What's some really unpopular opinion you have?
Most of the time when people say they have an unpopular opinion, it turns out it's actually pretty popular.
Do you have some that's really unpopular and most likely will get you downvoted?
Most of the time when people say they have an unpopular opinion, it turns out it's actually pretty popular.
Do you have some that's really unpopular and most likely will get you downvoted?
Fuck ALL advertisements. Yes, even "unobtrusive" ones, especially yours. If I want your shit, I will find you. If I appreciate your shit, I'll pay you for your time. If you want to connect, I'm all ears. Otherwise, fuck off capitalists, fuck off advertisers, and fuck off useful idiots who want to waste my finite lifespan in this miserable universe showing me ads.
I literally just came from another post that was talking about this.
Unfortunately there's a lot of products that most people don't even know exist. Hell I keep finding new tools and wondering why I've been doing things the hard way for so long.
OTOH, fuck all the advertisers who use shady tactics to make sales, and especially fuck all the people who pray on the naivety of others to steal their money. I was just showing a customer an email I got the other day stating her domain hosting was past due and required immediate payment, and she asked how I knew it was a scam. Uh, hello, because ---I--- am hosting your domain and website (and this is exactly why I share this kind of stuff with people, to make them think before they blindly write a check).
For sure. I'm not against promotion in the large, but the constant and intrusive advertisements within other tasks, such as web ads that take up valuable screen real estate, or TV/YouTube commercials that keep me from the programs I want to watch.
Like my username is literally PM_ME_VINTAGE_30S. I have no problem getting PM'ed or emailed stuff. For example, I'm subscribed to a number of mailing lists from sites I ordered from. Guitar Center can send me all the emails they want [1], sell me all the crap they want, because I can opt out at any time, and I have a work email so I can put them aside for later.
[1] To the specific email I gave them, which I do check.
I would argue that if there's a product that nobody knows exist that's not necessarily because we need to allow constant intrusive ads, and more indicative that people don't actually need the product.
I want to say that in any given day, 60% of the ads I see are from big, well known companies who don't need me to see them to know they exist. Shit like Liberty Mutual (I swear I see more of their ads than anyone else and THEY ARE ALREADY MY INSURANCE PROVIDER), Coke, Pepsi, etc. 39.9% of the remaining 40% are advertisements for shit that I just don't care about. I don't care about the newest tech toys. I don't care about the newest car mods, or random shit I can put on my desk, or stupid extra kitchen gadgets. Fully 40% of the ads I see are trying to convince me that I should buy a product that I straight up don't need because the ad looked cool. Why should those ads be allowed to exist? Why should I be constantly bombarded with ads for services that I either already know plenty about or for things that are trying to manufacture a reason for their existence?
Only about 0.5% of the ads I see are actually for things I did know know about and that seem useful to me, or like something I would like. Probably even less than that, I'm drunk rn and estimating.
I'm down voting you because I agree lol
I hate ads as much as the next guy, but without ads get ready to start paying for things. You go to a news website, sorry you need to login and hand over your credit card to access anything. Youtube? Sorry you need to login and pay up to watch anything. You want to Google,Bing, Duckduckgo something sorry you better pay up can't sell you data to advertisers anymore.
Not saying this is necessarily a bad thing but it will fundamentally change how the internet works and it potentially could limit informational access to poor people.
I brought this up the last time I talked about this, but to be clear, if we must choose between advertisements and paywall, then we should choose advertisements as the lesser evil. However, we must never accept the fallacy that advertising or paywalls are the only possible choices! More generally, we must never accept the fallacy that a market is the only acceptable way to distribute goods, a corollary of which is the idea that any acceptable solution needs to compete on equal terms with existing products in a market.
Well the first part at least would be a welcome change. The issue in my view is the very fact that poor people are treated as second-class citizens in information access or any other field of endeavor.
I very genuinely want those sites to fucking die so I don't have to coexist in a world where they dominate the internet. I would be literally thrilled to join a group of like-minded people who have to reimplement the conveniences of the modern web from scratch for free.
How do you reach people with a new product that didn't exist before? Or a Service? Do you want monopolys that never change because smaller business cant advertise with their stuff.
I don't like 99% of advertising either, especially online, but there are some exceptions.
This literally won't happen because you will never find my content without ads.
... what's your content? If you're not comfortable posting it, them what type of media is it? Not to rub it in, but getting your content from you, your fans, or someone who contacts me currently is the only way I will ever get your content, as I ruthlessly block advertising in every aspect of my life.
To be clear, I'm not against self promotion. For example, if you went into a video game forum and posted links to your game, that's not advertising in my view. More importantly, I would probably actually be interested in a new video game by you if I were browsing a video game forum. Hell, if you randomly PM'ed it to me or emailed it, that would be fine too.
I make games and stuff. Let me tell you, it's pretty hard to get noticed on the internet. There comes a point where whatever you're selling will be popular enough in a closed circle that it spreads through word of mouth but before that you need to get an audience. That means some shameless advertising in social media and maybe buying some ad spaces. If you don't get that momentum whatever content you're making might be dead on arrival. A lot of people and companies making ads don't actually like annoying others with them, but it's really hard to get anyone's attention now that there's like a billion new things releasing every day.
Marketing is only manipulation. It wants to manipulate me into doing something I otherwise wouldn't have.
Since I don't know how well their manipulation works, my only option is to only buy things that I have never seen an ad for.
To make sure I can still buy anything at all, I block/avoid ads where I can.
Star Wars sucks.
As much as I disagree, I upvoted you just for being brave enough to say that.
I'm on the same train. The original trilogy never did much for me (maybe if I was around in the 70s/80s when it was groundbreaking VFX), the prequels obviously suck, and the sequels are a hot mess too. Now you have Disney milking the hell out of it with all the TV shows and spinoffs. The only Star Wars thing I ever enjoyed was Rogue One.
...then I discovered Dune. And Dune is exactly what I wished Star Wars had always been.
Have you tried Andor yet? It's probably the best series (don't hate me Grogu fans).
On the last day of my college internship a senior VP at my little company invited me into his office presumably to get to know me prior to extending a full-time offer. To break the ice he asked me what my favorite Star Wars movie was. I smiled and replied that I could never get through any of them.
As I was uttering these words I began to notice the giant Star Wars poster directly behind the gentleman. It then dawned on me that his office was chalk full of Star Wars memorabilia.
The man did not ask me any further questions. He shook my hand, thanked me for my great work, and I never stepped foot into those offices ever again.
The average person shouldn’t be allowed to drive. It’s extremely dangerous and most people are desensitized to it and absolutely don’t take the natural responsibility towards others that comes with having the ability to kill someone with a finger twitch (or a slight lapse in attention) seriously enough. I don’t think it would be allowed if it was just invented this year.
Too many places let you drive if you do the happy path stuff right: stopping at a stop sign, changing lanes safely, etc. But the most important time of your driving is when you're about to hit a semitruck and you need to get your car out of the way, and there is no training material for this at all. People often panic and slam the brakes and aggressively turn the wheel, which is a perfect setup for understeer and losing control of your car. They are literally getting in a situation where they are about to die and they choose to greatly increase their risk due to negligence.
It's cheaper to run simulators than purchase cars and hire trainers. Get em in nasty situations and teach them how to get out of it. For real, if mom and dad can't evade sinking their freeway missile into a van full of kids, they shouldn't be able to get behind the wheel and be presented with opportunities where this might happen any time they drive.
...in this essay I will explain how my 500 hours in Burnout: Paradise makes me a superior driver...
Germany's driving test (and school) is fairly strict and will fail you for small mistakes which is good for beginners but after all, there is no test or reinsurance after some years of driving. After some time, people will see driving as a right not a privilege. This is the case for the vast majority of counties. This is the problem.
Problem is that there's no other alternative for most people. Unless you live in a city, public transportation isn't a valid option. Most people living in most locations (at least in the US) have to have personal vehicles to attend school/work, shop, and socialize.
