has been a lot of backlash against the “objectification of women”, which i can totally understand because it’s a “dehumanizing” term that looks at people like objects, not as actual human beings.
But the same is happening with the concept of “nazis”: If people are referred to as “nazis”, that means that they are being reduced to their political function; to their ability to hate.
That is a dehumanizing term. The view should be that people are humans first, and nazis second. People deserve rights, and a good life, not because they’re nazis, but because they’re humans. That is how people should be looked at.
.
I'll see myself out... Have a nice day. :P