this post was submitted on 04 Mar 2026
13 points (55.0% liked)
Showerthoughts
40914 readers
1123 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
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I get what you're saying, but it's quite difficult when people are constantly doing so many stupid, stupid things.
Yeah exactly, the mentioned words like 'stupid' or 'lazy' aren't exclusive to describing neurodivergency at all. In fact I'd argue that's a tiny minority of their use.
I think in most cases people are using stupid to describe the action or thing a person is doing and not the person themselves, people are doing stupid stuff all the time, it's both bad and good of course, because often times the stupid things can be delightful as well. I guess it's just a part of being human but it's so very frustrating that we rely on some of those people to vote when they have chose to not take life seriously or think about the consequences for other people.
How do you know? How can you be so certain in your judgment, and declare that another’s "stupidity" or "laziness" is not the shadow of a mind wired differently? Can you see the gears turning askew?
What is stupidity to your mind? What is laziness? If they were born stupid, if they were raised without care, would you fault them? When did Gods descent from heavens and bestow you with the wisdom to always do what is right? Why may not all have this privilege?
If you are wrong, if that "laziness" is exhaustion, that "stupidity" a misfiring synapse: then you’re not just cruel, you are part of the problem.
If I am wrong, the result is that everyone gets treated with more kindness.
If you are wrong, people who cannot help themselves get treated with cruelty.
I command not for policing of language. I put forth the request for people to examine if shaming and name calling impacts behavior towards a more desirable outcome.
(Spoilers: It does not)
The question is not whether every insult is aimed at the neurodivergent, it is whether we accept that our language, carelessly or maliciously deployed, reinforces a world where those already struggling are further ground beneath contempt.
You assert that policing language is futile, that insults are a "basic part of human language,". This is the refuge of those who mistake tradition for truth. If language is merely a tool, then let us ask: what does it build? Does it foster understanding, or does it erect walls? Does it invite reflection, or does it demand submission?
You say, "It literally helps nothing even if you manage to ban these words." But who, pray tell, is asking for bans? I am not advocating for the eradication of words, I am advocating for the examination of their purpose. You are correct that words are ever shifting and changing. Sever the verbal head of one hydra and witness as two new nouns emerge. This is precisely the reason for my conviction.
"100% policing language"? It is 100% asking for accountability. If you insist on wielding words as weapons, at least own the carnage. But do not pretend that this reflects anything but a commitment to a cruel world.
This begs the question how I'd negatively assert outcomes and efforts if I am not to use negative language to describe it lest it'd be cruel.
You may communicate without violence.
https://www.cnvc.org/
Hrm so I searched around that site a bit, and I genuinely cannot find them ever discussing that. Maybe it's in some of the videos (a very poor choice of design for something that supposedly is about more inclusive communication) but mostly it seems to be seminares and workshops.
But just to ask the general question, I still need to make a negative assessment, yes? I still say "worst", not "++ungood". So I would also call something "stupid", not "unsmart"?
Intuitively just from the title, of course nonviolent communication ought to be a thing, but that's distinct from a discussion as to whether all uses of a word should take in account all other uses of the same word, no? E.g. stupid person vs stupid move, or rape as a crime vs rape as a plant.
I admit that website is annoying to navigate, and yes a lot of the content is as videos.
https://www.cnvc.org/learn/nvc-101 Perhaps this.
If you want to read, this covers roughly the same principles: https://pastebin.com/ZHhS044M
Banning words is not the point. As you said, a word can have many meanings. I am calling for understanding what you yourself want to communicate, and what you want to achieve with that communication. If you truly just want to insult people and that is the goal, then yes. It is indeed most effective to just throw a slur at them.
But if you wish to bring about some good (human well-being) in the world, perhaps learning how you can communicate to someone that their actions are harmful, without putting them on the defensive.
Also, if you wish to call someone stupid because they are behaving like a fool, you need to first understand what their goal was. Perhaps their goal was to be stupid all along, and as such, acting a fool achieves the goal - making their approach smart indeed. But, if someone wants to put out a fire and tries to do so by waving a fan at it, you may tell them that what they are doing is counterproductive.
If you have been hurt, and wish to communicate that to someone to bring about accountability, you can do this without insult too. You can point out the specific action they did, and express how it impacted you. If you tell them they are cruel, idiots, crazy, you can expect as much abuse to come back at you.
Did you accidentally reply to the wrong post? I said something about word use and language, not about judgement and observations or decisions.
Surely bonhoeffer would want the word stupid to stay in the vocabulary.
Whoa that guy nailed it.