Once self driving cars become commonly available, driving will no longer be a requirement and I think that driving licenses should be stricter on who's allowed to drive.
The way I see it is fuck em, if you can't safely drive and follow the rules to mimimize risk for everyone around you then pay for a taxi or take the bus. No public transport? Get your ass on a bike. Everytime I go out, even for a short 10 minute drive to the grocery store, 90% of the time I see someone doing something insanely stupid and dangerous but because nothing bad comes of it they don't learn not to do that.
Driving a vehicle should be considered a huge privilege considering how easy it is to kill not just yourself, but others simply by being a dumbass and not taking it seriously enough. People back up without looking, make turns without looking, tons of dumb shit constantly, shit I had someone merge into my lane without even looking when I was right beside them, I had to slam on my brakes to get out of the way and I was only able to do that because there was no one behind me. I honked at them and they just flipped me off. There should also be a forced age limit for being able to drive cause old people are fucking terrible drivers, or at the very least they should have yearly tests past a certain age to ensure they're still capable of driving.
Drive properly and safely or deal with the massive consequences of not being able to get around quickly. Need a license to get to/do your job? Drive safely or get fucked. Absolutely zero sympathy for shitty drivers.
Pansexual, polysexual, and omnisexual are all microlabels and are all subsets of bisexual. You don't need more labels than gay, straight, and bi.
Edit: I forgot about asexuals. But I specifically only care about bi subsets. They're dumb, and you only need bi
And asexual
But I agree. The bi community already collectively decided we are trans and nonbinary inclusive. We don't need to further separate it out.
I agree. All the little bitty addages don't make sense. You can be bi and still have preferences. Just keep it simple gosh dangit.
I think there’s value for folks in the community to have the hyper-specific labels. I’m saying this as a bi person who agrees that pan, Omni, etc are sub categories of bi.
And here I thought pansexual meant you really like cookware.
All religions should be heavily taxed. NO EXCEPTIONS!!
And, independently of their tax status, they shouldn't promote political candidates.
This stance is very popular where I'm from and I agree
Being fat is a choice the vast majority of the time, and I have a huge bias against big people.
I used to be fat (250ish lbs (110ish kg) at 5'8"ish (172ish cm)), and as much as I would like to blame my shit on anything else, the person feeding me, the person sitting at the computer for hours, the person actively avoiding all physical activity was me and no one else. After I got diagnosed with some weight related shit, I turned my entire life upside down, am at a much healthier 150 lbs (68ish kg), and feel so much better, both physically and mentally.
I'm aware of my bias, and I make every active effort to counter it in my actual dealings with bigger people. Especially because there are certain circumstances, however rarely, where it may not actually be their fault. But I'd be lying if I said my initial impression was anything except "God, what a lazy, fat fuck."
Edit: Added metric units
I used to be fat, and when I watch morbidly obese people talk about how much they love food and it makes them happy and makes them feel better that is 100% me. Food is absolutely an addiction for some people, including me. Thankfully I have it under control to be at a healthy weight and lose weight when I need to, but some of these people have absolutely tragic childhoods or life experiences and I don't blame them at all for coping in that way. I could 100% see myself in that position if I had been through what they have been through.
However, those people are self aware that they are unhealthy. The people I can't stand are the "healthy at every size" fat acceptance people. Healthy at every size was SUPPOSED to be that you can make positive health focused changes at any size and there is no point of no return. But it got twisted into I can be morbidly obese and I am still 100% healthy forever. And they even make people feel bad for wanting to lose weight, even if it's for health reasons. Those people are trash and fall on the same level as antivax people IMO.
Everyone deserves to be treated with respect, until you start spewing harmful bullshit and then I will judge you as much as I want.
I'm also a comfort eater. Huge sweet tooth, and almost 0 self-control when the hunger kicks in. My diet fix was making sure I only buy and order what I should eat, because I will clean my plate. I've accepted that, and making sure there's only the appropriate amount of food in front of me has worked wonders. Holidays and special occasions are sometimes tough, with family shoving food in my face, but I just exercise extra hard afterward, lol.
I definitely agree with you about the fat acceptance movement. I have to leave those conversations before I start saying things I regret. Again, I try really hard to manage my bias.
I have a weight problem and I told my wife, who berates me for it, that if there is food I shouldn't eat in the house, then I will eat it. It's that simple. I'll eat a lot of what's available.
I've lost 30 lbs before with intermittent fasting and taking calories. I know what works for me.
Anyways, she insists that I'm being unreasonable and that I should eat in moderation. She buys ice cream and then will eat a spoonful every 30 days.
I wish I could do that but I simply can't.
In general avoiding situations when you only rely on your willpower gives much better results than fighting yourself. When I think I should loose weight I only buy boring ingredients that require preparation to be tempting in any way. If I get strong cravings I just eat some random vegetable and try to better plan mealtimes next day. It's much harder when living with uncooperative partner or parents that like always having snacks in their kitchen. We're literally built to eat food whenever it's available.
I totally get that, same here.
But ultimately you can't just blame people. There is literally an entire industry trying to sell you cheap carbs and fat. Down to the sound a bag of chips makes when you open it (this is not a joke).
So on one hand you have evolution, your body still being stuck in the past where food was scarce. On the other hand you have too much food and it's highly engineered to be addicting on purpose.
It's no surprise most people are going to lose that challenge.
I've been thinking about this topic a lot lately and your comment is interesting. Your first sentence is definitely phrased in a more controversial way than the rest of your comment, but I can't help seeing it as very similar to "Being depressed is a choice the vast majority of the time, and I have a huge bias against depressed people." Is that an unfair comparison?
I know that treating fatness/obesity as a disease is kinda controversial but I feel like folks give people dealing with mental health a lot more grace than people dealing with health issues related to being fat. I've also heard that for some people they can be perfectly healthy at a higher weight (though this is clearly not the case for many fat people who are seeing health impacts). I guess I'm assuming that a lot of fat people would potentially like to be less so, but can't (for any number of reasons) quite get there. This seems really similar for me to people dealing with depression, anxiety, etc who want to change things but keep falling back into the problem.
I guess my question is do you have bias against people who can't escape other bad cycles like mental health or even stuff like alcoholism? Or is it more just that you think it's fair to judge people without the discipline/willpower to get out of a state they didn't want to be in, like you did.
I especially hate when everyone's conclusion is genetics. That's such a minuscule percent of obese people that it's ridiculous.
So silly. Genetics can make it harder to lose weight, but not impossible.
I'm related to several people diagnosed with hypothyroidism, but none of them are obese because they know the condition makes weight loss hard and actively work harder because of that. The biggest one is what I'd called "chubby", and that's more likely because her thyroid numbers are in flux at the moment, and she's currently working with her doctors on that.
Sure.
But that doesn't mean go out and harass fat people. Trust me we fucking know. You can't lose weight instantly. Some of us may actually be working on it.
Also fat people have the right to be happy. People hating on "happy at any size" is just being assholes for the sake of it.
Something disillusioning from the field of psychotherapy research: Our best, most interdisciplinary, low-threshold therapeutic strategies allow people to, on average, lose and hold the loss of up to 7-10% of the weight they've started with. Which isn't even enough to get most people out of the obesity range. What you've been through is exceptional. By far most people will never manage to lose that much, not even with professional help.
To put it this way: If we look at obesity like a mental disorder it's one of the hardest to overcome, harder than depression or anxiety.
I get why so many people share your opinion on this, I just feel like it's missing context. Because sure, physiologically its possible for a depressed person to "just go out more" or an anxious person to "just stop breathing so fast" or an overweight person to "just eat less and move more", but this is such an oversimplified way to look at how humans work and why they do what they do that is simply stops being correct. Every now and then you'll meet someone who managed to do all this just like that, but for the vast majority it's an unrealistic and unfair thing to ask.
Obesity is a chronic disorder and will continue to be until we get better treatments.
We don't need more pronouns. We need less of them.
