The Unpopular Opinions Thread

[Think Pink 1,967]

I can't stand anti-feminists. Like, I understand people who don't want to associate with the label but still believe in equal rights, but anti-feminists? Anti-equal rights? Like it's just hard for me to comprehend that there are people so ignorant.

[Ghost 1,857]

I can't stand anti-feminists. Like, I understand people who don't want to associate with the label but still believe in equal rights, but anti-feminists? Anti-equal rights? Like it's just hard for me to comprehend that there are people so ignorant.

IMO they're just the people who've seen the BAD SIDE of feminism or the pseudo-feminists who claim to be feminists but are actually huge twats.There's a bad and good side to literally everything. KH has a bad side too doesn't it? It's very easy to hate something when you don't know much about it - like me, I hate Frozen! Gosh im a hypocrite haha. Now I'm not a feminist mostly because I lack the research or anything to consider myself one, but...yeah it's not perfect. Nothing is.

[Dracozombie 4,554]

I can't stand anti-feminists. Like, I understand people who don't want to associate with the label but still believe in equal rights, but anti-feminists? Anti-equal rights? Like it's just hard for me to comprehend that there are people so ignorant.

 

I think the people who claim to be anti-feminists are the ones that associate the movement with being: anti-men/feminine/domestic/sexual, rude shrill harpies that have to relate everything to their agenda, Social Justice Bloggers on tumblr... or they're too blind to see there's a problem, probably because it doesn't have enough direct influence on your lives, so they're annoyed when the people it does directly affect keep pointing out some issues.  You can spout "Feminism is pointless!  We're already equal!" all you want, buddy.  We're anything but.

[Jim 2,990]

I think the people who claim to be anti-feminists are the ones that associate the movement with being: anti-men/feminine/domestic/sexual, rude shrill harpies that have to relate everything to their agenda, Social Justice Bloggers on tumblr... or they're too blind to see there's a problem, probably because it doesn't have enough direct influence on your lives, so they're annoyed when the people it does directly affect keep pointing out some issues.  You can spout "Feminism is pointless!  We're already equal!" all you want, buddy.  We're anything but.

This. 

 

 

I think I can add something to the "anti-feminist" conversation by saying what I think: 

I'm one of those people who strongly dislikes extremist people. Like, extremist liberals, extremist conservatives, extremist atheists, even some extremist Christians (Westboro, cough cough). But for some reason, feminists who are extremists touch a nerve with me worse than a lot of other extremist groups, just because they have the potential to be extremely obnoxious. By no means am I saying all feminists are like this- I think the fight for equal rights between genders is completely legitimate. But the ones who act like all males are oppressive perverts, or act like women should have MORE power than men, or use the term "womyn" because they refuse to be associated with the term "men", or get all up in arms when movies like Frozen put standards too high for women to be beautiful (yes, I have heard this argument before), THOSE are the ones that make me angry. I've heard that the term for women like that is "female chauvinists", but I don't know for sure. Just to be clear: I sympathize with the aim of the overall feminist movement, and I believe in equal rights. I just get so annoyed when they make a big deal out of things that don't matter. 

[Philip Ellwell 5,487]

 

Anal is nasty.

 

[Ghost 1,857]

Dunkin Doughnuts is better than Starbucks.

[MyDixieRect 2,061]

 

Anal is tasty.

 

 

Fixed that for you.

[Philip Ellwell 5,487]

Fixed that for you.

_-_

[Queen Tery 4,591]

 

Anal is nasty.

 

 

And yet so satisfying.

[Philip Ellwell 5,487]

And yet so satisfying.

Seems nasty to me. 

[Queen Tery 4,591]

Seems nasty to me. 

 

Well i does basically involve shoving your whoha into someone's poopshoot. Doesn't get much more unsanitary than that.

[Demyx. 10,064]

Well i does basically involve shoving your whoha into someone's poopshoot. Doesn't get much more unsanitary than that.

and yet...you enjoyed it when i shoved my whoha into your poopshoot.

[Queen Tery 4,591]

and yet...you enjoyed it when i shoved my whoha into your poopshoot.

 

Like I said. Satisfying.

[Dave 5,715]

One of the movie/cartoon/anime/RP tropes that I really can't take seriously is the concept of having an Academy/School for the art of fighting. I mean, I get that what the writers really want is an excuse to have their teenagers engage in over-the-top combat, but really, it just doesn't make sense to have a fully fledged school dedicated to it. Where does the funding come from? Do the students pay tuition? Given that most of them are barely out of their teens, I don't think they'd have the money. Is it government funded? And if it is, why would the government want a bunch of mini-armies running around within it's realm of influence? Moreover, are the people of the country okay with having their tax dollars go towards creating child soldiers? Is it privately owned?  And if it's privately owned, what does the owner get out of it? 

