Unpop Opinions

unpopular opinions

For rankings, know your audience and include them in the title. Specifically, I think mainstream and more obscure works shock have their own lists. Because what makes something a mainstream hit is often antithetical to bag people who want Mir complex material want, but is still an art untomitself to hit that target.
Really, you should make your criteria clear, especially by saying what you arent looking for (and give a few mentions to show what would make your list if you had that criteria)

Specificity and Accuracy are important to me. Dishonesty is bad!

Best way to evaluate someone is HOW they argue, rather rather what. I wluld even extend this tk entire positions on issues if you have enough of a sample

Your argument will get no where if you cede moral high ground to the opposition.

Liberal democracy is either a euphemism or platitude in most cases. I have heard I used to defend dictators (whom liberals like anyway but that is my point), speech bans, authoritarian survdillance, and disarmed police.

People who obsess over how much of a woke individual they are, are worthless allies when it matters. Too self-centered. If they are a good ally, they probably aren't what they say they are to be honest. I know that sounds like a tautology but trust  me.

Ataturk, when you ignore his secularism, was a very far right illiberal guy. Hated foreign influences in the Turkish language, mistreated Kurds for not assimilating, even practiced that weird form of right wing socialism (ie non-marxist, for the in-group). He'd probably have more in common with Orban, Le pen, akkensson, etc than your heroes

Reddit, generally, just parrots what the media machine says. Because it is a news aggregator. The Puerto Rico crisis showed that tbh. One mayor with a desire for fame.

Most moralistic claims are just to give someone the appearance of being the underdog. See: every secessionist movement in Europe

The easiest way to seem smarter than someone or a group is to purposely not understand them and make it their problem. Ex: "Halloween is satanic" being met with "lol the Christmas tree is pagan" Not really what they are reacting to, as fatuous as it is. The supernatural aspects of Christmas trees are not well known, its current function has no clear connection to that past anyway, and especially compared to Halloween which is obviously referencing dark supernatural pre-Christian beliefs with its decorative themes. To put it simply, Halloween is "optically sinister". So the better way to resolve it is to explain this as just a way for kids to be wicked vicariously, co-opting the sinister elements
This impedes understanding and resolution. Just polarizes everything.

Academia is absolutely ruled by intellectual fads which are politically biased. Very little information on things inconvenient to consider, like hate crime hoaxes. Which happen enough to study.

Traditions are designed to navigate the complex web of social and economic factors which affect all our lives. They aren't arbitrary even if their benefit is unclear to us. In fact, the fact they exist to justify things people have a hard time rationally arguing for

This doesn't mean traditions can't be outdated. But that I think the new has to prove itself rather than the old.

Between nation comparisons are often silly, too many confounding variables. Example: England bans guns and has a lower crime rate... but it always had that even before the Handgun ban. Or Australia's decline in murder following the gun ban... which was almost universal in the developed world during that period.

Findings contrary to expectation should have an explanation when discussing application. IE the fact that weed usage fell in Portugal after legalization was often cited by proponents of weed, but it rose in Colorado after legalization by kind of a lot.