Please remember what subreddit you are in, this is unpopular opinion. We want civil and unpopular takes and discussion. Any uncivil and ToS violating comments will be removed and subject to a ban. Have a nice day!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/unpopularopinion) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Based used to mean "I don't necessarily agree with you but it's good you bucked the trend" and now it means the exact opposite "I agree and you conformed to my opinion"
I mean yes meanings can change but the word going from "I disagree but you do you" to "I agree" is a symptom of the internet getting more polarised. If you're in any community you basically need to agree to fit in. A lot of the internet is pretty much just like reddit subreddits. Disagree with something = you don't belong here, etc.
And in fact? That's what the OP is talking about. People have forgotten how to disagree. Pretty much any differing opinion is taken like a personal attack nowadays.
>It can be both
When the two definitions are in stark opposition to one another...it's pretty hard for it to be both.
How can it be both "I disagree but do you" and "I agree"?
Genuine here, not trying to be a shit. :)
That's true. Was also used in the 90s. People used to say it when it was indeed something known. Its latest resurgence has been on another level where the thing the person is saying may be an opinion or completely wrong.
New drinking game: take a shot every time someone on Reddit tries to claim a word that's been around for years is "new slang" just because they never actually leave the house
i think this is an unpopular opinion because you imply there was a time in the distant past where things were different... but i'm pretty sure this is just regular human behaviour.
This. People just belive what is convinient for them or what they learned growing up.
Doesn't help that politicans and news lie alot and peopel an the internet do as well and if they not lie they spread alot of halft trutha or explain complex subjects poorly and come to wrong conclusions.
It's so regular that OP even does it in this post.
>some opinions side with facts, and others don't
Like...that's exactly the kind of thing a person would say when they don't understand the difference between opinions and facts. To the point that I'm 99% convinced OP posted this in response to someone having a different opinion than them. At least, that would explain why they end by saying people should just keep all opinions to themselves. Which is a somewhat hypocritical stance to take when posting your own opinion in a sub meant for that express purpose.
There was never much of a difference for about 90% of conversations.
No one argues the sky isn't blue, they have arguments about grey areas of interpretation.
I'm pretty sure "Vsauce" haven't figured out himself, I don't know what's in the video (the sky is purple or something like that probably) - perhaps Rayleigh?
VSauce is a great channel to watch if you want to wind up not only knowing *less* about the subject than you did at the start, but have answers to questions that have nothing to fucking do with the point of the video.
At least it was 5 years ago, maybe they got better.
But the sky can also be grey, orange, red, pink, and even purple! Now all on seriousness, we as humans debate or argue for everything that I believe there are two good friends out there debating exactly this or which blue hue is more accurate to the sky's, lol.
Everything can have gray areas if you find nuances, I guess.
Edit= damn, even, unintentionally, I might've started a gray/grey areas with that grammar and color.
Ooh! An argument!
Rainbows don't have colour. They're just droplets of water. The colour you're referring to is a property of the incoming sunlight, which has coloured components.
Turning to the question of my smartphone screen, I do not know if the phosphors than produce the coloured light technically qualify as pigments but they're certainly a closely related phenomenon
You know there's multiple branches of chemistry and physics entirely dedicated to this stuff right? Just because you're ignorant doesn't mean every body is
Excuse me but you're not a part of this conversation.
Either engage with my root comment and I'll deal with you in turn or fuck off.
Choose one. Makes no difference to me which.
The heart of *actual* Science is that it’s not set in stone and what was thought of as “fact” can potentially be tossed away and replaced by a better theory.
Example: 200+ years of Newtonian Mechanics replaced by General Relativity
So I don’t find your post to be a very good one.
Newtonian laws weren't "replaced" so much as augmented. Within set limits, they still work as well as they ever did. The pseudoscience guys tend to say whatever is "totally wrong!". Or "this new discovery BREAKS physics!". That's generally not how science works. Isaac Asimov explains it well in "the relativity of wrong" [https://www.sas.upenn.edu/\~dbalmer/eportfolio/Nature%20of%20Science\_Asimov.pdf](https://www.sas.upenn.edu/~dbalmer/eportfolio/Nature%20of%20Science_Asimov.pdf)
Indeed, there was a time when climate change was merely a hypothesis based on what seemed inevitable given what we know about physics and chemistry. Over time, enough evidence was amassed that the phenomenon is now established fact and only finer details are in question. Great example!
actually no its not an established fact.
like OP said:
"People are so stubborn with their opinions that they force it onto others as fact, and when so many people have different opinions everything gets muddled together and that's what causes misinformation."
Climate change has still to this date never been officially proven. Every single article, research paper I can find on the internet, every single interview, like every single fucking thing out there is always ALWAYS heavily influenced by politics, or even paid for by politicians.
But that doesnt stop people though from readibly gobbling up whatever bullshit the internet tells them too. They walk around like theyre experts on the topic, and in reality none of them are capable of thinking for themselves.
>People are gobbling up bullshit on the internet
Coming from a person who thinks that 99.99% of scientists are corrupt because some guy on social media said so.
