unpopularopinion

This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.

paddirn, in There's nothing wrong with using Reddit, Twitter, and other mainstream site still while being active on fediverse.

In my mind, the protest isn’t over and anyone still using Reddit is a scab, crossing the digital picket line. Though the people still sabotaging Reddit through malicious compliance are sort of an exception, but I doubt those are the majority. There’s a lot of communities I still miss on Reddit, but I’ve turned my back on it and I’m not returning unless they were to make major changes.

Twitter has always been hot garbage even before Musk, so I’d look down on anyone who used that anyways.

Artemis,

Agree with everything you said, but there’s nothing Reddit could do to win me back. They’re a corporation and stopped pretending to give a shit about their users. Reversing their decision to go public would catch my eye, but there’s an ice cubes chance in hell of that happening. And even if they did, they’re 1 threat from VC away from pulling similar scummy shit again a year down the line.

The way I see it, fediverse is the only way forward.

iAmTheTot, in Anybody who bought a Tesla in the last few years is a goddamn tool.
iAmTheTot avatar

other sodium, tear filled comments from fools whose opinions don’t matter.

You know you can post an unpopular opinion without being a completely unlikable cunt, right?

pizza_rolls,
pizza_rolls avatar

I mean being unlikeable is unpopular so... it fits lol

Shardikprime,

What’s immortality gotta do with all this

ihavenopeopleskills,
ihavenopeopleskills avatar

I struggled with this for a long time on that other site. I'm trying to do things differently here.

ObviouslyNotBanana,
@ObviouslyNotBanana@lemmy.world avatar

Yeah, Digg wasn’t great

jayrodtheoldbod,

I had a blanket “Cool guys don’t look back at explosions” policy to posting on pretty much every other site. I decided to turn over a new leaf on the Fediverse, and try not to post anything I don’t actually want a reply to. It does tend to gentle you down a bit. Also, I noticed other people were at least giving themselves a chance to form friendships that way, so yeah, new deal.

The thing that really sucks about social media is how many people are just using you as a vent pillow to scream into. It’s amazing that so many people are using so many websites that pretty much amount to somebody else’s emotional punching bag.

Buddahriffic,

Wait, how do you form a friendship on sites like this? Best I’ve had are brief friendly interactions and then I forget their username unless it’s one of the novelty accounts, in which case “interactions” feel more like celebrity appearances or like a performance than anything else.

Obi,
@Obi@sopuli.xyz avatar

I think Lemmy will be a bit like that too, but I can see it happen for example smaller instances where you interact with the same users over and over on the local communities, more than on the other site.

Buddahriffic,

Maybe I should get in the habit of looking at user names lol. I usually just think of everyone on here as anonymous.

jayrodtheoldbod,

My dude I do not even know. I have managed to be around some people who aren’t like me and gathered the strong impression that people were using social media like it was social, and not anti-social, which I am fluent in. So now I am on a brand-new policy, in the dark and stumbling around. All I can tell you is that the other people are using this thing to meet each other and exchange phone numbers eventually like actual friends. Which makes fuckin sense. If you reply back to other people like you are texting, it changes the nature of the thing. We must both be at peace with letting the thread drop, tho.

I must remind you that the normy world has been using social media to find other people to have sex with for a while, basically pull up the app, swipe swipe swipe until you find a friend for the night and put the phone away, instead of letting the demon consume the next 4 hours somehow. There’s a whole nother paradigm. It seems more entertaining.

But yeah, I think you just treat threads like chats, be cool, and see what happens eventually.

You just avoid that Reddit thing where you come in with your 1500 word truth dunk, that ain’t it.

Buddahriffic,

Yeah it’s crazy to me that people can find a sexual partner on a site like Reddit (or are you just talking about tinder and apps like that?). Meanwhile I’m here avoiding even sharing my province, though I was open about being in Canada. Probably doesn’t help that my desire to be social itself waxes and wanes.

jayrodtheoldbod,

No, I do mean sites like Reddit. The advanced users are making everything act like a dating site when they need it to, because things like tinder don’t work for everyone, so it’s double crazy that they’re making Reddit work for that.

What I was truly referring to is Discord, and all those little communities in there, lots of people making their connections, not just sex, but international friend networking. Snapchat, group chats, all that, they’re busy doing the same, there. Meanwhile, I live as a ghost, interacting with dozens of people a day online, thousands over the years, with nothing much to show for it.

Even out in the real world I’m the kinda guy who can work some place for two years and leave with no new numbers in my phone. It does keep me out of the drama, but I don’t feel I’m striking a balance, either.

So yeah, I wish I knew.

Buddahriffic,

Ooooh discord makes a lot of sense. It’s just the modern version of chat rooms which is where people were hooking up long before tinder was a thing and “a/s/l?” was one of the most common greetings between people just meeting for the first time.

ttmrichter,
@ttmrichter@lemmy.world avatar

I was always confused by why people wanted to know my age, sex, and preferred language, but I played along.

Rozz,

I’m proud of you trying to better yourself.

ihavenopeopleskills,
ihavenopeopleskills avatar

Not knocking your efforts to better yourself, but some people may just need someone to listen or validation. There's nothing wrong with that. That said, there are better places to find both.

!deleted120991,

deleted_by_author

  • Loading...
  • elbarto777,

    It’s as if OP posted two unpopular opinions.

    Shardikprime,

    I mean is “Elon bad and anything related also bad” even unpopular

    elbarto777,

    Judging by the upvotes calling OP out…

    Zorque,

    That's probably because OP is posting a popular opinion in an unpopular way.

    slowcurrent,

    Twist: OP owns a Tesla.

    Obi,
    @Obi@sopuli.xyz avatar

    This is just his way of coping with the self-hate.

    Rasta_Imposta,

    More likely OP is in fact, an absolute douche.

    Zorque,

    I don't see how that conflicts with what I said.

