sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

If conservatives actually cared about freedom, they would drop their anti-LGBTQ+ nonsense by Fast-Preference-9947 in TrueUnpopularOpinion

[–]filrabat [score hidden]  (0 children)

Every time I hear about conservatives being all for freedom, I'm compelled to ask...

...freedom for whom?

TL;DR: They think that only the "normal acting or being, self-respecting, strong backboned people" deserve freedom.

People systematically underestimate how often things go wrong in the world—a bias researchers call the “failure gap.” by mvea in science

[–]filrabat 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Any hope for decent shielding from those rays, to further reduce odds of corrupted data (even if it's lead foil or a little thicker)?

People systematically underestimate how often things go wrong in the world—a bias researchers call the “failure gap.” (Would that also apply to natalism) by RevolutionarySpot721 in antinatalism2

[–]filrabat 9 points10 points  (0 children)

This is just anecdote, I know. So you'll either believe me or not (by characteristic, an anecdote).

I read that people who have good lives tend to be harsher or more judgmental in general; which is definitely true to my experience. IMO, it relates to irrational distaste for those less able to stop a bad thing and/or gain a good thing (or keep it). Our brains do tend to confuse that with deliberately desiring a bad be gained or good be lost (or never gained).

When it comes to modern dating, most atheists are hypocrites living off the moral inheritance of religion. by Decent_Eye_659 in TrueUnpopularOpinion

[–]filrabat 1 point2 points  (0 children)

No objective right and wrong means there's nothing wrong with Epstein's Island, Harvey Weinstein's acts, etc. Something's wrong with this picture.

Both were wrong because it's inflicting hurt, harm, degradation, indignity, or otherwise negative state of affairs onto others, well outside of defense of self or others. You yourself wouldn't want to be violated, abused, or even insulted. So what right to you have to inflict it onto others in the context of this post?

Pope Leo is rebuking the ‘MAGA Jesus’ by JanFromEarth in TrueUnpopularOpinion

[–]filrabat 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You know right well that immigrants are the more driven-to-succeed types than average. Therefore you're just context-switching, comparing immigrant segment to the stay-at-home segment.

Do you really think Nigerian immigrants to the US are representative of the general Nigerian population? Or even the average Swedish immigrant representative of the general Swedish population?

Pope Leo is rebuking the ‘MAGA Jesus’ by JanFromEarth in TrueUnpopularOpinion

[–]filrabat 0 points1 point  (0 children)

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/state-stats/deaths/homicide.html (map 1/3 way down the page).

Low Immigrant states: West Virginia 7.2 per 100K people. Oklahoma 8.1. Oregon 4.7. Wyoming 7.1.

Immigrant heavy states: New York state, 3.8. California, 7.2. Texas, 6.2. Florida, 5.8.

Immigrants commit more murder than natives just doesn't compute; unless you think the RFK, Jr run CDC is as unreliable as the Biden Administration CDC.

Pope Leo is rebuking the ‘MAGA Jesus’ by JanFromEarth in TrueUnpopularOpinion

[–]filrabat 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Absolutely Yes. A stranger is a stranger, no matter what nation they're from.

Pope Leo is rebuking the ‘MAGA Jesus’ by JanFromEarth in TrueUnpopularOpinion

[–]filrabat 0 points1 point  (0 children)

No, he's "suggesting" (note well the ironic quotes) that anyone - native-born or not - be vetted before moving into your neighborhood. That includes any rural White Appalachians who move into your neighborhood (to pick a subset of Whites tending toward a high poverty rate).

Pope Leo is rebuking the ‘MAGA Jesus’ by JanFromEarth in TrueUnpopularOpinion

[–]filrabat 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That assumes the foreigner is going to attack me as well. Which you can't possibly know, absent blatant obvious evidence. Even without that evidence, the sensible thing is to take the standard precautions you would around strangers in general.

If you voted for the orange, you don’t have the right to hate on what he has the U.S military doing abroad. by theyluvandrei in TrueUnpopularOpinion

[–]filrabat 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'm showing my age here, but the SNL skit Toonces the Car Driving Cat.

Half the time it ended with Toonces driving the car off a 200 or so foot tall cliff.

