You must log in or register to comment.
The Beatles suck.
The Eagles are not as amazing as everyone thinks.DUI laws are too strict. It shouldn’t be all or nothing at .08 BAC but more severe punishments for more severe inebriation. .08 is pretty low and people who drink regularly can function fine at that level.
People hate this one but… hey, it’s my most unpopular opinion.
That is an actual unpopular opinion. Fuck people who drink and drive, driving is dangerous enough as it is, and no one needs to drink alcohol ever
There are people with addictions who live in car centric places and need to drive. Should we stop those people from living a normal life because of a medical condition? Probably leading to it worsening = more drinking
I think it’s a more complicated issue than it seems at surface level and a real solution needs to be nuanced.
They chose to drink and then drive. Even if I buy that alcoholics should be allowed to be alcoholics, just purchasing the alcohol, then driving home and then drinking it is of course an option.
It’s a personal decision. Some of us enjoy the flavor and the social enhancements after having a few. I agree fuck people who drive really drunk but I don’t consider a few beers to be that. In fact, I know that a few beers doesn’t make me drunk or mess up my motor skills any. I’m significantly more dangerous when I am sleep deprived but that isn’t illegal. Heh.
They used to be more lax, the current rules are more strict because it IS a problem and there are studies showing it to be. Hence the lower BAC limits.
Wow. .08 is ridiculously lax IMO. I agree punishments should scale by inebriation level but I never expected people to think .08 was too strict.
That’s one I used to hold until I went looking for studies on how smaller doses of alcohol impact a person’s driving ability. What I found was a linear, dose-dependent response with no real hard cutoffs. Driving is dangerous enough; there’s little benefit to making that worse by drinking beforehand.
I might be OK with a reduced penalty at .08, but I’d like to add a slap on the wrist at an even lower level.
Here in Sweden the limit is at 0,2 ‰ which I believe is equivalent to 0,02 BAC. So 0,08 BAC is really high IMO.
The limit for a serious violation is 1 ‰
The punishment for a normal violation is a fine or up to 6 months in prison. The punishment for a serious violation is up to 2 years in prison. Apparently if you go above 1,5 ‰ you are quite unlikely to get any other punishment than prison, so community service or similar is out.
If you are found guilty they generally take your driving licence a As well and you are not allowed to get a new one for a minimum of 1 month or a maximum of 3 years (minimum 1 year for serious violation)
Does that mean the limit is like half a drink?
I have no idea, I don’t drink.
But if that’s the case it makes sense since you shouldn’t drink and drive at all IMO the limit should be treated more like a margin of error (because you shouldn’t drink at all) and less like a limit of how much you can drink.
Cognitive ability is a far better test. I used to be a raging alco, like real alco, not just daily drinker. The levels I functioned at would kill most people.
Of course I still have alcoholism, but I haven’t drank in 12+ years. While I don’t condone drinking and driving at all - in fact it makes no sense at all in this age of ride sharing - but if I were on a jury I could be swayed by a heavy drinker excuse. 🤷♂️
Mine are unpopular, but in the other direction.
I think your first DUI offense should be the last time you drive. Period. I feel like the fact it’s so lax is due to people knowing they won’t be severely punished.
Punishments are pretty severe… Night in jail, thousands in fines, possibility of losing your license… Justified when the person is actually inebriated but I don’t believe that is the case at .08… that’s a little buzz.
Not trying to change minds here though. I know it’s an unpopular opinion.
I don’t think a little buzz is ok either. Driving is dangerous at the best of times. Another reply somewhere in this thread already said it, but there’s no need to make it worse than it has to be.
People go to bars and friends’ houses and such and drink. It’s a part of life in western society. There is a massive difference in being slightly buzzed and being sloshed and I think the punishments should scale. Just as I’m not trying to change minds, mine won’t change either. This is my unpopular opinion as the thread requested.
Fair. This whole thread is unpopular opinions, so it’s kinda natural for most people to disagree with each other.
Thread participation achieved. I’m not even mad. (งツ)ว
It would be for the best if public transport were good enough everywhere that you wouldn’t have to drive a vehicle with alcohol in your system.
Yeah, agreed. Everybody likes to say “there’s no excuse when you can Uber!” but in a real world situation that requires an expensive ride home and then an expensive ride back to your car the next day while worrying if it’s okay in the parking lot. Not actually very practical when you’re just having a reasonable amount of drinks and not getting shit-faced. So I hang around where I’m at after my last beer until I know I’m safe and just hope I’m not slightly over that silly .08.
don’t believe that is the case at .08… that’s a little buzz.
