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?
The U,S. Mail delivery system is owned by the Oligarch Cartel that also owns Congress and numerous govt. institutions. It’s nothing but an “ADS TO YOUR DOOR/mailbox” junk-mail delivery service. SHUT IT DOWN!!! It’s actual f*ing SPAM in physical form.
I swear, every square inch and cm of the United States is for sale. Disgusting. Disappointing.
Lol if they owned it, they’d have to pay for it. No, taxpayers pay for it, they control it
I don’t think they should just not do anything on Sundays either. That always pisses me off.
I went outside just as my mailman got here the other day. He handed me my mail and was like, “more junk for ya. Sorry.” And then I immediately threw the mail away
Many first unpopular opinion, which seems to be not unpopular anymore was in 7th grade (approximately 13-14 years old) we had a project week about drugs. I was the only one who said that I actually thought drugs should be legal. That was 20 years ago.
Other than that the closest thing to an unpopular opinion is that I sort of think arranged marriage between people in, e.g. the west and Thailand is ok IF the marriage also include empowerment clauses, e.g. full support for the woman to study or whatever she values. Also, there should be some beneficial exit clauses. It is sad that the women find these arrangement/arrange marriage beneficial, but as long as they do I support their desperate attempt to better their life. And yes I do know of some examples - both very good and bad.
And what should have happened then?
Or do you mean that the entire circumstances of it being necessary shouldn’t have been.
Also… Besides their current government shifting towards being basically Nazis, why not?
The refugees get sent back to their original towns where they can, taken in by allied nations, or taking land from Germany or other axis power as reparation.
Instead they took land from a nation not even involved in the war with the express purpose of forming an ethnostate, not even just for the displaced Jews.
Sorry but that wasn’t a nation, it was a British colony, your entire point is invalid because they got land from them…
The refugees get sent back to their original towns where they can, taken in by allied nations, or taking land from Germany or other axis power as reparation.
You literally said the allied countrys should take them… They did.
Oh you mean allies of the jews?
So nobody in this world?
Stop shifting the goalposts. Israel is legit and the only way to prevent another holocaust. Their government right now is a different story. And a “Palestine” country doesn’t exist. Its a terrorist organization.
Not the OP, but the reasons for creating a country of the other people’s land was basically religious, that makes it automatically a mistake.
No jews actually are considered a “race” because the only way to actually become Jewish is to be born from a Jewish mother.
And other peoples land? You know how many times that place of earth switched hands? How far do you need to go back to “rightfully” own land?
I don’t care. They’re using idiotic arguments to justify atrocities. They get zero sympathy from me.
They as in jews in general or the Israeli government? 🤨
The latter. And those who adhere, of course.
Monogamy is bad for people
I think it works for some couples, but it should definitely be a more socially acceptable preference. Problem is, even people who agree on open relationship often end up being jealous and bitter about it. Jealousy is really hard to get out of the picture no matter what, is it such a strong human emotion.
Holy shit I thought I was the only one. Monogamy is far and away the most toxic force in almost every relationship. It literally does nothing but breed jealousy and suspicion.
No, it isn’t. But I’d say that the enforcement of it most definitely is.
So you don’t like:
Baked goods, Battered foods, Breaded foods, French toast, Ice cream, Marshmallows, Mayonnaise, Meatballs, Nougat, Pancakes or Essentially All Pasta?
Dont run interference for the anti-egg people. Pro egg has been beaten down and persecuted for years- egg is egg. don’t parrot their propaganda.
There’s a pretty distinct difference between eating eggs, and egg being an ingredient
thats anti-egg propaganda. egg is egg! egg is egg! we will not be ‘tossed’ any longer. I just had two soft boiled eggs yesterday with a crossoint and it was the highlight of my day.
add eggs to boiling water, cover remove from heat, 6 minutes, not to firm, not too runny, the perfect eggy
Absolutely this. I don’t mind eggs as an ingredient but straight up eating them is foul.
On the topic, can we please get some savoury brunch options which aren’t completely built around poached or scrambled eggs? Sure you can remove them, but it takes away such a massive percentage of the dish. Even vegan dishes just substitute the egg for a tofu scramble 🤢
I mean I love spicy food but you wouldn’t see me chugging the chili powder.
No they are Eggs
I don’t agree, I’ll wolf down an egg any day, but I respect your opinion
I second this opinion.
deleted by creator
Here is an alternative Piped link(s): https://piped.video/watch?v=cEONDD85LRw&
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I’m open-source, check me out at GitHub.
removed by mod
I lose respect for people when I hear them saying Oh my God. Even more so when English isn’t their first language.
