what’s ur most controversial/unpopular opinion?

[SpiritualDeath]

Life is NOT worth living. We have no free will. We're just biologically programmed need machines addicted to some useless cheese, puppets in the delusion of pulling our own strings.

Religions are backwards and should be abolished. All they're doing is providing false hope which is nothing good. They only exacerbate our predicament. They have been tools actively used by the elites to control and enslave people throughout history, and are one of the direct causes of wars, violence and other human atrocities. They cause harm every time a family indoctrinates their children and threatens them with hell after death. Can't believe that the vast majority of humanity are still traditionally religious in one way or another today. New-age mystical delusions can go with them.

Procreation under all circumstances is not only unethical but also irrational. It's unethical in the sense that you're directly subjecting new life to harm, putting others at risk of most severe suffering conceivable that you yourself are unwilling to endure (or would rather avoid). It's irrational in the sense that by definition, rationality is about solving problems and it makes no sense to actively create new problems (need machines) just to get them solved, when you cannot even guarantee that everything will eventually be solved. People with genetic diseases should not be allowed to pass their diseases onto their children (Non-existence harms no one, while existence harms everyone. Some cases are just worse than others. Feel free to call this eugenics. I support it anyways). Abortion is ethical and even preferred under all circumstances.

EVERYONE should have the right to die. NO ONE should be excluded. No matter what age group or whether they're terminally ill, or whatever other arbitrary line you want to draw.

If someone has a button that instantly renders the universe empty (free of sentient life), they should definitely do so.

 

[Dr Iron Arc]

Is that so? I don't know about you but I think that supporting eugenics is controversial. I'd say that this opinion that is controversial even on this site. Another controversial opinion is listed on the first page where somebody stated that all people of all ages should be allowed a peaceful way out (that means minors too).

I think that saying that life has no inherent value is controversial amongst the general population but not as much on this site. I also think that saying that all religion should be eradicated is very controversial too as many people are religious and the ones who aren't still stupidly advocate for religion to live on

I wasn't necessarily talking about your opinions specifically. Or maybe I was. I'm just trying to be vague on purpose so as not to offend anyone. It's fine if I believe your opinions actually aren't as controversial as they seem because I could be wrong anyway.

 

[sserafim]

Autism should be eradicated.

Completely agree, having it is like a living hell

 

[ijustwishtodie]

I wasn't necessarily talking about your opinions specifically. Or maybe I was. I'm just trying to be vague on purpose so as not to offend anyone. It's fine if I believe your opinions actually aren't as controversial as they seem because I could be wrong anyway.

I don't mind if people think my opinion is controversial or not. I was just curious as to what you think a controversial opinion would be as some of the opinions posted on this thread seemed controversial to me and I'm not just talking about my own opinion. I was just merely curious to hear an even more controversial opinion than everything that has already been stated

 

[EvisceratedJester]

Deciding to have children is one of the most selfish decisions someone can make and shouldn't be treated as some "selfish act".

People shouldn't be allowed to hit their children under any circumstance besides in cased where their safety is at risk (like lightly hitting their hand to keep them from touching something that could hurt them). If you cannot hit an adult without it being assualt then you cannpt hit a child without it being assualt. If you cannot discipline your kids without hitting them then they should be taken away from you because you clearly aren't fit to be a parent. I don't care if you do it occassionally or if you don't them hard enough to leave a mark, it's wrong. I don't think this should be a controversial opinion but the general public doesn't seem to agree with me on this.

I also think that the standards for parenting are too low. Loving your child and protecting them should be seen and treated as the bare minimum to being a parent. Maybe even slightly below the bare minimum. I hate how people treat those things as a sign of being a great parent. Being a great parent should involve doing way more than that crap. I also don't think this should be a controverisal opinion but parents get tend to get offended whenever they hear it.

Children's rights should also always be prioritized over the rights of parents.

I also think we need to start replacing the term narcissistic with something else because the term is both over used and it's causing people to look down on those with NDP despite there being a lot of people with NDP who are nice and NDP being a disorder common amongst victims of child abuse. Again, I don't think this should be a controversial opinion but I've seen people get pissed off when others say this.

I think so long as someone is over the age of 18, are of sound mind, and able to make their own decisions that they should be able to decide on whether or not they want to end their life and should be able to access safe and reliable options if they choose to do so.

 

[ForsakenDial]

Reproduction is immoral. Regardless or race, gender, or any other attribute. No one should reproduce as humans are inherently evil. Extinction is the only way to ensure peace for both those who currently exist and those who never been cursed to.

