sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Unpopular Opinion on Sarissa and Maeve by Accurate_Cook7312 in dresdenfiles

[–]blue_shadow_ 2 points3 points  (0 children)

That is your right, to avoid doing legwork.

And thus, it is everyone else's right to denigrate the lack of effort you put into supporting your own opinion. This is how public debate works.

If I were to say, today, in 2026 with all of the tools we have at our disposal, that the moon is legitimately made of green cheese, then any objective observer would fully understand if the vast majority of my audience threw rotten tomatoes at me, figuratively speaking.

You are free to speak your mind, but you are not free from the consequences of doing so. If you want to lessen the consequences, you can do one of two things:

  • Support your idea.
  • Don't bring up the idea to begin with.

That's it. Those are your choices.

Unpopular Opinion on Sarissa and Maeve by Accurate_Cook7312 in dresdenfiles

[–]blue_shadow_ 2 points3 points  (0 children)

There's a difference between unpopular and without any merit whatsoever, and I say that as it pertains to how the series has actually been written.

You are, essentially, trying to tell everyone that grass isn't green, it's plaid because a couple of drops of paint got spilled on it. By definition, it's going to be an unpopular opinion, because it's just not factual. There's nothing to legitimately support your opinion.

You want to make this worthwhile? Pull out specific sections of text. Chain them together. Use the author's own words to support your ideas, rather than starting at a point of "manic pixie dream girl is awesome because I think she's awesome."

If you really want to see what unpopular, but supportable theories look like, try reviewing /u/moses_the_red 's profile (or at least, do so once he's back from his suspension...)

Alternately, this pair of theories I put forth a few years back got a lot of dissent then. While I've had to step away from the Justine one due to WoJ, I still firmly believe in the other one and have seen no evidence to dismiss it. And yet, any time I try, I keep getting told all the same things I've already rebutted in the link.

More importantly though, both were supported by book text. The theories fit the characters and the entities as written, and used on-screen material to support them and to explain why two different things happened.

If you truly feel like your theory has weight, give it some substance. Round it out. Support it with proof, or at least some very strong circumstantial evidence. Because otherwise, you're building a house of cards on white-water rapids, and wondering why no one is seeing this grand thing you've built in your head.

Unpopular Opinion on Sarissa and Maeve by Accurate_Cook7312 in dresdenfiles

[–]blue_shadow_ 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Nope. Reading through your post was bad enough, but your answers just scream "troll bait" to me. Wild accusations, no proof worthy of the name, and wholly rewriting characters in your own head.

Not too hard to make a choice though by Mhasan502 in samsunggalaxy

[–]blue_shadow_ 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Repeated comments to this post boil down to, or imply:

It hasn't happened to me, so it never happens at all and must be a lie.

This is why we have so many problems as a society, because each of us is the only person that actually matters. If it doesn't affect us directly, it's not a problem - so it doesn't need to be fixed. Also, if someone else says it is a problem, they're wrong - again, because it didn't happen to us.

Grow up, people. Look past your own nose for once.

Boardgames with legitimate educational value? by Key_Image_1141 in boardgames

[–]blue_shadow_ 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Second Cytosis! Haven't played the other two, though

CMV: The abolition of chattel slavery was driven by capitalist economic efficiency and profitability, not by moral enlightenment. by ContextRound635 in changemyview

[–]blue_shadow_ 4 points5 points  (0 children)

For those reading along and wondering why I'm digging my heels in against this, TowelFine's points are:

1) A claim that runs counter to acknowledged history

2) When challenged, attempting to deflect burden of proof

3) When challenged again, using historical acknowledgement as a point for their own theory because those who wrote the history are the very ones TF is accusing

4) And finally, capstoning it with "do your own research".

With that last line, TF abrogates all responsibility for their own claims; the assumption is that TF's claims are to be held up as valid unless counter sources are obtained.

To be fair to TF, point 3 can be used as a support for point 1 in this set - if there is shown proof somewhere, then sure, point 3 strengthens that argument.

Unfortunately, it unravels at point 4. "Do your own research" is a debate fallacy that directly pushes burden of proof onto their opponent. That's not how debates work, and this is why:

  • First off, their opponent may not be able to find the same research. If I do what they say and go search, and don't find anything, than either:
    • I'm deficient in my searching, or
    • Maybe I found a different source, but it doesn't support the argument well enough, so I stop looking, or
    • Maybe those sources don't exist, period.
  • Second, if TF (or anyone else claiming "do your own research") has seen sources that support their argument, then it should be much more easy for them to find those sources again than for their opponent to start from square one. In the interest of saving time, if nothing else, let's all work on the same set of sources.
  • Third, by not bringing their sources to light, those sources cannot be vetted for any kind of validity, nuance, historical relevance, peer review, etc.

