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?
You must log in or register to comment.
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.
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.
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.
…in this essay I will explain how my 500 hours in Burnout: Paradise makes me a superior driver…
If you can’t avoid an Infrared Homing AGM-65 Maverick Missile should you really be on the road?
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
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.
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.
If cars became restricted, other options would come up. Better public transport would become available.
You would need an exception though for rural areas
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.
Lol. What a tyrant.
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.
This is short-sighted. We need to entirely divert away from using cars as our primary mode of transportation.
Naa, I think self driving cars will fix most of the negatives of cars.
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
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.
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
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
Yes it does. Read the bisexual manifesto.
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…
And here I thought pansexual meant you really like cookware.
Is that really what you thought, or just an attempt at humor? Be honest ;)
Out of interest, why? Shouldn’t it be the other way around, that bi is a subset of pan?
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.
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
Sapiosexual means you have a preference for smart people. Its not a sexuality.
Can’t agree more. The microlabels are too much at this point. You do not need mix sexual orientation, which is the sex we are naturally attracted to, with having preferences, which are the qualities we find attractive in a person or a relationship. The two are completely separate.
I guess we found the actual unpopular opinion on this.
That’s a very silly name, I love it.
Haha, thanks!
Star Wars sucks.
As much as I disagree, I upvoted you just for being brave enough to say that.
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).
The original two movies were utterly awesome.
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.
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.
And we’ve nowadays taken it even further, in spoken Finnish we’ve even got rid of the “hän” and mostly use “se”, which is the Finnish word for “it”. The same pronoun is used for people in all forms, animals, items, institutions and so on, and in practice the only case for “hän” is people trying to remind others they consider their pets human.
Context will tell which one it is.
That sounds like a solution that should make everyone happy. However, the crowd arguing against more pronouns would also argue against this, just because they’re impossible to appease.
Wouldn’t be surprised if the (mostly) political right that seems all these new pronouns as stupid would also ironically be against giving up on their own gender specific pronoun for a gender neutral one.
I feel the same but with genders. To be clear if anyone identifies to a specific gender, I’ll respect that. However I don’t see why genders are necessary. We are all unique human beings and there’s no need to label everyone to a specific gender.
We should remove the gender information from ID and other documents unrelated to the gender
(Maybe kept the XX or XY mark on medical papers though, may be useful to avoid death from medical poisoning, but even your gender and sexual preferences have nothing to do here, so no gender mark neither)
yeah I agree that’s completely unnecessary apart from medical reasons
I just like the thought of removing genders.
You are what you are and what you want to be.
The only difference is you over there have a vagina and you over there have a penis.
I’ll go one further: I get (and respect) the utility of they/them pronouns for a singular entity, but it IS clunky and confusing. English is ever evolving but when I hear a “they” it is still very much more abstract and plural than a more specific he or she.
Whatever: it’s my shit and I’ll gladly deal with a nanosecond of confusion and adjust if it allows people to maintain their dignity. Point is, by insisting that there’s nothing confusing about they/them in reference to a single entity feels disingenuous. I know moderate people who are otherwise live and let live as well as receptive to basic human dignity who are turned off by the confusing abstraction, switching tenses, etc.
They/them isn’t the elegant, seamless drop in that people say it is and it hurts the messaging. I get that being rigid and forceful is necessary with the rampant transphobia and “i’m just asking (bad faith) questions” going on, but I still fuck up semantics and tenses like whoa
This argument has never made sense simply because of the fact that singular they/them has been in use for literally centuries. It’s even reasonable to say it’s always been in use considering singular they/them was in use in the 14th century and modern English formed around 14-17th. I can guarantee you have never batted an eye when you heard something like “someone called but they didn’t leave a message”.
There are only two differences with recent usage: people are less likely to assume genders so use they/them more freely; and people identifying specifically as they/them. The words themselves haven’t really changed, they’re just more common now. Opposition to singular they/them is almost entirely political.
singular they/them has been in use for literally centuries
Even if has been in use since forever, a more appropriate word can be introduced now.
