Unpopular Opinion

I feel that outside the memes community , no one had ever said a joke in the comments and I rarely see sarcasm here.

I think that if an outright war is raging in the comments, let it run it's course. All parties are willing participants, free to disengage at any moment.

The exceptions should be when illegal content is being shared or illegal activity is occurring (CP, doxxing, etc).

It's always frustrating when a juicy argument gets locked because it's "unproductive". I was having a great time watching it unfold, both sides hurling both creative and uncreative insults, oblivious to how low they are sinking to. It's great!

I don’t like to sleep in near pitch black rooms. It just feels unnatural to me. It may be more the fact that it prevents the gradual transition to daylight unless you’re using an artificial light, so that bothers me more because you don’t know when morning is. But even when traveling I love to keep the curtains open through the night and sleep to whatever the natural light level is around me even if it’s in the middle of a city.

Mental illnesses are real. But the construct of “mental illness” isn’t. There is no such thing as an “illness” that is completely psychological in nature, ie. only “caused by thoughts and behaviours”.

What are called mental illnesses belongs into three broad categories instead:

Biological Illnesses

Many “mental” illnesses are genuine biological illnesses that have been shunned from fields such as neurology and stigmatised by calling them mental.

Ie. Schizophrenia (part genetic, several brain changes), Bipolar (genetic, HPA axis dysregulation + structural signs), Major depressive disorders etc. I’d like to remind that many genuine illnesses that dont even affect the brain were called mental illnesses before we fully figured the pathology out. From peptic ulcer to lupus.

difficult living conditions manifesting through changes in behaviour

ie. Some cases of anxiety disorder (maybe its normal to be anxious in the case you’re living, ie. stressful 9-5 with lots of responsibilities), reactive depression (it isn’t a mental illness to be depressed when your spouse dies, its completely normal)

Normal behaviours that society chooses to brand as deviant

ie. Gender dysphoria is not a mental illness, it is NORMAL, Same thing as homosexuality was called a mental illness in the past

I eat my cereal straight from the box. Dry. Adding milk just makes cereal soggy and flavorless. Everybody wants crunchy cereal, but nobody wants to STOP ADDING THE THING THAT MAKES IT SOGGY!!!

I've never understood why people add milk. It's awful, and it ruins the cereal. Somehow I'M the asshole for adding milk??? Yeah, ok....

When more than 1 person is speaking it feels like making sure the listener awareness and information about the topic is not the priority, while podcasts where 1 person is speaking, prioritize the listener as the top priority with higher ability to explain and inform.

I know that interviews and talks is one genre of podcasts, but I feel like they should not exist as they are very illogical in order and they seem to not inform, educate or entertain probably.

2 Examples that come to my mind, The boys season 4(with the exception of some episodes like the final episode) and Ted (Series).

I understand that sometimes inserting politics is fun in the media and is kind of breaking the wall, but when it's used in a way that throw away the storyline and transfer it almost to a speach instead of entertainment media it become very boring.

A clear example of it is the final episode in season 1 of the Ted series, the producers throw any story or comedy out of the window and just focused on gaining popularity points by trying to make the whole episode about politics.

I am not American, so maybe I don't get the reason it's being inserted in the media, but that is just my opinion.

It's like the writers took all the questions that they layed in the person mind and just throw it in the garbage and replace it with new blank canvas to write a new story.

I have noticed that a lot of LGBTQ+ advocates are strongly opposed to any insinuation that being queer is a choice, largely due to right-wing rhetoric from the 80's and 90's that homosexuality was a "lifestyle choice", an argument that aimed to establish queerness as a willful act that could be restricted and punished. I 100% disagree with this characterization of queerness, as one absolutely has no power to simply choose not to be queer. We cannot choose our attractions, we must be allowed to explore our desires and make the most of them. We have a fundamental right to pursue happiness.

But that right is rooted in our ability to make choices. What else is freedom than the right to choose? Marriage rights include the right to marry the person of our choosing. Sexual freedom includes the right to have consensual sex with people of our choosing.

Without choice, we don't have freedom.

And yet today, even though we are mostly past the generic "harmful lifestyle" arguments of decades past, people will still reflexively reject any narrative that enshrines choice as a fundamental right as it relates to gender and sexuality.

This prevents us from making some of the most universal and compelling pro-LGBT arguments we could make.

Instead of letting the narrative that banning gay marriage only affects gay people, we can properly argue that banning gay marriage means that the government is taking away ~50% of your choices for marriage. It doesn't matter if you're gay or straight, the point should be that the government wants as say in who you choose to marry.

