Most of the time when people say they have an unpopular opinion, it turns out it’s actually pretty popular.
Do you have some that’s really unpopular and most likely will get you downvoted?
You must log in or register to comment.
Fuck ALL advertisements. Yes, even “unobtrusive” ones, especially yours. If I want your shit, I will find you. If I appreciate your shit, I’ll pay you for your time. If you want to connect, I’m all ears. Otherwise, fuck off capitalists, fuck off advertisers, and fuck off useful idiots who want to waste my finite lifespan in this miserable universe showing me ads.
The average person shouldn’t be allowed to drive. It’s extremely dangerous and most people are desensitized to it and absolutely don’t take the natural responsibility towards others that comes with having the ability to kill someone with a finger twitch (or a slight lapse in attention) seriously enough. I don’t think it would be allowed if it was just invented this year.
Star Wars sucks.
Pansexual, polysexual, and omnisexual are all microlabels and are all subsets of bisexual. You don’t need more labels than gay, straight, and bi.
Edit: I forgot about asexuals. But I specifically only care about bi subsets. They’re dumb, and you only need bi
All religions should be heavily taxed. NO EXCEPTIONS!!
And, independently of their tax status, they shouldn’t promote political candidates.
I upvoted you, but do disagree with this a bit, there are a few religions which set up food for anyone willing to come inside, like I went to eat langar at a Sikh temple during my friend’s wedding, and all we have to do is cover our head out of respect. Grab a plate, sit on the floor, and eat.
I randomly went with my friend a couple days later, and they still had food out, so it’s not a wedding only thing, but they actually have cooks in the kitchen most of the day.
I don’t disagree with you on principle, but in practice, allowing the taxation of religious groups would create massive opportunities for abuse. Tax code can be structured to promote one religion and punish another, and you know for damn sure that our elected officials won’t hesitate to put their greasy thumbs on the scale.
Do they tax income? Investments? Real estate? Spending? Endowments? Salaries? Each of those would create a disparity in how much a specific group owes. Consider how the Mormons collect and spend money vs Catholics, or how Quakers don’t have preachers, just elders, while evangelical preachers earn hundreds of millions.
Any tax gives a massive advantage to the religions of the wealthy. You’d end up with four mega churches and a bunch of underground religious communities meeting in secret and sharing holy books smuggled in from Canada.
While I’d love to see churches start paying their fair share, I also see the way our tax code works now. We can’t get economic elites and the well connected to pay their fair share, what makes you think that it will happen with the religious economic elites and the religious well connected? It’s always the little people who suffer the most.
While I’d love to see churches start paying their fair share
Genuinely curious, what do you define this fair share as?
That’s a reasonable question, and I’m open to different points of view on what exactly that means.
In a general sense, I believe taxes are the price of admission for society. We all contribute, and we all benefit from roads and schools and firefighters and streetlamps and building inspectors and and and on. A church benefits as much as any other business, and really should be taxed like a business. They are in the business of fundraising, and money spent on fundraising and supporting the church should be taxed. I also think money spent on charitable works should be tax deductible the same way it is with other businesses. Money donated to churches in excess of the charitable work they do should not be tax deductible by the donor.
In an ideal world, that would mean paying income tax at the established rates, property taxes, payroll taxes for non-charity workers, and whatever municipal and state taxes are required wherever the church is located.
But as I said, that leaves the door wide open for abuse by politicians looking to promote their own faith. There are already corrupt policies promoting “social clubs” in dry towns, and morality taxes on products like cigarettes, HFCS beverages, alcohol, marijuana where it’s legal, etc. Don’t you think they’d find a way to tax the Satanic Temple into oblivion given the opportunity?
How many Christian holidays are promoted through the federal holiday calendar? Winter Break never doesn’t coincide with Christmas.
So yeah, in conclusion, churches that don’t operate as “not for profit” businesses should not be tax exempt, but keeping government out of religion is more important to me.
Ok, thanks for clarifying your stance, I think I understand now.
I can see how this could get complicated depending on the organization. For example, my church has distinct legal entities so that the “not-for-profit” side and the “business” side are kept separate.
I agree that keeping the government out of religion is extremely important.
Thanks for your time!
And regulated and inspected for abuses of power
especially scientology
Absolutely, 100% agreed. I know most other church-goers would disagree, though. Religious organizations should be treated no differently from any other organization.
This stance is very popular where I’m from and I agree
My unpopular opinion is that people who keep throwing this stupid idea around have no clue what they’re talking about.
Religions / churches are non-profits. Their only revenue is post-tax donations. The people who work at the non-profit churches still pay income tax. The moment you start taxing a church, you allow them to function as a corporation. Not taxing churches is a fundamentally great thing.
deleted by creator
Churches are already prohibited from donating to a political campaign.
Including climate and woke ideology religions! Yes!
Dood! Your MAGA is showing.
[this post was created by ANTIFA]
I’d give loopholes for good works and define them specifically
If you really do mean no exceptions then that is genuinely an unpopular view.
I do mean no exceptions. They rarely do “good things” for anyone.
