You must log in or # to comment.
Black liquorice tastes good
Lemmy users project their toxicity towards Reddit. This place can be quite hostile if you don’t echo the ‘correct’ ideals.
Can second this
The Lemmy users who call themselves “Leftists” are garbage human beings. Shitty, hostile, unnecessarily combative, will disagree with you about anything you say even when you’re on the same page.
And most of them aren’t really that left. Trying to talk about abolition of police and prisons is something they would never agree to, even though it’s a fundamentally leftist ideal. They’re just bad people.
Barrage of insults against leftists
Says leftists are insulting
The Lemmy users who call themselves “Leftists” are garbage human beings
And most of them aren’t really that left. Trying to talk about abolition of police and prisons is something they would never agree to
wait, is this a roundabout way of calling yourself a garbage human being?
Most users of those so open source, decentralizing apps are from the USA so, go figure…
Graveyards are a disgusting waste of space. Their existence communicates to society that many dead people are more entitled to space on this Earth than some living people will ever have.
From everything I read in this thread… you won.
Graveyards don’t exist for the dead, they are a place where living people can mourn the loss of the dead person and remember older days.
I realize they’re not really for the dead, but the living decide that their dead bodies are entitled to more space than some living. Plots cost thousands of dollars. We ostracize the unhoused. Our priorities are broken, and graveyards are yet another thing for those “with” that those “without” will not have.
I don’t know. Personally I don’t need a “place” to go visit someone that is deceased, but I have very close family that needs that place in order to grieve. Pets or human family, they need to be buried and have a marker.
When I lived in a more urban environment the only way to achieve that was through graveyards/pet cemeteries. With some land and the option I’d rather bury people at home now, but lots of people don’t have that luxury, but still have the need to “visit” deceased loved ones, and know where they “are.”
I’m not one of those people, sounds like you aren’t either, but that doesn’t mean that a graveyard doesn’t serve a useful purpose for the majority of people.
Could they be more efficient? Sure, maybe. But honestly do they really take up THAT much space?
Definitely fits the unpopular opinion tag, but I think you’ve got some blinders on your empathy if you don’t see their value.
I’m frustrated more people are complacent with the state of the world, including myself.
Everyone should have to retake the driving test (both written and practical) every five years. And if you don’t pass on the first try or are in a crash where you are found at fault, it should be bumped up to every year for the following five years.
People drive dangerously because they’ve forgotten rules, or rules have changed, or they’ve had a physical or cognitive decline. And yet we’re like “yep, you took a test once decades ago, good to go.”
Dangerous driving kills so many people.
I’m guessing they would do this if they could justify the cost to voters. I recall having to wait months for my driving test. Sadly, I have a feeling it’s easier to kick that problem (i.e. accidents) down to someone else’s department. But I’m totally with you. Yesterday I almost got ran over by someone that treated a stop sign like a yield sign.
I prefer rap music by white artists because it’s less likely to feature the N word.
That isn’t just an unpopular opinion, but a very interesting one. Bravo.
Abortion should be mandatory.
People keep arguing over whether abortion should be legal or not, but my opinion is that it should be forced on everyone whether they want it or not. Late term abortions up to 100 years after birth should also be considered for inclusion in this rule.
One of my favourite activities is finding controversial opinions, then taking an opinion so extreme that it makes everyone else look like a centrist.
Kill everyone now, legalise first degree murder, advocate cannibalism, eat shit!
But where would we scrape up the funding?
That’s a good argument for including very late term abortion. Inheritance tax.
Jeez, this thread is scary, I forget how many crazy opinions people can have.
Mine is probably that non-human animal lives matter, maybe not exactly in the same way that human lives do, but in a comparable and important way. I believe that murder is murder no matter the animal killed.
And also a maybe close second (not really an opinion but you could argue that I’m too dark about it) is that climate change is far past the point of no return and that in 50 years we are all going to live extremely hard lives (if we even survive) that right now would seem like an apocalypse type fantasy movie.
Climate change is not a lost cause. We are beating any estimates on wind and solar deployment, solar is cheap as fuck, and overall, were just no that bad off.
The Beatles suck.
The Eagles are not as amazing as everyone thinks.I didn’t really like the Beatles until I started listening to all the non-#1 hit songs.
