Unpopular Opinions You Hold

[Izzy]

38 minutes ago, FoxesDeb said:

 

Billionaires don't necessarily work any harder for it than many people, they just have luck, and probably a helping hand, to attain it. 

 

21 minutes ago, Milo said:

 

Agree with @FoxesDeb entirely about luck..but it needs a special type of person to maximise that luck into a squillion dollar business. 

 

Just waiting for @leicsmac to also chirp up on the subject of luck 

 

Meanwhile, I agree with this personally...

 

[FoxesDeb]

47 minutes ago, Izzy said:

 

Just waiting for @leicsmac to also chirp up on the subject of luck 

 

Meanwhile, I agree with this personally...

 

I like the sentiment, but in my experience there are many people who try their best, but cannot afford to take many chances as they have too many responsibilities. It suggests that those who are unlucky are not trying hard enough, which I personally feel is unfair, and pretty upsetting.

[Izzy]

7 minutes ago, FoxesDeb said:

I like the sentiment, but in my experience there are many people who try their best, but cannot afford to take many chances as they have too many responsibilities. It suggests that those who are unlucky are not trying hard enough, which I personally feel is unfair, and pretty upsetting.

I don't read it like that Deb.

 

I read it that those who have more luck take more chances and actively create opportunities for themselves (working smarter not harder maybe?)

 

I think the main reason most of us (me included) feel like we don't have much luck is that we limit our own potential from an early age. We 'play it safe' and stay in our comfort zone instead of taking risks and backing ourselves. Then we have kids, get a mortgage and responsibilities and take fewer risks and play it even safer.

 

It's just fear that stops us really. Fear of fvcking it up, fear of failure, fear of looking stupid. The 'lucky' ones seem to be blessed with a high degree of self belief and self confidence (maybe genetic?) and they put themselves out there without fear. They don't care what people think or say about them, they're robust, resilient, determined and resolute.

 

They play the game of life (more active/show up) with gusto, enthusiasm and passion rather than sitting in the stands watching like the rest of us...

[Milo]

4 minutes ago, FoxesDeb said:

I like the sentiment, but in my experience there are many people who try their best, but cannot afford to take many chances as they have too many responsibilities. It suggests that those who are unlucky are not trying hard enough, which I personally feel is unfair, and pretty upsetting.

Yeah, tricky one.

 

I'm not sure that motivational missives are supposed to make you feel down, and a little, well, demotivated.

 

Personally, I absolutely agree with the message above - but I can see why it might annoy some people! I see some really crass ones in a variety of workplaces every day - and I also see people that try to live their lives according to something that HR have stuck on the wall..maybe the solution is to find something that speaks to you? Dunno, really..

 

I've never been one to chase money, and I never measure happiness by the size of the bank balance.

 

Rather, I've pursued work that I enjoy and gives me plenty of time with my family. But I have plenty of people who say that I'm just lucky (including family members - my sister is a super-conscientious, nice, honest, normal person and gives me a massively hard time as she thinks I've just drifted (luckily) into the life that I have now, whilst she's done it the hard, conventional route) and that luck is the only reason that I have achieved whatever it is that I have achieved. That's probably as annoying to me as your issue with the poster is to you!

 

I don't have any solutions (as I make it all up as I go along, obviously!), but I am a massive believer in change being possible, and it may come from the unlikeliest sources - it's not a case of not trying hard enough, maybe more a case of trying lots of different things and seeing which one works? 

 

You come across a really decent type, btw. And I have no idea what I'm trying to achieve by the above - in my head I'm trying to be nice and supportive...but in black and white it might come  across as me being a bit of a twat..! Such is the nature of internet forum conversations with strangers  

[Izzy]

4 minutes ago, Milo said:

Yeah, tricky one.

 

I'm not sure that motivational missives are supposed to make you feel down, and a little, well, demotivated.

 

Personally, I absolutely agree with the message above - but I can see why it might annoy some people! I see some really crass ones in a variety of workplaces every day - and I also see people that try to live their lives according to something that HR have stuck on the wall..maybe the solution is to find something that speaks to you? Dunno, really..

 

I've never been one to chase money, and I never measure happiness by the size of the bank balance.

 

Rather, I've pursued work that I enjoy and gives me plenty of time with my family. But I have plenty of people who say that I'm just lucky (including family members - my sister is a super-conscientious, nice, honest, normal person and gives me a massively hard time as she thinks I've just drifted (luckily) into the life that I have now, whilst she's done it the hard, conventional route) and that luck is the only reason that I have achieved whatever it is that I have achieved. That's probably as annoying to me as your issue with the poster is to you!

