Unpopular Opinion About Everything - Rant about your controversial opinion on whatever. This is not Reddit, pineapple on pizza is not deep or funny.

  • 🏰 The Fediverse is up. If you know, you know.
  • Want to keep track of this thread?
    Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading.
    Create account
anon483637 said:
You inherit a random set of gametes
Click to expand...
Gametes are the sperm and egg cells that combine to form a zygote. You don't inherit them. You're thinking of genes.

anon483637 said:
(unless they affect one of those factors)
Click to expand...
Your parents absolutely affect your genetic factors. Your genes aren't completely random, you randomly inherit genes from a relatively small pool from your parents. That's why we can predict with reasonable certainty that two black parents will have a black kid, and two white parents will have a white kid.

So in your opinion, a child who spends ~18 years with their parents will learn nothing from them? If the parents demonstrate a million times that you should live by the golden rule, the child will never pick up on it. If that child grows up living by the golden rule, it's because their childhood peer group taught it to them. If the parents demonstrate that it's okay to steal, fight, drink, leech off of welfare, and generally act like low-class trash, only the child's genes and childhood peer group determine if the child ends up a loser or not. The parenting or lack thereof is absolutely not a factor in whether or not that kid becomes trailer/ghetto trash, despite there famously being a strong positive correlation between single-parent households and criminality. Is that about right?
 
Shart Attack said:
Gametes are the sperm and egg cells that combine to form a zygote. You don't inherit them. You're thinking of genes.
Click to expand...
As in differences between kids from the same parent are explained (in part) by each gamete being a different half of that parent's genes.

Shart Attack said:
Your parents absolutely affect your genetic factors. Your genes aren't completely random, you randomly inherit genes from a relatively small pool from your parents. That's why we can predict with reasonable certainty that two black parents will have a black kid, and two white parents will have a white kid.
Click to expand...
I never said they were completely random, in fact in my original post I explicitly said genes were one of the 2 ways parents *did* influence their children.

Shart Attack said:
So in your opinion, a child who spends ~18 years with their parents will learn nothing from them? If the parents demonstrate a million times that you should live by the golden rule, the child will never pick up on it. If that child grows up living by the golden rule, it's because their childhood peer group taught it to them.
Click to expand...
Not just my opinion, The Nurture Assumption is a good start on the evidence behind it. But yes. Teach your child not to steal, while living in a rough neighbourhood where their social group thinks stealing is cool, and they will most likely end up stealing themselves. In this situation your only hope would be a genetic component to behaviour. Peer group wins over parents, as can be seen with e.g. declining religious belief - it's not that people age and stop going to church, it's a generational shift.

Shart Attack said:
If the parents demonstrate that it's okay to steal, fight, drink, leech off of welfare, and generally act like low-class trash, only the child's genes and childhood peer group determine if the child ends up a loser or not. The parenting or lack thereof is absolutely not a factor in whether or not that kid becomes trailer/ghetto trash, despite there famously being a strong positive correlation between single-parent households and criminality. Is that about right?
Click to expand...
Yep. Account for other factors and the correlation disappears. Again, TNA is a good entry point into the idea that specifically deals with single-parent households, if you're willing to see a belief you clearly hold emotional attachment to be dismantled. But this is an unpopular opinion thread after all.
 
anon483637 said:
Again, TNA is a good entry point into the idea that specifically deals with single-parent households, if you're willing to see a belief you clearly hold emotional attachment to be dismantled. But this is an unpopular opinion thread after all.
Click to expand...
I wouldn't say I have an emotional attachment to any particular theory of child development, just that I'm skeptical of some internet rando's opinion because it flies in the face of common sense and what I've observed in my own life. I'll add that book to my list, though. I'm sure it will be illuminating.

