Hot, Bad & Unpopular Takes

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

"Mr. Brightside" and "Shut Up and Dance" are better than any of The Beatles' songs.

(Those are my token two favorite mainstream songs you'll likely hear at a club.)

[Badger]

"Mr. Brightside" and "Shut Up and Dance" are better than any of The Beatles' songs.

(Those are my token two favorite mainstream songs you'll likely hear at a club.)

That isn't a bad or unpopular take, that is a declaration of raw unadulterated evil and bad taste combined.

[Politician]

Lackawanna County will vote to the left of Chester County in 2020.

[RINO Tom]

Not sure if either REALLY counts as a "Hot, Bad [or] Unpopular Take," but I have been on a World War I kick lately:

1) The Central Powers, in a vacuum, were completely justified in going to war, and Germany's over-the-line actions once the war broke out (took "the best defense is a good offense" to an extreme, for example) overshadow this simple fact WAY too much in our retelling of the Great War.  The Central Powers may have wanted a war, and they may have clearly been the overall "worse actors" in this conflict (I would agree with both), but Austria-Hungary had every right to go to war with Serbia, and Germany had every right to back them up ... until conspiracy theories are proven.

2) Germany was much more impressive from a military standpoint in WWI than they were in WWII, regardless of the fact that Hitler was able to conquer much of Europe.

How justified were they?

They broke all international agreements about respecting neutral countries by invading and destroying a neutral country. Furthermore, Franz Joseph never cared about his neohew, all he wanted was to crush Serbia and austria dominance in the Balkans.

How is it justified?

As I believe I explained, their actions - beyond considering Serbia literally sponsoring terrorism an act of war - were NOT justified.  However, in the end, that is what sparked the conflict.

I don't understand. Now you say their actions weren't justified?

I think he was talking about Serbia's actions not being justified

Right.  It's fair enough to criticize Germany and Austria-Hungary for probably "wanting war" and using their reasons for going to war as somewhat of an excuse, and it's CERTAINLY fair to criticize a lot of their wartime actions ... however, if we simply look at the first "cause" (the assassination of Franz Ferdinand), I believe Austria-Hungary was completely justified to go to war with Serbia, and Germany was not "in the wrong" to back them.  The fact that Russia and then France also joined due to similar treaty-related reasons isn't OVERLY relevant to that question "in a vacuum" (which was my original phrasing).

[Xing]

Wisconsin is neither a Safe D nor a Safe R state. It is a solid purple state that will remain competitive for the foreseeable future.

[morgankingsley]

Wisconsin is neither a Safe D nor a Safe R state. It is a solid purple state that will remain competitive for the foreseeable future.

I can see the logic there

[Lechasseur]

Not sure if either REALLY counts as a "Hot, Bad [or] Unpopular Take," but I have been on a World War I kick lately:

1) The Central Powers, in a vacuum, were completely justified in going to war, and Germany's over-the-line actions once the war broke out (took "the best defense is a good offense" to an extreme, for example) overshadow this simple fact WAY too much in our retelling of the Great War.  The Central Powers may have wanted a war, and they may have clearly been the overall "worse actors" in this conflict (I would agree with both), but Austria-Hungary had every right to go to war with Serbia, and Germany had every right to back them up ... until conspiracy theories are proven.

2) Germany was much more impressive from a military standpoint in WWI than they were in WWII, regardless of the fact that Hitler was able to conquer much of Europe.

How justified were they?

They broke all international agreements about respecting neutral countries by invading and destroying a neutral country. Furthermore, Franz Joseph never cared about his neohew, all he wanted was to crush Serbia and austria dominance in the Balkans.

How is it justified?

As I believe I explained, their actions - beyond considering Serbia literally sponsoring terrorism an act of war - were NOT justified.  However, in the end, that is what sparked the conflict.

I don't understand. Now you say their actions weren't justified?

I think he was talking about Serbia's actions not being justified

Right.  It's fair enough to criticize Germany and Austria-Hungary for probably "wanting war" and using their reasons for going to war as somewhat of an excuse, and it's CERTAINLY fair to criticize a lot of their wartime actions ... however, if we simply look at the first "cause" (the assassination of Franz Ferdinand), I believe Austria-Hungary was completely justified to go to war with Serbia, and Germany was not "in the wrong" to back them.  The fact that Russia and then France also joined due to similar treaty-related reasons isn't OVERLY relevant to that question "in a vacuum" (which was my original phrasing).

Honestly I agree with you on this, that's what I thought too even when I first learnt about WWI when I was 9 years old.

[DC Al Fine]

Wisconsin is neither a Safe D nor a Safe R state. It is a solid purple state that will remain competitive for the foreseeable future.

