Unpopular Opinions You Hold

[Jimothy]

28 minutes ago, Finnegan said:

 

I've never really understood this outlook. Don't get me wrong I'm not really in to marvel either but some of my favourite films are "for kids". Don't think I'll ever get bored of Spirited Away or My Neighbour Totoro. 

I love the Toy Story franchise (not so much 4), watched Up recently for the first time recently with my nephew and enjoyed that. Soul is a great film too. I get these are very different to the ones you've enjoyed, but its the same principle. Kids films are for everyone to enjoy.

[Finnegan]

31 minutes ago, Webbo said:

This is the unpopular opinions thread, not the please give me unsolicited advice thread. 

 

 

[Countryfox]

14 hours ago, What the Fuchs? said:

Can’t be that hard work if you can do it at 95 👀

 

Maybe she should retire and we can have interviews to see who’s best for the job of head of state? Who are you gonna vote for, Charles, Charles or Charles? 🤔

The reply to your part of my post was about ginger nuts not the Queen ...  you obviously despise the monarchy (and I'm not that big a fan but I can see how it helps promote the country)  ..  but mentioned having a bit of respect for the ginger lad, which I don't understand, cus all the dosh he is now generating is off the back of being a royal ...  the little tw@t wants all the positives without having to lift a finger.  After Randy Andy he's about the worst imo..

[ozleicester]

Most people who are "doing this for charity" are really doing for it themselves

Edited 8 September 2021 by ozleicester

[Aus Fox]

21 hours ago, What the Fuchs? said:

Is she a legend though? Not only does she abuse tax payers money, but she also keeps a lot of her wealth in tax havens, because woe betide a billionaire receiving taxpayers’ money having to pay tax on it. She says she pays tax, but funnily enough not only is it ‘voluntary’ but her and the royal family’s affairs are completely closed to public scrutiny despite people describing them as ‘public servants’. In fact even their archives are completely closed to the public.
 

Not only is the monarchy a corrupt institution but it is also morally unjustifiable, anti democratic, anti equality and anachronistic. Everything the queen (and the royal family) does is PR - essentially getting good press coverage so people don’t realise how pointless and wasteful they are. In the late 60s the queen was told by advisers that she needed to boost her popularity otherwise the monarchy might be abolished in the future, so she agreed to have a film crew document life in Buckingham Palace for some good propaganda, I mean PR. But she thought the result made the royal family appear too normal, and she thought that if people thought they were normal they wouldn’t support the continuance of the monarchy. So she banned it from ever being shown. Perception and self preservation is all they care about.

 

Furthermore not only has she regularly intervened in political affairs - without checks and balances - historically (despite what people say about her not having any political influence), such as when she dismissed a democratically elected government in Australia in 1975, and the multiple times she has influenced legislation in this country that she believed affected her interest, it was revealed recently that for years she refused to hire ethnic minorities. She is also the prime defender of legal inequality as she and her family are literally above the law (like Prince Andrew); the key component in the outdated class and aristocratic system that makes us a laughing stock elsewhere; and she and her family are also hypocrites, such as when William made a speech about how we should protect animals and then the next day went hunting.

 

So yeah the monarchy is a corrupt institution, wrong in practice and wrong in principle - just a bunch of privileged billionaire layabouts who thrive on inequality and oligarchy over democracy. And the queen is at the centre of it. If only Oliver Cromwell wasn’t a total killjoy things could have been a different, or if the British population wasn’t so historically placid, unlike the French.

 

This is supposed to be a lighthearted thread isn’t it? 🤨😂

Sorry to break it to you mid rant, but this just didn’t happen. 
Gough Whitlam was dismissed by the Governor General John Kerr without the queens prior knowledge.

Kerr had formed an alliance with conservative Malcom Fraser who worked together to have Whitlam removed from office and leave the door ajar for Fraser to take over.
And if you believe conspiracy theorist The American Government and the CIA had more to do with his removal from office than the Queen after Whitlam threatened to close Pine Gap and have the American spy’s kicked out of Australia.
I won’t go into the other factual inaccuracies in your post as you’ve firmly got your mind made up.  

