this post was submitted on 22 Oct 2025
-28 points (20.8% liked)

Unpopular Opinion

8082 readers
168 users here now

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/

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Firstly, let me explain that I don't mean this in a way that society keeps us unequal and it needs to be fixed. I mean this in a way that we are not all equal and that's the way it's supposed to be. We are individuals for a reason, because we are not the same as everybody else. This is what gives us uniqueness.

Some people are faster, some people are smarter, some are braver, richer, poorer, more competent, better in certain fields, and worse in others. This doesn't mean person A is better overall as a human being than person B just because they're more talented at some random skill.

However, it does mean they aren't the same and thus not equal in their ability. When there's a competition, everyone doesn't come in first place because someone is the winner of the competition. This can be applied to real life applications, and situations as well. To think we're all equal is a very dangerous thing.

The delusion of thinking equality exists, creates conformity, and we all become part of a group think. No one does anything different. No one has uniqueness. No one has individual identity. I'm not going to go into extreme detail how this ruins society just look around you.

Society isn't worse off when we understand that equality is a falsehood. It is worse off when we give the false pretense that equality is a real thing. The person that trains to be the fastest runner cannot be categorized in the same group as someone who is lazy and doesn't even like to go on walks, who is slow.

It is by that person's effort, determination, their dedication and devotion to their training, their exercise, practice, or growth that they are superior, not equal to that person who is lazy and slothful. (The runner example can be used for any example that it is applicable to. There doesn't have to be physicality involved.

We are all human but we are not all equal. Sometimes people are better. Sometimes people are worse. And that's perfectly fine.

top 36 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] HubertManne@piefed.social 2 points 6 hours ago

There is no way to assign a value to overall worth. yes one person is faster and one is smarter and maybe one is luckier. None in sum total can be definitively said to be better. If you know the lord of the rings who is the best and who is the worst as a being. gandalf, gimli, aragorn, frodo, sam. Or maybe look at its a wonderful life. its like the butterfly flapping its wings. for that matter look at the effects one insect species has on the planet.

[–] notsosure@sh.itjust.works 3 points 14 hours ago

Unpopular opinion so upvote 👍🏽

[–] too_high_for_this@lemmy.world 14 points 1 day ago (2 children)

I can't tell if you're a moron, a troll, or just a truly awful person.

[–] Perspectivist@feddit.uk 4 points 20 hours ago

Would you say that they're not equal to yourself then?

[–] Walk_blesseD@piefed.blahaj.zone 4 points 23 hours ago

Those categories do not preclude each other. I think she's got the trifecta here.

[–] themeatbridge@lemmy.world 31 points 1 day ago (1 children)

This is only unpopular because you're missing the entire point of equality, and your conclusions are banal tautology. Of course people are different, but our differences alone do not account for the differences in success or failure, the differences in freedom and oppression, in joy and suffering.

Your starements are offensive because you imply that people are largely responsible for their own respective lots in life, and you suggest we are worse off as a society when we try to treat people equally. It is the foundational argument for fascism and kleptocracy. It's bad for society and bad for humanity, and you should feel bad for thinking it is an opinion at all. Your ignorance is not equal to an opinion.

[–] henchmannumber3@lemmy.world 14 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

people are largely responsible for their own respective lots in life

This is called the Just-world fallacy.

[–] TheReturnOfPEB@reddthat.com 16 points 1 day ago (1 children)

It is not about being equal.

It is about being given an equal chance for the pursuit of happiness.

[–] Perspectivist@feddit.uk 2 points 20 hours ago (1 children)

Judging by how often death is celebrated and violence or murder is openly advocated here, I don’t think many people actually even believe we’re all equal - only that their in-group is. And often, not even everyone within that.

[–] moonluna@lemmy.world 0 points 13 hours ago

Precisely, these people on average are superior in their evil and not equal to let's say a more godly person

[–] victorz@lemmy.world 4 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

People aren't the same in their abilities, you are correct. And some people will contribute to society more than others, yes.

In these ways, some people will seem to have more "worth" than others, I will concede.

But to me it comes down to the fact that every person deserves:

  1. a chance to be happy,
  2. to be free from pain,
  3. and to be accepted as they were born.

This is what I mean when I say all people are equal. Not that everyone is the same person somehow. 🤨 Granted, some people will forfeit their birthright to these things by betraying humanity or their community in certain ways, but that's beside the point.

I think we should have the same opinion here, right?

[–] henchmannumber3@lemmy.world 5 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

Is there a particular declaration of equality that you're arguing against? I don't know that I encounter a lot of people who would disagree with your assertion that we're not equal in ability or traits. That likely seems obvious to a lot of people. When equality is spoken of, I usually find that it's addressed as an ideal relating to treatment and opportunity. Some people espouse that society should treat all people equally, in the idea that we all have the same human rights, that we all have the most commons needs, we're all born and die, etc. And treating each other equally is a generally straightforward way to navigate human relationships.

If you focus on the idea that we're all different as the basis for a value system rather than a factual observation that informs your perceptions, that might lead to some people arguing that being different in some ways means you're "better" as a person and should be treated better and have more rights or privileges or freedoms over other people.

If we're categorizing people based on their top speed, yes, an Olympic athlete is likely "better" in that category than an obese guy who doesn't get much or any exercise. But that category may not be relevant to many people outside of sports and athletic competitions and being better in that category doesn't make you a better person in general. A fast runner could also beat their spouse or murder people or kick puppies or just generally be a sociopath. And an obese person who doesn't get much exercise could be a volunteer worker at a children's cancer ward. So "better" in some categories doesn't mean "better" over all or in categories that others might value.

Have you read Harrison Bergeron by Kurt Vonnegut? It's a dystopian short story about a future in which the government attempts to make everyone equal by handicapping people with above average abilities. There's also a decent movie adaptation called 2081.

https://www.tnellen.com/cybereng/harrison.html

https://www.teaching2081.org/

It's a good story, but it's arguing against something that as a society, we don't seem even close to being in danger of. We have large swaths of the population who don't want people to be equal or perceived as equal and they're actively pursuing policies that treat people inequally, especially in regard to civil and human rights.

[–] Fedegenerate@lemmynsfw.com 1 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

This doesn’t mean person A is better overall as a human being than person B

If a person is no better or worse than another, what are they if not equal? Sure they're faster but "overall" they're equal.

Five hundred pennies, and five singles are different, but they are equal. Just because a thing is different from another thing, doesn't mean it isn't equal. Sure, five hundred pennies are heavier, they're still equal.

Perhaps "equitable" is a better word for the concept people are talking about. But "equal" is the word used, so it means this now. Regardless, the specific word isn't worth arguing about, it's the concept that is worth discussing.

I think the problem with deciding people aren't equal, is that some group has to decide what metrics are most important. That group will inevitably be the one with the most power, and they'll inevitably pick metrics that they themselves excell at. Then the metric becomes a target, and every metric that becomes a target becomes malicious.

We already see this, we as a society, value people by the amount of capital they own. Wealthy people get to enjoy all the benefits of society and are insulated from most of its problems. As a result (gestures around).

People are already not equal in today's society. There are the 'have's, there are the 'have not's, and there's everything in between. We're not equal, but we should be.