People don't know opinion vs fact anymore, amirite?

Lmao touché got him there

by Bitter-Cress 1 week ago

Facts!

by AttorneyScary 1 week ago

Based!

by Anonymous 1 week ago

Based used to mean "I don't necessarily agree with you but it's good you bucked the trend" and now it means the exact opposite

by Anonymous 1 week ago

According to whom?

by Anonymous 1 week ago

That's true. Was also used in the 90s. People used to say it when it was indeed something known. Its latest resurgence has been on another level where the thing the person is saying may be an opinion or completely wrong.

by Artistic-Panda7892 1 week ago

Surely you meant "facts"

by Anonymous 1 week ago

Facts

by Artistic-Panda7892 1 week ago

i think this is an unpopular opinion because you imply there was a time in the distant past where things were different... but i'm pretty sure this is just regular human behaviour.

by Anonymous 1 week ago

There was never much of a difference for about 90% of conversations. No one argues the sky isn't blue, they have arguments about grey areas of interpretation.

by Several-Operation 1 week ago

No one argues the sky isn't blue Vsauce: are you sure about that

by Anonymous 1 week ago

Trust me, the sky isn't blue if you live in England. It's white on a good day.

by raynorjettie 1 week ago

Well the Earth is Flat so…

by Anonymous 1 week ago

I'd say it's more sky blue

by Anonymous 1 week ago

The sky isn't blue it's transparent

by genevieveosinsk 1 week ago

Close, but not quite. People don't argue about the sky being blue, because it's simple to show it's blue. Anything slightly complicated counts as a 'grey area' even if it's 100% a fact. If it takes 5 concrete facts to establish the point, that's too much for most people and it becomes a supposed 'grey area' just because the argument is too long. Because a bad faith actor can take every step of complication 1000 different bad faith critical paths and gish-gallop their way into a 'grey area'. Kind of like what creationists try to do with evolution. A lot of politicized issues are matters of fact that people simply refuse to be good faith about.

by Anonymous 1 week ago

It isn't really blue, in the sense of containing any blue pigmented matter.

by Anonymous 1 week ago

By that standard, the screen on your phone or computer is also incapable of displaying colors in the sense that it contains no pigment. Rainbows, also, are utterly devoid of color. And the last time I took acid, those weren't colors I was hearing and tasting....

by Anonymous 1 week ago

Ooh! An argument! Rainbows don't have colour. They're just droplets of water. The colour you're referring to is a property of the incoming sunlight, which has coloured components.

by Anonymous 1 week ago

The colour you're referring to is a property of the incoming sunlight, which has coloured components. Indeed, this was my point. Color is a property of light, not of pigment. Rainbows, monitors, and LCD lights are good examples of places where we see colors despite there being no pigments involved.

by Anonymous 1 week ago

Defeat in what? It sounds like you already know that incandescent bulbs often use phosphorus coatings to emit light in specific colors rather than reflecting light off of pigmented surfaces, and you already refer to the different wavelengths of light constituting a rainbow as different "colors", so it sounds like we already agree that "no pigment" does not imply "no color".

by Anonymous 1 week ago

I've never heard of incandescent lamps using phosphor coatings. But then I'm not an expert.

by Anonymous 1 week ago

I believe you are correct that literal phosphorus would be uncommon in an incadescent coating. I believe they use other elements, but in effectively the same way and to the same end.

by Anonymous 1 week ago

Turning to the question of my smartphone screen, I do not know if the phosphors than produce the coloured light technically qualify as pigments but they're certainly a closely related phenomenon

by Anonymous 1 week ago

No, things like phosphorus absorb light in specific spectrums and re-emit them in other spectrums. Unlike pigments, this can actually produce colors that weren't already present in the light source. Pigments, by contrast, absorb (*without* re-emitting) certain spectrums of light, while reflecting others. Pigments remove colors from light. Phosphors change the color of light.

by Anonymous 1 week ago

Well, someone's been on Wikipedia!

by Anonymous 1 week ago

You know there's multiple branches of chemistry and physics entirely dedicated to this stuff right? Just because you're ignorant doesn't mean every body is

by Beginning_Carrot_176 1 week ago

Lol you're not only wrong you're also insufferable

by Beginning_Carrot_176 1 week ago

Cool story.

by Anonymous 1 week ago

Thanks kind stranger. I trust that you found the Wikipedia articles enlightening?

