this post was submitted on 06 Jul 2025
701 points (96.4% liked)

Showerthoughts

35798 readers
734 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
 

Ok so how does a cancer kill its host?

It grows until it consumes so many nutrients that the other living cells don't get enough. The host literally starves even if he eats plentifully.

The same applies for the US: The billionaires are not only hoarding wealth, but by doing so they're crippling the economy for workers and everybody besides themselves.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] tate@lemmy.sdf.org -2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I think OP used literally correctly here. They are saying that one possible definition of the word cancer can include billionaires as an instance. That's not the definition you'll find in any dictionary, but those lag behind the true language as it evolves.

[–] Rivalarrival@lemmy.today 4 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I think OP used literally correctly here.

Then you do not understand what the word "literally" literally means.

While several treatments would work for either, (such as carving up the offending subject with a knife, or sufficient application of chemical or radiative agents), billionaires are an economic problem, not a biologic one.

[–] tate@lemmy.sdf.org 0 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

Then you do not understand what the word "literally" literally means.

Oooo, sick burn!! I don't know if I'll recover from that!

My point is that I believe OP was using the word "literally" to mean what it literally means, and not just using it for emphasis as it is so often used these days. They may still be wrong, but they did not misuse the word.

[–] Rivalarrival@lemmy.today 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

My point is that I believe OP was using the word "literally" to mean what it literally means,

You can only rationally make that argument if you are claiming that "society" is a biological organism, like an amoeba or a babboon, presumably evolved from other common ancestors of all life on earth. When you can tell me the scientific name of this organism, and what organs have been affected by tumors, we can start talking about the literality of the "cancer" OP referred to.

As the underlying logic was metaphorical, "literally" was used as figurative hyperbole, not literality.

[–] tate@lemmy.sdf.org 0 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

You are refuting an argument that I did not make.

Edit to add: OP says cancer can be used literally to refer to billionaires, you say it cannot. One of you must be wrong, but neither is misusing the word "literally."

[–] Rivalarrival@lemmy.today 1 points 21 hours ago* (last edited 21 hours ago) (1 children)

You are refuting an argument that I did not make.

I am refuting the argument that would need to be made in order to support your position. I clearly specified that necessity in my refutation. "Cancer" and "billionaire" would have to be synonymous, not analogous, for "literally" to have been used correctly.

What type of cancer are billionaires? Carcinomas are cancers of epithelial tissue, but "society" does not have epithelial tissue. Sarcomas are cancers of musculoskeletal and connective tissues, but "society" does not have bones, muscles, tendons, ligaments, etc. Myelomas are cancers of the plasma cells in bone marrow, but again, "society" doesn't have bones. Leukemias are cancers of the various blood cells, but society doesn't have "blood". Lymphomas are cancers of the lymphatic system, but society doesn't have one of those either.

In fact, "society" does not have biological tissues or organs that could even become literally cancerous. (Members of society do, indeed, have these various organs and tissues, but no member of society has been diagnosed with a "Bezosma" or "Muskaemia".)

"Billionaires are cancer" is a metaphor. "Billionaires are literally cancer" is simply a false statement, unless "literally" was used, incorrectly, as hyperbole.

[–] tate@lemmy.sdf.org 1 points 2 hours ago

"Billionaires are literally cancer" is simply a false statement, unless "literally" was used, incorrectly, as hyperbole.

That is my point. Literally can be used correctly in a statement that is not correct, and my reading of the original post is that was OP's intention. They did not misuse the word "literally."

I'm not debating the meaning of the word cancer.