Having a homeless shelter where you require the homeless to attend mass is not helping people, it’s taking advantage of people in a bad situation and forcing your views on them. Just one example.
Being fat is a choice the vast majority of the time, and I have a huge bias against big people.
I used to be fat (250ish lbs (110ish kg) at 5’8"ish (172ish cm)), and as much as I would like to blame my shit on anything else, the person feeding me, the person sitting at the computer for hours, the person actively avoiding all physical activity was me and no one else. After I got diagnosed with some weight related shit, I turned my entire life upside down, am at a much healthier 150 lbs (68ish kg), and feel so much better, both physically and mentally.
I’m aware of my bias, and I make every active effort to counter it in my actual dealings with bigger people. Especially because there are certain circumstances, however rarely, where it may not actually be their fault. But I’d be lying if I said my initial impression was anything except “God, what a lazy, fat fuck.”
Edit: Added metric units
We don’t need more pronouns. We need less of them.
In my native language there is no even he/she pronouns. The word is “hän” and it’s gender neutral. You can be male, female, FTM, MTF, non-binary or what ever and you’re still called “hän”. You can identify as anything you like and “hän” already includes you.
Most people shouldn’t be parents.
That’s not an unpopular opinion.
Given the number of breeders, of course it is.
Not necessarily. Tons of people may think that they should be parents, but others shouldn’t.
“except me”
Maybe his/her opinion is that eugenics is good which would definitely fall into unpopular territory 😆
Whose opinion?
yours but it was a joke. and i guess a not very good one from your response lol
Nope. Certain topics are no trifling matter. The raising levels of stupidity and child abuse certainly aren’t.
Dogs were hardwired by selective breeding to worship their owners. Not long ago they at least were loyal companions. You got one off the streets, fed it leftovers, washed it with a hose, it lived in the yard, and it was VERY happy and proud of doing its job. Some breeds now were bred into painful disabling deformities just to look “cute”, and they became hysterical neurotic yapping fashion accessories. Useless high maintenance toys people store in small cages (“oh, but my child loves his cage”) when they don’t need hardwired unconditional lopsided “love” to feed their narcissism.
After an entity reaches an annual cap (say $5m profit), 95c of every dollar should be taxed
We have blown the concept of ownership way out of proportion. No one should be able to own things they have absolutely no connection to, like investment firms owning companies they don’t work for, houses they don’t live in or land they’ve never been to.
Tax is not theft
It’s not theft, IF the government puts that money to good use e.g. health care, education, maintain roads, utilities, …
Taxation isn’t theft, but misuse of tax revenue is.
The problem is getting those under that government to agree on what good uses are.
I would simplify taxes as being the cost of being part of society and therefore the tax money should be put back into that society to benefit the people being part of it. Healthcare, education, maintenance of public roads/buildings/parks/…
I think of taxes the same way. I just meant that not everyone would agree on what what parts of society the government is responsible to fund. My primary thought was healthcare in the US because it feels like half the country is against that.
Yeah I never understood that ( I’m from Scandinavia or as your conservatives describe it - that socialist hellhole ). I recall seeing a study some years ago that the US spends many billions a year more on healthcare than it would with universal healthcare.
So what if my taxes pay for the treatment of someone’s cancer? It goes the opposite way too, healthcare that I need is being paid for as well and nearly everyone needs some sort of hospital or emergency care at least once in their life - regular doc appointments likely once or twice a year. Over here, I make an appointment and walk out without paying or even seeing the bill.
That sounds so much better to me than the shit we have here. I always get so frustrated to hear people argue against it when the US is like the last fully developed country that doesn’t have some form of single payer healthcare. Like, look around. There are plenty of examples of it working, but half the country just doesn’t seem to get it.
I’ve had a conversation with someone on Reddit about this some years back.
They basically explained that people are being told that healthcare/social security is socialism and they’re being told that socialism is just communism under a different name and therefore is bad.
I assume this opinion is pretty popular among the left
That is not a controversial opinion, is it?
Lol. Wrong.
Most conservatives, however deeply red, are not intentionally hateful and are usually open to rational discussion. People just don’t know how to have rational discussions nowadays and the few times they do, they don’t know how to think like somebody else and put things in a way they can understand.
People nowadays think because a point convinced them, it should convince everybody else and anybody who’s not convinced by it is just being willfully ignorant. The truth is we all process things differently and some people need to hear totally different arguments to understand, often put in ways that wouldn’t convince you if you heard it.
It’s hard to understand other people and I feel like the majority of people have given up trying in favor of assuming everybody who disagrees with you knows their wrong and refuses to admit it.
Religion is nothing more then social engineering on a grand scale.
In which fundamentalist hell hole is that an unpopular idea?
It’s not. OTOH it’s nonsense. The social engineering came late. First it was a primitive attempt to explain the unknown and give meaning to the meaningless.
Sure. But it’s the 21st century now. We can drop it.
We should. It’s not likely to happen any time soon, though.
Cult + time = religion.
People who are strongly against nuclear power are ignorant of the actual safety statistics and are harming our ability to sustainably transition off fossil fuels and into renewables.
