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?

  • PM_ME_VINTAGE_30S [he/him]@lemmy.sdf.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    197
    arrow-down
    15
    ·
    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.

  • ReallyKinda@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    121
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    2 years ago

    The average person shouldn’t be allowed to drive. It’s extremely dangerous and most people are desensitized to it and absolutely don’t take the natural responsibility towards others that comes with having the ability to kill someone with a finger twitch (or a slight lapse in attention) seriously enough. I don’t think it would be allowed if it was just invented this year.

  • CheeseBread@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    103
    arrow-down
    13
    ·
    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
    79
    arrow-down
    8
    ·
    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.

  • frozen@lemmy.frozeninferno.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    79
    arrow-down
    15
    ·
    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

  • jsveiga@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    55
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    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.

  • Sombyr@lemmy.one
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    56
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    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.

  • shrugal@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    53
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    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
      2
      ·
      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.

    • Xenxs@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      2 years ago

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

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

          I would simplify taxes as being the cost of being part of society and therefore the tax money should be put back into that society to benefit the people being part of it. Healthcare, education, maintenance of public roads/buildings/parks/…

          • leclownfou@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            2 years ago

            I think of taxes the same way. I just meant that not everyone would agree on what what parts of society the government is responsible to fund. My primary thought was healthcare in the US because it feels like half the country is against that.

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

              Yeah I never understood that ( I’m from Scandinavia or as your conservatives describe it - that socialist hellhole ). I recall seeing a study some years ago that the US spends many billions a year more on healthcare than it would with universal healthcare.

              So what if my taxes pay for the treatment of someone’s cancer? It goes the opposite way too, healthcare that I need is being paid for as well and nearly everyone needs some sort of hospital or emergency care at least once in their life - regular doc appointments likely once or twice a year. Over here, I make an appointment and walk out without paying or even seeing the bill.

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

                That sounds so much better to me than the shit we have here. I always get so frustrated to hear people argue against it when the US is like the last fully developed country that doesn’t have some form of single payer healthcare. Like, look around. There are plenty of examples of it working, but half the country just doesn’t seem to get it.

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

                  I’ve had a conversation with someone on Reddit about this some years back.

                  They basically explained that people are being told that healthcare/social security is socialism and they’re being told that socialism is just communism under a different name and therefore is bad.

    • Damaskox@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      Since I enjoy the idea of providing goodness for the masses regardless who and what they are, I approve taxes.

      Well, as long as the tax money actually goes to make the country better for its people to live in.

  • eddy@infosec.pub
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    38
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    2 years ago

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

  • Lettuce eat lettuce@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    37
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    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.