Skip Navigation
418 comments

  • Lemmy users project their toxicity towards Reddit. This place can be quite hostile if you don't echo the 'correct' ideals.

  • too many dudes in this thread thinking eugenics and pedophilia are unpopular. They're very popular and that's a very bad thing

  • Desktop computers are way better and more fun than using phone for browsing, wikipedia, news, and Lemmy

    I rarely use my phone for anything other than texting. I like using my desktop computer to browse and post.

  • Sonic The Hedgehog (Sonic '06) is an absolute gem of a game in its original buggy mess form it released in. The bugs and frustration they cause only add onto the charm.

    Also, the Adventures of Sonic the Hedgehog (not SatAM) cartoon is just as good, if not slightly better, than SatAM due to the absolutely goofy atmosphere. Some of the jokes in Adventures were great. Absolutely loved the joke on Sloww Going where they had Tails writing down whatever Sonic said they needed to rebuild a house for a family of sloths and when Sonic goes to look back at what he wrote, it's nonsense and Tails has to remind Sonic that he's only 4½ years old and doesn't know how to write yet.

    Saw a video pop up in the incognito mode thing for yt about Tails being a savage and I found a comment that absolutely resonates with why I absolutely LOVE that version of Tails as well and why he's the best version of tails ever. They were saying how his personality really makes him feel like a little kid without a filter. Absolutely the best Tails ever, so I 100% agree with that comment.

  • COD sucks. The only good ones were world at war and the original modern warfare series. That's it. All others aren't worth a shit.

    Now before you respond, yes I know there are many people that agree with this, but with people I know in real life this is unpopular.

  • Disabled people should have to ask for a seat on public transit if one isn't available; other people shouldn't immediately get up when a clearly disabled person boards, nor should anyone expect them to without being asked. Similarly, you have no right to criticize someone (who doesn't appear to be disabled) if they're sitting in a seat designated for disabled people and they don't get up when a visibly disabled person gets on.

    First of all, the disabled person might not even want the seat. If they do, it's reasonable to expect them (as an adult) to advocate for their own needs (i.e. ask). It's actually more offensive to assume that every elderly or otherwise visibly-disabled person is incapable of that.

    Second of all, not all disabilities are easily visible. I'm a mid-twenties guy and I was born with an auto-immune disorder that sometimes makes it very difficult or painful to stand/walk. It's happened multiple times that strangers on the bus have chewed me out for not giving up my seat, even though (statistically) there were probably other people sitting in disability-designated seats that needed that seat less than me and the visibly disable person who just boarded. I can't fucking believe I have arthritis in my twenties, either. I'm just trying to cope with the shitty circumstances I was given and the last thing I need is to constantly have to justify myself to ignorantly self-righteous strangers.

  • Here's mine, and the exact opposite of another "unpopular" opinion here which is upvoted:

    Guns.

    First of all pandora's box has been opened in the US and can't be closed, there's 600,000,000+ in private hands with no registry to know where/who and trillions of rnds of ammo and everyone who has any of that intends on keeping it. "American gun owners" actually end up being a larger army than most countries militaries, you're just not going to be able to short of finding a way to Infinity rock (or whatever Avengers sucks) them out of existence.

    Secondly, good. I'd rather people be able to defend themselves if need be than not, be that against forces foreign or domestic, or against the crackhead down the street with a knife. All the way from the improbable fighting our government, or red dawn style fighting a foreign power on our soil, to the more likely Black Panther style activity and defending against your average deadly threats, or even just hunting for food in the event of a small/large catastrophic event that affects supply chains (if you can't get food at the store because of a natural disaster or something, at least food is walking around, it's just more work). It should never be your first resort, but you shouldn't exclude it from being your last resort.

  • Hahah nooooo I'll be banned from Lemmy and the police will knock on my door.

    Ao some banal shit ? Pepsi is better then coke ?

  • That it's best so sort comments from lowest scores to highest to get the actual unpopular opinions.

