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.
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).
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.
Social values didn’t originate out of thin air. Abrahmic Religions actually introduced them. There is a God.
No there are not any gods.
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.
No one should be allowed to vote until they are 40 years old.
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.
If you don’t want Hamas to exist then Israelis need to leave the country that doesn’t belong to them.
Right, so you’re for ethnic cleansing then? That is removing people from a territory under threat of violence based solely on their ethnicity. That’s what you think is a solution?
So yeah, I’m not going to be agreeing with what you have to say.
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.
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.
because why should these children be victims of war that is not even theirs to fight
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.
Do you have a better solution? Progress always requires people to fight for the things they believe in and want to change, we don’t go anywhere unless people actually do something.
I believe legalizing marriage, normalizing LGBTQ couples’ status first to prove the general society that they’re not actually some sick perverted sickos before we allow children adoption, should be the first step. Also waiting for the old people to die out, to put it bluntly.
Keep in mind Poland is still a hugely conservative society, in full grasp of the Catholic church. It’s changing, you can clearly see the trend, but on the other hand our current government is still actively painting LGBTQ+ as some sort of harmful ideology or what not. We have a long way to come.
You all look dumb when dancing.
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.
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.
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.
I’m not racist if I say I hate Jews, Christians, and Muslims. Religion is not a race, it’s fundamentally an assertion of an ontology based upon the primacy of the god of Abraham/Ibrahim, Yahweh/Jehovah.
My personal judgement asserts that the belief in the existence, omnipresence, and infallibility of such a being as described by their texts is a detriment to our species and may ultimately catastrophically destroy civilization.
One chooses to believe or continue believing this. One can’t choose their ethnicity. If I say I hate those religions and those who follow them, I’m saying I hate them for their ideas on how reality works, not where they’re from or what they look like.
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
But the leading cause of climate change is overpopulation.
There were 3 billion humans on this planet in 1960. There are 8 billion humans right now. And all those humans are producing waste, using energy, etc.
Even if we reduce the per-capita ecological footprint, we’re outbreeding the gains we make.
I upvoted because this contributes to the discussion of the question, but fuck you
Jesus won’t come for his followers until after the great tribulation. So all these people believing in the rapture and post apocalyptic world are wrong. That’s why evangelical Christians don’t believe in global climate change because it won’t affect them if Jesus scoops them up before they face consequences.
