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.
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.
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).
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.
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
they are all made up
“All words are made up”
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.
USA is an oligarchy. I can imagine americans disagree. But perhaps not lemmies.
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.
Everyone should try and reduce the amount of meat they eat as much as they can. Same goes for flying and driving.
Handicapped parking spaces should be reserved only for those who require an assistive device that necessities additional room around their vehicle for unloading and loading.
In a hypothetical world in which protected handicap parking didn’t exist, these people would be burdened by needing to always find parking spaces with an additional empty space next to them, and hoping that space remained empty when they return. Too high a burden.
So we rightfully have built into our civic and building codes the requirement that a certain number of protected handicap parking spaces be available. At least in my jurisdiction if you look at protected handicap parking, you’ll see that every space has an additional half space next to it to allow for egress of assistive devices. Without these protective half spaces built into every handicap parking space, people requiring such devices would face the undue burden I mentioned above; these handicap spaces give people equal access.
My controversial take is that only people requiring such devices should be granted access to these spaces. Yes, I know that there are many people that have a more difficult time walking and can benefit from closer proximity to their destination, but in my opinion, these requirements shouldn’t be for the “benefit” of anyone, but only the equal treatment for those facing the aforementioned undue burden.
In my opinion, for every one person needing an assistive device, and every two people who would simply benefit from close proximity, there are numerous people who use handicap parking for convenience. I’ve seen motorcycles with handicapped parking placards for goodness sake.
There are different species of humans. Dont really care what the current media says.
This is definitely an opinion, and definitely unpopular, so kudos on staying on topic. But I have to ask, why do you care about what the media says and not the science? Also, did I miss scientific studies being published about this? What are the other species of humans called?
Science says we’re all blended into Homo Sapiens now.
But as a spouse to a biologist my understanding is there is no agreement in science what is a species. Defining species is more art than science and often political.
That said. In such cases, whether or not two communities are different sources i or just Su populations of one species - matters little in practical sense. It’s just naming exercise.
it’s not an opinion, it’s just an incorrect statement
“polar bears are not real! I don’t care what the media says, there’s just no way a bear can be white”
this is not how opinions work
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.
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.
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 think most people would agree with this besides the people who are doing this themselves.
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.
Nobody should be allowed to own land. You can build a building and that building is yours because you built it but you can’t make land and the only reason you own it is because someone in the past used violence to take it.
I’m very interested in this idea. How would that work for things that are “part” of the land, like natural resources, or even the topsoil? Would the land be “owned” by the government (I think this might already technically be the case)? Does that mean anybody could just build something in “my” back yard?
Natural resources it the prime example. I think all natural resources should exclusively be under democratic control and all profits from the sale of naturals resources goes exclusively to the government. Developed land like private housing gets complicated fast but ideally things should work like things work now but the government fulfills the functions of a landlord.
Tax is not theft
I assume this opinion is pretty popular among the left
It’s not theft, IF the government puts that money to good use e.g. health care, education, maintain roads, utilities, …
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
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
Generally, social justice is at best, a distraction from real issues, albeit with very good intentions.
(We talk about human dignity, representation in film etc but not say, the fact most of our stuff is made by children who occasionally burn to death making it. If I were one of the billionaires running things, I would be overjoyed that people were so distracted about what a comedian said versus how our entire economic model is structured.)