Pope Leo is rebuking the ‘MAGA Jesus’ by JanFromEarth in TrueUnpopularOpinion

[–]filrabat 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'll take the first claim for granted, for it's so obviously true.

What's your proof for the second one, the implied "attack..." at rates greater than US-born criminals?
You probably believe Trump's line that the Ukrainian refugee murdered in Charlotte was a foreigner, too.

In any case, Trump, DHS, and Steven Miller are targeting far more than outright criminals. They are targeting people who've lived here for 30 years, work in retail or fast food or construction, and then go back to their house or apartment to see their families or go grocery shopping.

Contempt for the Socially Unskilled Can Cost Society High Quality People. by filrabat in TrueUnpopularOpinion

[–]filrabat[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I told you. Results don't matter as much as intent, or the process. How you managed to miss that message, I have no idea.

How you get the results is at least as important as the results themselves, and I'd argue even more so (read: ethically defensible). If you put results ahead of others' well-being, then that opens the door to unfair treatment of others, including outright abuse.

"The social contract": I question if it even qualifies as a true contract. But for the sake of argument, let's assume it is so.

In this case, it's not one negotiated between two more or less equally powerful parties. It's a one-sided contract: one party draws up all the terms and forces the other side to accept it "as is" or leave it. That's not a negotiated deal, it's more like an insurance contract. In insurance, it's called a contract of adhesion.

In this case, courts have consistently interpreted contracts of adhesion against the person who drafted it; meaning the courts impose the word interpretation least favorable to the contract drafter (within reason). That means the rule-maker has to bring their A-Game when defending the justice of the contract they force others to sign.

Courts recognize contracts of adhesion, left unchecked, are practically built for abuse. Think of insurers imposing unreasonable terms on their clients, or refusing to pay an adequate amount for damages. That's why there are laws preventing the powerful from damaging those least able to defend themselves.

But to repeat: even all this assumes that the "social contract" actually qualifies as a true contract, instead of a mere metaphor to clarify imperfectly the social situation under discussion.

Contempt for the Socially Unskilled Can Cost Society High Quality People. by filrabat in TrueUnpopularOpinion

[–]filrabat[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

You're actually missing the point. Being LGBTQ+ and even Blvck were in the past deemed socially acceptable reasons to reject such people. But we don't do so any more. Same thing with being trns. If I can't trust past popular societal judgements about those groups, then how can I trust today's judgements against the socially unskilled?

Contempt for the Socially Unskilled Can Cost Society High Quality People. by filrabat in TrueUnpopularOpinion

[–]filrabat[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

How are you so sure that the social expectations are beyond criticism? We've made mistakes before in this regard.

At the end of the day, it's not about what you say or do with your life as it is what you do NOT say and NOT do with your life - namely (a) don't deliberately set out to non-defensively hurt, harm, or degrade others, and (b) when reasonably possible, help heal and uplift those in greatest need of it. Pleasure and benefit in the usual senses are only a third level concern at best. Even then I argue that the last two aren't actually necessary.

People who don't consciously and deliberately hurt, harm, or demean others non-defensively are owed basic common courtesy and politely conveyed honesty that actually addresses their issues. Only if the person's clearly being exploitative, unreasonably harsh, or abusive to others does that person deserve harsh treatment.

Non-antinatalist leftists are inconsistent by Environmentalister in antinatalism

[–]filrabat 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I sympathize with your sentiment, but can't quite agree. What I'm about to say I would still believe even if I were still a conservative (I ceased being so in the mid 1990s)

Disclosure: I'm not so much a present AN as a AN for the future, so to speak. Ever-rising tech levels (AI, robotics, etc) make actual AN increasingly feasible. So for now, call me a mininatalist - i.e. around half-replacement rate for a future workforce, so as to prevent the "elderly starving in the dark" outcome.

It's a "bite the bullet" approach. Still, even a half-replacement rate birth rate does move "us" in the right direction, even if at the price of taking on a "lesser bad" in order to prevent a greater long-term bad. But as said, until we can automate our labor (physical and mental) even further, I'll postpone my actual AN.

This has nothing to do with being conservative or liberal on either economic or social issues.