Thank you.
It’s not people using the neutral that bothers me, it’s the fact that the neutral is both singular and plural while the non neutrals are only singular/plural.
and the plural part also alters the entire sentence structure to plural.
“He is over there” - Singular and easy to understand
“They is over there” - Just sounds wrong.
“They are over there” - Both singular and plural. Is it a person of unspecified nature or multiple people of mixed ones?
English could use a popularization of a strictly singular neutral that doesn’t carry implications of being an object rather than a being (“It is over there”)
All religions should be heavily taxed. NO EXCEPTIONS!!
And, independently of their tax status, they shouldn’t promote political candidates.
And regulated and inspected for abuses of power
I don’t disagree with you on principle, but in practice, allowing the taxation of religious groups would create massive opportunities for abuse. Tax code can be structured to promote one religion and punish another, and you know for damn sure that our elected officials won’t hesitate to put their greasy thumbs on the scale.
Do they tax income? Investments? Real estate? Spending? Endowments? Salaries? Each of those would create a disparity in how much a specific group owes. Consider how the Mormons collect and spend money vs Catholics, or how Quakers don’t have preachers, just elders, while evangelical preachers earn hundreds of millions.
Any tax gives a massive advantage to the religions of the wealthy. You’d end up with four mega churches and a bunch of underground religious communities meeting in secret and sharing holy books smuggled in from Canada.
While I’d love to see churches start paying their fair share, I also see the way our tax code works now. We can’t get economic elites and the well connected to pay their fair share, what makes you think that it will happen with the religious economic elites and the religious well connected? It’s always the little people who suffer the most.
While I’d love to see churches start paying their fair share
Genuinely curious, what do you define this fair share as?
That’s a reasonable question, and I’m open to different points of view on what exactly that means.
In a general sense, I believe taxes are the price of admission for society. We all contribute, and we all benefit from roads and schools and firefighters and streetlamps and building inspectors and and and on. A church benefits as much as any other business, and really should be taxed like a business. They are in the business of fundraising, and money spent on fundraising and supporting the church should be taxed. I also think money spent on charitable works should be tax deductible the same way it is with other businesses. Money donated to churches in excess of the charitable work they do should not be tax deductible by the donor.
In an ideal world, that would mean paying income tax at the established rates, property taxes, payroll taxes for non-charity workers, and whatever municipal and state taxes are required wherever the church is located.
But as I said, that leaves the door wide open for abuse by politicians looking to promote their own faith. There are already corrupt policies promoting “social clubs” in dry towns, and morality taxes on products like cigarettes, HFCS beverages, alcohol, marijuana where it’s legal, etc. Don’t you think they’d find a way to tax the Satanic Temple into oblivion given the opportunity?
How many Christian holidays are promoted through the federal holiday calendar? Winter Break never doesn’t coincide with Christmas.
So yeah, in conclusion, churches that don’t operate as “not for profit” businesses should not be tax exempt, but keeping government out of religion is more important to me.
Ok, thanks for clarifying your stance, I think I understand now.
I can see how this could get complicated depending on the organization. For example, my church has distinct legal entities so that the “not-for-profit” side and the “business” side are kept separate.
I agree that keeping the government out of religion is extremely important.
Thanks for your time!
Including climate and woke ideology religions! Yes!
I’d give loopholes for good works and define them specifically
If you really do mean no exceptions then that is genuinely an unpopular view.
I do mean no exceptions. They rarely do “good things” for anyone.
Having a homeless shelter where you require the homeless to attend mass is not helping people, it’s taking advantage of people in a bad situation and forcing your views on them. Just one example.
I upvoted you, but do disagree with this a bit, there are a few religions which set up food for anyone willing to come inside, like I went to eat langar at a Sikh temple during my friend’s wedding, and all we have to do is cover our head out of respect. Grab a plate, sit on the floor, and eat.
