Pit-bulls. Most of their bad reputation comes from organizations that campaign against their very existence and people will quote pit-bull bite statistics with the same lack of irony as a white nationalist quoting FBI crime statistics about people of color.
I’m this way with German Shepherd s . I live dogs, Ive had big dogs, I met plenty of friendly Sheperds, but both my mom and I have been bite by 3 different ones (over our lifetimes). Now I am on edge around them.
I worked as an insurance agent. In the states I had my P&C licenses in, we were legally required to base rates on data. i.e statistically how much the company paid out in claims given certain factors. One of the things we based rates on was the breeds of dog people owned. Pitbulls and certain other dog breeds do not just have a bad reputation because people irrationally fear/hate them, they actually do pose a greater risk. Just like teenagers by and large, aren’t as safe drivers. It isn’t “fair” in that the dog didn’t choose to be the breed it is and some of them really are good dogs but statistically, averaged over the whole, they are more of a risk than other dog breeds are.
One of the things we based rates on was the breeds of dog people owned. Pitbulls and certain other dog breeds do not just have a bad reputation because people irrationally fear/hate them, they actually do pose a greater risk.
This is a classic example of someone observing a statistical correlation between specific factors and using that to assert a direct causal relationship between them. It implies that an insurance agency is able to 1) accurately identify every single breed of dog in every single insurance related incident (which is definitely not the case, because I doubt every insurance company is doing genetic testing on every single dog it comes across) and 2) tie a causal relationship between dog breed and incident. If I were going by typical insurance metrics, and to borrow from your analogy of “teenagers as unsafe drivers,” you would also assume that red Camarros, something more expensive to insure than your more conservative sedan, were statistically more dangerous than, say, a white Civic, as if they were what caused their drivers to get into car accidents, as opposed to young, reckless people interested in a fast sports car to simply go out and buy one. These are people who would be reckless behind the wheel of any car, but who are statistically correlated with a particular type of one. But you still mark the red Camaro as more expensive to insure regardless of who buys it because it’s statistically correlated with a higher degree of accidents.
The causal link is implied. When someone says “Pitbulls and certain other dog breeds do not just have a bad reputation because people irrationally fear/hate them, they actually do pose a greater risk,” this is another way of saying that a particular breed of dog is innately more dangerous than another. Not that it has the potential to be more dangerous, but objectively is. The only logical deduction from this statement is that there must be something about the animal’s breed that makes it this way. It’s literally the exact same logic used by people who cite FBI crime statistics in order to paint specific entire ethnic groups as innately “more criminal” than another ethnic group.
These are multibillion dollar companies (actually they insure trillions in assets) whose whole job is to be very very good at assessing risk. You thinking you know better is peak Dunning-Krueger.
“If a big corporation says something is one way, it must be so. They have a lot of money, after all.” Your argument is peak “Argument to Authority.” I guess it’s a good thing those insurance companies like AIG were able to effectively assess their degree of risk exposure in the housing markets in 2008 and avoid collapsing when the housing market imploded. Oh, wait…
OMFG there is no evil conspiracy by USAA and every other insurance company against pitbulls JFC. Pitbulls are just statistically much more dangerous than other animals.
They’re statistically correlated with incidents of mauling. Nobody is denying the statistical correlation. But there is a difference between observing a statistical correlation between breed and maulings and asserting a causal relationship. My argument is that the assertion that “pit-bulls are innately, biologically predisposed towards violence against people and other animals” is not supported by meaningful evidence. If you are arguing that they are, then you’re gonna have to convince me with more than “insurance companies say they are.”
Question: Does his company factor FBI crime stats into it too? Why not? “Despite being 12% of the population black people commit 50% of crime” and suddenly now since it’s optically bad to charge black people higher rates “causation only equals correlation when we can’t be called racist for it?”
That shit don’t sit right with me tbh.
And what about German Shepherds that have bit 11 secret service agents? Secretly pits? Hating pits but not other large breeds is frankly silly imo (unless you hate black people too because the only important thing ever is statistics). At least hate Chows too, since they’re arguably more aggressive, and German Shepherds, Presas, Boxers, Rotts, etc. Shit at the very least German Shepherds were the Nazis dogs and they’re the ones the cops use now, and they’re “not” “bred to attack” over pits? Come off it.
You can’t just accuse me of what I’m accusing you of because I accused you of it, that isn’t how this works.
I left out how the pit breed happens to be particularly popular with minorities as well btw, which makes irrational pit hate itself a racist dogwhistle (pun intended). I think I’ll add that in now. Gotta have a white people dog like a Bichon Frise huh? None of those dogs “the rappers” like? You disgust me.
How many owners are morons that wanted cool mean dog though. I’ve known dog owners that get those breeds specifically and they have no understanding of how to treat a dog. Like they’ll get a working dog and an cage it all day then wonder why it’s aggressive. I’d like to know the difference. Because too many people get dogs for looks and don’t actually give a fuck a about the dogs soul.
Sorry if I come off aggressive, I just talk like that… I’m genuinely curious about this.
Sure but then the problem is moron owners, not the dog or it’s breed. Those morons could be just as cruel to a German Shepherd, Boxer, Rottweiler, Presa Canario, Bullmastiff, etc. Nature vs Nurture I guess.
How many owners are morons that wanted cool mean dog though.
This is sort of my point. A pit bull that’s socialized, well trained, and cared for is generally very safe to be around. A pit bull that has the opposite kind of life? Well, what kinda dog wouldn’t be an asshole under those circumstances?
Okay, I’m trying to understand your argument here. Are you saying that pitbulls are being racially profiled and that information from other dogs aren’t being collected or that bites of the same severity by other dogs aren’t being correctly gathered or are bring suppressed? And, if so, what are the factors that should be taken into account when discussing dog bites or dog aggression?
I think the reason they are making that comparison is that there are a lot of other factors that feed into the final numbers. Crime stats aren’t a final determination of the inherent criminality of different groups of people. Things like poverty, arrest rates, and conviction rates all skew the numbers.
With pit bulls, people often get them because they want a dog that’s “tough” and they essentially train (or don’t train) them to be bad dogs. The dog itself isn’t at fault.
Anyone who’s been around a lot of dogs will tell you that small dogs are more bitey. The fact that a pit bull is stronger and can do more damage is also not the dogs fault.
The real difference is pitbulls bite to kill, most other dogs dont. Any dog can get triggered, but certain breeds like bullies and dogos, ridgbacks, they bite to kill. It is as instinctual as a pointer pointing or a sheep dog herding.
Just watch a lot of footage of a shepard attacking a human vs a pitbull. The shepard generally goes for the arm or leg and the bully drags you down so it can go for the face and neck.
Heck, one time when I was driving a bully charged my van! I was doing 50km and he charged out, and bashed into my door! I didnt stop, and it didnt seem hurt it just went after the car behind me…
Anyone whos been around a lot of dogs will tell you that small dogs are more bitey.
There you go, thats exactly the point. But they aren’t killing any babies. Pitbulls were bred for fighting. People have Tigers and Lions as pets too. Is that also justified?
The fact that a pit bull is stronger and can do more damage is also not the dogs fault.
Of course it’s not the dog’s fault. It is just an animal. It’s the breeders’ and the owners’ fault. Nobody is advocating for euthanasing Pitbulls. Maybe just get a Golden Retriever if you’re just looking for a pet next time.
Yes, the breed should be distroyed. But not the poor living animals. We should simply stop breeding more of them. Pitbulls are a freak of nature created for the amusement of humans.
I mean, dog breeding is in general terribly inhumane. All dogs should ideally be mutts. They’d certainly all be healthier and have a better quality of life.
The other user who responded to you, @evasive_chimpanzee@lemmy.world, does a good job of analyzing the core idea here. To quote Benjamin Disraeli, there’s lies, damn lies, and statistics. Black people are no more “innately inclined towards criminality” than a pit-bull is innately inclined towards mauling people. Where people of color have been historically over policed, profiled by the criminal justice system, and generally set up to have a higher rate of criminal statistics than other ethnic groups, pit-bulls face similar statistical problems. Bite statistics are often self-reported by people who either witnessed a dog attack or who were themselves victims of one. Identifying a dog’s breed by sight, especially for mixed breed dogs, is nearly impossible, and more error prone than accurate. And for a pound, any “big dog with a blocky head” immediately gets labeled as a pit-bull, even if it has literally no pit-bull DNA. These dogs are routinely adopted by people who explicitly train a dog to be mean to people, as opposed to socializing them. The fact that they also have this reputation as guard dogs or attack dogs exacerbates their reputation.
