Hot, Bad & Unpopular Takes (user search)
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
June 18, 2024, 06:24:32 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Forum Community
  Forum Community (Moderators: The Dowager Mod, YE, KoopaDaQuick 🇵🇸)
  Hot, Bad & Unpopular Takes (search mode)
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: Hot, Bad & Unpopular Takes  (Read 144702 times)
IceAgeComing
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,588
United Kingdom


« on: October 29, 2017, 04:02:12 PM »

the core idea of the European Union is Cool and Good; and Freedom of Movement is the only thing that makes the damn thing work.  The idea that it should because a purely free-trade based economic union ignores the reason why the EU is generally pretty popular amongst most people in most member states.

Also this thread reveals the ignorance that the average Atlas poster seems to have when considering migration and racial issues in Europe.

     Defining a political ideology by a series of platform planks is silly and altogether misses the point, that being that your outlook is formed by philosophical notions about what constitutes "good government".

believe that you meant to post this is the "good and correct" opinions thread
Logged
IceAgeComing
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,588
United Kingdom


« Reply #1 on: October 30, 2017, 11:40:01 AM »


-Transgenderism isn't real, and there are two genders.  Gender and sex are the same thing, and "gender identity" is completely made up.  I go back and forth on whether or not sex changes should be illegal.  The more pressing problem is that scientists are not looking for a cure to gender dysphoria (and homosexuality, for that matter) out of fear for left-wing PC activists.

I feel that the difference between a "bad opinion" and saying things that are factually wrong should be clear with this point, since it contains both.

First you say that "transgenderism isn't real" and then start talking about gender dysphoria in literally the next sentence; which surely is a contradiction, as the latter can't be a thing that exists if the former doesn't.  That just seems like the sort of thing that you'd realise if you gave the issue even the slightest thought.

The next point is altogether more troubling though, this idea that scientists aren't seeking to "cure" GD or homosexuality because of the far left.  Firstly the far left is nowhere near as powerful as you seem to think it is and secondly I'm sure that it'd be pretty big if you managed to find this big proof of political manipulation of science.  However let's look at the real reasons why scientists stopped that sort of research - because it literally does not work.  They've tried all sorts of ways to try and "correct" LGBTQ people from the manipulative conversion therapies that have driven lots of people to suicide to pumping them full of random mixes of hormones - the big one was to try to treat gender dysphoria by giving trans women testosterone and trans men estrogen; I'm sure everyone who knows the science behind gender dysphoria will be shocked to near that this amplified the symptoms of dysphoria and actually increased rates of self harm and suicide.  The fact is that homosexuality isn't something that needs treating and there are no health differences between the average LGB person and the average straight person (and after all that's all that science is concerned with) and as I laid out in this post and later posts in this thread the medical evidence is pretty damn conclusive that the only way to trear gender dysphoria is transitioning - pre-transition trans people have higher rates of self-harm and suicide and other mental health issues and post-transition most of that disappears with there being no significant differences between cis and trans people.  That's why scientists aren't researching this wonder cure you pine for - it already exists!

But I think that the most revealing this is this idea that there's a boogieman that's preventing people from researching the REAL TRUTH about something - that real truth naturally being the thing that you believe yourself to be the truth.  It's something that has risen in both left and right circles increasingly and it's a very bad development since it means that people don't have to question their own beliefs or think about how they defend their position anymore since they can start talking about how there's this cabal of people that's hiding the REAL FACTS on an issue.  To use this example; you clearly believe that there's something wrong with LGBTQ people that needs to be corrected and that logically there must be a cure, an easy fix to make them "normal" (straight, cis) people.  Because no one is researching for one or finding one it can't be that either there's no quick fix or that the best solutions are the ones available or that your positions on the issue are wrong; it's that the FAR LEFT SJWS is preventing scientists from doing research.  To me that sounds like a totally absurd position; in the same way that you'd find it absurd if I claimed, say, that the only reason why America isn't a socialist country is because THE FAR RIGHT control the media and spread false information about the issues and CON people into voting Republican - ought to not need to clarify this but I clearly don't believe that.

I don't know if any of that counts as an unpopular opinion but I felt that it had to be said.
Logged
IceAgeComing
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,588
United Kingdom


« Reply #2 on: September 12, 2018, 09:42:01 AM »

It wouldn't surprise me if every major CFB and CBB program has Louisville-level (well, apart from the prostitution stuff) violations, and I don't think that's a bad thing.  It doesn't matter whether it is the US Government, a state government, or the NCAA, no organization should put restrictions on capitalism, and a basketball or football player who is worth $20,000,000 to a school should be paid that much over the table.

I think that we've had someone that we can agree on!

Although my position is a little different and I think that it comes from a position of not being American and so finding the whole College Sports thing really quite weird.  I'm of the opinion that the system as it is now is incredibly unfair to the players and  - especially when it comes to American Football which is an incredibly dangerous sport with many people getting seriously injured at a young age: or causing long-term issues that will affect them later in life.  Perhaps a more formalised minor or feeder league system where players could be professional (hopefully better than the way that Minor League Baseball works where players earn starvation wages for a years, with most never making it to the Majors) and get paid for doing what they do would help to mitigate that a little bit.  But the idea where an organisation can market a sport using the famous players to help push it; market them in video games and the like and then not only not pay those players anything but also forbid them from marketing themselves in a way that at least ensures that they've got some money to support themselves in the future if something goes wrong - especially since the NFL doesn't have guaranteed contracts so they can get cut easily.

Although another part of your post is interesting since it seems to be arguing against the whole structure of American sports in general.  They are designed to be... socialist in a way - you have the Draft which limits rich, large teams from taking all of the best players: most of the sports have a Salary Cap or some kind of system to prevent rich teams from outweighing everyone else with the power of money alone; player Free Agency is often restricted earlier in their career which gives teams effective control over their young players (again to limit the power of larger, richer teams) and many other systems that are designed to try and ensure long-term parity, and theoretically make it so that unless you have a team that is as stupid as the Marlins or the Browns, they go through phases of being very good followed by getting worse.  I read that as you preferring the way that things work in more European Sports; where a rich Qatari businessman can buy a mediocre Manchester-based Football team, spent billions of dollars buying players from various teams and therefore build one of the best teams in the world entirely through buying players and not through developing any.  Although you have things like Financial Fair Play (designed to make sure that you can't just have a rich owner spending $300 million a year on players as some were; making it so that you can only spend a certain amount of money based on your revenues and if you exceed that you get transfer embargoes preventing you from buying anyone) designed to try and limit the excesses those are frankly toothless and you have the same five or six teams winning everything since they have rich owners that can get any player they want through force of money: its basically a free-for-fall; almost unregulated capitalism.  If that was the case; then it'd be perfect for this thread I think since most Americans would probably hate it!
Logged
Pages: [1]  
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.029 seconds with 7 queries.