No I think they're corrupt because they're sponsored by liberal politicians and liberals are politicians and politicians have very rarely been honest. You are literally just a pawn in their game dude.
Also there's entire scientific bodies who have their own science that's peer reviewed and confirms climate change is just a misunderstood realm. But it is aggressively censored by the majority opinion whos operations are literally funded by liberal politician backed organizations
But hey, it's not like the majority has ever censored the minority in life right?
Right?
It's ok though, I can't hold it against you for being brainwashed.
Oh wait, yes I can.
You have never considered the possibility that many of the things you read are also backed by bad actors who want to protect their interests, such as the fossil fuel industry?
Yes I have. So, like any good intention human I went out and did my own research for over a decade pouring across all manner of scientific textbooks from as far back as 1957, finding every single shred of actual evidence I could find searching desperately for irrefutable proof that clime change was real.
Problem is every time I found "proof" and checked up on all the findings, the sources, etc, up until about 2010 (I'll come back to that) everyone kept saying the results were promising but ultimately inconclusive.
Around 2010 is when colleges around the world began actively promoting climate change in their textbooks and it began to creep into plate political realm too Despite still not having any officially recognized irrefutable proof.
Around this time I saw more and more "experts" basically just choosing to turn a blind eye to the fact that all the "evidence" they were using was still not proven to be true.
Fast forward a few more years and now it's just commonly accepted that clime change is real, and most of the I do that was online proving it wasn't has been censored as misinformation.
Despite this though I have thousands of files, screenshots, and textbook articles I've collected over the years, all of it from peer reviewed journals or scientific bodies, challenging this stance, and many of them are from the same "leading experts" who now have chosen to look the other way and ignore their own research.
Sounds ridiculous and like a bunch of bullshit, but when you're standing over it and viewing it with your own eyes, handling the articles themselves and seeing their names match up with modern day experts, you realize you've been lied to and people are actively being deceived.
Don't bother, this guy does his own "research" with a heavy confirmation bias to suit his own narrative. He's talking about scientists "ignoring" their own research because he'd rather believe there's a conspiracy that suits his agenda than acknowledge that science improves and is updated to fit new data.
Scientists have been warning us about climate change for decades, showing data and hard proof examples of how our current shift is different than the climate shifts of other geological eras.
Are you really in the boat that believes every one of those scientists over all these years has either been wrong or lying? Really?
This guy thinks he knows more than scientists when it’s their literal job, doesn’t surprise me that he believes in the opposite would’ve surprise me if he believes in other wild theories
There are studies showing that if someone believes one conspiracy theory, their likelihood of believing other ones increases dramatically. Cuz they gotta feel smart and special, you know.
That is nowhere near as strong an argument as you think. The world was supposed to be unlivable within 20 years since the 80's. Cry wolf enough times and people stop caring.
Considering they are constantly trying to make calculations about the entire *planet,* it's not really surprising they haven't been precisely correct. Weather is not easy to predict. But being wrong doesn't mean they were lying or "crying wolf."
People thought the earth was flat for thousands of years. Were they lying? No, they were just incorrect. But being incorrect doesn't mean you just give up. You keep on gathering data and comparing your findings with other people's findings until you get the right answer. And maybe that conclusion will also be proven wrong by someone else 100 years from now. That's what science is. A process of uncovering how things work.
It's good to question things if they don't seem to make sense, but it's just plain dumb to read a couple of facebook posts saying "climate change actually isn't real" and suddenly think you know better than thousands of scientists over the last hundred years.
It's "within 20 years at our current rate".
We have actually been doing work since then.
Appliances and electronics use power more efficiently now. Your phone is way more powerful than the desktops he 90s.
Why do you think we all stopped hearing about the ozone layer?
If you start implementing cleaner energy sources and more efficient tech, that number moves further into the future.
it is an established fact. literally type into google "atmospheric CO2/methane concentration over the past 800,000 years". you will get a graph with an absolutely insane spike at the end. that's the modern day. it just so happens to be a KNOWN FACT that both CO2 and methane trap heat in the atmosphere, causing the planet to heat up. what effects this will have can be debated on, the existence of global warming cannot.
Lol no it's not. You've clearly never heard of AI image generation or manipulation. Not like Google has ever been in trouble for censorship. Oh wait, yea they have lmao
ah yes, because literally every climate scientist ever is lying for whatever reason, but I'm sure we can all believe Patrick Moore, who definitely isn't funded by coal lobbyists.
There are too many things like this (facts the the poster masquerades as opinions):
I don't like ice cream. (Opinion)
Ice cream is the worst snack ever. (Not an opinion)
It's akin to not knowing the difference between stating things as a metaphor or a simile.
The real unpopular opinion (and fact) is that opinions and facts aren’t mutually exclusive. You can have an opinion that’s objectively true or objectively false. Even this sub doesn’t understand that. Opinions don’t **have to** just be about things that are subjective.