[What the Fuchs?]

10 hours ago, Aus Fox said:

Sorry to break it to you mid rant, but this just didn’t happen. 
Gough Whitlam was dismissed by the Governor General John Kerr without the queens prior knowledge.

Kerr had formed an alliance with conservative Malcom Fraser who worked together to have Whitlam removed from office and leave the door ajar for Fraser to take over.
And if you believe conspiracy theorist The American Government and the CIA had more to do with his removal from office than the Queen after Whitlam threatened to close Pine Gap and have the American spy’s kicked out of Australia.
I won’t go into the other factual inaccuracies in your post as you’ve firmly got your mind made up.  

In fact it’s very likely the queen did approve the removal of the legitimately elected Whitlam. Buckingham Palace claims the queen was not aware, but the release of letters that the queen spent so long trying to stop (I wonder why 🤔) suggest otherwise. The letters show the Governor General “discussed the legal validity of dismissing Whitlam for months with the Queen’s private secretary”, right up to the event itself. Correspondence between the queen’s household and Kerr was so huge that there are 116 letters in a time period where there would usually be 12. Kerr was in direct contact with the monarch, who was not a neutral, ignorant bystander as they have claimed to be. This is only a small example of the insidious influence and power the unelected, intrinsically corrupt monarchy is capable of exercising, with literally no checks and balances or accountability - or indeed awareness from most of the public who are subjected to media coverage of the royal family as just celebrities with a twist of jingoism.
 

And why does Australia need a ‘Governor General’ anyway, the British Empire and 19th century colonialism are long gone. It’s embarrassing that a representative of a foreign monarch should even have the power to remove a legitimately elected Australian government. It’s time we did away with the undemocratic, morally indefensible and inequality celebrating social structures that anachronisms like the monarchy are at the centre of.

 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.theweek.co.uk/107519/gough-whitlam-did-the-queen-dismiss-australias-prime-minister%3famp

Edited 8 September 2021 by What the Fuchs?
Wrote this on my phone, no idea why the font is different on my screen 😷

[What the Fuchs?]

15 hours ago, Big Dave said:

I just don’t get all of the DC / Marvel love in. Really dull.

Superhero films and franchises, one of my pet hates. Literally the easiest way for film studios to churn out money: ‘Bad guy looks like he’s gonna defeat the good guy for most of the film, but right at the end the good guy wins because of some convenient superpower’. I’m pretty sure it was in one of the avengers things that they literally at the end said “oh it’s alright guys, we can just go back in time and change everything that you’ve just wasted your lives watching for the past god knows how many hours”. Great, so now why can’t they do that at the end of every superhero movie 😂

[tom27111]

11 hours ago, ozleicester said:

Most people who are "doing this for charity" are really doing for it themselves

 

A friend of a friend goes to feed the local homeless community in Northampton. 

 

Brilliant, what a great thing to do.

 

The only problem is, twice a week, facebook is full of it.

 

It's not "please donate/volunteer"

 

It's "LOOK AT ME, AREN'T I WONDERFUL, TAKING SELFIES IN MY DESIGNER CLOTHES, GIVING THESE POOR PEOPLE SOMETHING"

 

The gesture is great, don't get me wrong, but it's all for self promotion.

[ozleicester]

1 hour ago, tom27111 said:

 

A friend of a friend goes to feed the local homeless community in Northampton. 

 

Brilliant, what a great thing to do.

 

The only problem is, twice a week, facebook is full of it.

 

It's not "please donate/volunteer"

 

It's "LOOK AT ME, AREN'T I WONDERFUL, TAKING SELFIES IN MY DESIGNER CLOTHES, GIVING THESE POOR PEOPLE SOMETHING"

 

The gesture is great, don't get me wrong, but it's all for self promotion.

interesting, that is slightly different to what i was thinking (the old question of "is anything truly altruistic" raises its head)...my thoughts were more about the people who climb mountain everest for cancer, go on a  month bike ride for alzheimers, canoeing up the nile for incontinence...etc etc

[tom27111]

Just now, ozleicester said:

interesting, that is slightly different to what i was thinking (the old question of "is anything truly altruistic" raises its head)...my thoughts were more about the people who climb mountain everest for cancer, go on a  month bike ride for alzheimers, canoeing up the nile for incontinence...etc etc

 

I get what you mean. 