I already suggested this in another comment, but you can easily apply a thought experiment here.
Magically replace all white people with black people with the same upbringing: does crime go up, down, or basically stay the same?
Magically replace all pitbulls with chihuahuas with the same upbringing: do maulings go up, down, or basically stay the same?
Couldn’t tell the cops if the mugger was white or black? Pretty understandable.
Couldn’t tell the cops if the dog that bit you was a chihuahua or a pitbull? Really?
Any “big dog with a blocky head” should be banned from breeding or sale, and nobody who agrees with that statement cares about DNA. It is a matter of public safety and it doesn’t matter that humans are the real problem, because humans are notoriously hard to control. The pitbulls and similar breeds we have today deserve all the love and comfort we can give them now, but they shouldn’t be bred into the future because there is no legitimate reason to own one except for its potential for violence and flatulence-scapegoating.
There’s really no winning as a cyclist when most people are in cars. If you stop at all stop signs, and obey they right-of-way, people will yell at you and/or try to wave you through ahead of your turn dangerously. If you do an Idaho stop (which is the safest way to approach a stop, whether it’s legal or not), people will honk and yell at you and possibly try to run you off the road.
I used to commute by bike a lot during rush hour. If there was a lineup of cars waiting at a red-light, and I just waited in line, people in cars behind me would honk at me as if me preventing them from being one cars-length further ahead in line would somehow affect them. If I filtered forward, like I should, people would actually edge their cars over to try and block me.
I think for the most part, it’s misplaced anger from drivers who don’t want to face the fact that they are the source of danger on roads. The worst bicycle collision is way less severe than a car crash. They also really hate when bicyclists can get anywhere faster than them, which is often the case because it shows them just how much time they waste being traffic.
If it were codified like this as law everywhere, people would accept it better. The rule breaking is what pisses a lot of people off. It would be much more predictable and safer too.
Yeah, the government needs to get behind it (and tell people about it). I’ve come up to stop signs before, and been nearly run over from behind by cars that didn’t expect me to stop.
Classic, I’m guilty of this. The best part about cycling in my small city is squeezing into the gaps and not waiting around in the wind for the lights to cycle.
I see it as my reward for biking instead of driving to be both a pedestrian when I want (go through red lights when traffic is clear on safe streets) and a car when I want (take a lane to get around a delivery truck)
When you are riding in and around drivers in 2 ton machines because your city doesn’t have proper bike infrastructure, you take every single opportunity to avoid them. Call me a “bad cyclist” but I’m going to prioritize my safety over a law or someone’s bad driving any day.
Bike lanes are car infrastructure. We cyclists are perfectly within our rights to cycle in the middle of the lane at a speed comfortable for us. And it’s safer for us to do that than hug the shoulder and risk getting clipped by an impatient driver. A bike lane gets us out of your way so you can drive the speed limit. It’s for your benefit.
The same hatred from the same haters for public transport too: if everyone else is in public transport there more room for you on the road.
It’s a bizarrely prevalent attitude from a bizarrely large portion of car users.
We had some nice mini-traffic island things separating a cycleway on a road, drivers kept hitting them and damaging their cars. They complained and the council removed them despite it being obvious to anyone that they were doing extremely what they were supposed to do: stopping those idiots from hitting actual cyclists!
I thought this as well but German drivers will dangerously swerve into oncoming traffic to overtake me sometimes when I block a lane. Even if there is a red stop light 50m down the road.
Well, it’s less of them, and at least they’re risking their own lives too. If there’s an accident I want the person responsible coming with me to the hospital. That might not be rational, but it’s how I feel.
Lol it’s not rational but I know how you feel. Sometimes I daydream somebody hits me and wrecks my bike and then feels so bad that they give me loads of money in hopes of me not suing them, and then I use that to buy a better bike. And then I wonder wtf is going wrong in my brain
That’s not “for absolutely no reason”. Some cyclists make a bad name for the rest.
Edit: Oh my goodness, you guys. I’m not saying hate for cyclists is justified, that I hate all cyclists, or that “all cyclists do x”.
Some cyclists ride like they have a death wish. So do some drivers. Anyone, regardless of their vehicle, who is willing to put their life in my hands is someone I want to stay far the fuck away from.
I’m sure there are many reasons to hate on a cyclist, (not that I personally believe this, but) such as when they block a single lane road slowing traffic to a crawl and placing the responsibility of possibly accidentally killing a cyclist in the motorist’s hands, though you could argue that’s more about the fact that the roads don’t have dedicated bike lanes, and that’s not the cyclist’s fault, but it is still a reason, not that that reason is justified, I like cyclists!
For thousands of years, people walked on roads. That’s what they were for. They were also for horses, donkeys, and carts, but humans were a big part of it. And none of those four things really goes faster than a bike. Cars are new. Taking people and horses off roads is new. Being able to drive the speed limit is a new, temporary condition, and it can be taken away at any time. Blaming this on cyclists is a reaction based on a misunderstanding of what roads are for. Personally, I support legislature to let people walk on the road however they like again.
Truth. Furthermore, accidents involving a bike and a car have mostly happened because of a lack of infrastructure and options for safe travel on bikes. Public residential streets, for example, are for all modes of transportation, not just cars. Car brains are hysterical and don’t like that, and my life has been threatened many times while riding my bike on residential streets. I even had an older woman match my speed, roll down her window, and say “Next time I see you I’m running you over.” Cyclists do absolutely nothing to deserve this, and even if they’re holding up traffic, it’s no excuse for homicide.
Downvoted for saying the truth. Most cyclist I met here are absolutely jerks, they drive not even on the sidelines - no, they fucking drive in the mid of the road and if you try to surpass they move to the left.
For some it’s not their fault they are a bit of a nuisance obviously (those who cycle near the sidewalks, who signal were they are going etc), the cyclist infastructure is non existent here
The ironic part is that actual socialism is actually pretty popular. It’s the violent revolution and ensuing dictatorship which turns most people off to the Marxist Leninist ideals, which takes up most of the oxygen in that room these days.
Nickelback. I mean they’re not good but they’re not really bad either, just a complete nonevent. They don’t deserve the hate they get, they don’t really deserve anything
The thing is, Nickelback didn’t invent post-grunge or radio grunge, but they were definitely face of it. That era saw a nearly endless stream of cookie cutter Pearl Jam wannabes pop up, and at the same time the entire independent radio industry, which had played a big role in birthing so many counterculture movements, was under threat of corporate consolidation when they were getting popular in the late 90s.
To many millennials, nothing else embodied this dark era for rock music like Nickelback. It was “we have Eddie Vedder at home” meme - shoved down our throats, carbon copied every few months, constantly reminding us that the alternative rock station we grew up with was purchased by Clearchannel and would be transitioned to Latin Beats by the end of the year.
So in that sense, Nickelback may not have killed grunge, but it happily set up shop on its grave, to forever pantomime and disrespect the alternative rock giants laying below. And for a lot of people, that was just too painful.
Yeah, most of the hate is because they were super overplayed for a solid decade. For years the popular radio stations in my area didn’t seem to play anything but Nickelback, green day, Lady Gaga, and pink. In a vacuum, they’re fine. “How you remind me” is pretty good imo. I don’t care for anything else from them. I’ve heard that their guitar player is actually really talented, but I haven’t listened to them enough to know myself
I dont want to listen to them because there is nearly infinite better music than the overproduced boring stuff. Some tunes are catchy, even seen them live once because my mom wanted company, but they are mid at best imo
Holy fuck, that article is elitist. Half of the sections seem pointlessly mean, like they’re trying to dunk on them to win popularity points. One of them is just insulting Chad Kroeger for marrying Avril Lavigne, as if a 10+ year marriage is a bad thing. Some valid points buried in there, but the credibility is lost.
