Perhaps it should be named “unconventional opinions that I still agree with”? Or perhaps “lol lets see what opinion they post now” (to be fair, the WHY ARE YOU BOOING ME? I’M RIGHT is sort of this)?

People are just upvoting and downvoting what they agree and disagree with, so it basically comes off as a trap to get things to laugh at - which it isn’t even good at. Should people not be voting on “yes, this is something that is genuinely unpopular”?

  • 5ibelius9insterberg@feddit.org
    304·
    6 days ago

    I thought unpopular opinion meant: „I feel a bit alone with my opinion on xyz, is there someone who shares this opinion?“ I think it shouldn’t mean: „Here is my completely unhinged take on xyz that would get me banished from my community if I ever said it out loud“.

    So imho it’s expected to stumble unpon people that agree with you.

    It should be for „ I think socks in sandals are cute.“ and not „Hitler was a great guy and did nothing wrong.“

    • Bluescluestoothpaste@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
      3·
      5 days ago

      I thought unpopular opinion meant: „I feel a bit alone with my opinion on xyz, is there someone who shares this opinion?“

      That’s just “does anyone else . . . ?” type post. A classic unpopular opinion is like “milk in the bowl before cereal is superior”.

      And the ones that get upvoted are like “that sounds so weotng but youre not hurting anyone so fair play” like the milk before cereal example.

    • TheObviousSolution@thebrainbin.orgOP
      4·
      6 days ago

      That’s a nice take, but it feels like someone is heading to a trap to be on the stage for mockery - “WHY ARE YOU BOOING ME? IM RIGHT” . People who want that should find a community specifically related to supporting their beliefs, and usually can.

      I think that people who post in Unpopular Opinions do so to get the sense “Ok, here is my opinion, but we can all respect each other even though I have it”. Also applies to your examples. Would someone who posted “sandals are cute” not get downvoted if the circlejerk against it wasn’t big enough?

      If my take on what it should be is right, it’s also a litmus test for how accepting the community is - imagine a post "Hitler was a great guy and did nothing wrong.“ except all the comments just basically say “That’s unpopular, it is right to be unpopular, and you may be getting caught in bubbles of propaganda that don’t allow you to see it because of reasons xyz”. You get to correctly identify a Hitler supported, you correctly identify just about the most unpopular opinion you can have, and you also have direct communication to tell off the guy. I suppose that also makes this community a litmus test on Lemmy and how the community is like.

      • 5ibelius9insterberg@feddit.org
        2·
        5 days ago

        This is we’re I disagree. There’s absolutely no reason interact at all with someone who says stuff like this. Either they are a troll and shouldn’t be „fed“ or they are serious and should be blocked. There is no reasoning with fascists. There should be things people don’t dare to say because some things are not only morally, but ethically unbearable. And „Hitler was right“ is one of those things.

          • 5ibelius9insterberg@feddit.org
            1·
            5 days ago

            Thanks for reminding me of his name (his story I remembered)

            Sorry, I wasn’t precise: I don’t interact with people beyond a certain level of „unhingedness“ in social media. Face to face on the other hand I think it’s important to speak up (if you don’t put yourself in harms way). But even in real life there’s a point where I end the communication: When I get the feeling, the other person is only using me as a jump pad to push his talking points on bystanders or is not interested in actually listening to each other.

            A Wiglaf Droste said something about this over thirty years ago and I like his statement, because he takes Nazis seriously and thinks they are capable of making their own decisions and should live with the consequences of those decisions:

            Everyone is seeking dialogue with right-wing extremists. Why? Do they have anything to say? Isn’t it already well known what they think, demand, and propagate? […] Do we have to sniff every trash can? No one votes for Nazis or becomes one because they are mistaken about their goals—the opposite is true: Nazis are Nazis because they want to be. One of the most unpleasant German traits—that dripping self-pity and pity for one’s own countrymen—turns such evolutionary aberrations into poor, misguided souls, essentially good but just a bit unstable, etc., “people,” in any case, according to Heinz Eggert [german politician from the 90‘s], “for whom we must fight.”

            Why? I am completely indifferent to the fate of Nazis; whether they go hungry, freeze, wet the bed, have bad dreams, etc., is none of my business. There is only one thing that interests me about them: that they be prevented from doing what they do when left unchecked—threatening and, if possible, killing those who do not fit into their cigar-box world. Whether they are locked up for it or have to be laid on the autopsy table is all the same to me, and anyone who dreams of the camp (for others) is welcome to go there themselves.

      • Bluescluestoothpaste@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
        1·
        5 days ago

        I think a big part of it is if the opinions main characteristic is that it’s unpopular. Yes, “hitler good” is an unpopular opinion, but much more so than that it’s a heinous horrifically ignorant opinion. So it gets downvoted for being an evil opinion, even though technically it is also unpopular.

        An opinion like “milk in the bowl before cereal is better” is more in line. Is it evil? No, it’s just unpopular most people wouldn’t agree but if you genuinely prefer milk before cereal in the bowl you’re not hurting anybody. So the defining characteristic of that opinion is that it’s unpopular and not some other “worse” characteristic.