Me and my GF both agree that Beatles songs are fantastic… when performed by people who aren’t the Beatles.
I enjoyed the music in the film “Yesterday (2019)” muuuuuch more than i enjoyed the original versions.
Maybe it’s the 60s style of it, idk. I just don’t really get along with it
Agree in principle. Haven’t seen Yesterday, but Across the Universe soundtrack is my go to Beatles cover album.
Becoming a parent is not a right, it is a privilege (I guess). You need a license to get married, drive, hunt or fish, your dog needs one. There should be some sort of class and background check you must pass before being allowed to procreate. Just the basics like: this is the level of care and support this small helpless mammal needs to be healthy and grow to maturity. This is how much, minimum, that quality upbringing will cost and do you meet that bare minimum level of competence and income to raise a healthy baby.
The problem is that then you need the government’s permission to procreate. There’s always the valid concern that the government would prevent you from having children to remove some undesirable trait from the population and justify it as being a danger to a child. I know you described basic competency skills, but there would always exist a very credible threat of it being politicized.
In fact, this already happens for things like queer couples being rejected for adopting children or the Uyghur population being quietly genocided in China. And Eugenics was historically practiced such that criminals would be sterilized as part of their punishment.
It’s worth pointing out that governments already intervene with unqualified parents by removing the child from the household. Shifting the burden of proof from the government needing to show neglect to parents needing to prove themselves worthy is a dangerous amount of authority to cede to a centralized, corruptible power.
Also, it’s not clear how you handle unlicensed parents. People are going to have unsafe sex no matter how illegal you make it. Would you push for preemptively sterilizing everyone and trusting it can be reversed after a license is acquired? Forcing abortions? Confiscating the child after birth?
This is an extremely popular opinion among those who’ve not unpacked that what you’re describing is eugenics
It is not, at all, eugenics. Nothing in my unpopular opinion has anything to do with genetic traits
whatever metrics you use to decide who gets to procreate, you will certainly bias the gene pool. That’s eugenics
Also the amount of effort and wealth expended by the medical profession just so that some people can reproduce is mind boggling.
I feel like the problem with this argument is that it’s consequentialist. You can never be 100% certain which parents will raise their children well. There’s no metric that will conclusively tell you.
But you can start them off on the right foot by making sure they have the knowledge and the means to do the job correctly
Who decides who can pro-create? What is the criteria?
I don’t see a scenario where this works out well.
I laid out some bare minimums: knowledge about how to take care of and raise a healthy human child and the financial means to do so.
In the United States, political violence has ensured overrepresentation of minority populations below the poverty line. Requireing the financial means to have a child thereby limits minority procreation.
To address this, a universal basic income as well as a stipend for parents would be necessary. In the US, this is far away from ever happening, eere actively moving in the opposite direction. Mandatory birth control in this country is eugenics.
How tf does this shitty reply have 17 upvotes? How the fuck did 17 COMPLETE IDIOTS show that and though: “Hmmm… He is right!”
Like, hw stupid can you all be? Who’s going to decide? Obvious professionals who know of kids and have worked with them. Social workers, pedopsychiatrist, teachers, etc.
This isn’t even something new. This is how it’s done with adoption. You can’t all be so ignorant and dumb. I hate democracy because of idiots like you…
Are you that blind to the world? Do you really look at something like… The Trump administration, and think “Like, hw stupid can you all be? Who’s going to decide? Obvious professionals who know of kids and have worked with them. Social workers, pedopsychiatrist, teachers, etc.”.
Very clearly professionals and the people who have the best in mind are not the ones who are chosen by those in power. Get real, truly pathetic take
Thinking that Trump and your shitty country is the only one in the world is pathetic to say the least. Nothing will work in your country (and I’m not talking just about kids but in general) but that doesn’t mean it won’t work in other countries as well 🤦♂️
Challenge: USAns not be the dumbest nation on this planet for one day (impossible)
Lmao, not an American, but let’s use… Germany as an example. In the 2025 elections, the AFD (hard right fascists) doubled their seat count in parliament. I don’t think you have a solid understanding of how bad eugenics can get, or how it actually would take effect in a modern world. Actually, it seems you don’t understand much of anything.
I mean I guess not every aspect of eugenics was bad per se, but I’m not so sure about this level of social control.