 

Money aside, what life skills are the people in this school learning? Self defence is all fine and dandy, but unless they're planning to engage in constant warfare, the students aren't really taking away much from their studies that they can apply regularly. Also, why on earth would anyone give the thumbs up to teaching incredible fighting manoeuvres and super powers to people just coming out of their teens, when they're probably the least emotionally stable they're ever going to be, and more likely to misuse their abilities?

 

I think the best example of how to actually make a bizarre school and make it work is Hogwarts in Harry Potter. Defense Against Dark Arts is only a minor part of the courses, and even then it's clear that there are job opportunities after graduation. Again, I know that the whole point of the "school" setting in these things is to give an excuse for the characters to congregate, but it just feels to me like no one took the time and effort to really think it over and figure out whether or not the idea worked.

[RoxSox 3,593]

One of the movie/cartoon/anime/RP tropes that I really can't take seriously is the concept of having an Academy/School for the art of fighting. I mean, I get that what the writers really want is an excuse to have their teenagers engage in over-the-top combat, but really, it just doesn't make sense to have a fully fledged school dedicated to it. Where does the funding come from? Do the students pay tuition? Given that most of them are barely out of their teens, I don't think they'd have the money. Is it government funded? And if it is, why would the government want a bunch of mini-armies running around within it's realm of influence? Moreover, are the people of the country okay with having their tax dollars go towards creating child soldiers? Is it privately owned?  And if it's privately owned, what does the owner get out of it? 

 

Money aside, what life skills are the people in this school learning? Self defence is all fine and dandy, but unless they're planning to engage in constant warfare, the students aren't really taking away much from their studies that they can apply regularly. Also, why on earth would anyone give the thumbs up to teaching incredible fighting manoeuvres and super powers to people just coming out of their teens, when they're probably the least emotionally stable they're ever going to be, and more likely to misuse their abilities?

 

I think the best example of how to actually make a bizarre school and make it work is Hogwarts in Harry Potter. Defense Against Dark Arts is only a minor part of the courses, and even then it's clear that there are job opportunities after graduation. Again, I know that the whole point of the "school" setting in these things is to give an excuse for the characters to congregate, but it just feels to me like no one took the time and effort to really think it over and figure out whether or not the idea worked.

 

Dave, you overthink everything and I firetrucking love you for it. Everything you post is a captivating read.

 

Please write a book.

[Tigerruss 576]

One of the movie/cartoon/anime/RP tropes that I really can't take seriously is the concept of having an Academy/School for the art of fighting. I mean, I get that what the writers really want is an excuse to have their teenagers engage in over-the-top combat, but really, it just doesn't make sense to have a fully fledged school dedicated to it. Where does the funding come from? Do the students pay tuition? Given that most of them are barely out of their teens, I don't think they'd have the money. Is it government funded? And if it is, why would the government want a bunch of mini-armies running around within it's realm of influence? Moreover, are the people of the country okay with having their tax dollars go towards creating child soldiers? Is it privately owned?  And if it's privately owned, what does the owner get out of it? 

 

Money aside, what life skills are the people in this school learning? Self defence is all fine and dandy, but unless they're planning to engage in constant warfare, the students aren't really taking away much from their studies that they can apply regularly. Also, why on earth would anyone give the thumbs up to teaching incredible fighting manoeuvres and super powers to people just coming out of their teens, when they're probably the least emotionally stable they're ever going to be, and more likely to misuse their abilities?

 

I think the best example of how to actually make a bizarre school and make it work is Hogwarts in Harry Potter. Defense Against Dark Arts is only a minor part of the courses, and even then it's clear that there are job opportunities after graduation. Again, I know that the whole point of the "school" setting in these things is to give an excuse for the characters to congregate, but it just feels to me like no one took the time and effort to really think it over and figure out whether or not the idea worked.

I really think that is over used as well.Though in some cases it is "there is a threat on the earth and only such and such can defend against it." When a threat like that is around, I am pretty sure the government would be willing to fund it, and the public are more willing to support it if their lives are at stake.

A place where it was done passably in anime, was in Hamatora, where it was basically a government ran x-mansion without making a team of soldiers. And as a reward, for going through all the rigorous training, you basically can have what ever job you want as a reward...  (though that school was only talked about in exposition and we have little to no actual information about it)

 

A thing aimed at Anime that I hate is why does every protagonist have to live alone? Or almost everyone... I mean I don't know much about anime culture, but I feel like it is mostly an excuse to not have them have a parent around. Though I have seen this sort of thing actually be significant to the plot. Like a story about 3 orphan siblings living in what used to be their family home. (and in it the parents being not their actually meant something in the over arching plot.)

