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
    73
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    1 year 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
      6
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year 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).

      • PM_ME_VINTAGE_30S [he/him]@lemmy.sdf.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year 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.

        For sure. I’m not against promotion in the large, but the constant and intrusive advertisements within other tasks, such as web ads that take up valuable screen real estate, or TV/YouTube commercials that keep me from the programs I want to watch.

        Like my username is literally PM_ME_VINTAGE_30S. I have no problem getting PM’ed or emailed stuff. For example, I’m subscribed to a number of mailing lists from sites I ordered from. Guitar Center can send me all the emails they want [1], sell me all the crap they want, because I can opt out at any time, and I have a work email so I can put them aside for later.

        [1] To the specific email I gave them, which I do check.

      • Landrin201@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        I would argue that if there’s a product that nobody knows exist that’s not necessarily because we need to allow constant intrusive ads, and more indicative that people don’t actually need the product.

        I want to say that in any given day, 60% of the ads I see are from big, well known companies who don’t need me to see them to know they exist. Shit like Liberty Mutual (I swear I see more of their ads than anyone else and THEY ARE ALREADY MY INSURANCE PROVIDER), Coke, Pepsi, etc. 39.9% of the remaining 40% are advertisements for shit that I just don’t care about. I don’t care about the newest tech toys. I don’t care about the newest car mods, or random shit I can put on my desk, or stupid extra kitchen gadgets. Fully 40% of the ads I see are trying to convince me that I should buy a product that I straight up don’t need because the ad looked cool. Why should those ads be allowed to exist? Why should I be constantly bombarded with ads for services that I either already know plenty about or for things that are trying to manufacture a reason for their existence?

        Only about 0.5% of the ads I see are actually for things I did know know about and that seem useful to me, or like something I would like. Probably even less than that, I’m drunk rn and estimating.

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

          I keep throwing away ads from Comcast trying to sell me on the virtues of their business internet packages. Guys, I left you because your lame-ass shit was expensive as hell, slow as hell, and you couldn’t even be counted on to meet a single appointment in 6 months to bury your damn line you left laying across my yard.

          I agree with you, there’s a lot of companies that just need to be silenced. You’re allowed to send me ONE ad, and you better make it good because I don’t ever want to hear from you again.

    • Square Singer@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Marketing is only manipulation. It wants to manipulate me into doing something I otherwise wouldn’t have.

      Since I don’t know how well their manipulation works, my only option is to only buy things that I have never seen an ad for.

      To make sure I can still buy anything at all, I block/avoid ads where I can.

    • Catsrules@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      I hate ads as much as the next guy, but without ads get ready to start paying for things. You go to a news website, sorry you need to login and hand over your credit card to access anything. Youtube? Sorry you need to login and pay up to watch anything. You want to Google,Bing, Duckduckgo something sorry you better pay up can’t sell you data to advertisers anymore.

      Not saying this is necessarily a bad thing but it will fundamentally change how the internet works and it potentially could limit informational access to poor people.

      • PM_ME_VINTAGE_30S [he/him]@lemmy.sdf.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        I brought this up the last time I talked about this, but to be clear, if we must choose between advertisements and paywall, then we should choose advertisements as the lesser evil. However, we must never accept the fallacy that advertising or paywalls are the only possible choices! More generally, we must never accept the fallacy that a market is the only acceptable way to distribute goods, a corollary of which is the idea that any acceptable solution needs to compete on equal terms with existing products in a market.

        Not saying this is necessarily a bad thing but it will fundamentally change how the internet works and it potentially could limit informational access to poor people.

        Well the first part at least would be a welcome change. The issue in my view is the very fact that poor people are treated as second-class citizens in information access or any other field of endeavor.

        Youtube? Sorry you need to login and pay up to watch anything. You want to Google,Bing, Duckduckgo something sorry you better pay up can’t sell you data to advertisers anymore.

        I very genuinely want those sites to fucking die so I don’t have to coexist in a world where they dominate the internet. I would be literally thrilled to join a group of like-minded people who have to reimplement the conveniences of the modern web from scratch for free.

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

      I’m pretty sure ads don’t work on me. People tell me ‘ackshually they do, you just don’t notice.’ Nah, mate. They don’t. They just annoy me.

    • zer0nix@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      I’m upvoting because this should actually be unpopular. Intrusive ads are bad but less intrusive ones let you know who the patrons are of the otherwise highly expensive services you enjoy. That all of this gets paid for with ad money is nothing less than a miracle.

      If you don’t want to see ads then don’t give them your notice! I like being informed when new products go to market.

      • Meowoem@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Yeah, I watch about fifty different people making videos and they make money from it and all I have up do is watch fifteen seconds of adverts? I love it, my genuinely unpopular opinion is there should be more things making use of them, I wish Ubuntu had an optional add bar or advert box that I could watch while working to generate money to fund development, even better if they mix in adverts for cool open source projects so I can lean they exist.