Protecting children from been born into terrible families is not social control.
If you want to have a system which determines which people will or won’t make terrible families, only permitting the former to reproduce, you want a system of social control. If children were delivered randomly by storks it would be something else. Aviation regulations? Avian regulations? Something like that I guess.
Not all social control is bad. Society and its institutions often limit what people can do. But of late we’ve mostly determined that restricting reproduction should be used sparingly, not defaultly, and I tend to agree.
For all the reasons others have described, this is problematic. However, I propose a middle ground: develop permanent, reversible, side-effect-free birth control, and apply it to every child at 10 years old. When you turn 18, you can have it removed. You just need to show up at a government office, sign a form, and have the procedure completed. It is completely free, and you are out the door in an hour. The treatment can be reapplied at any time.
What happens? No more accidental pregnancies. No more getting knocked up in high school. No more scares after one night stands. No more becoming impregnated by a rapist. Everyone can fuck to their heart’s content, but babies only get made if both people actually want a baby. Most of the problems you are talking about typically occur when either one or both of the parents don’t want or weren’t expecting a child. Make pregnancy opt-in, and you’ll solve 90% of the problems.
That’s not middle ground. That BS! And it doesn’t even have anything to do with what OP said. It just prevents pregnancy.
For fuck’s sake, I know people think differently and I try to accept and respect that but, some of you make me really wonder how tf we can think SO differently…
It is a basic biological function so you could say pooping is a privilege too.
I am not worried about helping people poop better
Great idea except for the part where this is eugenics
Eugenics is trying to erase particular traits from a genome which is not, at all, what I stated in my unpopular opinion. I just would like people who are wanting (or whoopsing) a child into the world to have the bare minimum knowledge and tools to do the job “correctly.”
I find it difficult to respect the way we exist in society. Most of us in the west enjoy what we have because someone elsewhere is being exploited. The general pride and vanity we have is unjustified and we should be using that power for good instead. We are focused on the
rightwrong things.You could say that this opinion isn’t unpopular, but just try bringing it up in conversation. Many don’t want to know.
That’s not unpopular at all yet, highly hypocritical. “Feeling bad” is just a way to feel like you’re giving something back, without actually helping.
If we feel good about it, we’re primed to continue the dark pattern. The first step is acknowledging the problem. If you remove the first step, subsequent steps can’t happen.
I get where you’re coming from. I see land acknowledgements used in colonies like NZ, Canada and USA yet treaties remain broken. I think (IMO) the answer is “all the things” rather than some. But we’re not even shuffling the deck yet as a population so making first steps accessible is important in my own experience. Too much in one go and peoples eyes glaze over.
Suicide is perfectly acceptable and should be a right, we should all have the choice of when we want to go. Some pain, physical or emotional is too much, or loss can be too great.
I don’t care if I could or can get better, I should be able to down some hemlock and leave.
Talk about a relevant username!
I’m with you.
Many years ago I read a sci-fi story about a society where crimes are punished by extending your life (which is dreary in some way - I don’t remember). The protagonist keeps committing suicide but being brought back to life by advanced medical technology and punished with more time to live.
In the end, he manages to completely destroy his body, so the state takes a cell from an old blood test, clones the person from it, and adds the punishment to the clone.
That story stayed with me since then. It really shed light on the point of view that not wanting to live can be natural and forcing people to live in pain can be very cruel.
I think 10 years ago this would’ve been unpopular, but today maybe not so much:
systemdis great software. I don’t use distros that refuse to ship it. Especially the init system. Thanks, Lennart!too many dudes in this thread thinking eugenics and pedophilia are unpopular. They’re very popular and that’s a very bad thing
If you eat factory meat, you’re doing something morally wrong that can’t be justified.
And the vast majority of people who get defensive about that, deep down know what they are doing is morally dubious at best, but they can’t/won’t admit it, so they lash out at vegans/vegetarians instead.
There’s something to be said about the ease of access and personal energy needed to deal with changing a diet that has been inherited by birth where the alternative is possibly much more expensive. I don’t blame individuals who eat cheap meat out of necessity just as I don’t blame people for not recycling since the responsibility of the exploitation and destruction of our planet lies entirely with the people who run the machine, not those who are forced under threat of violence to exist inside it.