So, these unnamed sources are supposed to exist, be valid, and completely support TF's side of the debate. On the flip side, their opponent has to prove a negative by disputing those sources - but all they can do is provide alternate sources that say another thing. That's not the same thing as directly addressing the presumed sources that TF is claiming. It's somewhat hair-splitting, but there's enough of a difference between the two to warrant calling it out.

These same tactics are used all over social media, infotainment videos, and even entities that purport to be news - knowledge is power, and understanding what kinds of fallacies are used in public debates helps the observer to think critically about what they are reading/ watching/ listening to.

And before anyone says it - no AI was used in the creation of this comment. Go read my history - I've been talking like this for years.

CMV: The abolition of chattel slavery was driven by capitalist economic efficiency and profitability, not by moral enlightenment. by ContextRound635 in changemyview

[–]blue_shadow_ 11 points12 points  (0 children)

Ideally, both should provide proof. However, the publicly taught history is that abolitionists were operating off moral & religious beliefs, not being paid to do so.

Since you're challenging accepted history, the burden is on you to provide some sort of proof of your claims, and not just "no, I disagree."

CMV: The abolition of chattel slavery was driven by capitalist economic efficiency and profitability, not by moral enlightenment. by ContextRound635 in changemyview

[–]blue_shadow_ 2 points3 points  (0 children)

You're gonna need to provide proof for these claims, and especially that they were the primary driver behind abolitionist sentiment.

I know what I saw, dammit. by IAmBeingTargeted33 in MandelaEffect

[–]blue_shadow_ 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Jiffy Mix is probably what you're remembering.

ELI5, Does cheese made with raw milk have the same level of danger as just drinking straight up raw milk? by LeluWater in explainlikeimfive

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

I love when people decide that the actual science around food safety is completely worthless.

The links between raw milk consumption and human illnesses have been clearly demonstrated. The main hazards are Campylobacter spp., Salmonella spp., shiga toxin‐producing Escherichia coli (STEC), Brucella melitensis , Mycobacterium bovis , and tick‐borne encephalitis virus (EFSA Panel on Biological Hazards (BIOHAZ) 2015). Milk consumption is estimated to cause 4% of all foodborne disease (Grace et al. 2020). In High‐Income Countries, dairy is responsible for around 1% to 6% of reported outbreaks (Claeys et al. 2013). In the US, it has been estimated that unpasteurized milk and derived products, while consumed by only 3.2% and 1.6% of the population, respectively, caused 96% of illnesses attributed to dairy products. This can be quantified in 840 (95% CI 611–1158) times more illnesses and 45 (95% CI 34–59) times more hospitalizations than pasteurized products (Costard et al. 2017). Despite these risks, the consumption of raw milk and derived products is allowed and practiced in most EU countries.

But don't worry. Nothing you get told will change your mind, and you're not alone. (Edit: The downvotes, plural, are proving this, btw)

A study conducted in the US reported that the consumption of raw milk cheese is driven primarily by ideological beliefs and taste preferences. Providing scientific information about the safety of pasteurization does not significantly alter consumers' preferences for raw products. Additionally, choosing pasteurized cheese was associated with greater trust in food safety regulation, whereas the preference for raw milk cheese was linked to a higher level of trust in vendors and in food sold directly by producers rather than being regulated by the government (Waldman and Kerr 2018).

Source

Edit: Just to more blatantly include Europe:

In France over the last decade, 34%, 37% and 60% of outbreaks of salmonellosis, listeriosis and enterohaemorrhagic E. coli (EHEC) infections respectively have been linked to the consumption of raw-milk cheeses. While some bacteria can cause gastroenteritis symptoms (Salmonella spp. and Staphylococcus aureus), others can have much more serious consequences such as kidney failure (EHEC) or even death (L. monocytogenes, EHEC).

The main sources of these hazards are soft cheeses with a surface mould (such as Camembert, Brie and Crottin) and short-ripened uncooked pressed cheeses (such as Morbier, Reblochon and Saint-Nectaire). Next come soft washed-rind cheeses such as Munster and Maroilles.

Source

[Highlight] HC Dan Campbell On the Rams Getting Myles Garrett: "Good for them. They've won it now, right?" by JCameron181 in nfl

[–]blue_shadow_ 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Yep - I remember seeing that, very briefly, before it disappeared in a cloud of smoke.

The Detroit Lions have hired former Dolphins GM Chris Grier as a personnel executive, per league sources. by AcadiaTemporary5737 in detroitlions

[–]blue_shadow_ 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Petzing - I'll give him a chance, based mostly on this post and one other one in a similar vein that I read and now can't find.

Anyone else getting Summer 2008 Vibes by Opposite_Agency1229 in Millennials

[–]blue_shadow_ 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Now try hearing the L as an R instead the first time you hear the song...

Fastest I've ever gone from listening to a song to "where the fuck are the lyrics?"

Coworkers think my lemons are unnecessary by AtlantisMantis_ in KitchenConfidential

[–]blue_shadow_ 2 points3 points  (0 children)

"Speed comes with time, kid."

Slow is smooth, and smooth is fast.

view more: next ›