I randomly went with my friend a couple days later, and they still had food out, so it’s not a wedding only thing, but they actually have cooks in the kitchen most of the day.
My unpopular opinion is that people who keep throwing this stupid idea around have no clue what they’re talking about.
Religions / churches are non-profits. Their only revenue is post-tax donations. The people who work at the non-profit churches still pay income tax. The moment you start taxing a church, you allow them to function as a corporation. Not taxing churches is a fundamentally great thing.
Most people shouldn’t be parents.
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.
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.
If it wasn’t for their response to the pandemic, I might be inclined to agree with you.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Not all Nuclear Power is equal. RBMK reactors are dangerous as fuck. Others not so much.
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.
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.
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.
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
I used to be fat, and when I watch morbidly obese people talk about how much they love food and it makes them happy and makes them feel better that is 100% me. Food is absolutely an addiction for some people, including me. Thankfully I have it under control to be at a healthy weight and lose weight when I need to, but some of these people have absolutely tragic childhoods or life experiences and I don’t blame them at all for coping in that way. I could 100% see myself in that position if I had been through what they have been through.
However, those people are self aware that they are unhealthy. The people I can’t stand are the “healthy at every size” fat acceptance people. Healthy at every size was SUPPOSED to be that you can make positive health focused changes at any size and there is no point of no return. But it got twisted into I can be morbidly obese and I am still 100% healthy forever. And they even make people feel bad for wanting to lose weight, even if it’s for health reasons. Those people are trash and fall on the same level as antivax people IMO.
Everyone deserves to be treated with respect, until you start spewing harmful bullshit and then I will judge you as much as I want.
I’m also a comfort eater. Huge sweet tooth, and almost 0 self-control when the hunger kicks in. My diet fix was making sure I only buy and order what I should eat, because I will clean my plate. I’ve accepted that, and making sure there’s only the appropriate amount of food in front of me has worked wonders. Holidays and special occasions are sometimes tough, with family shoving food in my face, but I just exercise extra hard afterward, lol.
I definitely agree with you about the fat acceptance movement. I have to leave those conversations before I start saying things I regret. Again, I try really hard to manage my bias.
I have a weight problem and I told my wife, who berates me for it, that if there is food I shouldn’t eat in the house, then I will eat it. It’s that simple. I’ll eat a lot of what’s available.
I’ve lost 30 lbs before with intermittent fasting and taking calories. I know what works for me.
Anyways, she insists that I’m being unreasonable and that I should eat in moderation. She buys ice cream and then will eat a spoonful every 30 days.
I wish I could do that but I simply can’t.
I’ve been very lucky in that my wife has been very supportive and understanding, but I’m the same way. My rule is that I’m not allowed to shop hungry, because I’ll buy shit I don’t need to eat, and then I’ll eat it because it’s there.
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.
Something disillusioning from the field of psychotherapy research: Our best, most interdisciplinary, low-threshold therapeutic strategies allow people to, on average, lose and hold the loss of up to 7-10% of the weight they’ve started with. Which isn’t even enough to get most people out of the obesity range. What you’ve been through is exceptional. By far most people will never manage to lose that much, not even with professional help.
To put it this way: If we look at obesity like a mental disorder it’s one of the hardest to overcome, harder than depression or anxiety.
I get why so many people share your opinion on this, I just feel like it’s missing context. Because sure, physiologically its possible for a depressed person to “just go out more” or an anxious person to “just stop breathing so fast” or an overweight person to “just eat less and move more”, but this is such an oversimplified way to look at how humans work and why they do what they do that is simply stops being correct. Every now and then you’ll meet someone who managed to do all this just like that, but for the vast majority it’s an unrealistic and unfair thing to ask.
Obesity is a chronic disorder and will continue to be until we get better treatments.
I totally get that, same here.
But ultimately you can’t just blame people. There is literally an entire industry trying to sell you cheap carbs and fat. Down to the sound a bag of chips makes when you open it (this is not a joke).