    MxM111,
    MxM111 avatar

    Nah, he is just a troll and attention lover.

    snor10,

    Is this even an unpopular opinion? Feels like everything musk touches is anathema nowadays, at least here on Lemmy.

    ernest, in I wish Kbin users would just switch to Lemmy
    ernest avatar

    I'm back in the game now. The issue with spam will be addressed next week.

    https://kbin.social/m/kbinDevlog

    4am,

    Great to hear! Hope things in your life are headed in a good direction, and thank you for the work you do. 🙇‍♂️

    ptz,
    @ptz@dubvee.org avatar

    Glad to hear that! 🎉

    themeatbridge, (edited ) in Female singers only want to sing about love, relationships, or breakups. They need to sing more about Godzilla, Vikings, The Grim Reaper, or making a bet with the Devil for a golden fiddle.

    I think you’re a victim of availability bias. You’re thinking of all the women who sing songs about relationships and forgetting all the men who sing songs about relationships. You’re remembering all the men who sing about not-relationships and forgetting all the women who do the same.

    Tik Tok, Royals, I Love Rock and Roll, Girls Just Wanna Have Fun, Tom’s Diner, All I Wanna Do, Anti-Hero, 9 to 5, the list can go on indefinitely.

    And that goes doubly for comedians.

    Mitch Hedberg did jokes about relationships. “I don’t have a girlfriend, but I do know a woman who would be mad at me for saying that.”

    There are dozens of currently active women who do comedy that isn’t just about relationships. Most probably include jokes about relationships, but comedy is about shared experiences, and relationships are fertile ground for material.

    QueenB,

    I get your point but one Mitch Hedberg joke out of all of his act is not the same as what most female comedians do. You know what I meant.

    BolexForSoup,
    BolexForSoup avatar

    what most female comedians do

    Name five female comics you have watched in the past 2-3 years without looking them up. If you’re going to make such a ridiculous generalization, then you better have pretty decent knowledge of who is hot right now. Because I can rattle off plenty of female comics who talk about relationships no more than any other comic and definitely don’t make it the center of their acts.

    speck,

    Can you rattle off a few? Not prove anything. Just want recommendations for some new stand-up

    BolexForSoup,
    BolexForSoup avatar

    Christina P (Tom segura’s partner) is hysterical. Liza Schlesinger has some pretty good specials from the mid to late 2010’s but definitely seems to be having a little trouble coming up with really quality new stuff (relative to how strong she was initially. She’s still funny). A few years old now but if you missed Ali Wong’s Baby Cobra put that at the top, it’s a masterpiece. Her followup didn’t hit as hard for me but solid.

    Kolanaki, in The influx of Redditors has had a detrimental effect on Lemmy.
    @Kolanaki@yiffit.net avatar

    The thing with the combative comments/rudeness, in my experience, mostly looks like someone being direct and then a bunch of readers being offended by the bluntness. Whether it was on Reddit, here, or forums and Usenet back in the day. So many problems with “tone” in text is caused simply by the reader reading it in a combative tone that the writer never intended.

    Deceptichum,
    Deceptichum avatar

    Add to that a large part of the Internet (Americans I can only presume) are the biggest moral prudes around.

    Like they’ll see someone say fuck in a conversation and be like “guys that’s totally uncalled for, let’s be civil here” when really it’s just a bit of fucking emphasis behind a word and causal as fuck.

    DrNeurohax,
    DrNeurohax avatar

    Non-prude American here. My hypothesis is that younger-ish folks are raised paranoid of their every word being recorded and played back to their parents. There's a weird tone to the under 25s that feels like every word had to go through legal.

    Perfect example: Oh my gosh!

    Who the fuck says, "Gosh?" I think I might have heard 1 grandparent say it back in the early 90s. It's, "Oh my god!" There's punctuation to the word. Gosh sounds like you're trying to whisper so your clergy doesn't hear you being naughty.

    So, yeah, we hate those fucking cunts, too.

    BaldProphet,
    BaldProphet avatar

    Rather than labeling an entire nation as "moral prudes", it's important to recognize that different cultures have different standards of civility. I know many Commonwealth nations consider words like "fuck" and "cunt" to be simply everyday ordinary language, but in the United States, one is considered very low-brow and crude, while the other is very nearly the most offensive word in our vocabulary.

    Different cultures, different standards.

    Deceptichum,
    Deceptichum avatar

    Difference is the US is the default and their views are imposed on everyone else.

    You don't ask the minority to be more respectful of the majority at their own expense.

    Also very clearly said a large portion of Internet users who are American are moral prudes, not all Americans. But hey gotta be offended somehow.

    TheRealNeenja,

    I would almost ignore the profanity aspect, because that's one of the easiest to learn about and laugh at together, and lean into the fact that some cultures don't engage with sarcasm the same way as others. Or that some cultures (and sub-cultures) make heavy use of mockery and teasing in ways that are confusing to others.

    There are many circumstances where it can be difficult to tell the difference between a joke and a jab in a cross-culture conversation. And that's not even getting into language and slang barriers.

    NotAPenguin,

    So often when I get into a conversation about veganism it ends with the other person saying I've been an asshole when I've just been direct and honest.. :(

    metaStatic,

    it's all in the delivery and tcp/ip isn't the best way to deliver tone.

    TheRealNeenja,

    Putting that entirely on the reader is unfair. The author of a comment or post has some level of responsibility to manage their side of the communication as well.

    There's a reason that, as a species, one of the first things we invented after digital communications was emoticons and eventually shorthand terms to convey emotions (lol, lmao, wtf).

    Body language, audible tone, syllable emphasis, or the rest of the damn near endless list of minor things we use to communicate, we needed to make sure we could avoid being accidentally combative by default.