 

I don't have any solutions (as I make it all up as I go along, obviously!), but I am a massive believer in change being possible, and it may come from the unlikeliest sources - it's not a case of not trying hard enough, maybe more a case of trying lots of different things and seeing which one works? 

 

You come across a really decent type, btw. And I have no idea what I'm trying to achieve by the above - in my head I'm trying to be nice and supportive...but in black and white it might come  across as me being a bit of a twat..! Such is the nature of internet forum conversations with strangers  

Just by the size of your big fvck off Range Rover instead 

[Milo]

7 minutes ago, Izzy said:

Just by the size of your big fvck off Range Rover instead 

😬😬😬

 

 

🤫

[Izzy]

2 minutes ago, Milo said:

😬😬😬

 

 

🤫

 

Mate, you're a great example of someone who's made their own luck. You set up your own business, took risks, diversified and experimented, all while bringing up a family with all the responsibilities that involves.

 

You deserve all the rewards you get because you did something most of us wish we could but don't have the balls to.

 

Big respect to you buddy 

[Milo]

7 minutes ago, Izzy said:

 

Mate, you're a great example of someone who's made their own luck. You set up your own business, took risks, diversified and experimented, all while bringing up a family with all the responsibilities that involves.

 

You deserve all the rewards you get because you did something most of us wish we could but don't have the balls to.

 

Big respect to you buddy 

Haha - aw shucks. 
 

Just shown this to my wife who doesn’t believe a word you said and reckons I’m just a lucky chancer. 🙄

 

Ah well!!

 

[swanlee]

15 hours ago, Fox92 said:

haha no I didn't see them as I got tagged in one of our earlier posts and then I jumped right in..... not like me!

 

Oh yeah definitelty the Indian thing was big. And big for a couple of artists to, you think of Donovan and The Rolling Stones (Brian Jones seemed to play the sitar as much as George Harrison did). I think even in later years, and even now, you can hear Indian influence in some songs. 'Tomorrow Never Knows' was just an example I thought of quickly and Lennon discoered the idea by putting a tape in the wrong way or something equivilent, probably on acid at the same time. So yeah while engineers and all that are big on some songs there's always some sort of initial idea as with everything. I don't know the engineer/writing ratio. But you take 'Strawberry Fields Forever' as another example, even today it sounds like something I've never heard before but again that's with stuff going backwards and taping too.

 

There's nothing wrong with jazz btw, I was just saying the prior to the whole Beatles explosion in the early 60's that's what the radio over here offered. I love blues and rock 'n roll (Chuck Berry in particular is a favourite of mine) but it was banned over here. The only jazz I listen to though, as it's not particualry my thing, is Frank Sinatra but I wasn't knocking the genre.

 

Still think the Kinks are the most underrated band. Nobody ever seems to mention them in the same line as other 60's bands and for me they are one of best - personally I think they're better than the Who - and Ray Davies is one of the greatest songwriters of all time. Pete Townsend is great too, and a great guitartist, but I think Davies' lyrics are probably more "English" and somewhat personall than anybody else's.

Yes I'm with you on The Kinks. While The Who have this blokeish alpha male aura about them. The Kinks seem to have been relegated to a quirky 60's curio sideshow. Maybe it's something to do with the brotherly bickering, alcoholism & cross-dressing! Even some of their fanboys I've met seem to wear their fandom as a flamboyant, eccentric & poetic badge of honour.

 

But that's what keeps drawing you back. A humdrum working-class background and some of the most refreshingly english kitchen-sink lyricism you'll find. Even after all these years.

 

And it's a difficult one to call with regards the the effects of the producer. I think it is well acknowledged that George Martin was very influential and almost the fifth Beatle. But as for creative direction, bands throughout the decades have been known to bicker and fallout about who did what with regards innovation & input. Tough one to call but the producer can make a massive difference and I'm thinking Screamadelica here.

 

Sorry - I was being a little disingenuous. I get where you were coming from with regards the Jazz Big Bands. The early 60's, particularly so if you grew up in a provincial Midlands city, must have been pretty limiting musically. I mean skiffle has never really had its appeal.

