(Part 3) Top products from r/unpopularopinion

Your delusional pipeline comment:

First, you need to understand the nature of Indigenous countries. Prior to and during invasion, Europeans were not coming to some "undiscovered land" bullshit, but they were landing in foreign countries. The French sailed and planted down in Dawnland/Wabanaki but more specifically in one district of Mi'kma'ki. The expansion westward in the Manifesting a Genocidal Destiny was the invasion, settlement and colonisation of many hundreds of prairie countries like nêhiyaw-askiy (Plains Cree Country), Očhethi Šakówiŋ (Dakota/Lakota Country), Niitsítpiis-stahkoii (Blackfeet Country), Anishinaabewaki (Ojibwe/Chippewa Country), Nʉmʉnʉʉ Sookibotʉ (Comanche Country), Dinétah (Navajo Country), Apsáalooke Issawua (Crow Country) and many, many, many more. These are lands that have and had boundaries, that were and are named and are known to be the countries of these various nations

Ignoring the US for a second because every single treaty the US has every signed with an Indigenous nation has been broken. In Canada, treaties are kinda well-regarded (comparatively anyhow), for the treaties (like the US, but the US ignores this) form the literal foundation for the State of Canada. Weird, I know, but it is true. It is like how the Treaties of Versailles and other European ones are the literal foundation for the States of Europe we know today

British Columbia is a good example where majority of the province covers untreatied or unceded lands. This means that where treaties elsewhere in Canada allowed foreign citizens protected and negotiated through the Crown to settle in these foreign (Indigenous) countries. However, as protected through Delgamuukw which asserted §35 of the Constitution and §25 of the Charter which both in turn entrenched the rights of the Royal Proclamation of 1763 ... these decisions (and more are coming like one in Ontario and one with Secwépemc) all state that Indigenous countries do indeed maintain aboriginal title and rights to their countries as countries (though not quite stated as such)

Right now, there are about ~60 countries within and across the borders of BC, only about 15 or so are protected by historical or modern treaties. Otherwise, the rest of the countries and their citizens remain as subjects protected by and from the Crown.

The pushing through of a pipeline across Secwepemcúl̓ecw, through Wet'suwet'en Yin'tah or even through the treatied lands of Očhethi Šakówiŋ (Great Sioux Nation; Laramie Treaty) amounts to invasion of internal foreign countries and is a continuation of the same types of colonisation that began on this continent about 500 years back. Parts of their countries are being cordoned off by developers and development, taken away from the rights of that or those governments who traditionally and legally oversee those lands and you have the gall to say that that is not stealing their land

Please, please, please, please read these two books. One is easy and impactful, and the other is dense but also impactful. They should shine a bit of a light onto what is going on.

The first, Unsettling Canada, helps place everything into the correct spotlight and gives a great overview of the situation. There are millions of other American books like "American Apartheid" and "An American Genocide" that do similar work for the States, but Unsettling Canada is a fun, easy read for the most part.

The second, Secwépemc People, Land and Laws, is an excellent tome on the history of just one country: Secwepemcúl̓ecw. It goes through their 12,000 year history of solid occupation of their lands, showing cross-disciplinarily how they have lived and worked their country for those thousands of years. It should give an idea of how laws, at least from the Cascadian Plateau part of this continent, are formed and how the countries consider themselves. There is a heartbreaking passage about a BC highway extension that destroyed an immensely culturally important landmark in the form of some rock formations that should help shed some light on what modern-day land seizures look like and what toll it takes on the cultures whose lands are being stolen

As someone who believes in science as much as you do... your ideas are really unscientific.


What you basically are saying is "I don't walk because I value eating healthy more than the physical ability to walk". You are just confirming the stupid belief of r/ENLIGHTENEDCENTRISM has that centrists are just too dumb to look into any political issues.


You haven't stated a single political issue in any of your comments. Its like saying "I'm a centrist when it comes to the debate of neanderthals being a cousin subspecies of modern man because I value the discussion of the Higgs boson."
Just identify as a-political if you have no care for politics. Centrism implies something a lot deeper than what you are saying.


Politically Center ≠ Centrist ≠ A-Political


Centrists in today's meaning implies, by definition, center right beliefs.
Its a right-wing version of a liberal.
A liberal is someone who defaults to the center left except for key issues.
A centrist is someone who defaults to the center right except for key issues.


Based on what you've said so far I, ironically, do think you are a centrist. You just never learned the definition of the term. You are a centrist because you are center right and will side with people on the right-wing on almost all issues save a few key points.


What irks me is 2 things:
1- Your use of science to defend your political position.
2- The fact that you think you admire science yet approach social issues so unscientifically


There is a rich field of Social Sciences that you can draw from but instead you look at all of it and just say "oh, who cares. Planet is dying lul".