    Scope,

    I'm not so sure about that sometimes. It's definitely true, but many people are bad at inferring tone in text because they have no ability to read between the lines. And I've noticed trendy little catchphrases or code words have caught on in Reddit and Twitter. People love to throw around the words "gross," "yikes," and "disgusting" when talking about something they find slightly morally questionable. They'll punctuate a sentence with "full stop" when they want to decisively shut down an argument. Things like the cry-laugh emoji and the clapping hands after every word (I'm on my laptop right now, sorry I didn't just type the emojis). These things are meant to illicit an exact emotional response, and you almost never run into people speaking so boldly in real life. People have become such caricatures online that it's insufferable to even try to have a real conversation.

    Reddit is definitely full of shitheads who seem to get all their emotional discharge out of the way online. Personally, I haven't really noticed it here anywhere near the level of Reddit. Even the act of downvoting a comment seems nearly unheard of from what I've observed.

    admiralteal, (edited ) in You can't claim to be an environmentalist and be anti-nuclear energy at the same time

    Actual policy experts will tell you that the reason nuclear energy died off in the US in particular and in the world at large is not because of anti-nuclear environmentalist lobbies.

    It's a financial question. What environmentalist opposition exists is neither sufficient nor necessary to explain the lack of nuclear development.

    These projects get killed because they are almost hilariously expensive by any standard, including the cost per joule produced. They show NO signs of learning curves. Thorium is vaporware. SMRs have proven to be neither small nor modular. These projects get shitcanned not because oh no newcleer so skaweee. They get shitcanned because no one wants to pay for them when you can just do cheap natural gas and wind or even cheaper solar.

    The hunt the nuclear fanboys go on to attack environmentalists is invented. It's basically false consciousness. The fossil fuel industry benefits from this strife.

    For what a nuclear facility costs to build, buying equivalent solar would probably get you an order of magnitude more energy production, even factoring the additional transmission capacity you'd need to buy alongside it. You could almost certainly get at least the same value out of a combination of wind, solar, transmission, and medium-term energy storage. And end up with a far more resilient grid in the process. And also not be blighting a couple square miles of riverside real estate.

    Semi-Hemi-Demigod,
    Semi-Hemi-Demigod avatar

    tl;dr - If nuclear was actually profitable environmentalists wouldn't be able to stop it, just like they can't stop fossil fuels.

    Hypx,
    Hypx avatar

    Just so we’re clear, it is cheap fossil fuels that made nuclear uneconomical. Solar and wind provide a very different type of power in comparison, and do not really compete against each other. There’s a reason why countries that abandoned nuclear are suddenly thinking about restarting nuclear again (see Germany). Meanwhile, countries that fully adopted nuclear (see France) are seeing no pressure to abandon it.

    admiralteal,

    It's cheap fossil fuels that first pushed nuclear uneconomical, particularly natural gas.

    But today, solar is already making those same fossil fuels increasingly uneconomical. If we transferred the >$20bil/yr that current gets sent to the already-massively-profitably fossil fuel companies instead to grid upgrades, storage, and renewable investment, that'd be pretty fucking neat. We're already seeing rapid changes to the energy economy because of the reality of these costs. The trillion+ dollars being almost entirely directed to grid enhancements, under-served communities, and renewable energy that is the IRA is causing massive, sweeping changes to the world of energy too. Even if people on forums like these have decided they want to throw out that bill's swimming pool of babies just because one West Virginian took a dry dump in the corner in exchange for getting it passed.

    The whole "very different type of power" thing I don't really buy. It is not a profound, cutting observation that the sun isn't always shining. The duck curve barely even exists when you have a good mix of wind and solar for most of the world since these sources are basically fully-complementary, and we already have lots of short and medium-term energy storage technologies that can be run for profit because of how cheap solar is. The market is already creating these incentives and businesses are moving in to fill the need; the technology exists or else isn't that hard to figure out. Overbuilding solar to the point of negative energy prices at peak production (& thus curtailment) will create huge incentives for storage. We're already seeing this; a handful of very serious industrial heat battery firms, for example, are offering products that take advantage of these energy price fluctuations that can be build and run profitably both for them and the firms that buy them. Markets are not a solution for all problems, but they are super goddamn good at wiping out arbitrage.

    I've seen no evidence of Germany seriously considering spinning back up their reactors. If you have a source from within the last few months implying different, I'd love to read it, but as of last fall their energy ministry was completely dismissing these ideas as baseless rumors. I'd personally prefer it if they did, though; with the things already built, a lot of the cost is already sunk, and beyond that it seems worthwhile to get coal decommissioned.

    France is a more complicated story, but it's impossible to deny they have a lot of successful nuclear capacity. But guess what they're pursing as their key generation platform for the future? It's solar. Because it's way fucking cheaper. Easier for them than most thanks to their massive nuclear base, no doubt.

    Hypx,
    Hypx avatar

    A lot of this dives deep into wishful thinking territory. We will need to spend trillions of dollars to make a pure renewable energy solution viable. People will find out that nuclear is not magically guaranteed to be more expensive. If it wasn't the case, why are new nuclear reactors still being built and more are being planned?

    Germany is definitely rethinking it's anti-nuclear position. Ignore the viewpoints of the current political group in charge. They are deeply unpopular. Politicians outside of that group are advocating for a return to nuclear.

    France is keeping and building more reactors. This is not a "more complicated story." It is simple proof that nuclear is viable.

    admiralteal,

    Why is my view of the state of industry with concrete, affordable renewable energy technologies that are already available for purchase and rapidly scaling up just by market forces wishful? Why isn't your belief that nuclear will suddenly buck it's 50+ year trend of always being extremely expensive at least as wishful?