[Philip Ellwell 5,487]

 

No offense, but sterotype outlandish gay guys annoy me.

 

[Lalalablah 1,538]

I'm just going to copy and paste what I saw somebody else say on Tumblr, since I agree with what she said and like the way it was worded.

 

"I know smoking isn’t very healthy or whatever and people get so mad when you say it’s attractive but there’s just something about the connotation behind smoking that makes it nice, the way a person seems so at ease when they smoke makes it so attractive. The positive connotation that the persons a free spirit or a rebel or anything really, but i feel like the main idea is a sense of individuality. I love watching people smoke and do tricks like they’re in their own little world because they kinda are. That’s sorta stupid, but whatever." --vnloved

[Cucco 1,907]

I can't stand anti-feminists. Like, I understand people who don't want to associate with the label but still believe in equal rights, but anti-feminists? Anti-equal rights? Like it's just hard for me to comprehend that there are people so ignorant.

Because we don't have equal rights either.

-The woman almost always gets custody of children.

-Genital Mutilation on men is standard operating procedure for men, but when done to women its a terrible awful thing. 

-Women are sentenced for 40% less prison time than men are for equivalent crimes

-We have selected services, so most male citizens are required to be drafted within 30 days of their 18th birthday. 

 

You know what, why don't we fight for human rights instead. It would be much more effective since females are clearly not the only ones with problems.

 

If The patriarchy was a real thing then why would we donate more to breast cancer research even though prostate cancer is much more common? If it was a patriarchy why would we give women less punishment for crimes, and give women custody to children most of the time? Why would we get our reproductive rights taken away if it was a patriarchy?

Edited March 18, 2014 by Christopher Sexbang

[Dracozombie 4,554]

Because we don't have equal rights either.

-The woman almost always gets custody of children.

-Genital Mutilation on men is standard operating procedure for men, but when done to women its a terrible awful thing. 

-Women are sentenced for 40% less prison time than men are for equivalent crimes

-We have selected services, so most male citizens are required to be drafted within 30 days of their 18th birthday. 

 

You know what, why don't we fight for human rights instead. It would be much more effective since females are clearly not the only ones with problems.

 

You can't just say "Let's fight for human rights!" because it's such a broad concept that it doesn't specify why the problems are there to begin with.

 

-Women almost always get custody of children because they're assumed to be the better caregivers.  The patriarchy thought of that idea.  Feminists are trying to get rid of that so men and women have equal shots at custody.

-Genital mutilation to women is usually against their will.  If you're talking about things like castration, that's a religious issue.  But the idea that men are supposed to be macho enough to go through with it is an idea of the patriarchy.  Feminists are trying to get rid of that so mutilation will be seen as horrid regardless of gender.

-Women are sentenced for less time because they're assumed to be too dainty and innocent and submissive to commit crimes.  The patriarchy thought of that idea.  Feminists are trying to get rid of that so men committing a crime, and women committing a crime, will carry equal weight.

-Women aren't drafted because they're assumed to be too dainty to handle a wartime combat.  The patriarchy thought of that idea.  Feminists are trying to get rid of that so fighting for one's country is not relegated to a single gender.

 

Many of the things that negatively impact them also affect men.  If we address those problems that negatively affect women, the men will benefit as well.  It's just called feminism because all these problems originate from the patriarchy--which, I'll remind you, the smart feminists are trying to combat.

 

Please stop trying to make feminists the enemy.  They're on your side.

[Cucco 1,907]

You can't just say "Let's fight for human rights!" because it's such a broad concept that it doesn't specify why the problems are there to begin with.

 

-Women almost always get custody of children because they're assumed to be the better caregivers.  The patriarchy thought of that idea.  Feminists are trying to get rid of that so men and women have equal shots at custody.

-Genital mutilation to women is usually against their will.  If you're talking about things like castration, that's a religious issue.  But the idea that men are supposed to be macho enough to go through with it is an idea of the patriarchy.  Feminists are trying to get rid of that so mutilation will be seen as horrid regardless of gender.

-Women are sentenced for less time because they're assumed to be too dainty and innocent and submissive to commit crimes.  The patriarchy thought of that idea.  Feminists are trying to get rid of that so men committing a crime, and women committing a crime, will carry equal weight.

-Women aren't drafted because they're assumed to be too dainty to handle a wartime combat.  The patriarchy thought of that idea.  Feminists are trying to get rid of that so fighting for one's country is not relegated to a single gender.

 

Many of the things that negatively impact them also affect men.  If we address those problems that negatively affect women, the men will benefit as well.  It's just called feminism because all these problems originate from the patriarchy--which, I'll remind you, the smart feminists are trying to combat.