Fair, however a balanced vegetarian diet is as cheap or cheaper than a cheap meat centric diet, and certainly healthier.
A can of beans is about a dollar, less depending on where you shop. Potatoes are a few dollars a bag, and for most people, a bag of large russets would last them several days if not a week. Same for leafy greens, frozen fruit and veggies, bags of rice, etc.
I agree that there can be other factors, but impoverished communities around the world for centuries have lived on staple foods like those.
I think some personal responsibility is necessary still. Sure the megacorps are the ones doing the most harm and push people to be more consumerist, but that doesn’t absolve people of all their personal autonomy, otherwise you justify all kinds of “just following orders” arguments.
We ought to still resist the corpos and try to live our lives in ways that are better for the world as a whole. Sure, me recycling cans and trying to buy local isn’t going to save the planet, but that doesn’t mean I should just throw litter around in the street and buy everything from Amazon and Walmart.
this just isn’t true.
Guess what, most if not all veggies and vegans are also doing something morally dubious at best.
Factory farming, extensive farming, they’re all bad for the soil, bad for native wildlife, bad for native plants. The societal impacts of factory farming are also not small. In the end, the moral lines people draw are mostly at different places, neither is undoubtedly better than the other.
As it currently stands, the morally correct option for food production would probably be for a large amount of the population to starve. That, of course, is also not entirely morally correct.
Disclaimer: I am personally omnivorous. I have a son and many other relatives and friends who are or were vegetarians or vegans. I love a lot of veggie food and used to frequent vegan restaurants, so I have absolutely zero qualms with it.
I have personally tried to give up meat twice, once for 6 months and once for a year. On both cases my health suffered massively for it, and I went back to eating meat. I had a cousin who was, for many years, a hardcore vegetarian. She was also of the opinion that eating meat was wrong. A few years ago she reintroduced fish in her diet to overcome health issues after fighting them for years. Most symptoms subsided in a handful of months. I believe she now also eats beef, although infrequently and in small quantities.
I’m sorry to be that guy but reality is more complex than whatever moral line any one of us would like to draw. You’re not wrong but it would behoove you to acquire some nuance on your thoughts.
There are a lot of calories lost when eating meat, because the animals burn calories by staying alive. So eating meat is like eating 15x times more calories from veggies. So everything bad for the environment about vegetarian consumption is true for meat too but in worse.
And perfect is the enemy of good. Veggies aren’t perfect, but they’re far better than meat for the environment.
Some of those are useless calories, we can’t eat grass and on some lands where only grass grows so cows are a way of using that grass, but that’s not the majority.
most of what animals are fed are parts of plants people can’t or won’t eat, or grazed grass. in that way, we are conserving resources.
This is not true. The vast majority of farmed animals come from high intensity operations and the vast bulk of the food they eat is grown agriculturally. This is one of those happy little lies people repeat to themselves without verifying because it provides them with a shred of moral license. They don’t really care whether it’s true or not and finding out it is false won’t change their behaviour, it’s a totally facile argument.
the vast bulk of the food they eat is grown agriculturally.
sure, but I can’t eat cornstalks and I don’t want to eat soy cake, so feeding that to livestock is a conservation of resources.
Where are you getting your information?
The majority of all the plants that humans grow are fed to livestock. That’s just the fact of the matter. It’s not conserving anything, rather it’s incredibly wasteful. Human food crops could have been grown instead, on a fraction of the land.
And again, you don’t really give a shit. It wouldn’t change your behaviour to discover you are mistaken, it’s a disingenuous argument. It’s sophistry.
Human food crops could have been grown instead, on a fraction of the land.
human food crops are grown. soy is a great example. about 80% of soy is pressed for oil, and the byproduct is fed to livestock.
The majority of all the plants that humans grow are fed to livestock.
this is a lie
That’s exactly what I wrote
no, you said those calories are wasted.
Read more than the first sentence please
“Some of those are useless calories, we can’t eat grass and on some lands where only grass grows so cows are a way of using that grass, but that’s not the majority.”
most people don’t want to eat soy cake, or crop seconds, or spoilage. feeding that to livestock is a conservation of resources, not a waste.
Large amounts of the population starving is not the morally correct option. Eating meat is many times more inefficient for resources used than eating plants. The infrastructure needed to sustainably mass farm vegetables for the whole world would be far less resource intensive than our current omnivorous factory farming system.