    Not all production needs to be economic, mind you. It's fine for the state to pursue an expensive technology because it has some other benefit, and there are concrete benefits of nuclear -- specifically how firm it is, to the point where it's basically irresponsible to ever curtail it or adjust production based on grid demand. But capital isn't infinite and these tradeoffs need to be considered very seriously. On the flip side, spend five minutes searching for what the Georgia PSC has to say about the two new AP1000s at Vogtle. They are not happy at all about the cost overruns and failures. Would the next reactor cost less? Probably... so long as it starts construction soon before those couple thousand of newly-trained workers all find new jobs and progress is lost, as usually happens. But it won't, because no one wants to feel like the next sucker.

    I'm totally pragmatic about this. It nuclear stops being ludicrously expensive, we definitely ought to pursue it. And if a new technology shows actual evidence and promise of making it more affordable, it's worth the R&D. But at least so far, it shows no signs of doing so. It's definitely not going to keep following the nearly Moore's Law-like learning curve solar has been on. The french are uniquely good at building reactors because of their long history and even still they are clearly signaling in e.g., their NECP plan that renewables are the primary technology of their future. They're pretty much the best in the world at it and they're still plainly chasing solar because of its affordability.

    Hypx, (edited )
    Hypx avatar

    Nuclear is really just metal in a big water tank. The cost comes from trying to maximize safety. It can be cheap if we mass produce it. People are pretty much engaging in special pleading every time they declare nuclear to be uneconomical.

    If you really believe that, then you'd support nuclear power. It is extremely safe these days and is a much better option than to deal with more climate change. You want more options, not less options, in this fight.

    Icalasari,

    Plus, Nuclear is the one option that cam be put in the widest amount of places while handling baseload - Solar is limited by the sun, Hydro by where water is, Wind by the wind, etc.

    MauroPantin, in Anybody who bought a Tesla in the last few years is a goddamn tool.

    Don't really understand the energy spent on this matter. Just vote with your wallet. Don't like Tesla? Awesome. Don't buy one. Like them? Go ahead.

    People are allowed to like and dislike things and not everything is run on a manichean paradigm of extreme hyperbole where things are absolute shit or the best thing that's ever happened.

    A Tesla seems, objectively, like an okay car that's fun but usually comes with drawbacks and QA issues. Some will be more enthused by the latest gadget. Some wont.

    Then after that, Musk as a public figure, the bro hype, stupid dodgecoin memes, etc... All of that is just noise.

    Poggervania,
    Poggervania avatar

    Not only that, but posts and topics like this one actually just end up reinforcing Tesla whether they want to or not. It’s one more instance of the word “Tesla” being used, people start engaging on something related to Teslas, and some might start looking up facts or things related to Tesla… in the end, the hate just ends up being absorbed as more traffic and user engagement in relation to Tesla.

    OP, you can also stand to be less of a douche who’s lowkey trying to instigate a flame war. This reads less like “I am against Teslas” and more “I want to start a pissing contest on the internet.”

    MisterNeon, in Alcohol should be banned everywhere.
    @MisterNeon@lemmy.world avatar

    Have you studied prohibition in the USA? People don’t stop partaking in vices that are consumable when they become illegal, they just turn to illegal means to obtain them. Prohibition in the 20’s led to the rise of organized crime, drugs won the war on drugs, and in countries where alcohol is banned it just means the rich can partake while the poor go to jail.

    Also humans are more than their immediate biological bodies. They are part of communities and cultures that may have deep ties to alcoholic beverages as part of their heritage. British pubs, Christian wine, Mexican pulque, Mongolian Airag, and numerous other examples are essential for cultural and community cohesiveness going back for miilinia. It is ethnocentric of you to dismiss their needs and identity for your convenience.

    I say all of this as a son of a junkie. I’ve witnessed first hand the destruction of personal prosperity and the husking of the human soul that comes from imbibing narcotics. I also wish I could put the evils of decadence back in Pandora’s Box, unfortunately it was opened way before civilization existed.

    guywithadeathwish, in Female singers only want to sing about love, relationships, or breakups. They need to sing more about Godzilla, Vikings, The Grim Reaper, or making a bet with the Devil for a golden fiddle.

    Both Spotify and apple music have massive playlists of female singers in the rock/metal genre, you need to stop looking at pop music if you want to find decent stuff

    QueenB,

    Are the females in those bands writing the songs or are the guys writing the songs?

    livus,
    livus avatar

    @QueenB are you seriously trying to say men write songs and women don't?

    This has to be a troll.

    Pro tip: if you don't want to tell on yourself, don't call women "females" like you're David Attenborough talking about some bugs.

    lugal,

    Female singers only want to sing about love, relationships or breakups

    Someone’s moving the goalpost

    QueenB,

    Not moving the goalpost. That’s what I was originally thinking during creation of the post but perhaps I could have phrased my title better. The whole point is about creativity and using your imagination to come up with song ideas.

    lugal,

    Do you think that most pop singers write their songs themselves?

    guywithadeathwish,

    I gave you a suggestion to help find new artists/bands, the research on songwriting is up to you, but I can tell you now there’s a lot of bands where the front woman is writing

    BolexForSoup,
    BolexForSoup avatar

    What a ridiculous, flagrantly sexist question.

    southsamurai, in Jim Henson (and everything he created) are VASTLY AND ANNOYINGLY OVERRATED
    @southsamurai@sh.itjust.works avatar

    Nah, I think what you’re running into isn’t so much your basic opinion, it’s the venom you direct at it all, and at people that have a different opinion (and once you said “shouldn’t be” about adults liking it, you included your audience as a target of that venom whether that’s what you intended or not).

    See, people seem to think that “unpopular opinion” C/s or r/s are for them to come along and rant and insult things/people.

    That’s really not the point. As a matter of fact, it defeats the point because one you start ranting, you aren’t presenting an opinion, you’re just being “loud”, and often obnoxious as well. So your opinion ceases to matter, and your behavior becomes the issue.