  • You can change your (psychological) reaction to everything. All psychological suffering is chosen by yourself and can be stopped if you choose not to suffer.

    Of course this is simple, not easy. Almost no one can do it.

    Most people I meet don't believe this and hate that I'm saying this.

    • 100 percent true. But I disagree that almost no one can do it. I think lots of successful people do it. I mean, the ones who went through a LOT of failure before they reached success.

      I personally have done it in my life regarding a few things. Stoicism is a great resources for doing this, in my opinion anyway.

      Basically you can't always control shit that happens to you, but you CAN learn to control how you react to it.

    • Purely as a thought experiment, this is mostly just vacuous logic. Sure, you can kill yourself, or kill everything you love or hate, or make sacrifices that are probably infinitely greater than the suffering itself (you could choose to stop caring about human suffering, most would much rather suffer than do that).

      In practice however this is even worse than vacuous, it's just wrong and insane. You can't choose to not be schizophrenic, physical and psychological pain aren't two neatly distinct categories, saying it's "a choice" is just drawing a completely arbitrary border on where choice starts, and no shit people get angry at you because unless you heavily qualify this kind of statement further, anyone would think you're doing the purest form of bootstrap victim blaming argument possible. Anyone would think of that one time they suffered the most in their lives and you're saying "you chose that, that's on you".

      If I try to be as charitable as I possibly can, I would assume this is an attempt at criticizing self-pity, highlighting that we are often our biggest obstacles to healing and that will plays a greater part in our agency than we recognize. I'd agree with all of that, but that's being really charitable, I don't think your statement makes that case at all.

      • See :D told ya it's unpopular. Yeah, it's "victim blaming" essentially. You might not believe me, but I have been a victim most of my life in many situations. I also have or have had mental disorders.

        In the end, you can only control yourself. And so while it is of course not my fault if I am being abused or whatever (it's the fault of the abuser) it is actually very much my fault if I don't find ways to remove myself from that situation. Of course, every situation is different. The difficulty of "fixing" it, and how to do it, massively differs. But in almost all situations, "suffering" only makes it less likely you'll get out of it. If you feel too bad, most people are more likely to feel powerless, to not think clearly, to be defeatist and so on.

        Life literally always has challenges, things that make you feel bad. No matter how good of a situation someone has, you'll always find people that are miserable in that situation. I'm saying you can actually be fine with your situation, whatever it is.

    • That ability to make a choice is itself a result of being in the right time+place and receiving the correct guidance+education.

      Like someone who read your comment might look into this and slowly learn to be more resilient, but if that same person doesn't read it, never receives any guidance and has to suffer psychological abuse from those around them, would you really blame them for being the way they are?

      • Obviously, yep. We are all victims of our circumstances and if you never get in contact with this concept or are not in a mental situation to want to believe it to be true, you're pretty much out of luck.

    • You should elaborate a bit, I can get two possible interpretations of this - one which I agree should be a more popular opinion, and one which I believe is nonsense and should be made fun of.

      • If someone betrays you - you can either be upset at this, feel terrible for a long time

        Or you can be thankful for them showing their true colors, thankful for the opportunity to enhance your people-reading skills, i.e. learn how to prevent this better (or identify that it simply happens sometimes, even with good prevention skills), perform the correct consequences (i.e. cutting them out of your life, minimizing your dependence on them), and then move on with the new state of life.

        I'm not saying one won't feel bad at first - but there's no reason to continue with that past the initial automatic reaction, how fast you can "move on" depends on how good you are at this. After handling the situation properly, there's no reason to continue to feel bad, feeling bad about it is just a motivator to do something about it, if there's nothing to do anymore, there's no reason to feel bad anymore.

        You can extend the same line of thinking to literally anything - you get fired from your job, you go hungry, you suffer some debilitating injury/sickness, you get put in a concentration camp due to be executed ("Man's search for meaning" is an example of this).

        Which interpretation is this, and what is the other one?

418 comments