You must log in or # to comment.
If you’re getting upvoted comments on this post, you got it wrong.
Or people understood it as unpopular and upvoted something they disagreed with because it fits here.
Would have if they were more aware. Go look at the top posts. Look at the bottom posts.
Get back to me.
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 right things.
You could say that this opinion isn’t unpopular, but just try bringing it up in conversation. Many don’t want to know.
You’re absolutely right but where do we as privileged and I guess inherently exploitative westerners go from here. Also the entire neoliberaljst system seems to be set up as a exploitation pyramid, where even us the privileged westerners are being exploited for the gains of those monetarily positioned above us.
Me I’m just trying to to understand all this so I can figure out where to go from there
Good question. The first step with any endeavour is mindset. So when people ask “where do we go from here?” my first thought is that we should stop the glorification of exploitation. Stop wearing brand logos. Stop showing our new devices to people with enthusiasm. Stop celebrating the “winners” of capitalism.
I don’t think we should despair - that doesn’t scale well. But we should (IMO) buy these things with a sense of regret or realism. We should normalise the discourse. I want us to be as up to date on this as people who follow sports.
Otherwise, not only will we never think of ways to fix this, but we won’t even recognise the solution when it’s in front of us.
We need to become conscious and informed of the dilemma of people who look different to us and consider them our brethren. That does wonders for the exploitative appetites we’ve developed.
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.
Of course, it’s important to do the first steps. But that’s the thing. 99% of the population will stick to that first step. I plan to help people when I can in the future, but, I need to help myself first. Tho, see society around me, I don’t see that happening. I need to get rich and the only way to be rich is to either sell something stupid, yet “hypnotizing” or, to be corrupted and doing illegal stuff (and if you don’t have connection, will get caught).
People are dumb. Yeah, yeah, I know, everyone says that. But that’s another point. We are ALL dumb and especially weak af. Especially me! Cheers my friend!
I’m frustrated more people are complacent with the state of the world, including myself.
People in micro village should be moved or let to themselves.
It is a pretty violent opinion. But there are too many of these village of 200 people, 180 retired, 10 unemployed and 1 bakers. These area are basically dead, but because a few people absolutely want to stay living there, the state still has to do the whole infrastructure, security, civil servant, healthcare stuff.
This is an incredible waste of ressources that could be used elsewhere.
Here’s mine, and the exact opposite of another “unpopular” opinion here which is upvoted:
Guns.
First of all pandora’s box has been opened in the US and can’t be closed, there’s 600,000,000+ in private hands with no registry to know where/who and trillions of rnds of ammo and everyone who has any of that intends on keeping it. “American gun owners” actually end up being a larger army than most countries militaries, you’re just not going to be able to short of finding a way to Infinity rock (or whatever Avengers sucks) them out of existence.
Secondly, good. I’d rather people be able to defend themselves if need be than not, be that against forces foreign or domestic, or against the crackhead down the street with a knife. All the way from the improbable fighting our government, or red dawn style fighting a foreign power on our soil, to the more likely Black Panther style activity and defending against your average deadly threats, or even just hunting for food in the event of a small/large catastrophic event that affects supply chains (if you can’t get food at the store because of a natural disaster or something, at least food is walking around, it’s just more work). It should never be your first resort, but you shouldn’t exclude it from being your last resort.
You can change your (psychological) reaction to everything. All psychological suffering is chosen by yourself and can be stopped if you choose not to suffer.
Of course this is simple, not easy. Almost no one can do it.
Most people I meet don’t believe this and hate that I’m saying this.
100 percent true. But I disagree that almost no one can do it. I think lots of successful people do it. I mean, the ones who went through a LOT of failure before they reached success.
I personally have done it in my life regarding a few things. Stoicism is a great resources for doing this, in my opinion anyway.
Basically you can’t always control shit that happens to you, but you CAN learn to control how you react to it.
That ability to make a choice is itself a result of being in the right time+place and receiving the correct guidance+education.
Like someone who read your comment might look into this and slowly learn to be more resilient, but if that same person doesn’t read it, never receives any guidance and has to suffer psychological abuse from those around them, would you really blame them for being the way they are?
Obviously, yep. We are all victims of our circumstances and if you never get in contact with this concept or are not in a mental situation to want to believe it to be true, you’re pretty much out of luck.
This really makes me wonder if free will even exists… I mean, 90% of what we do and what we think depends on environmental stimuli, the remaining 10% depends on genetic makeup and the natural variations/mutations of our brain cells.
Makes me think the same. I personally believe that no, the concept in the sense that “anything can change and could theoretically happen” doesn’t exist, but… I also believe it doesn’t really matter either. If there is free will, then anything can happen, if there is no free will, then not anything can happen and it is determined, but since we currently can’t predict the future and determine what’s going to happen, both situations have the exact same outcomes.
