What's the most controversial take you have?

Sort by date Sort by votes
I fully support euthanasia and eugenics. I don't understand why people would allow children to be born with deformities that will make their lives miserable. In an overpopulated world, I don't agree that it's a right to breed. People shriek in horror at the concept of eugenics, but it can be carried out quite painlessly. No need to go spastic and shoot people into open pits like Nazi Germany. Simply sterilize people.

Marriage should be between a man and woman. Children need mums and dads. I don't agree with gay men breeding women like cattle so they can have children.

The repeal of Section/Clause 28, in 2003, was a terrible mistake. Also, homosexuality being removed from the DSM-5. It *is* a mental illness.
 
  • Agree
  • Semper Fidelis
Reactions: PeggieBigCock, Alligator Alcatraz, CEO of Husbandos and 1 other person
Upvote 2 Downvote
General: there's nothing wrong with collecting Funko Pops as long as you enjoy it and it doesn't become an addiction or other detriment.

Religious people and atheist who think the opposition is inherently stupid are pricks and I rather hang out with people who can give respect to others' choices. Things like actual dangerous cults don't count, of course.

Leftist leaning circles: lmao troons. Fund the cops more so we can teach them better how to interact with the public and hopefully weed out dickheads and corruption in their own circles. I love it when people bitch about guns then scream for them when they need protection or they think they need to rise against the government.

Kiwi farms: I understand this site is a free space for public speech but holy shit some of you are really weirdly racists. Dropping hard r nigger is fine and so is discussing problems within and about other cultural communities is fine, but going on mile long rants about how nonwhite races are inferior is fucking weird. It ironically makes them look like the same hardcore racial supremacist like mega BLMs they sometimes make fun of (when they aren't congratulateing them on racial purity which is fair at least). Race mixing can be bad if there's cultural conflict, but it's like any other marriage and preserving racial purity is fucking retarded since humans are ever evolving categories of race and ethnicity. Some have really high and weird standards for their own race that they can't possibly live up to as people or make themselves super depressed because humans as a whole are retards regardless of race.

Some users are too cynical for their own good, and might genuinely need to see a doctor or move to a new, less shitty area so you can stop being so fucking miserable.

TheSockiestSock said:
Holy shit will I get negrated for that view but yes I lived in the ghetto yes I have met the ’hood’ niggers and as long as you don’t act like a fool you usually don’t get fucked with
Click to expand...
I worked in retail in some shady areas and even the guys covered in gang tattoos were polite while checking out (it could be because I'm in the south). It's the people who steal and the karens of all races that sucked ass to interact with.
 
  • Like
  • Agree
  • Autistic
Reactions: SCSI, Chocolate Wombat, Biggie Smalls' Taint and 6 others
Upvote 2 Downvote
War is good for the economy, good for healing political divisions, and great for advancing technology beyond the useless bullshit that Silicon Valley pushes. We should absolutely invade China and have a years long ground war there, and take back every last manufacturing center they've been sold, and our country might be able to stop focusing on petty, retarded shit like race, gender, sexuality, whatever if there's an honest to God threat that kills some of our people. I think now, it would be a net benefit for us to go to war. At the very least, you could sell it to every single party for wide popular support.
 
  • Informative
  • Agree
  • Feels
Reactions: Chocolate Wombat, Apis mellifera, Pillar of Autism and 1 other person
Upvote 1 Downvote
People shouldn’t have multiple out of wedlock children. If a partner doesn’t care enough to spend <$100 at the courthouse to get married, their partner shouldn’t be their broodmare/sperm donor.

It doesn’t make sense that people are willing to be biologically bound by a shared child but they’re not willing to commit to marriage. The cope is “it’s just a piece of paper”, but it’s more than that. It’s a contract that legitimizes children and helps establish what they’re legally entitled if the parent dies.

Having kid after kid out of wedlock is selfish and stupid when contraception is as accessible as it is in the US.
 
  • Agree
  • Like
  • Feels
Reactions: Chocolate Wombat, Alligator Alcatraz, Biggie Smalls' Taint and 5 others
Upvote 1 Downvote
It's okay to not give a shit about the poor and the homeless. If you work and pay taxes, let the government take care of them. If you want to help them, go ahead, but it isn't anyone's responsibility, really.
I see many "leftists" browbeating the middle class for not doing enough for the poor. Maybe they're busy trying to not become poor themselves.
I think that doesn't make you a bad person, stabbing hobos like Patrick Bateman does.
 
  • Agree
  • Winner
Reactions: Chocolate Wombat, Alligator Alcatraz, mister meaner and 2 others
Upvote 0 Downvote
White society and its laws were meant to govern white people, niggers are not ever going to adapt or assimilate to this culture because its blatantly against their instincts, hence they will always be out of place here and can only drag the standard of life down for the other races, expecting them to conform with white society is in itself cruel and all incentives should be given to have them go back to africa to live.
 
  • Like
  • Agree
  • Dumb
Reactions: ñññ, Alligator Alcatraz, Biggie Smalls' Taint and 3 others
Upvote 2 Downvote
Sage In All Fields said:
If a real atheist existed they would stop doing anything immediately and eventually die. All 'atheists' are just polytheists who don't really have a grasp on what it means for a person to have a belief system and they'll deify basically anything from Disney to dead people.
Click to expand...
Can you elaborate? I'm not following.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: mister meaner
Upvote 0 Downvote
AMHOLIO said:
Can you elaborate? I'm not following.
Click to expand...
What makes something a 'god'? Utmost reverence for it, letting it dictate your morals, loving it more than anything else, living and dying for it, among other things. Some 'gods' have some of these and not others, but at least one of them is always there. Some people even implicitly consider themselves gods. To give a good example regarding humanists in particular, Stirner wrote what I find to be a very profound paragraph:
Is “Man” perchance not a higher essence than an individual man, and must not the truths, rights, and ideas which result from the concept of him be honoured and – counted sacred, as revelations of this very concept? For, even though we should abrogate again many a truth that seemed to be made manifest by this concept, yet this would only evince a misunderstanding on our part, without in the least degree harming the sacred concept itself or taking their sacredness from those truths that must “rightly” be looked upon as its revelations. Man reaches beyond every individual man, and yet – though he be “his essence” – is not in fact his essence (which rather would be as single as he the individual himself), but a general and “higher,” yes, for atheists “the highest essence.” And, as the divine revelations were not written down by God with his own hand, but made public through “the Lord’s instruments,” so also the new highest essence does not write out its revelations itself, but lets them come to our knowledge through “true men.” Only the new essence betrays, in fact, a more spiritual style of conception than the old God, because the latter was still represented in a sort of embodiedness or form, while the undimmed spirituality of the new is retained, and no special material body is fancied for it. And withal it does not lack corporeity, which even takes on a yet more seductive appearance because it looks more natural and mundane and consists in nothing less than in every bodily man – yes, or outright in “humanity” or “all men.” Thereby the spectralness of the spirit in a seemingbody has once again become really solid and popular.
Click to expand...
 
  • Winner
Reactions: Apis mellifera
Upvote 1 Downvote
Crystal Coomer said:
Prolife inherently forces women to be mothers with anti-abortion yet does not force men to be fathers, placing all accountability on women for raising children and at the same time Prolifers whine about men not having rights in the say of their children.
Click to expand...
Yes, forcing them to be mothers, all pro-lifers are rapists. What a retard.
 
  • Dumb
  • Mad at the Internet
  • Thunk-Provoking
Reactions: Alligator Alcatraz, mister meaner, CEO of Husbandos and 2 others
Upvote -3 Downvote
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back