In my native language there is no even he/she pronouns. The word is “hän” and it’s gender neutral. You can be male, female, FTM, MTF, non-binary or what ever and you’re still called “hän”. You can identify as anything you like and "hän" already includes you.
And we've nowadays taken it even further, in spoken Finnish we've even got rid of the "hän" and mostly use "se", which is the Finnish word for "it". The same pronoun is used for people in all forms, animals, items, institutions and so on, and in practice the only case for "hän" is people trying to remind others they consider their pets human.
Context will tell which one it is.
I feel the same but with genders. To be clear if anyone identifies to a specific gender, I'll respect that. However I don't see why genders are necessary. We are all unique human beings and there's no need to label everyone to a specific gender.
That sounds like a solution that should make everyone happy. However, the crowd arguing against more pronouns would also argue against this, just because they're impossible to appease.
Wouldn't be surprised if the (mostly) political right that seems all these new pronouns as stupid would also ironically be against giving up on their own gender specific pronoun for a gender neutral one.
Most people shouldn't be parents.
That's not an unpopular opinion.
Given the number of breeders, of course it is.
After an entity reaches an annual cap (say $5m profit), 95c of every dollar should be taxed
Give em a "you won capitalism!" Participation trophy 🏆 too.
As it once was with FDR.
Dogs were hardwired by selective breeding to worship their owners. Not long ago they at least were loyal companions. You got one off the streets, fed it leftovers, washed it with a hose, it lived in the yard, and it was VERY happy and proud of doing its job. Some breeds now were bred into painful disabling deformities just to look "cute", and they became hysterical neurotic yapping fashion accessories. Useless high maintenance toys people store in small cages ("oh, but my child loves his cage") when they don't need hardwired unconditional lopsided "love" to feed their narcissism.
Lapdogs have been around for thousands of years. It's only very recently that they've been bred so extremely that they can't breathe.
Thousands of years ago they were dogs, not fashion accessories.
Most conservatives, however deeply red, are not intentionally hateful and are usually open to rational discussion. People just don't know how to have rational discussions nowadays and the few times they do, they don't know how to think like somebody else and put things in a way they can understand.
People nowadays think because a point convinced them, it should convince everybody else and anybody who's not convinced by it is just being willfully ignorant. The truth is we all process things differently and some people need to hear totally different arguments to understand, often put in ways that wouldn't convince you if you heard it.
It's hard to understand other people and I feel like the majority of people have given up trying in favor of assuming everybody who disagrees with you knows their wrong and refuses to admit it.
If it wasn't for their response to the pandemic, I might be inclined to agree with you.
And their response to LGBT+ issues, and their response to Trump's crimes, and…
Yeah, no. Republicans have had more than enough opportunities to redeem themselves. There is no remaining doubt to give them the benefit of.
It is very hard to have rational disccussion when people disagree on the basic observable facts, ignore the "rules" of debate, and are struggling with critical thinking. You can meet difficult people on all the political spectrum, but certain idealogy attract more difficult people, and certain stuff mainstream conservatives believe right now has absolutely no basis in reality.
Tax is not theft
I assume this opinion is pretty popular among the left
It's not theft, IF the government puts that money to good use e.g. health care, education, maintain roads, utilities, ...
We have blown the concept of ownership way out of proportion. No one should be able to own things they have absolutely no connection to, like investment firms owning companies they don't work for, houses they don't live in or land they've never been to.
I think most people would agree with this besides the people who are doing this themselves.
People who are strongly against nuclear power are ignorant of the actual safety statistics and are harming our ability to sustainably transition off fossil fuels and into renewables.
I feel this would have been spot on, in the nineties.
Right now the problems plaguing nuclear are economic. There is no guarantee you can build and exploit a plant and get to break even before either it becomes irrelevant, or you fall victim to regulatory jostling.
Nuclear was a missed opportunity, but the window is closing fast and it will probably remain a missed opportunity forever.
Religion is nothing more then social engineering on a grand scale.
In which fundamentalist hell hole is that an unpopular idea?
It is really hard to have an unpopular opinion unless you are mentally deranged/a conspiracy theorist.
As evidenced by the comments under this very post. Even when trying most people can't come up with an actually unpopular opinion.
You sound deranged
Lemmy.world holding such a prevalent place in the Lemmy/Kbin part of the Fediverse makes it a major single point of failure.
They should still be the newcomers instance, but communities and users should migrate to other instances to increase the resilience of the Fediverse.
in a weird way it's good that it's failing, I've seen an uptick in signups as people search for other instances
Generally, social justice is at best, a distraction from real issues, albeit with very good intentions.
(We talk about human dignity, representation in film etc but not say, the fact most of our stuff is made by children who occasionally burn to death making it. If I were one of the billionaires running things, I would be overjoyed that people were so distracted about what a comedian said versus how our entire economic model is structured.)
The lack of justice is exactly how the elite class gets the lower groups to fight each other. The thought of a unified working class would keep up every banker at night if it weren’t for apathetic privileged class claiming that social justice isn’t that important.
Not having kids because of climate change is stupid. You are leaving the world in the hands of people who care less than you.
I'll be dead before then and if I don't make offspring then so will anyone I care about. Y'all have fun destroying the planet lol
I upvoted because this contributes to the discussion of the question, but fuck you
Yes, it's a less than egalitarian choice, I acknowledge that, but my empathy is only finite.
Lemmy needs "sort by controversial" for entertainment purposes.
Inspired by this, I wrote this quick function to paste in your browser console, if you're on PC:
It sorts the comments by controversial, but first you need to scroll through all the comments to load them all.
USA is an oligarchy. I can imagine americans disagree. But perhaps not lemmies.
Most of us wouldn't, and the rest of us will probably get on board if you rephrase oligarchy as "under the control of out of touch rich elites" because a lot of us are reflexively against anything that sounds educated.
The worst maker mistake humanity has ever made was not killing every nazi after ww2.
I've gotten some nasty responses to that one lol
But I'm fucking right
I have a similar one for our country - we were occupied by Soviets and to this day I fucking hate that the communist party wasn't outlawed after revolution. They tortured people for fuck's sake. And the even sadder part is that it took 30 years after revolution for the communist party to not have any presence in the parliament - the last elections were the first where they didn't gain any seat.
Then comes the question who was a nazi? And who just feard them and not spoke up? Look at Russia or China, propaganda is also very much a problem, would you kill a 19 year old because he was in SS after all his life he was told thats a good thing?
I agree that Nazis are absolute garbage, but you can't justify a genocide with a genocide, same with Japan after WW2 (and they did worse stuff)
Also, whats with the "Commies" from USSR? They where basically the same level of evil. (and yes the Holodomor was a genocide and not the only thing they did)
But killing every Nazi wouldn’t have killed the ideology.
That isn't the point of it.
the military is a cult that tricks children into dying for the wealth of the owner class. they tell you you're defending "freedom" but you're defending the gravest enemies of freedom that currently exist.
I LOVE banana flavored stuff. When I say this, people will often say "even banana flavored Laffy Taffy?". Yes, that's the best flavor and it's not even close.
That flavor is isoamyl acetate and the original "Big Mike" bananas of yesteryear were rich in it. Seriouseats actually has a really good article on it. I'm right there with you though. I actually love the flavor too. More for us, friend.
I find it insane that the same people who are anti-fossil fuel and want only green energy is also anti-nuclear power. I also want fossil fuels gone, but nuclear is the only way we are able to get to where we need to.
My only quibble with nuclear power is how irresponsible people are long term. The critical safety failure is always someone incompetent or cutting costs/corners.
Well and that I think distributed generation is more robust. Natural disaster can't take out power to half a state if there's energy being generated and stored all over. The means of production in the hands of the consumers.
Owning a second home should be illegal.
I think two can be fine, if just to cover weird situations you might find yourself in (cosigning with somebody, somebody dies and leaves it you, or I guess I don't really mind a "summer home"). I think beyond that though I agree.
