Unpopular Opinion
Welcome to the Unpopular Opinion community!
How voting works:
Vote the opposite of the norm.
If you agree that the opinion is unpopular give it an arrow up. If it's something that's widely accepted, give it an arrow down.
Guidelines:
Tag your post, if possible (not required)
- If your post is a "General" unpopular opinion, start the subject with [GENERAL].
- If it is a Lemmy-specific unpopular opinion, start it with [LEMMY].
Rules:
1. NO POLITICS
Politics is everywhere. Let's make this about [general] and [lemmy] - specific topics, and keep politics out of it.
2. Be civil.
Disagreements happen, but that doesn’t provide the right to personally attack others. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Please also refrain from gatekeeping others' opinions.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Shitposts and memes are allowed but...
Only until they prove to be a problem. They can and will be removed at moderator discretion.
5. No trolling.
This shouldn't need an explanation. If your post or comment is made just to get a rise with no real value, it will be removed. You do this too often, you will get a vacation to touch grass, away from this community for 1 or more days. Repeat offenses will result in a perma-ban.
Instance-wide rules always apply. https://legal.lemmy.world/tos/
view the rest of the comments
Agree, and I believe ideas like yours are more popular than you may think.
Its an unpopular take because people dont like it when you point out that their "healing crystals" might as well well be "sieg-heiling crystals".
I'm mad that that business idea would probably be more successful than it should be.
You might be correct on why it is unpopular, I suspect you are incorrect on why it should be unpopular. (Clearly you think it shouldn't, when your own claim is ironically not empirically supportable).
You claim that non-empirical behaviour leads to genocide. This is a deductive argument you make to criticise "non-empirical" behaviour. I.e all non-empirical behaviour should be opposed because it necessarily leads to genocide. So how do you square this with the fact that much of behaviour is non-empirical and yet we don't see a connection from all non-empirical behaviour to genocide. If there were then wouldn't genocide be far more common, and probably wouldn't have precipitously declined in recent centuries.
Let's be even more generous to your ~~incredibly stupid~~ position, and say that you actually meant "all genocide requires non-empirical behaviour". Genocide may actually be beneficial to the perpetrating party. If we look at ancient motivations of genocide and (frequently genocidal) tribal warfare, it's clear that eliminating competition for resources is beneficial, especially if a unified group can benefit it's populace more than disparate groups.
Of course this actually requires a consequentialist morality, because sheer empirical observation will never tell you if genocide is good or bad. I'm also not a strong consequentialist, or possibly a consequentialist at all so don't interpret this as anything but a criticism of your logical failures.
I do agree that pro-discrimination or even genocide individuals tend to be very stupid people, which is why I suspect you engage in post-hoc rationalisation (for who knows how long) to try to argue that it's clearly unfounded beliefs that lead to this.