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?

  • jsveiga@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    2 years ago

    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.

  • PM_ME_VINTAGE_30S [he/him]@lemmy.sdf.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 years ago

    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.

    • Shdwdrgn@mander.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      2 years ago

      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).

  • CheeseBread@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    edit-2
    2 years ago

    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

  • Thorny_Thicket@sopuli.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    edit-2
    2 years ago

    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.

    • negativeyoda@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 years ago

      I’ll go one further: I get (and respect) the utility of they/them pronouns for a singular entity, but it IS clunky and confusing. English is ever evolving but when I hear a “they” it is still very much more abstract and plural than a more specific he or she.

      Whatever: it’s my shit and I’ll gladly deal with a nanosecond of confusion and adjust if it allows people to maintain their dignity. Point is, by insisting that there’s nothing confusing about they/them in reference to a single entity feels disingenuous. I know moderate people who are otherwise live and let live as well as receptive to basic human dignity who are turned off by the confusing abstraction, switching tenses, etc.

      They/them isn’t the elegant, seamless drop in that people say it is and it hurts the messaging. I get that being rigid and forceful is necessary with the rampant transphobia and “i’m just asking (bad faith) questions” going on, but I still fuck up semantics and tenses like whoa

      • my_hat_stinks@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 years ago

        This argument has never made sense simply because of the fact that singular they/them has been in use for literally centuries. It’s even reasonable to say it’s always been in use considering singular they/them was in use in the 14th century and modern English formed around 14-17th. I can guarantee you have never batted an eye when you heard something like “someone called but they didn’t leave a message”.

        There are only two differences with recent usage: people are less likely to assume genders so use they/them more freely; and people identifying specifically as they/them. The words themselves haven’t really changed, they’re just more common now. Opposition to singular they/them is almost entirely political.

        • gjoel@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          2 years ago

          singular they/them has been in use for literally centuries

          Even if has been in use since forever, a more appropriate word can be introduced now.

    • rebelflesh@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      3 months ago

      Ignorant fuck, I am obese, 180cm tall at 100kg i eat healthy but I can only burn so many calories a day working from home and I can’t do cardio due to a birth defect that puts my vo2max at 30, since you are ignorant that means I got the fitness of a 70yo.

      Do you think people like me just woke up and said o shit I want to star putting my pants laying down in bed and be hot at room temperature.

    • Squirrel@thelemmy.club
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 years ago

      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.

  • frozen@lemmy.frozeninferno.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    edit-2
    2 years ago

    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

    • Rikudou_Sage@lemmings.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 years ago

      I especially hate when everyone’s conclusion is genetics. That’s such a minuscule percent of obese people that it’s ridiculous.

  • loffiz@feddit.nl
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    2 years ago

    USA is an oligarchy. I can imagine americans disagree. But perhaps not lemmies.

  • Lettuce eat lettuce@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    2 years ago

    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.

    • untakenusername@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 months ago

      I think it is, but it can balance out the theft imposed by the ultra wealthy its all about the nuance of the wording ngl

      the govt takes ur money - this is theft monopolies and duopolies take ur money for basic goods and services - this is theft

    • Xenxs@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 years ago

      It’s not theft, IF the government puts that money to good use e.g. health care, education, maintain roads, utilities, …

  • Sombyr@lemmy.one
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    2 years ago

    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.

    • Squirrel@thelemmy.club
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 years ago

      If it wasn’t for their response to the pandemic, I might be inclined to agree with you.

  • Blaze@discuss.tchncs.de
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    2 years ago

    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.

  • eddy@infosec.pub
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 years ago

    Religion is nothing more then social engineering on a grand scale.

  • shrugal@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    2 years ago

    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.

    • edriseur@jlai.lu
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 years ago

      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)

      • shrugal@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        2 years ago

        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.

  • BynaD@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    2 years ago

    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.

  • feedum_sneedson@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    2 years ago

    Eugenics sounds really cool. Not the mandatory sterilisation style, but breeding superhumans? Don’t pretend that wouldn’t be cool.

    • PurpleTentacle@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 years ago

      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.

    • KingBread@reddthat.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 years ago

      Personally, with the advent of gene editing I think breeding “superhumans” will inevitably become the way of the future.

      It will likely only be available to those who can afford it and will create an even deeper rift between the “haves” and “have nots” than is already in place.

      CRISPR is a really recent development, and I don’t think people truly realize how earth-shattering this new technology will be. Natural evolution is dead for all intents and purposes and we stand at the brink of a new era where the reigns to our own evolution have been thrust directly in our hands. Shit’s gonna be wild.

    • untakenusername@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 months ago

      sure but you wouldn’t like being told who to have kids with just make gmo babies if you want superhumans, much faster and cheaper some dude in China did it already