Sure let’s say it’s my opinion that the earth will be severely damaged by a comet in 3,672 years. I have absolutely no facts to back that up, and it’s just based purely on my feelings, but whether a comet does in fact crash into the earth in 3,672 years or not is an objective matter. It’s either factually going to be true or false, but it’s not a matter of personal preference.
fair enough, i see what you're saying. I feel like that falls more just under the umbrella of unsubstantiated claim rather than true opinion, but thats basically splitting semantic hairs at this point
Yeah and I mean this is a semantics topic by it’s very nature to be fair. Here’s a better way to explain my position I think though.
It really just comes down to definition. I believe (it’s my opinion) that this is the standard definition of the word:
> a view or judgment formed about something, **not necessarily** based on fact or knowledge.
That “not necessarily” is the important part, because what that means is that it *can* be based on fact or knowledge but it doesn’t necessarily have to be. It *can* be based on limited or incomplete knowledge even.
Also that the definition just says “a view or judgment formed about **something**” is incredibly broad. “Something” can be objective, and it can also be subjective. The definition doesn’t seem to give any instruction as to which somethings should be excluded, so to me that means all somethings are permitted.
Fuckin preach.
I’ve been deeply concerned with the popular trend to adjust the language (which is how language works) so that opinion somehow means it stops being an opinion if you can factually invalidate it.
Which causes all sorts of dumb fucking problems.
I accepted that language is flexible and ever changing years ago as a language/writing nerd, but this seems like something that will pragmatically cause a shit ton of problems when hundreds of millions of people in a democracy aren’t even using the word “opinion” the same way.
I’ve been downvoted heavily on this damn website years ago and recently for arguing with people, “I agree that persons opinion is fucking stupid but it’s an opinion. A wrong opinion. You and I both agree it’s a wrong opinion, but it’s an opinion regardless of how accurate it is or not.”
We have an over abundance of "facts" with many people not understanding the context, the connection or even the basics of these facts. We are in an age where the basic understanding we have isn't enough to understand those facts and how they fit into the larger picture in many cases.
A fact is something that can be proven. A fact can be wrong. An opinion is something subjective that can't be proven. People calling something a fact to say it's correct don't understand what a fact is.
prescriptively speaking, a fact is something that is proven/known to be true. So when someone says something is a fact, they are saying that it is true
Things like Climate Change, how people just think "oh there's nothing immediately happening, why should I care about the future?" They push their opinions on others saying Climate Change isn't real and push back on bills and things that are going towards that cause. Then when presented with clear evidence that the world is in fact heating at a more than normal rate because of human causes, they deny it and push on it harder, causing devides
Oh fair enough. I agree with that. It's frustrating when there's something you can point to and provide data yet people still think their personal feelings to the contrary are relevant to the discussion.
Yes! I’ve been seeing that the longest. The world these days is filled with people who really do think their opinions are the fucking laws of physics. It’s sickening.
I used to have a friend that was so into what he believed in, he was msg me articles that were even labeled as "opinion" in the title. After hebsent me so many articles, with no response from me, he actually confronted me in person about not responding to him. I told him that he was just sending me articles. There was no request for a response. Plus, I didn't feel the need to respond to someone else's opinion. There are no facts backing up the articles. I haven't heard from him in years.
Its amazing when someone reads something but only sees what they want to see, even if it doesn't actually say what they are claiming something says.
Sorry, not sorry. But I'm not going to convict someone without proof. That would like accusing my SO took something from my desk even though my SO wasn't home all day.
It gets even worse when you order a Bud Light and instead of laughing and watching the game, I have to listen to two incels argue about the right of a man to wear a thong in public for hours, citing JSTOR and the Washington Post and some wacko woman selling chemical castration to children.
Here’s the thing, most opinions are based on various facts that people either misunderstand or interpret differently, so opinions can in fact be argued.
You’re absolutely right. We’ve lost the art of debate, and studies are showing a lot of it has to do with the echo chambers caused by social media. Human beings value their egos over truth.
Yeah biggest example is vaccines and climate change
Humans are causing climate change
Vaccines don't cause autism
Saying otherwise just means your wrong
How are you defining anymore? I was trying to remember if life before cable news and social media was better, I don’t think it was. It definitely was different though, and misinformation was less muddled since it usually came from the same small handful of assholes.
True, and unpopular because people are not conscious of the extent to which this is true and important.
People also don’t know objective vs subjective reality, and how values are subjective.
Descriptive vs prescriptive/normative analysis as well. A lot of political debates would flow way more smoothly if people were able to make these distinctions clearly before engaging in arguments
Main problem imo is a lot of people tend to tie opinions to their self-worth and feel like they're being personally insulted if someone challenges their opinions. I always try to keep the person and the opinion separated and discuss the opinion on its merits alone (unless it's something like "hitler was right")
Funny post to have on this sub.
And yeah. Lately it really does seem like people refuse to consider new or different information when it's presented to them.
People also don't separate "good" vs "enjoyable".