I used to be like you. I used to say things like "social sciences aren't real sciences" without ever taking a course or reading any of the works.


This weird dichotomy between social issues and science you have is the exact one that I had... then I grew up. I went to University and left that high-school way of thinking. I don't know how old you are but as someone who is, seemingly, just getting into politics let me tell you an important piece of advice:
Your political position or opinions don't matter nearly as much as the reason you have them.


You being in favor of locking up people addicted to crack doesn't matter as much as you wanting to do it because crack users tend to be black.


You are a centrist but your reasons are juvenile and unexplored. Most centrists and a lot of liberals (less than in the past) suffer from this and this is why the idea that they are stupid has become so popular. You could have all the same view points but if you gave me a half-way decent but of reasoning I would be a lot more respectful.


I will recommend this book to you. Its about policies but its a good 101 intro into practical political science. As someone who likes science it will be a good jumping into politics so you can bridge the two and gain a new ability to judge the people you maybe voting on.

In Economics, right wing is capitalism, left wing is a centrally planned government, and than there is mixed economy approaches which encompasses a large majority of economic systems. You said that the National Socialist Party was "inhereny right wing" economically. To anyone who studies economics and has taken beyond an introductory class, that means a capitalist system. Not a mixed economy. I have said this multiple times.

https://www.jstor.org/stable/2597802?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents

This is Peter Temin's original paper on the topic which led to all the pushback your papers were referring to. While I don't stand by 100% of what he says in here, he is one of the top economists in the world for a reason. This is the basis of where the socialist vs communist discussion in the academic community is founded upon.

https://www.jstor.org/stable/1830929?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents

This is a good paper analyzing the leviathan state and destruction of the free market and eventual civil liberties through Nazi Germany. This paper I have not combed through myself but a colleague of mine presented it's research at a conference I was at last year and this was the link on his LinkedIn profile so I presume it is the right one. I believe it also addresses the proposed inability to seperate social atrocities (in this case the Holocaust) and macroeconomics which while you didn't bring up, some people do. If this is the wrong paper, let me know and I will send him an email and ask for a link to the correct one.

The Wages of Destruction: The Making and Breaking of the Nazi Economy https://www.amazon.com/dp/0143113208/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_apa_i_QHH6CbMGJCNCQ

While Temin's paper focuses mostly on pre-war, this is the best research done into the wartime economy of Nazi Germany. It discusses in extreme depth the command economy of the party and how the seeds of the wartime command economy were planted in the centrally planned economy pre-war and how that transition came to be. It is extremely fascinating but is a slow read.

https://www.jstor.org/stable/24563068?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents

This paper goes through a lot of the misconceptions that you have presented and while isn't the best written, fits your particular view point quite well. It makes a few overreaches into modern day political times but if you take it for its historical analysis it is a decent article.

Listen dude or dudette. This is something I have studied a lot. Once I get my undergraduate, I likely will shift my focus towards microeconomics (if I don't end up in Law School) but this is something I have spent a sizeable portion of my life studying. I've given an academic presentation at a conference on this topic. I've heard every arguement possible. You can accept the fields opinions or not. It isn't as cut and dry as something like vaccines, but it's an issue with little wiggle room.

While the Nazi party may have claimed to be against socialist policies, they certianly enacted them. Even in the best light possible you can only really argue it is an extremely left leaning mixed economy. Vox tried to make this arguement quite well earlier this year for what it's worth.

If research by some of the best economists in the world, that has been defended for decades at this point, doesn't convince you, than I can't conceive of what possibly could. As far as I'm concerned this conversation is over. You can remain unconvinced but these are the conclusions people much more versed than you or I have reached.

Edit: Grammar

> Anybody can sing but not everybody can sing well, that is a skill that takes practice.

Anybody can sing and anybody can sing well but not everyone is born with a good voice plus it takes luck to land yourself to music industry. Good voice is not equal to success. Some of the best voices I have heard on x Factor went completely unsuccessful. Luck, luck and luck + Skills! However, YouTuber need LUCK not skills. Completely irrelevant to what I was saying originally. You are just pushing me to the edge and trying to win. I will advice you to stick to your OP aka "Is Youtuber hard work?". If not, I will not bother replying.

> do not believe you can do what PewDiePie does

I can scream louder than PewDiePie.

> MOST people who work on YouTube make below minimum wage

Really? Source please? Anyway, irrelevant to HARD WORK. IRRELEVANT TO WHAT I SAID! SERIOUSLY! DO YOU EVEN KNOW HOW TO DISCUSS!? angry.gif



> editing, acting, writing/scripting, directing, producing

• YouTube editing is easy. If you think it's hard then it's your problem..
  