That doesn't sound like a bad or hot take. Is it an unpopular one?

[Xing]

Wisconsin is neither a Safe D nor a Safe R state. It is a solid purple state that will remain competitive for the foreseeable future.

That doesn't sound like a bad or hot take. Is it an unpopular one?

On Atlas, it certainly is. Most people either believe that 2016 was a total fluke or that Wisconsin is the next Arkansas and is less likely to flip in 2020 than Arizona, Florida, Georgia, or North Carolina, and would still go Republican even if Pennsylvania went Democratic by high single-digits.

[RINO Tom]

As the world continues to secularize (is that a word?), TRUE atheism - being defined as the belief that the Universe had no “Creator” and there is no higher intelligence/consciousness outside of our physical Universe - will plateau at about 10-15%, especially as materialism loses favor among physicists in favor of the emergent Universe theory in the coming decades.

[Lechasseur]

As the world continues to secularize (is that a word?), TRUE atheism - being defined as the belief that the Universe had no “Creator” and there is no higher intelligence/consciousness outside of our physical Universe - will plateau at about 10-15%, especially as materialism loses favor among physicists in favor of the emergent Universe theory in the coming decades.

What's the Universe theory?

[Former President tack50]

As the world continues to secularize (is that a word?), TRUE atheism - being defined as the belief that the Universe had no “Creator” and there is no higher intelligence/consciousness outside of our physical Universe - will plateau at about 10-15%, especially as materialism loses favor among physicists in favor of the emergent Universe theory in the coming decades.

Will the world actually keep secularizing though? The more religious places (especially África, yo a lesser extent Middle East, South Asia) are the ones growing fast while secular areas (China, Western Europe) are declining.

I'm certainly seeing a big decline of secularism unfortunately. And research backs that Up

http://www.pewforum.org/2017/04/05/the-changing-global-religious-landscape/pf-04-05-2017_-projectionsupdate-00-07/

http://www.pewforum.org/2017/04/05/the-changing-global-religious-landscape/pf_17-04-05_projectionsupdate_changepopulation640px/

In fact pretty much all religious groups are expected to decline or stagnate as a percentage other than muslims (Christians and jews Will be stagnant, everyone else on decline)

[Politician]

Ohio won't ever become a solid red state.

[RINO Tom]

As the world continues to secularize (is that a word?), TRUE atheism - being defined as the belief that the Universe had no “Creator” and there is no higher intelligence/consciousness outside of our physical Universe - will plateau at about 10-15%, especially as materialism loses favor among physicists in favor of the emergent Universe theory in the coming decades.

What's the Universe theory?

Sorry, I wasn't going to capitalize it, but I always capitalize "Universe."  It is the "Emergent Universe Theory," relating to recent findings in quantum physics.  A physicist would obviously explain it better than I ever could, but it is the idea that - based on our latest findings relating to the Universe - it appears that spacetime is actually emergent from consciousness and intelligence (as a concept) in the same way that biology is emergent from chemistry: it makes no sense without it.  A lot of scientists are starting to agree that our Universe seems to behave more and more like we live in a simulation, and that leaves two logical conclusions: we are in a simulation in a device, or we are in a "simulation" in a mind, the latter of course jiving 100% with what we would call "God."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iFEBOGLjuq4

The above video was made by a confessed theist, so I'm sure some will call it biased ... but it's very, very well-done with several quotes from credible scientists.  It also isn't making any religious claims in the video, only that there is evidence to suggest a higher intelligence is behind our physical Universe - something that has rather obvious religious implications.

As the world continues to secularize (is that a word?), TRUE atheism - being defined as the belief that the Universe had no “Creator” and there is no higher intelligence/consciousness outside of our physical Universe - will plateau at about 10-15%, especially as materialism loses favor among physicists in favor of the emergent Universe theory in the coming decades.

Will the world actually keep secularizing though? The more religious planes (África, Middle East, South Asia) are the ones growing fast while secular areas (China, Western Europe) are declining.

I'm certainly seeing a big decline of secularism unfortunately.

True, I guess I had the Western world in mind when I said that.  Either way, I don't think self-identified Atheists will ever pass 15% in the United States.

[Intell]

People that oppose healthcare and welfare as a right are disgusting people and are equivalent to racists in their moral depravity.

[Deleted User #4049]

Industrial civilization is inherently unsustainable, and resource constraints will result in a massive collapse in a few decades. We take and take and take and are incapable of giving anything back.