Also the phrase I understand, but - no, you fucking don’t, just admit that you neither agree or understand
Oh my Satan
I think “Devil in hell” is my most commonly used everyday swearing expression
I don’t think I’ve heard that one before.
(albeit not said in English)
Why?
I may have been overexposed with that phrase specifically
I can see that. OMG kind of gets me - the use of the acronym with spoken letters when it’s the same number of syllables as the actual phrase.
How the hell does English being or not being the first language weigh in? Believing it or not, we do have the words for “oh my God” as well!
It’s uncreative and just sounds like aping when that phrase is said in English specifically in everyday conversations that aren’t even English.
So is I understand, but I disagree bc … allowed?
(and an extremely common at that)
That is the biggest factor in my annoyance with it. Can’t come up with anything else, once in a while?
Shit tastes like chocolate compared to how it sounds when thw specific phrase “Oh my god” is dropped in English in a conversation that’s not even in English by people who don’t even have it as their first language.
I’ve reached the point where that phrase just sounds like a poor pop-culture reference than an actual expression.
This is a good one because I can’t even fathom what you’re annoyed about. Except if you’re offended by blasphemy.
I mean, it’s the phrase itself and that I can’t escape hearing it.
I often say versions of stuff myself like “Dear God”, “God in heaven” etc in other languages when I express things and react to stuff.
I cuss and swear like a cocksucking, shiteating dogfucker too in everyday conversations, so I wouldn’t describe myself as crude or offended by stuff. Swearing over here mentions hell and devil a lot, so I’m not a stranger to popping off those ones, either.
It’s just that phrase specifically in English that irks me as boring and unimaginative for being overused everywhere. Throwing that phrase in English during non-English speech just sounds more like aping stuff than a genuine expression. Vanilla is at a quadrillion Scoville scale compared tho the phrase.
Specifically that three-worded phrase. Not “Oh, God” or"My God" - I don’t have anything to say about them. It’s about the whole “Oh, my god” package.
I am sick and tired of hearing that one everywhere I turn or go.
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.
But the truth makes Greta sooo angry.
*it is one of the pieces of the puzzle. It is not renewable and generates trash that lasts thousands of years. It is another tool, and dismissing it is dumb, but it is not a silver bullet, and also isn’t that desirable for the long run.
My only quibble with nuclear power is how irresponsible people are long term. The critical safety failure is always someone incompetent or cutting costs/corners.
Well and that I think distributed generation is more robust. Natural disaster can’t take out power to half a state if there’s energy being generated and stored all over. The means of production in the hands of the consumers.
Statistically nuclear is by far the safest form of power generation. Of course, it would be good to locate it in areas that are not disaster prone. As far as I understand it though, the issue with nuclear is the cost. But in a perfect world we would need something to smooth out the inconsistency of renewables, either battery tech or something like nuclear that you can turn on and off as needed.
Think less Fukushima and more Texas power grid.
And yeah it is safe, but if it becomes unsafe for whichever reason, it becomes really unsafe. I just don’t trust humans to not eventually something stupid.
Well the problem with the Texas power grid is that it exists in the first place. Still, when it comes to safety, you have to multiply how bad it is by the number of people it will affect, and divide by the amount of power generated to get the right picture. There is a media bias towards rare, intense events which causes people to think they are more common than they really are. This explains people’s views on nuclear power, school shootings, terrorism, shark attacks etc.
My views are based on knowing the kind of people who are missing fingers from overriding safety features but they still do it
And what happens in the unlikely event of system collapse? If some major cataclysmic event wiped out the world economy and half the worlds population, what happens when suddenly thousands of nuclear plants are abandoned and melt down world wide? Nuclear is safer in a vacuum, but we don’t exist in a vacuum. Anything that can happen, will eventually happen. Even if those power plants are able to be shut down safely, in a post stable world, the storage of the spent waste would be incredibly problematic as we would no longer have the capacity or knowledge to bury it 4 miles down. I would say that nuclear power is far more risky long term than people give it credit for. We are evaluating it’s risk only based on the present stability and regulations of our current systems. Modern technological stability is really a tiny blip in earths history, we really can’t guarantee a future that will know what to do with spent nuclear waste. Nuclear power is really an all-in bet on our own technological dominance of the future.
I say this as someone that is not against nuclear power, but I think people view it as some sort of quick fix when it just presents it’s own problems. The truth is, you don’t get something for nothing. All energy costs something and that cost should be distributed between several systems and our consumption should be reduced.
Take a look at this video by real engineering. He talks about the future of nuclear power and is quite relevant to your “turn on and off as needed”.
