Unpopular opinions V8 Flat IS NOTHING - General

[QUOTE=AtomicSans;52688289]This is why I prefer to think of economic systems like a force of nature rather than a political system. Economics are apolitical.[/QUOTE] Might be worth pointing out that these people said you can't have welfare with capitalism, I responded saying that you can use the proceeds of a capitalist economy to fund welfare with proper taxation. They said this was impossible (even though I am pretty sure most Western countries do something similar to this) and that the only way to have a proper fair welfare state as to have 100% taxation of all income. I dunno how you expect people to generate income with 100% taxation but ok :v:

[QUOTE=Mr Kotov;52688302]Might be worth pointing out that these people said you can't have welfare with capitalism, I responded saying that you can use the proceeds of a capitalist economy to fund welfare with proper taxation. They said this was impossible (even though I am pretty sure most Western countries do something similar to this) and that the only way to have a proper fair welfare state as to have 100% taxation of all income. I dunno how you expect people to generate income with 100% taxation but ok :v:[/QUOTE] Your friends are the ones with the unpopular (and imo idiotic) opinion here, haha.

overly masculine guys / overly feminine women piss me off

I like letting people live their lives however they want

[QUOTE=gk99;52688083]Whether you personally see them as masculine traits or not doesn't really matter in this context. Society has [I]always[/I] defined confident, aggressive traits as masculine. When you're arguing semantics you can't just go "well actually I see this word as meaning something nobody else thinks it means." You could make a [I]very[/I] good argument for saying that they aren't masculine traits, but until that argument makes social connotation change and forces the language morph as it did with the word "gender," anyone with a dictionary can go "but the definition for masculine outright proves you incorrect."[/QUOTE] Those traits are stereotypically seen as masculine because men advertise those traits. Women, on the other hand, do not; despite the fact women are just as likely to express them as men. (And really, what person could seriously argue that a woman doing something brave such as, oh I dunno, protecting her children is anything but feminine?)

[QUOTE=Mr Kotov;52688256]I don't think capitalism is inherently bad.[/QUOTE] Capitalism is a naturally developed thing. When technology (I use the term loosely, cause i'm really talking about stuff like agriculture and roads and ships) let the middle class rise from fuedalism by creating a market, capitalism was the obvious choice. If you read Marx (the guy who wrote [I]The Communist Manifesto[/I] and who dominated much left thought) He basically says "yeh, capitalism's great for a bunch of stuff, it has issues, but you need to do it". Like the general idea is you get to "late stage" capitalism where you've totally industrialized (or better yet, put yourself firmly in the information age) and[I] then[/I] have a revolution when you're mostly built up and the gap between rich and poor is getting big. Which is sorta why the soviet union/communist china did so fucking badly and why north korea's doing shit(vietnam's an exception). Russia and china were more or less fuedal when they went red; -It was less that they had a means of production to seize,and more that they had to make means of production. They had to work out what to build with no experience that'd help them. -Their populaces were ill-educated peasants so they'd be ruled by autocrats and they'd think anything'd be better than what they had. -Like everyone else wishes a newly communist country a world of ill. So Stalin/Mao sort of needed to make those horrible pushes to industrialize at the expense of lives because they would (and did) get invaded by already well industrialized countries. Also. Stalin was a cunt without reason. Like maybe he just wanted it all to look bad. But he really made a lot of moves that were just completely contrary to Marx's idea of communism. Like Marx is dated so he has a few ideas that don't really work, but Stalin really went for shit that orthodox communism'd fight. So you [I]need[/I] that capitalism before you go socialist/communist. It's a real important step. A communist [I]should[/I] thank capitalism for it's smartphones, but the smartphones/the internet/whatever are means that should be seized.

[QUOTE=TheFilmSlacker;52688715]That being said, maybe I'm just a dick, but I think that extending the abbreviation to 2SLGBTIQA is a bit ridiculous. Maybe I'm a purist, but LGBT or LGBT+ works for me.[/QUOTE] LGBTQ is a nice umbrella IMO and doesn't have the inconvenience of including a symbol, but I'll use LGBT in most situations anyway. [editline]16th September 2017[/editline] GSM (gender and sexual minorities) also works but doesn't have a ring to it at all.