For me, most of these philosophical questions that are (currently) not definitively answerable I liked to ponder for a bit, but dismiss relatively quickly. I don’t really care if there is a free will or not, if there is any meaning to anything or not, basically whatever. What I care about is the current situation as far as I can discern it, and my actions that I want to take in the current moment based on that. My biology determines that and I just let it happen.
You should elaborate a bit, I can get two possible interpretations of this - one which I agree should be a more popular opinion, and one which I believe is nonsense and should be made fun of.
If someone betrays you - you can either be upset at this, feel terrible for a long time
Or you can be thankful for them showing their true colors, thankful for the opportunity to enhance your people-reading skills, i.e. learn how to prevent this better (or identify that it simply happens sometimes, even with good prevention skills), perform the correct consequences (i.e. cutting them out of your life, minimizing your dependence on them), and then move on with the new state of life.
I’m not saying one won’t feel bad at first - but there’s no reason to continue with that past the initial automatic reaction, how fast you can “move on” depends on how good you are at this. After handling the situation properly, there’s no reason to continue to feel bad, feeling bad about it is just a motivator to do something about it, if there’s nothing to do anymore, there’s no reason to feel bad anymore.
You can extend the same line of thinking to literally anything - you get fired from your job, you go hungry, you suffer some debilitating injury/sickness, you get put in a concentration camp due to be executed (“Man’s search for meaning” is an example of this).
Which interpretation is this, and what is the other one?
Somewhat in between, more towards the former I guess?
I wouldn’t say it’s nonsense nor that it should be fun of, I simply disagree on calling it a “choice”. It’s more like a D&D saving throw, and sometimes the DM just makes it mathematically impossible for you to pass it, but I concede that “choice” is less verbose than that.
I agree that you can change your psychological reaction to everything, and that it’s not easy, but it’s not, like, an API call to a well documented open-source library, and you don’t necessarily have full control over what that change is.The other interpretation is basically your opinion, but actively dismissing the fact that it’s
nevernot always effortless or painless - I’ve heard that here and there, by people I’m not really fond of.Yep great examples. And I see a LOT of Lemmy posters just unable to accept any of this. So much doomscrolling and choosing to be pissed/unhappy about every little thing.
Purely as a thought experiment, this is mostly just vacuous logic. Sure, you can kill yourself, or kill everything you love or hate, or make sacrifices that are probably infinitely greater than the suffering itself (you could choose to stop caring about human suffering, most would much rather suffer than do that).
In practice however this is even worse than vacuous, it’s just wrong and insane. You can’t choose to not be schizophrenic, physical and psychological pain aren’t two neatly distinct categories, saying it’s “a choice” is just drawing a completely arbitrary border on where choice starts, and no shit people get angry at you because unless you heavily qualify this kind of statement further, anyone would think you’re doing the purest form of bootstrap victim blaming argument possible. Anyone would think of that one time they suffered the most in their lives and you’re saying “you chose that, that’s on you”.
If I try to be as charitable as I possibly can, I would assume this is an attempt at criticizing self-pity, highlighting that we are often our biggest obstacles to healing and that will plays a greater part in our agency than we recognize. I’d agree with all of that, but that’s being really charitable, I don’t think your statement makes that case at all.
See :D told ya it’s unpopular. Yeah, it’s “victim blaming” essentially. You might not believe me, but I have been a victim most of my life in many situations. I also have or have had mental disorders.
In the end, you can only control yourself. And so while it is of course not my fault if I am being abused or whatever (it’s the fault of the abuser) it is actually very much my fault if I don’t find ways to remove myself from that situation. Of course, every situation is different. The difficulty of “fixing” it, and how to do it, massively differs. But in almost all situations, “suffering” only makes it less likely you’ll get out of it. If you feel too bad, most people are more likely to feel powerless, to not think clearly, to be defeatist and so on.
Life literally always has challenges, things that make you feel bad. No matter how good of a situation someone has, you’ll always find people that are miserable in that situation. I’m saying you can actually be fine with your situation, whatever it is.
I think the notion of “choice” or “fault” here is a little questionable, I understand your argument broadly (that’s what I tried to do in the last paragraph), so maybe it’s mostly just a language issue (I don’t think saying it is your “fault” or “choice” really means the same thing as saying that it’s “up to you”).
But I believe you’re contradicting yourself when you say that you both have to act and get out of situation such as abuse (not be defeatist) and but also learn to be fine with the situation (which reads like admitting defeat to me). I think this confusion between an actionable scenario (you can change things around you) and a non-actionable scenario (you can only change your outlook) is at the core of it.
Regardless I agree that self-pity is an absolute poison, but I’d tend to believe the way you put it is perhaps more controversial (because of what it implies or leaves out) than the point itself. Choosing not to suffer can also be a form of defeatism.
Yeah but you can not suffer and still act to get out of the situation is what I’m saying.