by Anonymous 1 week ago

Dude, I have a PhD and 20 years of scientific research and instrument building under my belt. Your adolescent hobbies don't impress me.

by Anonymous 1 week ago

Pseudo science gives people the belief that their opinions can be proven fact, if given enough time

by msteuber 1 week ago

I respect your "opinion". Good day.

by msteuber 1 week ago

It's not an opinion. It's how Science actually works.

by Anonymous 1 week ago

I'm comfortable if you choose to believe that.

by msteuber 1 week ago

Ask any Scientist lol. Have a good one.

by Anonymous 1 week ago

Won't be you lol. Take care

by msteuber 1 week ago

Like climate change :D

by MetalLow 1 week ago

Indeed, there was a time when climate change was merely a hypothesis based on what seemed inevitable given what we know about physics and chemistry. Over time, enough evidence was amassed that the phenomenon is now established fact and only finer details are in question. Great example!

by Anonymous 1 week ago

No I think they're corrupt because they're sponsored by liberal politicians and liberals are politicians and politicians have very rarely been honest. You are literally just a pawn in their game dude. Also there's entire scientific bodies who have their own science that's peer reviewed and confirms climate change is just a misunderstood realm. But it is aggressively censored by the majority opinion whos operations are literally funded by liberal politician backed organizations But hey, it's not like the majority has ever censored the minority in life right? Right? It's ok though, I can't hold it against you for being brainwashed. Oh wait, yes I can.

by MetalLow 1 week ago

You have never considered the possibility that many of the things you read are also backed by bad actors who want to protect their interests, such as the fossil fuel industry?

by Anonymous 1 week ago

What do you mean by "irrefutable" proof? That's not how science works.

by Anonymous 1 week ago

Hilarious. Good God that's hilarious. Thank you kind stranger for the genuine laughs.

by MetalLow 1 week ago

Scientists have been warning us about climate change for decades, showing data and hard proof examples of how our current shift is different than the climate shifts of other geological eras. Are you really in the boat that believes every one of those scientists over all these years has either been wrong or lying? Really?

by Available_Rice 1 week ago

This guy thinks he knows more than scientists when it's their literal job, doesn't surprise me that he believes in the opposite would've surprise me if he believes in other wild theories

by Anonymous 1 week ago

There are studies showing that if someone believes one conspiracy theory, their likelihood of believing other ones increases dramatically. Cuz they gotta feel smart and special, you know.

by Available_Rice 1 week ago

Lol no it's not. You've clearly never heard of AI image generation or manipulation. Not like Google has ever been in trouble for censorship. Oh wait, yea they have lmao

by MetalLow 1 week ago

ah yes, because literally every climate scientist ever is lying for whatever reason, but I'm sure we can all believe Patrick Moore, who definitely isn't funded by coal lobbyists.

by Anonymous 1 week ago

The root cause of your issue is you believe there's something wrong with fossil fuels.

by MetalLow 1 week ago

"In my opinion, ice cream is the worst snack ever" -fact.

by Anonymous 1 week ago

What annoys me the most is the people will agree to the idea of this but mean completely different things. It's futile.

by Anonymous 1 week ago

It's a fact that I just sent you this reply.

by Anonymous 1 week ago

The irony is beautiful

by wintheiserveron 1 week ago

Yes but it doesn't matter because it's almost summer and I have time to protest because Finals are done.

by Specific_Expert 1 week ago

any examples?

by sarai58 1 week ago

Sure let's say it's my opinion that the earth will be severely damaged by a comet in 3,672 years. I have absolutely no facts to back that up, and it's just based purely on my feelings, but whether a comet does in fact crash into the earth in 3,672 years or not is an objective matter. It's either factually going to be true or false, but it's not a matter of personal preference.

by fhessel 1 week ago

prescriptively speaking, a fact is something that is proven/known to be true. So when someone says something is a fact, they are saying that it is true

by Bernierjefferey 1 week ago

Yes it's annoying. I had to explain to my dad that whether he likes gay people or not is an opinion, but whether they exist is a fact.

by Anonymous 1 week ago

Do you have examples?