    • krayj@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      You really should be directing your angst at the bastards who respond to advertising. If it weren’t for them, there would be no advertising at all because it would be completely unfeasible. Nobody would be willing to pay for something that has no return on investment.

      • Rikudou_Sage@lemmings.worldOP
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Disagree. Ad campaigns are made the way they are because marketing people are abusing how our brain works naturally. Some people have managed to build defenses for it, but most people simply lack the ability. That’s like blaming people on wheelchair that they can’t walk.

        • Lith@lemmy.sdf.org
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Exactly! I can’t even stand physical ads like billboards because the concept of reserving land for manipulating every passing person into buying something they don’t need is ridiculously perverse to me. Ads are an attack against my psyche and I will do everything I can to avoid them.

          When I want to invest in a better product or look for something that solves my wants or needs, I research my options. I will never make my decision based on an obvious ad because they are intrinsically deceitful.

      • Croquette@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        9 months ago

        People responding to ads are only human. Advertising companies went to a great length to hire psychologists and study the effects of ads on people to make them more efficient.

        Blame them, not the people being bombarded.

    • simple@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      If I want your shit, I will find you. If I appreciate your shit, I’ll pay you for your time.

      This literally won’t happen because you will never find my content without ads.

      • PM_ME_VINTAGE_30S [he/him]@lemmy.sdf.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        … what’s your content? If you’re not comfortable posting it, them what type of media is it? Not to rub it in, but getting your content from you, your fans, or someone who contacts me currently is the only way I will ever get your content, as I ruthlessly block advertising in every aspect of my life.

        To be clear, I’m not against self promotion. For example, if you went into a video game forum and posted links to your game, that’s not advertising in my view. More importantly, I would probably actually be interested in a new video game by you if I were browsing a video game forum. Hell, if you randomly PM’ed it to me or emailed it, that would be fine too.

        • simple@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 year ago

          I make games and stuff. Let me tell you, it’s pretty hard to get noticed on the internet. There comes a point where whatever you’re selling will be popular enough in a closed circle that it spreads through word of mouth but before that you need to get an audience. That means some shameless advertising in social media and maybe buying some ad spaces. If you don’t get that momentum whatever content you’re making might be dead on arrival. A lot of people and companies making ads don’t actually like annoying others with them, but it’s really hard to get anyone’s attention now that there’s like a billion new things releasing every day.

          • PM_ME_VINTAGE_30S [he/him]@lemmy.sdf.org
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            That means some shameless advertising in social media and maybe buying some ad spaces.

            I’d have no problem if you just spammed my inbox or all of my communities. I’m all for self-promotion or even just promoting stuff you like. I don’t get adverts anymore, but there have been so many times where I got a negative impression of something I later found out was cool because it was advertised to me first.

            I have no problem with people being annoying in my inbox or trying to promote themselves. What I do have a problem with is the constant stream of undiluted, intrusive bullshit being sold to me since the day I was born. If I saw your game in a web ad that’s keeping me from the content I actually wanted to see, I would absolutely not be interested in it; if you or a fan blindly spammed it into my inbox 69 times in a row, I would definitely check it out.

      • PM_ME_VINTAGE_30S [he/him]@lemmy.sdf.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Are there a nontrivial number of people who genuinely enjoy ads?

        Maybe? My parents are boomers and they watch cable TV with ads. I’ve told them a few dozen times that they don’t need to watch them, that they could mute them or watch elsewhere, but they don’t care. My grandmother also watches the ads when she watches TV. Oh well…

    • CookieJarObserver@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      How do you reach people with a new product that didn’t exist before? Or a Service? Do you want monopolys that never change because smaller business cant advertise with their stuff.

      I don’t like 99% of advertising either, especially online, but there are some exceptions.

      • PM_ME_VINTAGE_30S [he/him]@lemmy.sdf.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        How do you reach people with a new product that didn’t exist before? Or a Service?

        What has been will be again, what has been done will be done again; there is nothing new under the sun. Is there anything of which one can say, “Look! This is something new"? It was here already, long ago; it was here before our time. No one remembers the former generations, and even those yet to come will not be remembered by those who follow them.

        —Ecclesiastes 1:9-10, New International Version

        EDIT: I’m not a Christian and I’m not trying to convert anyone to my faith (or lack thereof), I just think it’s a neat quote.

        My point really is that you can generally talk about your products in some existing forum with reference to existing things. For example, if I wanted people to listen to my music, which I have deluded myself into thinking is a unique, previously unheard-of blend of genres, I would post links onto music forums and groups who are interested in recommendations of music adjacent to the type I produce. And that is how I actually spread my music on Reddit (although not as PM_ME_VINTAGE_30S) back when it was fresh. No ads, no wasting people’s time and internet. I only reached people who already expressed their interest to receive music like mine. I got a very small following, but I achieved my goal.

