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.
deleted by creator
Handicapped parking spaces should be reserved only for those who require an assistive device that necessities additional room around their vehicle for unloading and loading.
In a hypothetical world in which protected handicap parking didn’t exist, these people would be burdened by needing to always find parking spaces with an additional empty space next to them, and hoping that space remained empty when they return. Too high a burden.
So we rightfully have built into our civic and building codes the requirement that a certain number of protected handicap parking spaces be available. At least in my jurisdiction if you look at protected handicap parking, you’ll see that every space has an additional half space next to it to allow for egress of assistive devices. Without these protective half spaces built into every handicap parking space, people requiring such devices would face the undue burden I mentioned above; these handicap spaces give people equal access.
My controversial take is that only people requiring such devices should be granted access to these spaces. Yes, I know that there are many people that have a more difficult time walking and can benefit from closer proximity to their destination, but in my opinion, these requirements shouldn’t be for the “benefit” of anyone, but only the equal treatment for those facing the aforementioned undue burden.
In my opinion, for every one person needing an assistive device, and every two people who would simply benefit from close proximity, there are numerous people who use handicap parking for convenience. I’ve seen motorcycles with handicapped parking placards for goodness sake.
To be loved and hated at the same time, you just have to choose a side in politics, so, fuck Trump. I don’t have a problem with the Republicans/conservatives. I think conserving one’s nation and culture is important, but not attacking anyone and everything with discrimination. And I won’t even get started on tariffs. The ones that will pay for it will be the everyday person, not the multi-billionares and milionars.
“We’re gonna nuke each other up boys 'Til old Satan stands impressed” - As the world caves in, Matt Maltese
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.
I literally just came from another post that was talking about this.
Basically what happened to the Internet as a whole.
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).
I’m down voting you because I agree lol
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.
You’re insane but I respect it
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.
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.
Why on earth is a paywall an evil and worse than ads? This idea that everything on the Internet needs to be free-as-in-beer is the toxicity that has resulted in our entire world corrupted with ads. A News organization needs money to pay journalists and to send them to where news is happening. A video service like YouTube needs to pay for massive amounts of storage and servers. If you want quality professional content, and not just fake blogging thinly disguising advertising, you need to pay writers.
The alternative is that is it all corrupted with ads, or by the “rich uncle” of the day like a musk or a zuckerberg or whatever with an ulterior motive.
If you want the provider of a service or product to be beholden and at all responsive to you, as a user, rather than someone else, you need to be a customer, a paying customer. That’s your only real leverage. If someone else is the real source of their revenue stream then their every act is geared to please them and not you. That’s what we have now.
If you want to socialize it all instead, like a PBS, I’m fine with that, but good luck.
Still end of the day the server bill has got to be paid.
And who is to be blamed for setting up this system ?
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.
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.
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 thinkingis 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.
—Ecclesiastes 1:9-10, New International Version
You’re quoting the fantasy book of a group of Bronze Age goatherders as an argument? Really?
Chill out, I’m an atheist. I just think it’s a pretty good quote. The argument is what follows.
It’s not really a very good quote. Advanced electronics, genetic engineering, quantum computing… there are a lot of things that are actually new.
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 😂
How is you posting about your music on a forum not an ad? You saying you only reach people who might already be interested is just saying that you target your ads.
Do you consider it different because you’re an individual doing it manually?
YES this. We should start a community. I hate advertising, absolutely hate it, and do everything I can to avoid it. Pihole ✅, YouTube premium ✅, sponsorblock ✅, Firefox ✅, ublock origin ✅.
What else am I missing, I want it all blocked!
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.
… 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.
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.
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.
Independent repair/handyman business pays google to place ads in their results when you search for relevant terms. In the past this was done through flyers & newspapers & billboards and such. If the business made absolutely no effort to advertise their service, then you would never be able to find them when you’re looking for that service, except for through word of mouth (which is arguably a form of advertising in itself.)
Don’t get me wrong, I hate ads too, and they’ve become far too prevalent in popular media. But they exist for a reason.
Edit: we also should have the right to block and deny ads as we wish. And at the same time, advertisers should have the right to exist. Google’s recent DRM and crackdown on adblockers should be met with forceful government intervention, in an ideal world, due to their debatable monopoly over their sector.
An accurate and informative presentation of a product someone might be interested in could be considered an ad. For example, Coca-Cola written in drones across the sky isn’t an ad. It’s actually a target for a drone jammer.
Are there people who genuinely enjoy ads?
I went to Cuba and i leaned that not all advertisements are capitalist.
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.
not unpopular!
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.
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.
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
…in this essay I will explain how my 500 hours in Burnout: Paradise makes me a superior driver…
Dashcam channels can sort of teach you. A defensive driving course is better though.
If you can’t avoid an Infrared Homing AGM-65 Maverick Missile should you really be on the road?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
Or just a good public transportation system, really. I would never drive if I could take a bus to every place I need to go.
Lol. What a tyrant.
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
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.
People who die while driving are almost all die by accident.
People who get shot are far more likely to be killed intentionally.
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.
Why asexuals?
4th quadrant.
- straight = attracted to opposite
- gay = attracted to same
- bi = attracted to both
- ace = attracted to neither
Oh the top comment meant that they don’t consider ace also to be granted a separate mention
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.
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.
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.
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.
Bro accidentally reinvented pansexuality
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.
And here I thought pansexual meant you really like cookware.
Is that really what you thought, or just an attempt at humor? Be honest ;)
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.
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…
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.
Polysexual is very different than bisexual. You can be het-poly or homo-poly.
Also, most of the nuanced micro-labels are for the community. If they don’t apply to you, don’t use them.
Polyamory isn’t a sexuality. It’s a dating preference. Most of these labels do apply to me, and I think they’re redundant.
Atheism isn’t a religion, likewise asexuality is not a sexual orientation, but the lack of one, I say.
subsets of bisexual
What does bi cover that pan doesn’t :-)
If you say you’re bi nobody thinks you fuck woks.
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.
Actually didn’t know that, even though I identify as bi lol. Pretty sure my other bi and pan friends didn’t know either from the kinds of discussions we’ve had. But then that’s just a bad choice linguistically, no? It’s very misleading because you literally have the terms bi and non-bi and you need to read some manifesto to understand that they’re not a contradiction. Meanwhile aside from the stupid overdone cookware joke, I think nobody ever questioned the meanings of terms like pan or omni, because they make sense linguistically.
Homosexual is attraction to the same gender; heterosexual is attraction to a different gender. The bi in bisexual is both of these, not attraction to two genders. Think of the bi flag, pink, purple, and blue: what do you think the colors represent? Nonbinary people have always been included in bisexual if you take some time to think about.
Why asexuals?
they are all made up
“All words are made up”
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!
deleted by creator
All religions should be heavily taxed. NO EXCEPTIONS!!
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.
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
Most people shouldn’t be parents.
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.
After an entity reaches an annual cap (say $5m profit), 95c of every dollar should be taxed
Religion is nothing more then social engineering on a grand scale.
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.