Why would you hate someone for making music you don’t enjoy? Why hate someone for making money with a successful product? Why not just… Ignore them? You are under no obligation to like them, but there’s only around three arguments in there to actually hate them. There are more arguments in that article that boil down to “it’s successful, so it sucks” than valid criticism.
…But you don’t have to listen to it. If it’s on the radio, change the station. The complaints in the article were WAY too in depth for a casual listener to make.
Don’t get me wrong, I do enjoy rock music (among others), but assholes like Nickelback are making terrible example of it. When someone asks me what I listen to and I reply “rock music” the person often reply along the lines of “ah, ok, like Nickelback?” And that’s just disgusting.
I don’t actively hate on them posting shit on the internet on my own or marching with antiNickelback sign in RL, but when someone asks or when discussion revolves around, I tell him I hate the band.
Being successful musician has nothing to do with it. People like Kanye or Taylor Swift made way more money with their (IMO shitty) music, but I don’t hate them as Nickelback. Because they (probably, or at least not that obviously) don’t ruin the genre they perform in.
Edit: Half of what I want to say is probably lost in translation as English is not my native language, so I can’t make all the nuances I would do in my language.
First, this was never about your opinion. It was about an article that complained about music being used in advertising, songs being popular, and people being inspired by a band. That was the opinion you cited as a good reason to hate them.
Second, how often does that actually happen? Considering it’s an internet meme to shit on them, how often do people cite Nickelback as their main example of rock ahead of, say, Nirvana?
Third, why is it disgusting that people mention a band you dislike? Can you not simply correct them and suggest the bands you ACTUALLY like? Does it have to be “hate” rather than “I’m not a fan”?
Fourth, how the hell did Nickelback ruin rock? Is rock so fragile that the Eagles can’t be enjoyed because of “How you remind me” existing? There are bands far worse than Nickelback, but they aren’t successful so you don’t care. If Nickelback weren’t as successful, you wouldn’t care about them either.
I think they’re a relic from a time when it was ok/cool to hate on a band or artist for no reason, publicly, without everyone judging you for being a prick.
My theory is that they’re one of, if not the, last bands to fall into the above category, so everyone just uses them as their go-to.
Younger people (in this case meaning people under 35 lol) are just so much more accepting and less judgemental than previous generations. And you love to see it.
Women
Ethnicities
LGTBQ+
Drag Queens ( they are so entertaining)
Inconvenient truths
People who hang toilet paper the wong way
The French (cowards? They won more battles than anyone and have mastered the art of standing up for themselves)
Furries
Pineapple on pizza ( its good, Ill die on this hill)
Bronies
Caillou - not, that whiney snot deserves it
Marijuana
Ned Flanders
Bell bottoms
Satan ( the word in acient hebrew that we translated to Satan first appears in the book of Job, and would more accuratly be rendered as accuser of prosecutor. In the whole bible satan only goes after 10 people, and only when god tells satan to do it. Half way through satan is like ‘um god? This guys like, broken now. Call it good?’ But that rapscallion god was like ‘no, he could still recover keep hitting him’ and all that because god ‘knew’ Job was the most loyal and devout of his followers and his narcisism just couldnt help but make a grand display of proving it)
Drag queens are wonderful. I finally got into Drag Race (just not a reality show viewer generally), and those queens will totally tug your heart strings if you just watch, and they’re real artists too. RIP Chi Chi DeVayne.
The pinapple on pizza one is weird to me, do these people not enjoy the idea of contrasting and complimentary flavours?
Savoury + sweet is a good combo and they dont seem to have a problem with tomato on pizza if they are getting technical over ‘fruit’ being an ingredient.
It sounds awefull but tastes amazing. This was years ago when I was still moving furnature across the nation and drinking more booze than water. I wonder if I would like it sober tbh
I think it’s more that pineapple flavor is really overpowering on a pizza. And on drinks. I think people dislike ginger (to a lesser extent) for the same reason.
Bronies deserve it because they still haven’t denazified. Furries are a mixed bag with half being outright pedophiles and the rest being insanely cool people, with bronies it’s a guarantee they have at least one filly in their spank bank. But in either case if a nazi comes along trying to start shit with either i’m shutting that shit down right away because they don’t have the right to get on a high horse when they’re 20x worse.
None of the furries I am friends with tolerate Nazis
…anymore
MOST of the furries I am friends with did not ever tolerate Nazis
TBH I do know someone who has a “not checking if the character they’re posting porn of is underage” problem, and I’ve actually only seen them do it with human characters, though they have no special preference between humans and anthros.
I don’t really think the sexual violence rates in the furry community are higher than in the general community. There’s just more awareness of what consent is. I mean I could say “look at r/jailbait, straight people have a pedophile problem”, and I’d be right, but only because society has a pedophile problem.
Trans people, seriously, they just want to live their lives in peace. They’re not here to radicalise anything or to “trick” anyone. They just want to get on with their lives and be left alone.
It is a bit disingenuous to say they are just trying to live their lives in peace, they have chosen an antagonistic path by pushing to normalize the way gender is viewed in culture, which is an upset of the status quo, and that is radical by definition. it doesn’t matter what their motivations are for that to be true.
And they choose this path because LGBT folks have been getting bullied, assaulted and murdered for just existing for about as long as civilization has existed. If they don’t stand up for themselves nobody else is going to do it for them.
The key word is “trying” - most of them are trying to live their lives largely without bothering anyone - except that “anyone” is composed of a lot of people that can’t put up with their existence. Not through any fault of the person, just because of the way they are.
I do get what you’re saying. But it’s a half step away from deriding them for their very existence, which is disgusting. They are attempting to break the status quo in the same way the civil rights movement did.
Are people really stupid enough to think that every single trans person is a loud screeching SJW?
Even if they were so what? You have to be cynical about these things and figure out how much danger every given person represents. I am in far less danger from someone who yells loudly on Instagram compared to some proud boy marching on the street. One makes the internet kinda boring the other sets off bombs.
It’s similar to veganism, they yell really loud to make it known they want peace while at the sime time disturbing everyone else and expecting friendliness.
It’s like that annoying neighbour that blasts music at full volume just because he likes it and then he goes on to say he just wants to be left alone.
You can’t take the stage at a Rammstein concert and expect to just chill out there without getting thrown out.
People can do whatever they want imo, go take that rammstein stage…just be realistic about what you’re gonna get as a result.
You feel like a woman and want to be one? Go ahead, i’d even date and or wife you if your personality is likeable i don’t care about your genitals and whatever makes you happy goes.
Understand that not everyone is going to agree with you, stay safe and be careful. Same goes for everyone else.
when the disagreement is about whether we should be allowed continue existing it’s a bit much to handwave like that, and fuck you very much for deigning to not only frame it like that but 'splain it to us like we’re children. get bent.
People keep saying this, but what is expected when a minute fraction of the population has such a high rate of being murdered? What is expected when without making any fuss, legislators are constantly trying to legislate trans people out of existence, refusing healthcare, increasing the already disproportionate suicide rate, forcing them to do things that puts them in situations where the chance of being murdered is much higher.
These sentiments come from such a place of privilege, “I don’t have this problem, why are you getting on stage to shout about this, you should expect to be discriminated against and murdered” if you don’t see anything wrong with that, you should reevaluate your morals.
I don’t enjoy his flavor… but the dude is just living his best life and gets an absurd amount of hate. It’s actually really funny to me how disproportional the hate is, but I sometimes feel bad for him.
I’ll forever get three people mixed up: Guy Fieri, Gordon Ramsey, and Anthony Bourdain. I would need to see all of their pictures side by side to distinguish them one from the other. (RIP Mr. Bourdain)
Well yea but when it comes to politics, nothing has only advantages. I just hate how this exact policy receives so much aggressive hate from liberals for not more reason than liberal policy has
I have only seen a lot of hateful liberals. That’s why I said that. It was more of a rant. Seriously why are they so aggressive? They only make this world worse with their hatred. Though I’m sure there are aggressive conservatists too. I just haven’t seen them yet
Never heard any anti-trans rhetoric, or just agree with it? ‘Cause I see calling for a group to be eradicated from public life as generally making the world worse.