        Nothing is so unique that it belongs in no forum or is of interest to no existing community, yet simultaneously needs to be broadcast to the entire world. I have no problem with people sending me stuff they believe in to my email or other inbox, blow it up for all I care, but what I do take issue with is shoving that stuff into my web browsing experience or even sandwiched into the content I’m trying to watch.

        • richieadler@lemmy.myserv.one
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          —Ecclesiastes 1:9-10, New International Version

          You’re quoting the fantasy book of a group of Bronze Age goatherders as an argument? Really?

            • richieadler@lemmy.myserv.one
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              1 year ago

              It’s not really a very good quote. Advanced electronics, genetic engineering, quantum computing… there are a lot of things that are actually new.

              • PM_ME_VINTAGE_30S [he/him]@lemmy.sdf.org
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                3
                ·
                1 year ago

                It’s not really a very good quote.

                I respect your opinion.

                Advanced electronics

                Clearly an advancement from simple electromagnetism, which was the unification of the previous studies of electricity and magnetism. Not fully original.

                Genetic engineering

                Based on prior analysis of genetics, which itself descended from simple breeding, and chemistry. Not fully original.

                Quantum computing

                Hybrid of computing with quantum principles. Not fully original.

                Like I get it, we do discover new stuff and create new techniques, but (1) these physics still existed before we discovered them and (2) (much more importantly) these things are not new in the sense that they’re not totally unique, that we can compare them to things that exist because they are inspired by things that already exist.

                I mulled over whether or not to quote the Bible directly once I figured out where that quote came from, and I ultimately decided to do so because of the Bible’s reputation for needing to be “read into”. I think that particular passage says something really interesting about how, in some sense, nothing really new happens, that what we’re doing can be seen as a version of something else. This is particularly interesting as a piece of a Christian document; Christianity generally doesn’t posit a cyclical view of the world. You live, you die, you go into the afterlife, judgement day happens, and God’s chosen few spend eternity in heaven; e.g., the plot is linear. Therefore, there clearly must be some deeper context to the text.

                Regardless, it was a minor part of my original argument. The rest should stand on its own.

                Also, I went to Catholic school. I’d like to use my religion classes for something; I’m most certainly not using them for praying 😂

                • Feathercrown@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Ok so I suppose you’ll be using raw electromagnetism instead of anything that uses advanced electronics? Just because something has a history doesn’t mean it’s not new, and even if that were the case, just because something’s not new that doesn’t mean it’s not a useful improvement.

                • richieadler@lemmy.myserv.one
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  I’d like to use my religion classes for something

                  Why?

                  That’s like saying “I was poisoned for years, I should use this poison for something good”.

  • ReallyKinda@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    38
    ·
    1 year ago

    The average person shouldn’t be allowed to drive. It’s extremely dangerous and most people are desensitized to it and absolutely don’t take the natural responsibility towards others that comes with having the ability to kill someone with a finger twitch (or a slight lapse in attention) seriously enough. I don’t think it would be allowed if it was just invented this year.

    • Synthead@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      1 year ago

      Too many places let you drive if you do the happy path stuff right: stopping at a stop sign, changing lanes safely, etc. But the most important time of your driving is when you’re about to hit a semitruck and you need to get your car out of the way, and there is no training material for this at all. People often panic and slam the brakes and aggressively turn the wheel, which is a perfect setup for understeer and losing control of your car. They are literally getting in a situation where they are about to die and they choose to greatly increase their risk due to negligence.

      It’s cheaper to run simulators than purchase cars and hire trainers. Get em in nasty situations and teach them how to get out of it. For real, if mom and dad can’t evade sinking their freeway missile into a van full of kids, they shouldn’t be able to get behind the wheel and be presented with opportunities where this might happen any time they drive.

      • Sooperstition@lemmy.one
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        1 year ago

        Maybe doing this will also make people more hesitant to get behind the wheel. If more people are aware of the risks of driving, maybe they’ll start to demand alternatives

    • BurritoBooster@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      Germany’s driving test (and school) is fairly strict and will fail you for small mistakes which is good for beginners but after all, there is no test or reinsurance after some years of driving. After some time, people will see driving as a right not a privilege. This is the case for the vast majority of counties. This is the problem.

    • Fubarberry@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      Problem is that there’s no other alternative for most people. Unless you live in a city, public transportation isn’t a valid option. Most people living in most locations (at least in the US) have to have personal vehicles to attend school/work, shop, and socialize.

      Once self driving cars become commonly available, driving will no longer be a requirement and I think that driving licenses should be stricter on who’s allowed to drive.

      • psud@aussie.zone
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        If cars became restricted, other options would come up. Better public transport would become available.

