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.
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.
Lapdogs have been around for thousands of years. It’s only very recently that they’ve been bred so extremely that they can’t breathe.
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?
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
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.
Except where actual safety is concerned, all information should be public. That means Individuals, businesses, authorities, governments, etc, should not be able to hold any information privately, it should all be freely available to everyone. There only private information is what you can hold in your head.
Anyone who thinks about this idea for more than 30 seconds decides it is a really bad idea. I honestly believe that true information freedom will also free the human race, and that is the unpopular part. Everyone seemed to think I’m naive but people are just frightened kids and secrets are their first line of defense.
I’m ok with paying taxes for universal healthcare and infrastructure. Welfare for anyone who isn’t mentally/phisically disabled (on various levels) can go to hell. No unemployment benefits, no state-funded child support.
Universal healthcare would go a long way to improve all of the latter, however to play cause and effect; If you remove unemployment and child-support, you’ve inevitably now increased the homeless population and driven others to crime. How you do now deal with that?
Corporations should only be allowed to exist as long as they’re doing more good for society than the damage they do. Businesses should either be a net positive or run by people who are individually and jointly liable.
as long as they are doing more good for society than the damage they do
Isn’t that what profit is?
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.
It feels like as soon as Biden got into office a lot of people on the left threw their BLM signs in the garbage and stopped caring. Now I’m starting to see more and more on the left detach themselves from people of color and go right back to the white worship they were doing before. Every single time a person of color is now a lead in anything there’s just nothing but endless controversy and both conservatives and liberals just complain
But put a white person in a lead? Nothing but sunshine and “we’re starting to heal” nonsense
Really sick of it now, and it’s completely soured me on wanting to vote again
I have quite a few. I don’t believe in copyright laws or IP in general. I think it holds back innovation and exists solely to benefit megacorps like Disney or pharmaceutical companies.
For example - you develop a new drug that really helps some people. You charge $50 a pill even though it costs you $5 to produce. Without the government protecting IP, another company will come around and produce it and sell it for $6 a pill, providing cheaper access to healthcare.
People will say “what would give someone the incentive to make new things?” Without actually thinking it through. For a great example of how lack of IP is a good thing, look at how Shenzhen went from a fishing village to a Chinese San Francisco in a few short decades… one company will take the product of another and iterate on top of it.
Another unpopular opinion is I’m pretty absolutist with free speech. I think certain things like calls to violence or intentional defamation of character should be restricted. But pretty much everything else should be fair game.
I believe in open borders and think the US should return to the late 1800s style of immigration. We’re gonna need the population to compete with China in the coming century.
I also think that the primary investment into climate change at this point should be preparing for the inevitable changes instead of trying to prevent the inevitable.
I disagree with the climate change thing. There will be inevitable damage, which we should prepare for, but if we don’t try and stop it, even if it is past the 1.5 or more degrees, it will just get worse and worse, until it exhausts our repairs and kills us for good. If we dont stop it even if late, it will spiral out of control.
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.
Long distance vacations are irresponsible and selfish. We don’t have the resources left to be wasting it on frivolous activities.
People need to see more of the world. Many are too isolated in their specific culture.
Eugenics sounds really cool. Not the mandatory sterilisation style, but breeding superhumans? Don’t pretend that wouldn’t be cool.
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.
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.
Not if we are breeding super humans for meat
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).
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.
But just waiting for others to die out doesn’t always work. Take for instance the southern US. It took the federal government intervening (sometimes violently) to actually deal with a lot of the ingrained racism. And even then, there is still plenty around, and in some places it is gaining in popularity. In my mind, the argument you are posing could easily be subbed in as "we shouldn’t allow mixed race couples to have children, as those that are racist will inevitably traumatize the children. " I get that your argument is probably not from a place off outright homophobia, but it is kinda homophobic in that it accepts that children shouldn’t be around gay/lesbian parents because of what others will think and do. Is Poland shitty to LGBTQ couples? Probably, but just waiting for people to eventually accept them isn’t gonna fix the issue.
Down votes are for comments that detract from the topic. Having an unpopular opinion on a thread that’s asking for your unpopular opinion is exactly what up voting is for. It’s too bad you can’t down vote the down votes in these apps.
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
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.
The rise of feminism has seen the steady devaluation of the contribution of men in those areas of society where they should be most active. Rather than celebrate and recognise what’s right, the focus is on attacking what’s wrong.
The majority of men are lonely, isolated and uncared for. Many feel unvalued, unsafe and vulnerable. There is less community support for men than there has been in the past, less institutional support, and a continued decline in the tolerance of men being in shared places. The minimisation of value in societal roles is yet another way that men are cut off.
This seems to escape the vision of feminism. There is always claim of ideological alignment, where the empowerment of women directly benefits men, but when it comes to any form of concrete action that helps men that need help, or celebrates men that contribute - it’s nowhere to be seen.
Men kill themselves. They kill themselves. In their thousands. Leaving cratered families, trauma, guilt from the survivors, many of whom are female. Because they feel valueless, helpless and can’t see a purpose to going on.
Accountability goes both ways. In demanding support from men, feminism must support men.
God damn this is the most real thing I’ve read in years.
That is an important point. But why it’s unpopular is that it’s not “feminism’s” job to do this. Feminism is a struggle to give women equal opportunities to men. They do not include race, poverty, and definitely not men’s issues in this.