In other words, watch CPAC and try to remember that the things they say are about real people, and they pass legislation negatively affecting those real people.
I don’t even think I’m a conservative. I don’t follow any conservative speakers, leaders etc. And I respect different opinions. But hatred is always bad. I saw a ton of hateful and aggressive liberals that seemed to act aggressively towards any different opinion (not only conservative I think). That is always bad. If you like aggression, well, I’d suggest therapy
Where did you see it? I’ve seen a ton of stuff like that on social media, but social media amplifies awful takes and has a large population of people lacking perspectives. It doesn’t represent the real world all that well.
Speaking on aggression, there is a large contingent of people in this country who are actively hoping for a civil war and the opportunity to shoot their neighbors over opinions they don’t like or living lives they don’t approve of.
Like many things, I get the ideology and theory, but I don’t understand it in practice. Which basically goes for all politics.
Basically they all require force to realistically attain because chaos rules reality and you cant fuck with chaos and the laws of universe or else bad stuff happens. Maybe things could change later on if humanity makes it that far… But we are nowhere near that.
Politics is hard in practice. There are always going to be factors that’ll make ideas hard or even impossible to implement (any ideas, not only conservative)
Yes, no. An ideology that celebrates killing minorities, women, and the queer community deserves all the hate it gets. The latest victim to your favorite ideology, Nex Benedict in the US and the entire Palestinian population vis-a-vis Netanyahu’s conservative government. Conservatism belongs exactly where it is in the public’s eye. If not moreso.
It is not. It is actually what the word “fair” means. You get hate (a bad thing) for doing hate (a bad thing). Completely fair in my opinion. There’s nothing wrong in critics though. Unfortunately every part of the US culture and government tries to distort it
The conservative part of my views is more about not legalizing things that were not legalized previously (if they do tend to cause damage to people of course). Lol I can see that downvotes by every single USA citizen on Lemmy for that one. Maybe I can explain further if needed but later. I think taxation is important and can be kept high if needed. The government probably shouldn’t regulate the industry much but the opposite situation has its advantages as well (EU government nailed that). Private life should always stay private though + mass surveillance is a huge waste of resources that is not good in any perspective. I don’t identify myself as a conservative in the traditional meaning of this world. I have my own views
I’ve seen like 5 comments where you refuse to expand on your views. This is a formal invitation to bring your opinion to the marketplace of ideas and have it sorted out.
My views are not detailed yet that’s true. But what in the world is a marketplace of ideas? A thing that has a 100 pages contract and is meant to steal intellectual property (jk)? Lol that’s not gonna work on me. And “sorting out someone’s opinion” is highly immoral in my opinion (unless it’s done to prevent an immediate threat and the “brainwasher” consents his actions after the threat is eliminated). Anyone who intentionally attempts to do it to me is to be deleted
You ever read Fahrenheit 451? It’s just a decent read imo, but it has a few gems worth mentioning. In case you’re unfamiliar, it follows the story of a man (named Guy) who lives in a future version of America where books have been outlawed.
Guy meets a former English professor and begins to read in secret. In one of their meetings, the English professor tries to get Guy to talk about what he’s thinking, but Guy is being timid in sharing his thoughts. The professor then says this
You’re afraid of making mistakes. Don’t be. Mistakes can be profited by. Man, when I was young I shoved my ignorance in people’s faces. They beat me with sticks. By the time I was forty my blunt instrument had been honed to a fine cutting point for me. If you hide your ignorance, no one will hit you and you’ll never learn.
To hide your ideas this way is to live in a bubble, and you cannot grow your mind this way.
Mister, I literally lost the closest person recently. Developing my political views is not my priority now. And maybe that’s the reason why I became so active in political discussions. Also I ruined my personality already. I don’t have one now (though relatively stable political views still remain smh). I can only work in enforcement agencies at this point. That’s a thing I’m probably not terrible at. Anyways I did read that book. It was like 5 years ago though so I don’t remember much. And btw the lowest temperature of burning for paper is Celsius 451, not Fahrenheit
Enforcement agencies, vague talk about legalization, makes more sense, now we’re getting somewhere. Hope you’re able to find your way to a better career path. Lots of people partake in activities that others don’t approve of. I don’t think that means we should enforce our will on others. I personally think Christianity is a cult that primarily recruits through the indoctrination of children, but I’m also a fan of religious freedom. Condolences on your loss.
You are not logged in. However you can subscribe from another Fediverse account, for example Lemmy or Mastodon. To do this, paste the following into the search field of your instance: !asklemmy@lemmy.ml
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
If your post meets the following criteria, it’s welcome here!
Open-ended question
Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
Pit-bulls. Most of their bad reputation comes from organizations that campaign against their very existence and people will quote pit-bull bite statistics with the same lack of irony as a white nationalist quoting FBI crime statistics about people of color.
I don’t hate the breed or agree with breed bans but both my niece and my friend’s daughter were badly bitten by pits and they do make me nervous.
I’m this way with German Shepherd s . I live dogs, Ive had big dogs, I met plenty of friendly Sheperds, but both my mom and I have been bite by 3 different ones (over our lifetimes). Now I am on edge around them.
The one in my neighbourhood jumps all over me. I am also a bit on edge, although most of it seems to be goofiness.
Everyone knows the FBI is in the pocket of big-chihuahua.
*little chihuahua
I worked as an insurance agent. In the states I had my P&C licenses in, we were legally required to base rates on data. i.e statistically how much the company paid out in claims given certain factors. One of the things we based rates on was the breeds of dog people owned. Pitbulls and certain other dog breeds do not just have a bad reputation because people irrationally fear/hate them, they actually do pose a greater risk. Just like teenagers by and large, aren’t as safe drivers. It isn’t “fair” in that the dog didn’t choose to be the breed it is and some of them really are good dogs but statistically, averaged over the whole, they are more of a risk than other dog breeds are.
This is a classic example of someone observing a statistical correlation between specific factors and using that to assert a direct causal relationship between them. It implies that an insurance agency is able to 1) accurately identify every single breed of dog in every single insurance related incident (which is definitely not the case, because I doubt every insurance company is doing genetic testing on every single dog it comes across) and 2) tie a causal relationship between dog breed and incident. If I were going by typical insurance metrics, and to borrow from your analogy of “teenagers as unsafe drivers,” you would also assume that red Camarros, something more expensive to insure than your more conservative sedan, were statistically more dangerous than, say, a white Civic, as if they were what caused their drivers to get into car accidents, as opposed to young, reckless people interested in a fast sports car to simply go out and buy one. These are people who would be reckless behind the wheel of any car, but who are statistically correlated with a particular type of one. But you still mark the red Camaro as more expensive to insure regardless of who buys it because it’s statistically correlated with a higher degree of accidents.
No one is ascribing any casual links here.
The causal link is implied. When someone says “Pitbulls and certain other dog breeds do not just have a bad reputation because people irrationally fear/hate them, they actually do pose a greater risk,” this is another way of saying that a particular breed of dog is innately more dangerous than another. Not that it has the potential to be more dangerous, but objectively is. The only logical deduction from this statement is that there must be something about the animal’s breed that makes it this way. It’s literally the exact same logic used by people who cite FBI crime statistics in order to paint specific entire ethnic groups as innately “more criminal” than another ethnic group.
These are multibillion dollar companies (actually they insure trillions in assets) whose whole job is to be very very good at assessing risk. You thinking you know better is peak Dunning-Krueger.
“If a big corporation says something is one way, it must be so. They have a lot of money, after all.” Your argument is peak “Argument to Authority.” I guess it’s a good thing those insurance companies like AIG were able to effectively assess their degree of risk exposure in the housing markets in 2008 and avoid collapsing when the housing market imploded. Oh, wait…
OMFG there is no evil conspiracy by USAA and every other insurance company against pitbulls JFC. Pitbulls are just statistically much more dangerous than other animals.
They’re statistically correlated with incidents of mauling. Nobody is denying the statistical correlation. But there is a difference between observing a statistical correlation between breed and maulings and asserting a causal relationship. My argument is that the assertion that “pit-bulls are innately, biologically predisposed towards violence against people and other animals” is not supported by meaningful evidence. If you are arguing that they are, then you’re gonna have to convince me with more than “insurance companies say they are.”