Instead of letting the narrative be that banning being trans only affects trans people, we can properly argue that banning being trans means that the government is taking away your choice in how to dress or present yourself. It doesn't matter if you're trans or cis, the point should be that the government wants a say in how you dress, or what kind of makeup, if any, you're allowed to wear - or they want control over your healthcare choices.

Bisexual and genderfluid people exist entirely on flexible choice, and despite the rhetoric that everyone is born with a lifelong sexuality, plenty of people have experienced changes in their sexuality over the course of their lives that strongly invalidates this notion that sexuality is static and inflexible. Sexuality exists on a spectrum and can be very fluid.

Choice is fundamental to freedom, so it is a shame that when fighting for freedom for LGBTQ+ people, we often reject the importance of choice.

EDIT: Thanks for the downvotes, message received. I wasn't aware that my opinion was so popular. I'll post something less popular next time.

They should use maybe 3/4ths of the amount of flavor they do. It's overwhelming, and burns my tongue if I eat large amounts of them in one sitting.

That being said, I don't eat junk food much anymore anyways. Prices are sky high, portions are pathetic, and it's not like I wouldn't be he healthier without it.

And I don’t mean because it’s stored “pre-pitted”. I have a cherry pitter and if it doesn’t have the pit, it just tastes off.

• It's harmful for the foot health.
• It can cause injuries.
• It causes a distracting sound that is very annoying in quite places(Public libraries, education classes, ...etc)
• I’ve never seen anyone who thinks they look good in it, and personally, I don’t believe it makes the wearer any more attractive.

I don't know why men or women wear it and I think the only reason it was invented is to fuel consumption as they are usually not as durable as normal footwear.

Mod Note: I'm bending the "no politics' rule to highlight a disgusting trend I've been seeing on Lemmy lately. Due to the sheer volume of comments fitting that trend and the huge number downvotes given to anyone who speaks out against it, I'm convinced this opinion is truly unpopular in the Lemmy-verse. This is also topical and important enough to merit discussion or at least to provide a point of reflection. So while it touches on politics, that's merely the framing device of current events being used to highlight a larger problem.

As you're inevitably downvoting this, at least take a good, long look in the mirror while you do so.

The sheer number of people here praising the shooter, advocating for, glorifying, or just flat out calling for violence has been a real eye opener and litmus test for the kind of people I've surrounded myself with on this platform. Suffice it to say, a lot of you have failed that test spectacularly.

A rational, independent thinker should be able to condemn this kind of violence even when it's targeted towards their "enemies." Political violence has absolutely NO PLACE in a healthy society, and no one should be praising or advocating for it. No one. Ever. This is one thing that, regardless of the paradox of tolerance, should be universally condemned.

There are, apparently, a ton of extremists here that don't see themselves as such because they believe their extremism is justified and that they're on the right side of history. Ironically, which is what all extremists think.

This goes back further than just yesterdays's events. For example, it's been a common refrain since the Supreme Court presidential immunity decision that, paraphrased, "The current non-dictator president should do dictator things to stop the other dictator". Which is just another flavor of "Extremism is bad except when it's my flavor of extremism".

Don't give me that "it's just gallows humor", "I'm oppressed, and he deserved it", "if you had a time machine, wouldn't you go back to 1934...", "we haven't been a healthy society for X years...", or other excuses. This is a BFD with major implications and ramifications, and y'all Lemmings are treating like we just missed the exit ramp to Utopia and are trying to find a wide spot to make a U-turn.

It's certainly fine to have no sympathy for the guy (I sure as hell don't), but it's another thing entirely to be cheering on, promoting, and/or advocating for extremist stances like those being thrown out lately.

You say you want a better society? Then act like it!

Moments like this are the true test of one's character and intellectual honesty, and I'm beyond disappointed in so many of you.

I don't understand this weird American obsession with flag. I was looking at some photos of Trump's rallies. Flags everywhere - on shirts, hats, glasses etc. And this bizarre cult of the flag - "it cannot touch the ground" etc.

At the end of the day the flag is just a piece of cloth. If you worship any flag or take offense to any flag, you need to get a life.

Applies to most other things as well. More often than not "original" are the best tasting.

This series has a tremendous pacing problem. It took its entire six episode run time to to get nowhere. It should have been eight episodes with the current six condensed into four.

Basically what the title says. Here's the thing: address exhaustion is a solved problem. NAT already took care of this via RFC 1631. While initially presented as a temporary fix, anyone who thinks it's going anywhere at this point is simply wrong. Something might replace IPv4 as the default at some point, but it's not going to be IPv6.