  
• YouTube acting is not acting. I hope you are not serious.
  
  
• Nobody writes scripts on YouTube. Even Smosh don't. VSauce reads everything off wikipedia. AsapScience reads everything off books they are about to advertise. I'm not saying it's not okay but it's definitely not hard work when compare to a real job.
  
  
• You know what directing mean?
  
  
• Producing what?
  
  
  You wrote such a loooooong post for what? To defend them with no.. umm.. no logic? I'm speechless. I really am.
  Btw, I am not anti-YouTuber. I sound like one becaues you are Pro YouTuber who think they work hard.
  
  
  I am a programmer but I don't whine how my job is hard. However, now I'm going to whine to you. I work on game engine graphic programming side and it is really really really tough. I need to study a lot and get a lot of new skills or I am fired.
  
  What is my everyday life is like?
  
  
• Wake up at 6:00am, Take shower, eat, morning exercise blah blah blah..
  
  
• Go to work at 9:00am.
  
  
• Solve new programming related problems. Lots and lots of math, geometry and physics(for lighting).
  
  
• 1:30pm eat lunch with co-workers who are my only friends because of my full-time job and talk about science(We love talking about alien and simulation world).
  
  
• Good! No overtime today! 7:00pm get home with headache. Study new technology. OH, new version of vulkan is released? Time to STUDY and impress my BOSS! If I don't, I will never be a senior game engine programmer.
  
  
• Eat dinner say goodnight to MYSELF and sleep. :/
  
  You see? An average YouTuber have nothing to do and spends most of his time whining how media is insulting them and how they work hard for nothing and haters gonna hate bullshit blah blah blah.. huh.
  
  
  
  PS: I only earn around $4000 a month! Companies prefer using their money to advertise their games using YouTubers. Who does nothing other than scream at top of their lungs and here are people like you who call it a hard work.. Try reading this book from amazon using "look inside". You will learn that there is so much to learn before you can even get into a game engine programming job! It is just one of 25 books.
  
  PPS: This is what whining is like.
  
  
  Edit:
  
  > I downvote ignorance, sorry.
  
  Funny how the ignorant one is you.

Yeah, okay spock.

I'm not trying to be condescending here, but everyone I've ever met considers themselves "rational". In reality people are dragged along by their subconscious desires 24/7. That we attempt to rationalize those desires doesn't change the fact that the driving force of pretty much all human activity is emotional impulse and not conscious thought and analysis. Here's a book on it

Often when I point this out to people I get a lot of incredulous replies. Again, we like to think of ourselves as the smart guy in the room, the one who knows why he does what he does and who has it figured out. But maybe we should stop fighting this impulse (which, historically, usually leads to atrocity and dehumanization). You should recognize that part of yourself and other people and try to understand it. If you do that you'll be living an actually honest existence and a more compassionate one.

But judging people for having babies? There is no point in that, that's just the lizard brain kicking around again

Multiple reasons.

1.) Straight men are 49% of the population. Gay men are less than 1%. So, there's quite a big difference in how concentrated those populations are.

2.) Child drag queens which are even more disturbing than child pageants, came with the lgbt movement, which once again, is less than 1% of the population, so it's much easier to attribute to.

3.) Being straight is not an evolutionary dead end. It's a necessity. If all straight people vanished tommorow and were replaced by gay people, humanity would vanish within a generation.

4.) It is an indisputable fact that the gay part of the population is far more sexually degenerate than the straight part. Examples:

Syphilis was almost eradicated but made a comeback thanks to homosexual men. Despite being less than 1% of the population gay men account for 83% of all syphilis cases.

75% of straight men an are faithful, compared to just 4.5% of gay men. In one study only 9% of gay men were monogamous. The average gay man has several dozen sex partners per year.

Gay men are more likely to have been abused by partners than straight men. They are 151 times more likely to have hepatitis B than straight men

46% of male homosexuals report being molested opposed to 7% of heterosexual men.

Gay men are 60 times more likely to have HiV than everyone else.

79% of gay men say over half their partners are strangers.

ect ect, I have hundreds of examples if these are not enough.

Abuse, and general sexual degeneracy are commonplace within this fraction of the population.



So, you have a tiny fraction of the population who's majority is verifiably proven to enganging in what is objectively sexually degenerate behaviour, and with it came the normalization of child drag queens. It's far easier to connect the dots here than it is to connect the dots between all straight people and child peagants. Especially considering that you need straight people if you want humanity to continue existing.

You should read this book.

> > Free Soil, Free Labor, Free Men: The Ideology of the Republican Party before the Civil War

If you choose to read it, I would love to have a conversation with you about it again.