        You would need an exception though for rural areas

      • AmosBurton_ThatGuy@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        The way I see it is fuck em, if you can’t safely drive and follow the rules to mimimize risk for everyone around you then pay for a taxi or take the bus. No public transport? Get your ass on a bike. Everytime I go out, even for a short 10 minute drive to the grocery store, 90% of the time I see someone doing something insanely stupid and dangerous but because nothing bad comes of it they don’t learn not to do that.

        Driving a vehicle should be considered a huge privilege considering how easy it is to kill not just yourself, but others simply by being a dumbass and not taking it seriously enough. People back up without looking, make turns without looking, tons of dumb shit constantly, shit I had someone merge into my lane without even looking when I was right beside them, I had to slam on my brakes to get out of the way and I was only able to do that because there was no one behind me. I honked at them and they just flipped me off. There should also be a forced age limit for being able to drive cause old people are fucking terrible drivers, or at the very least they should have yearly tests past a certain age to ensure they’re still capable of driving.

        Drive properly and safely or deal with the massive consequences of not being able to get around quickly. Need a license to get to/do your job? Drive safely or get fucked. Absolutely zero sympathy for shitty drivers.

        • PepperTwist@sopuli.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          shit I had someone merge into my lane without even looking when I was right beside them, I had to slam on my brakes to get out of the way and I was only able to do that because there was no one behind me. I honked at them and they just flipped me off

          Man, this really pisses me off because I know they know they’re the dumbass who fucked up but their fragile ego can’t take being honked at so they flip you off nevertheless. Hate idiots like that.

        • biddy@feddit.nl
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          We aren’t saying that they should be driving, quite the opposite. We’re saying that it’s completely fucked that in some places you have to drive to participate in society, precisely because many people shouldn’t. There needs to be alternatives to driving so that law enforcement can remove anyone’s license without effectively placing them in house arrest.

      • sbv@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Problem is that there’s no other alternative for most people. Unless you live in a city, public transportation isn’t a valid option.

        Most people live in cities. And if 95% of the electorate can’t drive, you can bet alternatives will be prioritized.

        • Fubarberry@sopuli.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Only 45% of people in the US have access to public transportation.

          And just having access to some public transportation doesn’t mean you have useful access. Being able to access a bus stop doesn’t help if it won’t take you where you need to go, or if the time schedule isn’t acceptably close to your needed transportation times.

    • ndguardian@lemmy.studio
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      This is why I personally am looking forward to fully self-driving cars. We’re a long way off, but when self-driving cars can completely replace the human element, I think the world will be a much safer place.

      • STUPIDVIPGUY@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        This is short-sighted. We need to entirely divert away from using cars as our primary mode of transportation.

          • STUPIDVIPGUY@sopuli.xyz
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            How about spacial inefficiency? A car only carries 1-6 people compared to a train which carries dozens or even hundreds. Or a bus which carries dozens.

            Explain to me how self-driving cars will fix that

            • Catsrules@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              Traffic and parking are the biggest issue i see with cars and space efficiency. Both can be significantly improved on with self driving. Especially if most people opt for public ownership of cars and not private. Something think will become more popular as self driving takes over and lowers the cost of taking the self driving equivalent of a taxi or Uber.

              By the way i think self driving cars will make trains more popular. As trains suck at first and last mile transportation. Self driving solves the first and last mile issues.

              • STUPIDVIPGUY@sopuli.xyz
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                4
                ·
                1 year ago

                If we’re going to opt for public ownership then why would you choose the less efficient single passenger method over already-established public infrastructure like trains and trams and buses which have been proven to work well in other countries?

                Also please elaborate on how self driving cars will improve parking issues. And as for traffic, while self-driving cars will be less likely to cause accidents and jams, hundreds of independent low-capacity vehicles are in no way more effective than a single locomotive carrying those hundreds of people in a smaller space.

                You’re allowed to like self-driving cars, but buses and trains are objectively more efficient in the large scale and all you have to do is acknowledge that. The more people realize this, the more room there is for us to make progress

                • Catsrules@lemmy.ml
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  If we’re going to opt for public ownership then why would you choose the less efficient single passenger method over already-established public infrastructure like trains and trams and buses which have been proven to work well in other countries?

                  Simple we have already chosen cars in the US. It is far easier to use the existing roads to our advantage then try and redesign the entire country to fit a train and tram and bus model.

                  Also please elaborate on how self driving cars will improve parking issues.

                  In a public car the car will drop people off and drive away to pick up other people. There would be no need parking at all. Just a small drop off and pickup location.

                  Now this won’t work as well if we are talking about private ownership cars, but it would be better as the car can drop you off and then drive to a centralized parking location. This would remove the need for street parking or parking lots next to restaurants and stores. Or if your planning to stay a long time for exmaple if your going to work for 8 hours. I think many people might want rent out their car during the day. Car drops me off at work and I tell the car to join the “public car” network for 8 hours and it can go find some people to transport.