 

Please stop trying to make feminists the enemy.  They're on your side.

You are very clearly beyond help. If feminists truly were about equality, they would focus on the problems of both parties, and stop calling themselves feminists. That pretty much says right there that they favor womens rights. And don't try to dismiss what I said because of the fact that in the past men had more power. Guess what, its not the past anymore. Women have as many problems as Men do, and you should stop saying "hurr durr patriarchy is always the problem", when patriarchy has been non existent for a very long time. And either way in the past you'll find that  most of the time the rich had power and the poor did not, Not The men had power and women did not.

Edited March 18, 2014 by Christopher Sexbang

[Dracozombie 4,554]

You are very clearly beyond help. If feminists truly were about equality, they would focus on the problems of both parties, and stop calling themselves feminists. That pretty much says right there that they favor womens rights. And don't try to dismiss what I said because of the fact that in the past men had more power. Guess what, its not the past anymore. Women have as many problems as Men do, and you should stop saying "hurr durr patriarchy is always the problem", when patriarchy has been non existent for a very long time. And either way in the past you'll find that  most of the time the rich had power and the poor did not, Not The men had power and women did not.

 

I... can't even tell if you're trolling or not.  Because this is just... wow.

[Think Pink 1,967]

Gotta go with Draco...this almost feels like a troll post.

 

Another opinion: I think schools should always be small scale. Going from a massive high school in 9th-10th grade to a 40-student school this year, I have to say I love going to such a small school. I think if big public schools were divided into small schools there'd be less bullying. I doubt I just got lucky enough to go to school with 39 other very nice kids--I think it's got a lot to do with the size of the school. We're close with the teachers and each other and that makes it a much more effective learning environment. APUSH, which is completely dreaded in public school, is my favorite class because we're all best friends sitting around a conference table, sometimes interrupting the lecture to make jokes, and our professor knows us well enough that he laughs too and manages to teach us. I feel comfortable and loved and close to everyone around me, and that's just not something you can feel in a big public school.

[Shana09 5,769]

You are very clearly beyond help. If feminists truly were about equality, they would focus on the problems of both parties, and stop calling themselves feminists. That pretty much says right there that they favor womens rights. And don't try to dismiss what I said because of the fact that in the past men had more power. Guess what, its not the past anymore. Women have as many problems as Men do, and you should stop saying "hurr durr patriarchy is always the problem", when patriarchy has been non existent for a very long time. And either way in the past you'll find that  most of the time the rich had power and the poor did not, Not The men had power and women did not.

 

If you think those people on Tumblr that complain about a few stuff because it has to only do with women are feminists then you've really been misinformed.

No, men and women aren't equal, sure we've gotten better, but we aren't equal.

Tackling ideas such as both genders should be capable for certain, rights, and strength is what actual feminists go for.

Feminists are about equality, but due to women actually having a bit less rights than men when it comes to professions, they just want to make it equal so everyone can get a chance.

 

Yes women are less stronger biologically I understand, but its trainable so thats why there should be a chance.

 

Like I said, don't think that social justice warriors from Tumblr are actual feminists, the real feminists try to fix real problems not complain over something they have no control over like what a celebrity says or what this guy portrayed this character to be.

 

And just a sideline, I am for equal rights but I don't devote my life to protest for it or label myself as a feminist.

[DragonMaster 1,166]

Gotta go with Draco...this almost feels like a troll post.

 

Another opinion: I think schools should always be small scale. Going from a massive high school in 9th-10th grade to a 40-student school this year, I have to say I love going to such a small school. I think if big public schools were divided into small schools there'd be less bullying. I doubt I just got lucky enough to go to school with 39 other very nice kids--I think it's got a lot to do with the size of the school. We're close with the teachers and each other and that makes it a much more effective learning environment. APUSH, which is completely dreaded in public school, is my favorite class because we're all best friends sitting around a conference table, sometimes interrupting the lecture to make jokes, and our professor knows us well enough that he laughs too and manages to teach us. I feel comfortable and loved and close to everyone around me, and that's just not something you can feel in a big public school.

Goodness, only 40 students? That's down right minuscule. I don't know if I'd love that, or hate it. The smallest school I've attended had somewhere between 200-300 students (I can't remember how big my elementary school was, but I definitely believe it was in that range) and the largest (current) has around 600. I think the 200-300 range was very nice, and the 600 is perfect but is passable. Numbers aside, I agree completely with your post. Small class sizes rock.

 

Size is actually one of the (many) reasons I'm not looking forward to college. The smallest of the schools I've looked into had about 1300, which is twice the size of what I'm used to. I know to some this probably sounds pathetic, but I'm pretty terrified of being in school with so many people. X_X