True spicy unpopular opinions. There’s just something about them that always gets people riled up and they always feel that they’ve got to attack it because they’re emotionally charged.
And no I’m not talking about unpopular opinions made for edgy purposes like “DEM *****S SHOULD BE BACK IN PLANTATION!” shit. I’m talking more thought out, articulative kinds and opinions that just come out of someone’s belief against the major tide of the hivemind.
I’ve spoken of opinions on Reddit, on here, on Facebook and a couple of other platforms. Everytime it’s the same thing, people are attacking it and unable to engage in a discussion. They always assume I’m just here to listen to myself talk and just looking for people to only agree with me.
I don’t give a fuck whether or not you agree with me. Opinions aren’t facts or anything. But I don’t have the patience for emotionally-charged people that’s going to come on in and just throw down for no reason.
So I think nobody is ready to handle these kinds of thoughts.
I didn’t expect that
I did, does that make me a nobody?
Makes you a heretic!
This is the ONLY thing I expected here.
Our chief weapon is surprise.
My unpopular opinion is that AskLemmy posters should have to submit their questions and then post their relevant rant in a comment as to not take away from the discussion with it.
Only a small fraction of the worlds population actually needs to work so everyone can live free and without being hungry.
The electrician, the carpenter, the plumber, etc. should be the wealthiest humans, not the banker and CEO.
Doctor, farmer, teacher/professor. They’re literally working for the future of humanity.
Very meta - An emotionally charged rant about emotionally charged opinions
Getting robbed at gunpoint/knife edge i guess?
To answer the post title and ignoring the wall of text:
Long vacations in other countries. You’re not ready to be away from “everything” for that long, and culture shock is a thing, even for us woke lefties…
I don’t really mind culture shock, unless that shock is a sanitary one, but i won’t be and will never be ready to left home for that long because i will either think of my work or my home or my cats.
wall of text
That’s unfair. Picket fence.
The opinion that no matter the healthcare system, drawing the line on what gets and what doesn’t get covered is necessary. “Money per year of quality-adjusted life” is a good enough metric to have these discussions among the general public. How much more taxes/insurance fees are you willing to pay, or how much are you willing to cut from other important things such as education, for better healthcare when every addition is met with diminishing returns, is a discussion that should be had. “Just cut from <my pet peeve>” is a cowardly way to avoid the discussion.
I enjoy ‘free’ debate where I can be the devil’s advocate for unpopular opinions. Talk like this is more or less banned on Reddit. Lemmy is a much freer. I think the are sensible boundaries on certain topics where debate must not turn into advocacy. This takes nuance and good sense though. Completely dead on Reddit, still alive here. So carry on…
Do you actually feel conviction behind the claims and arguments, or is it more performative? I have people in my life who take it way to far almost to the point of chronic bad faith and making them annoying to talk to about anything…
Do you actually feel conviction behind the claims and arguments, or is it more performative?
Yes. I think what happens in many difficult topics is people know how they feel but have never really thought through the detail. And because of that they backfill with black and white thinking that I think is bad for several reasons.
I) often even though I agree on the central issue, the black and white thinking contains overreactions that I disagree with that in themselves cause other problems. So I see value in developing an emotional black and white view into a nuanced dark grey / off-white view.
ii) black and white thinking leaves us ill equipped to understand others or find compromises
iii) although we all do it, relying on strong emotional convictions is fine for day to day life but leaves us out of practice articulating exactly why we think things should be a certain way and therefore vulnerable to articulate bad actors
I would never take a contrary view just to be annoying. And I generally only do it on moral issues, not matters of strong consensus that would veer into conspiracy. (E.g. practising reciting the evidence for why we understand the Holocaust is real is a useful historical skill but not the kind of thing I’m talking about)
Having their first child. You’ll never be ready.
second trump administrations.
If you eat meat (especially beef or pork) more than once a month you are not an ally in the fight against climate change. Towards that end, meat should be taxed at higher levels than cigarettes or alcohol (in Canada).
Many measures against climate change won’t be accepted since it would have major impacts on people’s life choices even if the pollution is being done by major companies.
Yup, we should be taxing fossil fuels like crazy and putting those funds directly into green infrastructure, but “mah truck!”.
Part of what sparked the yellow vest protests in France was an increase in fuel taxes.
I’d be willing to wager a larger percentage of those protesting the increased fuel costs are also “very concerned” about climate change.
I don’t care if there are people who’s estimates net worth is in the billions. They’re free to play their games. It does not make me richer nor poorer.
And thats how successfully gaslit people look like. :)
How does Warren Buffett, for example, make me poorer? :)
Its insanely easy to explain.
Warren buffet owns a lot of the stuff you use. Without him, you would pay considerably less for what you‘re doing.
You can exchange this with everything you buy, rent, sell, etc. these leeches own everything over some subsidiary.
Also, since everyone else would also earn a lot more, you‘d live in a less violent neighborhood since reduced stress astonishingly drives down crime, etc.
The big lie is that scarcity is real. It hasnt been for 30+ years.
deleted by creator
Warren buffet owns a lot of the stuff you use. Without him, you would pay considerably less for what you‘re doing.
That’s quite a leap! An apple device would be cheaper if apple’s ownership was more diluted to the point Warren Buffet is no longer a billionair?
The rest of your argument seems to be build on this false premise.
I dont have time to go in turns with you. I suggest you read books.
The stock market is a study topic and not something to discuss in a social media thread. In short, yes. If apple makes 100b$ profit (which is bad as well and makes you poorer) you want that profit shared among as many people as possible, not one person. The effect of billionaires is the same as of any power centralization. The more power you have the easier you can grow it since you can make markets bend to your will (e.g. lobbying).
