Hotter, Badder, and Unpopularer Takes

[100% pro-life no matter what]

Almost everyone who has an "emotional support animal" doesn't actually need one.  We over diagnose so many things like anxiety and ADHD, just so people can get the accommodations they want.

[they don't love you like i love you]

BTW, I like and am friends with both types, and you weirdos should be too.

How do I find the latter type in Minneapolis?

Do liberal cities lack business districts?

Minneapolis doesn't have an area known as such. It has a lot of businesses headquartered downtown but no one except homeless people really live in that area.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

Almost everyone who has an "emotional support animal" doesn't actually need one.  We over diagnose so many things like anxiety and ADHD, just so people can get the accommodations they want.

Oh yeah?  Try walking a mile in my shoes.

[Xing]

Most educators are actually really down-to-earth people, and it's largely a small but vocal minority (many of whom are administrators) who actually have an "elitist" attitude.

[MT Treasurer]

- Gore did the right thing by keeping some distance from Clinton in 2000.
- 1998 and 2002 were hardly resounding victories for the incumbent party, and evidence that voters rejected the "partisan obstructionism" of the opposition in those years is far from convincing. Both Republicans in 1998 and Democrats in 2002 would have done better if they had focused more on base turnout instead of letting the White House set the tone of the campaign.
- 2018 was far from a "neutral" year in the Senate just because Republicans won a few races that never should have have been in doubt in the first place.
- The 1996 presidential election was more winnable for Republicans than the 2008 presidential election.
- Pat Buchanan would have done better than Bob Dole in 1996.
- Howard Dean wouldn’t have done worse than John Kerry in 2004.

[Oswald Acted Alone, You Kook]

- The 1996 presidential election was more winnable for Republicans than the 2008 presidential election.

As it was (Clinton vs. Dole) or with a different caniddate (Clinton vs., say, Colin Powel)?

[Hindsight was 2020]

Star Wars fans are to blame for Last Jedi. Some might forget but there was time when Force Awakens was completely toxic on the Internet with endless YouTube hot takes on how it’s worse than the prequels because it was so safe and corporate over the quaint charm of a one man directors vision. Well they clearly tried to address this by giving Rian Johnson full control and look how that went

[they don't love you like i love you]

While Sunny Day Real Estate's Diary is a fantastic album and its influence and importance can't possibly be overstated, it has a serious flaw in it in that the first two tracks on it are by far the best, thus making it difficult to listen to the whole album without the rest feeling like a letdown. And thus my controversial opinion: How It Feels To Be Something On is the best SDRE album.

[morgankingsley]

Star Wars fans are to blame for Last Jedi.

This is a perspective I never really thought of before but now that you point it out, I don't really disagree

[OSR stands with Israel]

The SEC is overrated as hell

[MT Treasurer]

- The 1996 presidential election was more winnable for Republicans than the 2008 presidential election.

As it was (Clinton vs. Dole) or with a different caniddate (Clinton vs., say, Colin Powel)?

Different candidate. I don’t think even a different candidate could have won in 2008, although McCain clearly wasn’t the right Republican for 2008.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

- Gore did the right thing by keeping some distance from Clinton in 2000.
- 1998 and 2002 were hardly resounding victories for the incumbent party, and evidence that voters rejected the "partisan obstructionism" of the opposition in those years is far from convincing. Both Republicans in 1998 and Democrats in 2002 would have done better if they had focused more on base turnout instead of letting the White House set the tone of the campaign.

Why do you say Gore did the right thing by distancing himself from Clinton if you believe that base turnout is key to winning elections?

[Oswald Acted Alone, You Kook]

- The 1996 presidential election was more winnable for Republicans than the 2008 presidential election.

As it was (Clinton vs. Dole) or with a different caniddate (Clinton vs., say, Colin Powel)?

Different candidate. I don’t think even a different candidate could have won in 2008, although McCain clearly wasn’t the right Republican for 2008.

In that case, that isn't a hot take at all. Even if Jesus were the 2008 Republican nominee Obama would win.

(Is that a Hot Take? If so, that's one for this thread.)

[TrendsareUsuallyReal]

A Trump second term is better for the Progressive agenda than a Biden win would be.

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

I genuinely, honestly cannot grasp--emotionally, empathetically grasp--how a decent human being can possibly be right-wing on material issues, although I believe strongly enough in fair play and honest discussion and have a clear enough intellectual understanding of most arguments for right-wing positions that I'm able to act as if I can grasp it.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

I genuinely, honestly cannot grasp--emotionally, empathetically grasp--how a decent human being can possibly be right-wing on material issues, although I believe strongly enough in fair play and honest discussion and have a clear enough intellectual understanding of most arguments for right-wing positions that I'm able to act as if I can grasp it.

I’m actually interested in seeing some discussion of this, but am unwilling to provide it myself. My defense would primarily be rooted in my belief in people as morally neutral rather than expecting them to be “good”, but I will say that I don’t consider myself actively horrible and at the same time would prefer keeping more of my paycheck and view student loan politics as ridiculous.

[RFayette]

I genuinely, honestly cannot grasp--emotionally, empathetically grasp--how a decent human being can possibly be right-wing on material issues, although I believe strongly enough in fair play and honest discussion and have a clear enough intellectual understanding of most arguments for right-wing positions that I'm able to act as if I can grasp it.

I feel similarly about pro-choicers - I can intellectually grasp the arguments but it is difficult for me to see how a decent, intellectually honest person who has thought through the issue can defend it, though such clearly is the case and there are indeed well-meaning pro-choice people. I attribute it to ignorance and emotivism largely, but to me it is something that so plainly cries for justice it is easy to get polemical about.  