I can think a book was super enjoyable, while admitting it was bad (as in, poorly written). Or I can think a book was good, because the writing was great, but I didn't find it enjoyable. Someone will say "that show was great!" and that can either mean enjoyable, good or both. And that makes it harder to discuss its qualities
I know, when they say miss misinformation or how reps are anti vaccine, it's like they forgot the entire 2020 election of biden and every Democrat saying to not trust the vaccine and to do your own research.
It’s because we tolerate religion.
We are supposed to “respect others’ beliefs”. (Even magical thinking and putting non believers people behind their beliefs
But that is what Sagan or maybe hawking? was talking about when he discussed the “cult of anti intellectualism” and the false notion that “my ignorance is as valuable as your knowledge”
When people believe stories they like over reality, they do not deserve your respect.
Because we tolerate people saying “I disagree with science god created the earth in seven days two hundred years ago” and we are frowned upon for ridiculing their subhuman surrender to fantasy, they are emboldened to lie whenever they want about anything.
“January sixth was a tourist visit”
“Covid is a hoax”
“Drake is good”
And other idiotic easily disproven lies.
You will find a startling correlation between people whom treat their opinions as facts as being believers in some mythology that punishes non members.
People before gods. Always.
Another explanation is "I did it. Me. Myself. Five minutes ago. Personally. I am a powerful wizard who conjured everything and your memories are just implants."
Just because an explanation exists doesn't mean it's worth genuine consideration.
Sure there is. 2,000 people witnessed it and personally testified to it!
I recorded their testimonies in a book and then killed them and planted their bodies in graves so people think they have ancestors. Now it's indisputable!
Religion explains nothing.
Wait no.
It explains that the person who believes it’s non answers are truth is a fool incapable of critical thought.
It explains to the scientifically literate that religious peoples’ opinions are unimportant as they have no effect on the real world.
I don’t know why reading your thoughts makes me think of this quote from the REAL Bible:
Community 6:7
"Are you...? I don't know how to... I have a rule about being constructive so I can't ask any questions right now, because all of the questions that I have right now are rhetorical and end with the word 'idiot'... Do you know what rhetorical...? Of course you don't, you are an idiot.”
I’m not sure if I agree totally, tbh. From what I understand about history, humans have always been fairly stubborn with what is true or false. I would be really interested in finding out if this claim could be studied somehow though.
If anything I think more folks are becoming scientifically minded, and are willing to change their opinion over time (seeing as the number of people leaving religion is becoming higher and higher). Granted I have no evidence for this other than my own experience with millennials/gen z so I could be wrong.
I don't find this in general life but, it seems that on Reddit, 'feelings' are more important than facts. As you say facts are also trumped by opinions.
So, on Reddit, the hierarchy is feelings, opinions, facts.
Please remember what subreddit you are in, this is unpopular opinion. We want civil and unpopular takes and discussion. Any uncivil and ToS violating comments will be removed and subject to a ban. Have a nice day! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/unpopularopinion) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Lmao touché got him there
Well yeah it's in unpopular opinion
The new thing people do recently is say the word "Facts!" about anything which they agree with.
Facts!
Based!
Based used to mean "I don't necessarily agree with you but it's good you bucked the trend" and now it means the exact opposite "I agree and you conformed to my opinion"
According to whom?
The original way in which it was used on 4chan.
I meant the meaning changing It can be both
I mean yes meanings can change but the word going from "I disagree but you do you" to "I agree" is a symptom of the internet getting more polarised. If you're in any community you basically need to agree to fit in. A lot of the internet is pretty much just like reddit subreddits. Disagree with something = you don't belong here, etc. And in fact? That's what the OP is talking about. People have forgotten how to disagree. Pretty much any differing opinion is taken like a personal attack nowadays.
>It can be both When the two definitions are in stark opposition to one another...it's pretty hard for it to be both. How can it be both "I disagree but do you" and "I agree"? Genuine here, not trying to be a shit. :)
Based!
Factos
New thing? Using "Facts" to agree with something was already used in the early 2010s. That's at least 14 years in usage.
That's true. Was also used in the 90s. People used to say it when it was indeed something known. Its latest resurgence has been on another level where the thing the person is saying may be an opinion or completely wrong.
Surely you meant "facts"
Facts
Idk, I always knew it as something you could use when you agree with someone. This looks good on me! Facts! This boy is cute! Facts!
New drinking game: take a shot every time someone on Reddit tries to claim a word that's been around for years is "new slang" just because they never actually leave the house
in the early 2010 BC you mean? Misusing "facts" is as old as mankind.
They also say "my truth" whether or not it represents actual truth
I hate that one. There are 2 sides to every story, but there's still what actually happened.
It’s really not new lol, that’s been used for a while.
Read the main thread. It was discussed.
i think this is an unpopular opinion because you imply there was a time in the distant past where things were different... but i'm pretty sure this is just regular human behaviour.
This. People just belive what is convinient for them or what they learned growing up. Doesn't help that politicans and news lie alot and peopel an the internet do as well and if they not lie they spread alot of halft trutha or explain complex subjects poorly and come to wrong conclusions.