And a little buzz is too much to drive with? Respectfully, that is just rearranging titanic deck chairs. Buzzed driving should be illegal too.
As a society, we have to draw the line somewhere. Personally I am happy the line for driving 2 tons of steel is BEFORE someone feels the affect of alcohol. Driving is dangerous enough as is, buzzed still slows reaction times.
Lines are fine. The punishments are too severe at this line though.
Graveyards are a disgusting waste of space. Their existence communicates to society that many dead people are more entitled to space on this Earth than some living people will ever have.
Jeez, this thread is scary, I forget how many crazy opinions people can have.
Mine is probably that non-human animal lives matter, maybe not exactly in the same way that human lives do, but in a comparable and important way. I believe that murder is murder no matter the animal killed.
And also a maybe close second (not really an opinion but you could argue that I’m too dark about it) is that climate change is far past the point of no return and that in 50 years we are all going to live extremely hard lives (if we even survive) that right now would seem like an apocalypse type fantasy movie.
Votes should be inversely weighted by age. The vote of someone who’s going to clock out before the next election even rolls around shouldn’t be worth the same as the vote of someone who’s going to have to live with the consequences for half a century or more.
Voting age should be raised to at least 24, so that the frontal lobe is fully developed.
Not really my belief, but you’re opinion marginalized me, so I’m counter-proposing.
Then cap the voting age at 50 when cognitive decline of the frontal lobe really kicks in, if we are talking about fully developed brain function.
Neural plasticity has even declined once you are past your 20s. One of the reasons people find it much much harder to learn a new language past then, for example.
reasoning, memory, and speed of reasoning eaches a decline threshold when you are around 40.
My unpopular opinion is I guess that humans were never evolved to live as long as we do (and certainly not meant to labor as long) so everything in our brain gets very wonky. Empathy is also one of the things stunted with age. There is a reason the “grump old man” trope exists.
Perhaps there’s an IQ cutoff you’d favor as well? Perhaps a psychological exam? Surely the mentality handicapped shouldn’t vote, right?
You speak to me of empathy?
Or have the voting age be 18 years old to the average national life expectancy, although i really haven’t thought this through too much. I assume if such a situation were to exist, it would be much easier to cut Social Security and Medicare without losing the elderly vote, so that probably would backfire.
But what about the reverse argument?
The elders know much more than the young generation, shouldn’t they have a larger say?
Ooooh dark. I like.
Vote 1! @Sordid
deleted by creator
Do you think that people who act queerphobic for reasons other than hiding their true identity also deserve to be outed?
I think they mean outed as queer, not outed as queerphobic. Like doing queerphobic shit and someone knows you’re queer and in denial or using it to try to lock your closet door, they think those people should be outed as such.
If someone is queerphobic but straight, what are you outing them as?
At least that’s how I understood the comment.
Eugenics as a concept isn’t bad, we just keep letting assholes pilot it.
I firmly believe that it isn’t ethical to bring a child into the world knowing it’s going to have a condition that will effect it’s quality of life severely and likely continue to do so for generations to come. We have the tech to predict, modify, and avoid tons of issues. We already do it regularly with Downs. It would take tragically little effort to do the same for things like sickle cell, psoriasis, color blindness, even some mental illnesses.
It’s only a problem because someone inevitably says, “that’s brilliant! And while we’re at it we can get rid of the Jews/blacks/gays/etc!”
Milk should be poured before the cereal. I’ve always done this because pouring milk on top of the cereal gets the top wet and also kind of pushes the cereal down. I love crunchy cereal
Cycling helmets should not be mandated. If someone is dumb enough to cycle without one, that’s on them.
I believe significantly more people would cycle if helmets were not required by law.
Disabled people should have to ask for a seat on public transit if one isn’t available; other people shouldn’t immediately get up when a clearly disabled person boards, nor should anyone expect them to without being asked. Similarly, you have no right to criticize someone (who doesn’t appear to be disabled) if they’re sitting in a seat designated for disabled people and they don’t get up when a visibly disabled person gets on.
First of all, the disabled person might not even want the seat. If they do, it’s reasonable to expect them (as an adult) to advocate for their own needs (i.e. ask). It’s actually more offensive to assume that every elderly or otherwise visibly-disabled person is incapable of that.
Second of all, not all disabilities are easily visible. I’m a mid-twenties guy and I was born with an auto-immune disorder that sometimes makes it very difficult or painful to stand/walk. It’s happened multiple times that strangers on the bus have chewed me out for not giving up my seat, even though (statistically) there were probably other people sitting in disability-designated seats that needed that seat less than me and the visibly disable person who just boarded. I can’t fucking believe I have arthritis in my twenties, either. I’m just trying to cope with the shitty circumstances I was given and the last thing I need is to constantly have to justify myself to ignorantly self-righteous strangers.