    Seriously, there’s a ton of discussion possible about Henson, puppetry in general, the Muppets in specific, and how those things work for people that enjoy them (and fail to work for those that don’t). But your post isn’t unpopular because you don’t like Muppets, puppets, or Henson. The post is unpopular because it makes you look like an asshole.

    Did you intend it to be a funny rant? If so, I gotta say that you need to work on your material. Comedy can be the hardest thing to write, and doing a good rant that’s funny is much harder than regular jokes. This post? It’s like that drunk uncle bitching about a political issue at Christmas. Nobody is entertained, and any laughter is at the drunk asshole, not what they’re saying.

    correcthorsedickbatterystaple,
    qwertyqwertyqwerty, in Controllers are good for FPS games, especially on PC, and we have to stop pretending like they’re not

    I’m both a controller and mouse and keyboard user but I find it easier to aim with a controller. It feels natural.

    This is fine. You can have a preference. The rest of your post, however, is objectively incorrect, or at best misleading.

    For example, in order for me, a keyboard and mouse user, to get used to a controller, I would need to:

    • Find a reasonable controller
    • Find out how I can best grip the controller for my use case
    • Make sure the game’s controller sensitivity is set correctly for my use case

    See how that’s basically the same arguments you are making against using a K&M?

    Also, there have been FPS competitions where people with controllers go absolutely demolished by K&M players. When it comes to competitive FPS gaming, K&M has large advantages over controllers. Even some single-player console FPS games have enabled auto-aim by default, and left the setting disabled by default on PC for K&M players, because using a controller is more difficult than a K&M for FPS.

    Icedrous,

    Okay but you don’t need to be competitive to have fun. The basics for controller is if you’re on PlayStation, get a dual sense. Xbox, Xbox controller. Switch, pro controller. Going through the sensitivities for controller is a hell of a lot simpler than going through sensitivities for keyboard and mouse.

    The barrier of entry is far lower for controller than it is for keyboard and mouse. If you can’t figure out you need a basic controller for your console, especially considering most times consoles come with controllers anyway, I don’t know what to tell you.

    You can’t tell me it’s “objectively wrong” then list inconsistencies like that.

    bane_killgrind,

    Going through the sensitivities for controller is a hell of a lot simpler than going through sensitivities for keyboard and mouse.

    Crank it to max, then dial it back until your shots start to land

    520, (edited )

    For single player games, sure. For multiplayer games, you will get absolutely wiped by KB+M players and that will not be fun for you.

    Also, if I'm using non standard controls (which for a PC FPS, would include controllers) and I'm getting smoked by people with standard controls no matter how much I get used to them, then my controls are bad.

    qwertyqwertyqwerty,

    What inconsistency did I list?

    verysoft,

    Changing a sensitivity on a mouse is easier than on a controller and generally allows a more fine tuned setting.

    The process of even changing sensitivity is easier, menu navigation on a mouse is simpler, then once at the sensitivity option, I can just type in a number or quickly drag a bar instead of waiting for a number to climb higher or lower. Hell, if the game has a console, I can usually just open that and type in any number I want on the fly.

    KoboldCoterie,
    @KoboldCoterie@pawb.social avatar

    People play games with dance pads, or with their feet, or with Guitar Hero instruments, and they have fun doing it, but that doesn’t mean it’s efficient, or optimal, or that those control schemes are “good” for the games they’re using. If your argument is “Controllers are adequate for FPS games”, sure - I don’t think anyone is refuting that point, but that’s not the argument you made - you stated that controllers are good for FPS games, which is a pretty subjective word, but clearly you posted in the right place, because as you can see from all of the replies here, it’s a very unpopular opinion.

    Clearly people can play FPS games with controllers. It is an option a lot of people use. However, it’s just the case that an equally skilled player on a controller will lose to a similarly skilled player on M+K. There’ve been numerous attempts at scientific tests to prove this. Here’s one such example. There’s an anecdote that years ago, Microsoft was considering offering cross-platform multiplayer between PC and Xbox, but scrapped the idea when it was discovered that very skilled Halo players using a controller were losing to objectively less skilled players using mouse + keyboard.

    MisterFeeny,

    The title of your post begins as "Controllers are good for FPS games, especially on PC".

    Now it's about having fun and a lower barrier of entry, not competitiveness.

    It's fine you prefer controller, but you're moving the goalposts here. The title and body of your initial post isn't about having fun, it's about what is "good for fps games." K&M is, I'm sorry to tell you, objectively better in that sense.

    Side note, as for your "lower barrier of entry" for a controller part, you also specified from the beginning, "especially on PC". If you're playing on PC specifically, you already have a K&M. A controller is not a lower barrier of entry on that platform, it's an additional purchase vs. something everyone on that platform would already own.

    You're using a list of inconsistencies to deny why you are "objectively wrong".

    ogeist,

    Not to pry, but “having fun” is subjective and therefore there is nothing “wrong”. It is up to the subject to decide or feel that something fun is happening.

    You are “subjectively right” but you are also “objectively wrong”.

    A clear reason is that Aim Assist was implemented to make the player have fun. K&M do not need this support because you can aim very accurately without previous training.

    The barrier of entry, as you call it, is reduced artificially for the controller.

    But alas, do what is fun for you. There is nothing to prove to anyone in single player games. I play third person (Souls games) games with controller and FPS (Cyberpunk mainly) with k&m.

    Mr_Blott,

    Mate, chill out. OP said "“If people are used to a controller, they should use that, rather than trying to find a k&m setup that suits them.”

    You said “Oh my god, why, then, should I try to find a controller setup that suits me?!?”

    I mean, c’mon

    qwertyqwertyqwerty,

    OP posted on c/unpopular opinion. I think they are looking for a discussion/debate about their opinion. They can use whatever they feel like using. There is (was?) a Twitch channel that used a fish’s location in its aquarium as an input.

    Icedrous,

    No, I wasn’t looking for a debate, I was just posting my unpopular opinion, you know, like how the sub is meant for?

