Welcome to the Unpopular Opinion community!
How voting works:
Vote the opposite of the norm.
If you agree that the opinion is unpopular give it an arrow up. If it's something that's widely accepted, give it an arrow down.
Guidelines:
Tag your post, if possible (not required)
Rules:
1. NO POLITICS
Politics is everywhere. Let's make this about [general] and [lemmy] - specific topics, and keep politics out of it.
2. Be civil.
Disagreements happen, but that doesn’t provide the right to personally attack others. No racism/sexism/bigotry.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Shitposts and memes are allowed but...
Only until they prove to be a problem. They can and will be removed at moderator discretion.
5. No trolling.
This shouldn't need an explanation. If your post or comment is made just to get a rise with no real value, it will be removed. You do this too often, you will get a vacation to touch grass, away from this community for 1 or more days. Repeat offenses will result in a perma-ban.
Instance-wide rules always apply. https://legal.lemmy.world/tos/
Consider that we easily could have spent the same amount of money and given it directly to taxpayers. Then we all could have paid down our mortgages and loans, and real estate values could have returned to a reasonable level, and banks would not have been in peril.
Stop downvoting the actually unpopular opinions people
It's not enough to be unpopular. It also has to be rationalized. An explanation articulated.
Without that, it's just edgelord bullshit, and edgelord bullshit should always be downvoted.
Maybe you do! I personally do not feel that I deserve any such thing...
OP knows what you've been up to.
Rather than bailing the banks out they should bail out the mortgages for owner occupied houses. That way people won't be thrown on the streets because their bank was acting predatory.
Then jail the bankers and financiers that cause depressions and seize their assets to cover the bail out.
Right? It’s not the bailout that upsets me, it’s how they did it and the fact that all the bankers executives weren’t jailed and prevented from working in financial markets again indefinitely.
Do you think another Great Depression would be a good thing?
No, but I think unfortunately sometimes we cannot get to the good things without facing bad things first.
Exactly! I'd gladly live through another Great Depression if we'd get to experience the paradise of another World War at the end of it
people forget that Hitler solved some of Germanies problems. Literally made Germany great again and was Times man of year at one point. This only happened because of Germany was going through such bad times. Let's not remix history.
Don't mind the literal slavery the nazi government exploited on all the minorities they despised.
OP thinks a bunch of Americans deserve to punished (potentially die), not because of any of their actions, but because the government and private groups (who will be the least effected) victimize said Americans. The beatings will continue until the economy improves, fucking genius.
That's your fantasy about what I think.
Hard times create strong men. Strong men create good times. Good times create weak men. Weak men create hard times. We are in the fourth quarter of this game, currently. Weak men are creating hard times.
What is a strong or weak man? Who defined what it is to be a strong or weak man? Why are men the only indicator of a good or bad times? Do the experiences and perspectives of people who are not strong men provide no insight in to what are considered good or bad times?
I would like to know the goal of posting a broad statement such as this. It just seems like a statement to create more personal and "weaker" enemies. Having more enemies sounds exhausting. Or maybe I'm reading into it wrong.
You really can't decipher the meaning? It implies strength is being able to live and survive in hard times, and those who do are in a greater position to improve things for the future than those who have grown and lived in more stable times. Those who've only known stability lack the understanding to cope with some of the changes as we are now experiencing. It further claims those who've lived in stability put others at risk.
Hard times create strong men. Strong men create good times. Good times create weak men. Weak men create hard times.
If I'm understanding you, this is about leadership? Is leadership what separates strong men from weak men? Is it solely men in leadership positions that define strong/weak men? Are men in leading role the only source of indicating good times/bad times?
It seem like anyone who is not a man and not strong has very little input if this statement believed to be true.
Hello, random insert here. It feels like you're here in bad faith, but if you aren't, I'd like to provide clarity.
First of men/man is used here in a synonymous way for "mankind" so no sexist B.S. inserts please.
Hard times breed strong men means those who grow up destitute, in harsh conditions (homeless, extreme poverty, never enough food, bad security) are those who survive those times and are usually people who are resourceful and have better understanding of what it takes to have the necessities.
Strong men make good times means those who survived the aforementioned issues growing up are the ones who drive society now as adults. Those survivors are typically more empathetic and sympathetic to others who may be in that same position and strive to create a society for the next generation so that they do not have to suffer the same extreme circumstances.
Good times breed weak men means that the next generation lives without nearly as much struggle, resources are generally more plentiful, they are focused more on self enrichment and personal fulfillment. This is what the "strong generation" wanted, but typically the choices made by the "weak men" are lead entirely by personal enrichment and gain. Combined with the lack of innate sympathy and empathy for those who are in poor conditions due to not having the experience themselves they make choices that are short term and not always for the benefit of everyone.
Weak men breed hard times means the choices towards self fulfilment and personal enrichment has gone too far and neglected others to the point that as the following generation comes into society the resources are scarce. They must be hard fought for and competed for in a way the weak men never did. The cycle then repeats and you have the generation growing up competing for minimal resources in harsher conditions leaving them desiring to change this for themselves and prevent if from happening to others.
That is the theory/meaning behind the quote