 

The point has to be made though that without Jazz Big Bands they'd have been no Dizzy n' Bird, no Miles, Coltrane nor indeed Ornette. And without Ornette they'd have been no Cream. My first 60's band. Its well documented that Bruce & Baker used Clapton like the other members of the quartet used Ornette. They just never told Eric, the blues purist, that he was the free jazz focal point.

 

And therein lies the fundamental fault line within The Beatles I feel. Led Zep, Pink Floyd, Fleetwood Mac & the Stones. All had their origins within the British blues boom of the 60's. While The Beatles were playing Twist & Shout to thousands of screaming schoolgirls. The 'rough' Stones, as you call them, cut their teeth playing to the 'too cool for school' hipster beatnik crowd. A fact not lost on some members of the fab four, who imo were obsessed about becoming & staying relevant to the evolving modern audience.

 

Whatever your thoughts, I hope you carry on enjoying your music as much as I enjoy mine. Thxs.

[SpacedX]

Hello. Earlier in the week you said this...

 

On 13/11/2019 at 22:32, swanlee said:

The Beatles were a shite boy band weren't they? 

 

No. Actually they weren't. 

 

On 13/11/2019 at 22:32, swanlee said:

They then just reinvented themselves, ripped off & aping the sounds of the 60's that others innovated.

 

Firstly, that's actually not necessarily an "unpopular opinion"..in fact it's a quite prevalent misconception. 

 

Secondly, despite your previous contentions, (although I may well be mistaken), I'm confident that Stockhausen wasn't  necessarily the "sound of the 60s" that you were originally referring to. So what precisely were the Beatles "aping"? - and other than the fact that George Harrison was 19 when they recorded their debut album...what actually constitutes your definition of a "boy band"? 

 

Thirdly, do you understand the difference between a myriad of influences and unashamed direct plagiarism?

 

[ozleicester]

7 hours ago, Izzy said:

You know what, part of me thinks fair fvckin play to him.

 

What a phenomenal enterprise he's built up and he deserves all his success* 

 

(* yes it's an obscene amount of money and yes he should still give most of it away to good causes)

have you watched or read any of the stories about working at Amazon?

Fair play.... the man should be arrested.

[leicsmac]

4 hours ago, Izzy said:

 

Just waiting for @leicsmac to also chirp up on the subject of luck 

 

Meanwhile, I agree with this personally...

 

I've said it before and I'll say it again; were luck not a factor or not even the main factor and it was all about hard work and boldness, then half of the female population of Africa would be rich beyond their wildest dreams. Doing those things can certainly tip the odds, but to actually "make it", you need luck - either in the form of some kind of help from another out of the blue, or something else.

 

 

4 hours ago, FoxesDeb said:

I like the sentiment, but in my experience there are many people who try their best, but cannot afford to take many chances as they have too many responsibilities. It suggests that those who are unlucky are not trying hard enough, which I personally feel is unfair, and pretty upsetting.

Yes, as above.

 

3 hours ago, Izzy said:

I don't read it like that Deb.

 

I read it that those who have more luck take more chances and actively create opportunities for themselves (working smarter not harder maybe?)

 

I think the main reason most of us (me included) feel like we don't have much luck is that we limit our own potential from an early age. We 'play it safe' and stay in our comfort zone instead of taking risks and backing ourselves. Then we have kids, get a mortgage and responsibilities and take fewer risks and play it even safer.

 

It's just fear that stops us really. Fear of fvcking it up, fear of failure, fear of looking stupid. The 'lucky' ones seem to be blessed with a high degree of self belief and self confidence (maybe genetic?) and they put themselves out there without fear. They don't care what people think or say about them, they're robust, resilient, determined and resolute.

 

They play the game of life (more active/show up) with gusto, enthusiasm and passion rather than sitting in the stands watching like the rest of us...

I'm sure you can go and explain that philosophy to all of the aforementioned hard-working ladies in Africa and they'll be happy to hear that they're "playing it safe", Izzy.

 

I'm sorry, but as much as you might like to believe it is the case opportunities are neither equal, fair, nor generated just because you're willing to take a chance on them - history is full of examples of that being the case, far more than the "get rich" stories that people often idolise. I understand the sentiment because it makes one believe that they truly have control of their own destiny...but in my own opinion, it simply isn't true. Our free will is limited - not by any cosmic entity, but by the free will of those around us and sometimes by those we have never met and never will.

