-
Welcome to Smogon! Take a moment to read the Introduction to Smogon for a run-down on everything Smogon, and make sure you take some time to read the global rules.
-
Congrats to the winners of the 2023 Smog Awards!
Hot Takes
- Thread starter Crux
- Start date
There’s 2 types of people in the world, those who have rigid definitions of a word, and those who define a word by its popular usage. And I believe English is a language that by default greatly supports the former.
I’m using former to mean the second option. 
i know that was meant to be a joke but who the fuck are you hanging out that actually uses former to mean latter. i've literally never heard that irl or online. i'm aware as a forum poster i'm a pot calling kettle black here, but have you tried not interacting with idiots? i feel that many problems can be solved with this!
I disagree with the sentiment that sub/dom kink is problematic or immoral in any way. Some people (INCLUDING LGBTQ+ COUPLES) like to be dominant or like to be submissive with their partner. That is their choice. It is not always ‘man owns female so therefore sub/dom is baaad’ because LGBTQ+ couples do it too, and its a kink because it turns them on. Choking people is also another kink that can be CONSENSUALLY agreed to. Has nothing to do with misogyny at all.
However being dominant and submissive outside of the bedroom can be seen as problematic because ‘people should have the choice to do whatever they want therefore dom/sub couples shouldn’t exist!!!’ Which is wrong. People can have any relationship they want as long as its not abusive. And tbh, trying to guilt people for being turned on from a certain thing in their private time is very strange. It’s not immoral. That’s my two cents on that, but here’s my hot take.
Religion has become more prominent in our society than it should have become.
Remember that saying that state and church should be separated? Yeah. That should be common sense right? Because not everyone believes in one religion right? Nope. It’s god this and jesus that over here in America, and sometimes it has even influenced major decisions. Which is absolute bullshit. Not everyone is a christian, nor should the church/religion influence our politics or lives. I hate that people feel like being christian is the safe bet for not getting preached to in the states, because not believing in jesus is ‘immoral’, as if other religions don’t exist. Who made jesus more prominent than other gods? And why does everyone seem to need to follow him? You should ALWAYS have a choice of religion, born into a religious family or not, and the forcing of christianity in the states baffles me. America was founded on christianity indeed, but the average American now feels the NEED to be christian. As if they’ll be ostracized if they aren’t. Complete and utter bullshit.
TL;DR I kinda ranted about how there’s this hidden pressure in the US to be christian and how the church sometimes had influence in the most unlikely of places. Which it shouldn’t be in my opinion.
However being dominant and submissive outside of the bedroom can be seen as problematic because ‘people should have the choice to do whatever they want therefore dom/sub couples shouldn’t exist!!!’ Which is wrong. People can have any relationship they want as long as its not abusive. And tbh, trying to guilt people for being turned on from a certain thing in their private time is very strange. It’s not immoral. That’s my two cents on that, but here’s my hot take.
Religion has become more prominent in our society than it should have become.
Remember that saying that state and church should be separated? Yeah. That should be common sense right? Because not everyone believes in one religion right? Nope. It’s god this and jesus that over here in America, and sometimes it has even influenced major decisions. Which is absolute bullshit. Not everyone is a christian, nor should the church/religion influence our politics or lives. I hate that people feel like being christian is the safe bet for not getting preached to in the states, because not believing in jesus is ‘immoral’, as if other religions don’t exist. Who made jesus more prominent than other gods? And why does everyone seem to need to follow him? You should ALWAYS have a choice of religion, born into a religious family or not, and the forcing of christianity in the states baffles me. America was founded on christianity indeed, but the average American now feels the NEED to be christian. As if they’ll be ostracized if they aren’t. Complete and utter bullshit.
TL;DR I kinda ranted about how there’s this hidden pressure in the US to be christian and how the church sometimes had influence in the most unlikely of places. Which it shouldn’t be in my opinion.
this was just a joke mocking the nature of it but you see it done with other words all the time, like “literally”, “based” or even the n word. English is a language that evolves through context, so do many other languages but you can argue English and other Germanic and romantic languages evolve at a faster rate. You get me, my therapist?
Last edited:
no they dont
there should be a basic test before people go to vote in general elections. it was crazy to me how many people (said they) were voting for hillary clinton purely because she was a woman. it was also crazy to me how many people voted for trump purely on the basis of him "building a wall". these reasons for me aren't good enough to entitle someone to change the way the country is run.
the test should be unbias, and list off the prominent issues each party wants to address should they get into power (eg, immigration, taxes, abortion, etc) just so at least the voter with no knowledge has SOME clue of what they're voting for.
another hot take: people who abstain from voting shouldn't be shamed by people who did / do vote.
the test should be unbias, and list off the prominent issues each party wants to address should they get into power (eg, immigration, taxes, abortion, etc) just so at least the voter with no knowledge has SOME clue of what they're voting for.
another hot take: people who abstain from voting shouldn't be shamed by people who did / do vote.