                  And as for traffic, while self-driving cars will be less likely to cause accidents and jams, hundreds of independent low-capacity vehicles are in no way more effective than a single locomotive carrying those hundreds of people in a smaller space.

                  Oh sure it won’t be as effective but it will be much better then what we have now. And there are benefits cars have over trains. For example after a the world pandemic scare I find traveling in my own space a much more pleasant experience then sharing with many other people. Also I really like listening to music in a car as full volume very enjoyable experience that you just can’t do on a public train :). A car will be a single vehicle to my destination, I can get in a fall asleep if I want. Buses and trains are usually multiple vehicles and you need to be some what alert to know when your stop is.

    • rockhandle@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Imo it’s kinda unavoidable. Humans make mistakes all the time. We could greatly reduce the risk however, if we simply reduced our reliance on independent vehicles. Unfortunately this depends on the place where you live as well but if possible, it would be much safer for the collective majority to bike/walk to areas or use public transport where applicable as it would drop the amount of traffic on the roads

    • billy_bollocks@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      I think updating the driving test to mandate proving you’re able to drive a stick would thin the herd quite a bit.

      Especially in the USA

    • Gargleblaster@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      People who die while driving are almost all die by accident.

      People who get shot are far more likely to be killed intentionally.

    • OOFshoot@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      There’s a few places that didn’t get cars until later and “no thank you” was a very common reaction. We really ought to just ban private ownership.

    • aCosmicWave@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      On the last day of my college internship a senior VP at my little company invited me into his office presumably to get to know me prior to extending a full-time offer. To break the ice he asked me what my favorite Star Wars movie was. I smiled and replied that I could never get through any of them.

      As I was uttering these words I began to notice the giant Star Wars poster directly behind the gentleman. It then dawned on me that his office was chalk full of Star Wars memorabilia.

      The man did not ask me any further questions. He shook my hand, thanked me for my great work, and I never stepped foot into those offices ever again.

    • sadbehr@lemmy.nz
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      If I come across you in a dark alley and we’re all alone then you better be ready cos I’ll accept your opinion and offer some other suggestions of movies that we might like, such as all 3 Lord of the Rings (extended editions of course).

    • HuddaBudda@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      It was a different perspective on an imperfect galaxy and one that felt like it was lived in.

      Not just Aliens visit earth!

      But a new perspective like… what if just because we have faster then light travel, racism didn’t go away, and it had laser swords and near super human abilities powers!

    • Squirrel@thelemmy.club
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      I absolutely loved Star Wars as a kid. Every movie since then has been a major disappointment. I’ve only watched the first of the OT as an adult so far (with my kids), and I was not as into it as expected. Luke was one whiney kid.

    • Lumun@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      I downvoted because this is a popular opinion. MCU is the same thing. Most people probably don’t have a strong opinion on Star Wars either way, but for the people who do there are plenty who think it sucks.

      • MiddledAgedGuy@beehaw.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        I agree with this take.

        I like Star Wars fine. If they make something, I’ll probably watch it. But I don’t consider myself a fan. I don’t keep track of the lore and would be hard pressed to tell you the plot of anything I hadn’t seen recently. Which is a long way of saying I’m in the don’t have a strong opinion camp.

      • lukzak@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        I’ve been a fan of Star Wars since I was a kid. But Disney’s management of this IP has totally ruined it for me. I still haven’t seen The Rise of Skywalker after the trash that was The Last Jedi. They also seem to be focusing on pumping out as much content as possible, which has diluted any feelings of longing I had to see more.

        They also need to branch out a bit more. The best of new star wars imo (Rogue one, Mando, and Andor) are so awesome because they focus any other aspect of the immense galaxy instead of focusing on the same 1 family from sand planet.

  • CheeseBread@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    37
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year 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

    • pizza-bagel@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      1 year ago

      And asexual

      But I agree. The bi community already collectively decided we are trans and nonbinary inclusive. We don’t need to further separate it out.

        • NickwithaC@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          9 months ago

          4th quadrant.

          • straight = attracted to opposite
          • gay = attracted to same
          • bi = attracted to both
          • ace = attracted to neither
          • Xanaus@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            9 months ago

            Oh the top comment meant that they don’t consider ace also to be granted a separate mention

    • Treefox@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      I agree. All the little bitty addages don’t make sense. You can be bi and still have preferences. Just keep it simple gosh dangit.

      • June@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        I think there’s value for folks in the community to have the hyper-specific labels. I’m saying this as a bi person who agrees that pan, Omni, etc are sub categories of bi.

    • CeruleanRuin@lemmings.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      29 days ago

      Here’s an unpopular opinion: you don’t need any labels at all. You love who you live, you fuck who you fuck, you can advertise what you’re looking for if you want to but all this identity business obscures the reality that humans are far more diverse and interesting than the boxes we build for ourselves.

