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?
You must log in or register to comment.
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.
And Reagan should be dug up and shot for tearing down the mental health infrastructure in the US.
Most people shouldn’t be parents.
That’s not an unpopular opinion.
Given the number of breeders, of course it is.
Social values didn’t originate out of thin air. Abrahmic Religions actually introduced them. There is a God.
USA: Personal cars should be banned, and commercial vehicles should be tightly restricted.
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.
The Simpsons sucks.
Hamas is a a fascist regime. As long as they remain in power, peace is not possible. Can’t negotiate with them because they’re fascist. Negotiating with fascists has been tried in the past, it didn’t go well.
As a fascist state, Gaza should be placed under sanctions similar to the ones we’ve placed on Russia. Except we don’t have to because Israel and Egypt are blockading Gaza. Which is exactly what they should be doing.
Palestinians put fascists into power, it’s their responsibility to remove them from power. Until that happens, Gaza should be treated similarly to any fascist state that fires rockets at a neighbouring democracy.
Whatever criticism is made of Israel (there are many) should be made within the context of there being a fascist state on their border that routinely targets their civilians and calls for ethnic cleansing. Trying to pretend that this isn’t the most important aspect of the whole Israel and Palestine situation is just dishonesty and propaganda.
The average American does not give a single shit about protecting minority or women’s rights, from my lived experience. Not unless it affects them directly.
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.
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
Upvoted, but I have a slight disagreement. I think bisexual should actually be a label under pansexual. Bisexual doesn’t necessarily account for anyone outside the gender binary.
Yes it does. Read the bisexual manifesto.
subsets of bisexual
What does bi cover that pan doesn’t :-)
If you say you’re bi nobody thinks you fuck woks.
As a pansexual I feel that Bi and Pan have enough differences to both be justified while the others are micro labels (not invalid, just less useful as labels).
But I recognize I’m drawing that line very conveniently for myself.
Not understanding what words mean isn’t an unpopular opinion, you’re just wrong
Not about the first bit, that’s arguable
You definitely DO need more labels than straight, gay, and bi. For example: asexual or sapiosexual, those don’t fit into any of the 3 you listed
I guess we found the actual unpopular opinion on this.
Sapiosexual means you have a preference for smart people. Its not a sexuality.
Can’t agree more. The microlabels are too much at this point. You do not need mix sexual orientation, which is the sex we are naturally attracted to, with having preferences, which are the qualities we find attractive in a person or a relationship. The two are completely separate.
If we’re splitting hairs, bi should be a sunset of pan.
Also, there is some need for a fourth “none of the above” label…
Here’s an unpopular opinion: you don’t need any labels at all. You love who you live, you fuck who you fuck, you can advertise what you’re looking for if you want to but all this identity business obscures the reality that humans are far more diverse and interesting than the boxes we build for ourselves.
Most people who call themselves straight would fuck someone from their own gender if there weren’t cultural expectations against it hammered into them from and early age. Most people who call themselves gay would wander if they found someone they connected with. Very few of us rest at one end of any spectrum or matrix. Most of us are somewhere in the middle, and far more mobile than we might realize.
Bro accidentally reinvented pansexuality
And here I thought pansexual meant you really like cookware.
Is that really what you thought, or just an attempt at humor? Be honest ;)
Polysexual is very different than bisexual. You can be het-poly or homo-poly.
Also, most of the nuanced micro-labels are for the community. If they don’t apply to you, don’t use them.
Polyamory isn’t a sexuality. It’s a dating preference. Most of these labels do apply to me, and I think they’re redundant.
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.
they are all made up
“All words are made up”
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 like this idea, I had never thought about it this way. But it would be hard to implement, what about owning things that does not physically exist? (Like a company)
Yea it would be a pretty radical change, requiring adjustments in many areas. But I do think it’s necessary, because people not being personally invested in the things they own (just financially) and profiting from other people’s work is imo the big problem with our society right now.