People who abstain from voting should absolutely be shamed by those that did
TheValkyries
proudly reppin' 2 superbowl wins since DEFLATEGATE
People who think U.S. elections aren't fraudulently gerrymandered to uselessness are stooges. Our political landscape is so fucking distorted and warped that our "Left Wing" party is the fucking Democrats. Voting is quite literally in many places, extremely fucking useless.
Shaming people for abstaining misrepresents voting as the epitome of political engagement and efficacy (it is at best the bare minimum). This totally inflates the importance of voting (as noted by valk above, the system is designed to manipulate votes and devalue them as it sees fit). It's also usually driven by a total misunderstanding of the reasons people don't vote in the first place. I usually see people attribute a lack of voter engagement to bourgeosie entitlement / laziness (or, inversely, a racist/classist dogwhistle) when in reality most non voters are likely to be LESS privileged. Not only do these groups feel no urge to vote due to the lack of forseeable benefits, but they are not exactly tempted to give their (coerced) stamp of approval to a system that at best does not particularly care about them and at worst wants to totally erase them.
https://theintercept.com/2020/04/09...-white-and-dissatisfied-with-the-two-parties/
Asking people to vote is one thing but shaming people for abstaining feels incredibly counterproductive and borderline disingenuous. some people are willing to play the long game with their vote and some people are just done with the whole thing. Both are reasonable, no need to gaslight ppl into legitimizing the status quo.
Tl;dr - Voting is not the be all end all of civic engagement, get off your high horse
https://theintercept.com/2020/04/09...-white-and-dissatisfied-with-the-two-parties/
Asking people to vote is one thing but shaming people for abstaining feels incredibly counterproductive and borderline disingenuous. some people are willing to play the long game with their vote and some people are just done with the whole thing. Both are reasonable, no need to gaslight ppl into legitimizing the status quo.
Tl;dr - Voting is not the be all end all of civic engagement, get off your high horse
i believe (correct me if i'm wrong) that a spoiled ballot is generally seen as a stronger form of protest than not voting, as it is actually counted at some stage of the process (and therefore cannot be attributed to laziness etc., as can abstaining from the vote altogether) - but that presupposes that the act of not voting is being used as a political statement & is not just an act of despair.
Ohmachi
Sun✡Head
Yes it is and you need to get ON the high horse. Apathy, ignorance, and sloth are unacceptable. Disengagement is resignation.
If voting was the be-all-and-end-all of civic engagement like you say, then people incapable of voting like minors, felons, people who lack access to voting facilities, and undocumented immigrants wouldn't impact society in the massive way they do since apparently voting eclipses all that. And yes, I know that don't vote =/= can't vote, but the outcome either way is the same since these people aren't participating in elections. And what of people who just vote, and don't participate in meaningful civic engagement any more than that? You'd be hard-pressed to convince me that those people aren't "disengaged" from societal progress, and by your definition, resigned.
Yes, voting is important, but it's silly to say that it's the absolute summit of public participation. To say as such implies things such as parties like the Greens and Libs are pointless. After all, they never win elections, so their civic impact is miniscule, right? Additionally, with regard to vote-shaming (which, anecdotally, I frequently see correlated with "Just Vote." type people), like literally what is the plan with that. Even if you get the vote, you didn't expand the base, and you didn't persuade someone to your ideals. You essentially bullied someone into doing what you want, and they will not fight for it anywhere else down the line. And again, if voting was truly the be-all-and-end-all, it would only matter that you got the vote.
We live in a society that just doesn't reflect voting as being a panacea of social stagnation. All my points aside, the complicated, interconnected nature of people in general means that no single method will spur people to civic action. Voting has to coexist with, and not overshadow, things like organization, volunteer work, fundraising, protest, even purposeful abstention from elections in order to remain meaningful.
And as a side note, I'm deeply skeptical of any argument like "here are some reasonable motives why someone may abstain from voting" "nah".
when it’s a question is it a take?
Esports should not be in the olympics and should never be in the Olympics or any major sporting event ever
in essence esports are NOT sports
Agreed. Esports are in the same vein as chess, and I don't want to see olympic chess.
I would be willing to make an exception though if the esports athletes had to do 400m hurdles to get to their computers
that would be incredibly entertaining
Same vibe as the one winter sport where they ski and also shoot shit, I'd watch it.
