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?

  • Sombyr@lemmy.one
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    2 years 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.

  • CheeseBread@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    2 years 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

    • doggle@lemmy.world
      cake
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 years 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…

    • cosmicsoup@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 years 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.

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

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

  • Melllvar@startrek.website
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    2 years ago

    Nuking Japan was in proportion and in service to the United States’ legitimate military objectives.

    • lukzak@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      2 years ago

      Is this actually an unpopular opinion? For sure horrible like all things in war, but I understand that the alternative was an invasion with a hell of a lot more casualties.

      Should the USA have invaded Japan instead?

      • Parsnip8904@beehaw.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 years ago

        Yes. Unlike ground war, two entire metro full of people were killed and countless more suffered long term damages. Whatever the strategic value, this isn’t a decision that I find ethical in any way.