 

People want to run the London marathon and get a sponsor entry. 

 

Subsidised parachute jumps if it's for charity.

 

But yeah, she's a strange one. Do it and be humble. It's a lovely thing to do, but it ain't about you.

 

We're pretty sure that the homeless people, going through a shite time, don't want their pictures taken, but she insists. 

 

She posts it everywhere "LOOK AT ME, AREN'T I GREAT".

 

Not for the right reason. Literally for social media likes. 

 

I think you're more of a hero if you donate blood or are willing to donate organs upon your death.

 

Maybe that's just me.

[Dunge]

9 hours ago, What the Fuchs? said:

In fact it’s very likely the queen did approve the removal of the legitimately elected Whitlam. Buckingham Palace claims the queen was not aware, but the release of letters that the queen spent so long trying to stop (I wonder why 🤔) suggest otherwise. The letters show the Governor General “discussed the legal validity of dismissing Whitlam for months with the Queen’s private secretary”, right up to the event itself. Correspondence between the queen’s household and Kerr was so huge that there are 116 letters in a time period where there would usually be 12. Kerr was in direct contact with the monarch, who was not a neutral, ignorant bystander as they have claimed to be. This is only a small example of the insidious influence and power the unelected, intrinsically corrupt monarchy is capable of exercising, with literally no checks and balances or accountability - or indeed awareness from most of the public who are subjected to media coverage of the royal family as just celebrities with a twist of jingoism.
 

And why does Australia need a ‘Governor General’ anyway, the British Empire and 19th century colonialism are long gone. It’s embarrassing that a representative of a foreign monarch should even have the power to remove a legitimately elected Australian government. It’s time we did away with the undemocratic, morally indefensible and inequality celebrating social structures that anachronisms like the monarchy are at the centre of.

 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.theweek.co.uk/107519/gough-whitlam-did-the-queen-dismiss-australias-prime-minister%3famp

I don’t think the contents of that link prove your case the way you want it to, more just casting suspicious and throwing questions into the air, which anyone can do. Although I do now know from reading it that there’s an Australian news site called “Crikey”, which has made my day.

I think there’s a difference between the monarchy itself and “the Palace”, ie those who run the affairs of the institution. I think that’s where there can be a lot of hangers-on, getting involved politically and with little direct accountability to public figures. I do have some sympathy with your position there. In general though, I’m a fan of the monarchy. Although, of course, not necessarily every member of it.

 

I always think the best argument for us keeping a monarch is that those who want to be monarch don’t get to be. I think of it as a made-up phrase of “Ceremonial power”, in that if we’re going to celebrate something as a country, it’ll be the monarch’s birthday, the monarch’s coronation or jubilee, or the marriage or birth of an heir to the throne. What it won’t be is the same thing for the Prime Minister, and anyone who seeks to become PM knows this. Moreover, anyone who wants power for ceremonial reasons is precisely the kind of person we wouldn’t want to have it. PMs are temporary head administrators of a lasting country, who speaks to a lasting monarch of a lasting family weekly to remind them of this. I think that’s a very useful and appropriately humbling thing to have.

There is another good argument for keeping a monarch these days as well: People want one. Not everything in life has to be logically justified if it’s not doing any harm.

 

There is a fair argument to make that the monarch should have limited political rights themselves, and I would have an issue with a royal family member standing for parliament, for instance. It’s impossible to quell political influence completely of course, even in just an advisory capacity. As for their representation of inequality - it maybe a difference between us here, but inequality to a degree doesn’t actually bother me that much. I think that’s probably a wider argument though. Specific to this, I’ve never felt I couldn’t fulfil my dreams and ambitions because of the presence of a monarch, or what that stands for. The thing getting in my way far more is an inherent laziness that leads me to debating with people over nonsense on football-related social media platforms. 