 

NB. Of course, this isn't an argument that you shouldn't try at all and that being motivated is not at all a factor, but rather a caution against the idea that no matter how hard or smart you work, it's all in your own hands - it really isn't.

Edited 16 November 2019 by leicsmac

[UpTheLeagueFox]

11 hours ago, Jon the Hat said:

Nah, a Million quid is sod all these days unless you have paid of your house already.

Can probably get 5% interest on £1m which should be enough for most people to live on.

I don't live in an extravagant house (worth about 200k, less than the UK national average) but mortgage is paid off.

It's all relative but I don't think a million quid is sod all, even for those who haven't paid off their house.

[Izzy]

6 hours ago, ozleicester said:

have you watched or read any of the stories about working at Amazon?

Fair play.... the man should be arrested.

Don’t work for Amazon then. It’s not a prison camp and no ones holding a gun to your head. 

[Milo]

6 hours ago, leicsmac said:

I've said it before and I'll say it again; were luck not a factor or not even the main factor and it was all about hard work and boldness, then half of the female population of Africa would be rich beyond their wildest dreams. Doing those things can certainly tip the odds, but to actually "make it", you need luck - either in the form of some kind of help from another out of the blue, or something else.

 

 

Yes, as above.

 

I'm sure you can go and explain that philosophy to all of the aforementioned hard-working ladies in Africa and they'll be happy to hear that they're "playing it safe", Izzy.

 

I'm sorry, but as much as you might like to believe it is the case opportunities are neither equal, fair, nor generated just because you're willing to take a chance on them - history is full of examples of that being the case, far more than the "get rich" stories that people often idolise. I understand the sentiment because it makes one believe that they truly have control of their own destiny...but in my own opinion, it simply isn't true. Our free will is limited - not by any cosmic entity, but by the free will of those around us and sometimes by those we have never met and never will.

 

NB. Of course, this isn't an argument that you shouldn't try at all and that being motivated is not at all a factor, but rather a caution against the idea that no matter how hard or smart you work, it's all in your own hands - it really isn't.

Really don’t get the hard working women of Africa thing, tbh, or what it brings to the conversation. 

 

If you equate anyone born in a wealthy, prosperous, democratic(ish), resilient, educated country to someone born into extreme poverty in a dictator led bankrupt environment, where daily survival is more important than what to watch on Netflix, then clearly the view is going to be skewed. 

 

Tick off Maslows bottom two needs, however, and then see how your logic plays out. 

 

Everyone born in this country is already lucky, by your standards outlined above, but not everyone works towards maximising it.

See an opportunity, recognise it as an opportunity, take a risk and work your socks off to make the most of it. What’s wrong with that? 

 

I’ve got massive respect for people who refuse to be beaten by their individual circumstances - and work towards creating a better future. But that’s the key word - work. 

[The Bear]

I'm 41 with no mortgage, so £500k would be enough for me to live on without working for however long I have left. 

Edited 16 November 2019 by The Bear

[leicsmac]

1 hour ago, Milo said:

Really don’t get the hard working women of Africa thing, tbh, or what it brings to the conversation. 

 

If you equate anyone born in a wealthy, prosperous, democratic(ish), resilient, educated country to someone born into extreme poverty in a dictator led bankrupt environment, where daily survival is more important than what to watch on Netflix, then clearly the view is going to be skewed. 

 

Tick off Maslows bottom two needs, however, and then see how your logic plays out. 

 

Everyone born in this country is already lucky, by your standards outlined above, but not everyone works towards maximising it.

See an opportunity, recognise it as an opportunity, take a risk and work your socks off to make the most of it. What’s wrong with that? 

 

I’ve got massive respect for people who refuse to be beaten by their individual circumstances - and work towards creating a better future. But that’s the key word - work. 

That's right, the viewpoint is going to be skewed...and yet, a lot of the people who come out with the ideals about absolute personal responsibility categorically fail to qualify their remarks in that way and therefore by extension and inference include people like those in far flung places who have nothing in the argument. They are human and a part of a society, after all.

 

And the fact that there are people out there who still do not have those two bottom-tier Maslows needs ticked off despite in all likelihood working their arses off if anything proves the point about luck and the actions of other people being a big factor in it all.