Companies would work the same way. You can own it (make decisions and get profits) as long as you work there. Ofc you can work for multiple companies, but with reasonably restrictions (e.g. 8 companies if you work 40h/week and 5h/week/company). I also think companies should not be able to own other companies, because companies cannot be “personally” involved in anything, only people can.
I think most people would agree with this besides the people who are doing this themselves.
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.
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
We should stop breeding and let humanity go extinct.
You first. Follow the tenets of the Church of Euthanasia.
I’m not saying commit suicide, just stop having children. I’m not having any, are you?
Nuking Japan was in proportion and in service to the United States’ legitimate military objectives.
Is this actually an unpopular opinion? For sure horrible like all things in war, but I understand that the alternative was an invasion with a hell of a lot more casualties.
Should the USA have invaded Japan instead?
Yes. Unlike ground war, two entire metro full of people were killed and countless more suffered long term damages. Whatever the strategic value, this isn’t a decision that I find ethical in any way.
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.
Gender pronouns exist mostly because our society ties so many societal norms to gender. If people weren’t sexist animals, it wouldn’t really be a problem.
deleted by creator
It makes sense, but I feel like complaining about gender pronouns specifically is more akin to whining loudly about a small finger cut, while the leg is still broken.
I understand that they go through hell, as the majority lose any sort of social safety net: friends and family, and are generally shunned upon by society at large. That shouldn’t happen and I understand that the problem is cultural first and foremost, people hate being told their worldview, the stuff they learned, is wrong.
Still, your insight was something I didn’t take into account. For that, I thank you. Maybe this is also the only fight they have the power to fight. Small and maybe even petty, but that’s all that’s within their reach.
I think you’re close to understanding WHY then the trans community is such a stickler about pronouns
Let me give you an example that may further close the understanding loop for you.
I moved from US to Scandinavia. This place, despite being always described as heaven for the queer community … is, on the surface, entirely devoid of them. You hardly ever notice. There is hardly ever any discussion, politics, or fuss. You struggle to spot queer couples on the street. There just isn’t a loud community shouting about queer and trans issues on the street. When you spot queer or trans folks they are just people doing their daily life.
Why? Because they are not under attack. When a community is being attacked it becomes tighter, builds rituals and ways of living that identifies members of the group. It becomes louder and with a uniform voice on the political scene. Because the coordination and loudness is necessary for their political goals- of not being attacked.
(I guess groups not on the defensive but on the offensive would do the same. I guess you have to look at the goals to understand which is which.)
But here’s my point - in conditions where the trans community is treated with respect, they again become free to NOT make their life about bathrooms and pronouns.
And thus - I argue pronouns are such a hot topic because trans folks are being deliberately misgendred as an attack by their political opponents.
make their gender the defining aspect of their character
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?
The vast majority of cishet people (if not all) make their gender the defining aspect of their character
I already said it
Something I consider a mistake, nobody’s main defining characteristic should be their gender.
But it already is, isn’t it?
So if this…
nobody’s main defining characteristic should be their gender.
…is what you really want you need to start with cis people and not transgender ones, correct?
But it already is, isn’t it?
Is it what?
…is what you really want you need to start with cis people and not transgender ones, correct?
Dunno about you, but nobody I deal with in RL ever implied something among the lines of "refer to me as ". There was only one case of an ex-boss of mine who always liked to “joke”: “you can mistake my name, but never mistake my gender!”, but he was the exception
nobody I deal with in RL ever implied something among the lines of "refer to me as ".
Most likely because they’d never experienced someone referring to them by the wrong gender. You can be pretty sure that if someone started doing so, they’d have something to say about it.
Which is what the other commenter was trying to communicate to you. Gender is already a key component of most cis people’s personality - the way they think about themselves, the framework they use to make choices, and the way they want people to relate to them - but it’s not noticed as such, because it’s “normal”, so no-one comments on it and they don’t have to act to assert it.
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.