I think it should be third home illegal
We've been living in a dystopia for a very long time now, we're just becoming more aware to it.
It is already legal to have a sexual relationship with multiple partners at the same time. Bigamy should be legalised. That it isn't, is a result of entrenched bigotry and religious prudery.
If you're using God as a proper noun, capitalise it. Not capitalising it is potentially confusing. Eg. There are numerous gods. Zeus is a god and God is a god.
It is likely too late to avert climate apocalypse. Don't have kids and you've done far more than most to prevent climate change. (This doesn't mean we shouldn't try to prevent it.)
A lot of society's ills are attributable to arseholes not getting punched in the face enough. This includes the fact that we can't make it legal to punch arseholes in the face, because arseholes would abuse that right to punch people who don't deserve it in the face.
America has become so fat, that most Americans have a skewed perception of what it means to be obese.
Most sports are stupid. Michael Phelps can swim 6 mph. Fish can swim 10x faster than that. Fuck that. I want to watch a tiger chase Trump through a maze.
The already high male suicide rate is severely underestimated. A lot of male risk taking behaviour, including car/bike related accidents, is suicidal in nature.
In practice identity based politics is often used to divide and conquer and distract people from their true interests. Class consciousness is more important. You have more in common with your colleagues, than you do with Beyonce or Joe Rogan, just because they happen to have the same skin colour and/or genitals as you.
The problem with bigamy is that most historic implementations of it involved a series of 1v1 marriages to one person who could marry others and the rest that couldn't. To prevent chains of marriage, only one gender was allowed to marry, usually male.
If you remove gender from marriage, you can get much messier marriages and there is no legal understanding of what happens in those cases.
I don't want mass-adoption of Lemmy by more Reddit users (said a former Reddit lurker who likes it here and actually participates because it's awesome at this stage).
There's no ethical way to kill someone who doesn't want to die. This applies to more than just humans.
If they are attacking me, would it not be ethical of me to defend myself and potentially kill my attacker?
[Insert trolley problem here]
Assisted suicide is good for society and if legalised would help fix my countries broken healthcare system
Watch out, rich old people with relatives.
Reddit is gonna be just fine and the shade we like to throw around here isn't even a blip on their radar
This thread has almost 1400 replies, thats getting up there towards reddit levels of traffic. They are OK in the short term but the damage has been done and there is now a big viable alternative with decent amounts of traffic. I have noticed it is definitely quieter there
It's not gonna bankrupt them, but they lost a lot of the people that created content there.
Here’s an opinion that’s actually unpopular rather than simply controversial: domestic flights in the UK other than to Northern Ireland (which isn’t on the same island so fair enough) should be forbidden on the grounds their contribution to climate change cannot be justified.
Instead we should renationalise the railways by letting the franchises expire without renewing them and expand their capacity as far as we can. Instead of pissing around with HS2 we fuck the NIMBYs over with an Act of Parliament which they can’t swat away or delay and extend it all the way up to Scotland.
Eugenics sounds really cool. Not the mandatory sterilisation style, but breeding superhumans? Don't pretend that wouldn't be cool.
The problem is, you and me wouldn't be superhuman. Being a broken-ass, second-rate, classic-style human in a world of superhumans would absolutely not be cool.
I already feel that way, but yeah I'm sure it would go terribly wrong.
Bernie would have won had he not been blatantly cheated in the 2016 DNC primary. We’d be in a MUCH different timeline had he won.
Edit: Corbyn was done dirty in the UK too.
The defeatist in me wants to downvote you. The optimist in me also wants to downvote you. The currently aware bit of me reminds me that this isn't reddit, and downvotes aren't a thing here. The rest of me is upst because there's a non-zero chance you're right, and the entire world would be better off.
The Beatles were overrated.
No word is inherently bad, it's all about what you mean and how you use it. Most people have a no-tolerance with a few words though.
For example, all words would be ok in educational purposes.
Blaming slow drivers for your dangerous driving to pass them immediately and dangerously has the same energy as a rapist blaming what the victim was wearing: The other person made me do it. I have no agency over my own reactions.
Great Carlin quote about this. Have you ever noticed anyone going slower than you is an idiot and anyone faster a maniac?
While I wouldn't pass dangerously it has to be said that a slow driver is definitely a hazard if they are significantly below the speed limit. Especially on a highway. Ive been caught behind someone doing 15 under and it is extremely scary as you hope everyone behond you see's you in time. In general speed differential causes accidents both in the case of people speeding and going under the limit.
Passing aggressively on a 2 lane road: ok, yes I agree
Driving slow on a 4 lane highway: real dangerous
If someone isn't going to go at least the speed limit on a highway, they should use back roads instead.
Movies and TV are boring. In the past two decades, there's been a small handful of stuff that's watchable, but most of the media is like, painfully boring.
I don't believe in prison for punitive justice. Prions should be used to keep society safe from dangerous people, not punishing them imo.
Using prions would be really harsh.
If you're obese you should not be allowed to work in a health care related field.
I never can say this out loud, but it legitimately rubs me the wrong way.
So even less people working in Healthcare? Because what? They aren't perfect? Nobody is.
I think healthcare can be more of a "do as I say, not as I do" situation. They can be perfectly knowledgable, even if they don't follow their own advice. Life isn't as easy as "just do it", and it's likely helpful for many people to work with someone who understands that.
Euthanasia should be available for anyone at any age. You don't choose to be born, life has no inherent value, suffering is strictly personal. Suicide is a terrible option with lots of drama, an extremely high failure rate and lifelong treatments or medication that are seen as the solution by society is a conservative convulsion of keeping people alive under any circumstances.
We could set up three sessions with a therapist, to keep people from losing loved ones too fast. But honestly, to me that would feel patronizing. That other people find it important someone stays alive is their problem. If it hurts them too much they can do the same.
There is joy in life and that's beautiful, but on a scale suffering has the possibility to be more intense. Let people die without drama, let them say goodbye if they want with a ceremony, let them choose.
That's the next step in the mentality of a modern civilization. It will fix the drama of wars, hunger and pain as you always have a simple painless solution if the suffering gets too heavy. Just end it, peacefully, whenever you want.
It's a very brave take, but I don't think I can agree with you 100 percent. Some people have depression (we think of it as a disease), and younger people tend to be.. immature that they make decisions impulsively and regretted their decisions later. Euthanasia is a one way road, there is of course no going back after you're dead.
I get what you mean, but that's just us placing a value on the importance of someone staying alive. An emotional habit that we as social creatures that work together and can love one another of course have.
Purely rationally speaking, there is no need for one to be alive and that person cannot regret such action, as he/she's dead. The regret is an emotion we project on someone who does not exist anymore, while thinking death is something negative. But in my opinion it's neutral.
The COVID pandemic never ended.
I think I understand what you're getting at but just keep in mind that there are two sort of separate discussions in regards to that.
The WHO and the health organization of various countries are usually pretty specific in their definitions. The "public health emergency" of COVID is over because:
There is no longer a need for a coordinated international effort.
The population is no longer largely at risk due to vaccinations/immunities.
The mortality rate has dropped significantly.
But I don't think anyone would deny that COVID is here to stay on a global scale. It's just that the health systems of most countries are now equipped to manage it without all of the lockdown precautions.
Trying to get people to change problematic behaviour, language, or opinion through yelling, or shaming is ineffective most of the time. Obviously I can't expect people who belong to minorities to not be angry, not everyone can be Daryl Davis, but if you are white and don't have a personal trauma, you should use more effective methods to correct people's problematic behaviour.
Source: I was able to get my family to stop using the N word, and even my elderly father who doesn't actually remember that it's bad to use the N word has stopped using it thanks to this very simple technique: every time he says that word, stop the conversation and explain why this word is harmful and dangerous to use, don't let them steer the conversation back. Being visibly angry with them will only make them dig in their heels and seek comfort with other people who are racist, making it more difficult to get them out.