And then there are the downsides of IPv6:

• Not all legacy equipment likes IPv6. Yes, there's a lot of it out there.
• "Nobody" remembers an IPv6 address. I know my IPv4 address, and I'm sure many others do too. Do you know your IPv6 address, though?
• Everything already supports IPv4
• For IPv6 to fully replace IPv4, practically everything needs to move over. De facto standards don't change very easily. There's a reason why QWERTY keyboards, ASCII character tables, and E-mail are still around, despite alternatives technically being "better".
• Dealing with dual network stacks in the interim is annoying.

Sure, IPv6 is nice and all. But as an addition rather than as a replacement. I've disabled it by default for the past 10 years, as it tends to clutter up my ifconfig overview, and I've had no ill effects.

Source: Network engineer.

Quite often you see people saying “tourists need to go home” or “we need less tourists” and there are some valid issues with how people can be, but overall, having tourists is a good thing. It shows that the middle class actually has means of traveling. It also tends to stimulate a local economy with additional revenue and can offset taxes for locals through hotel and other tourism fees. Those that do travel also tend to develop a broader world view then being in their own little sphere.

A reduction in tourism means that only the rich will end up traveling, and everyone else will be stuck only in the place they’re born, relegated mainly to pictures and videos “of a far off land” and will foster deeper divides of “well that’s just them over there” instead of getting to experience it firsthand.

Hear me out: if someone believes in horoscopes, they know what each sign mean. Which means they recognise themselves into a sign. Which means they will mostly act in ways to conform to that sign, giving you a way to figure that person out. The sign tells it all, it's a self-fulfilling prophecy.

The games they release are complete in them selves, and with 15-20€ dlces every ~6 months they keep the games fresh with new content.

People rarely complain that features are missing from their games until it gets added in a DLC. Then suddenly it's a mandatory feature.

They risk our infrastructure and they steal or extort billions. I wouldnt feel bad if I read "Scam phone center destroyed in mystery explosion"

Quality journalism costs money. Period.

Sometimes it's ads, sometimes it's asking for an email address, sometimes it requires a subscription. The bottom line is good reporting is not free.

There's also a million and one ways to bypass most paywalls that require very little effort (assuming you bother to put forth that minimum effort rather than whining "PaYWaLLEd!" in the comments). Sometimes it's just a soft paywall (daily article limits, regional locking, etc), but some people still can't help but whine about it and demand you accommodate them (while refusing to put forth any effort to obtain the information themselves).

"Just post an archive link instead" I often hear.

That's a terrible solution (and Lemmy UI's worst feature), and here's why:

Astronauts Land on Moon: Discover It Really IS made of cheese

Source: archive.ph/abcdefg

Just scrolling through your feed: Is that headline from a reputable source or some trash tabloid, troll farm, or crazy person's blog?

Should it be believed, taken seriously, or given more than 1/2 second thought? Is it even worth clicking into the article at all?

It's absolutely impossible to tell because its source is obfuscated with an archive.ph link which tells you nothing about where the headline comes from.

People scroll and just absorb headlines as fact, adding that little tidbit of information to their collective knowledge. I do it, you do it, we all do it. I get it: we're busy with lives and can't read every article that gets posted. I'm not shaming the practice.

Having the canonical source of news headlines apparent goes a long way to combating misinformation by giving context to the headline's credibility, letting you know where the information is coming from, and what, if any, agenda it may be pushing. Obfuscating the sources removes all of those protections in a "trust me, bro, this is legit" kind of way.

It should not be on the poster to accommodate everyone's tinfoil-hat reasons. If they prefer an alternate source, that is 100% on them to deal with.

PS: For those of you posting quality news with the official links and not kowtowing to the "pAyWAllEd!" crowd, I thank and salute you.

Would I hurt other people in some strange hypothetical to literally save my family's life from certain death? Maybe, and I'd be guilt ridden about it for the rest of my life.

Would I hurt people to make more money? Of course not, and that's not a defensible reason to hurt others... at all, and it makes you deeply broken at your core, especially as habit.

Really the only thing I can think of as a more horrifying reason to be cruel to others than "for money herp derp" would be "because its fun!"

Hurting others for profit in the name of business shouldn't be a defense, it should be considered an admission of guilt and come with consequences.

I don't like subscribing to nonphysical things. I can read a physical paper a month after it arrived. Digital is faster, but I tend to lose it before I have read it.

I need a recipient in my pocket. Too often my virtual thing is lost, my device fails, or things reboot and I don't have my secure 24 digit password with me.

I won't subscribe to a digital only anything. Physical and digital is nice.

Edit: They don't even have to be identical. A digital daily with a monthly print would be nice.