The driving age should be, along with the drinking age, 18.
Put your unpopular opinions here and someone who disagrees will debate you
Posts
Total:
499
The Communist manifesto should be in the curriculum of schools.
Dunno how unpopular this is, but please lower the wages of politicians and raise the wages of teachers.
Eating 2 meals a day is normal and should be regarded as so, no matter how unhealthy it is. (I mean, then there is Joe, who eats burger king 3 times a day.)
Supercars(such as Bugatti Chiron, etc) are not deserved by just "rich" folks who only collect cars and at most drive them on streets and local highways.
Mao Zedong is a good guy on balance. (or this could be attributed to the fact that there are nearly no Chinese users here)
I think Pepsi is less "sugary" and better than Coke, especially when flat.
-->
@Intelligence_06
Supercars(such as Bugatti Chiron, etc) are not deserved by just "rich" folks who only collect cars and at most drive them on streets and local highways.
there is no logical reason to spend $3,300,000 on something that serves the exact same function as a honda civic
-->
@3RU7AL
I get what they are trying to do, trying to look rich by buying themselves something rich.
But seriously, buying a car much more expensive than the regular car and not even much more comfortable either, as it has engines far beyond their route of commute as their roaring top speeds are illegal on most highways. I suggest, maybe, buy a luxury sedan? Even that is better, because you are actually provided better service.
-->
@Intelligence_06
I get what they are trying to do, trying to look rich by buying themselves something rich.
it makes them look like idiots
-->
@Intelligence_06
Dunno how unpopular this is, but please lower the wages of politicians and raise the wages of teachers.
I think a teaches pay should be partially tied to how well their students do compared to past performance, like an end of year bonus. Though it might create shit incentives. I don’t know.
-->
@Reece101
I think a elected official's pay should be partially tied to how well their constituents do compared to past performance, like an end of year bonus. Though it might create shit incentives. I don’t know.
-->
@3RU7AL
@Reece101
Well, the average of these two jobs need to change. Politicians are generally paid more than they deserve and teachers less.
-->
@Tejretics
On the filibuster, they’re mostly constrained by the median Democrats being pretty much center-right (Sinema and Manchin), because the Senate is structurally biased against Democrats -- meaning even when the Democrats do control the Senate, they rely on conservative Democrats as the median voters.The Senate honestly needs to be abolished or significantly reformed. It’s an absurdly undemocratic institution.
Yeah, it's true Dems can't abolish the filibuster because of those two peeps (and I just realized my typo from my last post -- I meant to say put back the filibuster in the end, I think). I don't agree that the Senate is necessarily an un undemocratic institution, although I see what you mean in the sense of majority rule. But I do think the Senate is good for checks and balances and specifically a check against majority rule. Sinema and Manchin are just doing what their constituents want them to do. It's not like W Virginians are super liberal.
As I said in another post the GOP is desperate for a culture war because they have zero answer to American poverty. The fear mongering about gays, their obsession with trans people, lying about the left / pedos and just their whole incessant massively hypocritical whining about "cancel culture" etc. is just so lame and transparent. There will never be any change or progress so long as people focus on those wedge issues.
Right wing populists refuse to form coalitions with progressives despite them all being pro regulation / pro American and anti trade. Libertarians and progressives agree on so many things (anti surveillance, pro immigrant, abolish ICE, pro weed, pro drug decriminalization, anti war, anti occupation, anti money for Israel, etc.) however the Libertarian Party has notoriously ceded to a right wing caucus that obsesses over whining about leftist cultural issues to the point where libertarians completely ignore all the ways they agree with the likes of the Squad to everyone's detriment. Nothing significant policy wise gets done. It's hard to see a way out of this mess.
-->
@Bones
In what sense? Socially? Systemically? I would say that black on twitter is far better than being white on twitter.
lol
-->
@Bones
As for systemic racism, I'm unsure, but I think the definition of "systemic" is a reference to something imbedded in a system through policy, in which case I would disagree. But if the question were "is there widespread racism against African Americans" then my stance may be different.
I understand what you mean, and for the most part I agree. But I think it's worth noting and accounting for how previous policies have a widespread impact today. A demonstrable systemic racism existed pretty blatantly in recent American history, so an honest consideration would absolutely consider to what extent we should acknowledge that systemic racisms impacts still linger rather than just snarkily dismiss it as nonsense as some people try to do.
Literally the GOP's entire electoral strategy at this point is to make it harder for black people to vote so they might actually win a popular vote more than once every 30 years. Yet people want to chide the idea that bigotry and racism could possibly be the root of so many rights issues in the U.S. today.? Nah.
I can agree that our policies, legal and otherwise, have made big changes (especially in recent history) to account for past discrepancies (not that right wingers haven't gone kicking and screaming every single step of the way). But I reject the idea that bigotry is nonexistent or irrelevant. For example there is evidence of pro white racist gangs and KKK members within police departments and across the judiciary. So while there might not be official racist policies, there can still be a sense of "institutionalized racism" that isn't on the books. And ultimately it just seems nonsensical for a plethora of reasons to suggest that bigotry doesn't explain a great deal about our policy and why things are the way they are.