Eventually they will subconsciously stop using that word, simply because this causes the conversation to be interrupted every time. So while I don't punish them (can't exactly tell my father to go to his room or something), the repeated inconvenience of having the conversation halted every time will get it in their head eventually.
I think this is the most effective method to correct problematic behaviour in adults.
You all look dumb when dancing.
okay but you also look dumb standing on the sidelines and judging, and we're having more fun
My unpopular opinion is that too many people give way, waaaaaayyy too much attention to "correct use of gender pronouns" and they should all just stfu.
I understand why that is a big deal for trans people, because they make their gender the defining aspect of their character. Something I consider a mistake, nobody's main defining characteristic should be their gender.
I'm sure some people have made the mistake you are describing, but I doubt it's only trans people who have made this mistake.
As a trans person, I would like to make my gender an aspect of my character, like most people get to do. I am more than just my gender, but my gender is a part of who I am.
It does feel good to be validated about my gender, but I'm not worried about people getting my pronouns wrong. I know it can be confusing and people don't mean anything by it if they make a mistake. It's hard to describe the intensity of the joy I felt once, when I was validated about my gender by another person. So, I will say it doesn't surprise me if some people decide to express their gender a lot once they are finally able to.
The vast majority of cishet people (if not all) make their gender the defining aspect of their character - so why should trans people be any different?
I've been told that gender is like a suit: if it fits you, you barely even notice it, but if it doesn't fit you, it will bother you constantly until you do something about it.
Modern Israel should not have been created.
The rise of feminism has seen the steady devaluation of the contribution of men in those areas of society where they should be most active. Rather than celebrate and recognise what's right, the focus is on attacking what's wrong.
The majority of men are lonely, isolated and uncared for. Many feel unvalued, unsafe and vulnerable. There is less community support for men than there has been in the past, less institutional support, and a continued decline in the tolerance of men being in shared places. The minimisation of value in societal roles is yet another way that men are cut off.
This seems to escape the vision of feminism. There is always claim of ideological alignment, where the empowerment of women directly benefits men, but when it comes to any form of concrete action that helps men that need help, or celebrates men that contribute - it's nowhere to be seen.
Men kill themselves. They kill themselves. In their thousands. Leaving cratered families, trauma, guilt from the survivors, many of whom are female. Because they feel valueless, helpless and can't see a purpose to going on.
Accountability goes both ways. In demanding support from men, feminism must support men.
I strongly believe this has nothing to do with feminism and is just a problem of the capitalist society we live in that only treats labour and hardwork like shit unless it can generate 1000x profits year on year. Building and serving a community isn't rewarded. Everything is about greed and more profits. Feminism can't solve capitalism. It can't stop people from feeling it's fucked up consequences like loneliness, feeling unvalued and committing suicide.
Suicide rates are down amongst the youngest, the highest suicide rates are from people over 50 and specifically, white people over 50
I don't think you're wrong that men are going through their own struggles.
The thing that is probably a sticking point is that a lot of the structures that support women in the modern world are largely created and maintained by the work of women. Like, the food pantries and the foster care I went through was skewed much more heavily with women doing probably 75%+ of the work in the organizations (some of them closer to like 98% of the work), both for the aspects that supported women specifically (programs for single mothers and such), and those who served both men and women (like food pantry or health services).
So the question is--why are men not banding together to support other men? You guys KNOW there's issues being neglected by society. So...where are all the men making organizations to socially support men going through mental health crisis? Why are you not looking at the women's organizations and taking notes and learning from how they're structured, and taking up those tools yourself to adapt to this situation?
I don't think it's true that men making an organization to help other men's mental health would be somehow driven into the ground by some group of evil feminists or something--the women I've seen working with "feet on the ground" for supportive organizations were not like that.
I think there'd be side-eyes if say, a new free mason organization popped up where businessmen are cutting deals in no-girls-allowed backrooms or something. The old rich-boy fraternal network of power, you know? Where people in positions of monetary or political power try to exclude others from that power?
But something genuinely out there to, say, talk with men struggling with mental health, or suicidal thoughts, and to talk incels out of being incels, and to promote a healthy way to cope with the changing world and the stress the world and "masculine" gender expectations put on people I think would get a bunch of big positive nods from the women I've known who've been volunteers for "women's organizations". Like--yes, it's definitely needed for you guys! And fundamentally a different sort of support network than the old-boys networks that feminists historically protest.
Like, there's a big difference between alcoholics anonymous and a college frat known for abusive hazing practices. There's a big difference between a group of vets talking together about their war experiences (like all the vet lodges for WWII and such), and a professional organization for people in a given career that doesn't (for example) admit female members. One type of organization focuses on the mental health and well being of its members, the other type of organization is hoarding power. It's the "hoarding power" types of organizations that feminists protest.
Another problem with helping men with mental health is that often men don't listen to women on certain topics. There seems to be a dire need for male leaders who will approach other men and talk with other men about these squishy, emotional things. Because one dude being an example is one of the few things that can get through to other dudes sometimes.
But there's a social stigma for men who are too "emotional" and "vulnerable", so it's hard to get volunteers for this to kick off the trend. But someone has to do it? And it's only something other men can do?
I think a lot, sometimes, about the Captain America scene where Steve is going/half-leading post-snap support group. It's a fictional example, but it basically showcases/envisions the type of leadership that needs to develop for dudes. And it's not a position a woman can easily step into, because plenty of guys who need help are already rejecting women for any variety of reasons (bitterness, resentment, fear, anxiety, whatever). Some guys need to step up to the plate and be like Captain America, on a local level, so local support groups for guys can happen.
I honestly don't think "women" would get in the way of an organization like this--or at least, the women in the circles I hang with wouldn't. I think it's more the lack of men willing to put their necks out there (judging by the gender imbalance in volunteer and support organizations I've been exposed to), because it's certain to get plenty of pushback and blowback and be hard work for little recognition and little pay.
Python is just as bad if not worse then JavaScript. The fact that if you misspell a variable name, instead of giving an error like any sane language, Python code will still run, but do something different then it looks like it does, creating a hard to spot bug is just awful. The amount of time I have spent debugging python code only to find a tiny typo that any sane language would have caught before the code even ran is several weeks now, I can't imagine how much collective time has been lost over this, and a few other, horrible languages.
Corporations should only be allowed to exist as long as they're doing more good for society than the damage they do. Businesses should either be a net positive or run by people who are individually and jointly liable.
Eggs are gross.
The majority of the ruling party of Texas wants to secede, and we should let them.
Take their nukes and kick them out the door to enjoy the ancapistan experience.
People need to pay extra for their bodily excess weight. I'm done being harassed to pay for a kg more in my baggage.
Cryptocurrency is a scam. Not just certain coins, but the whole concept. It's nothing more than digital tulips.
JavaScript is a bad language, but what's really bad about it is not the language itself but the ecosystem of libraries and tools. Getting just about anything to work is a huge struggle. Rust is much easier to use.
Having children is a horrible idea.
If you live in a city and have no backyard or similar, you should not be allowed to own a dog.
I don't have one and I'm pretty sure my dog has a lot more daily stimulation than someone with a backyard. As if backyard = happy dog 🙄
I have both a dog and a backyard. Walking is far more interesting and stimulating for him than letting him run around in the back.
I'm curious how far that stance goes. I live in an apartment and own a small breed dog. I work from home, so I'm with her all day. Additionally, she gets a minimum one mile walk in the morning regardless of weather or season, and the same after work in the evening. I've trained her since she was a puppy to be silent. She doesn't bark at all, the most noise she makes is some light whining when one of her favorite people come over.
In your opinion, should I not own her? Obviously I think I should, and feel like I've done my due diligence to provide exercise, entertainment, and training to give her and my neighbors a high quality of life. But I'm curious if your stance holds in every circumstance.
Nobody should have kids, we should just drift off into extinction. Nobody has been able to tell me why that would be a bad thing without using anthropocentric reasoning.
Tell me why anything should or should not happen without using anthropomorphic reasoning.