Quick thought experiment - magically replace every pitbull in the world with a chihuahua instead. Do the number of maulings go up or down?
Question: Does his company factor FBI crime stats into it too? Why not? “Despite being 12% of the population black people commit 50% of crime” and suddenly now since it’s optically bad to charge black people higher rates “causation only equals correlation when we can’t be called racist for it?”
That shit don’t sit right with me tbh.
And what about German Shepherds that have bit 11 secret service agents? Secretly pits? Hating pits but not other large breeds is frankly silly imo (unless you hate black people too because the only important thing ever is statistics). At least hate Chows too, since they’re arguably more aggressive, and German Shepherds, Presas, Boxers, Rotts, etc. Shit at the very least German Shepherds were the Nazis dogs and they’re the ones the cops use now, and they’re “not” “bred to attack” over pits? Come off it.
deleted by creator
You can’t just accuse me of what I’m accusing you of because I accused you of it, that isn’t how this works.
I left out how the pit breed happens to be particularly popular with minorities as well btw, which makes irrational pit hate itself a racist dogwhistle (pun intended). I think I’ll add that in now. Gotta have a white people dog like a Bichon Frise huh? None of those dogs “the rappers” like? You disgust me.
How many owners are morons that wanted cool mean dog though. I’ve known dog owners that get those breeds specifically and they have no understanding of how to treat a dog. Like they’ll get a working dog and an cage it all day then wonder why it’s aggressive. I’d like to know the difference. Because too many people get dogs for looks and don’t actually give a fuck a about the dogs soul.
Sorry if I come off aggressive, I just talk like that… I’m genuinely curious about this.
Sure but then the problem is moron owners, not the dog or it’s breed. Those morons could be just as cruel to a German Shepherd, Boxer, Rottweiler, Presa Canario, Bullmastiff, etc. Nature vs Nurture I guess.
This is sort of my point. A pit bull that’s socialized, well trained, and cared for is generally very safe to be around. A pit bull that has the opposite kind of life? Well, what kinda dog wouldn’t be an asshole under those circumstances?
Okay, I’m trying to understand your argument here. Are you saying that pitbulls are being racially profiled and that information from other dogs aren’t being collected or that bites of the same severity by other dogs aren’t being correctly gathered or are bring suppressed? And, if so, what are the factors that should be taken into account when discussing dog bites or dog aggression?
I think the reason they are making that comparison is that there are a lot of other factors that feed into the final numbers. Crime stats aren’t a final determination of the inherent criminality of different groups of people. Things like poverty, arrest rates, and conviction rates all skew the numbers.
With pit bulls, people often get them because they want a dog that’s “tough” and they essentially train (or don’t train) them to be bad dogs. The dog itself isn’t at fault.
Anyone who’s been around a lot of dogs will tell you that small dogs are more bitey. The fact that a pit bull is stronger and can do more damage is also not the dogs fault.
The real difference is pitbulls bite to kill, most other dogs dont. Any dog can get triggered, but certain breeds like bullies and dogos, ridgbacks, they bite to kill. It is as instinctual as a pointer pointing or a sheep dog herding.
Just watch a lot of footage of a shepard attacking a human vs a pitbull. The shepard generally goes for the arm or leg and the bully drags you down so it can go for the face and neck.
Heck, one time when I was driving a bully charged my van! I was doing 50km and he charged out, and bashed into my door! I didnt stop, and it didnt seem hurt it just went after the car behind me…
There you go, thats exactly the point. But they aren’t killing any babies. Pitbulls were bred for fighting. People have Tigers and Lions as pets too. Is that also justified?
Of course it’s not the dog’s fault. It is just an animal. It’s the breeders’ and the owners’ fault. Nobody is advocating for euthanasing Pitbulls. Maybe just get a Golden Retriever if you’re just looking for a pet next time.
What do you think happens to all the unadopted pitbulls, pizza parties every Friday? Nope, it’s euthanasia.
There are a shitload of people who advocate for completely destroying this breed of dog.
Yes, the breed should be distroyed. But not the poor living animals. We should simply stop breeding more of them. Pitbulls are a freak of nature created for the amusement of humans.
I mean, dog breeding is in general terribly inhumane. All dogs should ideally be mutts. They’d certainly all be healthier and have a better quality of life.
The other user who responded to you, @evasive_chimpanzee@lemmy.world, does a good job of analyzing the core idea here. To quote Benjamin Disraeli, there’s lies, damn lies, and statistics. Black people are no more “innately inclined towards criminality” than a pit-bull is innately inclined towards mauling people. Where people of color have been historically over policed, profiled by the criminal justice system, and generally set up to have a higher rate of criminal statistics than other ethnic groups, pit-bulls face similar statistical problems. Bite statistics are often self-reported by people who either witnessed a dog attack or who were themselves victims of one. Identifying a dog’s breed by sight, especially for mixed breed dogs, is nearly impossible, and more error prone than accurate. And for a pound, any “big dog with a blocky head” immediately gets labeled as a pit-bull, even if it has literally no pit-bull DNA. These dogs are routinely adopted by people who explicitly train a dog to be mean to people, as opposed to socializing them. The fact that they also have this reputation as guard dogs or attack dogs exacerbates their reputation.
I already suggested this in another comment, but you can easily apply a thought experiment here. Magically replace all white people with black people with the same upbringing: does crime go up, down, or basically stay the same? Magically replace all pitbulls with chihuahuas with the same upbringing: do maulings go up, down, or basically stay the same?
Couldn’t tell the cops if the mugger was white or black? Pretty understandable. Couldn’t tell the cops if the dog that bit you was a chihuahua or a pitbull? Really?
Any “big dog with a blocky head” should be banned from breeding or sale, and nobody who agrees with that statement cares about DNA. It is a matter of public safety and it doesn’t matter that humans are the real problem, because humans are notoriously hard to control. The pitbulls and similar breeds we have today deserve all the love and comfort we can give them now, but they shouldn’t be bred into the future because there is no legitimate reason to own one except for its potential for violence and flatulence-scapegoating.
Because those are the two dog breeds that exist. Pitbull and Chihuahua. There are no others.
Libertarians
Socialists
But even more so libertarian socialists
I’ve just using that label because it was just a guerenteed fight starter instead of clarifying anything
Libertarian Capitalists get hate correctly, others not so much.
Last major Libertarian Socialist just got outed for having porn of a horse ----ing a child. If that doesn’t sum up the ideology IDK what does.
Cyclists, some people just see red when they came across cyclist at the road.
There’s really no winning as a cyclist when most people are in cars. If you stop at all stop signs, and obey they right-of-way, people will yell at you and/or try to wave you through ahead of your turn dangerously. If you do an Idaho stop (which is the safest way to approach a stop, whether it’s legal or not), people will honk and yell at you and possibly try to run you off the road.
I used to commute by bike a lot during rush hour. If there was a lineup of cars waiting at a red-light, and I just waited in line, people in cars behind me would honk at me as if me preventing them from being one cars-length further ahead in line would somehow affect them. If I filtered forward, like I should, people would actually edge their cars over to try and block me.
I think for the most part, it’s misplaced anger from drivers who don’t want to face the fact that they are the source of danger on roads. The worst bicycle collision is way less severe than a car crash. They also really hate when bicyclists can get anywhere faster than them, which is often the case because it shows them just how much time they waste being traffic.
what’s an Idaho stop?
If you are on a bike, you treat stop signs as yields, and red lights as stop signs. Iit has been shown to be safer.
If it were codified like this as law everywhere, people would accept it better. The rule breaking is what pisses a lot of people off. It would be much more predictable and safer too.
Yeah, the government needs to get behind it (and tell people about it). I’ve come up to stop signs before, and been nearly run over from behind by cars that didn’t expect me to stop.
But not the cyclist as the cycle right through it.
Classic, I’m guilty of this. The best part about cycling in my small city is squeezing into the gaps and not waiting around in the wind for the lights to cycle.
I see it as my reward for biking instead of driving to be both a pedestrian when I want (go through red lights when traffic is clear on safe streets) and a car when I want (take a lane to get around a delivery truck)
That and getting places faster!
