This was reported for breaking rule 1,4,5.

1 The votes seem to agree that it’s not a shower thought. I’m slow to remove a post for this rule, I would rather let the votes do the work.

4 I’m not sure saying this about Putin is saying anything about any people group. You can be hugely supportive of people groups while thinking their leaders are responsible for, or capable of, horrible things. At various times nearly every country could be used as an example of this.

5 I’m not sure what community rule it’s breaking. It’s not a very positive post but people should be free to be negative online if they that’s how they feel. Lord knows that many comment threads are negative. I may feel differently if the the majority of posts suddenly became negative.

As always I’m open to feedback.

The concept of a shower thought is annoyingly abstract, so I error on the side of leaving posts up, but maybe this is a good chance to get the perspectives of others:

1. Is the problem, or part of the problem, that the post is a question?
2. Or maybe the post is not whimsical enough?
3. Do people think a shower thought can ever be a question?
4. Is it something else that makes this not a shower thought?

This post was reported for breaking community rules. Its not obvious to me what rules would be broken. dm me if you feel strongly about it and would like to clarify.

This post was reported for being a news article not a shower thought. Also it seems like several of the comments are concerned that it is political.

There isn’t a rule against posting a link. The article does seem relevant and OP’s thought isn’t taken from the article, it seems unique, like something you might think of in the shower after reading the article.

There isn’t a rule against political posts. Many posts have some component of politics to them.

Thank you all for being civil with each other. Thank you all for commenting and reporting when think something is pushing the limits on what should be considered a “shower thought”, it’s an abstract concept, so social pressure is helpful in shaping the community. I try to error on the side of being permissive.

As always, I am open to feedback.

Edit: spelling, ironically

Sounds like an unpleasant shower… I’m sorry

Thank you, I really appreciate the effort to tone things down.

I want people to have the freedom be passionate in their comments and posts, and I think the community rules do a good job of allow the freedom to argue passionately. The rules do aim to avoid attacks against people themselves and groups of people.

So, while toning things down is not the primary goal, when things get aggressive it’s harder for everyone to avoid ad hominem attacks.

I dont have the ability to tag it NSFW. If you edit your original post you can tag it NSFW. source: https://lemmy.world/post/463392 If you editing your post, please consider replacing your example with something that steers well clear of people’s characteristics. See this section of the rules for more details: https://legal.lemmy.world/tos/#1-attacks-on-users-or-groups

This comment got reported. And while trolling is not allowed. Attacking an individual is also not allowed. So I’m not sure if attacking them for being a troll is allowed.

If you think a post is trolling (ie: just trying to stir up anger rather than trying to make an argument for something), please report it. If you think a poster is serial trolling please point it out in the report.

I’m open to feedback.

Swear words are fine. Attacking people’s weight (or age, sexuality, gender, etc) should be avoided.

I’ll admit that there is gray area in this rule. On Lemmy there are many instances of posts mocking celebrities for different characteristics but the posts seem to be permitted if the celebrities are largely disliked.

I’ll see if I can add a NSFW tag…

@Mr_No_Swearing@lemmy.zip This post was reported for fatphobia. I understand that you are using it as an example but we do want to avoid attacks on specific people or groups of people. Like you showed in your later posts, people swear at all sorts of things, like the weather, stubbing their toe, and missing the bus.

Do you mind changing the example in your original post? You can say that the example was changed at my request. Especially if you think changing the example will make the comments confusing.

Otherwise, I like your post. It’s an interesting thing to think through and while it seems to be a little unpopular, my thoughts in the shower are often not fully thought through and would stand up poorly to the scrutiny of internet strangers.

Edit: I’m getting some down votes. I’m always open to hearing other people’s thoughts if you would like to share. I make mistakes.

This post was reported for disinformation. To me this post reads like an opinion and hyperbole.

If we do assume that the post is making a factual claim; I’m not a lawyer and I don’t know if voting has ever been used to claim that someone is complicit in a crime. Im open to being pointed to evidence.

Is this just a title and a picture? Am I missing the details somewhere?

Let’s keep things civil everyone.

I never had success using my phone in the shower so I’m surprised to see a summary of a legal document in a shower thoughts post.

This post got reported.

The reporters are correct, you should have the entire thought in the title, then use the body to go into detail.

For example your title could have been “life is largely random circumstance, so relax”.

Shower thoughts aren’t typically advice for other people, unless you take showers with other people to save water, but it’s nice advice and it embodies the positive community that the code of conduct is designed to encourage.

Thank you. Makes perfect sense now.

I don’t follow

It sounds like you have a lot of experiences that others could learn from, but you will likely push people away if you attack them directly (calling them extremist) rather than only attacking their positions. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

One tactic that I like is asking them questions that lead them to point out the flaws in their own arguments. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socratic_method

Would you be more or less likely to learn from someone that calls you an extremist?

This post was reported for transphobia. Specifics weren’t given. It seems like you use the term “female” to mean someone that was assigned female at birth. I’m not sure if language is changing in this area and I certainly don’t know technical definitions. Female does seemed to be used as a gender identity as well. For example the opening paragraph here: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trans_woman

I think many cultures are learning how to be more welcoming to people from all walks of life, which is great, and conversations like this one are good for discussing some of the nuance.

Please keep things civil and assume the best of other’s intentions. We are all learning. We are all human.

Edit: spelling

Does anyone else think the thumbnail looks like a llama with laser eyes?

Or maybe we could have a rule like “Any post that’s greater than 12hrs old and has less than 30% approval gets removed” I like this because it gives voting more power for shaping the community and it’s objective.