Anthropocentrism is good.
In order to actually fight climate change, we should start by trying to reduce the population in the future. Less people = more resources per person.
Swearing shouldn't ever be censored.
I have quite a few. I don't believe in copyright laws or IP in general. I think it holds back innovation and exists solely to benefit megacorps like Disney or pharmaceutical companies.
For example - you develop a new drug that really helps some people. You charge $50 a pill even though it costs you $5 to produce. Without the government protecting IP, another company will come around and produce it and sell it for $6 a pill, providing cheaper access to healthcare.
People will say "what would give someone the incentive to make new things?" Without actually thinking it through. For a great example of how lack of IP is a good thing, look at how Shenzhen went from a fishing village to a Chinese San Francisco in a few short decades.. one company will take the product of another and iterate on top of it.
Another unpopular opinion is I'm pretty absolutist with free speech. I think certain things like calls to violence or intentional defamation of character should be restricted. But pretty much everything else should be fair game.
I believe in open borders and think the US should return to the late 1800s style of immigration. We're gonna need the population to compete with China in the coming century.
I also think that the primary investment into climate change at this point should be preparing for the inevitable changes instead of trying to prevent the inevitable.
The kWh is a silly unit. Joule (J) is the one true unit of energy.
Also, common time units suck as much as inches, pounds, feet and whatever nonsense units you Americans still use. Just use seconds with the appropriate SI prefix instead.
Cubic meters and tonnes suck too. Just use kl and Mg instead.
I think having children when the world is already overflowing with unwanted children is pretty fucking selfish. how about you do humanity a favor and stop for a round or two, eh? maybe pick up all the lost and forgotten children society has strewn across the way.
(only child unwanted by both parents, dont know who my father is. left my mother at 18, but she made sure to remind me how much her life got fucked up because she had me...Currently married to my lovely wife going on 10 years at 2024 and 12 years together total. and we have considered a child. but...i cant stop thinking about the ones already here, unloved. but as a bastard only child with no real parents, i could be bias.)
Truly unpopular opinions get you banned from Lemmy.
AI is to computer science what black magic is to science.
Seriously, what do you get after you've spent days and days to train a model? An inscrutable blob that may as well be proprietary software written for an alien CPU; studying it is damn near impossible, understanding how it works would require several lifespans, and yet it works, and we trust these models and use them to get solutions to problems that would normally be impossible to handle by computers using "real" computer science. And one day, this trust will bite us in the ass, not in the form of an "AI rebellion" but with every system that uses AI becoming unreliable because of situations outside its training.
Both parties - Democrat and Republican - here in the US - are part of the ‘problem’ and need to go. We desperately need a third or multi party system and an end to this bullshit of geriatrics ruling our government and making decisions.
I would make comments about the first line all the time on Reddit and immediately get downvoted to hell because people would start arguing or making comparisons to the old ‘two sides of the same coin’ bit. That’s fine if that’s how you want to see it.
I get it, we all have certain things we fight for that the other party shits on, women’s rights (abortion), equal rights, labor, gun control, taxes, etc.
But both parties still serve their corporate masters and still do their damndest to turn people here in the US against each other using ever scare tactic imaginable and thru the media sources (Fox, CNN).
They just keep playing the Game to turn people against each other and create more decisiveness and more power for them.
You won't get downvote for suggesting to end the two-party system. What will get you downvote is suggesting that both parties are equally responsible for this shitshow.
Both parties need to go, both parties are not equal, and only 1 is a legit short-term threat to democracy. Phrasing and context matters, and if it comes out sounding like the "both sides" argument you're gonna be downvoted.
Everyone should try and reduce the amount of meat they eat as much as they can. Same goes for flying and driving.
Lemmy should have a Controversial sort for comments.
Americans really think they own the world sometimes, and truly underestimate the disdain the world has for them.
That is the opposite of unpopular.
I like sand
Fuck off with that bullshit
These shitposts are coarse and irritating and they get everywhere.
Spaghetti sucks. Come eat my ass, italians
I could probably do a better job running your country than the guy you elected since I know when to give the problem to someone more qualified.
Most people should at least try to limit their meat consumption IF POSSIBLE. I mostly mean avoiding stuff like McDonalds and maybe limiting it to at least a couple times a week. I'm not expecting everyone to be able to cut it out completely.
Meritocracy in the US is almost entirely a myth, outside of a few sports.
Free will as it's popularly understood doesn't actually exist.
Most shoes are bad for us and cause injuries over the course of our lives .
Houses and similar private property should be owned by the state and be given out to those in need for free, rather than owned by private individuals to sell/rent and make a profit. It's literally a basic human need that's becoming less and less accessible due to greed (constantly rising prices and scams landlords might try to pull), and it's very easy to just lose one if you're unfortunate enough to be unemployed for a longer period of time.
Souls don't exist.
Anti-natalism makes some good points
Negative motivation is the real way to make changes.
It's great to have goals and positive things to look forward to when you reach those goals.
But to be consistent in doing the hard work to reach that goal it's better to scare the shit out of your self by asking
"what happens to me if I don't do the work?"
Legend of Zelda breath of the wild is the absolute worst Zelda I've ever played. I've played and beaten the following: OoT, MM, SS, ALttP, ALbW, LA, Zelda 2. I've almost beaten wind Waker and twilight princess, so you could say I've played a few Zelda games.
BotW is a mix of assassins creed, Minecraft, and Zelda characters with shit dungeons. The divine beasts are garbage replacements for dungeons and shrines are not a replacement for dungeons either, it's just a terrible Zelda, but a decent open world game.
Liberalism and socialism aren't entirely incompatible concepts
It is called social democracy and it is wild to me that what is one of the best approach to capitalism is basically the boogeyman in the US.
Some (not so unpopular) unpopular opinions :
Most clichés about people happen to be true. I won't give any example.
Smart Electronics altered our mental health mostly in a bad way.
Porn should be banned.
Big trillionaire corporations should not exist.
We should tend to a car free society
if porn is banned then there's no regulation for it, meaning when people inevitably set up illegal porn sites things like child porn and abuse are not off the table and will be much easier to find than right now. unless of course you want to implement mass survailance to make sure nobody's watching, which is a violation of our human right to privacy.
Got removed on reddit for this, but I think the mentally ill homeless should be placed in state institutions where they can get professional help.
A lot of things around the world were better before the Internet. And they were definitely better before smart phones reached ubiquity.
While companies are bad, that doesn't automatically make things a company produces bad even if the company is trying to price-gouge or otherwise make the most profit out of it. You can oppose the latter while not pushing bullshit about the former.
In this regard, I'm referring to things that people generally try to push anti-science views on and use "company bad" as their purposefully bad argument to conflate the two things.
So, medicine and pharmaceuticals are not bad, even if the companies are bad.
Same goes with vaccines, obviously.
Biotech crops are not bad (and people really need to learn about how all crop cultivars have patents, including heirloom and organic cultivars).
Haha, if I held this stance, I would literally die. Insulin companies suck entire bags of dick, but uh... yeah, I have no choice.
Ironically I foreshadowed one of these on one of my recently previous comments. The Greeks/Spartans are wayyyy overrated as far as history goes, as in I couldn't not understate how overrated they are. None of their claims to fame are wholly true in the least. For example, they were said to have invented democracy, but every two rulers was a tyrant who justified their tyranny with the fact Zeus himself was a tyrant. He and the other gods were always justified in that "they're the gods, they can do what they want", which would make sense if they were creator gods, but legend has it Zeus fought the creator god... and ate him... for power, and then presided over the gods for eternity, because apparently the democratic process (which didn't include women, immigrants, or non-home-owners anyways) does not befit the gods and so you have a mentally ill, Typhon-obsessed role model at the helm. They spend their days indulging themselves at the expense of others in such an extreme way that they make it sound like asexuality didn't exist, because it was the Greek view that human nature was the same for everyone. And this tyranny they tried spreading all over the world because they thought it was what democracy was, which brings us to Alexander the Great, the world's most undeserving "great" conqueror. Imagine trying to enact revenge for a conquest on your land that happened more than two hundred years ago, having the historical records lie to inflate you, and once you get even with your enemies, decide that while you're at it you should conquer people further East, all while being unable to actually properly care for the lands you conquered.
