Please update your post so that the entire shower thought is in the title. Rule 2.

Thanks for the feedback. I would argue that determining what post counts as a shower thought (rule 1) is a lot harder than determining what posts are about politics.

Thanks for the feedback

This pretty quickly became a well liked post with lots of interaction and is remaining mostly civil.

It’s hard to argue that this post doesn’t break the new rule for “avoid politics”.

Should this post stay?

How do people here feel about the “avoid politics” rule? Should it be rewritten in some way to allow this post?

This was reported for being nonsense. There are rules against spamming, trolling, and other “attention stealing behavior”. Spamming would be the closest, but it’s not repetitive so I’ll leave it for now.

I’m not sure that it’s possible to move posts but that would be funny. Maybe c/powerthoughts

We can’t keep everyone happy. I’ll agree that this post gave me pause. I think it’s better to error on the side of leaving things up.

Please report the post if you think it violates rules, and please specify which rules and why.

Stolen British Museum-ed

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

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.