Your personal anecdote, assuming it’s true is completely included in my original critique. I specified factory farmed meat as the problem. I am fine with sustainable hunting if that’s your only option, because it requires genuine effort by the hunter, and it provides a generally less painful death for the animal vs what they would experience out in nature from any other predator. Also, there are some people who have medical situations where eating zero meat does cause them some issues. That being said, it’s a very small percentage of the population, and I suspect many folks (not necessarily you) are lying or mistaken that their health suffered when they gave up meat. Most of the time, it’s because they simply weren’t eating a balanced diet.
Eating less meat is better than eating more meat. Something is better than nothing, it’s good to cut down on meat consumption, even if you aren’t cutting it out completely.
Nothing we do is perfect, even the most hardcore vegan has slapped a mosquito or patronized a business that uses fossil fuels, etc. But it’s about trying to be better. Trying to equate the harms of the meat industry to harms that vegetarians/vegans cause is like trying to equate Ted Bundy with a kid who cheated on their math homework. Sure both did something bad, but one of those bad things is far more severe.
And as my personal anecdote: I am not vegan, I’m vegetarian. I get attacked by more hardcore vegans for eating honey and eggs. I have cut down my consumption of both, I drink almost exclusively non-dairy milk, and I bike and use public transport when I am able. But I’m not perfect, not possible to be.
As it currently stands, the morally correct option for food production would probably be for a large amount of the population to starve. That, of course, is also not entirely morally correct.
Considering almost 1.5 billion adults in the world are overweight it wouldn’t be so bad to let some people starve.
Guess what, most if not all veggies and vegans are also doing something morally dubious at best. Factory farming, extensive farming, they’re all bad for the soil, bad for native wildlife, bad for native plants. The societal impacts of factory farming are also not small. In the end, the moral lines people draw are mostly at different places, neither is undoubtedly better than the other.
Animals needs to eat and drink too, the meat industry has the highest tool on the farming industry.
I have personally tried to give up meat twice, once for 6 months and once for a year. On both cases my health suffered massively for it, and I went back to eating meat. I had a cousin who was, for many years, a hardcore vegetarian. She was also of the opinion that eating meat was wrong. A few years ago she reintroduced fish in her diet to overcome health issues after fighting them for years. Most symptoms subsided in a handful of months. I believe she now also eats beef, although infrequently and in small quantities. I’m sorry to be that guy but reality is more complex than whatever moral line any one of us would like to draw. You’re not wrong but it would behoove you to acquire some nuance on your thoughts.
It sound like your diet was off, if you don’t eat animal products you need valid alternatives to complete and balance your diet. In cultures shaped around animal products it may not be automatic or easy to find alternatives. Our ancestors diet for example had less meat and more lentils, in countries were they consume less meat you are most likely to find popular dish with other proteins sources.
Considering almost 1.5 billion adults in the world are overweight it wouldn’t be so bad to let some people starve.
You are fucked in the head.
Guess what, most if not all veggies and vegans are also doing something morally dubious at best.
Care to elaborate? Like are you saying that there is something inherently wrong about veganism or are you saying that vegans are not perfect people and also commit bad acts?
If it’s the first, you need some serious evidence and explanations since scientifically it is established that veganism is healthier, better for the environment, produces more calories per land, water and energy usage, and of course, the animals get to live free of torture.
If it’s the second option, well yeah, no one is perfect. We should all do our best to improve, I wasn’t born a vegan but once I understood what I was doing I stopped it, and it was hard and I had some fallbacks, but eventually I got used to it and had no issues. This is not just about veganism, there are many things in my life that at somepoint I came to understand that they were wrong, and I changed myself to be better. People can do both good and bad things, but if they are aware of the bad stuff and choose to ignore it, that’s when they become bad people.
A simple example from my past is that when I was younger (kid to teen) I thought “nig&er” was just a word for a black person, it was only when a black person explained it to me that I understood the historical and cultural significance of it. Does the fact that I said nig&er made me a bad person? I don’t think so, but if I ignored what I had learned and continued? Yeah, I think that would have been bad.
Amazing how many plants rights advocates pop up every time someone mentions the cruelty and violence being endured by farm animals. And no other time.