I am currently taking history and get tired of seeing people say "the Greeks were the best". When the Ottomans invaded Greece, the love was so great that people volunteered from random nations to travel to Greece to fight the Ottomans. I don't care for the Ottomans, but where was this love for, say, Iceland, who had a better democracy? Or the Iroquois who also had an actual democracy? Online and in movies, Greece gets all the exposure.
Too many people conflate the evils of corporatism and corruption with the general concept of "capitalism"/a market economy.
Now, I'm hardly an advocate of laissez-faire economics. But I'm not a full-on socialist either. I think the majority of problems people attribute to modern market economies can be corrected with aggressive anti-trust and pro-consumer regulation.
(The keyword here is majority. I'm sure it makes sense to socialize some things, but those details are best left to people smarter than me.)
The stuffing is the worst part of an Oreo.
Pinapples did nothing wrong
Not true. Pineapple contains an enzyme that dissolves flesh. When you eat pineapple, it eats you back.
Fortunately it only takes a little bit of heat to denature enzymes and make them ineffective. Like the kind of heat from a pizza oven.
Lemmy will die out without monotization such as every 6th post being an ad.
I love it but feel like libre projects that have constant maintenance costs beyond developers' time need to find ways to become mostly self sustainable without relying on donations. I also dont mind less than 20% of the posts being ads.
Everyone should be vegan. It's great for your health, for the environment, and more importantly, it would save more than a trillion (yes, with a T) lives every year.
In a hundred years we'll look back and be ashamed of what we did to animals.
I accept that a vegan diet can be healthy for many people, however, it may not work for everyone due to individual variations in nutrient absorption and metabolism.
In a hundred years, I think our species will be ashamed of a great many things.
I greatly despise all facial hair.
Even eyebrows?
Dismissing social norms because they're "only social constructs" is ridiculous, because all social constructs are a product of our biological brains. Gender norms exist because sex chromosomes affect brain chemistry, not because some evil global patriarchy cabal in 200,000 B.C decided they should.
The problem isn't with gender norms themselves, it's the enforcement of them.
Consuming drugs should not be illegal. Doesnt matter what effect the drug has, punishing the consumer does no good for anyone.
Selling drugs can and should in some cases be illegal though
Except where actual safety is concerned, all information should be public. That means Individuals, businesses, authorities, governments, etc, should not be able to hold any information privately, it should all be freely available to everyone. There only private information is what you can hold in your head.
Anyone who thinks about this idea for more than 30 seconds decides it is a really bad idea. I honestly believe that true information freedom will also free the human race, and that is the unpopular part. Everyone seemed to think I'm naive but people are just frightened kids and secrets are their first line of defense.
That's because of all the problems your idea would cause. Identity theft would run rampant, stalking would become easier than ever before, tracking people down would just be one search, etc. I mean you truly did bring up an unpopular opinion, I'll give you that.
I won't say anything without my lawyer sir.
No seriously these kind of posts annoys me as most people will mostly say secretly popular opinion. A true unpopular opinion could get you potential trouble with 1/ online users 2/ the law
Most of modern music sounds horrible. Elevators and shopping malls would be better off silent than blasting this noisome garbage.
There are exceptions - there totally are modern composers creating quality stuff. It's just not played anywhere in public places, for some reason.
I'm American, and I believe both sides raise valid points and both sides have problems. The polarization on both sides and refusal to listen to the other side is what is destroying this country politically.
The last presidential race, we got an egotistical maniac and a guy who is too senile to know where he is or how to form a sentence. This is the best we can do?
I am NOT saying both sides are the same.
I'm not American and I think both sides of the American political divide are bonkers
But I can't talk as all we are doing in the UK is following you down the same mad rabbit hole
Nuking Japan was in proportion and in service to the United States' legitimate military objectives.
I believe in freedom. As long as my actions don't hurt someone else physically or financially, then leave me alone. As long as your actions don't hurt someone else physically or financially, then do whatever the hell you want. I also have the freedom to tell you you're stupid for doing what you're doing. You have the freedom to tell me I'm stupid for doing what I'm doing.
My landlord is hurting me financially. What do think would be the appropriate level of violence to make them stop?
The Star Wars prequels hold up better than the original trilogy.
Just one?
Social media is detrimental to individuals and society.
People in the net often agree, put people irl look at me like I'm the village idiot spouting conspiracy theories.
I am against a law allowing LGBTQ couples to adopt children in my country (Poland). I am not in any way against it as a general idea, but Polish society is full of full-on bigots and these kids would be subject to so much bullying, it's really against their best interest.
The argument a lot of people raise "if we start doing it then people will get used to it" doesn't work for me, because why should these children be victims of war that is not even theirs to fight? The whole thing makes me sick.
I've been downvoted for this opinion by both sides on Reddit.
Being supportive of denying rights to loving couples instead of proactively fighting to change the mentalities appears as the easy, comfortable solution.
This is indeed an unpopular one.
I live in a country with a relatively similar political climate as Poland (highly religious, post-communist, wannabe central Europe). And I used to use the same argument when I was surrounded by more conservative people. The argument is IMO frequently invoked not by people who are truly worried about children (which I'll write about below), but by conservatives who need a civilised, "agnostic" argument for their homophobic stances. But ofc it's better to assume good intentions, at least if you don't know anything about the person using the argument (as e.g. here).
The biggest problem with the argument is that it's purely reactive and, under the hood, disingenuous. Children bully each other horribly already for a million stupid reasons - their shoe brand, their phone brand, their behaviour, etc. or just so, for no detectable reason at all. They also bully their teachers and professors. What is done against all this? Absolutely nothing, as far as I see (and I've seen and heard plenty while I was growing up). It is never brought up as a problem in public discourse, nobody seems to care too much. Bullying somehow becomes a big problem and relevant for the lawmaking only when gay parents are a possibility.
In general, from what I've seen, bullies will find just about any reason to target a kid. Adding one more to the roster seems borderline trivial. E.g. a lot of existing bullying is class-based - my younger sister was mildly ostracised in the primary school for a while because she wore the clothes my mother sewed for her, without a brand or anything, suggesting we don't have the money to buy "proper" clothes. Should we, then, try to separate poor kids from the rich kids, so the poor don't get bullied? Or just forbid poor kids from going to school?
Thus, instead of doing anything against the actual problem – that is, bullying as such – the laws of the state, the fundamental right of a child to a family, etc. should all buckle down before some child bullying? A child should be denied growing up with a potentially good and loving family with LGBT parents, and instead be adopted by a potentially inferior heterosexual family (assuming the adoption centres have some sort of system to judge the adopters in advance), or stay without a family at all indefinitely, because someone could/will bully them based on their most intimate and safe space, that is their family? Just as it would be monstrous to forbid poor kids from going to school to "protect" them from bullying, it is monstrous to propose "to protect some kids from bullying, we'll deny them from having a family". The whole argument is actually (or should be) an argument for aggressively rethinking and reworking your educational system , parenting and culture in general.
Under the current system they're also victims and involved in this same war - a part of their potential adopters is denied by default, and they stay without a family for longer. Are they not victims here? (Not to get into the issue of measuring potential benefits of having a family against the potential negatives of bullying, it's purely arbitrary and depends on the given culture too.)
On the other hand, I do think the whole discussion has been derailed by overly focusing on this as an LGBT issue rather than an issue of children without families. So there's some merit at least in the general approach of the argument you present (the children are those whose well-being is most important here), but it leads to the wrong conclusion, usually because it's invoked by people who really just want to get to that conclusion one way or another, rather than helping the kids.
