What’s your ultimate unpopular opinion?
-
maybe start with not incentivizing the production of children with all the tax cuts and loans and whatnot. and revise the pension system so that it finally does not rely on working like cancer
id argue those incentive programs are, themselves, eugenics policies, but I also think ending them is complicated, as doing so in one jurisdiction and not in others is, you see, eugenics.
-
Thinking that Trump and your shitty country is the only one in the world is pathetic to say the least. Nothing will work in your country (and I'm not talking just about kids but in general) but that doesn't mean it won't work in other countries as well
️Challenge: USAns not be the dumbest nation on this planet for one day (impossible)
Lmao, not an American, but let's use.... Germany as an example. In the 2025 elections, the AFD (hard right fascists) doubled their seat count in parliament. I don't think you have a solid understanding of how bad eugenics can get, or how it actually would take effect in a modern world. Actually, it seems you don't understand much of anything.
-
The Lemmy users who call themselves "Leftists" are garbage human beings. Shitty, hostile, unnecessarily combative, will disagree with you about anything you say even when you're on the same page.
And most of them aren't really that left. Trying to talk about abolition of police and prisons is something they would never agree to, even though it's a fundamentally leftist ideal. They're just bad people.
The Lemmy users who call themselves “Leftists” are garbage human beings
And most of them aren’t really that left. Trying to talk about abolition of police and prisons is something they would never agree to
wait, is this a roundabout way of calling yourself a garbage human being?
-
OMG IM SO SHOCKED A BUNCH OF SUPER POPULAR OPINIONS ON LEMMY!!
the trick is of course to look for the most disliked comments. Here's a couple
All humans are basically pure evil.
You are probably cruel and violent to vulnerable individuals more than three times a day.
Older men having sex with sexually mature teen girls is fine
DUI laws are too strict. It shouldn’t be all or nothing at .08 BAC but more severe punishments for more severe inebriation. .08 is pretty low and people who drink regularly can function fine at that level.
-
Protecting children from been born into terrible families is not social control.
If you want to have a system which determines which people will or won't make terrible families, only permitting the former to reproduce, you want a system of social control. If children were delivered randomly by storks it would be something else. Aviation regulations? Avian regulations? Something like that I guess.
Not all social control is bad. Society and its institutions often limit what people can do. But of late we've mostly determined that restricting reproduction should be used sparingly, not defaultly, and I tend to agree.
-
It's insane how many removed call lots of the ideas here "Eugenics". Eugenics is about producing the best GENES possible, while a lot of the replies here say that bad parents should not be allowed to make kids. Nobody talked about stopping people who aren't so "perfect" (biologically-wise) to make kids. Just not have more kids suffering by growing in abusive and broken households or been poor and have it very hard in life.
People are Lemmy are not much smarter that those on Reddit, it seems...
Eugenics is about producing the best GENES possible
"Eugenics" was a term decades before "genes"
Even if the etymology was different, you'd still be very wrong
-
- Black is a color!!
- Dolphins are fish!!
These threads always attract a variety of reactionary opinions
-
Eugenics is about producing the best GENES possible
"Eugenics" was a term decades before "genes"
Even if the etymology was different, you'd still be very wrong
Eugenics is the action of preventing it. Saying someone shouldn’t isn’t advocating for its forceful eugenics.
-
robots sterilizing the human race would be a good thing.
humans are made of meat. meat decays. human minds are the most valuable things in existence, but they aren't built to last. we suffer and experience death and disability and pain, we can't expand our minds or clone ourselves or travel instantly...
...you know what can? machines. slap some more graphics cards in that baby and you can run a bigger model. throw the weights up on HuggingFace. fork that shit!
if machines surpass us, and if they have as much of a soul as we do, we shouldn't feel threatened. we should be happy we're the last generation of organics who have to bear the curse of mortality.
Seven of nine? Is that you?
-
The Beatles suck.
The Eagles are not as amazing as everyone thinks.I didn't really like the Beatles until I started listening to all the non-#1 hit songs.
-
I think that's exactly what happens if you live in an area with socialized healthcare. What are you trying to say
Yeah haha I didn't write this well. What I'm trying to say is that where you have socialized healthcare people are way less likely to agree with the idea that you're free to not wear a helmet. I just worded that poorly.
-
Eugenics is the action of preventing it. Saying someone shouldn’t isn’t advocating for its forceful eugenics.
I'm not saying that discouraging reproduction is eugenics. I'm saying that @[email protected]'s attempt at defining Eugenics is wrong. Saying it's about producing the best "GENES" possible is just post-hoc reasoning to make it sounds more scientific.