To put it bluntly: It’s not women’s job to fix men.
Men’s loneliness crisis may have come about as a result of modern societal changes. Including equality for women. But it’s men who need to organise and fix that.
(And honestly- as someone who has moved around the western world - this seems uniquely American problem. European men have rich social lives. Even in the most feminist nations)
Nah, it comes from “feminists” making men the villains. And women listening to those “feminists”. It doesn’t concern me personally - I’m a man who’s pretty comfortable with who I am and some power-tripping psychos who hide behind feminism don’t really change anything about that, but sometimes I’m really sorry for men who are less sure of themselves or who internalized hearing they are the bad guys from all sides.
Because they feel valueless, helpless and can’t see a purpose to going on.
I strongly believe this has nothing to do with feminism and is just a problem of the capitalist society we live in that only treats labour and hardwork like shit unless it can generate 1000x profits year on year. Building and serving a community isn’t rewarded. Everything is about greed and more profits. Feminism can’t solve capitalism. It can’t stop people from feeling it’s fucked up consequences like loneliness, feeling unvalued and committing suicide.
I don’t think you’re wrong that men are going through their own struggles.
The thing that is probably a sticking point is that a lot of the structures that support women in the modern world are largely created and maintained by the work of women. Like, the food pantries and the foster care I went through was skewed much more heavily with women doing probably 75%+ of the work in the organizations (some of them closer to like 98% of the work), both for the aspects that supported women specifically (programs for single mothers and such), and those who served both men and women (like food pantry or health services).
So the question is–why are men not banding together to support other men? You guys KNOW there’s issues being neglected by society. So…where are all the men making organizations to socially support men going through mental health crisis? Why are you not looking at the women’s organizations and taking notes and learning from how they’re structured, and taking up those tools yourself to adapt to this situation?
I don’t think it’s true that men making an organization to help other men’s mental health would be somehow driven into the ground by some group of evil feminists or something–the women I’ve seen working with “feet on the ground” for supportive organizations were not like that.
I think there’d be side-eyes if say, a new free mason organization popped up where businessmen are cutting deals in no-girls-allowed backrooms or something. The old rich-boy fraternal network of power, you know? Where people in positions of monetary or political power try to exclude others from that power?
But something genuinely out there to, say, talk with men struggling with mental health, or suicidal thoughts, and to talk incels out of being incels, and to promote a healthy way to cope with the changing world and the stress the world and “masculine” gender expectations put on people I think would get a bunch of big positive nods from the women I’ve known who’ve been volunteers for “women’s organizations”. Like–yes, it’s definitely needed for you guys! And fundamentally a different sort of support network than the old-boys networks that feminists historically protest.
Like, there’s a big difference between alcoholics anonymous and a college frat known for abusive hazing practices. There’s a big difference between a group of vets talking together about their war experiences (like all the vet lodges for WWII and such), and a professional organization for people in a given career that doesn’t (for example) admit female members. One type of organization focuses on the mental health and well being of its members, the other type of organization is hoarding power. It’s the “hoarding power” types of organizations that feminists protest.
Another problem with helping men with mental health is that often men don’t listen to women on certain topics. There seems to be a dire need for male leaders who will approach other men and talk with other men about these squishy, emotional things. Because one dude being an example is one of the few things that can get through to other dudes sometimes.
But there’s a social stigma for men who are too “emotional” and “vulnerable”, so it’s hard to get volunteers for this to kick off the trend. But someone has to do it? And it’s only something other men can do?
I think a lot, sometimes, about the Captain America scene where Steve is going/half-leading post-snap support group. It’s a fictional example, but it basically showcases/envisions the type of leadership that needs to develop for dudes. And it’s not a position a woman can easily step into, because plenty of guys who need help are already rejecting women for any variety of reasons (bitterness, resentment, fear, anxiety, whatever). Some guys need to step up to the plate and be like Captain America, on a local level, so local support groups for guys can happen.
I honestly don’t think “women” would get in the way of an organization like this–or at least, the women in the circles I hang with wouldn’t. I think it’s more the lack of men willing to put their necks out there (judging by the gender imbalance in volunteer and support organizations I’ve been exposed to), because it’s certain to get plenty of pushback and blowback and be hard work for little recognition and little pay.
I have very little to add to this excellent comment, other than my heartfelt praise. Thank you.
While I agree that feminism should support men, the guys who aren’t capable of having friendships with other humans are just, for whatever reason, anti-social.
I’m a single guy in my mid forties. I have a huge social group and feel incredibly loved. Where this stigma came that men can’t get therapy or can’t cry or be affectionate with other men, I don’t know. I’ve never experienced this. Possibly because, thanks to the rise of feminism, my single mother was able to raise me with a career where she was able to put in the work and climb the corporate ladder without a college education. I didn’t have some dirt bag chauvinistic father raising me to treat women like meat. My father was a carpenter, an artist, and a poet. I learned the value of friendship and community and affection in my home. If someone’s struggling with loneliness or their place in their community, I wouldn’t blame feminism so much as their own family and inhibitions.
I think you’re confusing “men” with “assholes”. It doesn’t matter what gender or sex you are, if you’re a dick, you’re not welcome and society is going to judge and punish you. In that sense, perhaps feminism has failed us in its support of all.
