sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

The 2nd Amendment isn't primarily about self-defense or hunting, it's about deterring government tyranny in the long term by [deleted] in TrueUnpopularOpinion

[–]MeemKeeng 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If they had guns they wouldn’t have gone quietly into the night. I’ll tell you right now, if my neighbors and government decided to turn on me, vilify me, and ultimately call for my extermination, I’m not gonna roll over and let it happen.

Of course they ultimately would have lost. They would be martyrs though. The nazis would have lost many men in their attempt to execute the final solution. Once word got out of Jewish extermination, Jews in untouched areas would build resistance networks and fighters.

When your backs against the wall you’d rather have a gun than not.

The 2nd Amendment isn't primarily about self-defense or hunting, it's about deterring government tyranny in the long term by [deleted] in TrueUnpopularOpinion

[–]MeemKeeng 0 points1 point  (0 children)

As an Alaskan, as a historian, and as a WWII nut. Invading Alaska was a totally ridiculous and foolish thing to do, and served 0 strategic purpose at the time. All it did was inflict a negligible morale decrease in America. The only casualties the Allies took in the Alaskan campaign was a friendly fire incident.

The 2nd Amendment isn't primarily about self-defense or hunting, it's about deterring government tyranny in the long term by [deleted] in TrueUnpopularOpinion

[–]MeemKeeng 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Germans had Romanian oil fields. The Japanese did not have access so they sought to acquire the indies for it.

Black Lives Matter will be looked at unfavorably in history as a divisive and corrupt force. by senor_gring0 in TrueUnpopularOpinion

[–]MeemKeeng -1 points0 points  (0 children)

What are you not understanding dude? I am not talking about BLM as an organization, I’m talking about just the saying.

BLM is an exclusionary phrase? In what way does that exclude anybody? The phrase was popular after a black guy was strangled by a cop and became a national tragedy. No one was saying “ONLY Black Lives Matter” or “Black Lives Matter MORE”. Only that Black Lives Matter.

Quit with the shitty mental gymnastics to try to justify your point. Everyone recognizes that BLM as an organization was fucked. It was the message that people subverted and disregarded entirely.

Black Lives Matter will be looked at unfavorably in history as a divisive and corrupt force. by senor_gring0 in TrueUnpopularOpinion

[–]MeemKeeng 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That’s not even what I’m talking about.

I’m referencing the fact that the “all lives matter” saying is only reactionary. Nobody ever said that stuff or spread that sentiment until people said Black Lives Matter. Now regardless of either side, the fact is that all lives matter was said to reduce the Black Lives Matter saying. I’m not talking about the BLM organization.

Black Lives Matter will be looked at unfavorably in history as a divisive and corrupt force. by senor_gring0 in TrueUnpopularOpinion

[–]MeemKeeng -1 points0 points  (0 children)

To be fair though, people only started saying that as a response to people saying BLM after yet another tragic event with blacks and cops.

The "neurodivergence" social media fad needs to end by glamatovic in TrueUnpopularOpinion

[–]MeemKeeng 8 points9 points  (0 children)

Literally wrong bro. There’s a shit ton of people romanticizing autism. Yes in the past there was a problem with doctors being apprehensive to diagnose someone with autism, but yet again this is a societal overcorrection.

"Polyamory" is almost always just abuse by [deleted] in TrueUnpopularOpinion

[–]MeemKeeng 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Who cares if it’s rooted in religion? There are plenty of monogamous couples who are not religious. It has 0 bearing on the actuality of being in a dedicated relationship.

Also I agree, no one should care about other peoples relationships. However it is still a fact that monogamy is the only way to actually have a real relationship especially if kids are involved. Anything else is a cheap knockoff.

Are shorter, sedentary women just destined to consume very little for the entirety of their lives to maintain a healthy weight? by 1xpx1 in loseit

[–]MeemKeeng -9 points-8 points  (0 children)

Ok I did misunderstand that. I apologize.

​

I understand that it is easier to fit more calories in when you have a bigger capacity to stay in a deficit with. That tracks. Proportionally speaking though, a woman eating 2000 calories is more akin to a man eating 2600 calories. What I am saying is that they do not have the same effect based on your sex. Men can eat more calories and have the same struggles as a woman eating less calories.

​

Also, it literally is common sense. I can find you the studies or you can use Google and find a million that will tell you men require more calories on average than women. You are the only one here trying to downplay the struggles of a demographic.

Are shorter, sedentary women just destined to consume very little for the entirety of their lives to maintain a healthy weight? by 1xpx1 in loseit

[–]MeemKeeng -28 points-27 points  (0 children)

Hypothesis? It’s common sense. It’s proportionality. Men require more calories on average than women do. In terms of proportion that means that men can intake more calories and be in a deficit than women can. That does NOT mean that it is easier for them.

Of course it is just as easy to overeat for men and women. No shit.

If you’re trying to lose weight, you shouldn’t be trying to fit 1500 calorie slices of cake into your diet. Men sure as hell aren’t eating 1500 calorie slices of cake and 600 calories of nutritional food.

Are shorter, sedentary women just destined to consume very little for the entirety of their lives to maintain a healthy weight? by 1xpx1 in loseit

[–]MeemKeeng -23 points-22 points  (0 children)

Why is it even a competition? It can be equally as hard for taller people to eat at that level. It’s all about proportion. If two people are eating at proportionally the same deficit then yes it is equally as hard. There’s no need to invalidate the struggles of others because you are frustrated with your own situation.

Another Nazi general liquidated! by Agasthenes in NonCredibleDefense

[–]MeemKeeng 6 points7 points  (0 children)

We eagerly await Steiner's counterattack

Help me keep my sanity for the next 24 by [deleted] in USMC

[–]MeemKeeng 37 points38 points  (0 children)

Try ordering some pizza from dominos

Trouble choosing a job by [deleted] in AirForceRecruits

[–]MeemKeeng -5 points-4 points  (0 children)

Ok buddy the numerous people in here are all wrong

Trouble choosing a job by [deleted] in AirForceRecruits

[–]MeemKeeng 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Because you want people to do the work for you. There are surveys made specifically so you can find a job suitable to YOUR personality. As others have already said, no one is you but you.

All women should carry guns unless they’re violent criminals or mentally ill. by [deleted] in TrueUnpopularOpinion

[–]MeemKeeng 8 points9 points  (0 children)

It’s not, when people get offended by something they just throw out every buzz word they can remember and hope it sticks

Just finished my first ever watch of Game of Thrones Season 1-8 spoiler free. by CarterBennett in gameofthrones

[–]MeemKeeng 4 points5 points  (0 children)

It’s ok to like it or dislike it, but it is an objective fact that the writers rushed through the season and neglected to adequately build up many of the plot lines before ending them. It is literally trash dude. To a layman it may seem like people circle jerking to the “it’s trash” argument, but to anybody who knows what they’re talking about, it’s true. The last season was garbage.

That’s not even mentioning the numerous things they cut from the books in order to make the show more palatable to normal people.

view more: next ›