Congratulations, you’re one of the dickheads giving cyclists a bad name.
Studies show all the things I do actually make it safer for me as a biker. Example: https://www.vox.com/2014/5/9/5691098/why-cyclists-should-be-able-to-roll-through-stop-signs-and-ride
When you are riding in and around drivers in 2 ton machines because your city doesn’t have proper bike infrastructure, you take every single opportunity to avoid them. Call me a “bad cyclist” but I’m going to prioritize my safety over a law or someone’s bad driving any day.
Cycle infrastructure, even.
Bike lanes are car infrastructure. We cyclists are perfectly within our rights to cycle in the middle of the lane at a speed comfortable for us. And it’s safer for us to do that than hug the shoulder and risk getting clipped by an impatient driver. A bike lane gets us out of your way so you can drive the speed limit. It’s for your benefit.
That’s why it’s hate for no reason!
The same hatred from the same haters for public transport too: if everyone else is in public transport there more room for you on the road.
It’s a bizarrely prevalent attitude from a bizarrely large portion of car users.
We had some nice mini-traffic island things separating a cycleway on a road, drivers kept hitting them and damaging their cars. They complained and the council removed them despite it being obvious to anyone that they were doing extremely what they were supposed to do: stopping those idiots from hitting actual cyclists!
I thought this as well but German drivers will dangerously swerve into oncoming traffic to overtake me sometimes when I block a lane. Even if there is a red stop light 50m down the road.
Well, it’s less of them, and at least they’re risking their own lives too. If there’s an accident I want the person responsible coming with me to the hospital. That might not be rational, but it’s how I feel.
Lol it’s not rational but I know how you feel. Sometimes I daydream somebody hits me and wrecks my bike and then feels so bad that they give me loads of money in hopes of me not suing them, and then I use that to buy a better bike. And then I wonder wtf is going wrong in my brain
Holy words
Except Berliner cyclists. They scare me.
That’s not “for absolutely no reason”. Some cyclists make a bad name for the rest.
Edit: Oh my goodness, you guys. I’m not saying hate for cyclists is justified, that I hate all cyclists, or that “all cyclists do x”. Some cyclists ride like they have a death wish. So do some drivers. Anyone, regardless of their vehicle, who is willing to put their life in my hands is someone I want to stay far the fuck away from.
I think the thread was titled poorly. Anything that gets a lot of hate usually has some sort of reason, even if it may not be justifiable.
There’s absolutely no reason to hate on a cyclist when you wouldn’t hate on a car polluter, because unlike car polluters, we aren’t murderers.
I’m sure there are many reasons to hate on a cyclist, (not that I personally believe this, but) such as when they block a single lane road slowing traffic to a crawl and placing the responsibility of possibly accidentally killing a cyclist in the motorist’s hands, though you could argue that’s more about the fact that the roads don’t have dedicated bike lanes, and that’s not the cyclist’s fault, but it is still a reason, not that that reason is justified, I like cyclists!
That’s exactly what I was trying to say. I was also a (very cautious) cyclist until my bike was stolen.
For thousands of years, people walked on roads. That’s what they were for. They were also for horses, donkeys, and carts, but humans were a big part of it. And none of those four things really goes faster than a bike. Cars are new. Taking people and horses off roads is new. Being able to drive the speed limit is a new, temporary condition, and it can be taken away at any time. Blaming this on cyclists is a reaction based on a misunderstanding of what roads are for. Personally, I support legislature to let people walk on the road however they like again.
Truth. Furthermore, accidents involving a bike and a car have mostly happened because of a lack of infrastructure and options for safe travel on bikes. Public residential streets, for example, are for all modes of transportation, not just cars. Car brains are hysterical and don’t like that, and my life has been threatened many times while riding my bike on residential streets. I even had an older woman match my speed, roll down her window, and say “Next time I see you I’m running you over.” Cyclists do absolutely nothing to deserve this, and even if they’re holding up traffic, it’s no excuse for homicide.
https://xkcd.com/385/
Downvoted for saying the truth. Most cyclist I met here are absolutely jerks, they drive not even on the sidelines - no, they fucking drive in the mid of the road and if you try to surpass they move to the left.
For some it’s not their fault they are a bit of a nuisance obviously (those who cycle near the sidewalks, who signal were they are going etc), the cyclist infastructure is non existent here
Yeah I know an A-hole driver so all drivers must be A**holes.
No some people just don’t have good reason.
You can say ass on the internet bud, it’s ok.
Socialism
The ironic part is that actual socialism is actually pretty popular. It’s the violent revolution and ensuing dictatorship which turns most people off to the Marxist Leninist ideals, which takes up most of the oxygen in that room these days.
The ensuring dictatorship isn’t socialism nor communism. You can dream of something and ending with something else.
You know socialists want to take away everything you own and install a dictatorship right? /s
Our road system, retirement benefits, health system (except USA), public school system, national parks are all socialist.
True, but they also mixed into comunism
Fucking commie! /s
Being white
Ok Nazi.
You are the problem.
Personally I think it’s great to be a light salty cracker.
You might like salvia my dude.
I’ve done it a few times. It’s pretty weird.
It brought me to a dark void with only a brick wall. I had to climb the brick wall to a small amount of light. That’s where freedom was.
Nickelback. I mean they’re not good but they’re not really bad either, just a complete nonevent. They don’t deserve the hate they get, they don’t really deserve anything
I second this. I love Nickelback. They are unique in their own way .
No, they’re not. That was kind of my point
The thing is, Nickelback didn’t invent post-grunge or radio grunge, but they were definitely face of it. That era saw a nearly endless stream of cookie cutter Pearl Jam wannabes pop up, and at the same time the entire independent radio industry, which had played a big role in birthing so many counterculture movements, was under threat of corporate consolidation when they were getting popular in the late 90s.
To many millennials, nothing else embodied this dark era for rock music like Nickelback. It was “we have Eddie Vedder at home” meme - shoved down our throats, carbon copied every few months, constantly reminding us that the alternative rock station we grew up with was purchased by Clearchannel and would be transitioned to Latin Beats by the end of the year.
So in that sense, Nickelback may not have killed grunge, but it happily set up shop on its grave, to forever pantomime and disrespect the alternative rock giants laying below. And for a lot of people, that was just too painful.
“All the right reasons” is a solid album by them. Nothing groundbreaking or unique in terms of sound but it’s an enjoyable listen.
Also a phrase that sums up their entire career. And that’s fine. They’re like the musical equivalent of comfort food.
Yeah, most of the hate is because they were super overplayed for a solid decade. For years the popular radio stations in my area didn’t seem to play anything but Nickelback, green day, Lady Gaga, and pink. In a vacuum, they’re fine. “How you remind me” is pretty good imo. I don’t care for anything else from them. I’ve heard that their guitar player is actually really talented, but I haven’t listened to them enough to know myself
Ah, the common paradox. Nobody wants to listen to Nickelback because it’s overplayed, and nobody drives in New York because of all the traffic.
I dont want to listen to them because there is nearly infinite better music than the overproduced boring stuff. Some tunes are catchy, even seen them live once because my mom wanted company, but they are mid at best imo
Oh, boy, they most certainly deserve the hate. This article sums it up pretty well: https://www.grunge.com/51980/nickelback-became-hated-band-music-industry/
Holy fuck, that article is elitist. Half of the sections seem pointlessly mean, like they’re trying to dunk on them to win popularity points. One of them is just insulting Chad Kroeger for marrying Avril Lavigne, as if a 10+ year marriage is a bad thing. Some valid points buried in there, but the credibility is lost.
Another thing that is hated for no reason. Age-gap relationships.
Some valid points? Some? Well, yeah, there are some that probably could be omitted, but most stands strong.
Maybe I’m biased as I listen to more or less different genres, but there’s nothing wrong on hating on Nickelback.
Why would you hate someone for making music you don’t enjoy? Why hate someone for making money with a successful product? Why not just… Ignore them? You are under no obligation to like them, but there’s only around three arguments in there to actually hate them. There are more arguments in that article that boil down to “it’s successful, so it sucks” than valid criticism.
It is less “it’s successful, so it sucks” and more “I keep having to listen to something I don’t like, so now I hate it”.