-->
@badger
Jordan Peterson's whole utility is to be one big "there, there" for bitch men.
I agree. Jordan Peterson appeals to incels and people with daddy issues. It's like some elderly, soft spoken father figure that has zero impact of fear on anyone (I honestly think I could beat him with my bare hands lol) told them to stand up straight and clean their room, and now they can't stop raving about how he's the greatest intellect of our time 😆 It's so ridiculous. I was into lobster boy before he bought into his own hype/bullshit and went completely off the deep end.
-->
@Danielle
Straight men should be more concerned with and disappointed in their statistical inability to sexually satisfy women.
Why? When has the "patriarchy" ever concerned itself with the satisfaction of women? And given that the overwhelming majority of women who participate in these polls still report themselves as heterosexual in spite of their dissatisfaction, it's not a concern that's worth being disappointed over.
And from personal experience, the difficulty in "satisfying a woman" is quite exaggerated.
The teen girl from Massachusetts who was found guilty of involuntary manslaughter for convincing her boyfriend to commit suicide was not guilty / should not have been charged with his death.
Agreed.
"Libertarian socialism" is easily one of the most idiotic and nonsensical ideologies to ever exist.
I would temper down the language, but agreed.
Economic freedom works and central planning doesn't.
Central Planning "works." It's more a question of "for whom does it work?" As a matter of principle, however, I agree with you.
Spanking children is a violation of the NAP.
Agreed.
Cities are better than suburbs.
Disagree. I've lived in both.
-->
@badger
Jordan Peterson's whole utility is to be one big "there, there" for bitch men.
Disagree. Jordan Peterson is a thoughtful man whose utility goes beyond his political interjections. And while I do have my criticisms of MGTOW and/or "Incels," their gravitation to him, in my opinion, is indicative of an overly feminized culture. And from what I've gleaned, Jordan Peterson is no "bitch" even if there are "bitch men" who may invoke parcels of his reasoning.
Okay, I'll start with my most controversial positions:
1. There should be no central governments, only private dispute resolution organizations.
2. Most major companies *especially Disney*, Hollywood, the Entertainment Industry, the Medical Industry, Law Industry, the banking Industry etc. are run by Luciferians.
3. The American Medical Association, and any other cartel for labor, should be dissolved.
4. Age of Consent Laws are immoral.
5. Taxation is robbery and theft.
6. The Pope is not Christian; he's in fact a Luciferian and Lucifer's vicar.
7. Catholicism and a majority of Christian denominations have been coaxed into practicing Luciferian rituals.
8. Equality is illogical.
9. Women did not "suffer" under patriarchy.
10. So-called "Black People" should not base the esteem of their so-called "community" on the acceptance of so-called "White People."
-->
@3RU7AL
I think a elected official's pay should be partially tied to how well their constituents do compared to past performance, like an end of year bonus. Though it might create shit incentives. I don’t know.
Too many external factors. That’s one issue. What are you trying to show?
-->
@Reece101
Too many external factors. That’s one issue. What are you trying to show?
(IFF) "performance based pay" is good for one group (THEN) "performance based pay" should be good for other groups
-->
@Athias
And from personal experience, the difficulty in "satisfying a woman" is quite exaggerated.
I agree with this. If I could make a girl cum with two digits under three inches long it really doesn't seem that difficult at all. What a shame.
Disagree. Jordan Peterson is a thoughtful man whose utility goes beyond his political interjections.
Thoughtful doesn't mean right though. People who get super high and start rambling about idiotic nonsense are thoughtful. Conspiracy theorists are thoughtful. Communists are thoughtful.
I thought JP was awesome before he became lionized by losers online as some sort of intellectual monolith who could do no wrong. There are hundreds of videos, podcasts, articles, etc. that pick apart his arguments and explain pretty straightforwardly why he's incorrect about a lot of things he takes a position on, including his latest nonsense about standards of objective beauty (he started whining about not being attracted to a plus size Sports Illustrated model, and he cited two positively useless articles as "proof" that don't back up a thing he said in any way whatsoever as another recent gaffe).
I mean Jordan Peterson basically bought into his own celebrity, became a drug addict and is now a meme who can't pry himself off twitter like some sort of desperate for attention wackadoo. I really enjoy his books, but the people who act like he's the second coming of Shakespeare are such tools. He's like the Dan Brown of philosophy for fucks sake, not the revelational guru people portray him as. Essentially JP is like "son, don't lie" and "women really shouldn't be given the autonomy to work outside the home or else all us beta boys won't be chosen and can't be happy" so all the ugly, pseudo intellectual white boys with no girlfriends online are like yasss kinggg!! It's sad what he's become.
-->
@3RU7AL
(IFF) "performance based pay" is good for one group (THEN) "performance based pay" should be good for other groups
I’m talking about bonuses. But anyway, how so?
Wealth inequality is not inherently bad.
