What's new

Other Unpopular Opinions

HydeMind

A Sheep in Wolf's Clothing
Carry On by Rainbow Rowell is not a good book. There are a hundred better YA books to read.
 
Refusing to care for yourself does not automatically make you selfless. Sure, if it's because you're so busy looking after someone else, that's selfless, but it's not if you've got the time and resources but you still refuse to. In fact that's pretty selfish as there are probably people who care about you who will then worry about how you're not taking care of yourself.
 

The Dark Wizard

🔥
Administrator
From the twisted mind that brought you Digimon > Pokemon.

I present to you that DC > MCU.

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

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

rae2nerdy

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

Kahir

"𝕬𝖑𝖊𝖆 𝖎𝖆𝖈𝖙𝖆 𝖊𝖘𝖙"
I think we should draw some lines when it comes to free speech and the like. Like, lets maybe not allow fucking neo nazis to spread their bigoted belief however they want.
I politely disagree. In fact, neo nazis do have the right to share their believes (ok, I guess that this is a pretty unpopular opinion). However, the way such information is analysed by the general public should be deeply analysed. I don't think that anyone with a "normal" moral compass would actually believe in such extremist views, that put at risk Human Rights. However, cencorship shouldn't be imposed, as it prevents the necessary dialoguing between people when it comes to discuss such things, which leads to a lack of freedom, that goes exactly against what such cencorship tried to prevent.
But I can totally see your side, and I can see how such "free speech" can be used by such groups in order to manipulate others into supporting such toxic and inhuman ideologies.
 

Kahir

"𝕬𝖑𝖊𝖆 𝖎𝖆𝖈𝖙𝖆 𝖊𝖘𝖙"
I think that’s a pretty popular opinion, it’s just people in the target demographic don’t always pick up on it right away. But I think there is a lot of discussion in nerdy book circles about pushing away from that. There are a lot of newer more diverse books that focus on more realistic romance. The drama is usually more in the - some part of my identity doesn’t fit my culture/social expectations - than - oh gosh that really toxic guy was shitty to me but he’s rich and popular and so a catch-.
Yes, I suppose I have seen a few YA books that do fall under such thematics. That's actually a new concept to me. But I can see it being right. The thing that bothers me is that the most famous YA books are precisely the ones whose main plot is based on such romanticised ideas. And considering that they often get turned into films, getting a lot of popularity out of it, I'd consider my views against the mainstream views. As you said, however, such readers/spectators are part of a very specific niche, so maybe it doesn't represent the general population. I can think of a classmate of mine that when The Fault in our Stars came out in film just loved the film, despite hating YA books. Not sure if he's case is an isolated one though.
 

Kahir

"𝕬𝖑𝖊𝖆 𝖎𝖆𝖈𝖙𝖆 𝖊𝖘𝖙"
Forgive me for asking, but what exactly is there to disuss with those people?
Indeed, their ideologies are flawed and not supported by factual evidence. However, the 18th article from the Human Rights' Declaration says that everybody is entitled to their believes, no matter what they are, and the 19th one says that everybody has the right to express them. Yes, they might be oppresive to other people, but they have the right to express them. It is up to parents, educators, etc, to give the next generations the mental tools necessary in order to analyse such ideologies and find out those falacies.
 

Blackguard

Junior Member
Indeed, their ideologies are flawed and not supported by factual evidence.
So nothing then. Then why do we have to keep entertaining the idea that it's a valid ideology?

However, the 18th article from the Human Rights' Declaration says that everybody is entitled to their believes, no matter what they are.
Just gonna quickly remind everyone that the tolerance paradox is a thing.
 
Last edited:

Hella Downweather

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

HOWEVER

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

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

Kahir

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


Just gonna quickly remind everyone that the tolerance paradox is a thing.
You don't. If you don't want to listen, you simply don't have to. They do have the right to express it though, as flawed and as invalid it may be. It would be silencing people. And that is limiting freedom, that should never be limited. Educating individuals and teaching them principles such as tolerance is much healthier than just blocking them from any external sources that might contradict their beliefs. It enhances critical thinking, which leads individuals to improve as people.
It's a thing to ask for more rights, for equality between two groups of individuals, it's another to insult, demean or harass.
This ^^ When such speeches cross such lines, then it is obviously an ad hominem attack, and therefore measures shall be applied.
Let's start with openly racist and bigoted groups.
Unfortunately, they already exist. And they'll always exist. Our best chance is to educate the next generations with principles that will aloow them to evaluate such things.
I also think that we should suppress more anti-vaxxers, and people who do not believe in modern medicine. I find it horrendous that these people have such a big platform, when NOTHING they say is science based. It is one thing to allow an ideology, it is another to allow people to spread false claims that have great chances to do harm to naive people.
I totally agree with cencorship here, because we are speaking about something that is a public health issue. Anti-vaxxers put everybody in danger, not just themselves. And whilst extremist ideas are also dangerous, if the general population is educated enough in order to discern what's good and what's evil, the problems are minimised.
In fact, I wouldn't call it cencorship. Supporting the anti-vaxxer movement is simply adopting a subjective opinion about an objective matter. We are speaking about science, not politics in this matter.
 
That movement is neither racist or bigoted, so I don't see your point.
Neo Nazis prefer whites to everyone else due to their belief in group identity and supremacy, hate "collaborators" (aka whites who help other races) and believe in a Jewish conspiracy that keeps them down.

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

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

Blackguard

Junior Member
From what I've seen of them they openly prefer blacks to whites based purely on race.
That's a bunch of hogwash.

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

Defiantly hating the police regardless of the situation
Again, they aren't hating the police regardless of the situation. Just in cases like when the police broke into that nurse's house and murdered her.
they also seem to believe there's a conspiracy to keep Blacks down
Except that systematic racism isn't a conspiracy, it's a fact.
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 1)

Top