I don't have anything that important to say but I will say that Glass Onion: A Knives Out Mystery is one of the worst movies I've seen this decade and somehow it has an RT rating of over 90% for both critics and audiences.
Imagine a murder mystery that takes over half the movie's runtime for the murder to happen, a script that sounds AI generated, a plot centered around a plot point that makes literally no sense, and probably the stupidest ending I've ever seen in a movie. Yet every time someone talks about that movie online goes on about how fun it was, I swear everyone has to be a bot because I can't believe that many people liked this hack of a movie.
Pasta can be desserts.
I make a delicious Mac and chocolate, but can get very few people to try it :(
I don't care if it has the same framerate as traditional animation, if your CGI movie is less than 30 fps it looks cheap and gives me a headache.
People here don't know anything about tech regulation or privacy even though they pretend to and almost every criticism I see is just straight up wrong. And I'm a data engineer who works in tech focused on privacy.
We could reduce a lot of issues if you had to do a calculus problem to get an erection.
The average Lemmy user knows fuck all about, security, privacy, operating systems, act like they are unique, and are inclusive despite wanting more people to understand more about the way they see things.
Libertarianism and anarchism aren't cool and don't work.
You are a part of the problem if you hate Nintendo but think you are helping the developer by pirating their games.
You are an even bigger problem to bringing more people to your way of thinking if you are constantly negative about those people buying something they like just because you wouldn't.
Thinking you are alternative because everything you think is mainstream makes you mainstream.
Your choice of FOSS and OS doesn't make that product good by design. Just because you can't operate and OS doesn't make that OS bad.
Most of our historical narratives were invented by a few Western elites (nobility, priests, scholars) about 400-450 years ago.
(Basically Fomenko's New chronology.)
Remember to sort by controversial. Top comments are always going to be the popular opinions.
Hey! Now r/lostredditors has a new meaning!
For one month of each year, traffic should have to go in reverse
—edit
As in backwards
Not everyone should be allowed to have children. Why? Because i believe my parents shouldn't have had children. But here i am anyway ;-)
Sentience in humans begins at 4 years old (mental age). I don't consider humans younger than that to be people. I also firmly believe that you have to have some form of consciousness, self identity, and clear cognition to count as a person.
A human corpse is not a person, a brain-dead patient is not a person, and a human with severe mental disorder should not be held to the same standards as other people.
Similarly, anything that does have sentience is clearly also a person, and should be treated as such. Animals such as crows, parrots, octopi, dolphins, whales, and some monkeys and apes are demonstrably as or more intelligent than some human children. They should not be treated the way they are.
As a side note, I agree with that other guy. Polycules should be allowed to marry.
Also, names in this day and age are useless, at least official ones. We have computers, we already use government issued ID for everything, having a name just makes things confusing. Just use nicknames, either created by the person or by agreement from peers and allowed by the person. The concept of a parent forcing a name on their child is archaic and cruel.
And finally, real life security is horrifying. I expected things to be like in the movies, where you need a special skill or training to do those spy shit. But no. In comparison to real life, Google actually has good security and privacy. WTF people? Everytime I receive mail with my name and a description of what's inside just written on the box I cringe and go back to lurking online again.
Long distance vacations are irresponsible and selfish. We don't have the resources left to be wasting it on frivolous activities.
Cats are shit ass animals
There is no moral consumption under capitalism. A lot of people think they agree with that. But simultaneously also seem to realize that they aren't going to change the status quo. So they don't try. It's actually that there's no morale consumption under capitalism but I have to do what I have to do to survive so here we are.
Tears of the Kingdom is overrated as hell. It's a decent game, but people act like it's the second coming of Christ or something.
The rich will fight with all they have to keep their investments secure and rent/prices for common people soaring. They will not relent till the bubble bursts, if it ever will. But pop society has tried to "fight" them for centuries, not realizing it is a futile battle and that social class hierarchy is not something humanity can live without.
So instead of fighting those monsters, society needs to assume their inhumanity as natural and try to work around it, instead of bickering about it. The government should take steps to make socially positive initiatives more lucrative for investment and allow gradual reshaping of their portfolios over time from overvalued things like real estate and pop media to better things like green tech and accessible healthcare.
Suicide is the most efficient way to solve all your problems. But I don't agree with people who commit suicide by jumping off a building or hanging themselves, I think they should do it in a painless way so they can feel peace in the last moments of their lives.
Nobody should be allowed to own land. You can build a building and that building is yours because you built it but you can't make land and the only reason you own it is because someone in the past used violence to take it.
American conservatives have never been correct in opposing a liberal or progressive proposal.
"This" comments (on Reddit and Lemmy) are not a bad thing. An upvote is supposed to promote valuable content, not necessarily stuff you agree with. A "this" shows agreement. These are different things, and hunting down the "this" promotes the "upvote to agree, downvote to disagree" mentality.
(For example I said "this" to one comment on this thread, which was an unpopular opinion I agreed with. I upvoted plenty of other opinions I found interesting (and actually unpopular) while not necessarily agreeing with them.)
People are judged more on their behavior than their gender identity or race.
That's probably true.
But you have to spend at least a little time with someone to judge their behavior.
The problem is that people are pre-judged based on their race, gender identity, sexual orientation, religious beliefs or lack thereof, nation of origin, first language, and a boatload of other things purely based on these factors without any personal contact or observation of their behavior.
Hence the word prejudice.
Likewise, people take the misbehavior of one or a small group and and apply it to everyone with the same characteristic.
Hence prejudice and stereotyping.
the world is overpopulated and everyone who wants to have children should require a license to do so (and it should cost a lot - like, a mid-tier job's annual salary).
"The poor should be prevented from breeding, amiright?" fucking hell who upvotes this shit
Well at least it's actually an unpopular opinion, unlike "we shouldn't have bred dogs to have breathing problems"
All roads in the UK that are currently 30mph limits should be lowered to 20mph, and those at 40 lowered to 30. There should be a systematic review of those at 50 whether they should be 40. National speed limit should be lowered by 10mph.
Nobody is obligated to accept anyone's lifestyle or beliefs.
The office of the presidency should be abolished
I don't care about data privacy. I care about consent and freedom of choice, so I care if someone else cares about privacy for whatever reason and cannot get it, but me personally, I care very little if at all. I personally do not feel a sense of "creepiness" or whatever from knowing that companies or the state know stuff about me. So I don't see much value in my personal privacy. On the other hand, we're barring ourselves from great technical advancements. I'm saying this because it feels like Germany is 10y behind other countries in digitization solely because regulators think I'm too stupid to give me the agency to opt in to sell my soul to our digital overlords.
USA: Personal cars should be banned, and commercial vehicles should be tightly restricted.
In my country (Australia), they should increase the number of seats in government.
It hasn't been done since the early 80s when the population was half of what it is now. Your member therefore can be more active, a smaller electorate means less emails and letters to sift through, less stress from staff, and more representative of a progressive voting base.
But this gets so easily dismissed as increasing bureaucracy and big government.
My unpopular opinion is that the reason for the upvotes in an unpopular opinion post is often that comments are explaining why the OP thinks that way, changing the view of the reader and making it agree with the OP and therefore giving him an upvote
Water is wet.
Because of cohesion.
Diets are all a mental Issue.
I'm half way to my overall goal, I've been fat all my life. It's not until I genuinely though I should lose weight that I put in the time to figure out my shortcomings with dieting and to stick to my activities.
If a diet overwhelms you slow down. If something fails, figure out why it's not working. DON'T ASSUME! My stupid ass thought I had mental mental reactions to not eating takeout. Turns out during my casual diet attempts I was eating like 800 calories a day.
I stopped attempting to jog, now I've been going on daily walks for the past 3 months
I stopped trying to curb my impulses. Now Ive learnt about nutrition and the basics of the calories I eat, I order take out conscious of my intake
Literally the only issue I've had is stressing about how much stuff to keep on top of and most of my decisions for my diet are based on reducing it (quick meals, minimal cleaning, keeping to routines)
We should be boycotting so many things