    I don’t care what you use, as long as you have fun. To me, I use both, but I find controller to be easier solely based on the barrier of entry like how I commented elsewhere.

    I don’t care about competitiveness, form factor, or anything else everyone seems to assume I care about. I know about aim assist too and I know it works, I know it’s in games that allow players to use controllers, however does it really matter? All I care about is ease of access. If I were to want to play a DM of any games, on mouse and keyboard, I’d have to warm up my hands, or crack my knuckles and loosen them up a bit, practice aim training and everything. On controller, it’s pick up and play.

    Based solely on ease of access, I find controllers to be better.

    Zorque,

    The sub is a public forum meant for discussion. If you want to make a proclamation, buy a billboard. Or pay for a sky-writer. Or stick a sign on your front yard.

    If you don't want a discussion, and just want to be right, don't declare it publicly or you will get pushback. Especially if you know its an unpopular opinion.

    Betch,
    @Betch@lemmy.world avatar

    Even some single-player console FPS games have enabled auto-aim by default, and left the setting disabled by default on PC for K&M players, because using a controller is more difficult than a K&M for FPS.

    Single player games often have auto-aim when you aim down sight and have multiplayer games have Aim Assist. In COD/Warzone, controller players have an advantage over KB/M due to how strong the aim assist is.

    Controllers aren’t good for FPS, they need a handicap.

    Varyk, in Property Taxes Should Not Pay for Schools

    Educated children are how you get your road workers, doctors, firefighters and librarians, services you are happy paying.

    Yes, you should be forced to pay for education because it is the foundation of every facet of your civilization.

    PeepinGoodArgs, in Idiocracy is a lame movie and not as deep as redditors and lemmites makes it out to be.

    That’s the thing: there’s nothing to interpret. The movie depicted a intellectual stunted world…and the world has moved toward the movie. That’s it. That’s the whole thing. There’s nothing deep about it.

    Zorque,

    The problem with comparisons between the movie and real life is that there are still plenty of people of intelligence behind the scenes making our lives miserable.

    The world of idiocracy is basically the result of accidental eugenics. "Smart people" don't have babies, so only dumb trailer trash has babies, so the world gets dumber. That's not how the real world works, people who were born to families living in trailer parks or low-income housing have just as much of a chance to be smart as those born to the rich... as long as they have the same opportunities. For the most part, they don't, but there's a minority that still gets grants and scholarships and just luck to become the "smart elite" that don't exist in the world of Idiocracy.

    V17,

    This is a bit of a controversial topic that's surely bigger than this thread, but I'm going to leave it here anyway for other people reading this.

    You talk about trailer parks/low income families vs rich families, but I think that Idiocracy is not about income, it's about being dumb. Part of which is just cultural (ignorance), but part of it seems to be intelligence. And as far as I know, there's no evidence that any kid can become as intelligent as anyone else with proper raising and education. Research seems to pretty clearly show that IQ is heritable to a significant degree, and while it can be needlessly lowered in many ways (like malnutrition or high stress in critical development phases), in the absence of these issues no enrichment is able to raise it.

    Despite how controversial it is in some circles, the Wikipedia article on the topic seems to be pretty good.

    However, since the movie really is not deep, it's possible that its whole point was just that the idiocy is cultural, and in that case the above obviously doesn't apply. I'm just saying what it seemed like to me.

    Zorque,

    IQ isn't even a good metric of intelligence, just of the ability to do well at IQ tests.

    The point of the movie is to show how stupid people are everywhere, and it's their fault that the world is going to shit. Which is an elitist, shitty argument. It completely ignores the direct involvement of those with a vested interest in keeping people ignorant of the world around them.

    Sure, you can make an argument that a certain level of intelligence is inheritable... but not to such a degree that is implied by the movie, or by how people interpret it. Sure, you may not have quite the same ability to quickly consume and interpret information... but most everyone has the ability to do it eventually. It's just a matter of how much you want to. Many people, especially those in the American culture presented in the movie, have been trained to not do that, and that's what people see when they look around and find idiots all around them. The unfortunate truth, though, is that those who judge others based on that vapid criteria suffer from the same lack of intelligent thought. They don't put any effort into interpreting the world around them, and thus just assume those around them are a bunch of idiots who cause all the problems in their life.

    V17,

    IQ isn't even a good metric of intelligence, just of the ability to do well at IQ tests.

    I've seen this repeated ad nauseam on reddit in any slightly relevant threads, but it seems completely unfounded. Psychometrics is one of the subfields of psychology that doesn't suffer from an apocalyptic replication crysis, like for example social psychology, and there's decades of research on IQ. Please note that I'm not saying that IQ is the most important measure of a person or anything like that, but it's a pretty good metric that demonstrably correlates to/predicts a lot of things with reasonable confidence.

    The point of the movie is to show how stupid people are everywhere, and it's their fault that the world is going to shit. Which is an elitist, shitty argument. It completely ignores the direct involvement of those with a vested interest in keeping people ignorant of the world around them.

    In my experience, in real life it's more common that people just don't care about wellbeing of others who are worse off/more ignorant, than it being malice, but otherwise I agree.

    Sure, you can make an argument that a certain level of intelligence is inheritable... but not to such a degree that is implied by the movie, or by how people interpret it.

    I agree with this as well, and with other critics you write below. I don't think it's a very good movie.

    Sure, you may not have quite the same ability to quickly consume and interpret information... but most everyone has the ability to do it eventually. It's just a matter of how much you want to.

