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@lemmy.sdf.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    56
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    3 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.

  • frozen@lemmy.frozeninferno.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    27
    ·
    edit-2
    3 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

    • Vlyn@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      3 years ago

      I totally get that, same here.

      But ultimately you can’t just blame people. There is literally an entire industry trying to sell you cheap carbs and fat. Down to the sound a bag of chips makes when you open it (this is not a joke).

      So on one hand you have evolution, your body still being stuck in the past where food was scarce. On the other hand you have too much food and it’s highly engineered to be addicting on purpose.

      It’s no surprise most people are going to lose that challenge.

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

      I’ve since dropped this position because the world has changed, and so has my view. Heart Disease kills more people than anything, and now we effectively have a cure for obesity. Obesity should now be seen as smallpox or polio - something to be eradicated. No excuses, and now they’re actively limiting the supply of this - forcing more product out of the hands that need it and into the hands of people like musk

    • GreenMario@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      3 years ago

      Sure.

      But that doesn’t mean go out and harass fat people. Trust me we fucking know. You can’t lose weight instantly. Some of us may actually be working on it.

      Also fat people have the right to be happy. People hating on “happy at any size” is just being assholes for the sake of it.

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

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

  • CheeseBread@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    25
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    3 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

    • gamermanh@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      3 years ago

      Not understanding what words mean isn’t an unpopular opinion, you’re just wrong

      Not about the first bit, that’s arguable

      You definitely DO need more labels than straight, gay, and bi. For example: asexual or sapiosexual, those don’t fit into any of the 3 you listed

      • Throwaway@lemm.eeBanned
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        3 years ago

        Sapiosexual means you have a preference for smart people. Its not a sexuality.

    • Wirlocke@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      As a pansexual I feel that Bi and Pan have enough differences to both be justified while the others are micro labels (not invalid, just less useful as labels).

      But I recognize I’m drawing that line very conveniently for myself.

    • CeruleanRuin@lemmings.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Here’s an unpopular opinion: you don’t need any labels at all. You love who you live, you fuck who you fuck, you can advertise what you’re looking for if you want to but all this identity business obscures the reality that humans are far more diverse and interesting than the boxes we build for ourselves.

      Most people who call themselves straight would fuck someone from their own gender if there weren’t cultural expectations against it hammered into them from and early age. Most people who call themselves gay would wander if they found someone they connected with. Very few of us rest at one end of any spectrum or matrix. Most of us are somewhere in the middle, and far more mobile than we might realize.

    • Treefox@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      3 years ago

      I agree. All the little bitty addages don’t make sense. You can be bi and still have preferences. Just keep it simple gosh dangit.

      • June@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        3 years ago

        I think there’s value for folks in the community to have the hyper-specific labels. I’m saying this as a bi person who agrees that pan, Omni, etc are sub categories of bi.

    • Tiefling IRL@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Polysexual is very different than bisexual. You can be het-poly or homo-poly.

      Also, most of the nuanced micro-labels are for the community. If they don’t apply to you, don’t use them.

      • CheeseBread@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        Polyamory isn’t a sexuality. It’s a dating preference. Most of these labels do apply to me, and I think they’re redundant.

    • cosmicsoup@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      3 years ago

      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.

      • ougi@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        3 years ago

        Is that really what you thought, or just an attempt at humor? Be honest ;)

    • doggle@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      3 years ago

      If we’re splitting hairs, bi should be a sunset of pan.

      Also, there is some need for a fourth “none of the above” label…

  • Thorny_Thicket@sopuli.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    24
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    3 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.

  • jsveiga@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    21
    ·
    3 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
    20
    ·
    3 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.

  • eddy@infosec.pub
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    17
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    3 years ago

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

  • Lettuce eat lettuce@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    15
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    3 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.

  • loffiz@feddit.nl
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    11
    ·
    3 years ago

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

  • shrugal@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    11
    ·
    3 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
      ·
      3 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
        3 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
      1
      ·
      3 years ago

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

    • untakenusername@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      11 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

  • christophski@feddit.uk
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    3 years ago

    Not having kids because of climate change is stupid. You are leaving the world in the hands of people who care less than you.

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

      I’ll be dead before then and if I don’t make offspring then so will anyone I care about. Y’all have fun destroying the planet lol

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

      Counter opinion… Given the terrible trajectory of our world and society as a whole. Plus how every living generation has failed to do even the bear minimum to solve it… You’re kind of a shitty human being by condemning your children to suffer our mistakes.

      Not to mention, you’re not that awesome and ultimately part of the problem, so maybe we don’t need more of you (or me for that matter).

      • christophski@feddit.uk
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        3 years ago

        My parents put me on this world which is on the trajectory it is, I do not blame them. At least I have the opportunity to do good in the world.

    • BorgDrone@lemmy.one
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 years ago

      But the leading cause of climate change is overpopulation.

      There were 3 billion humans on this planet in 1960. There are 8 billion humans right now. And all those humans are producing waste, using energy, etc.

      Even if we reduce the per-capita ecological footprint, we’re outbreeding the gains we make.

    • argv_minus_one@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      3 years ago

      If I were to choose to have kids despite climate change, doesn’t that prove that I don’t care about climate change?