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
    3
    ·
    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.

    • Shdwdrgn@mander.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 years ago

      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).

  • loffiz@feddit.nl
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    2 years ago

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

  • CheeseBread@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    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

  • Lettuce eat lettuce@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    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.

  • Blaze@discuss.tchncs.de
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    2 years ago

    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.

  • rbesfe@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    2 years ago

    Dismissing social norms because they’re “only social constructs” is ridiculous, because all social constructs are a product of our biological brains. Gender norms exist because sex chromosomes affect brain chemistry, not because some evil global patriarchy cabal in 200,000 B.C decided they should.

  • shrugal@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    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
      1
      ·
      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.

  • Sombyr@lemmy.one
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    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.

  • Fisk400@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    2 years ago

    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.

    • usualsuspect191@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 years ago

      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?

      • Fisk400@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 years ago

        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.

  • Duamerthrax@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    2 years ago

    Long distance vacations are irresponsible and selfish. We don’t have the resources left to be wasting it on frivolous activities.

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

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

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

  • kava@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    2 years ago

    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.

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

      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.

  • Lauchs@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    2 years ago

    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.)

  • Thorny_Thicket@sopuli.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    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.