Forgot the Link
Nuclear isn’t just benefits. There are major costs and risks. It’s sad how both sides are so ignorant to the arguments of the other side. And no one is an idiot to came to different conclusions.
I’d like to stick a nuclear rod up your anus.
The risks of nuclear energy are well managed already. Out of all nuclear power plants built to an even remotely modern design, exactly zero have suffered a meltdown, and I don’t see any reason to expect that to change.
That’s not the problem. The problem is that modern nuclear power plants are ludicrously expensive to build. Small modular reactors are cheaper, but they have a serious problem with radioactive waste output.
Well, can you tell me why it would be a good thing?
Tell me why anything should or should not happen without using anthropomorphic reasoning.
Your position is nihilist anti-intelligence, so it has nothing to defend.
If we all die who would take care of our pets?
They die before us
Some will but not all.
I was promised my giant tortoise would live until at least age 200 when I ordered him on amazon
If you really think about it, why should life itself exist at all? The purpose of life is to simply reproduce. Well… what if it didn’t? Nothing, it just wouldn’t exist. It is a bad thing or a good thing?
You can get very philosophical with this one, but I do agree that we humans deserve to fade out. So many atrocities, so much… pain, and all for really stupid reasons.
Funny how people asserting that, continues existing to assert that. I find that very inconsistent.
You’re the one whining about how to bad existing is. Fixing would be more consistent.
Mind you, I think you’re wrong, but at least we would avoid the whining.
I mean, I’m offering you a solution for your pain. But I find absolutely unbearable that you are intent on transmitting your misery and making life worse for everybody else. If you find life unbearable, please do so In silence.
It is difficult to overcome the survival instinct. Being compelled by instinct to continue living is not the same thing as making a conscious decision to continue living.
Yeah, well, that should curtail the holier-than-thou attitude, but curiously it doesn’t.
Forget all the worst atrocities. Think about average people going about their daily lives.
It’s the weekend. You go out and buy some food, some treats, a bottle of wine, some ice tea, some coffee, a new pair of jeans, you have an ice cream, etc. You could drink tap water. You could eat only rice with lentils. You could wear that old pair of trousers, even though they have a hole in them. That would have saved you 100 bucks.
You could have donated that 100 bucks to a charity that saved a child’s life. We all know that 100 dollars goes a long way in the third world. Instead we choose to spend that money on luxuries. You could have volunteered at a local charity. Instead you chose to go shopping. If you saw some kid drowning in a puddle, watched the kid die a preventable death as you were eating an ice cream, that would be evil. We all do that on a daily basis. We know our choices cause suffering, but because that suffering happens far away and we don’t get to see it happen, we happily ignore it. That’s everyone. Some of us are “I’ll sometimes buy an ice cream and let a baby cow get turned into pate” evil. Some of us are “I’ll buy gold toilets while a hundred kids die.” evil. But arguably no one is actually good.
I think the only way to forgive ourselves for our constant daily selfishness and depravity, is to accept that humans aren’t that special. We’re evolved primates. We are animals who act on instinct and lack the empathy or intelligence to ever become truly moral. You might as well expect a jelly fish to sing a ballad. It is not in our nature to become anything better than what we are.
I mean, your argument is “we can’t ever be perfect so we should never even aspire to be good”, which is sortof putting the cart before the horse. That we can even recognize the distinction of not being special already places in a position where we can try and do a little better. What is better, how much, or how? What even is good or morality? All of those questions are at necessity to even define good, let alone become it. Before even glancing at perfect. Sure it might be an eternal inane treadmill, but just as fish have gills to breathe, we by chance of fate have the organs necessary to think. And that’s just as much in our nature. The fish doesn’t consider how long it has to swim, it just does it towards a target it can see/sense. By the same mechanism that means we aren’t special, why shouldn’t, why wouldn’t, we do the same thing? Just because what we can see/sense may be artificial, imagined, or drempt?
Anthropocentrism is good.
I actually agree.
Have kids and love them tremendously but the world is such a clusterfuck that I’m ok if i don’t have grandkids.
We would be the first species on Earth to have ever done so.
Not sure if that’s good or bad. Just thought it’s an interesting point.
Pandas?
I’m not sure they’re doing it intentionally.
There Are many ecosystems that hardly depend on human activity. Fields And cities, but also fragile places as orchid maedows.
In some parts of world (Europe definitelly), these ecosystems evolved right after the end of the last ice age, there was no interregnum of “Wild forests” (with this part I’m not so sure, but if it weren’t true, It doesn’t affect the main argument).