      Most people who call themselves straight would fuck someone from their own gender if there weren’t cultural expectations against it hammered into them from and early age. Most people who call themselves gay would wander if they found someone they connected with. Very few of us rest at one end of any spectrum or matrix. Most of us are somewhere in the middle, and far more mobile than we might realize.

    • cosmicsoup@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Upvoted, but I have a slight disagreement. I think bisexual should actually be a label under pansexual. Bisexual doesn’t necessarily account for anyone outside the gender binary.

    • Wirlocke@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      23 days ago

      As a pansexual I feel that Bi and Pan have enough differences to both be justified while the others are micro labels (not invalid, just less useful as labels).

      But I recognize I’m drawing that line very conveniently for myself.

    • Today@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Agree. I understand expressing acceptance of non hetero love so kids know that there are other options and they’re valued, but i don’t need to know what labels everyone has chosen, who they’re having sex with, or what is under their undies. And i believe that many people who are medically trans are chasing a masculinity or feminity that they feel is not allowed as a male or female and it’s sad that the stereotype is what they’re moving towards or away from instead of individuality. Also, kinda drunk, so probably disregard.

      • ougi@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Is that really what you thought, or just an attempt at humor? Be honest ;)

      • writeblankspace@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        I thought it was just a joke, since the first time I heard that word there was a picture of a pan. Similar to people who say they identify as spaghetti.

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

      If we’re splitting hairs, bi should be a sunset of pan.

      Also, there is some need for a fourth “none of the above” label…

      • CheeseBread@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Read the bisexual manifesto. Bi has always included nonbinary people. If you are attracted to all genders, both bisexual and pansexual are valid labels you can choose.

    • gamermanh@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      Not understanding what words mean isn’t an unpopular opinion, you’re just wrong

      Not about the first bit, that’s arguable

      You definitely DO need more labels than straight, gay, and bi. For example: asexual or sapiosexual, those don’t fit into any of the 3 you listed

  • Thorny_Thicket@sopuli.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    31
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year 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.

  • frozen@lemmy.frozeninferno.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    29
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Being fat is a choice the vast majority of the time, and I have a huge bias against big people.

    I used to be fat (250ish lbs (110ish kg) at 5’8"ish (172ish cm)), and as much as I would like to blame my shit on anything else, the person feeding me, the person sitting at the computer for hours, the person actively avoiding all physical activity was me and no one else. After I got diagnosed with some weight related shit, I turned my entire life upside down, am at a much healthier 150 lbs (68ish kg), and feel so much better, both physically and mentally.

    I’m aware of my bias, and I make every active effort to counter it in my actual dealings with bigger people. Especially because there are certain circumstances, however rarely, where it may not actually be their fault. But I’d be lying if I said my initial impression was anything except “God, what a lazy, fat fuck.”

    Edit: Added metric units

  • jsveiga@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    24
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Dogs were hardwired by selective breeding to worship their owners. Not long ago they at least were loyal companions. You got one off the streets, fed it leftovers, washed it with a hose, it lived in the yard, and it was VERY happy and proud of doing its job. Some breeds now were bred into painful disabling deformities just to look “cute”, and they became hysterical neurotic yapping fashion accessories. Useless high maintenance toys people store in small cages (“oh, but my child loves his cage”) when they don’t need hardwired unconditional lopsided “love” to feed their narcissism.

    • fubo@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Lapdogs have been around for thousands of years. It’s only very recently that they’ve been bred so extremely that they can’t breathe.

    • socsa@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      I do agree that the caging trend is fucking awful. I have friends who leave their two large dogs caged for 8 hours a day and it crushes me. These are both well behaved dogs who wouldn’t make a mess out of a cage so I really just don’t get the point, other than it’s millennial meta to do cage training.

      • jsveiga@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Yes, and I heard as a response “but he LOVES the cage”. Really? Why does it need a door with a latch then?

  • Sombyr@lemmy.one
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    20
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    1 year 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.

    • Elderos@lemmings.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      It is very hard to have rational disccussion when people disagree on the basic observable facts, ignore the “rules” of debate, and are struggling with critical thinking. You can meet difficult people on all the political spectrum, but certain idealogy attract more difficult people, and certain stuff mainstream conservatives believe right now has absolutely no basis in reality.

      • argv_minus_one@beehaw.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        And their response to LGBT+ issues, and their response to Trump’s crimes, and…

        Yeah, no. Republicans have had more than enough opportunities to redeem themselves. There is no remaining doubt to give them the benefit of.

    • ToastedPlanet@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      I have had plenty of conversations with people irl. Most of the them with people who are to the right of me on the political spectrum. What I found in the conversations that were fruitful, was that our disagreement on larger issues, such as economics or personal freedoms, tended to stem from disagreements on smaller issues. To paraphrase my friend, “We are using the same words, but they all mean different things.” It seems to me that there are some elementary differences between progressives and conservatives that change how we rationalize the larger issues. That’s how the two groups can, based on the same information, come to two different conclusions.

