What non political controversial position do you hold?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Pit bulls should be banned.
Restaurants should be sectioned off for people with children and without.

Preach, sister!!

I would LOVE for restaurants to be sectioned for children/no children. I have young kids and while I love them, they should absolutely not be inflicted on unsuspecting fellow diners while they're learning how to behave properly in public.

Also NO screens with volume under any circumstances. I don’t want to listen to Cocomelon on full volume because your kid can’t behave.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Smoking weed should be stigmatized just like smoking cigarettes.

Ever since DC decriminalized weed, I’ve hated being in the city. It reeks of skunk.

There should be a way to make weed not smell like skunk. I nearly failed chemistry so I'm not the person to ask but while I don't care what other people want to do with their bodies why must it make the public air smell so nasty?

[Anonymous]

Public school is taxpayer-funded babysitting. Private schools are trending in that direction.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Smoking weed should be stigmatized just like smoking cigarettes.

Ever since DC decriminalized weed, I’ve hated being in the city. It reeks of skunk.

There should be a way to make weed not smell like skunk. I nearly failed chemistry so I'm not the person to ask but while I don't care what other people want to do with their bodies why must it make the public air smell so nasty?

We can’t drink in our cars or on the street why can we smoke pot?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't believe ADD/ADHD or autism/sensory disorders are real.
I think they are social constructed. Made up.
I don't think we have tolerance in American society for eccentricities.

You and the PP who attributes ADHD to poor parenting are confused. This thread is about opinions, not about facts.

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but no one is entitled to their own facts.

Owls are real.
Climate change is real.
Gravity is real.
ADHD is real.
Autism is real.

It is my opinion that your lax parenting with way too much screentime and poor limit-setting and boundaries caused or heavily exacerbated your kids ADHD. There are no “facts” that disprove what I am saying.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:FB should immediately ban forever anyone who ends their post with “And Go…”

I think you're my soul mate.

Love you both

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Reading non-fiction is no different than surfing the net.

It’s drivel, I get it’s enjoyable but so is the Internet. People use it to escape just like reading the internet.

Any argument you can make for reading non-fiction you can say the same about surfing the net.

People who get their ego from grammar and spelling are the same people that are having a heart attack reading my opinion.

Do you mean fiction?

Lol yes

So you believe that sitting down and reading Hamlet is the same as scrolling through TikTok?

OK.

😂😂😂😂

Yeah not a controversial argument so much as completely unconvincing …

Hamlet is a play that was never meant to be read. It was meant to be performed and watched.

Next.

How is that relevant?

For someone who can't distinguish between fiction and non-fiction, you're really going to the mattresses for this historically bad take. Maybe you should gracefully retire.

Shakespeare didn’t even think hamlet should be read but you know better.

Gracefully retire

Again, what does that have to do with the actual point - that reading FICTION is the equivalent to scrolling social media?

There is just as much good stuff on the internet (social media is only a subsection of the internet) as compared to sitting all alone reading fiction. Also I think most intense fiction readers are using it to escape instead if dealing with their issues. Learn to meditate.

People learn way more from reading the internet. They learn interpersonal communication, basic communication, vocabulary, different cultures, politics, food, entertainment, sports, poetry, how to fix things, how to play the piano/guitar, art, etc.

Irony is dead.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Dads shouldn’t get maternity leave.

They don't. They do, however, get paternity leave.

They shouldn’t get paternity leave unless they are a single father.

Here’s mine: fathers should be required to take paternity leave. If they don’t take all their leave, then they can’t get paid.

Or if they don’t take paternity leave they don’t get to be called a parent.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Reading non-fiction is no different than surfing the net.

It’s drivel, I get it’s enjoyable but so is the Internet. People use it to escape just like reading the internet.

Any argument you can make for reading non-fiction you can say the same about surfing the net.

People who get their ego from grammar and spelling are the same people that are having a heart attack reading my opinion.

Do you mean fiction?

Lol yes

So you believe that sitting down and reading Hamlet is the same as scrolling through TikTok?

OK.

😂😂😂😂

Yeah not a controversial argument so much as completely unconvincing …

Hamlet is a play that was never meant to be read. It was meant to be performed and watched.

Next.

How is that relevant?

For someone who can't distinguish between fiction and non-fiction, you're really going to the mattresses for this historically bad take. Maybe you should gracefully retire.

Shakespeare didn’t even think hamlet should be read but you know better.

Gracefully retire

Again, what does that have to do with the actual point - that reading FICTION is the equivalent to scrolling social media?