Probably gonna get shit on a bit for this but i'm pretty gay myself but I hate this whole massive pro-LGBT stuff that people have been pushing so hard in the last few years. It feels like it's hardly ever done in a way that doesn't feel intrusive, commonly people are so extreme with it, some try make being gay (or whatever you are) more than it actually is and are so quick to label people as homophobic. Now and then it even feels like I'm being put on a fucking pedestal for liking dick when I want to be treated the same as your average person, not lesser or greater. I can't find myself agreeing with pride parades as well since they can just be stupidly sexualised and with people dressed in over the top drag which just gives a shitty image overall. A lot of my opinion isn't just from what I've seen on the internet, from experience this heavy pro LGBT movement within recent years has done much more harm than good causing more people to be anti in some regards.

[QUOTE=Clovis;52688961]i think some homosexuals may get a bit upset about that but i honestly think it is a good idea[/QUOTE] So uh... what, we gonna call Trans people gay? Or like, you'll have to ask people "What sort of gay are you"? [editline]17th September 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=aussiedropbear;52688876]A lot of my opinion isn't just from what I've seen on the internet, from experience this heavy pro LGBT movement within recent years has done much more harm than good causing more people to be anti in some regards.[/QUOTE] To be honest, I disagree. If the people are against the LGBT because they are too open, then they were always against LGBT anyway - it's just they weren't voicing themselves before. That's actually a good thing, since more honesty is more important - it's better to know which folks to be aware of, rather than being paranoid about everyone.

[QUOTE=aussiedropbear;52688876]Probably gonna get shit on a bit for this but i'm pretty gay myself but I hate this whole massive pro-LGBT stuff that people have been pushing so hard in the last few years. It feels like it's hardly ever done in a way that doesn't feel intrusive, commonly people are so extreme with it, some try make being gay (or whatever you are) more than it actually is and are so quick to label people as homophobic. Now and then it even feels like I'm being put on a fucking pedestal for liking dick when I want to be treated the same as your average person, not lesser or greater. I can't find myself agreeing with pride parades as well since they can just be stupidly sexualised and with people dressed in over the top drag which just gives a shitty image overall. A lot of my opinion isn't just from what I've seen on the internet, from experience this heavy pro LGBT movement within recent years has done much more harm than good causing more people to be anti in some regards.[/QUOTE] Well sor-ry for being myself and having fun.

[QUOTE={TFS} Rock Su;52687856]LGBT parades are unnecessary.[/QUOTE] Of course they're unnecessary. They're parades, what do you expect? It's just people enjoying themselves, like any other parade. Show me a 'necessary' parade.

[QUOTE=gufu;52689136] To be honest, I disagree. If the people are against the LGBT because they are too open, then they were always against LGBT anyway - it's just they weren't voicing themselves before. That's actually a good thing, since more honesty is more important - it's better to know which folks to be aware of, rather than being paranoid about everyone.[/QUOTE] I get what you mean although I say this more because from the people I've talked to they've become a lot of harsh on the gay community compared to before all this, they used to hardly care at all actually. [QUOTE=Vodkavia;52689182]lots of wordssss"[/QUOTE] You really took that the wrong way. I'm not saying everyone who goes to pride parades are sex crazed freaks or whatever. Yes there are plenty of good people with good intentions and It's not like I would think lesser of them if they were to attend one. I dislike the former because they give a complete shit image to the community as a whole and there are still a lot of pro and anti people whose opinion is influenced heavily by them or really any LGBT stereotype. I'd be fine with these parades if it weren't for them. And yeah I've actually been past one before and seen these people. I'd prefer to get rid of all these shitty stereotypes/generalisations that so many people still believe that is widespread and improve the image of this community and to prove to everyone that we're actually normal people. This isn't the only kind thing I have in my mind either, there's plenty of other stereotypes that I hate and that I'd wish to get rid of. Also the guy below makes some decent points as well

