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.
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.
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.
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.
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
And here I thought pansexual meant you really like cookware.
Is that really what you thought, or just an attempt at humor? Be honest ;)
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
they are all made up
“All words are made up”
Cake is a made-up drug.
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.
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).
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?
“The poor should be prevented from breeding, amiright?” fucking hell who upvotes this shit
Nuking Japan was in proportion and in service to the United States’ legitimate military objectives.
68 civilians died in pearl harbor.
140,000 died in Hiroshima.
I wouldn’t call that in proportion.
I upvoted you because I vehemently disagree with your opinion. It’s kind of skirting the line on being straight up evil
You skipped several million deaths.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Dogs suck ass. All of them can go to hell. No one actually likes their dog or takes care of them as they should. I can not understand how anyone could want to handle man sizes poos on the regular, or listen to a single bark it’s so annoying.
Not all migrants are good for the country. Many come with views incompatble with western culture. Stuff like homophobia, transohobia, mysogyny. And they are often brought over as cheap labor, undercutting local labor.
The right to keep and bear arms is an inalienable right. We should be able to carry on all public lands, and other places open to the public.
Tattoos look bad like 90% of the time.
The government is not to be trusted.
[The right to keep and bear arms is an inalienable right. We should be able to carry on all public lands, and other places open to the public]
Even schools huh? 😐
The fact that you’re getting downvoted means that you’re on topic.
agree
disagree
disagree
agree
Most human males should be castrated.
Men commit almost all rape and murder, but no one seems to think this is a problem we need to do anything about. If any other group committed 90% of serious crimes – let’s say immigrants – people would be calling for them to be rounded up and exiled. But when it’s men, that’s just the way things are, nothing to be done about it.
But we know exactly what to do about it when we’re talking about other species. We castrate male cattle because bulls are dangerous and steer aren’t. Violent criminals typically have elevated testosterone levels. It doesn’t take a genius to realize that putting men on testosterone-blockers is going to make them less dangerous.
What will be the other effects?
- Men will be be weaker—Meh, physical strength is less useful now than it was in the past.
- They’ll have less hair on their bodies and more on their heads—Awesome.
- They’ll won’t be able to get hard—That’s what viagra is for.
- They’ll lose fertility—They can go off blockers while they’re trying to have a child. Or you could just have a small number of uncastrated sperm donors.
I’m an anarchist, so I don’t want to force this on anyone. But if I believed in prisons or police, I would also believe in mandatory castration.
Props for having an unpopular opinion. I think its interesting a self proclaimed anarchist has such an incredibly totalitarian belief. Also one that sounds rooted in a deeply right wing/bigoted style of thinking. “Men are inherently violent so we need to castrate them against their will to fit our view” wouldnt the much more logical conclusion be to try and change culture to one that discourages toxic masculinity? Rather than believing in a massive violation of human rights
I’m an anarchist
I somehow don’t believe that.
Men commit almost all rape and murder, but no one seems to think this is a problem we need to do anything about.
There’s a feminist movement. One of the major theses of the feminist movement is the rape and murder overwhelmingly committed by men. I’d like it if a lot more people were feminists, but it’s not correct to say that no one cares.
If any other group committed 90% of serious crimes – let’s say immigrants – people would be calling for them to be rounded up and exiled.
And that would still be an insane reaction to that fact even if it was true, which no self-identified anarchist should support. Rehabilitation must still be the goal of any justice system.
But when it’s men, that’s just the way things are, nothing to be done about it.
Okay, that’s reasonable. However, that doesn’t mean that we should accept absolutely any solution to eliminate misogyny no matter the cost. There are wildly more creative and practical ways to go about this.
But we know exactly what to do about it when we’re talking about other species. We castrate male cattle because bulls are dangerous and steer aren’t.
Spicy hot take: we shouldn’t be castrating bulls. Technically you would probably achieve your goal of taming a bull by castrating it, but at the disproportionate expense of the bull’s personality, health, and bodily autonomy. Now we’re not bulls or trained in bovine social cues so we don’t miss the minds of castrated bulls, hence why there’s no controversy; it’s not obvious. However, men are
Violent criminals typically have elevated testosterone levels. It doesn’t take a genius to realize that putting men on testosterone-blockers is going to make them less dangerous.
Correlation ≠ causation!
What will be the other effects?
The other effect is that men will have their bodily autonomy violated. Women have been suffering a related torment from patriarchal governments banning their access to abortion. Generally, women’s bodily autonomy has been systematically disregarded, and they have suffered through bizarre mutilations and “treatments” aimed at making them more palatable to men.
I gotta be blunt with you: I typically let stuff like this slide. I understand that a lot of women and other vagina-owners have been put through a tremendous amount of pain by men, so I’m usually willing to give you space to vent. And if it’s worth anything to you, I’m sorry that this stuff still happens, and we need to take concrete action to prevent rape and femicide.
But you wrote a really detailed paragraph defending sex-based eugenics. The thing about eugenics is that it never really went away. Seriously, go scroll through Reddit and see how long it takes before some “bleeding heart liberal” goes on a tirade about how people they don’t like need to be castrated. The world is absolutely flooded with eugenicists ready to torture and murder people, and there’s no telling what suffering they’ll impart on humanity if we don’t challenge them wherever they pop up.
It is especially irritating to see someone who claims to be a comrade express views like this. It makes me less confident to call myself an anarchist when my views are associated with eugenics. We already have a tremendous amount of ill will generated by “anarcho”-capitalists and “anarcho”-primitivists; we really do not need more bad takes.
Now I would prefer it if you dropped the eugenics, but if you really can’t drop the eugenics then at least stop dragging anarchists through the mud. I’m sorry if I’ve been harsh…but just know that I’ll be equally as harsh in your defense when the eugenicists come to neuter you.
We were the bad guys in WWII and dropping atomic bombs on Japan was the most evil act of war ever done.
Ahh now we are actually getting into the unpopular opinions.
What?
Firebombings where much worse and search for Unit 731, and the Holocaust and the Holodomor.
All things considered Muricaland where the only that can get away with being the “good guys”
France helped the Nazis after they got overrun and Britain was just there for the most part, basically a side character.
So all in all not just unpopular, but factually wrong.
Who were the good guys then?
Common, I want to see you type it out.
