this post was submitted on 27 Jan 2026
594 points (96.1% liked)

Showerthoughts

40740 readers
1125 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
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] shittydwarf@piefed.social 68 points 4 weeks ago (23 children)

Hunting billionaires for sport would make the world immeasurably better in every way

load more comments (23 replies)
[–] asg101@lemmy.blahaj.zone 43 points 4 weeks ago (1 children)

“The Earth is not dying, it is being killed, and those who are killing it have names and addresses.”

Utah Phillips

The deaths from climate change related Ice storms, floods, fires, heat waves and droughts are not due to "catastrophes", or "disasters" they are calculated, premeditated murders for profit.

[–] AdolfSchmitler@lemmy.world 6 points 4 weeks ago

"These people have physical bodies" - Jreg

[–] presoak@lazysoci.al 37 points 4 weeks ago (2 children)

I think of giant monsters. Kaiju.

A normal ant is no problem. An ant the size of a skyscraper is a problem.

Money is the size here. A human with a billion dollars is a giant monster kaiju.

It ain't the species it's the size.

[–] DandomRude@lemmy.world 14 points 4 weeks ago

That's a really good analogy. Thank you very much for that.

[–] IrateAnteater@sh.itjust.works 11 points 4 weeks ago

And even more importantly, you have to figure out what is causing the ants to grow that big in the first place. There are billions of ants on the planet. Killing the couple giant ones does nothing if other ants can just grow to the same size.

[–] lechekaflan@lemmy.world 28 points 4 weeks ago

image

Class conflict is a problem for much of human existence.

[–] tomiant@piefed.social 24 points 4 weeks ago (4 children)

They are the symptoms, not the disease. Capitalism will always create them on a long enough timeline. It is streamlined feudalism.

If you have any type of head start under capitalism, for any reason, regardless if everyone profits, those who initially profited a little more will profit exponentially more at an exponential rate as time goes by.

The claim is that under capitalism, everybody is better off. But if they earn 1.1 times as much as you do, as the years turn into decades into centuries, you will have earned a fraction of what they did. That difference matters a lot, especially at scale.

If I get $1 and you get $100, that's a big difference between us, but not life changing for either.

If I get $1000 and you get $100000, that is a massive difference between us, trivial for me, definitely significant for you.

If I have $100000 and you have $10000000, we might as well live on different planets.

Capitalism doesn't take this into consideration. Sorry for the somewhat juvenile example, I'm very tired, and am going to have another drink now.

[–] RememberTheApollo_@lemmy.world 6 points 4 weeks ago (1 children)

Your example isn’t bad. You could go further. 1,000,000 vs 1,000,000,000. Massive difference.

The problem is when we live in a world when we have millions of people with less than $1,000, and others have more than $300,000,000,000.

[–] tomiant@piefed.social 6 points 4 weeks ago* (last edited 4 weeks ago)

Here's another problematic aspect of the same-

In 1913 there were 435 representatives in Congress. The population of the United States was ~97 million.

In 2026 there are still 435 representatives. The population is about ~335 million.

In 1913 each representative spoke for roughly 223,000 people.

In 2026 each representative speaks for roughly 770,000 people.

In 1789 there were 65 representatives, and about 4 million people, speaking for ~60,500 people each.

Scale matters, a lot.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] nonentity@sh.itjust.works 18 points 4 weeks ago

Financial obesity is an existential threat to any society that tolerates it, and needs to cease being celebrated, rewarded, and positioned as an aspirational goal.

Corporations are the only ‘persons’ which should be subjected to capital punishment, but billionaires should be euthanised through taxation.

[–] Adderbox76@lemmy.ca 17 points 4 weeks ago (1 children)

"most"?

Try "all". Everything always eventually comes down to someone, somewhere, trying to make more profit for themselves.

That's why "Follow the money" is the surest way to solve any crime.

[–] OrteilGenou@lemmy.world 4 points 4 weeks ago

More precisely "follow the money" is the surest way to understand why a crime is not being prosecuted

[–] LemmyBruceLeeMarvin@lemmy.ml 14 points 4 weeks ago (3 children)
[–] sharkfucker420@lemmy.ml 21 points 4 weeks ago* (last edited 4 weeks ago)

The bourgeoisie do not receive a wage. They receive our wages in the form of profit. If a maximum wage was introduced in the current system it would be made to benefit the bourgeois as they are the ones writing our laws.

[–] veni_vedi_veni@lemmy.world 12 points 4 weeks ago* (last edited 4 weeks ago)

They don't get wealth from labor, it's all about owning the shit that gets them wealth.

And even then, they don't sell it to buy things, they use it as leverage to spend the banks' money.

So it's really about taxing more dividends, and any loans gained from leveraging assets.

[–] HaiZhung@feddit.org 11 points 4 weeks ago

We need a wealth tax, is what you want to say. Tax wealth not work.