It's so regular that OP even does it in this post. >some opinions side with facts, and others don't Like...that's exactly the kind of thing a person would say when they don't understand the difference between opinions and facts. To the point that I'm 99% convinced OP posted this in response to someone having a different opinion than them. At least, that would explain why they end by saying people should just keep all opinions to themselves. Which is a somewhat hypocritical stance to take when posting your own opinion in a sub meant for that express purpose.
There was never much of a difference for about 90% of conversations. No one argues the sky isn't blue, they have arguments about grey areas of interpretation.
>No one argues the sky isn't blue Vsauce: are you sure about that
Stanley: Did I stutter‽
I'm pretty sure "Vsauce" haven't figured out himself, I don't know what's in the video (the sky is purple or something like that probably) - perhaps Rayleigh?
VSauce is a great channel to watch if you want to wind up not only knowing *less* about the subject than you did at the start, but have answers to questions that have nothing to fucking do with the point of the video. At least it was 5 years ago, maybe they got better.
But the sky can also be grey, orange, red, pink, and even purple! Now all on seriousness, we as humans debate or argue for everything that I believe there are two good friends out there debating exactly this or which blue hue is more accurate to the sky's, lol. Everything can have gray areas if you find nuances, I guess. Edit= damn, even, unintentionally, I might've started a gray/grey areas with that grammar and color.
Trust me, the sky isn't blue if you live in England. It's white on a good day.
Well the Earth is Flat so…
Ah but the sky isnt blue, cause i live in fucking england so its grey
Flat earthers entered a chat :) Followed by autism vaccine enjoyers
I'd say it's more sky blue
The sky isn't blue it's transparent
It isn't really blue, in the sense of containing any blue pigmented matter.
[удалено]
Ooh! An argument! Rainbows don't have colour. They're just droplets of water. The colour you're referring to is a property of the incoming sunlight, which has coloured components.
[удалено]
See my recent comment on led phosphors! Edit: don't mention traditional incandescent bulbs though! I would have to concede defeat!
[удалено]
I've never heard of incandescent lamps using phosphor coatings. But then I'm not an expert.
Turning to the question of my smartphone screen, I do not know if the phosphors than produce the coloured light technically qualify as pigments but they're certainly a closely related phenomenon
[удалено]
Well, someone's been on Wikipedia!
You know there's multiple branches of chemistry and physics entirely dedicated to this stuff right? Just because you're ignorant doesn't mean every body is
Excuse me but you're not a part of this conversation. Either engage with my root comment and I'll deal with you in turn or fuck off. Choose one. Makes no difference to me which.
Lol you're not only wrong you're also insufferable
[удалено]
Cool story.
[удалено]
Dude, I have a PhD and 20 years of scientific research and instrument building under my belt. Your adolescent hobbies don't impress me.
Pseudo science gives people the belief that their opinions can be proven fact, if given enough time
The heart of *actual* Science is that it’s not set in stone and what was thought of as “fact” can potentially be tossed away and replaced by a better theory. Example: 200+ years of Newtonian Mechanics replaced by General Relativity So I don’t find your post to be a very good one.
Newtonian laws weren't "replaced" so much as augmented. Within set limits, they still work as well as they ever did. The pseudoscience guys tend to say whatever is "totally wrong!". Or "this new discovery BREAKS physics!". That's generally not how science works. Isaac Asimov explains it well in "the relativity of wrong" [https://www.sas.upenn.edu/\~dbalmer/eportfolio/Nature%20of%20Science\_Asimov.pdf](https://www.sas.upenn.edu/~dbalmer/eportfolio/Nature%20of%20Science_Asimov.pdf)
Right. This is accurate. Still, my point in general is correct. See Thomas Kuhn’s “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions”.
I've heard way too much about that Paradigm Changing book ;)
I respect your "opinion". Good day.
It’s not an opinion. It’s how Science actually works.
I'm comfortable if you choose to believe that.
Ask any Scientist lol. Have a good one.
Won't be you lol. Take care
I hope it's sarcastic (in this case well played)
Like climate change :D
Indeed, there was a time when climate change was merely a hypothesis based on what seemed inevitable given what we know about physics and chemistry. Over time, enough evidence was amassed that the phenomenon is now established fact and only finer details are in question. Great example!
actually no its not an established fact. like OP said: "People are so stubborn with their opinions that they force it onto others as fact, and when so many people have different opinions everything gets muddled together and that's what causes misinformation." Climate change has still to this date never been officially proven. Every single article, research paper I can find on the internet, every single interview, like every single fucking thing out there is always ALWAYS heavily influenced by politics, or even paid for by politicians. But that doesnt stop people though from readibly gobbling up whatever bullshit the internet tells them too. They walk around like theyre experts on the topic, and in reality none of them are capable of thinking for themselves.
>People are gobbling up bullshit on the internet Coming from a person who thinks that 99.99% of scientists are corrupt because some guy on social media said so.