      That being said though, I think Fox News and other conservative news channels have created information silos. Not everyone who is conservative has necessarily had access to the same body of facts and evidence that progressives have. I think a good portion of people who are stuck in those silos would change their views if they had a more balanced news diet.

      • oxjox@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        9 months ago

        research subjects who considered themselves conservative tended to have larger amygdala, the section of the brain in the temporal lobes that plays a major role in the processing of emotions. Self-defined liberals, meanwhile, generally had a larger volume of gray matter in the anterior cingulate cortex, a part of the brain associated with coping with uncertainty and handling conflicting information.

        https://www.smithsonianmag.com/innovation/are-your-political-beliefs-hardwired-108090437/

        • ToastedPlanet@lemmy.blahaj.zone
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          9 months ago

          Political neuroscience is an interesting field. I remember hearing about similar studies years ago on podcasts. A quick google revealed the field has had numerous studies done in the last year alone.

          I don’t feel that this section inherently contradicts what I am trying to say and perhaps is intended to be supporting evidence. The fact that the differences between conservatives and liberals can be measured means that the disagreements stem from a real place. However, the article mentions that this does not mean agreement is impossible. It means that the two groups need to be approached differently with the same information.

          Andrea Kuszewski, a researcher who has written about political neuroscience, would rather put a positive spin on what it could mean for politics. She says this kind of knowledge could help open up communication, or at least ease hostility between the country’s two major political parties.

          “Each side is going to have to recognize that not everyone thinks like them, processes information like them, or values the same types of things,” she wrote last week. “With the state our country is in right now, I don’t think we have any choice but to cowboy up and do whatever needs to be done in order to reach some common ground.”

          Do you mind elaborating on the intention of sharing the quoted section of the linked article? I don’t want to assume and I want to engage with what you mean.

    • themeatbridge@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      8 months ago

      I was going to post my rant about conservatives as a top level comment, but I didn’t think it was unpopular enough.

      I agree with your central premise that there is a disconnect of understanding and perception between progressives and conservatives.

      However, it’s not that conservatives haven’t heard a convincing argument, or something that accounts for their perspective. This is part of the fundamental disconnect, and you’re an excellent example of why people don’t know how to put things in a way others will understand.

      Conservativism is not a principled ideology. It is the political justification of narcissism in every form. Conservatives like being conservative because it gives them a free pass to be selfish and egocentric in their political beliefs. There is no foundational value system or policy that is inherently conservative.

      The conservative ideology defines the self and the other. Nothing else is fixed. Whatever is good for the self is good, and whatever is bad for the self is bad.

      That’s it, that explains every conservative position ever held by any conservative since the invention of conservativism in the 1800s. From Francois-Rene de Chateaubriand wanting to roll back many of the reforms of the French Revolution, to Donald Trump becoming the Messiah, conservatives identify the self, and then do anything to benefit the self. Granted, Francois-Rene was a much better writer, but he was no less inconsistent in his desire to promote ideologies that benefitted himself and his peers.

      Conservatives will couch their positions as staunch defense of tradition, and general opposition to change for the sake of change, but that’s window dressing. They don’t believe in stoicism or absolutism or really anything they claim to believe. And that’s why you cannot have a rational debate with a conservative. That’s why you won’t ever convince them to change their minds on a subject simply by pointing out flaws in their logic or perception.

      The only method that has ever worked at getting a conservative to shift or compromise is by showing them how it will benefit them. Why is this policy good for the self? What value will they receive in exchange for easing up on their intransigence? If you can convince a conservative to abandon an ideological position, you can be sure it’s because they believe the new position is better for them.

      Look at any conservative leader in history, any political pundit, any legislator or writer or conservative iconoclast. Viewed through the lens of narcissism, their intentions, their hypocrisies, their inconsistencies, they are all laid bare. There is no deeper meaning, no mystery to why they have had sudden changes or seemingly flip flopped on an issue. It’s not that complicated.

      So no, it’s not that people don’t know how to have rational discussions these days. It’s that conservativism is anathema to rational thought, and it always has been. It’s a license to be as hateful or ignorant or selfish as you want to be, and you needn’t worry about defending your positions from things like facts, or realty, or reason, because those are tools of the other. If the other opposes you, they are evil and their reality, their facts, their reason is equally evil. They don’t need to be refuted, they need to be destroyed by any means necessary. The self is good, therefore anything the self needs to do to win is good. Lies, deception, personal attacks, intimidation, threats, violence, all of them are justified by the belief in the righteous self. There is no bar too low to be stooped under, no treachery too vile to be considered, no accusation too false to be levied. A conservative with scruples is a conservative unchallenged.