So on one hand you have evolution, your body still being stuck in the past where food was scarce. On the other hand you have too much food and it’s highly engineered to be addicting on purpose.
It’s no surprise most people are going to lose that challenge.
I’ve been thinking about this topic a lot lately and your comment is interesting. Your first sentence is definitely phrased in a more controversial way than the rest of your comment, but I can’t help seeing it as very similar to “Being depressed is a choice the vast majority of the time, and I have a huge bias against depressed people.” Is that an unfair comparison?
I know that treating fatness/obesity as a disease is kinda controversial but I feel like folks give people dealing with mental health a lot more grace than people dealing with health issues related to being fat. I’ve also heard that for some people they can be perfectly healthy at a higher weight (though this is clearly not the case for many fat people who are seeing health impacts). I guess I’m assuming that a lot of fat people would potentially like to be less so, but can’t (for any number of reasons) quite get there. This seems really similar for me to people dealing with depression, anxiety, etc who want to change things but keep falling back into the problem.
I guess my question is do you have bias against people who can’t escape other bad cycles like mental health or even stuff like alcoholism? Or is it more just that you think it’s fair to judge people without the discipline/willpower to get out of a state they didn’t want to be in, like you did.
This is a fair question. I guess maybe my statement could’ve been less broad. If just “being fat” is the primary problem, that’s what I take issue with. If the problem is deeper, and being fat is a secondary issue (like a result of depression, hypothyroidism, or some other mental/physical ailment), then that’s a different situation. My stance in that case is that the person should be actively trying to treat the primary problem. I know depression almost never just goes away. Sometimes it even sticks around with therapy and medicine, and that sucks hard. But at least they’re trying.
This is an old thread, but taking your first comment into account, doesn’t this make them guilty until proven innocent in your eyes? If your first thought is “what a fat lazy fuck” without knowing their story? That seems unnecessarily judgmental, and I can’t help but wonder if it comes from a place of insecurity, maybe left over from your own history with weight
Sure.
But that doesn’t mean go out and harass fat people. Trust me we fucking know. You can’t lose weight instantly. Some of us may actually be working on it.
Also fat people have the right to be happy. People hating on “happy at any size” is just being assholes for the sake of it.
I don’t believe that anybody deep down is happy at being fat. That’s a lie and they know it.
Nobody I know who’s lost weight has said they were happy with the Extra weight.
Oh I’ve actually been told by fat people that there’s no way that I actually enjoy working out and that I’m forcing myself to go to the gym while not enjoying it.
Guess it’s weird I like improving my physique and enjoying seeing how I can reach new goals ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
I would’ve thought you would’ve learned kindness out of that ordeal. Didn’t people make fun of you? How’d it feel, even if you knew they were right? It’s just rude and inappropriate. There’s no need. eve
Hmm I think that for a lot of people, it wasn’t a choice to get fat. I know a lot of kids who are already obese and they aren’t even in their teens.
However, I do think it’s a choice once you’ve realized it and have the ability to actually do something about it.
Kinda related but unrelated: it irks me when someone comments how easy it is for me to be skinny, bc it isn’t. As a previously underweight person, I think gaining and losing weight are just as hard. I had to control my diet, work out, and have a lot of self control to not lose the habits I was building. I folded and stagnated a lot, and yeah it was demotivating but I still had to make a choice to keep going.
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.
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.
Assisted suicide is good for society and if legalised would help fix my countries broken healthcare system
Watch out, rich old people with relatives.
Reddit is gonna be just fine and the shade we like to throw around here isn’t even a blip on their radar
This thread has almost 1400 replies, thats getting up there towards reddit levels of traffic. They are OK in the short term but the damage has been done and there is now a big viable alternative with decent amounts of traffic. I have noticed it is definitely quieter there
We’ve been living in a dystopia for a very long time now, we’re just becoming more aware to it.
Tax is not theft