…But you don’t have to listen to it. If it’s on the radio, change the station. The complaints in the article were WAY too in depth for a casual listener to make.
That assumes you have control of the radio station or whatever songs are being played. It isn’t like that for a lot of people.
It’s cool to hate
Being cool is so lame.
Liking something is just a waste of time.
Thanks I’m glad someone got it
Don’t get me wrong, I do enjoy rock music (among others), but assholes like Nickelback are making terrible example of it. When someone asks me what I listen to and I reply “rock music” the person often reply along the lines of “ah, ok, like Nickelback?” And that’s just disgusting.
I don’t actively hate on them posting shit on the internet on my own or marching with antiNickelback sign in RL, but when someone asks or when discussion revolves around, I tell him I hate the band.
Being successful musician has nothing to do with it. People like Kanye or Taylor Swift made way more money with their (IMO shitty) music, but I don’t hate them as Nickelback. Because they (probably, or at least not that obviously) don’t ruin the genre they perform in.
Edit: Half of what I want to say is probably lost in translation as English is not my native language, so I can’t make all the nuances I would do in my language.
First, this was never about your opinion. It was about an article that complained about music being used in advertising, songs being popular, and people being inspired by a band. That was the opinion you cited as a good reason to hate them.
Second, how often does that actually happen? Considering it’s an internet meme to shit on them, how often do people cite Nickelback as their main example of rock ahead of, say, Nirvana?
Third, why is it disgusting that people mention a band you dislike? Can you not simply correct them and suggest the bands you ACTUALLY like? Does it have to be “hate” rather than “I’m not a fan”?
Fourth, how the hell did Nickelback ruin rock? Is rock so fragile that the Eagles can’t be enjoyed because of “How you remind me” existing? There are bands far worse than Nickelback, but they aren’t successful so you don’t care. If Nickelback weren’t as successful, you wouldn’t care about them either.
No, makes sense to me.
I think they’re a relic from a time when it was ok/cool to hate on a band or artist for no reason, publicly, without everyone judging you for being a prick.
My theory is that they’re one of, if not the, last bands to fall into the above category, so everyone just uses them as their go-to.
Younger people (in this case meaning people under 35 lol) are just so much more accepting and less judgemental than previous generations. And you love to see it.
Oh lots of things
Women
Ethnicities
LGTBQ+
Drag Queens ( they are so entertaining)
Inconvenient truths
People who hang toilet paper the wong way
The French (cowards? They won more battles than anyone and have mastered the art of standing up for themselves)
Furries
Pineapple on pizza ( its good, Ill die on this hill)
Bronies
Caillou - not, that whiney snot deserves it
Marijuana
Ned Flanders
Bell bottoms
Satan ( the word in acient hebrew that we translated to Satan first appears in the book of Job, and would more accuratly be rendered as accuser of prosecutor. In the whole bible satan only goes after 10 people, and only when god tells satan to do it. Half way through satan is like ‘um god? This guys like, broken now. Call it good?’ But that rapscallion god was like ‘no, he could still recover keep hitting him’ and all that because god ‘knew’ Job was the most loyal and devout of his followers and his narcisism just couldnt help but make a grand display of proving it)
Drag queens are wonderful. I finally got into Drag Race (just not a reality show viewer generally), and those queens will totally tug your heart strings if you just watch, and they’re real artists too. RIP Chi Chi DeVayne.
The pinapple on pizza one is weird to me, do these people not enjoy the idea of contrasting and complimentary flavours?
Savoury + sweet is a good combo and they dont seem to have a problem with tomato on pizza if they are getting technical over ‘fruit’ being an ingredient.
Well, I hate pineapple and putting it into things just kind of ruins the thing you’re adding it to anyway, so there’s that.
Nope, nope, nope. I hate it. Savory + sweet is not my jam. But, you do you. I don’t care what other people eat.
For me pineapple on pizza is just mid. There are better ways to do the salty and sweet thing (eg. local pizza place does oscypek + cranberry jam).
I had pizza once with almonds and honey and chicken. It was suprisingly good.
That sounds absolutely terrible. But calling it almond & honey cake instead of pizza (and omitting the chicken) might solve the problem.
It sounds awefull but tastes amazing. This was years ago when I was still moving furnature across the nation and drinking more booze than water. I wonder if I would like it sober tbh
pineapple needs to go under the cheese, then its sublime.
I think it’s more that pineapple flavor is really overpowering on a pizza. And on drinks. I think people dislike ginger (to a lesser extent) for the same reason.
Bronies deserve it because they still haven’t denazified. Furries are a mixed bag with half being outright pedophiles and the rest being insanely cool people, with bronies it’s a guarantee they have at least one filly in their spank bank. But in either case if a nazi comes along trying to start shit with either i’m shutting that shit down right away because they don’t have the right to get on a high horse when they’re 20x worse.
None of the furries I am friends with tolerate Nazis
…anymore
MOST of the furries I am friends with did not ever tolerate Nazis
TBH I do know someone who has a “not checking if the character they’re posting porn of is underage” problem, and I’ve actually only seen them do it with human characters, though they have no special preference between humans and anthros.
I’m really hoping it’s something that they figure out over time, but it’s going to be a lot of work so probably nothing that will happen overnight.
I don’t really think the sexual violence rates in the furry community are higher than in the general community. There’s just more awareness of what consent is. I mean I could say “look at r/jailbait, straight people have a pedophile problem”, and I’d be right, but only because society has a pedophile problem.
That would be true if every single porn site was at or worse than r/jailbait, which to be honest does feel like the case at times.
People who hang toilet paper the wong wayWait, there’s a wrong way?
There are two right ways, and 1 wrong way.
The right way,
“I have a cat/dog/toddler”
The wrong way.
T R I G G E R E D ! ! !
You are one of Them, aren’t you?
Yup, if you hang it so the “waterfall” is on the right hand side it’s wrong
Yes, and I will die in this hill.
I told my wife ten years ago that if she hangs it so it’s close to the wall spiders will make their nest there.
After that day it’s always been hung correctly.
Optical discs (blu-rays, DVDs, cds, etc…). I hate that I have to justify buying one or having a collection.
How dare you store media on a reflective plate?!
Trans people, seriously, they just want to live their lives in peace. They’re not here to radicalise anything or to “trick” anyone. They just want to get on with their lives and be left alone.
It is a bit disingenuous to say they are just trying to live their lives in peace, they have chosen an antagonistic path by pushing to normalize the way gender is viewed in culture, which is an upset of the status quo, and that is radical by definition. it doesn’t matter what their motivations are for that to be true.
And they choose this path because LGBT folks have been getting bullied, assaulted and murdered for just existing for about as long as civilization has existed. If they don’t stand up for themselves nobody else is going to do it for them.
The key word is “trying” - most of them are trying to live their lives largely without bothering anyone - except that “anyone” is composed of a lot of people that can’t put up with their existence. Not through any fault of the person, just because of the way they are.
I do get what you’re saying. But it’s a half step away from deriding them for their very existence, which is disgusting. They are attempting to break the status quo in the same way the civil rights movement did.
Edit: I won’t talk about this here.
I am just really jaded about how people talk about certain topics on social media even though I consider myself a progressive.
I have a sensitive spot for reddit/twitter rhetoric (very heavily emotionally skewed language isn’t helpful)
Yeah, because trans people are renowned for having lots of say in the way the media and politics present them…
Pulling out the big paint brush today I see.
deleted by creator
the other replies to this comment reaaaally prove your point.
Are people really stupid enough to think that every single trans person is a loud screeching SJW?
Not to mention trans people are constantly under attack in most places and NEED to speak up.
Even if they were so what? You have to be cynical about these things and figure out how much danger every given person represents. I am in far less danger from someone who yells loudly on Instagram compared to some proud boy marching on the street. One makes the internet kinda boring the other sets off bombs.
Marginalized groups tend to be the loudest about oppression of all varieties.
It’s similar to veganism, they yell really loud to make it known they want peace while at the sime time disturbing everyone else and expecting friendliness.
It’s like that annoying neighbour that blasts music at full volume just because he likes it and then he goes on to say he just wants to be left alone.