-->
@Danielle
Imagine priding yourself on your ability to beat up an elderly PhD holder with your bare hands to prove he is not intellectual...
The levels of nonsense...
-->
@RationalMadman
You’ve got it all wrong. Danielle is expressing that he wants to beat Peterson up to prove he isn’t a bitch. that’s a more direct way of seeing it.
Danielle’s reply to Badger:
Jordan Peterson's whole utility is to be one big "there, there" for bitch men.I agree. Jordan Peterson appeals to incels and people with daddy issues. It's like some elderly, soft spoken father figure that has zero impact of fear on anyone (I honestly think I could beat him with my bare hands lol) told them to stand up straight and clean their room, and now they can't stop raving about how he's the greatest intellect of our time 😆 It's so ridiculous. I was into lobster boy before he bought into his own hype/bullshit and went completely off the deep end.
-->
@Danielle
Thoughtful doesn't mean right though. People who get super high and start rambling about idiotic nonsense are thoughtful. Conspiracy theorists are thoughtful. Communists are thoughtful.
I did not suggest he was thoughtful to imply that he was (always) "right." I suggested that he was thoughtful to contradict badger's statement that "his only utility" is to coddle "bitch men."
I thought JP was awesome before he became lionized by losers online as some sort of intellectual monolith who could do no wrong. There are hundreds of videos, podcasts, articles, etc. that pick apart his arguments and explain pretty straightforwardly why he's incorrect about a lot of things he takes a position on
Did they really explain why he was wrong, or were they disgruntled dissenters waiting to pounce on him at the right moment? But admittedly, I wouldn't know of these videos and podcasts and articles, so what do you believe he's incorrect about?
his latest nonsense about standards of objective beauty
He didn't say that they were objective; he said they were universal. I'd be hard pressed to reject emergent trends (e.g. like denying that many if not most people smile when they're happy) but ultimately one likes what one likes.
(he started whining about not being attracted to a plus size Sports Illustrated model, and he cited two positively useless articles as "proof" that don't back up a thing he said in any way whatsoever as another recent gaffe).
Again, this is not correct. Upon your allusion, I went and looked into the matter. He doesn't state that she's "unattractive." He even admitted that he found her physically appealing--particularly her facial features. He said, "Not Beautiful," which was admittedly a haphazard political statement. Was it directed at her physical attractiveness, or the alleged PC Machine against which he has wagered a personal intifada--the one which catapulted his public image and career? Why would one who's aware of his M.O. be surprised or shocked by what he stated, much less characterize it as a "gaffe"?
I mean Jordan Peterson basically bought into his own celebrity, became a drug addict and is now a meme who can't pry himself off twitter like some sort of desperate for attention wackadoo. I really enjoy his books, but the people who act like he's the second coming of Shakespeare are such tools. He's like the Dan Brown of philosophy for fucks sake, not the revelational guru people portray him as.
How much of this has to do with Jordan Peterson himself, and not your issues with the image his followers sustain? (The Dan Brown reference was hilarious, though.)
Essentially JP is like "son, don't lie" and "women really shouldn't be given the autonomy to work outside the home or else all us beta boys won't be chosen and can't be happy" so all the ugly, pseudo intellectual white boys with no girlfriends online are like yasss kinggg!! It's sad what he's become.
What he's become? He has always been this. There's nothing he has said about Yumi Nu that isn't part and parcel to statements he has made in the past. He has vehemently rejected political correctness legally and culturally--including manipulative psyops which cosigns obesity. Now, I disagree--somewhat. While I do think magazines like Time, People, Maxim, Playboy and Sports Illustrated play a large role in running psyops which attempt to influence the concept of certain images, I think primarily that Sports Illustrated was just pandering, like many companies, to shore up sales. I also disagree with Peterson because I don't place much stalk into psychometrics. He's in a profession which is entirely contingent on consensus-based reasoning. So none of what he has stated or does state is inconsistent with his milieu.
If I were to fault him, it would be for an attempt to engage "intellectual" discussion on a platform whose namesake stems from a word that's literally synonymous with "fool." I too do not believe he's the most prominent intellectual of this generation, or any generation, but nevertheless, he is thoughtful and rigorous in his reasoning. At the very least, he's worth hearing out.
-->
@Reece101
na I dont see that...
I basically agree with Danielle. Jordan Peterson is obviously a very well educated fellow and sometimes says interesting things, but he's found a very silly notoriety for himself and has leaned right the fuck into it. He's just silly. The pronouns thing. These videos where he "destroys" feminists. Wailing at Justin Trudeau about lockdowns. The Sports Illustrated issue Danielle brings up. There was also some global warming question he answers which I can't remember exactly, but I took it for such nonsense posturing. I've watched him with Zizek and Stephen Fry. Zizek walks over him. Peterson literally cries to Stephen Fry about who the fuck knows what. I really do just find him so fucking silly. The US has made an intellectual superstar out of a 60 year old man frothing at the mouth about pronouns. Do you lot really have nothing better to do?