Thread tax: I find Christian sanctimony every bit as obnoxious as social justice/lefty/progtard sanctimony. That's not to say they're morally equivalent, just that I hate unsolicited moralizing no matter who is giving it. I'll be walking in the park and see a sign in front of a house across the street with some random Bible verse on it:

Most blessed of women be Jael, the wife of Heber the Kenite, most blessed of tent-dwelling women. He asked for water, and she gave him milk; in a bowl fit for nobles she brought him curdled milk. Her hand reached for the tent peg, her right hand for the workman’s hammer. Dhe struck Sisera, she crushed his head, she shattered and pierced his temple. At her feet he sank, he fell; there he lay. At her feet he sank, he fell; where he sank, there he fell—dead.

Thank you, very cool. I didn't ask for a lecture, how generous of you to presume I was in need of one. I have same reaction to that shit that I do when my video game stops dead in its tracks to instruct me on tranny pronouns, just dull annoyance. I didn't ask for your gay moralizing, and nobody benefits from it except for people who already agree with you. Just keep your shit opinions to yourself, and I'll keep mine to Kiwi Farms, please and thank you.
 
Shart Attack said:
I find Christian sanctimony every bit as obnoxious as social justice/lefty/progtard sanctimony. That's not to say they're morally equivalent, just that I hate unsolicited moralizing no matter who is giving it. I'll be walking in the p
Click to expand...
You're spoiled rotten.

 
long form video essays are boring.

I feel like youtube goes through different phases, and the mid 2000s youtube was a lot more fun with short form content, comedy sketches, and just completely random and individualized videos, youtube poops, amvs, etc.

The micro blogging part I never really understood

and I feel like today that were stuck with podcasting, and long form video essays (basically solitary podcasting) about someone's take on some topic, some movie, some historic topic, etc.

I think it was a breath of fresh air briefly and there are still sometimes people with interesting takes or things to talk about, but seeing the 900th video thats an hour long and providing a video essay analysis about this episode of X show, or video game, or Donald Trump, or Swedish political factions is pretty boring.

I wish people made more content that involved storytelling, comedy, short horror videos, anything- honestly
 
Shart Attack said:
I'll be walking in the park and see a sign in front of a house across the street with some random Bible verse on it:
Click to expand...
have you considered not going out of your way to read things that will make you upset? No one forced you to look up the verse that was on someone's private property, you did that to your self lmfao.
Shart Attack said:
and I'll keep mine to Kiwi Farms, please and thank you.
Click to expand...
1710870394634.png
 
Seanut Arbuckle said:
have you considered not going out of your way to read things that will make you upset? No one forced you to look up the verse that was on someone's private property, you did that to your self lmfao.
Click to expand...
I don't have to look it up, they have the whole-ass passage written out in its entirety. It's a weirdly popular thing to do where I live. There's a storage facility down by the airport that writes them out on their marquee. Sometimes they run out of room and have to attach handwritten posters below the marquee to contain the entire verse.

And yeah, it's on their private property, but the sign is facing out, toward everyone else's public property, i.e. the road and the public park. They don't put it there for their own benefit, they put it there for everyone else's presumed benefit, which I think is sanctimonious and annoying.
 
Dambusters' Dog II said:
Terry was more like John Nash than your average schizo-bum.
Click to expand...
And yet he still ended up being a schizo bum nonetheless. I don't mean to rag on the guy, but the sappy shit people say about him is really weird to me. Outside of the tech skills, he's not any different from any other schizo I've seen or heard of who terrorized their family and anyone else they met with their madness, burnt all bridges and then died. Tragic, but it's the usual for those types.
 
Here's one of my own.

The crusade against lolicon/"cunny" that began from 2013 is completely delusional and unjustified. Funny that the United Nations was the one spearheading it and that's the biggest group of pedos ever. And then you have Megalia/Womad (look at what they did to Blue Archive). The goal is total control and holding pretty much everyone accountable and not an elevation of morals (we have less day by day).
 
I don't think there's a single deathfat cow I find even remotely compelling. The only one that comes close is Chantal, and even she's only tolerable to me when covered by Josh on MATI. I tried, but she just isn't funny without the added meta of Josh wanting to be her feeder.

