Other Unpopular Opinions

Status
Not open for further replies.
I think it's more respectful that you don't take a deceased family member's corpse without consent and start experimenting with it all willy nilly.
 
My unpopular opinion?

I'm a teenager and on the more conservative side (more Republican) ^^;​
 
Axel The Englishman said:
I think it's more respectful that you don't take a deceased family member's corpse without consent and start experimenting with it all willy nilly.
Click to expand...
Well obviously you have to get consent first, but it needs to be from the person before they die, not their family. All I'm saying is that it's silly not to give your body to science. There is no reason not to.
 
Kind of unpopular opinion among feminists, but I actually really don't like the "People of colour" title. It too much reminds me of a joke I heard;
"I care about equal rights - Whether you're black, asian, hispanic, or normal." Weirdly othering, I think.
 
Being sore is a great feeling.

You're not automatically intelligent because you like to read. I love to read, but I don't think I'm any more capable than someone who doesn't.

Judging anyone based on sexuality, gender, or race is idiotic and petty. It's easy to lose respect for people who sincerely think someone's opinions and emotions are invalid based on those aspects.

There's nothing wrong with having a fetish as long as it doesn't harm others, or without their consent.

I don't like the Matrix movies, they're pretty shit.

I don't see anything wrong with "emos" and "goths" still being a thing. I'll admit a few people within that spectrum can be a bit cringy to say the least, but it's not everyone.

Exercise is enjoyably once you get into the groove of it, and can be addicting.

A lot of "unpopular" opinions aren't actually that unpopular. Just like mine.
 
-Reality TV is pointless. Is watching dumb rich people fight really that entertaining?

-Newsies (Broadway version) is the best musical and no one can tell me otherwise.

-Seriously, Americans need to start walking and biking instead of driving, at least for short distance ventures. Not being able to afford a car is the #3 reason why I'm still skinny.

-Just because somthing is overrated doesn't mean it's necessarily bad. Hamilton is overrated, but I still love it.

-Suburban areas are Hell. Big cities are the way to go.

-Guinea pigs are cuter than hamsters. A lot cuter.
 
People I hate:
-Feminists
-Communists (Should actually consider self-euthanization if you're one of these, makes America's job easier)
-Liberals In America
-Hillary "delete the truth" Clinton
-Illegals
-Liberals again (Basically the root source of all problems in modern America.)
-Antifa (Ironically are the fascists in America, more so than actual neo-nazis)
-BLM ("Some thug got killed? Let's burn our already impovished neighborhood down! That'll show the white man!!" = logic i guess? Funny thing I heard is that BLM burned more buildings at ferguson than the KKK did in nearly half a decade. Not to justify what the KKK did but it's still funny.)
-Europeans
-ISIS
-Islamic terrorists in general
-Chinese people and their horrible spying tactics

People I like:
-Conservatives
-Pro 2nd amendment
- Pro free speech
- Capitalists
- Military members
- Americans
- President Trump (All hail the God emperor)
- Commie killers

Yup that's it
 
The wage gap is simply the average earnings of men and women working full time. It does not account for different job rankings/positions, hours worked, or different jobs altogether. It has nothing to do with neither inequality nor discrimination. Furthermore, if it was truly, legally able to pay woman less, then surely all firms, companies and businesses would hire women rather than men. I see a lot of women enrolling into Gender Studies courses, which do not secure much jobs, so maybe that's why they earn less.

I hate the 'wage gap' thing that I keep seeing in freedomland.
 
When America was literally founded by Europeans and every white person in America has European ancestry.

kill me please
 
Lindah said:
The wage gap is simply the average earnings of men and women working full time. It does not account for different job rankings/positions, hours worked, or different jobs altogether. It has nothing to do with neither inequality nor discrimination. Furthermore, if it was truly, legally able to pay woman less, then surely all firms, companies and businesses would hire women rather than men. I see a lot of women enrolling into Gender Studies courses, which do not secure much jobs, so maybe that's why they earn less.