[Hindsight was 2020]

Not sure if either REALLY counts as a "Hot, Bad [or] Unpopular Take," but I have been on a World War I kick lately:

1) The Central Powers, in a vacuum, were completely justified in going to war, and Germany's over-the-line actions once the war broke out (took "the best defense is a good offense" to an extreme, for example) overshadow this simple fact WAY too much in our retelling of the Great War.  The Central Powers may have wanted a war, and they may have clearly been the overall "worse actors" in this conflict (I would agree with both), but Austria-Hungary had every right to go to war with Serbia, and Germany had every right to back them up ... until conspiracy theories are proven.

2) Germany was much more impressive from a military standpoint in WWI than they were in WWII, regardless of the fact that Hitler was able to conquer much of Europe.

How justified were they?

They broke all international agreements about respecting neutral countries by invading and destroying a neutral country. Furthermore, Franz Joseph never cared about his neohew, all he wanted was to crush Serbia and austria dominance in the Balkans.

How is it justified?

As I believe I explained, their actions - beyond considering Serbia literally sponsoring terrorism an act of war - were NOT justified.  However, in the end, that is what sparked the conflict.

I don't understand. Now you say their actions weren't justified?

I think he was talking about Serbia's actions not being justified

Right.  It's fair enough to criticize Germany and Austria-Hungary for probably "wanting war" and using their reasons for going to war as somewhat of an excuse, and it's CERTAINLY fair to criticize a lot of their wartime actions ... however, if we simply look at the first "cause" (the assassination of Franz Ferdinand), I believe Austria-Hungary was completely justified to go to war with Serbia, and Germany was not "in the wrong" to back them.  The fact that Russia and then France also joined due to similar treaty-related reasons isn't OVERLY relevant to that question "in a vacuum" (which was my original phrasing).

I sympathize with this point to a degree. I must confess annoyance at the fact our textbooks when covering WW1 tend to paint Serbia in a more innocent light then they truly were. From grade school until senior year of HS I was given the impression that Austria-Hungary accusations of Serbia’s role in Franz’s were unfounded until I did independent readings and discovered not only were the accusations not unfounded but the head of Serbia’s equivalent of the CIA organized the whole thing and Austria had solid proof of it.

[OSR stands with Israel]

People that oppose healthcare and welfare as a right are disgusting people and are equivalent to racists in their moral depravity.

So just because I oppose single payer you think I am a terrible person

[💥💥 brandon bro (he/him/his)]

AOC is much smarter and savvier than people on this site think. She's already become a major fixture of the party and over time she is going to win over more and more people.

Industrial civilization is inherently unsustainable, and resource constraints will result in a massive collapse in a few decades. We take and take and take and are incapable of giving anything back.

This is a very good take and I agree with it.

[Stand With Israel. Crush Hamas]

Supporting Jeremy Corbyn = supporting Steve King. Both are morally indefensible and the evil of their opinions is unambiguous and well-proven.

[Intell]

People that oppose healthcare and welfare as a right are disgusting people and are equivalent to racists in their moral depravity.

So just because I oppose single payer you think I am a terrible person

If you support public option/multi-payer but oppose multi-payer it doesn't make you horrible just wrong. If you oppose the public option/multi-payer and single-payer it does make you morally depraved.

[bagelman]

AOC is much smarter and savvier than people on this site think. She's already become a major fixture of the party and over time she is going to win over more and more people.

Industrial civilization is inherently unsustainable, and resource constraints will result in a massive collapse in a few decades. We take and take and take and are incapable of giving anything back.

This is a very good take and I agree with it.

I agree with your take. The other one I obviously hope is wrong, but we're about to get a huge wake up call due to global climate change.

[OSR stands with Israel]

People that oppose healthcare and welfare as a right are disgusting people and are equivalent to racists in their moral depravity.

So just because I oppose single payer you think I am a terrible person

If you support public option/multi-payer but oppose multi-payer it doesn't make you horrible just wrong. If you oppose the public option/multi-payer and single-payer it does make you morally depraved.

I support some forms of price controls  , expanding Medicaid , allowing importation of prescription drugs from Canada and banning insurance companies do denying people coverage due to pre existing conditions.

I don’t support a multi payer or public option 

[Lechasseur]

People that oppose healthcare and welfare as a right are disgusting people and are equivalent to racists in their moral depravity.

So just because I oppose single payer you think I am a terrible person

If you support public option/multi-payer but oppose multi-payer it doesn't make you horrible just wrong. If you oppose the public option/multi-payer and single-payer it does make you morally depraved.

I'd honestly support the first option (unpopular opinion among Republicans, I know)

[Frenchrepublican]

People that oppose healthcare and welfare as a right are disgusting people and are equivalent to racists in their moral depravity.

I’m proud to be a disgusting guy in this case, even if you will probably disagree, it’s not the job of the government to offer health care, it’s a service which can be provided by the market exactly like car’s insurance services