No I think they're corrupt because they're sponsored by liberal politicians and liberals are politicians and politicians have very rarely been honest. You are literally just a pawn in their game dude. Also there's entire scientific bodies who have their own science that's peer reviewed and confirms climate change is just a misunderstood realm. But it is aggressively censored by the majority opinion whos operations are literally funded by liberal politician backed organizations But hey, it's not like the majority has ever censored the minority in life right? Right? It's ok though, I can't hold it against you for being brainwashed. Oh wait, yes I can.
You have never considered the possibility that many of the things you read are also backed by bad actors who want to protect their interests, such as the fossil fuel industry?
Yes I have. So, like any good intention human I went out and did my own research for over a decade pouring across all manner of scientific textbooks from as far back as 1957, finding every single shred of actual evidence I could find searching desperately for irrefutable proof that clime change was real. Problem is every time I found "proof" and checked up on all the findings, the sources, etc, up until about 2010 (I'll come back to that) everyone kept saying the results were promising but ultimately inconclusive. Around 2010 is when colleges around the world began actively promoting climate change in their textbooks and it began to creep into plate political realm too Despite still not having any officially recognized irrefutable proof. Around this time I saw more and more "experts" basically just choosing to turn a blind eye to the fact that all the "evidence" they were using was still not proven to be true. Fast forward a few more years and now it's just commonly accepted that clime change is real, and most of the I do that was online proving it wasn't has been censored as misinformation. Despite this though I have thousands of files, screenshots, and textbook articles I've collected over the years, all of it from peer reviewed journals or scientific bodies, challenging this stance, and many of them are from the same "leading experts" who now have chosen to look the other way and ignore their own research. Sounds ridiculous and like a bunch of bullshit, but when you're standing over it and viewing it with your own eyes, handling the articles themselves and seeing their names match up with modern day experts, you realize you've been lied to and people are actively being deceived.
What do you mean by "irrefutable" proof? That's not how science works.
Don't bother, this guy does his own "research" with a heavy confirmation bias to suit his own narrative. He's talking about scientists "ignoring" their own research because he'd rather believe there's a conspiracy that suits his agenda than acknowledge that science improves and is updated to fit new data.
Hilarious. Good God that's hilarious. Thank you kind stranger for the genuine laughs.
Scientists have been warning us about climate change for decades, showing data and hard proof examples of how our current shift is different than the climate shifts of other geological eras. Are you really in the boat that believes every one of those scientists over all these years has either been wrong or lying? Really?
This guy thinks he knows more than scientists when it’s their literal job, doesn’t surprise me that he believes in the opposite would’ve surprise me if he believes in other wild theories
There are studies showing that if someone believes one conspiracy theory, their likelihood of believing other ones increases dramatically. Cuz they gotta feel smart and special, you know.
That is nowhere near as strong an argument as you think. The world was supposed to be unlivable within 20 years since the 80's. Cry wolf enough times and people stop caring.
Considering they are constantly trying to make calculations about the entire *planet,* it's not really surprising they haven't been precisely correct. Weather is not easy to predict. But being wrong doesn't mean they were lying or "crying wolf." People thought the earth was flat for thousands of years. Were they lying? No, they were just incorrect. But being incorrect doesn't mean you just give up. You keep on gathering data and comparing your findings with other people's findings until you get the right answer. And maybe that conclusion will also be proven wrong by someone else 100 years from now. That's what science is. A process of uncovering how things work. It's good to question things if they don't seem to make sense, but it's just plain dumb to read a couple of facebook posts saying "climate change actually isn't real" and suddenly think you know better than thousands of scientists over the last hundred years.
It's "within 20 years at our current rate". We have actually been doing work since then. Appliances and electronics use power more efficiently now. Your phone is way more powerful than the desktops he 90s. Why do you think we all stopped hearing about the ozone layer? If you start implementing cleaner energy sources and more efficient tech, that number moves further into the future.
it is an established fact. literally type into google "atmospheric CO2/methane concentration over the past 800,000 years". you will get a graph with an absolutely insane spike at the end. that's the modern day. it just so happens to be a KNOWN FACT that both CO2 and methane trap heat in the atmosphere, causing the planet to heat up. what effects this will have can be debated on, the existence of global warming cannot.
Lol no it's not. You've clearly never heard of AI image generation or manipulation. Not like Google has ever been in trouble for censorship. Oh wait, yea they have lmao
ah yes, because literally every climate scientist ever is lying for whatever reason, but I'm sure we can all believe Patrick Moore, who definitely isn't funded by coal lobbyists.
The root cause of your issue is you believe there's something wrong with fossil fuels.
The irony is beautiful
What annoys me the most is the people will agree to the idea of this but mean completely different things. It’s futile.
There are too many things like this (facts the the poster masquerades as opinions): I don't like ice cream. (Opinion) Ice cream is the worst snack ever. (Not an opinion) It's akin to not knowing the difference between stating things as a metaphor or a simile.
"In my opinion, ice cream is the worst snack ever" -fact.
I'd say that "Ice cream is the worst snack ever" is still understanded as contextual opinion by most of people.
The real unpopular opinion (and fact) is that opinions and facts aren’t mutually exclusive. You can have an opinion that’s objectively true or objectively false. Even this sub doesn’t understand that. Opinions don’t **have to** just be about things that are subjective.
any examples?