All guns should be surrendered and destroyed en masse. They are fun, but society would be happier, healthier, and with far less suicides and DA without them.
I’ve seen too many close calls to consider them safe for society at large.
Wouldn’t that be nice?
But the truth would be: someone will find a way to make guns on their own, then the rest of us would be defenseless against that.
This is the reason why militaries have nuclear weapons despite wanting peace.
If you think they would be the consequence of banning and removing guns from society, you can test this theory by looking at any country which has already done this. What you find is that gun violence is extremely minimal in these countries. So turns out your worries are over nothing!
And you know who protect such society? That’s right, folks with guns!
Militaries having guns is a very different thing to the general population having guns.
All guns should be surrendered and destroyed en masse.
Quoting the original comment directly.
This does not say the militaries can have it.
Someone where I live was charged with 3D printing a gun. I believe he got jail time
Which exactly proved my point. You can make your gun at home.
If you see one getting caught, imagine how many at large.
If you see one getting caught, imagine how many at large
That sounds like FUD. Intentional?
this is legal just about everywhere in the usa.
Guns don’t defend against guns.
It boggles my mind people can bear a device that can end lifes in an instant and feel like they are fun. I guess this is making my unpopular opinion.
I mean people have fun with many things which are dangerous. Fireworks are dangerous, rock climbing is dangerous, driving is dangerous.
I’m strongly anti-gun, but I’m willing to admit they are fun.
Go back to swords.
All humans are basically pure evil.
FYI if you say something like this and you’re not correct, people are going to want to know what you’re doing that’s pure evil
That it’s best so sort comments from lowest scores to highest to get the actual unpopular opinions.
You can change your (psychological) reaction to everything. All psychological suffering is chosen by yourself and can be stopped if you choose not to suffer.
Of course this is simple, not easy. Almost no one can do it.
Most people I meet don’t believe this and hate that I’m saying this.
You should elaborate a bit, I can get two possible interpretations of this - one which I agree should be a more popular opinion, and one which I believe is nonsense and should be made fun of.
If someone betrays you - you can either be upset at this, feel terrible for a long time
Or you can be thankful for them showing their true colors, thankful for the opportunity to enhance your people-reading skills, i.e. learn how to prevent this better (or identify that it simply happens sometimes, even with good prevention skills), perform the correct consequences (i.e. cutting them out of your life, minimizing your dependence on them), and then move on with the new state of life.
I’m not saying one won’t feel bad at first - but there’s no reason to continue with that past the initial automatic reaction, how fast you can “move on” depends on how good you are at this. After handling the situation properly, there’s no reason to continue to feel bad, feeling bad about it is just a motivator to do something about it, if there’s nothing to do anymore, there’s no reason to feel bad anymore.
You can extend the same line of thinking to literally anything - you get fired from your job, you go hungry, you suffer some debilitating injury/sickness, you get put in a concentration camp due to be executed (“Man’s search for meaning” is an example of this).
Which interpretation is this, and what is the other one?
Somewhat in between, more towards the former I guess?
I wouldn’t say it’s nonsense nor that it should be fun of, I simply disagree on calling it a “choice”. It’s more like a D&D saving throw, and sometimes the DM just makes it mathematically impossible for you to pass it, but I concede that “choice” is less verbose than that.
I agree that you can change your psychological reaction to everything, and that it’s not easy, but it’s not, like, an API call to a well documented open-source library, and you don’t necessarily have full control over what that change is.The other interpretation is basically your opinion, but actively dismissing the fact that it’s
nevernot always effortless or painless - I’ve heard that here and there, by people I’m not really fond of.Yep great examples. And I see a LOT of Lemmy posters just unable to accept any of this. So much doomscrolling and choosing to be pissed/unhappy about every little thing.
Purely as a thought experiment, this is mostly just vacuous logic. Sure, you can kill yourself, or kill everything you love or hate, or make sacrifices that are probably infinitely greater than the suffering itself (you could choose to stop caring about human suffering, most would much rather suffer than do that).
In practice however this is even worse than vacuous, it’s just wrong and insane. You can’t choose to not be schizophrenic, physical and psychological pain aren’t two neatly distinct categories, saying it’s “a choice” is just drawing a completely arbitrary border on where choice starts, and no shit people get angry at you because unless you heavily qualify this kind of statement further, anyone would think you’re doing the purest form of bootstrap victim blaming argument possible. Anyone would think of that one time they suffered the most in their lives and you’re saying “you chose that, that’s on you”.