[QUOTE=Vodkavia;52689182]Proves a person right by disagreeing with them[/QUOTE] Most queer people are fine individuals, but there's sociological reasons why "pride" can be a bad idea. -subcultures can be threatening, even if it's not something like bikies or your local variant of tracksuit wearing retards. -A minority will always act up if they've got themselves a little justification and a support base. As you know, the vocal minority is a very visible element, and they're not doing the gays any favours. You might be a nice person who meets nice people at parades, but there's probably some toxic people there you ignore, but that's the one people see, and you'll giving them tacit support by being their crowd. And so easily throwing around words like "bigot" and treating everyone who doesn't like what you're doing like morons is an easy way to alienate people from a cause.

[QUOTE=aussiedropbear;52689303]I get what you mean although I say this more because from the people I've talked to they've become a lot of harsh on the gay community compared to before all this, they used to hardly care at all actually. You really took that the wrong way. I'm not saying everyone who goes to pride parades are sex crazed freaks or whatever. Yes there are plenty of good people with good intentions and It's not like I would think lesser of them if they were to attend one. I dislike the former because they give a complete shit image to the community as a whole and there are still a lot of pro and anti people whose opinion is influenced heavily by them or really any LGBT stereotype. I'd be fine with these parades if it weren't for them. And yeah I've actually been past one before and seen these people. I'd prefer to get rid of all these shitty stereotypes/generalisations that so many people still believe that is widespread and improve the image of this community and to prove to everyone that we're actually normal people. This isn't the only kind thing I have in my mind either, there's plenty of other stereotypes that I hate and that I'd wish to get rid of. Also the guy below makes some decent points as well[/QUOTE] Instead of being so concerned about image you could be cool with people doing what makes them happy. [editline]17th September 2017[/editline] The entire point of Pride is who gives a fuck what people think. We're gonna be who we wanna be.

[QUOTE=AtomicSans;52689319] The entire point of Pride is who gives a fuck what people think. We're gonna be who we wanna be.[/QUOTE] Yeah this is why some people don't like gays.

[QUOTE=AtomicSans;52689319]Instead of being so concerned about image you could be cool with people doing what makes them happy.[/QUOTE] [URL="https://imgur.com/a/8FCIY"]This[/URL] is what I get when I google "Gay Pride Parade", and some of them seem to be perpetuating stereotypes of gay people, which is what I think Aussiebear has a problem with

[QUOTE=aussiedropbear;52689303]I get what you mean although I say this more because from the people I've talked to they've become a lot of harsh on the gay community compared to before all this, they used to hardly care at all actually.[/QUOTE] I mean, a huge number of people do not appear to be racist if they don't have to deal with individuals of other race. The problem is still there, it's just easier to ignore if it doesn't have a reason to be brought up.

[QUOTE=The Jack;52689332]Yeah this is why some people don't like gays.[/QUOTE] those people are nosy fucks then.

[QUOTE=The golden;52688837]I usually add "QIA" (queer, intersex, asexual) onto it because they're even smaller minority groups which don't fit into the existing letters already - especially intersex and asexual people. I'm a staunch opponent of erasure so I like people to feel included. I'll gladly type a few more letters if it helps people feel included. It's the least I can do to help someone feel happier. I'm sick of people feel like like crap and I want people to be happy.[/QUOTE] Tbh at that point you may as well use GSM. When an initialism gets that long it has kind of failed to do what an initialism should.

[QUOTE=The golden;52688837]I usually add "QIA" (queer, intersex, asexual) onto it because they're even smaller minority groups which don't fit into the existing letters already - especially intersex and asexual people. I'm a staunch opponent of erasure so I like people to feel included. I'll gladly type a few more letters if it helps people feel included. It's the least I can do to help someone feel happier. I'm sick of people feel like like crap and I want people to be happy.[/QUOTE] What's wrong with saying LGBT+?