There is just as much good stuff on the internet (social media is only a subsection of the internet) as compared to sitting all alone reading fiction. Also I think most intense fiction readers are using it to escape instead if dealing with their issues. Learn to meditate.

People learn way more from reading the internet. They learn interpersonal communication, basic communication, vocabulary, different cultures, politics, food, entertainment, sports, poetry, how to fix things, how to play the piano/guitar, art, etc.

Irony is dead.

See have you ever had this much fun reading Shakespeare? Out out damn spot.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Weed shouldn't be legalized for recreational use. Medical use? It should be studied, refined and used even more extensively than it now is. But recreational use is a terrible idea. Alcohol is bad enough. We don't need another legal substance people can use to numb themselves. Unfortunately, alcohol already does that pitiful job just fine.

DCUM's weed lovers will just hate that opinion, I know. But they won't remember it once they've smoked, later today. Spare me the "you should relax and smoke weed!" posts about it too.

I'm with you and it smells absolutely awful. I can drive through DC with my windows up and STILL smell it randomly in my car.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Reading non-fiction is no different than surfing the net.

It’s drivel, I get it’s enjoyable but so is the Internet. People use it to escape just like reading the internet.

Any argument you can make for reading non-fiction you can say the same about surfing the net.

People who get their ego from grammar and spelling are the same people that are having a heart attack reading my opinion.

Do you mean fiction?

Lol yes

So you believe that sitting down and reading Hamlet is the same as scrolling through TikTok?

OK.

😂😂😂😂

Yeah not a controversial argument so much as completely unconvincing …

Hamlet is a play that was never meant to be read. It was meant to be performed and watched.

Next.

How is that relevant?

For someone who can't distinguish between fiction and non-fiction, you're really going to the mattresses for this historically bad take. Maybe you should gracefully retire.

Shakespeare didn’t even think hamlet should be read but you know better.

Gracefully retire

Again, what does that have to do with the actual point - that reading FICTION is the equivalent to scrolling social media?

There is just as much good stuff on the internet (social media is only a subsection of the internet) as compared to sitting all alone reading fiction. Also I think most intense fiction readers are using it to escape instead if dealing with their issues. Learn to meditate.

People learn way more from reading the internet. They learn interpersonal communication, basic communication, vocabulary, different cultures, politics, food, entertainment, sports, poetry, how to fix things, how to play the piano/guitar, art, etc.

How odd! Even if that were true (and I don’t think it is), why wouldn’t reading be as valid a way to “deal with issues” as meditation?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Jose Andres isn’t some great humanitarian, he's a self-promoter.

How many thousand people have you fed during a disaster?

How much money did he make as a gov contractor off of his "charity"?

I don't care that he made money. No one else had an operation as efficient as his and he should get paid.

... but then it's not humanitarian work, Jose.

of course it is. don't be obtuse.

C'mon, either he's doing it for charity and humanitarian purposes, or for profit. You can't have both.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Reading non-fiction is no different than surfing the net.

It’s drivel, I get it’s enjoyable but so is the Internet. People use it to escape just like reading the internet.

Any argument you can make for reading non-fiction you can say the same about surfing the net.

People who get their ego from grammar and spelling are the same people that are having a heart attack reading my opinion.

Do you mean fiction?

Lol yes

So you believe that sitting down and reading Hamlet is the same as scrolling through TikTok?

OK.

😂😂😂😂

Yeah not a controversial argument so much as completely unconvincing …

Hamlet is a play that was never meant to be read. It was meant to be performed and watched.

Next.

How is that relevant?

For someone who can't distinguish between fiction and non-fiction, you're really going to the mattresses for this historically bad take. Maybe you should gracefully retire.

Shakespeare didn’t even think hamlet should be read but you know better.

Gracefully retire

Again, what does that have to do with the actual point - that reading FICTION is the equivalent to scrolling social media?

There is just as much good stuff on the internet (social media is only a subsection of the internet) as compared to sitting all alone reading fiction. Also I think most intense fiction readers are using it to escape instead if dealing with their issues. Learn to meditate.

People learn way more from reading the internet. They learn interpersonal communication, basic communication, vocabulary, different cultures, politics, food, entertainment, sports, poetry, how to fix things, how to play the piano/guitar, art, etc.

How odd! Even if that were true (and I don’t think it is), why wouldn’t reading be as valid a way to “deal with issues” as meditation?

NP. No, not at all. Escapism is still escapism whether you’re on DCUM or reading a novel.

[Anonymous]

Based on this thread, ADHD, being weighed at the doctor's office, and Jose Andres are the most controversial opinions. DCUM is full of surprises.

[Anonymous]

ADHD is over-diagnosed.