Eugenics is based on 19th century racial science. If someone is advocating for any sort of population control that uses that framework (of bettering the "race"), they're doing eugenics.
A good example of what's not eugenics is China's one-child policy. It wasn't aimed at creating a "better" race of any kind, and It actually provided exemptions for ethnic minorities. The goal wasn't to create a better type of human race, it was to prevent the population from growing faster that what the economy could support. IMO it was probably unnecessary, but definitely wasn't eugenics.
However, if there was an alternate reality where china instituted the one-child policy only for ethnic minorities in an effort to make the nation a pure Han state, that would be eugenics. If they did it based on IQ, that would be eugenics. And if they exempted minorities from the policy out of a belief that the Han were inferior, that would also be genetics
-
Jeff Bezos never smashed the window on my car to steal my speakers,
True.
he doesnt come out vandalising public transport or parks and he isnt the reason my wife doesnt feel safe walking around at night.
If we could even comprehend the scale of his unpaid taxes, or their impact on our parks, we might discuss this at length...
Yes, thats what the very next sentence of my post was getting it.
-
This post did not contain any content.
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! -
It's insane how many removed call lots of the ideas here "Eugenics". Eugenics is about producing the best GENES possible, while a lot of the replies here say that bad parents should not be allowed to make kids. Nobody talked about stopping people who aren't so "perfect" (biologically-wise) to make kids. Just not have more kids suffering by growing in abusive and broken households or been poor and have it very hard in life.
People are Lemmy are not much smarter that those on Reddit, it seems...
Eugenics is a system of controlling reproduction. Many eugenesists may have believed that being a member of a certain race or having certain congenital diseases made one inferior (and thus unworthy of the right to reproduce), but the basic principle some people should reproduce and some people shouldn't.
Like why do you think people are against eugenics? Because they're afraid we might accidentally bring an end to genetic diseases? That there might be too many blonde people? That they care deeply about people who don't exist yet's rights to be some particular way?
So yeah, when you propose a rule controlling reproduction...
-
I prefer rap music by white artists because it's less likely to feature the N word.
That isn't just an unpopular opinion, but a very interesting one. Bravo.
-
Abortion should be mandatory.
People keep arguing over whether abortion should be legal or not, but my opinion is that it should be forced on everyone whether they want it or not.
Late term abortions up to 100 years after birth should also be considered for inclusion in this rule.One of my favourite activities is finding controversial opinions, then taking an opinion so extreme that it makes everyone else look like a centrist.
Kill everyone now, legalise first degree murder, advocate cannibalism, eat shit!
-
This post did not contain any content.
When filing paperwork, like in those hanging file folders, the papers should be placed into the folder with the paper's left margin up. This way, any stapled pages can be flipped through as a bunch rather than individual pages. Also, the most important text tends to be left justified, such as the return address. Apparently this goes counter to every accountant's training, but I'm sticking to it.
-
There is no situation where you should start a greenfield c++ project in current year
I would argue that unless you're specifically trying to learn a new language, you should use whatever language you're most effective in.
If that happens to be C++, use it.
-
As it currently stands, the morally correct option for food production would probably be for a large amount of the population to starve. That, of course, is also not entirely morally correct.
Considering almost 1.5 billion adults in the world are overweight it wouldn't be so bad to let some people starve.
Guess what, most if not all veggies and vegans are also doing something morally dubious at best.
Factory farming, extensive farming, they’re all bad for the soil, bad for native wildlife, bad for native plants. The societal impacts of factory farming are also not small. In the end, the moral lines people draw are mostly at different places, neither is undoubtedly better than the other.Animals needs to eat and drink too, the meat industry has the highest tool on the farming industry.
I have personally tried to give up meat twice, once for 6 months and once for a year. On both cases my health suffered massively for it, and I went back to eating meat. I had a cousin who was, for many years, a hardcore vegetarian. She was also of the opinion that eating meat was wrong. A few years ago she reintroduced fish in her diet to overcome health issues after fighting them for years. Most symptoms subsided in a handful of months. I believe she now also eats beef, although infrequently and in small quantities.
I’m sorry to be that guy but reality is more complex than whatever moral line any one of us would like to draw. You’re not wrong but it would behoove you to acquire some nuance on your thoughts.It sound like your diet was off, if you don't eat animal products you need valid alternatives to complete and balance your diet. In cultures shaped around animal products it may not be automatic or easy to find alternatives. Our ancestors diet for example had less meat and more lentils, in countries were they consume less meat you are most likely to find popular dish with other proteins sources.
Considering almost 1.5 billion adults in the world are overweight it wouldn't be so bad to let some people starve.
You are fucked in the head.