 

[Ferdinand Bardamu]

Democracy is a dogshit system and we need Technocracy.

 

[sserafim]

Reproduction is immoral. Regardless or race, gender, or any other attribute. No one should reproduce as humans are inherently evil. Extinction is the only way to ensure peace for both those who currently exist and those who never been cursed to.

110%!

 

[Ferdinand Bardamu]

A major culling of the human population, and an embrace of transhumanism is needed

 

[achb]

Mine is that there is no inherent value to life/existence.

Same. I've thought this a long time, but I get that people disagree.
In my opinion, life only has value that is placed on it by other life. A person can value themselves. Other people can value that person. I never understood why people were againsy abortion for that reason. Even if it were alive, if no one values it and it does not hold the capacity to value itself then what does it matter?
But this is a flimsy feeling of mine at best because how do we determine capacity to value. A cat values it's life, but how do we know that? Even single cell organisms avoid death and eat to continue life. But a single cell organism cannot value anything.
So I dunno. It's just a thought.

 

[sserafim]

Suicide is not selfish, you're not responsible for how anyone else feels. It is selfish if you have children though because they're dependent on you and you're responsible and need to provide for them

Democracy is a dogshit system and we need Technocracy.

Wdym?

 

[Argo]

Autism should be eradicated.

I have a bias against autism too and I'm probably on the spectrum(we probably all are, to some degree actually, I think we're just on all spectrums basically-- total tangent). But yeah for me it's this like... cold... robotic-ness. And also like a confusion despite high intelligence, because it's too logical/literal. So that inconsistency is frustrating. The fact that people who are like this(which again, I relate to everything I'm describing to some degree), are designing things like AI, are a kind of existential threat in itself. I think that captures it for me in a few words. I'm not fully on board with "should be eradicated" because I don't think anything gets solved that way but... yeah, it's frustrating both as a personal flaw and in general.

I really don't mean to pick on autistic people in case someone who identifies strongly that way is reading, I don't resent anyone personally to be clear. I could write a paragraph just like that about any other archetype: BPD, Psychopathy, Schizophrenia, OCD, ADHD, whatever. It's really just different flavors of "broken" when it comes to humanity itself for me.

 

[sserafim]

A major culling of the human population, and an embrace of transhumanism is needed

Why do you think an embrace of transhumanism is needed?

I have a bias against autism too and I'm probably on the spectrum(we probably all are, to some degree actually, I think we're just on all spectrums basically-- total tangent). But yeah for me it's this like... cold... robotic-ness. And also like a confusion despite high intelligence, because it's too logical/literal. So that inconsistency is frustrating. The fact that people who are like this(which again, I relate to everything I'm describing to some degree), are designing things like AI, are a kind of existential threat in itself. I think that captures it for me in a few words. I'm not fully on board with "should be eradicated" because I don't think anything gets solved that way but... yeah, it's frustrating both as a personal flaw and in general.

I really don't mean to pick on autistic people in case someone who identifies strongly that way is reading, I don't resent anyone personally to be clear. I could write a paragraph just like that about any other archetype: BPD, Psychopathy, Schizophrenia, OCD, ADHD, whatever. It's really just different flavors of "broken" when it comes to humanity itself for me.

Some people are completely normal though, they're the normie NPCs. I doubt they're on any spectrum…

Here is mine: there are certain skills, goals, etc that are physically impossible to achieve depending on the individual, but in the interest of motivation people lie and say anything is possible. Or most commonly, people will say that you may lack aptitude for something, but that if you practice enough inevitably you would achieve mastery at the level of someone who is naturally gifted at that skill and able to pick it up.

I'll give an example. I've been studying Japanese for 5+ years now and I'm still at the level of a primary school child, even with lessons. Even if I studied everyday for the rest of my life I would never be as fluent as someone who speaks it as their native tongue. People highly overestimate the concept of neuroplasticity and think the brain can be moulded into anything no matter what. So perhaps that's my true unpopular opinion, people overestimating the capabilities of the brain don't realize that it has limits and that some people physically cannot master something no matter how hard they try due to inherent limitations, and we should stop pretending otherwise.

How do you know what you're naturally gifted at?

 

[Forever Sleep]

Sometimes I wonder if Jesus was a well meaning schizophrenic. I wonder with all religions really. What if it's all bull shit?... What if it isn't? That's even more of a worry...

 

[Meteora]

I can't say really, there s many. I often rub people the wrong way, guess I m too honest.