[QUOTE=QUILTBAG;52689372]What's wrong with saying LGBT+?[/QUOTE] I'm a-ok with it but I like keeping my acronyms and initialisms symbol-free if I can. Makes it cleaner.

[QUOTE=Clovis;52689374]well thats kind of my point, there shouldnt be a distinction between anyone in a community of people that feel different to cis/straights, otherwise you run into exclusionary problems the point isn't to ask 'what sort of gay are you', its when you look at some extremely metrosexual dude with fake nails and some crazy hair, you know they're gay, you don't have to stop and think are they gay? are they trans? are they bi? are they just metrosexual? are they a straight dude dressing up cause its his fetish? or dressing up for a dress up party?[/QUOTE] Gay becomes a pretty useless term then. The current terms we have already aren't great as it seems more and more likely that the majority of people don't really fall into pure gay-straight-bi. There's that kinsey-scale shit. People admitting to having had gay/lesbian sex keeps rising in polls. And there's plenty of people, especially women, that I've run into that say that they find people of the same sex attractive sexually but they still wouldn't date them. On an idealistic level they're pretty fucking bisexual. Practically though they're straight. Don't make language even less useful. I mean already you broke your own definition by bringing up a person who might be crossdressing for a party and calling him "gay," despite your parlance saying that it's for anyone not straight & cis.

[QUOTE=thelurker1234;52689393]And there's plenty of people, especially women, that I've run into that say that they find people of the same sex attractive sexually but they still wouldn't date them. On an idealistic level they're pretty fucking bisexual. Practically though they're straight. Don't make language even less useful.[/QUOTE] That seems potentially pretty clear-cut with current terminology, those people are bisexual but heteroromantic. ezpz.

[QUOTE=AtomicSans;52689398]That seems potentially pretty clear-cut with current terminology, those people are bisexual but heteroromantic. ezpz.[/QUOTE] Wouldn't date =/ doesn't feel romance for.

[QUOTE=thelurker1234;52689404]Wouldn't date =/ doesn't feel romance for.[/QUOTE] How so? That doesn't make sense to me but then again I've only dated one person.

[QUOTE=Alice3173;52688351]Those traits are stereotypically seen as masculine because men advertise those traits. Women, on the other hand, do not; despite the fact women are just as likely to express them as men. (And really, what person could seriously argue that a woman doing something brave such as, oh I dunno, protecting her children is anything but feminine?)[/QUOTE] Weren't you just complaining about people saying things irrelevant to the discussion a bit up the page When discussing if someone's potentially masculine, it doesn't matter why the traits they exhibit are considered masculine, only that they are. [editline]a[/editline] [QUOTE=AtomicSans;52689346]those people are nosy fucks then.[/QUOTE] Not really. You're talking about people marching down the road half-naked and acting overtly sexual in public. Not everyone wants to see that shit, regardless of how they feel about gender and sexuality.

[QUOTE=AtomicSans;52689379]I'm a-ok with it but I like keeping my acronyms and initialisms symbol-free if I can. Makes it cleaner.[/QUOTE] I can relate to that but I think after a certain point initialisms become meaningless after so many letters.

[QUOTE=AtomicSans;52689408]How so? That doesn't make sense to me but then again I've only dated one person.[/QUOTE] Liking someone doesn't mean you have to date them. E.g. you might think your futures are incompatible. For those people it's usually something practical. Like they want to avoid something awkward & taboo (sometimes subconsciously,) or they want biological children.

[QUOTE=gk99;52689412] Not really. You're talking about people marching down the road half-naked and acting overtly sexual in public. Not everyone wants to see that shit, regardless of how they feel about gender and sexuality.[/QUOTE] I mean, if you just going to generalize an entire LGBT parade to just a bunch of oversexed half naked people, you might as well just call it a Rock Concert and be done with it.

the word queer fits the usage case you're trying to make gay fit into, but that word tends to not be recognized outside the lgbt community