I hate the 'wage gap' thing that I keep seeing in freedomland.
Click to expand...
*rubs hands together*
https://www.bls.gov/cps/cpsaat39.pdf Stats from the Bureau of Labor. The study that I think you're talking about here was the first research into the wage gap at all, which was literally just a comparison between men and women in terms of median annual income. Since then there has been more research in an attempt to find out why women earn less.
To your hiring more women point, I have a few things to say about that:
1. It relies on the claim being the legal ability to pay women less, which is somewhat true but I think misleading without further explanation. It's a pretty simple thing to take into account: Pay negotiations. Most occupations don't have a flat pay that everyone takes, they overwhelmingly have the ability for pay raises and bonuses to encourage productivity. The problem is that someone can have their attempts for a raise denied, and it's difficult to prove it was discrimination. But that's under the assumption it was malicious, or that it was the employer's fault.
There's other studies that have looked into the behaviours of men and women regarding negotiations, finding that men were more likely to argue for a higher pay and a much higher pay when they do in comparison to women. Now before someone goes "Ah-hah! Pay-gap refuted," no. Because with the continuing build-up of explaining the pay-gap, you still have to explain why women do those things. In this study, it gave one possibility of gender roles and public pressure discouraging such things. I'm not arguing you should agree with this though, because the study was not on whether or not this claim was true. It was just trying to propose some possibilities.

2. As you kind of touched on in that last sentence, men and women don't go into the same jobs. A company can't hire exclusively women if there's mostly men in those types of occupations. But again, one has to explain why that happens.

Since the first study there has been a lot of information and theories. Even conservatives are recognizing the pay gap, though they try giving it an explanation that doesn't include sexism. Things like instincts to explain behaviour, pregnancy explaining the lack of end-career earnings, the employer being less likely to hire women or promote women because of the pregnancy threat. Regardless of why you think it exists, I think the evidence is quite clear that a pay gap is there.
(I have a wireless keyboard that's bugging out and I type fast, so there's likely to be some mistakes in there.)
 
The Gunrunner said:
1. Pay negotiations. Most occupations don't have a flat pay that everyone takes, they overwhelmingly have the ability for pay raises and bonuses to encourage productivity. The problem is that someone can have their attempts for a raise denied, and it's difficult to prove it was discrimination. But that's under the assumption it was malicious, or that it was the employer's fault. There's other studies that have looked into the behaviours of men and women regarding negotiations, finding that men were more likely to argue for a higher pay and a much higher pay when they do in comparison to women, but you still have to explain why women do those things. In this study, it gave one possibility of gender roles and public pressure discouraging such things.
Click to expand...
From the above, I understood that women are weak in the pay negotiating tycoon field because of gender roles and public pressure. Then it isn't systematical sexism in the markets. Instead, it's just social awkwardness, it's just societal pressure. It has nothing to do with legal laws and or bills allowing for less pay towards women. There is an earnings gap, but it isn't due to sexism, prejudice, the law, bills, legislations, etc.
sss.PNG
Those 2016 women might actually see their median weekly earnings be higher if they had the same amount of workers as the 2016 men, and had said workers concentrated specifically more towards the risky jobs than not. Economists have long found that more dangerous jobs pay higher average wages than safer jobs. And the 20 jobs with the highest occupational fatality rates, tracked by the same Bureau of Labor Statistics, are on average 93% male. McDonalds cashiers doesn't earn more than electricians.

But every type of degree (associates, bachelors, masters, doctorate) favours females at the moment. Yet despite earning the majority of college degrees, as an example only 20% of engineering degrees are women. Graduate degrees are awarded to women almost 2/3rds of the time. Men, too, are in actuality doing less well in school these days. So women receiving less education quality or opportunities is, in turn, false.
The Gunrunner said:
I think the evidence is quite clear that a pay gap is there.
Click to expand...
But yeah, I do actually acknowledge that there is a clear gap. From my post, I put quotation marks around the 'wage gap', quoting the ridiculous side, the mythical side. I'm not actually debunking the entirety of it as fake, but rather merely those ridiculous claims, such as the 77cents to 1 dollar thing, pinksourcing, etc. If you really could pay women less for doing the same work, pinksourcing would be commonplace. If you really could pay women just 77 cents on the dollar, companies would have ridiculously high incentives to hire more women. But we can still find, meet and greet male waiters, teachers and such!