    • Zorg@lemmings.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      You’re not outright wrong, but it’s really hard to have the rational discussion skills to cut through decades of propaganda. For the many deep in the right-ring bubble, brainwashing is a better term than mere propaganda.

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

        I can agree with that. I’ve been part of a cult before (was born into it) and I can recognize a lot of what I went through there in far right people. I guess I’m just a little sensitive to people calling these people idiots and hateful people due to seeing myself in them. Like, to me, they’re (usually) just good people being manipulated into thinking the awful things they say and do are good, and they need a rational and caring person to pull them slowly out of it, the same way I did.

        Obviously, it takes more than just talking usually to pull somebody out of a cult, but I think it’s still a big part of it. They’ve been fooled into thinking that things that are rational aren’t, and unless they’re confronted with the actual truth and the facts to back them up, they’re not going to even start to question their beliefs.

        I’m also not suggesting that every person needs to debate every republican about every issue they bring up. If you can’t or even just don’t want to debate somebody, you don’t have any obligation to, but I don’t think insulting them over it is almost ever the right response.

        There’s also the angle of how every cult teaches you that you’re going to be persecuted for your beliefs, and brainwashes you into thinking that should reaffirm you that you must be correct. That is one major reason I think labeling all conservatives as irrational and hopeless is dangerous. When somebody who’s been taught that the world is going to hate them for being “right” finds that the world does not, in fact, hate them, but instead just displays genuine concern, that’s when you fully start to question everything.

        I don’t think every right winger is going to fling left when presented with this view. In fact, I think the vast majority won’t, but it will make them a little more understanding, and a little more understanding over the course of many years and generations adds up.

    • SigloPseudoMundo@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Gonna need tons of capitals controls to prevent money from leaving, rich people are good at moving. To what end? So the federal government gets even more money to spend on subsidies, police riot gear & highways. They’d turn the Pentagon into an octagon before they’d meaningfully help their citizens.

    • ARg94@lemmy.packitsolutions.net
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      8 months ago

      I would like 95% of your dollars, please. If we get to arbitrarily rob people who make more than we do, I’d like something from you!

    • zer0nix@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      If other nations can have billionaires and we can’t, and our country is vast and rich, we will be at a disadvantage.

      The WANT of money is corrupting itself. Actually having the money itself is not needed. People who want money will destroy your little system, and throw your country into chaos, ruination and poverty, united by a conspiracy of common interests.

      I would rather just regulate what needs regulating, within reason, with a gentle hand, and only a strong hand with the worst of violations. For the record, I would be much harsher than the us has tended to be when it comes to pollution, etc.

      • foo@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        No. Fuck them. They can leave.

        They will still do business in your country.

        Also countries should tax companies on money that goes out of the country based off of their overall profit. So if Google makes 10% profit over costs the. We charge them 30% tax on the money they funneled out of Australia. Done.

      • Ringmasterincestuous@aussie.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Fair enough…

        I don’t think you can truely regulate any system we currently know in favour of the populace. So I take the us Vs them approach.

        Each to their own 😎

  • eddy@infosec.pub
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    16
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Religion is nothing more then social engineering on a grand scale.

  • shrugal@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    17
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year 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.

  • Lettuce eat lettuce@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    17
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    1 year 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.

    • vzq@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      I feel this would have been spot on, in the nineties.

      Right now the problems plaguing nuclear are economic. There is no guarantee you can build and exploit a plant and get to break even before either it becomes irrelevant, or you fall victim to regulatory jostling.

      Nuclear was a missed opportunity, but the window is closing fast and it will probably remain a missed opportunity forever.

    • ErwinLottemann@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      I generally agree with you, but I think a lot of people are concerned about the nuclear waste and not the power plants but don’t realize that.

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

        I don’t really go on Reddit, but Idk where you live, but in my experience talking to folks, most people are pretty put off by this view

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

        If you take all operational nuclear reactors safety records into account from all countries in the world, including all meltdowns and near meltdown disasters, it’s still by far safer and has resulted in less deaths and long term illness than any fossil fuel, on every single metric.

        True that newer style reactors are far safer, but that’s the point. If we had started to transition in the 70’s into nuclear power, we would have made a massive dent in climate change and set the stage to transition into full clean renewable energy sources and along the way improved regulations and engineering standards for existing nuclear plants.

        • phillaholic@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Yes, BUT the risk isn’t distributed like the rest. One Reactor could displace tens of millions of people, disrupt infrastructure, and cause devastating impact to the US economy. That’s a lot of risk based on it’s proximity. If they could build them in the middle of nowhere out west that could all be mitigated.

          • Sarcastik@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Right. Most don’t understand that risk is not just measured by frequency alone, but also by severity.

            Nuclear is off the charts once you consider the full magnitude of a failure.