 

[Ferdinand Bardamu]

Why do you think an embrace of transhumanism is needed?

Overcoming of the problems inherent to Humanity. Also it'd help with the problems with arise when a large amount of humanity fucking vanishes

 

[Ferdinand Bardamu]

Wdym?

Ah sorry, I didn't see this one. Sorry for the doublepost too. By Technocracy I basically mean rule by academics - so, for example, the people in charge of Economics would be leading Economists. I see that as a better system than Democracy because the average voter is a fucking retard who votes based on emotion - this is how you get people like Trump. Also, the average voter isn't interested in actual policy, but instead on non-issues like "WOKENEZZ!!!!" Democratic politicians usually are unable to achieve their goals because of the time limit emposed. They also usually have a high time preference because they need to appease their voters NOW, rather than focus on low time preference things. Further, they usually lack expertise - again, see Trump and other people like him. Moreover, Democracy doesn't pass the power justification principle, for the same reason Monarchy doesn't - the leader(s) are not chosen on Merit, but instead through some other, usually arbitrary means.

 

[Zaya]

Ah sorry, I didn't see this one. Sorry for the doublepost too. By Technocracy I basically mean rule by academics - so, for example, the people in charge of Economics would be leading Economists. I see that as a better system than Democracy because the average voter is a fucking retard who votes based on emotion - this is how you get people like Trump. Also, the average voter isn't interested in actual policy, but instead on non-issues like "WOKENEZZ!!!!" Democratic politicians usually are unable to achieve their goals because of the time limit emposed. They also usually have a high time preference because they need to appease their voters NOW, rather than focus on low time preference things. Further, they usually lack expertise - again, see Trump and other people like him. Moreover, Democracy doesn't pass the power justification principle, for the same reason Monarchy doesn't - the leader(s) are not chose on Merit, but instead through some other, usually arbitrary means.

Isn't that aristocracy?

Is that so? I don't know about you but I think that supporting eugenics is controversial. I'd say that this opinion that is controversial even on this site. Another controversial opinion is listed on the first page where somebody stated that all people of all ages should be allowed a peaceful way out (that means minors too).

I think that saying that life has no inherent value is controversial amongst the general population but not as much on this site. I also think that saying that all religion should be eradicated is very controversial too as many people are religious and the ones who aren't still stupidly advocate for religion to live on

Idk where you're from but where I live being anti-religion is a pretty common opinion, probably depends on the country

 

[silentcicada]

This doubt this is controversial but I thought I'd weigh in on the eugenics discussion. My take on eugenics: If someone wants to live, let them. I'm pro-euthanasia for a reason. If they are okay with living then I don't see why we should do anything to them.

Also, plain donuts are the best and ketchup on hotdogs are yucky.

 

[sserafim]

This doubt this is controversial but I thought I'd weigh in on the eugenics discussion. My take on eugenics: If someone wants to live, let them. I'm pro-euthanasia for a reason. If they are okay with living then I don't see why we should do anything to them.

Also, plain donuts are the best and ketchup on hotdogs are yucky.

I agree with your first part. Have to disagree with the second part though. My unpopular opinion is that all donuts are gross and that hotdogs (regardless of whether they have ketchup on them or not) are gross as well

 

[Argo]

Some people are completely normal though, they're the normie NPCs. I doubt they're on any spectrum…

I really think normal is just a fictional idea. It's because some of these traits are so fundamental to humanity. Let's take something that isn't autism like psychopathy. Some people demonstrate the traits so strongly, that it can feel like you don't even need any qualifications to be confident about their diagnosis as long as you observe them long enough and know what psychopathy is. But if you line up everyone on earth, I think they'll neatly arrange from "Most psychopathic" to "Least psychopathic", and it will be a spectrum rather than a binary where it's "Yes/No psychopathic". Same for something like ADHD, etc. There doesn't seem to be a "normal" where someone's free from pathological traits. There's probably something like a "more evened out" person, though, but still I bet if we had the technology to very sensitively test their traits, we'd find something and place them on various spectrums for things.

 

[jello]

Everyone deserves compassion, respect, and forgiveness

 

[tsumihoroboshi]

If you want a very very controversial opinion that makes everyone involved uncomfortable then I've got a couple that I can't talk about outside of close friends bcus I'm immediately hit with "ohh how edgy! what a contrarian!"

I don't see ethical consumption of human meat to be the worst thing ever. If someone wishes that they want to be eaten especially after they've passed, I see nothing wrong with allowing that wish.

