Unpopular Opinion
Welcome to the Unpopular Opinion community!
How voting works:
Vote the opposite of the norm.
If you agree that the opinion is unpopular give it an arrow up. If it's something that's widely accepted, give it an arrow down.
Guidelines:
Tag your post, if possible (not required)
- If your post is a "General" unpopular opinion, start the subject with [GENERAL].
- If it is a Lemmy-specific unpopular opinion, start it with [LEMMY].
Rules:
1. NO POLITICS
Politics is everywhere. Let's make this about [general] and [lemmy] - specific topics, and keep politics out of it.
2. Be civil.
Disagreements happen, but that doesn’t provide the right to personally attack others. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Please also refrain from gatekeeping others' opinions.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Shitposts and memes are allowed but...
Only until they prove to be a problem. They can and will be removed at moderator discretion.
5. No trolling.
This shouldn't need an explanation. If your post or comment is made just to get a rise with no real value, it will be removed. You do this too often, you will get a vacation to touch grass, away from this community for 1 or more days. Repeat offenses will result in a perma-ban.
6. Defend your opinion
This is a bit of a mix of rules 4 and 5 to help foster higher quality posts. You are expected to defend your unpopular opinion in the post body. We don't expect a whole manifesto (please, no manifestos), but you should at least provide some details as to why you hold the position you do.
Instance-wide rules always apply. https://legal.lemmy.world/tos/
view the rest of the comments
I think it’s a well-intentioned, but overly idealistic take. For one thing, you can’t please all the people all the time. The more people you’re dealing with, the more true this becomes. At some point, trying to “care” for everyone in the way you define leads to inaction. “If I can’t please everyone, I’ll stick with the status quo.”
There’s also different kinds of responsibility. For a parent or teacher, responsibility certainly means some level of care. A general has tons of responsibility, and good ones do care about the people under them. But they can’t let that obscure the fact that their job sometimes entails sending people to their deaths. What can be more careless than indirectly bringing about the death of a good number of people? In that case, what you define as a dereliction of duty is literally the opposite!
As for the maternal bond, I don’t completely disagree, mainly because I have a great mom, and am married to one as well. But plenty of kids grew up without parents over human history. Of course, some number wound up having issues as a result of that, but I would argue at least an equal number turned out just fine.
No one is raised alone or else they would starve. There are people responsible for you being alive at this moment, and that has always been the case since your birth. This is something easily ignored, like how oxygen is taken for granted
Of course nobody grows up completely alone. I never said they did. I said plenty of kids grew up without parents. That doesn't mean they were left completely alone! There are plenty of kids in foster care in the US whose host families provide some food, a roof over their head, maybe a bed, and little else. It's a pretty old story, and again plenty of those kids grew up fine. I'm not arguing that it's an ideal situation, or that kids in those circumstances have as much chance at a happy life as ones in loving homes (w/ or w/o their birth parents). I'm just saying it isn't as black and white as you're making it out.
The general analogy is a category error bc "sending people to their deaths" is uncaring as defined as "not good" for wellbeing. All generals are therefore categorically not ideal.
I don't even know what you're saying here. Are you arguing that generals are uncaring? If you are, you haven't met many. As I said in my previous original post, good generals care about the people under their command. When generals are sending soldiers to their deaths, the death part isn't a certainty. The orders the general gives is intended to give the soldiers the best chance at achieving their goals w minimal loss of life. If for no other reason than if you lose all your guys because you did a Picket's Charge, you... wind up like Picket. And now we're getting into the motivations of the generals when they make plans and give orders. All of this is to say it's way more messy that you're trying to make it out to be. Good/Bad, Black/White, ignores things like perspective & circumstance - gray areas, of which there are a plethora because humans are often irrational, often unintentionally.