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

I genuinely, honestly cannot grasp--emotionally, empathetically grasp--how a decent human being can possibly be right-wing on material issues, although I believe strongly enough in fair play and honest discussion and have a clear enough intellectual understanding of most arguments for right-wing positions that I'm able to act as if I can grasp it.

I feel similarly about pro-choicers - I can intellectually grasp the arguments but it is difficult for me to see how a decent, intellectually honest person who has thought through the issue can defend it, though such clearly is the case and there are indeed well-meaning pro-choice people. I attribute it to ignorance and emotivism largely, but to me it is something that so plainly cries for justice it is easy to get polemical about.  

Ignorance and emotivism on pro-choicers' part (hence their ability to hold the position) or on your part (hence your inability to grasp their holding it)? I ask because I definitely feel that it's a failure of imagination and a failure of compassion on my part to have the problem I'm describing (since I'm perfectly aware of the descriptive fact that people whom I like very much--such as you and Cathcon!--can and often do have pointedly right-wing politics), and I'm not humblebragging or virtue signaling by bringing it up.

[RFayette]

I genuinely, honestly cannot grasp--emotionally, empathetically grasp--how a decent human being can possibly be right-wing on material issues, although I believe strongly enough in fair play and honest discussion and have a clear enough intellectual understanding of most arguments for right-wing positions that I'm able to act as if I can grasp it.

I feel similarly about pro-choicers - I can intellectually grasp the arguments but it is difficult for me to see how a decent, intellectually honest person who has thought through the issue can defend it, though such clearly is the case and there are indeed well-meaning pro-choice people. I attribute it to ignorance and emotivism largely, but to me it is something that so plainly cries for justice it is easy to get polemical about.  

Ignorance and emotivism on pro-choicers' part (hence their ability to hold the position) or on your part (hence your inability to grasp their holding it)? I ask because I definitely feel that it's a failure of imagination and a failure of compassion on my part to have the problem I'm describing (since I'm perfectly aware of the descriptive fact that people whom I like very much--such as you and Cathcon!--can and often do have pointedly right-wing politics), and I'm not humblebragging or virtue signaling by bringing it up.

i was thinking about it primarily about how most people arguing the pro-choice case seem to have absolutely dreadful arguments so I was attributing that to emotivism and ignorance (as opposed to malice), but it can also apply to me in that I certainly can be overly harsh and presume that everyone on the opposite side is either callous or hasn’t thought the issue through.  I acknowledge there are informed pro-choicers who have good reasons (though ultimately false) for believing why they do, but it is easy for me to have a visceral reaction that is very harsh.

[KoopaDaQuick 🇵🇸]

I genuinely, honestly cannot grasp--emotionally, empathetically grasp--how a decent human being can possibly be right-wing on material issues, although I believe strongly enough in fair play and honest discussion and have a clear enough intellectual understanding of most arguments for right-wing positions that I'm able to act as if I can grasp it.

I feel similarly about pro-choicers - I can intellectually grasp the arguments but it is difficult for me to see how a decent, intellectually honest person who has thought through the issue can defend it, though such clearly is the case and there are indeed well-meaning pro-choice people. I attribute it to ignorance and emotivism largely, but to me it is something that so plainly cries for justice it is easy to get polemical about.  

Ignorance and emotivism on pro-choicers' part (hence their ability to hold the position) or on your part (hence your inability to grasp their holding it)? I ask because I definitely feel that it's a failure of imagination and a failure of compassion on my part to have the problem I'm describing (since I'm perfectly aware of the descriptive fact that people whom I like very much--such as you and Cathcon!--can and often do have pointedly right-wing politics), and I'm not humblebragging or virtue signaling by bringing it up.

i was thinking about it primarily about how most people arguing the pro-choice case seem to have absolutely dreadful arguments so I was attributing that to emotivism and ignorance (as opposed to malice), but it can also apply to me in that I certainly can be overly harsh and presume that everyone on the opposite side is either callous or hasn’t thought the issue through.  I acknowledge there are informed pro-choicers who have good reasons (though ultimately false) for believing why they do, but it is easy for me to have a visceral reaction that is very harsh.

This needs its own individual thread.

[Tartarus Sauce]

I genuinely, honestly cannot grasp--emotionally, empathetically grasp--how a decent human being can possibly be right-wing on material issues, although I believe strongly enough in fair play and honest discussion and have a clear enough intellectual understanding of most arguments for right-wing positions that I'm able to act as if I can grasp it.

This, except replace right wing with Trump supporter.

He is such a scumbag of such epic proportions that it’s very hard not to judge people harshly when they unwaveringly support him.

[they don't love you like i love you]

r/feet is a great subreddit.

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

Constantine I, as an individual, is not an important figure in the history of Christian theology, although several of his successors are.

[Co-Chair Bagel23]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qgdLNEPA0tg

This is cringe

[morgankingsley]

I would rather be a poster who doesn't really stand out one way or another, can easily be ignored, but still can get along with most anybody just due to being cordial, then be a poster who goes too far with stating his ideas, creates a persona people know, but a persona that people hate. I just can't find it in myself or my nature to debate and ruin something with people in an online community that even if I am not super special, am at least accepted in, just to be a persona that I don't even believe in, for the sake of the reaction. I come on here for a good time, to have fun, and occasionally debate politics, not to spend days of my life debating different ideals that I just quite frankly can't get myself to be invested in. And if my lack of decision, my lack of ideals, my lack of an impact, make me an HP to the eyes of some, then it is a title that I will accept as gracefully as I possibly can