You can’t take the stage at a Rammstein concert and expect to just chill out there without getting thrown out.
Have you ever actually met any trans people? Because they don’t do that thing you said
I’m trans, I hate talking about gender stuff
So yeah, they never did
Literally. Outside of trusted circles you know what to expect from most of society
This does not happen.
Even if it was, are you really shitting on trans people for complaining about constantly being hate-crimed for sport?
fuck off transphobe
People can do whatever they want imo, go take that rammstein stage…just be realistic about what you’re gonna get as a result.
You feel like a woman and want to be one? Go ahead, i’d even date and or wife you if your personality is likeable i don’t care about your genitals and whatever makes you happy goes.
Understand that not everyone is going to agree with you, stay safe and be careful. Same goes for everyone else.
when the disagreement is about whether we should be allowed continue existing it’s a bit much to handwave like that, and fuck you very much for deigning to not only frame it like that but 'splain it to us like we’re children. get bent.
People keep saying this, but what is expected when a minute fraction of the population has such a high rate of being murdered? What is expected when without making any fuss, legislators are constantly trying to legislate trans people out of existence, refusing healthcare, increasing the already disproportionate suicide rate, forcing them to do things that puts them in situations where the chance of being murdered is much higher.
These sentiments come from such a place of privilege, “I don’t have this problem, why are you getting on stage to shout about this, you should expect to be discriminated against and murdered” if you don’t see anything wrong with that, you should reevaluate your morals.
trans people
Head cheese
Ambrosia salad
Guy Fieri
I don’t enjoy his flavor… but the dude is just living his best life and gets an absurd amount of hate. It’s actually really funny to me how disproportional the hate is, but I sometimes feel bad for him.
His shows are entertaining as hell. ToC just started back up.
I’ll forever get three people mixed up: Guy Fieri, Gordon Ramsey, and Anthony Bourdain. I would need to see all of their pictures side by side to distinguish them one from the other. (RIP Mr. Bourdain)
Reading this not as a list but as a sentence makes it crazy specific.
Oh… Oh nooooo.
Nuke the unborn disabled child sex workers for world peace!
Wow. That is dark as hell.
But I laughed at your comment.
deleted by creator
Yeah but children are fucking insane
People need to stop being children
Lol. Fair enough.
deleted by creator
Conservatism.
There are actually two conditions in the question, friendo
Well yea but when it comes to politics, nothing has only advantages. I just hate how this exact policy receives so much aggressive hate from liberals for not more reason than liberal policy has
You say this as if conservatives aren’t aggressively hateful lol
People hate the hatred fueled by conservatism
I have only seen a lot of hateful liberals. That’s why I said that. It was more of a rant. Seriously why are they so aggressive? They only make this world worse with their hatred. Though I’m sure there are aggressive conservatists too. I just haven’t seen them yet
The hatred from conservatives that I’m referring to is through the legislation they pass that has IRL consequences and ruins people’s lives
I’m not going to argue. I have a completely different opinion
It’s not subjective, it’s fact. You’re welcome to your own opinion, not your own reality.
It’s pop politics. Pop politics and marketing is the enemy. Regardless of sides.
It’s like the difference between real art and pop marketed art. Street rap and pop rap etc.
Never heard any anti-trans rhetoric, or just agree with it? ‘Cause I see calling for a group to be eradicated from public life as generally making the world worse.
In other words, watch CPAC and try to remember that the things they say are about real people, and they pass legislation negatively affecting those real people.
I don’t even think I’m a conservative. I don’t follow any conservative speakers, leaders etc. And I respect different opinions. But hatred is always bad. I saw a ton of hateful and aggressive liberals that seemed to act aggressively towards any different opinion (not only conservative I think). That is always bad. If you like aggression, well, I’d suggest therapy
deleted by creator
Where did you see it? I’ve seen a ton of stuff like that on social media, but social media amplifies awful takes and has a large population of people lacking perspectives. It doesn’t represent the real world all that well.
Speaking on aggression, there is a large contingent of people in this country who are actively hoping for a civil war and the opportunity to shoot their neighbors over opinions they don’t like or living lives they don’t approve of.
So there’s some reasons to hate then? The question asks about things hated for absolutely no reason.
Yea I know. That comment was a rant. I just hate aggression like that
Like many things, I get the ideology and theory, but I don’t understand it in practice. Which basically goes for all politics.
Basically they all require force to realistically attain because chaos rules reality and you cant fuck with chaos and the laws of universe or else bad stuff happens. Maybe things could change later on if humanity makes it that far… But we are nowhere near that.
Politics is hard in practice. There are always going to be factors that’ll make ideas hard or even impossible to implement (any ideas, not only conservative)
It’s also changing constantly which people don’t like to admit. People want something secure but life will never be secure.
Yes, no. An ideology that celebrates killing minorities, women, and the queer community deserves all the hate it gets. The latest victim to your favorite ideology, Nex Benedict in the US and the entire Palestinian population vis-a-vis Netanyahu’s conservative government. Conservatism belongs exactly where it is in the public’s eye. If not moreso.
Hmm I guess I meant a different kind of conservatism
Define it then, don’t have to be coy.
It was about legalization policies, not about economical stuff
Why are we hated on for hating on folk??? It’s so unfair!!!
It is not. It is actually what the word “fair” means. You get hate (a bad thing) for doing hate (a bad thing). Completely fair in my opinion. There’s nothing wrong in critics though. Unfortunately every part of the US culture and government tries to distort it
My response was sarcastic reply to the person above me… I am very much not conservative
Nah, that’s justified
Unfortunately they’re associated with every horrible idea on earth so I don’t know why they expect to be treated well.
Well yea I shouldn’t have said it here. It’s a controversial one. Hopefully I already explained the reason of me saying it in the replies
Who is hating on you for wanting to lower taxes?
Or are they hating on you for wanting to deregulate industries?
Or was it a different conservative view?
The conservative part of my views is more about not legalizing things that were not legalized previously (if they do tend to cause damage to people of course). Lol I can see that downvotes by every single USA citizen on Lemmy for that one. Maybe I can explain further if needed but later. I think taxation is important and can be kept high if needed. The government probably shouldn’t regulate the industry much but the opposite situation has its advantages as well (EU government nailed that). Private life should always stay private though + mass surveillance is a huge waste of resources that is not good in any perspective. I don’t identify myself as a conservative in the traditional meaning of this world. I have my own views
I’ve seen like 5 comments where you refuse to expand on your views. This is a formal invitation to bring your opinion to the marketplace of ideas and have it sorted out.
My views are not detailed yet that’s true. But what in the world is a marketplace of ideas? A thing that has a 100 pages contract and is meant to steal intellectual property (jk)? Lol that’s not gonna work on me. And “sorting out someone’s opinion” is highly immoral in my opinion (unless it’s done to prevent an immediate threat and the “brainwasher” consents his actions after the threat is eliminated). Anyone who intentionally attempts to do it to me is to be deleted
You ever read Fahrenheit 451? It’s just a decent read imo, but it has a few gems worth mentioning. In case you’re unfamiliar, it follows the story of a man (named Guy) who lives in a future version of America where books have been outlawed.
Guy meets a former English professor and begins to read in secret. In one of their meetings, the English professor tries to get Guy to talk about what he’s thinking, but Guy is being timid in sharing his thoughts. The professor then says this
To hide your ideas this way is to live in a bubble, and you cannot grow your mind this way.
Mister, I literally lost the closest person recently. Developing my political views is not my priority now. And maybe that’s the reason why I became so active in political discussions. Also I ruined my personality already. I don’t have one now (though relatively stable political views still remain smh). I can only work in enforcement agencies at this point. That’s a thing I’m probably not terrible at. Anyways I did read that book. It was like 5 years ago though so I don’t remember much. And btw the lowest temperature of burning for paper is Celsius 451, not Fahrenheit
Enforcement agencies, vague talk about legalization, makes more sense, now we’re getting somewhere. Hope you’re able to find your way to a better career path. Lots of people partake in activities that others don’t approve of. I don’t think that means we should enforce our will on others. I personally think Christianity is a cult that primarily recruits through the indoctrination of children, but I’m also a fan of religious freedom. Condolences on your loss.
My soup. So ehat i