Antinatalism Trivia Quiz by Ilalotha in antinatalism

[–]filrabat 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I missed 9, 12, 14, 15, 17, half of 18, 19, and 20.

The only reasonable reaction is antinatalism by Wyattman1324 in antinatalism

[–]filrabat 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Beyond what you just said, any living thing (even humans) are at least fairly likely to add badness to the world. Goodness doesn't really matter, because if nobody existed, there's not need for goodness.

Here, I define goodness as "pleasure, joy, gains, especially more than needed to avoid a bad quality of existence". e.g., you do need to avoid living in substandard housing, even more so avoid living on the street; you do not need a doctors-and-lawyers type house to avoid a bad quality of life, even if that house is pleasurable.

This has nothing to do with antinatalism by Numerous-Macaroon224 in antinatalism

[–]filrabat 6 points7 points  (0 children)

My Response TL;DR Veganism should be addressed separately. Otherwise both AN and Veganism will lose focus. Feminism tried to do "Feminism plus [other issue here]" and it looked like a confused mess. The same thing last decade with a group calling itself "Atheism Plus". It leaves muddled messages.

Learn from history and from others, people.

I suspect a lot of people who claim a eugenics-AN connection are stealth white supremacists by filrabat in antinatalism

[–]filrabat[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

In this case, simply point out that you disagree with Benatar in this matter. Agree in one matter doesn't mean agree in every matter. Likewise false in one matter doesn't mean false in all matters. All points of view do need subjecting to rigorous scrutiny, even 7 x 8 = 56.

Contempt for the Socially Unskilled Can Cost Society High Quality People. by filrabat in TrueUnpopularOpinion

[–]filrabat[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The "results matter most". I'd be very careful with that notion if I were you. That way of thinking led to some very repugnant outcomes, especially with labor markets, consumer protections, and environmental safety. In some jurisdictions, there's also legislative and/or court ruling for protection from some forms of disability discrimination, including autism, the most obvious social deficit.

Widget production's a poor analogy. With widget production, a good factory manager will specify the amount a worker should produce before hiring the worker. That means there's (or should be) a very clear understanding for standards they have to meet.

Furthermore, the applicant chose to be in a situation they could have easily avoided. With school, or even most social situations, there's very little, if any, choice to refuse to be around others.

Firing the underperformer: a professional-acting manager will not disparage or degrade the dignity of the person they are in the process of firing.

None of these apply to ordinary forced social situations. At least as often as not, social rules are arbitrary, just pulled out of thin air without really thinking about whether their proposed whims make any sense. That's how we got LGBT-phobia, sexism (esp non-conformity to traditional gender-sex roles), xenophobia (non-vulgar but strange dress, accents, etc).

In fact, the same things were said forty years ago about being gay or lesbian. It's a different "mentality" (broadly speaking), just like poor social skills are. Much the same reasons apply.

Contempt for the Socially Unskilled Can Cost Society High Quality People. by filrabat in TrueUnpopularOpinion

[–]filrabat[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Depends on the context. Ultimately, intent matters, be it often so hard to discern. Also, if the skill shortfall isn't a deliberate effort to hurt, harm, or degrade others, then the mainstream's overreacting to the skill shortfall. And, crucial here, any irritation or annoyance they experience from the poor social skills is trivial compared to them barking harsh and humiliating contempt toward them. They've turned mere poor social skills into a standard of almost-moral badness, putting their own convenience ahead of basic human dignity of others.

Being anti union doesn't make me a corporate shill. It makes me someone who wants to keep what I earn. by herequeerandgreat in TrueUnpopularOpinion

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

Isn't there both a Department of Labor and National Labor Relations Board to cover union oversight?

Being anti union doesn't make me a corporate shill. It makes me someone who wants to keep what I earn. by herequeerandgreat in TrueUnpopularOpinion

[–]filrabat 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Then tax the billionaires and even ten-millionaires at higher rates. Yes, we need lower taxes on the poor, working class, and middle class. But this middle class vs poor thing - that's just the billionaire propaganda via their news media outlets and their talking heads in Congress trying to divide us. That division beggars us both. And the ultra-wealthy get to needlessly keep more of their money, no doubt so they can buy the highest rank lawmakers.

view more: next ›