I've spent years going to places like FatPeopleHate and FatPeopleStories before reddit reddited itself, and one day I just reached the conclusion that every single body acceptance lolcow follows the exact same script. Eat unhealthy amounts of food, use magical thinking to deny you're doing it or justify it, call your fans obsessed for noticing, lather rinse repeat. It really isn't funny to me as much as it is sad, and I think basically everybody that had a fat aunt or uncle has already heard every fatcope out there. Body acceptance didn't really invent those copes btw, at best they collated every fat aunt's excuses into one list, then published it onto the internet for other fatasses to enjoy.
 
Women should not be policemen, firemen, security gards or participate in the military outside of cooking/nursing/doctor ect. Plus, who would take care of all the children and elderly if all the men AND the women go to war?? Women don't meet the physical standards in the military so they make "special, gender specific" standards...aka: less standards and lowering the bar.

. We are weaker then men, how do you expect a 130 pound, 5'3 woman to be able to take down a grown man nearly twice her weight??? Or be able to lift a man in a fire situation. Also, women tend to be frightend of men when they are coming at you aggressivly. It's just not a great idea. In a war situation with for example the middle east, what do you think is going to happen to female prisoners of war?

Also, I want nothing more then to be a stay at home mother to 3 or so children and homeschool them. If you say that outloud, women will get vicious and insult you, say you are "setting women back" and insinuate that you are lazy and a gold digger.

I want that traditional life.

Also bring back slut shaming for both men a women. I don't want a man who has been with 25+ other women, and I'm fairly sure men don't want women who have been with 25+ other men, simple as that. It just reeks of emotional issues and STD's.
 
Kids under 5 shouldn't be allowed in most places. I don't want to hear you're screaming shite of a loinfruit when in a restaurant, on a train, on a plane, shopping or generally doing any activity. Being amongst niggerfaggots, niggercattle and NPC's when out and about is bad enough, especially with the explosion in people who are just fucking nuts, making it worse is screaming little shitting machines.

And put your tits away. There's no excuse for public breastfeeding when any shop will allow you to do so in private.
 
KiwiFarmer9993! said:
Women should not be policemen, firemen, security gards or participate in the military outside of cooking/nursing/doctor ect.
Click to expand...
They should be anything they're physically qualified for if there is a reason for physical qualification. So if they can't carry their equipment, they shouldn't be infantry. This might result in most of the minority of women who even want to do this and are qualified being strapping bull-dykes, but if you have some outlier women who are actually physically qualified to do the job based on objective metrics, they should be allowed to do it.

And as for security guards, I've been one and for unarmed security guard purposes, such as closed-down factories and similar things where your orders are don't confront intruders but call actual cops, I don't see why women can't do that just as well as some donut eating fag.

There are also different kinds of police, and I think there are definitely women entirely qualified to be something like a homicide detective or behavioral science expert. I am more skeptical of anything that involves physical confrontation. First, many perps are the type who assault women and will immediately be confident in their ability to beat up a woman. That's just the kind of shit criminals in street hassles do. This means the woman will be at an extreme physical disadvantage and is more likely to have to resort to just shooting the perp. While in many cases, this is actually a good outcome, I think we should generally reduce police encounters that result in death to either suspects or cops.

Also, specifically as to military, some consideration should be given to the fact that if women are kidnapped by our enemies, who often view rape as just a perk of their job or a method of warfare itself, men will tend to put themselves in danger that they wouldn't for male POWs. We really shouldn't give our enemies hostages that would cause irrational responses among many soldiers. I'm not making this up. Look what the Russian vermin did to German women and girls.

So I actually partly agree with your statement, but I'd temper it. There are some women who are entirely qualified to do things that usually men do, and they should be allowed to, but rational qualifications on who should be allowed to do these things should not be relaxed for reasons of race, sex, or "gender." If you can do it, you can do it. If you can't, fuck off.
 