 

Of course someone born in a Western country (there's that luck again) is going to have more opportunities and I certainly begrudge no-one the ideal of working hard and maximising their potential and "making it". As you say, there's nothing wrong with that. What I take issue with is slogans like the one above that imply that hard work and luck are somehow heavily (rather than just in passing) interconnected and by implication hard work will make you more lucky and prosperous, no matter your original circumstances. That's far too close to "Prosperity Gospel" (the rich are rich because they always deserve to be, and likewise the poor deserve to be poor, because God wouldn't make it any other way) belief for me.

 

Yes, it's only an "inspiring" slogan, but it's a misleading one.

[Milo]

29 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

That's right, the viewpoint is going to be skewed...and yet, a lot of the people who come out with the ideals about absolute personal responsibility categorically fail to qualify their remarks in that way and therefore by extension and inference include people like those in far flung places who have nothing in the argument. They are human and a part of a society, after all.

 

And the fact that there are people out there who still do not have those two bottom-tier Maslows needs ticked off despite in all likelihood working their arses off if anything proves the point about luck and the actions of other people being a big factor in it all.

 

Of course someone born in a Western country (there's that luck again) is going to have more opportunities and I certainly begrudge no-one the ideal of working hard and maximising their potential and "making it". As you say, there's nothing wrong with that. What I take issue with is slogans like the one above that imply that hard work and luck are somehow heavily (rather than just in passing) interconnected and by implication hard work will make you more lucky and prosperous, no matter your original circumstances. That's far too close to "Prosperity Gospel" (the rich are rich because they always deserve to be, and likewise the poor deserve to be poor, because God wouldn't make it any other way) belief for me.

 

Yes, it's only an "inspiring" slogan, but it's a misleading one.

Meh - maybe these slogans weren’t designed to be analysed too much!

 

if it helps some people to self improvement, then great. 
 

I’m currently at work delivering a training course, and just had a sneaky peek at the course going on next door...NLP Masters course (waaaaay more interesting than the course I’m delivering)!

 

And looksie...

 

Now there’s an inspiring message 👍

[Nalis]

2 minutes ago, Milo said:

Meh - maybe these slogans weren’t designed to be analysed too much!

 

if it helps some people to self improvement, then great. 
 

I’m currently at work delivering a training course, and just had a sneaky peek at the course going on next door...NLP Masters course (waaaaay more interesting than the course I’m delivering)!

 

And looksie...

 

Now there’s an inspiring message 👍

'If you aint part of the solution you're part of the problem'

[leicsmac]

5 minutes ago, Milo said:

Meh - maybe these slogans weren’t designed to be analysed too much!

 

if it helps some people to self improvement, then great. 
 

I’m currently at work delivering a training course, and just had a sneaky peek at the course going on next door...NLP Masters course (waaaaay more interesting than the course I’m delivering)!

 

And looksie...

 

Now there’s an inspiring message 👍

Words, particularly words that people believe, are important, and therefore clarity of communication is important IMO.

 

But yep - that right there is a message I can get behind, more mutual support around the world can only be a good thing.

[ajthefox]

2 hours ago, The Bear said:

I'm 41 with no mortgage, so £500k would be enough for me to live on without working for however long I have left. 

I can't be the only one who had you down as about 25 

[swanlee]

4 hours ago, Izzy said:

Don’t work for Amazon then. It’s not a prison camp and no ones holding a gun to your head. 

I do think some people dont have that choice. Whether it's the level of education, training or skills people have. The real definition of poverty is a lack of opportunity. And for some their only option is to take the job, whatever and wherever that job maybe.

 

I think the real issue here is what we the consumer do. If we truly believe that a cerrain organisation is a particularly bad employer. We each have the choice to boycott that companies products & services.

 

Hard to do because to foster a friendly image, the big corporates will spend a lot money on PR and advertising.

 

It's also difficult to do with Amazon, because they do offer such a great service that is competitive and immensely convenient to use.

Edited 16 November 2019 by swanlee

[Otis]

11 hours ago, The Bear said:

I'm 41 with no mortgage, so £500k would be enough for me to live on without working for however long I have left. 

So you can live in £10K a year for the next 50 years?

 

Or am i missing something?

[Milo]

2 hours ago, Otis said:

So you can live in £10K a year for the next 50 years?

 

Or am i missing something?

Well, you're missing interest/investment payments on £500k, and you've extended the average life expectancy by a decade...but yeah,,you're correct - I don't think its a liveable amount

[swanlee]

22 hours ago, Line-X said:

Thirdly, do you understand the difference between a myriad of influences and unashamed direct plagiarism?

 

Yes - I think I do. Why?