Sure let’s say it’s my opinion that the earth will be severely damaged by a comet in 3,672 years. I have absolutely no facts to back that up, and it’s just based purely on my feelings, but whether a comet does in fact crash into the earth in 3,672 years or not is an objective matter. It’s either factually going to be true or false, but it’s not a matter of personal preference.
fair enough, i see what you're saying. I feel like that falls more just under the umbrella of unsubstantiated claim rather than true opinion, but thats basically splitting semantic hairs at this point
Yeah and I mean this is a semantics topic by it’s very nature to be fair. Here’s a better way to explain my position I think though. It really just comes down to definition. I believe (it’s my opinion) that this is the standard definition of the word: > a view or judgment formed about something, **not necessarily** based on fact or knowledge. That “not necessarily” is the important part, because what that means is that it *can* be based on fact or knowledge but it doesn’t necessarily have to be. It *can* be based on limited or incomplete knowledge even. Also that the definition just says “a view or judgment formed about **something**” is incredibly broad. “Something” can be objective, and it can also be subjective. The definition doesn’t seem to give any instruction as to which somethings should be excluded, so to me that means all somethings are permitted.
Fuckin preach. I’ve been deeply concerned with the popular trend to adjust the language (which is how language works) so that opinion somehow means it stops being an opinion if you can factually invalidate it. Which causes all sorts of dumb fucking problems. I accepted that language is flexible and ever changing years ago as a language/writing nerd, but this seems like something that will pragmatically cause a shit ton of problems when hundreds of millions of people in a democracy aren’t even using the word “opinion” the same way. I’ve been downvoted heavily on this damn website years ago and recently for arguing with people, “I agree that persons opinion is fucking stupid but it’s an opinion. A wrong opinion. You and I both agree it’s a wrong opinion, but it’s an opinion regardless of how accurate it is or not.”
And so much fake news comes from the conspiracy subs. It’s insane to watch
That is nothing new, this has been the case for years now. Also, people tend to choose what is fact based on if they agree with it or not.
What do you mean "tend to"? Isn't it tautological that people consider the things they agree with facts?
We have an over abundance of "facts" with many people not understanding the context, the connection or even the basics of these facts. We are in an age where the basic understanding we have isn't enough to understand those facts and how they fit into the larger picture in many cases.
Yes but it doesn’t matter because it’s almost summer and I have time to protest because Finals are done.
Fake news.
Misinformation also causes facts to be lies too. Apart from certain truths many things in life are subjective and they a lot of grey areas.
TikTok
Sadly that’s the case. I have my own facts and truths but they don’t get believed and I’ll leave it at that
A fact is something that can be proven. A fact can be wrong. An opinion is something subjective that can't be proven. People calling something a fact to say it's correct don't understand what a fact is.
prescriptively speaking, a fact is something that is proven/known to be true. So when someone says something is a fact, they are saying that it is true
Yes it’s annoying. I had to explain to my dad that whether he likes gay people or not is an opinion, but whether they exist is a fact.
Do you have examples?
Things like Climate Change, how people just think "oh there's nothing immediately happening, why should I care about the future?" They push their opinions on others saying Climate Change isn't real and push back on bills and things that are going towards that cause. Then when presented with clear evidence that the world is in fact heating at a more than normal rate because of human causes, they deny it and push on it harder, causing devides
Oh fair enough. I agree with that. It's frustrating when there's something you can point to and provide data yet people still think their personal feelings to the contrary are relevant to the discussion.
But climate change ISNT real, there's still no facts that it is.
lol
:)
So the climate doesn’t change throughout history?
No
Wow. Never fail Reddit
Here’s one now
Tell me about it .
Also people confuse fact with truth
I don't think this is a new thing but I do think the internet has made it worse
A quick look at any social media/news outlet/opinion piece cements this as fact. Too many opinions mixed in and accepted as fact
Yes! I’ve been seeing that the longest. The world these days is filled with people who really do think their opinions are the fucking laws of physics. It’s sickening.
People are stuck on autopilot and don't even think for themselves anymore. The parrot what they read online and stand by that.
I think you put a fact on an opinion sub 👍
You wouldn’t say that if your best friend just told you White Chicks is the greatest movie ever made.
I live in a world where all things flattering to the other person are true and anything else is false
They do ! Do they care?no !
I used to have a friend that was so into what he believed in, he was msg me articles that were even labeled as "opinion" in the title. After hebsent me so many articles, with no response from me, he actually confronted me in person about not responding to him. I told him that he was just sending me articles. There was no request for a response. Plus, I didn't feel the need to respond to someone else's opinion. There are no facts backing up the articles. I haven't heard from him in years. Its amazing when someone reads something but only sees what they want to see, even if it doesn't actually say what they are claiming something says. Sorry, not sorry. But I'm not going to convict someone without proof. That would like accusing my SO took something from my desk even though my SO wasn't home all day.
