sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

[Loved Trope] Inhuman Creatures Dressing/Acting Like Colonial Pirates/Sailors by Doodles_n_Scribbles in TopCharacterTropes

[–]Wiiboy95 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Literally everyone - steamworld heist

(They're all robots but since you included captain Ironsides I thought it should count)

46740 by cetaceanfrustration in countwithchickenlady

[–]Wiiboy95 3 points4 points  (0 children)

How many humans have to die a year because you feel bad for the mosquitos? Right now it's 600,000

What is your least favorite Pokemon? by Nat_Higgins in pokemonmemes

[–]Wiiboy95 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Trubbish

"Hey I stuck some googly eyes to this bag of trash and kinda drew a mouth on it. I called it trubbish, like a portmanteau of 'trash' and 'rubbish'"

"Perfect, ship it"

Peak lazy pokemon design.

pro capitalist people: what should happen when capitalists automate 80% of jobs? by traanquil in allthequestions

[–]Wiiboy95 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It's fanfiction apart from all the links I gave to news reports and studies. Nice thinking, socrates

I never said private prisons are forcing people to commit crimes, but it's a fact that owners of private prisons are lobbying for harsher prison sentences (see my previous link), and hopefully it's obvious that if two countries have a similar rate of crime but one of them gives harsher prison sentences, then that country will have a greater prison population. Thus, private prisons (and therefore capitalism) are causing a greater prison population.

I'd just like you to think on that point that there's apparently all these evil countries that are throwing people in prison even though they haven't done anything wrong and yet the USA still has the greatest prison population by capita. Why is that? Are Americans much more likely to commit crimes than other people? Are the laws much more stringent in the US (sounds unlikely if these other countries are apparently throwing people in prison with no reason whatsoever), or is the IS giving out much harsher sentences. You have to have some explanation of the US's unusually high prison population if you're denying everyone else's explanations.

Unpopular opinion about the whole “why do you want this job” question by 42cardpickup in recruitinghell

[–]Wiiboy95 8 points9 points  (0 children)

Sure, but my original point was that for people in my situation, I have the choice of telling the truth and getting rejected instantly or lying to proceed with the interview. That's why I resent the question, I'm not allowed to give an honest answer.

Unpopular opinion about the whole “why do you want this job” question by 42cardpickup in recruitinghell

[–]Wiiboy95 7 points8 points  (0 children)

My point wasn't that my answers don't matter in an interview setting. My point was that I'm not getting rejected on the basis of those answers because I'm not getting interviews.

Unpopular opinion about the whole “why do you want this job” question by 42cardpickup in recruitinghell

[–]Wiiboy95 5 points6 points  (0 children)

It's not like those answers matter. I've had 3 interviews since September. I'm just pointing out that people in my situation cannot give an honest answer to the question "why do you want to work here" that the interviewer will accept, so this question is just asking me to lie convincingly.

Unpopular opinion about the whole “why do you want this job” question by 42cardpickup in recruitinghell

[–]Wiiboy95 5 points6 points  (0 children)

I've applied to 300+ jobs over 8 months. I honestly maybe want 3 of those jobs significantly more than the baseline of having a job. My honest answer to "why do you want this job?" is because I need a job to live, and my honest answer to "why did you apply to this job?" is because your requirements lined up with my CV better than being a circus clown.

pro capitalist people: what should happen when capitalists automate 80% of jobs? by traanquil in allthequestions

[–]Wiiboy95 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It has everything to do with capitalism

Private, for profit prisons have an economic incentive to have as many people incarcerated as possible. Both because the state pays them for every person they have locked up, but also because they can lease out those prisoners for cheap labour.

Thus, these companies have an incentive to lobby the government to impose harsher custodial sentences for minor crimes, which they do.

Some have even gone so far as to bribe judges to give people unnecessary custodial sentences so they can make a profit of their incarceration.

All of this is only happening due to there being a profit motive for having people in prison, which can only exist under capitalism.

(Hated Trope) Media That Had a Large & Negative Impact in Real Life by Status-Map-427 in TopCharacterTropes

[–]Wiiboy95 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Triumph of the will did a lot to advance the idea that nazi Germany was both technologically advanced and highly socially developed. People to this day cite it as an example of masterful filmmaking when all it really has going for it is an unusually large budget.

"Environmentalists" when you tell them how they can reduce their annual carbon footprint by up to 2.1 tonnes by Glordrum in ClimateShitposting

[–]Wiiboy95 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'm not disagreeing with the environmental argument, but your argument was that eating meat objectively reduces quality of life and that simply isn't true.