    But I don't think this is the case. Firstly I don't like the "it's a matter of how much you want to", because that's very close to blaming a person for not being born smart enough. Secondly, even if what you say is true - it's a matter of time and effort - the reality is that at some point the time and effort needed would be so huge that it's the same as "not able to do it at all", because an information that was acquired/way to solve a problem that was found was only relevant ten years ago and is completely useless now. Most people simply don't have it in them to seriously work on a unified theory of physics, but most people (though a considerably smaller "most") also don't have it in them to be a good strategic leader of a company, who does nothing as complicated as theoretical physicists, but needs to solve problems in a smart way fast to be good for anything.

    ttmrichter,
    @ttmrichter@lemmy.world avatar

    I’ve seen this repeated ad nauseam on reddit in any slightly relevant threads, but it seems completely unfounded. Psychometrics is one of the subfields of psychology that doesn’t suffer from an apocalyptic replication crysis, like for example social psychology, and there’s decades of research on IQ. Please note that I’m not saying that IQ is the most important measure of a person or anything like that, but it’s a pretty good metric that demonstrably correlates to/predicts a lot of things with reasonable confidence.

    The problem is that this correlates to/predicts outcomes in systems predicated on … IQ.

    “IQ correlates to success in careers,” for example. Your career path and ensuing choices in your life is heavily influenced by your SAT scores if you’re in the USA. And SAT scores are …

    drum roll

    … basically just IQ tests. So strangely enough, in a system that explicitly filters based on IQ, a high IQ correlates with success within the system. And most other nations that have modern educational infrastructure have some form of test which is IQ-adjascent: China’s is even worse than the SAT, for example, while, say, Canada’s system kind of smears out and obfuscates the IQ component … but it’s still very much a part of things.

    V17,

    I don't think this is an argument against the usefulness of IQ. Firstly not all countries use standardized tests with such an influence (I'm from Czechia and we don't, there's a standardized high school leaving examination, but it's only necessary to pass, the score is generally unimportant for university admission). Secondly all you're saying is that the tests correlate with IQ. That does not make them or IQ invalid, it may just as well simply mean that they test how well a student does in school, and having a higher IQ tends to make studying easier.

    But mostly, again, psychometrics is the one field of psychology that has relatively rigorous and reliable methodology. The idea that you disprove decades of research, from large scale statistic studies made with cooperation of state institutions to expensive and rare research like various twin studies, simply by saying "actually IQ doesn't matter" is naive at best. There really isn't a lot of reasons to say that apart from ideological ones.

    ttmrichter,
    @ttmrichter@lemmy.world avatar

    IQ tests can be studied for. Someone taking an IQ test cold will get a lower score than that same person taking just a second test after knowing how the IQ test works. Further, you can actually train for higher IQ scores. This kind of indicates that there is a measurable learned skill component in this “metric”. Teasing that learned component out from something intrinsic (and it’s utterly ludicrous, incidentally, to conceive of “intelligence” as a single thing that can be boiled down into a single number!) is a problem that has thus far proved intractable.

    IQ tests have major cultural components. IQ tests made for Chinese people (culturally Chinese, not ethnically) are different from those made for American people which are again different from those made for German people. Culture is not intrinsic to the brain, so again it seems IQ is not measuring something intrinsic. It is measuring something related to its cultural milieu.

    IQ test results vary by the quality of education available. People who were privileged enough to have good schools, private supplemental tutoring, etc. get higher IQ scores than people whose background was shit neighbourhoods with terrible schooling and no money for extra tutoring. Again, this strongly indicates that IQ is not intrinsic but at least partially cultural and educated (and a rather large part).

    IQ numbers have been rising over time to the point that someone who got an IQ score of 140 in the 1970s would score as a borderline idiot today. Judging by the behaviour of people and their proclivity to believe stupid things, there has been no real change in actual ability to think and process information over that time (if anything it might be a negative trend, given American politics in particular!). Yet if there wasn’t a built-in corrective factor applied that changes each year IQ scores would be rocketing skyward. Again this hints at something learned, and not intrinsic.

    So IQ measures something … but nobody can say what it is. The only thing we can know for certain is that IQ tests measure with 100% accuracy your ability to write IQ tests.

    So that’s four non-ideological reasons to be suspicious of IQ tests. Please feel free to dismiss this as “naive” or “ignorant” or “ideological” if you wish; it will strongly show your own ideology.

    IQ has its uses, but sadly those uses aren’t the ones commonly associated with it. (The original use that proto-IQ tests were intended for were to highlight students who were struggling and needed extra assistance, a role in which they were nearly perfect.) But then the US Army latched onto it as a measurement of “intelligence” and things went to Hell almost immediately thereafter.

    V17,

    (shortened your quotes, message was too long)

    IQ tests can be studied for. [...]

    As far as I know, for properly administrated tests the scientific consensus is that this is not true, with a few small sample size studies showing some improvement and a lot of larger studies repeatedly failing to show anything. You provide no evidence, which in this particular case (something that goes against most of IQ research) would be warranted imo, so I can only guess what you mean in particular. As far as I know, even with potentially neglected children from environments with not enough stimulation, where the theoretical potential clearly exists, the results have been mixed.

    (and it’s utterly ludicrous, incidentally, to conceive of “intelligence” as a single thing that can be boiled down into a single number!)

    I don't think this is a popular claim in psychometrics and I haven't said so either.

    IQ tests have major cultural components. [...].

    A lot of effort went into mitigating this issue, and while it cannot be erased, it doesn't really invalidate IQ as a concept in any way. It is one of the reasons why we don't call people from more significantly different societies that one might very crudely describe as "primitive" unintelligent (and yes, some meanings of IQ can lose relevance in such societies), but afaik available evidence shows that there's not much difference between the results and usefulness of IQ in the US, Germany or China.

    IQ test results vary by the quality of education available. [...]

    Without more information you cannot say whether it indicated what you say or whether it indicates that more intelligent people tend to be more successful, which creates generational wealth/education differences on its own.