If I try to be as charitable as I possibly can, I would assume this is an attempt at criticizing self-pity, highlighting that we are often our biggest obstacles to healing and that will plays a greater part in our agency than we recognize. I’d agree with all of that, but that’s being really charitable, I don’t think your statement makes that case at all.
See :D told ya it’s unpopular. Yeah, it’s “victim blaming” essentially. You might not believe me, but I have been a victim most of my life in many situations. I also have or have had mental disorders.
In the end, you can only control yourself. And so while it is of course not my fault if I am being abused or whatever (it’s the fault of the abuser) it is actually very much my fault if I don’t find ways to remove myself from that situation. Of course, every situation is different. The difficulty of “fixing” it, and how to do it, massively differs. But in almost all situations, “suffering” only makes it less likely you’ll get out of it. If you feel too bad, most people are more likely to feel powerless, to not think clearly, to be defeatist and so on.
Life literally always has challenges, things that make you feel bad. No matter how good of a situation someone has, you’ll always find people that are miserable in that situation. I’m saying you can actually be fine with your situation, whatever it is.
It’s not reasonable to assume that everyone has that much control in any situation. Removing yourself from a situation is not always possible. What can you do if it’s caused by your environment, like family, school, etc.?
Life does have challenges & there always exists someone who can be miserable in a given situation. That doesn’t mean that everything should be normal.
You can definitely affect some things & you might be able to choose how you see some other things. Still, some things are outside your control or “as they should be”.
I’ve never said that anyone “should” have that much control. In fact I literally said almost no one can do it. The controversial thing is me even suggesting that it is possible.
I think the notion of “choice” or “fault” here is a little questionable, I understand your argument broadly (that’s what I tried to do in the last paragraph), so maybe it’s mostly just a language issue (I don’t think saying it is your “fault” or “choice” really means the same thing as saying that it’s “up to you”).
But I believe you’re contradicting yourself when you say that you both have to act and get out of situation such as abuse (not be defeatist) and but also learn to be fine with the situation (which reads like admitting defeat to me). I think this confusion between an actionable scenario (you can change things around you) and a non-actionable scenario (you can only change your outlook) is at the core of it.
Regardless I agree that self-pity is an absolute poison, but I’d tend to believe the way you put it is perhaps more controversial (because of what it implies or leaves out) than the point itself. Choosing not to suffer can also be a form of defeatism.
Yeah but you can not suffer and still act to get out of the situation is what I’m saying.
100 percent true. But I disagree that almost no one can do it. I think lots of successful people do it. I mean, the ones who went through a LOT of failure before they reached success.
I personally have done it in my life regarding a few things. Stoicism is a great resources for doing this, in my opinion anyway.
Basically you can’t always control shit that happens to you, but you CAN learn to control how you react to it.
That ability to make a choice is itself a result of being in the right time+place and receiving the correct guidance+education.
Like someone who read your comment might look into this and slowly learn to be more resilient, but if that same person doesn’t read it, never receives any guidance and has to suffer psychological abuse from those around them, would you really blame them for being the way they are?
Obviously, yep. We are all victims of our circumstances and if you never get in contact with this concept or are not in a mental situation to want to believe it to be true, you’re pretty much out of luck.
This really makes me wonder if free will even exists… I mean, 90% of what we do and what we think depends on environmental stimuli, the remaining 10% depends on genetic makeup and the natural variations/mutations of our brain cells.
Makes me think the same. I personally believe that no, the concept in the sense that “anything can change and could theoretically happen” doesn’t exist, but… I also believe it doesn’t really matter either. If there is free will, then anything can happen, if there is no free will, then not anything can happen and it is determined, but since we currently can’t predict the future and determine what’s going to happen, both situations have the exact same outcomes.
For me, most of these philosophical questions that are (currently) not definitively answerable I liked to ponder for a bit, but dismiss relatively quickly. I don’t really care if there is a free will or not, if there is any meaning to anything or not, basically whatever. What I care about is the current situation as far as I can discern it, and my actions that I want to take in the current moment based on that. My biology determines that and I just let it happen.
People in micro village should be moved or let to themselves.
It is a pretty violent opinion. But there are too many of these village of 200 people, 180 retired, 10 unemployed and 1 bakers. These area are basically dead, but because a few people absolutely want to stay living there, the state still has to do the whole infrastructure, security, civil servant, healthcare stuff.
This is an incredible waste of ressources that could be used elsewhere.