I appreciate your actually unpopular opinion. Should be noted since you brought him up that even Warren Buffett says he has too much money and that he and billionaires like him should be taxed more heavily to the benefit of society.
Everything you buy from a company he owns takes a cut to give to him. That is value you don’t get for your hard earned money.
On top of that, Mr Buffet himself, as well as magnates in general, manipulate both your salary and cost of goods so that you get even less for your hard work.
Amazon workers not being able to pee at work for a salary they can’t really live on seems another example.
Everything you buy from a company he owns takes a cut to give to him.
Not necessarily, as not all companies give dividents or buybacks. But let’s say they all do. The same argument applies to employees: they get a cut of a companies income? I think a fair deal: as long as they make something I want or need at a price I agree to I’ll buy it. Otherwise I won’t.
manipulate both your salary and cost of goods
Not really, I’m self-employed. As to the price of goods, see the above. We manipulate it just as well. Other large manipulators are monetary policy and taxes.
Amazon workers not being able to pee at work for a salary they can’t really live on seems another example.
How’s that related to individual’s net worth? Customers will always want goods cheap, even if a company’s ownership is diluted to the point that each shareholder isn’t a billionair. My customers would happily have me work for free or negative prices.
Everything you buy from a company he owns takes a cut to give to him.
Not necessarily, as not all companies give dividents or buybacks. But let’s say they all do.
Very few companies run at a loss for long. All profit is on the back of the workers, and if that isn’t returned to them, it is parasitism. Regardless if the owner takes dividends, or borrows against the increased value of their stocks, or any other enrichment of them, is at the expense of the laborer.
I’ll mention that I’m not necessarily against it, but it is the central tenet of capitalism.
The same argument applies to employees: they get a cut of a companies income? I think a fair deal: as long as they make something I want or need at a price I agree to I’ll buy it. Otherwise I won’t.
Issue is, the labourer is doing the work, why aren’t they entitled to the value of that work? How come someone gets to just grab 20% to pay off those who don’t produce the same value?
manipulate both your salary and cost of goods
Not really, I’m self-employed. As to the price of goods, see the above. We manipulate it just as well. Other large manipulators are monetary policy and taxes.
You don’t have any economic muscle against the big players in your market. Are you really pricing according to the cost of production? More probably you’re pricing close to market value, which you aren’t deciding on your own. The bigger fish have more say in that then you do, on both the demand and supply side.
Monetary policy is a tool to affect the distribution of money, it does not itself extract or inject value.
Taxes only extract value with corruption. All taxed money put into the commons, no matter how inefficiently, are for the public good and stimulation of the economy. The extraction comes with parasitism and hoarding which happens when individuals are enriched at the expense of others. This happens through corruption ofc, both in embezzlement, underdelivered value and exploitative cash flows.
Amazon workers not being able to pee at work for a salary they can’t really live on seems another example.
How’s that related to individual’s net worth? Customers will always want goods cheap, even if a company’s ownership is diluted to the point that each shareholder isn’t a billionair.
Oh, it’s not about net worth. It’s meant to be an example where the owner class is extracting inhumane amounts of value from the employees. Making Bezos rich at the expense of both the employees and the rest of us having to bear the loss of years of quality life with the following reduced production, increased need of social and medical support, and extracted value.
To summarise: Any money taken away from the people doing the work, directly or indirectly, is exploitation.
I happen to think exploitation is unethical.
Oh, it’s not about net worth
It is though. My original post was: I don’t care if there are high net worth individuals. Did you switcharoo my own opinion?
There’s quite a few falsehoods in your comment, such as:
Monetary policy is a tool to affect the distribution of money, it does not itself extract or inject value.
Au contraire, it affects inflation, severily, and therefore the relative value of your savings and past work.
Very few companies run at a loss for long
The options for a company are not limited to divident/buyback vs run at a loss, as you seem to be implying.
Taxes only extract value with corruption.
So looking at history, it’s only a problem in every government that’s ever been?
All profit is on the back of the workers
Not necessarily. Examples: (a) How would you price a service like insurance? (b) how would you value the engineer of a new type of bicycle hub? He hasn’t left his computer, didn’t touch a single nail. © How should the inventor of a song be renumerated? Is the value created, that people are paying for, solely the network engineers at spotify?
To summarise: Any money taken away from the people doing the work, directly or indirectly, is exploitation.
I’m afraid that that’s a conclusion based on false arguments.
Then perhaps we are starting from different points, my model is basically that an economy is a closed system until either a) resources, innovation or performed work inputs more value or b) these are removed from circulation.
Under that model inflation, services, taxes, are all value neutral for a certain scope of economy. Your private finances are of course going to be affected by taxes and inflation, but total world or even national economy not so much.
To put it in simpler terms, all goods and services exchanged for money don’t change the economy as long as that money gets spent again.
It’s a simplified model ofc, it doesn’t take into account for example moving value between countries/markets (how do we account for stuff sent into space? Or sent to other countries?).
To help with understanding your perspective, could you kindly explain how high net worth individuals come to their situation within your model?
They don’t get a cut, they get a wage. That wage is as low as it is because of lobbying from wealthy fucks, and they can reduce it to 0 by firing you with flimsy reasoning. The workers make the rich rich, and the rich makes the workers poor.
Customers want goods cheap, but they’re really bad at noticing what’s cheap and what’s manipulative. JC Penny tried to remove sales and just offer cheaper clothes, but people wanted more expensive clothes with a 50% off label on it. Shops will inflate the price on a luxury item to make a lower-priced item look reasonable, even if the lower price is still inflated.
They are rich because they exploit us bruv
I wish that were true.