Yeah I agree.

It's also really, really unnatural.

A lot of people don't believe it, but with every human step we actually had to work more. Initially a farming society might have worked less than a hunterer & gatherer society, but after a few decades they actually had to WORK MORE than earlier, mainly because of the growing living standard and society. Same goes for the industrialisation.

If you compare our live to that of a stone-age civilization, you'd actually find that we work far more than them. Obviously that has granted us a FAR higher living standard, but it's still unnatural.

Source: https://www.amazon.com/Sapiens-Humankind-Yuval-Noah-Harari/dp/0062316117/ref=sr_1_1?crid=2Z3M16F84J3NM&keywords=a+short+history+of+humankind&qid=1556869021&s=gateway&sprefix=a+short+history+of+human%2Caps%2C255&sr=8-1

https://www.amazon.com/Pocket-Oxford-American-Dictionary-Thesaurus/dp/0199729956/ref=mp_s_a_1_2?keywords=oxford+dictionary&qid=1563085255&s=gateway&sr=8-2

Read this book. It covers all of this: https://www.amazon.com/Eichmann-Jerusalem-Banality-Penguin-Classics/dp/0143039881/ref=sr_1_1?crid=YKNFJM4EPA05&keywords=hannah+ardent&qid=1569378231&s=gateway&sprefix=Hannah+Ard%2Caps%2C165&sr=8-1

Are you talking about this book:

https://www.amazon.com/Self-Made-Man-Womans-Year-Disguised/dp/0143038702#immersive-view_1554747937592

I wouldn't call that picture feminine per se. But whatever.

I'm tempted to send this to the OP so I can hear this rant on youtube while the OP burns it.

Yes, because I can write a dissertation here. You’re a racist. Get woke: https://www.amazon.com/War-Before-Civilization-Peaceful-Savage/dp/0195119126

This isn’t evidence but this book lays out the idea of how some vegetables may cause you harm from their natural pesticides.


The Plant Paradox: The Hidden Dangers in "Healthy" Foods That Cause Disease and Weight Gain https://www.amazon.com/dp/006242713X/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_api_i_FNyYDbRB0DC8E

Ooh, an actual unpopular opinion.

I agree with some of what you say, but like a lot of people (including the ones you’re attacking) you’ve conflated introversion with being shy or being socially awkward. Introversion is not either of those things. Shyness and social awkwardness seem to arise more often in Introverts because of the high social value placed on Extroverted traits in our culture, and the fact that Introverts often get treated as if there is something wrong with them from a young age.

Introverts also do tend have higher IQs than Extroverts. So yes, even though being an Introvert doesn’t guarantee you’re some kind of tortured genius, it does make it more likely that they’re further to the right on the IQ bell curve than a randomly selected Extrovert.

A good book on the subject - https://www.amazon.co.uk/Quiet-Power-Introverts-World-Talking/dp/0141029196

You don't know shit about biology. Go read any general biological textbook today, and I guarantee you it will have the distinction between gender and sex.

Here, I recommend this book I read from when I took Biology for Science majors. https://www.amazon.com/Campbell-Biology-11th-Lisa-Urry/dp/0134093410

Stop peddling your misinformation and bankrupt agenda, idiot.

You say that from your modern day perspective. I'm pretty sure the natives were content not having more than half their population wiped out (by conservative estimates) so their grand children could live on reserves and have 90+% of all their treaties broken.

It's easy to say in retrospect that it was worth it when you're separated by centuries, but I really don't think that during those 200 years (1491 to 1691 roughly) where they were being scalped, hunted, raped and the like they say 'man thank god those white men fixed our shitty country'.

He had many accounts as in many encounters, and various other pilgrims said the same. Read up about Columbus and the Arawak tribe for perspective.

>"They...brought us parrots and balls of cotton and spears and many other things, which they exchanged for the glass beads and hawks' bells. They willingly traded everything they owned.... They do not bear arms, and do not know them, for I showed them a sword, they took it by the edge and cut themselves out of ignorance…. With 50 men we could subjugate them all and make them do whatever we want."

Here's a book to read.

https://www.amazon.com/Peoples-History-United-States-P-S/dp/0061965588/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1290192837&sr=1-1

Look up the Wampanoag and Plymouth Rock. That's another impressive example.

>he friendliness of the Wampanoag was extraordinary, because they had recently been ravaged by diseases caught from previous European explorers. Europeans had also killed, kidnapped and enslaved Native Americans in the region. The Plymouth settlers, during their desperate first year, had even stolen grain and other goods from the Wampanoag.

And you're calling me sloppy with your inability to properly capitalize, need for edits and lack of punctuation? I dunno man, I think my message is pretty clear.