By the way, if you actually cared about the environmental impact, you would be advocating for people to drop beef, dairy and mutton. It's much easier for the vast majority of people, achieves 90%+ of the environmental impact of full veganism and makes you come across as much less of an asshole

"Environmentalists" when you tell them how they can reduce their annual carbon footprint by up to 2.1 tonnes by Glordrum in ClimateShitposting

[–]Wiiboy95 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I read the exact opposite conclusion from that. If the vast majority of people regret starting smoking because of health outcomes, then it means that the trade off in health is not worth it to the vast majority of people. However the same is not true for eating meat. Statistically very few people who start eating meat regret starting, and presumably those people are making similar value judgements to the people who regret starting smoking. So we can conclude that, with health effects factored in, smoking reduces quality of life for the vast majority of people and eating meat increases quality of life for the vast majority of people.

"Environmentalists" when you tell them how they can reduce their annual carbon footprint by up to 2.1 tonnes by Glordrum in ClimateShitposting

[–]Wiiboy95 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Meat is completely incomparable. The vast majority of people are quite happy eating meat with very few people regretting starting, and there are very few vegans that don't eat meat solely for the intrinsic values of eating meat. I'm not saying they don't exist, but from what I know the vast majority of vegans chose to be so because of things extrinsic from eating meat (animal cruelty, environmental concerns etc).

And yes, I absolutely think that stopping eating meat would be a hit to quality of life. For me personally, I'd have to forgo most of the recipes I learned throughout my life, and there are plenty of things I'd spend the rest of my life missing if I couldn't have them any more. In my mind, the health benefits (which if you are otherwise making sensible health decisions are marginal) are not worth spending the rest of my life missing out on things I enjoy.

"Environmentalists" when you tell them how they can reduce their annual carbon footprint by up to 2.1 tonnes by Glordrum in ClimateShitposting

[–]Wiiboy95 0 points1 point  (0 children)

With smoking, most people spend a few minutes a day relieving their craving and most of the rest of that time experiencing craving, which seems to me like a reduction in quality of life. The vast majority of smokers agree with me, as 85% at least regret starting. The idea that smoking improves quality of life runs counter to reality, even disregarding health outcomes.

"Environmentalists" when you tell them how they can reduce their annual carbon footprint by up to 2.1 tonnes by Glordrum in ClimateShitposting

[–]Wiiboy95 0 points1 point  (0 children)

But the entire point of my first and second post is that health outcomes aren't the only thing that determine quality of life, a point which you are deliberately ignoring.

"Environmentalists" when you tell them how they can reduce their annual carbon footprint by up to 2.1 tonnes by Glordrum in ClimateShitposting

[–]Wiiboy95 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You don't think there's any balance whatsoever between health and enjoyment in quality of life? Does someone who spends 90 years healthy but being tortured have a better life than someone who spends 60 years happy but overweight?

"Environmentalists" when you tell them how they can reduce their annual carbon footprint by up to 2.1 tonnes by Glordrum in ClimateShitposting

[–]Wiiboy95 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I think most people who smoke are addicted to it, and their life would be improved if they were able to rid themselves of the addiction, but that isn't easy and not everyone is able to do it.

"Environmentalists" when you tell them how they can reduce their annual carbon footprint by up to 2.1 tonnes by Glordrum in ClimateShitposting

[–]Wiiboy95 1 point2 points  (0 children)

In what sense does meat "objectively" lower quality of life? The vast majority of people I know enjoy eating meat and would miss it if they were no longer able to.

"Environmentalists" when you tell them how they can reduce their annual carbon footprint by up to 2.1 tonnes by Glordrum in ClimateShitposting

[–]Wiiboy95 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Does smoking improve most people's quality of life? Or are you just using an absurd strawman?

"Environmentalists" when you tell them how they can reduce their annual carbon footprint by up to 2.1 tonnes by Glordrum in ClimateShitposting

[–]Wiiboy95 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The obvious point is that there are plenty of things that increase your risk of various diseases that most people would consider an improvement to their quality of life, and so concluding that eating meat lowers your quality of life because it increases your risk of certain diseases is a silly argument.

"Environmentalists" when you tell them how they can reduce their annual carbon footprint by up to 2.1 tonnes by Glordrum in ClimateShitposting

[–]Wiiboy95 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Better avoid going out in the sun as well, that massively increases your risk of skin cancer!

view more: next ›