[–] BanMe@lemmy.world 10 points 4 weeks ago

"the only minority group destroying our country are billionaires" as the bumper sticker on my therapists's car says... love her

[–] WorldsDumbestMan@lemmy.today 7 points 4 weeks ago (1 children)

Exactly. These creatures ARE our only real problem. More-less everything else, we could solve if they just...

...stopped being alive.

[–] mudkip@lemdro.id 5 points 4 weeks ago

We must take matters into our own hands.

[–] minorkeys@lemmy.world 6 points 4 weeks ago (16 children)

Power, not just money, power in too few hands. Getting there also tends to require extreme selfishness, which only makes it worse for everyone else when the most selfish acquire said power. Democracy was supposed to disperse power across the community to explicitly prevent concentrations of power.

load more comments (16 replies)
[–] callouscomic@lemmy.zip 5 points 4 weeks ago

Yes. We're well aware.

BINGO, SUMMED-UP The World on Capitalism!

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] kbal@fedia.io 5 points 4 weeks ago (2 children)

They that will be rich fall into temptation and a snare, and into many foolish and hurtful lusts, which drown men in destruction and perdition.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] SwingingTheLamp@piefed.zip 4 points 4 weeks ago (1 children)

On climate change, I gotta disagree. We have two major drivers of climate change: Greenhouse gas emissions, and land-use changes. The land-use changes go way back. We're in the geological epoch called the Anthropocene, one in which humanity is the dominant force in shaping the biosphere. There's some debate about it, but some scientists place the beginning of the Anthropocene as much as 15,000 years ago, driven by habitat destruction and resource extraction to support growing human populations. It takes a lot of natural resources to support each human to the standard to which we've become accustomed, and even the poor people in Western countries live a lifestyle that the Earth cannot sustain. It's not just billionaires, it's all of us.

Similarly with fossil fuels. We know that a handful of mega-corporations produce the fossil fuels responsible for the majority of greenhouse gas releases, but they're not the ones releasing the gases. We can't just abolish them and expect nothing to change about our daily lives. We've reached a point at which even working class people in the United States can order up a taxi for their beef burrito.

Instead, we can say that this wanton shredding of our natural inheritance enables flows of wealth that allow unscrupulous hands to skim criminal quantities off the top for their hoards. Even if we depose them, though, we'd still have the climate change problem to tackle.

[–] EightBitBlood@lemmy.world 7 points 4 weeks ago

If we depose them, we'd have access to their wealth to tackle climate change. And it wouldn't be for building the doomsday bunkers they are now.

Zuckerberg spent nearly $400 million for a bunker to be built in Hawaii. This was after Hawaii had fires that cost them nearly a billion in damages.

Zucks $400 million purchase could have repaired half the nation-state. It would have immediately improved ecological recovery, and restore the canopy biome that helps pull C02 from the air as a natural deterent to Climate change. He'd then have most of the population worshipping him for doing so. Likely welcoming him anywhere in the state he'd want to visit.

Instead he can now visit his bunker, needs it because the island hates him, and helped contribute to ecological collapse in building it.

The problem is that billionaires are the worst humans imaginable to have such wealth. It will always go towards cthe acceleration of climate collapse for their benefit instead of preventing it. Whether you feel they're a contributor or not, they're still in charge of the resources that could easily stop climate change faster than any other mechanism on the planet.

Instead they're building bunkers with that money to run from the problems they've actively contributed to more than any other human on the planet.

[–] AlexLost@lemmy.world 4 points 4 weeks ago

Money. We need a new system of commerce. The quest for even more money is the longest problem we refuse to look at in human history. Excessive greed should be punished not aspired to. All we seem to do is turn to rich people for answers like they've figured out the world, when in fact they ignore the world and supplant a system called "the economy" over actual reality. We make goods and send them there to buy back their goods from over there to make people in the middle rich for doing nothing. Completely ignoring health, safety, the environment in the process, things that are real in the real world that we all experience and affect us. Make it make sense to me.

[–] Bahnd@lemmy.world 4 points 4 weeks ago

Oh dont worry, the earth will still spin. Life will go on.

Humans are fucking this up for themselves and wont be missed. [Beep boop, im not a robot]

[–] Illogicalbit@lemmy.world 3 points 4 weeks ago

“Absolute power corrupts absolutely”

[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 3 points 4 weeks ago

One could argue that the currency system itself legitimizes the amassing of enormous wealth into the hands of a tiny minority.

[–] ThatGuy46475@lemmy.world 3 points 4 weeks ago

This planet has - or rather had - a problem, which was this: most of the people living on it were unhappy for pretty much of the time. Many solutions were suggested for this problem, but most of these were largely concerned with the movement of small green pieces of paper, which was odd because on the whole it wasn't the small green pieces of paper that were unhappy.

[–] Semi_Hemi_Demigod@lemmy.world 3 points 4 weeks ago

One of the most carbon intensive things someone can do, especially in the developed world, is to have a kid.

If money was more equally distributed more people would have more kids.

So really the billionaires are helping with climate change.

/s

load more comments
view more: next ›