Again though, it has to come with stipulations in place. An example being that Belgian guy that turned his amputated foot meat into tacos to feed to friends. I'm not sure the credibility of that guy's story is, there's plenty and plenty of articles about it, but things like that I just don't see a problem with.

I've seen people argue "if we allow cannibalism in humans then it will lead to more murder for meat consumption" which to me is just wrong. There are already plenty of people that kill and are cannibals for pleasure. Many people see these cases and are disgusted by it, so much to the point that conversations like this get derailed into a morality debate over it. So I don't see a rise of killing humans to find human meat to feed anyone willing.

However, I do not believe it will ever be so normalised that you should be living in fear someone will eat you, and in regards to the argument of it being something someone consented to long before dying, I've also seen people say "well what if they changed their mind at the last second?" What about wills then? The person could've decided last second to change something in their will, but died before they could. Or people agreeing to donate their body to science and wanting to change that at the last second, but didn't get to. There's too many "what-ifs" in these scenarios. Loopholes that you can find in the logic to make a case against such a thing. That is fine, too. You are not going to be eaten anytime soon. I just don't see anything wrong with it if someone personally wished for it.

I also think if you're already a meat eater, I don't see why you'd have issues consuming dog or cat meat (not that you should just kill and eat your pets, I mean in a more general sense). I think animals are too cute to be eaten, but I respect someone's choice to do so.

I wrote this half-asleep, hopefully it's coherent. I don't even like meat, but I'd try anything once I guess.

With stipulations.

With stipulations.

 

[sserafim]

If you want a very very controversial opinion that makes everyone involved uncomfortable then I've got a couple that I can't talk about outside of close friends bcus I'm immediately hit with "ohh how edgy! what a contrarian!"

I don't see ethical consumption of human meat to be the worst thing ever. If someone wishes that they want to be eaten especially after they've passed, I see nothing wrong with allowing that wish.

Again though, it has to come with stipulations in place. An example being that Belgian guy that turned his amputated foot meat into tacos to feed to friends. I'm not sure the credibility of that guy's story is, there's plenty and plenty of articles about it, but things like that I just don't see a problem with.

I've seen people argue "if we allow cannibalism in humans then it will lead to more murder for meat consumption" which to me is just wrong. There are already plenty of people that kill and are cannibals for pleasure. Many people see these cases and are disgusted by it, so much to the point that conversations like this get derailed into a morality debate over it. So I don't see a rise of killing humans to find human meat to feed anyone willing.

However, I do not believe it will ever be so normalised that you should be living in fear someone will eat you, and in regards to the argument of it being something someone consented to long before dying, I've also seen people say "well what if they changed their mind at the last second?" What about wills then? The person could've decided last second to change something in their will, but died before they could. Or people agreeing to donate their body to science and wanting to change that at the last second, but didn't get to. There's too many "what-ifs" in these scenarios. Loopholes that you can find in the logic to make a case against such a thing. That is fine, too. You are not going to be eaten anytime soon. I just don't see anything wrong with it if someone personally wished for it.

I also think if you're already a meat eater, I don't see why you'd have issues consuming dog or cat meat (not that you should just kill and eat your pets, I mean in a more general sense). I think animals are too cute to be eaten, but I respect someone's choice to do so.

I wrote this half-asleep, hopefully it's coherent. I don't even like meat, but I'd try anything once I guess.

With stipulations.

With stipulations.

I'm wondering about your other controversial opinions. I'm curious and won't judge. I'm pretty contrarian myself as well lol

 

[tsumihoroboshi]

I'm wondering about your other controversial opinions. I'm curious and won't judge. I'm pretty contrarian myself as well lol

Oh, the other controversial opinion was the inclusion of the dog and cat meat. I pretty much agree with what everyone else has said here in regards to eugenics and stuff. That's like my one real opinions that nobody likes to talk or think about ;;;; Understandable really.

 

[onyx559]

Protests sadly don't really do anything :/ like what's going on in the middle east rn. I understand the reasoning for protesting it but REALISTICALLY the government only does what they want to do. They don't do anything for citizens. There was a protest here in Seattle where people completely blocked off I-5 and what did it do? Did nothing but caused traffic and pissed off a lot of everyday citizens, didn't bother the government in any way shape or form. The government only cares to benefit themselves, not anyone else. Again, I completely understand the reasoning for protesting. Bringing awareness for things that are wrong but trust, the government is ALREADY AWARE they just don't care.