[drumbeat]

Another of my unpopular opinions seems to be that unpopular opinions shouldn't be debated.

 

They stand as they are, warts and all, in their beauty, to be appreciated for what they are. Just rejoice! 

[ealingfox]

Not sure how unpopular this is but 'Thunderbastard' has to go down with cockwomble and all those other incredibly annoying twee swearing words. They make my toes curl.

[David Guiza]

21 hours ago, ozleicester said:

Most people who are "doing this for charity" are really doing for it themselves

I agree, but I don't really see the problem with it. Perhaps because I've done similar things myself . I got into long distance running following the death of a friend and using that as inspiration to raise money for a charity that fights the disease that she died from, since then I've raised a decent amount of money for charity whilst doing things that I actually enjoyed anyway. 

 

So long as they're raising money for worthy causes and not exploiting anyone then I couldn't care less if they're spamming my social media or getting a big ego boost from it. Most, if not all, acts of kindness are seldom selfless; in fact I believe the great philosopher Phoebe Buffay explored this notion.

 

 

[leicsmac]

2 minutes ago, David Guiza said:

I agree, but I don't really see the problem with it. Perhaps because I've done similar things myself . I got into long distance running following the death of a friend and using that as inspiration to raise money for a charity that fights the disease that she died from, since then I've raised a decent amount of money for charity whilst doing things that I actually enjoyed anyway. 

 

So long as they're raising money for worthy causes and not exploiting anyone then I couldn't care less if they're spamming my social media or getting a big ego boost from it. Most, if not all, acts of kindness are seldom selfless; in fact I believe the great philosopher Phoebe Buffay explored this notion.

 

 

Yep, this.

 

It's the results that count.

[Wymsey]

Kim Kardashian should just stop televising her family life.

Edited 9 September 2021 by Wymsey

[Unabomber]

5 minutes ago, Wymsey said:

Kim Kardashian should just stop televising her family life.

Once again that’s a popular opinion 

[abc]

4 hours ago, drumbeat said:

Another of my unpopular opinions seems to be that unpopular opinions shouldn't be debated.

 

They stand as they are, warts and all, in their beauty, to be appreciated for what they are. Just rejoice! 

I don't agree, why do you think that? Sources? 

[Wymsey]

1 hour ago, Unabomber said:

Once again that’s a popular opinion 

You're probably right there, but just came across an article where the viewing figures for Keeping Up With The Kardashians are regularly very high; don't know why viewers want to see what a celebrity family has been doing together for the cameras.

But each to their own, I guess.

[bovril]

Wymsey really struggling with this thread.

[Unabomber]

5 minutes ago, bovril said:

Wymsey really struggling with this thread.

That’s a popular opinion 

[Buce]

30 minutes ago, Wymsey said:

You're probably right there, but just came across an article where the viewing figures for Keeping Up With The Kardashians are regularly very high; don't know why viewers want to see what a celebrity family has been doing together for the cameras.

But each to their own, I guess.

 

How is that any different to watching Eastenders or Coronation St., other that it's just pretend lives you're getting emotionally invested in?

[Tommy G]

Smoking is enjoyable despite its terrible health benefits, the smell, cost etc

 

(ex smoker)

[Daggers]

On 08/09/2021 at 12:32, ozleicester said:

Most people who are "doing this for charity" are really doing for it themselves

Please give me money to pay for me to go on holiday or subsidise a hobby I’ve always fancied a go at but not done because of the cost.

[Daggers]

I am perfectly happy to become Kitler and deliver a final solution for cats everywhere. This includes big ones in zoos.

 

If society had a bit more imagination it would have domesticated pandas and I’d be laughing with joy when tiny pandas come into my garden and crap in my flower beds.

 

”Can everyone check their sheds and garages, please. I let our little Gary Panda out a week ago to go mess up someone else’s property and he’s not returned.”

 

Even otters or that foreign pet from Gremlins.

 

So much better than sodding cats.