That gap is much smaller. Still there, but much smaller, and had decreased significantly for decades. To perpetuate all those myths is like beating a dead horse, as escalating them only serve to do more harm than good. 2016 was scary.
 
The Son said:
When America was literally founded by Europeans and every white person in America has European ancestry.

kill me please
Click to expand...

Ok it's not so much Europeans as it is their globalist governments. They're fucked anyways though so it really doesn't matter. They dug their own grave when they started letting migrants in.
 
Maverick Tenshi said:
Ok it's not so much Europeans as it is their globalist governments. They're fucked anyways though so it really doesn't matter. They dug their own grave when they started letting migrants in.
Click to expand...
Didn't have much choice, if we're being honest. They were coming up anyways. I feel kinda sorry for them.
 
Lindah said:
From the above, I understood that women are weak in the pay negotiating tycoon field because of gender roles and public pressure. Then it isn't systematical sexism in the markets. Instead, it's just social awkwardness, it's just societal pressure. It has nothing to do with legal laws and or bills allowing for less pay towards women. There is an earnings gap, but it isn't due to sexism, prejudice, the law, bills, legislations, etc.
Click to expand...
Correct to it not being systematic sexism - I agree with this anyway. However, social sexism is a thing as well. Living in a democratic country with a representative form of law and the 'wiggle rooms' in the workplace pay, social discrimination is important as well. I'd argue just as important.

View attachment 347660
Those 2016 women might actually see their median weekly earnings be higher if they had the same amount of workers as the 2016 men, and had said workers concentrated specifically more towards the risky jobs than not. Economists have long found that more dangerous jobs pay higher average wages than safer jobs. And the 20 jobs with the highest occupational fatality rates, tracked by the same Bureau of Labor Statistics, are on average 93% male. McDonalds cashiers doesn't earn more than electricians.
Click to expand...
If the study just gave the total, then you would be on to something. However, it breaks down the different occupations as well. You'll find that nearly all of them have women earning less, even when they outnumber men. The two exceptions I see are teaching assistant and counselor.
Even with what you're talking about here with the median being higher, that would only be the case if those fewer women are earning less money. Yes, a median with fewer testees can shuffle around more than what's true, but it's not shuffling around - It's consistently showing a lower pay.
Level of danger, number of people willing to take the job, and the skill requirement. That's why doctors and lawyers earn more than soldiers. Easier to be one than the other (though I don't mean to say being a soldier is easy.)
Your ending point is, I think, in supporting an argument against the /total/ in the study. Again, this is flawed because it's responding to it like it has the same issue as the first gender study that was ever made - It doesn't. Each occupation has its own separate layer of data with an overall specification of what type of worker. Thus, what you're pointing out isn't relevant here.

But every type of degree (associates, bachelors, masters, doctorate) favours females at the moment. Yet despite earning the majority of college degrees, as an example only 20% of engineering degrees are women. Graduate degrees are awarded to women almost 2/3rds of the time. Men, too, are in actuality doing less well in school these days. So women receiving less education quality or opportunities is, in turn, false.
Click to expand...
I've heard of this before, and I have two things I'd like to say:
1. Could I get a citation? I'm not trying to say or suggest what you're saying is false, but I'm getting specifics now and I'd like to see the information for myself.
2. As an immediate guess, since you bring up that only 20% of engineering degrees are held by women, I wonder if enough women are taking easier degrees that the numbers come across that way. Dunno, just an immediate thought.
I don't think I brought anything up about women receiving less education quality. If you're saying it isn't sexism then I suppose this is one area where you're kind of arguing against social expectations, but then I see "20% of engineering degrees are women," and wonder why there aren't more women going for those degrees. Sure, if a woman dabs on them haters then I think she'll make it through like a man. However, it's possible that there's quite a lot more dabbing that needs to be done.

But yeah, I do actually acknowledge that there is a clear gap. From my post, I put quotation marks around the 'wage gap', quoting the ridiculous side, the mythical side. I'm not actually debunking the entirety of it as fake, but rather merely those ridiculous claims, such as the 77cents to 1 dollar thing, pinksourcing, etc. If you really could pay women less for doing the same work, pinksourcing would be commonplace. If you really could pay women just 77 cents on the dollar, companies would have ridiculously high incentives to hire more women. But we can still find, meet and greet male waiters, teachers and such!

That gap is much smaller. Still there, but much smaller, and had decreased significantly for decades. To perpetuate all those myths is like beating a dead horse, as escalating them only serve to do more harm than good. 2016 was scary.
Click to expand...
Sure. I know there are people who think it's institutional, and if I didn't make it clear enough I don't agree with them. Personally I think it's unfair social pressures and how they relate to pay negotiations once in their occupation, and social pressures discouraging certain jobs. Hell, existence of a wage gap may not even be the fault of the employer. I don't really know enough about the social aspect of this stuff though, and that would mean shifting through quite a bit of data in all of the areas where male and female expectations vary. I think it's pretty obvious that gender expectations and roles exist, but I can't argue much into how far it reaches. However, one may argue the gap is instinctive. Honestly they're the only two possibilities I can fathom, as they're the only that's been presented to me: "It's natural" or "It's society." With the first, there's no sexism - it's just women being women. With the second, they're doing what they're doing because of the culture they're in. I'm bringing this up because pointing out that women take this instead of this doesn't mean anything unless you're also trying to figure out why that is. This is also partly why I'm against 'The wage gap is a myth,' because... well... it isn't, for one - It exists, but it's being dismissed in examples like this which causes others to not actually look into why it happens. I don't think I need to argue for the idea that knowing why it exists - regardless of whether it's instinct or culture - is important.
I have never heard of pinksourcing and the only results that come up when I search for it are "Kirsten Bell mocks the wage gap with her hillarious video," or "Why Kirsten Bell doesn't understand the wage gap." Please explain? Or have they titled the "Wage gap = Exclusively women working" argument as that.
That's not going to happen if the employer is not making a decision to pay women less, or if there's very few women in the field the employer works in. Women largely don't take certain jobs - We've both agreed to this. An employer can not hire exclusively women in the jobs with the highest fatality rates because they'd be down to 7% of their workforce.

I never got this argument, even when I thought the wage gap was a complete myth. It disregards the amount of experience one takes into account (which can be the cause of environments including exposure to parents' occupation, the interests you have from what you've see others do or what's been presented to you or what you've heard about, expectations curbing behaviour which have you try certain things down the line,) it disregards the amount of workers, it disregards stereotyping as a cause, it only answers the idea of it being the employer's fault (and even then in a very poor way.) It has so many gaps that it's barely even a response to the claim. I'd argue it doesn't even do well against the legal claim.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 5 (members: 0, guests: 5)

Similar threads

Warrior Spirit
Food I'm thinking of opening up some kind of small coffee shop...
Replies
5
Views
212
Steve Jobs
Steve Jobs
Reference
Other I'm understanding this site better.
Replies
2
Views
150
Moonmelody
Moonmelody
Reference
Other Talk about an OC (fandom)
Replies
5
Views
170
AaronMk
AaronMk
Warrior Spirit
Other Is it more advantageous to be the protagonist of...
2
Replies
33
Views
442
Nu Epiq
Nu Epiq
Idea
Halloween Game: Trick or Treat the Avatar Above
Replies
18
Views
225
Kaiju Cat
Kaiju Cat
Back
Top