by Anonymous 1 week ago

Things like Climate Change, how people just think "oh there's nothing immediately happening, why should I care about the future?" They push their opinions on others saying Climate Change isn't real and push back on bills and things that are going towards that cause. Then when presented with clear evidence that the world is in fact heating at a more than normal rate because of human causes, they deny it and push on it harder, causing devides

by Anonymous 1 week ago

Oh fair enough. I agree with that. It's frustrating when there's something you can point to and provide data yet people still think their personal feelings to the contrary are relevant to the discussion.

by Anonymous 1 week ago

But climate change ISNT real, there's still no facts that it is.

by MetalLow 1 week ago

lol

by Anonymous 1 week ago

:)

by MetalLow 1 week ago

So the climate doesn't change throughout history?

by Anonymous 1 week ago

No

by MetalLow 1 week ago

Here's one now

by chadrick57 1 week ago

Tell me about it .

by Anonymous 1 week ago

Also people confuse fact with truth

by Anonymous 1 week ago

You wouldn't say that if your best friend just told you White Chicks is the greatest movie ever made.

by Anonymous 1 week ago

We have an over abundance of "facts" with many people not understanding the context, the connection or even the basics of these facts. We are in an age where the basic understanding we have isn't enough to understand those facts and how they fit into the larger picture in many cases.

by Anonymous 1 week ago

I live in a world where all things flattering to the other person are true and anything else is false

by xkeebler 1 week ago

They do ! Do they care?no !

by TouristParticular 1 week ago

I used to have a friend that was so into what he believed in, he was msg me articles that were even labeled as "opinion" in the title. After hebsent me so many articles, with no response from me, he actually confronted me in person about not responding to him. I told him that he was just sending me articles. There was no request for a response. Plus, I didn't feel the need to respond to someone else's opinion. There are no facts backing up the articles. I haven't heard from him in years. Its amazing when someone reads something but only sees what they want to see, even if it doesn't actually say what they are claiming something says. Sorry, not sorry. But I'm not going to convict someone without proof. That would like accusing my SO took something from my desk even though my SO wasn't home all day.

by Anonymous 1 week ago

Here's the thing, most opinions are based on various facts that people either misunderstand or interpret differently, so opinions can in fact be argued.

by Grand_Percentage 1 week ago

That's a fact!

by FirmPlankton 1 week ago

You're absolutely right. We've lost the art of debate, and studies are showing a lot of it has to do with the echo chambers caused by social media. Human beings value their egos over truth.

by Weissnatheber 1 week ago

Truth.

by Reasonable_Pair_8824 1 week ago

This is not an unpopular opinion, but it's sad reality. Feelings >>> Facts now. Also, "Hate Speech" is simply speech that somebody hates to hear because they disagree with it. Things are so badly exaggerated and conflated that formerly important and useful words begin to lose all meaning.

by Hour-Bike 1 week ago

"Anymore" seriously?

by Anonymous 1 week ago

Yeah biggest example is vaccines and climate change Humans are causing climate change Vaccines don't cause autism Saying otherwise just means your wrong

by Hilllkarlie 1 week ago

It's because religion explains what science has not, we have no idea how or exactly when the world was created.

by Friendly-Actuator 1 week ago

Another explanation is "I did it. Me. Myself. Five minutes ago. Personally. I am a powerful wizard who conjured everything and your memories are just implants." Just because an explanation exists doesn't mean it's worth genuine consideration.

by Anonymous 1 week ago

People witnesses biblical events and passed down the knowledge though, there is no witnesses for what your talking about.

by Friendly-Actuator 1 week ago

Sure there is. 2,000 people witnessed it and personally testified to it! I recorded their testimonies in a book and then killed them and planted their bodies in graves so people think they have ancestors. Now it's indisputable!

by Anonymous 1 week ago

Wrong. Please see yourself out

by MetalLow 1 week ago

I know, when they say miss misinformation or how reps are anti vaccine, it's like they forgot the entire 2020 election of biden and every Democrat saying to not trust the vaccine and to do your own research.

by Collin66 1 week ago

Every democrat? I wonder where you got that info?

by Anonymous 1 week ago

lol righttttt

by Anonymous 1 week ago

I'm not sure if I agree totally, tbh. From what I understand about history, humans have always been fairly stubborn with what is true or false. I would be really interested in finding out if this claim could be studied somehow though. If anything I think more folks are becoming scientifically minded, and are willing to change their opinion over time (seeing as the number of people leaving religion is becoming higher and higher). Granted I have no evidence for this other than my own experience with millennials/gen z so I could be wrong.

by Anonymous 1 week ago