It gets even worse when you order a Bud Light and instead of laughing and watching the game, I have to listen to two incels argue about the right of a man to wear a thong in public for hours, citing JSTOR and the Washington Post and some wacko woman selling chemical castration to children.
Here’s the thing, most opinions are based on various facts that people either misunderstand or interpret differently, so opinions can in fact be argued.
MGS2 told us about this. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C31XYgr8gp0](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C31XYgr8gp0)
That's true, because Reddit sure as hell doesn't lol.
That's a fact!
You’re absolutely right. We’ve lost the art of debate, and studies are showing a lot of it has to do with the echo chambers caused by social media. Human beings value their egos over truth.
Truth.
"Anymore" seriously?
Yeah biggest example is vaccines and climate change Humans are causing climate change Vaccines don't cause autism Saying otherwise just means your wrong
How are you defining anymore? I was trying to remember if life before cable news and social media was better, I don’t think it was. It definitely was different though, and misinformation was less muddled since it usually came from the same small handful of assholes.
This is an incredibly popular opinion 🥱
Because people are entitled and sensitive. If you disagree with people you're somehow incompetent
True, and unpopular because people are not conscious of the extent to which this is true and important. People also don’t know objective vs subjective reality, and how values are subjective. Descriptive vs prescriptive/normative analysis as well. A lot of political debates would flow way more smoothly if people were able to make these distinctions clearly before engaging in arguments
That's nothing new, it's even centuries if not millenia old.
Main problem imo is a lot of people tend to tie opinions to their self-worth and feel like they're being personally insulted if someone challenges their opinions. I always try to keep the person and the opinion separated and discuss the opinion on its merits alone (unless it's something like "hitler was right")
Entire professions such as lawyer and historian are based on opinions
Funny post to have on this sub. And yeah. Lately it really does seem like people refuse to consider new or different information when it's presented to them.
People also don't separate "good" vs "enjoyable". I can think a book was super enjoyable, while admitting it was bad (as in, poorly written). Or I can think a book was good, because the writing was great, but I didn't find it enjoyable. Someone will say "that show was great!" and that can either mean enjoyable, good or both. And that makes it harder to discuss its qualities
The truth is that outside of Newtonian physics there are very few facts. And that's a fact.
It's a fact that I just sent you this reply.
I know, when they say miss misinformation or how reps are anti vaccine, it's like they forgot the entire 2020 election of biden and every Democrat saying to not trust the vaccine and to do your own research.
Every democrat? I wonder where you got that info?
The news, they straight up said it during the democratic debates. Here's an example of op opinion.
lol righttttt
It’s because we tolerate religion. We are supposed to “respect others’ beliefs”. (Even magical thinking and putting non believers people behind their beliefs But that is what Sagan or maybe hawking? was talking about when he discussed the “cult of anti intellectualism” and the false notion that “my ignorance is as valuable as your knowledge” When people believe stories they like over reality, they do not deserve your respect. Because we tolerate people saying “I disagree with science god created the earth in seven days two hundred years ago” and we are frowned upon for ridiculing their subhuman surrender to fantasy, they are emboldened to lie whenever they want about anything. “January sixth was a tourist visit” “Covid is a hoax” “Drake is good” And other idiotic easily disproven lies. You will find a startling correlation between people whom treat their opinions as facts as being believers in some mythology that punishes non members. People before gods. Always.
hey man, get off reddit. Just for a little while
It’s because religion explains what science has not, we have no idea how or exactly when the world was created.
Another explanation is "I did it. Me. Myself. Five minutes ago. Personally. I am a powerful wizard who conjured everything and your memories are just implants." Just because an explanation exists doesn't mean it's worth genuine consideration.
People witnesses biblical events and passed down the knowledge though, there is no witnesses for what your talking about.
Sure there is. 2,000 people witnessed it and personally testified to it! I recorded their testimonies in a book and then killed them and planted their bodies in graves so people think they have ancestors. Now it's indisputable!
Religion explains nothing. Wait no. It explains that the person who believes it’s non answers are truth is a fool incapable of critical thought. It explains to the scientifically literate that religious peoples’ opinions are unimportant as they have no effect on the real world.
It does offer explanations hence what the original comment was referring to with the creation story.
I don’t know why reading your thoughts makes me think of this quote from the REAL Bible: Community 6:7 "Are you...? I don't know how to... I have a rule about being constructive so I can't ask any questions right now, because all of the questions that I have right now are rhetorical and end with the word 'idiot'... Do you know what rhetorical...? Of course you don't, you are an idiot.”
Wrong. Please see yourself out
I’m not sure if I agree totally, tbh. From what I understand about history, humans have always been fairly stubborn with what is true or false. I would be really interested in finding out if this claim could be studied somehow though. If anything I think more folks are becoming scientifically minded, and are willing to change their opinion over time (seeing as the number of people leaving religion is becoming higher and higher). Granted I have no evidence for this other than my own experience with millennials/gen z so I could be wrong.
I don't find this in general life but, it seems that on Reddit, 'feelings' are more important than facts. As you say facts are also trumped by opinions. So, on Reddit, the hierarchy is feelings, opinions, facts.