Bog-standard Poster said:
Kids under 5 shouldn't be allowed in most places. I don't want to hear you're screaming shite of a loinfruit when in a restaurant, on a train, on a plane, shopping or generally doing any activity. Being amongst niggerfaggots, niggercattle and NPC's when out and about is bad enough, especially with the explosion in people who are just fucking nuts, making it worse is screaming little shitting machines.

And put your tits away. There's no excuse for public breastfeeding when any shop will allow you to do so in private.
Click to expand...
How are children supposed to suddenly know how to behave in public at 6 if they are not allowed to be in public for the first 5 years of their life? Not saying that there are not annoying children (there are, obviously) But they can't learn to behave without being put in positions like in public and socialize. I think during covid and being locked in the house for 3 years because of either the Gov. or the parents being extra paranoid did a major disservice to toddlers for this exact reason and that's why they are worse now.
 
KiwiFarmer9993! said:
How are children supposed to suddenly know how to behave in public at 6 if they are not allowed to be in public for the first 5 years of their life? Not saying that there are not annoying children (there are, obviously) But they can't learn to behave without being put in positions like in public and socialize. I think during covid and being locked in the house for 3 years because of either the Gov. or the parents being extra paranoid did a major disservice to toddlers for this exact reason and that's why they are worse now.
Click to expand...
You're right. We should up it to 8 years old. Fwiw, I think there should be child-only (with a parent obviously) where parents could go to places where there are other kids and other parents. Somewhere to share stories, help out or just observe; be it supermarkets, cinemas or holidays. It's a tragedy that we do Autism hour for the fucking freaks, but don't support parents with let-you're-screaming-shite-of-a-child-go-nuts-hour

Unfortunately, we can't have child-only places because trannys, fags and pedos would infiltrate the places, but hey.
 
I have already shared some seemingly unpopular opinions here, such that a couple niggercattle still bother me from time to time, but here's another--I do not have an altogether negative view about Mao Zedong. It seems to me his policies were the predicate for China to finally get over "a few bad centuries." And if Europe and it's de facto conqueror the United States continue in this bout of racial and civilizational suicide, will be the next super power.

What I admire most about Mao is how he ended the opium crisis that had plagued China for centuries. He didn't do it by playing patty-cake, he did it by killing a whole lot of people, when a whole lot of killing needed to be done. Nothing for the faint of heart!

Authorities would apprehend a seven year old boy working as a drug runner, and before stringing him up would find who he reported to, and up the chain the authorities went until drug kingpins were gone with them. Very quickly Mao put an end to the opium crisis, through unabashed, raw brutality.

From what I understand, the Communist Chinese had more of a carrot and stick and approach with the addicts, offering the carrot of rehab but with the express promise of the grisly alternative if they don't. Some crtiics of Mao say that was embellished but I'm not sure that it is, nor have I seem any proof indicating otherwise.

I submit that bullshit talk about socalled human rights and "muh constiution" aren't going to solve the problems we have, least of all the drug epidemic. It was not that the war on drugs could not be won, it is that it can't be won with the bullshit constraints weighed down by concerns over "inalienable rights" and various constraints by a document that worked in the past but served it's purpose and also led us to the brink of civilizational ruin and racial suicide.

Were it possible to end democracy and not be constrained in the way we are, our troubles would be over very quickly. The fentanyl and meth crises would be over in weeks, maybe months. The African refugee crisis in the med and English channel would also be over very quickly, but you have to machine gun anyone who comes across and you have to give the sort behind things like the Sea Eye rescuing refugees and bringing them to Greek and Italian shores the same dire as Mao dished out to young boys running opium and on up the chain. We can't do it by playing patty cake, we have to look toward someone with a cold, iron heart--like Mao!

I am not Chinese but can of course see the benefit of what Mao did with the opium crisis from a Chinese perspective. Just as we may still look to Otto von Bismarck's prescription of Blood and Iron to this day, we can also turn to how Mao dealt with the opium crisis.

So yeah, that's my unpopular opinion for today. I kind of like Mao Zedong.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom