Other Unpopular Opinions

[Franklin]

All right, a real controversial opinion:

There are two genders.

Biologically speaking yes. There are physically two genders to procreate.

Culturally speaking, absolutely not!!!! I often bring two spirit into the conversation which has been around as long as Native culture has been around. This falls into the demographics of many religious practices as well. This also can be proven through brain scans.This debate really isn't a debate anymore. The brain is very complex and we are still learning about it. Although, on the subject of culture it is unique to humans. And so, gender, and sexuality, has evolved past the whole physical gender barrier. We don't identify as a women or man just to procreate these days. We have past that. We have brains that simulate philosophy which have us questioning our existence. It's how we evolve.To question who we are.

This is a really tedious and out dated debate. To be so rigid is to deny human evolution ; which is still happening. It's just science.

 

[HydeMind]

Carry On by Rainbow Rowell is not a good book. There are a hundred better YA books to read.

 

[defenderofberk]

Refusing to care for yourself does not automatically make you selfless. Sure, if it's because you're so busy looking after someone else, that's selfless, but it's not if you've got the time and resources but you still refuse to. In fact that's pretty selfish as there are probably people who care about you who will then worry about how you're not taking care of yourself.

 

[The Dark Wizard]

From the twisted mind that brought you Digimon > Pokemon.

I present to you that DC > MCU.

Though a couple of notes. I know DC is vastly inferior on the big screen, (watch Shazam though, that one was great). As a world/lore, I think DC, particularly all the DC animated movies of the last decade are so much better. I also like the world as a whole, so much more.

Superman sucks though. (Though I really enjoyed his animated movies, he sucks personally as a character)

 

[kirbE]

Dark souls is actually kinda easy

 

[Windsock]

Dark souls is actually kinda easy

Thamk

 

[rae2nerdy]

YA books romanticise a lot of things that should not be romanticised, and it can actually be very problematic.

I think that’s a pretty popular opinion, it’s just people in the target demographic don’t always pick up on it right away. But I think there is a lot of discussion in nerdy book circles about pushing away from that. There are a lot of newer more diverse books that focus on more realistic romance. The drama is usually more in the - some part of my identity doesn’t fit my culture/social expectations - than - oh gosh that really toxic guy was shitty to me but he’s rich and popular and so a catch-.

 

[Delinquent]

I think we should draw some lines when it comes to free speech and the like. Like, lets maybe not allow fucking neo nazis to spread their bigoted belief however they want.

 

[defenderofberk]

I think we should draw some lines when it comes to free speech and the like. Like, lets maybe not allow fucking neo nazis to spread their bigoted belief however they want.

So how are these ideas ever meant to be challenged?

 

[Delinquent]

However, cencorship shouldn't be imposed, as it prevents the necessary dialoguing between people when it comes to discuss such things

Forgive me for asking, but what exactly is there to disuss with those people?

 

[defenderofberk]

Forgive me for asking, but what exactly is there to disuss with those people?

Maybe why they hold these views, or how about offering counter arguments?

 

[Delinquent]

Indeed, their ideologies are flawed and not supported by factual evidence.

So nothing then. Then why do we have to keep entertaining the idea that it's a valid ideology?

However, the 18th article from the Human Rights' Declaration says that everybody is entitled to their believes, no matter what they are.

Just gonna quickly remind everyone that the tolerance paradox is a thing.

 

[Hella Downweather]

I feel like there's a middle ground to have, the women's right movement was treated like hysteria at the time after all, and we don't want to restrain marginalized groups.

HOWEVER

I also think there's too much tolerance for hate speech. It's a thing to ask for more rights, for equality between two groups of individuals, it's another to insult, demean or harass. I find that a lot of content is really treading on a thin line, like what can humorists make jokes of? Will the holocaust or other traumatic events ever be something we can make jokes about? How do you define if it's ok to joke about something to a wide audience?

I also think that we should suppress more anti-vaxxers, and people who do not believe in modern medicine. I find it horrendous that these people have such a big platform, when NOTHING they say is science based. It is one thing to allow an ideology, it is another to allow people to spread false claims that have great chances to do harm to naive people.

 

[defenderofberk]

So nothing then. Then why do we have to keep entertaining the idea that it's a valid ideology?


Just gonna quickly remind everyone that the tolerance paradox is a thing.

But what is "intolerant"? Who gets to decide? You? Me? Group consensus? The government?

 

[Delinquent]

But what is "intolerant"?

Let's start with openly racist and bigoted groups.

 

[defenderofberk]

Let's start with openly racist and bigoted groups.

Okay, how about Black Lives Matter?

 

[Delinquent]

Okay, how about Black Lives Matter?

That movement is neither racist or bigoted, so I don't see your point.

 

[defenderofberk]

That movement is neither racist or bigoted, so I don't see your point.

Neo Nazis prefer whites to everyone else due to their belief in group identity and supremacy, hate "collaborators" (aka whites who help other races) and believe in a Jewish conspiracy that keeps them down.

From what I've seen of them they openly prefer blacks to whites based purely on race. Defiantly hating the police regardless of the situation is pretty bigoted and they also seem to believe there's a conspiracy to keep Blacks down.

So who is to decide that one is intolerant and one is okay?

 

[Delinquent]

You don't. If you don't want to listen, you simply don't have to.

Yeah, that idea worked so well in 1939.

Unfortunately, they already exist. And they'll always exist

But if we remove their platform to spread their vile rhetoric, maybe they wouldn't.

 

[defenderofberk]

Yeah, that idea worked so well in 1939.


But if we remove their platform to spread their vile rhetoric, maybe they wouldn't.

Why are people drawn to the far right in your opinion?

 

[Delinquent]

From what I've seen of them they openly prefer blacks to whites based purely on race.

That's a bunch of hogwash.

Source: I am personally involved in the black lives matter movement and I've rarely, if ever, seen them openly prefer blacks to whites.

Defiantly hating the police regardless of the situation

Again, they aren't hating the police regardless of the situation. Just in cases like when the police broke into that nurse's house and murdered her.

they also seem to believe there's a conspiracy to keep Blacks down

Except that systematic racism isn't a conspiracy, it's a fact.

 

[defenderofberk]

That's a bunch of hogwash.

Source: I am personally involved in the black lives movement and I've rarely, if ever, seen them openly prefer blacks to whites.


Again, they aren't hating the police regardless of the situation. Just in cases like when the police broke into that nurse's house and murdered her.
Except that systematic racism isn't a conspiracy, it's a fact.

Right, that's my point. We both have very different views on BLM, but who's is valid?

Uh, isn't there footage of him breaking into people's garages? And wasn't he under citizens arrest at the time?

You know what, I think that the idea that there's systemic racism is dangerous and intolerant. So should you still be allowed to talk about it?

 

[Delinquent]

So I see no reason not to ally such easy access to information with a strong education on values and principles

I'm not saying that people shouldn't be able to acess informantion on neo-nazism and why it's objectively wrong. Just that they shouldn't be allowed to say, march in the streets or spread their propagenda.

. If you limit such dialoguing

Again, what dialogue is to be had with these people?

 

[Grey]

The difficuly in dealing with hate speech comes from a number of factors.

Hate speech is functionally a form of scapegoating. There is always an ulterior motive, and the seductive nature of ideologies that traffic in hate speech is that they offer easy solutions to material problems.
When you present people with evidence to contradict their entrenched views, they double down. It's a proven cognitive bias.
Therefore it's more productive to present demonstrable counterexamples and solutions to the underlying issues that motivate hate speech and its ideological roots.
However, most of those solutions are currently so hard to achieve and tend to require a longer timeframe to offer returns that sufficiently demonstrate their value.
In that time, hate speech can cause material harm.
It is necessary then to minimize speech which leads to harmful consequences by whatever means are available with a strong emphasis on making them socially unacceptable.
It's not so difficult to point to hate speech intense enough to result in violent behaviour, so even though most justice systems are extremely flawed it seems reasonable to emply the law in controlling it.
Subtler forms of hate speech should be mocked, debunked, deplatformed, and generally made disadvantageous to hold or express. Most likely it wouldn't be long before they could be equally easily linked to violence as the scope of expression shrinks.

Besides, it's not hard to see people maintaining a facade of acceptability - TERFs inevitably display other forms of bigotry, racists trip up and reveal antisemitism, both sooner or later let the mask slip on their fascist beliefs.

Defiantly hating the police regardless of the situation is pretty bigoted

Being a cop is a choice and black Americans have significant historical and contemporary justification for hating them.

there's a conspiracy to keep Blacks down.

This is technically true for the USA. It's more opportunistic in other countries, like here in Ireland, but systemic racism is absolutely a phenomenon.

Uh, isn't there footage of him breaking into people's garages? And wasn't he under citizens arrest at the time?

There is zero evidence of burglary. A citizen's arrest is not a warrant of execution.

 

[Delinquent]

Right, that's my point. We both have very different views on BLM, but who's is valid?

Mine, because I'm not making a bunch of shit up.

Like, if you can back up your opinion that BLM is a hate group with actual proof then I'm willing to discuss this with you.

Uh, isn't there footage of him breaking into people's garages?

Nope. There's not

You know what, I think that the idea that there's systemic racism is dangerous and intolerant.

Why?

It's not like I'm suggesting that me ban every opinion that some random asshole on the internet disagree with, so please don't pretend that I am.