It’s not reasonable to assume that everyone has that much control in any situation. Removing yourself from a situation is not always possible. What can you do if it’s caused by your environment, like family, school, etc.?
Life does have challenges & there always exists someone who can be miserable in a given situation. That doesn’t mean that everything should be normal.
You can definitely affect some things & you might be able to choose how you see some other things. Still, some things are outside your control or “as they should be”.
I’ve never said that anyone “should” have that much control. In fact I literally said almost no one can do it. The controversial thing is me even suggesting that it is possible.
Disabled people should have to ask for a seat on public transit if one isn’t available; other people shouldn’t immediately get up when a clearly disabled person boards, nor should anyone expect them to without being asked. Similarly, you have no right to criticize someone (who doesn’t appear to be disabled) if they’re sitting in a seat designated for disabled people and they don’t get up when a visibly disabled person gets on.
First of all, the disabled person might not even want the seat. If they do, it’s reasonable to expect them (as an adult) to advocate for their own needs (i.e. ask). It’s actually more offensive to assume that every elderly or otherwise visibly-disabled person is incapable of that.
Second of all, not all disabilities are easily visible. I’m a mid-twenties guy and I was born with an auto-immune disorder that sometimes makes it very difficult or painful to stand/walk. It’s happened multiple times that strangers on the bus have chewed me out for not giving up my seat, even though (statistically) there were probably other people sitting in disability-designated seats that needed that seat less than me and the visibly disable person who just boarded. I can’t fucking believe I have arthritis in my twenties, either. I’m just trying to cope with the shitty circumstances I was given and the last thing I need is to constantly have to justify myself to ignorantly self-righteous strangers.
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!All guns should be surrendered and destroyed en masse. They are fun, but society would be happier, healthier, and with far less suicides and DA without them.
I’ve seen too many close calls to consider them safe for society at large.
It boggles my mind people can bear a device that can end lifes in an instant and feel like they are fun. I guess this is making my unpopular opinion.
I mean people have fun with many things which are dangerous. Fireworks are dangerous, rock climbing is dangerous, driving is dangerous.
I’m strongly anti-gun, but I’m willing to admit they are fun.
Wouldn’t that be nice?
But the truth would be: someone will find a way to make guns on their own, then the rest of us would be defenseless against that.
This is the reason why militaries have nuclear weapons despite wanting peace.
If you think they would be the consequence of banning and removing guns from society, you can test this theory by looking at any country which has already done this. What you find is that gun violence is extremely minimal in these countries. So turns out your worries are over nothing!
And you know who protect such society? That’s right, folks with guns!
Militaries having guns is a very different thing to the general population having guns.
All guns should be surrendered and destroyed en masse.
Quoting the original comment directly.
This does not say the militaries can have it.
Someone where I live was charged with 3D printing a gun. I believe he got jail time
Which exactly proved my point. You can make your gun at home.
If you see one getting caught, imagine how many at large.
If you see one getting caught, imagine how many at large
That sounds like FUD. Intentional?
this is legal just about everywhere in the usa.
Guns don’t defend against guns.
Go back to swords.
Cycling helmets should not be mandated. If someone is dumb enough to cycle without one, that’s on them.
I believe significantly more people would cycle if helmets were not required by law.
What are the “unpopular opinion” rules on Lemmy?
My original understanding from outside Lemmy is you should upvote the truly interesting unpopular opinions for visibility.
For example:
- “I think potato chips are gross” - that is an unpopular opinion and I am truly interested in why you would say that…upvote.
- “Elon Musk makes some good points” - not interesting at all and probably political bullshit trolling…no upvote and a downvote if enabled.
It’s anything about which people are in denial, be it the need for capitalism, the western role in Ukrain, the environmental impact of a single consumer, the validity of political objectives of the opposition, the impact of immigration, …
My ultimate opinion is that we need to step back and notice that the denial is built on purpose and that the goal can’t be to push for the victory of the own team. There needs to be understanding of the underlying problems that includes the view of the other teams to change the mechanisms that create them.
If we can’t do that then all the manipulation is already the best strategy to force humanity into progress.
Lemmy users project their toxicity towards Reddit. This place can be quite hostile if you don’t echo the ‘correct’ ideals.
Jack black isn’t funny at all. He’s worse, incredibly fucking irritating and annoying and a try hard. He epitomizes mainstream US “comedy”; obvious, loud, overstating the delivery of jokes with overwrought physical humor. He and Horatio Sanz must have studied under the same Sithlord. Can’t stand him.
If you use queerphobia against others as a way to keep yourself in the closet, then you deserve to get outed.
Do you think that people who act queerphobic for reasons other than hiding their true identity also deserve to be outed?
I think they mean outed as queer, not outed as queerphobic. Like doing queerphobic shit and someone knows you’re queer and in denial or using it to try to lock your closet door, they think those people should be outed as such.
If someone is queerphobic but straight, what are you outing them as?
At least that’s how I understood the comment.
