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.
Anyone interested in this area check out Ted Chiang's short story It's 2059, and the Rich Kids are Still Winning.
Premise: In the future, scientists conduct an experiment to genetically modify poor children to improve their intelligence, so they have a better chance to succeed in life. While the experiment proves to be successful, and the children's IQ increases, they still fail to achieve social progress, because the entire state system favors the rich only.
Thanks. That was... interesting but depressing to read.
Anyway, here's the link in case anyone else happens to be curious.
Makes sense. Not just because our system is shit, but also because money is only up to a point a motivator for 'more intelligent' people and overall doesn't matter as much as intrinsic motivation.
There are a couple of studies on this:
Bénabou & Tirole (2003) – Shows how external incentives (including money) can undermine intrinsic motivation, especially in cognitively demanding tasks.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-937X.00253
Cerasoli, Nicklin & Ford (2014) – A 40‑year meta‑analysis demonstrating that intrinsic motivation is a stronger predictor of performance quality than monetary incentives, which mainly increase quantity.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/a0035661
Morris et al. (2022) – A comprehensive review of the neurocognitive basis of intrinsic vs. extrinsic motivation, showing that intrinsic motivation is tied to cognitive engagement and autonomy.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0033291722001611
Kreps (1997) – Explains how economic incentives interact with social norms and why money often fails to motivate when intrinsic or normative drivers dominate.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/2950946
Big thanks to 🫵. I love getting a collection of PDFs like these, feeding them into NotebookLM (made by Google unfortunately), and have it generate a 30-minute audio sumnary in podcast format. It fills an important vacuum for wannabe nerds that have problems reading visually. 🤙
if injustice exists for anyone, no one has justice, just temporary repreve from injustice. further, justice requires peace. "justice" without peace is how the people are subjagated. "peace" without justice is how the people who have been subjagated are exploited
Justice is a luxury the poor can’t afford because the rich pay to evade.
Where I come from, there's a saying that goes something like this: 'There are only two kinds of people in jail: the very stupid and the very poor.'
😢
Oh, this post is turning out to be a sad one.
Anyway, I've heard that mental illnesses and other psychological issues often lead to jail and only get worse in there. Modern societies are not at all prepared to handle these kinds of problems.
Insofar as "modern societies" refer to the people who hold power in them, I'm not so sure modern societies are interested in handling these kinds of problems.
Totally agree. It’s all about not being interested in handling these problems. That’s a bit strange though, because the current style is really expensive.
As a lawyer with over 20 years of experience I can tell with confidence that there is justice in between the same social groups such as lower class vs lower class and middle class vs middle class. Upper class vs upper class is much more unpredictable, depends on many elements and it can go both ways unless one side is coming from old money, has politicians in the family etc... Unfortunately the illusion of justice, freedom and equality ends when you face someone outside your class.
Sounds like you have seen some interesting cases. Care to share?
I’ll tell you the craziest story I’ve known. It wasn’t my case, but I know the details well.
The guy was the son of a very wealthy family. He filed for divorce; his wife—refusing to go quietly—dragged the process out as long as she possibly could. Finally, they reached a settlement and agreed to meet in court the following day to make it official.
She invited him over for one last dinner. During the dinner, something snapped. He murdered her in a way that was beyond gruesome; he reportedly broke 13 different knives on her body. This meant he had to repeatedly stop, walk to the kitchen, grab a new blade, and return to continue the attack. To this day, as far as I know, nobody knows what happened to make him snap like that. Not even his lawyers. He didn't speak about it to anyone.
Naturally, his sanity became the central focus of the trial. His defense team leaned into it heavily, and he was sent to a panel of psychologists and medical professionals for a formal assessment. The panel's report was definitive: he was sane and fully fit for sentencing.
However, the judge said that according to the medical findings, he was unfit for prison and released him into "medical care". Despite an appeal from the wife’s family, the higher court upheld the verdict. He walked free, and I've met the guy in person. Seems like a normal, well-mannered guy if you don't know about his history.
Oh wow!
Sounds pretty odd that he was fit for sentencing, but not fit for prison. Do you think wealth and connections had anything to do with the outcome?
Well there is no other explanation for that verdict. Legally if the panel says he is sane and fit for sentencing he should have get a proper punishment. Instead the judge let him go.
Ju$tice.
(☞ﾟヮﾟ)☞
How do we sentence a judge?
You need irrefutable evidence to prove they committed a crime. The problem is that the legal system grants them too much leeway and "right of interpretation", so most charges don't stick. Even when something does, they are usually allowed to resign or retire quietly. The excuse is always the same: "to avoid damaging public trust in the justice system".
While there are honorable people in the system, there are also assholes who will ruin your entire day—making you wait hours just because they’re having coffee. There are so many minor infractions happening in a courthouse that would get anyone else fired, yet nothing ever happens to a judge.
Surely they acknowledge that every instance of corruption does more to damage the trust in the justice system than holding themselves accountable. What happens when this lack of faith in the system reaches critical mass?
Asking the real questions.
Justice is a spider web.
It's made to catch small bugs.
Bigger animals just trample the damn thing.
That’s a very good way to think about it.
What autocracy and plutocracy are: functions of government are only the province of the privileged capable of cruel manipulation.
In other news: fire is hot.
That's why you all should know that Epstein didn't kill himself.
I wonder if he was allowed to kill himself, as an alternative to something much worse (e.g. being killed in a much more painful or gruesome way). It's clear that the truly powerful people couldn't let him testify against them.
That could be possible in a hollywood movie, in real life, Epstein did not kill himself
The cost of justice is too damn high!
That made me think of a riddle.
The poor beg for my arrival.
The rich never want to see me.
The poor can’t afford my visit.
The rich pay to block my entry.
Who am I?
The sweet release of death.
Oh. Good point.
Well, that works too, I guess.
Adult Santa Claus
Any law that is solely enforced by a fine is simply a pay-to-do activity for the rich.
I begged to know if justice
is a form far-out or in
he said son, there is no justice
there's just what
and that just is.
If there are reforms, I think that one of them is access to lawyers. Rich or poor, you shouldn't pay for lawyers. Instead, they are all placed into a common pool, where each side picks their representatives. If both sides happen to pick the same lawyers, they roll a dice in front of the court until someone has the higher number. That person gets the lawyer, and the other side draws someone else of choice from the pool.
I also think that lawyers should rotate in the role they may serve after every case. Prosecution -> Defense -> Prosecution -> Defense, for their entire career as courtroom representatives. If a lawyer refuses to represent, they are barred from serving as a lawyer for four months, and their refusal goes onto a common dossier that anyone can see.
This encourages the whole profession of lawyers to ensure that the courtroom is fair to both defense and prosecution, and that both roles are equally valid when it comes to reputation.
This is the endgame of uncapped lawyer fees.
Yep 100%