    I am not claiming either, but let me give you a counter anecdote: Czechia doesn't really have bad neighborhoods and terrible schooling, we were forced to all be equally poor during 40 years of communism, which has only been changing quite slowly - there are about 2 real "ghettos" in the whole country, it's safe everywhere and schools are paid from state tax money, wages set by law etc. So there's almost no difference in funding between a school in a poor area and a "rich" area (with significant quotation marks), and most schools are on a similar level of quality.

    Despite that, the studied qualities of IQ still apply here, and have done so since IQ research started here, even during communism where the societal differences were even smaller outside of the ruling class.

    The obvious exception: you're too poor to provide proper nutrition to your children, you for live under constant existential stress etc. These likely lower your IQ and likely contribute the Flynn effect (see below).

    IQ numbers have been rising over time to the point that someone who got an IQ score of 140 in the 1970s would score as a borderline idiot today.

    This is incorrect and all it would take to know that is opening the wikipedia page on Flynn effect. Since different tests measure different types of intelligence and are standardized individually, it's not easily possible to say "IQ xxx in 1970 would be IQ yyy in 2020". But it seems to change by about 3 points per decade, the change has been slowing down and in some cases even reversing in some developed countries in recent decades, and the change has always been the most prominent in the lower end of the scale and not very visible in the high end.

    Based on that we can be reasonably sure that a person with an IQ score of 140 in the 1970s would still be considered gifted at the least, and it is possible that they would score around 140 today as well. I'm sure that with some effort you could find some mathematician or physicist who was measured around that score in the 1970s and is still considered obviously briliant.

    (if anything it might be a negative trend, given American politics in particular!). Yet if there wasn’t a built-in corrective factor applied that changes each year IQ scores would be rocketing skyward. Again this hints at something learned, and not intrinsic.

    See above. I'm too lazy to go find if the US suffers from reverse Flynn effect, but there have been researchers claiming that median IQ has been going down, though I think it's not a mainstream consensus opinion. In any case, IQ has not been skyrocketing in the US for some time as far as I know.

    Furthermore, the Flynn effect is an effect widely studied by actual scientists, it's not a thing that disproves psychometrics, it's an area of research of psychometrics.

    So IQ measures something … but nobody can say what it is.

    Literal books have been written on this. You just have to read them. The IQ is used because we know that it's a useful metric for many things, it's pretty much as simple as that.

    JasSmith,

    IQ isn’t even a good metric of intelligence, just of the ability to do well at IQ tests.

    It is the best way we have to measure g factor. IQ is highly correlated with life outcomes, so the argument that it only measure one’s ability to do IQ tests well is clearly specious. It’s measuring g factor, and g factor enables one to work more productively and delay gratification, meaning less crime. The average IQ in prisons in America is something like 85. That’s near the cutoff for the army, because not even they can teach such a person to peel potatoes. The ramifications of this are obvious: we’ve built economies which require intelligence. Someone with an 85 IQ (more than 10% of the population) can’t even be trained to run cash registers at McDonald’s. What does one do if they can’t work? Crime, poverty, self harm, and chronic welfare. We need to figure out what to do with these people, and the first step is acknowledging that not everyone is equally capable of contributing to society. Then we can have an honest discussion about welfare and UBI for these vulnerable people. Pretending they’re not severally disadvantaged is harming them immensely.

    SadSadSatellite, in Greed has proven to be a more effectively harmful force against humanity than hatred. We should have greed crimes in addition to hate crimes.

    That’s actually a fantastic way to word what I’ve been thinking about for years. Greed crimes.

    I don’t know where you’re from, but as an American, I’d rally for that to be an amendment.

    some_guy,

    I’m gonna start asking for this as much as possible.

    MinekPo1,
    @MinekPo1@lemmygrad.ml avatar

    Not to blow out your flame, but I doubt you will be able to succeed through a “democratic” system, especially in the US, as politicians need corporate backers to get a seat. Besides, even if you get one independent representative, their voice, so your voice as well, will be snuffed out by several politicians using the hot topic of the day to rally support from masses, while passing bills which benefit their corporate backers.

    ivanafterall, in White chocolate is better than dark chocolate and i'm tired of pretending it's not
    ivanafterall avatar

    Are saltine crackers your favorite potato chips?

    GreenDust,

    His favorite movie is “books”!

    dylpickles,

    I’d honestly go a different direction with the burn like white chocolate is to chocolate what sweet potato chips are to potato chips.

    If we were to figure out where saltine crackers relate to potato chips in reference to chocolate or general sweets I’d say if potato chips are milk chocolate Hershey’s then saltine crackers are toffee.

    hangonasecond,

    Sweet potato chips are good though…

    quicksand,

    I hate sweet potatoes though

    hangonasecond,

    Well, can’t argue with that lol. I wonder which opinion on sweet potatoes is the unpopular one.

    quicksand,

    The real unpopular opinion is always in the comments

    Buddahriffic,

    Out of curiosity, how do you feel about carrots (cooked and uncooked separately), and melons like honeydew and cantaloupe?

    Asking because I dislike all of those (other than raw carrots) and wonder if it’s because they are all very high in vitamin A. I once overloaded from a single (extra strong) vitamin A supplement and wonder if I have some gene that increases my vitamin A intake or something.

    idunnololz,
    @idunnololz@lemmy.world avatar

    Yeah I know white chocolate isn’t technically chocolate but it scratches the same itch for me.

    200ok,
  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • unpopularopinion@lemmy.world
  • kavyap
  • mdbf
  • osvaldo12
  • ethstaker
  • tacticalgear
  • DreamBathrooms
  • thenastyranch
  • magazineikmin
  • modclub
  • Youngstown
  • everett
  • slotface
  • rosin
  • GTA5RPClips
  • JUstTest
  • khanakhh
  • cisconetworking
  • tester
  • ngwrru68w68
  • normalnudes
  • Durango
  • InstantRegret
  • cubers
  • provamag3
  • anitta
  • Leos
  • megavids
  • lostlight
  • All magazines