Without humans, these ecosystems would rapidly get destroyed by bushes And forests, part of the manifold world would have gone.And yes, I aknowledge that were destroing these ecosystems too, by industrialized agronomy. And I understand the feeling nature=forests without human disturbing, but it’s simply not the whole picture.
removed by mod
There are a lot of people who don’t have any kids and don’t plan to, so I’m not sure why you think that’s some kind of gotcha.
deleted by creator
Here’s an opinion that’s actually unpopular rather than simply controversial: domestic flights in the UK other than to Northern Ireland (which isn’t on the same island so fair enough) should be forbidden on the grounds their contribution to climate change cannot be justified.
Instead we should renationalise the railways by letting the franchises expire without renewing them and expand their capacity as far as we can. Instead of pissing around with HS2 we fuck the NIMBYs over with an Act of Parliament which they can’t swat away or delay and extend it all the way up to Scotland.
Didn’t France just ban flights between places that are joined by railways? Still needs to fix the growing move to private jets though.
your opinion doesn’t seem to be that unpopular here
The Internet is to open. ISPs should have blocking controls accessable to subscribers.
I mean… There are firewalls for that…
You already have that, in the form of the Windows Defender firewall.
but everything is https so its not like they can really filter it much. idk just seems way easier to block what you want, on the device, as opposed to trying to dismantle the carefully built system of networking
Exactly! Content filtering should be standard with every Internet subscription. Something like OpenDNS https://community.opendns.com/domaintagging/categories
Sadly this would probably only lead to paying more for certain content types.
yeah sure DNS based blocking, I host pihole to do that on my network, but if a device sets an alternate DNS server, I don’t think there’s anything I could do about it.
I don’t really agree that the internet is too open, but I also just don’t think that forced censoring on the ISPs side is possible, simply because of how networking works.
Believe me I wish I could block YouTube ads with a DNS server, but DNS only is for domains, and the ads are from the same domain as the video, and there is no way to decrypt and censor https traffic (without your certificate on the client, but if you can do that then just put censoring in the browser/computer anyway)
and like, if you don’t want kids seeing nsfw stuff or etc, there are DNS servers for that, just set that on the device or in your router for the whole network
Airbags on the whole cause more harm and expense than good.
How do you figure?
I think the statistics are likely incomplete and flawed. At low speeds and for small people, airbags are often more dangerous than the collision that triggered them. Especially the frontal ones that blow up in your face. Broken noses, black eyes, bruises, lacerations.
https://news.uga.edu/more-harm-than-good/
https://www.motortrend.com/features/do-airbags-save-more-lives-than-seatbelts/
Financially airbag deployment tends to total many older or less valuable vehicles even if the rest of the vehicle is sound.
Wearing your seatbelt is the best protection. Seatbelt plus airbag is a bit safer for more serious collisions. Airbags without seatbelts is less safe than no airbags are all. I’m all for seatbelts, less for the big frontal airbags.
I don’t mind tankies that much.
I just don’t mind them that much
Been here a few months. Still not sure what a tankie is.
Tankie is a pejorative label generally applied to communists who express support for one-party communist regimes that are associated with Marxism–Leninism, whether contemporary or historical.
Too many people conflate the evils of corporatism and corruption with the general concept of “capitalism”/a market economy.
Now, I’m hardly an advocate of laissez-faire economics. But I’m not a full-on socialist either. I think the majority of problems people attribute to modern market economies can be corrected with aggressive anti-trust and pro-consumer regulation.
(The keyword here is majority. I’m sure it makes sense to socialize some things, but those details are best left to people smarter than me.)
At least according to my All feed, this is unpopular on Lemmy.
Nah… I think they are way to corrupt to think like this. I do agree with the original comment though.
Matthew McFadyen is a better Mr. Darcy than Colin Firth.
I agree. My wife doesn’t and she’ll make me rewatch the mini series if she hears of this.
Haha, yeah, I don’t agree, but I also really like Dave Rintoul as Darcy… From the old adaptation. So there’s my unpopular opinion. Matthew McFayden will always primarily be the stressed son from “Death at a Funeral” for me.
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.
Most people love their dogs. If you’ve never had a pet you should try a cat. Bonding with a pet changed my life. But I hate people who let dogs off leash or don’t clean up after them.
Upvote because i understand, not because i agree.
My people.
People get dogs because they want something that loves them unconditionally despite their shortcomings. I hear people say cats are “too independent” or getting recommended a dog despite not having the time to train and care for it. Most people are horrible pet owners out of sheer laziness.
If anything it shows how fucked priorities are for the person.
