Add a Comment   Up to OJB's Blog List

Unpopular Opinions

Entry 2219, on 2022-05-24 at 19:51:43 (Rating 4, Comments)

I have found myself increasingly in conflict with many beliefs currently held as popular, or more accurately, politically correct. I have always strived to be a free thinker - in other words, I don't care too much what is considered the popular or "correct" position according to politicians, the media, and other (so-called) leaders, which often coincides with the zeitgeist. I used to be moderately left oriented politically, but since the left went too far I now an more libertarian.

I thought it might be fun to list some of my unpopular opinions here, and briefly justify why I have them...

First, free speech.

This is the big one for me, because whatever else happens, we should be discussing and debating all issues which affect society, even those which are difficult or which some groups or individuals might find offensive. In fact, those issues which do provoke a stronger response are exactly the ones we should be spending the most time and effort on.

I don't think it should be possible to say absolutely anything, but I do think we should get as close to that as possible. Basically, the only subject which should be restricted is information which could reasonably be thought of as private. For example, I don't think anyone should publicly share another person's banking password, or private aspects of their life with which should have no reasonable interest to others.

I now there is a certain amount of vagueness in that statement, because who decides what is private or personal, but no rule will be completely free from that unless we go with an "anything goes" approach which would have obvious problems (password sharing, etc).

Second, equity.

The problem here can be the definition of the word. Equity has come to mean something a little bit different than what many might expect. In fact, it arguably now means the opposite of its true meaning. If I look up the official definitions, equity means being fair and impartial, while equality means having equal status and opportunities.

Those two words are very similar but today the distinction is often presented as equality of opportunity and equity in outcomes. The first states that everyone should have the same opportunities to participate in society: to vote, be educated, go to a university, etc. The second often states something more along the lines of some votes might count for more than others, everyone should get the same grades at school (or grades should be abolished), different groups should all graduate at the same rate, etc.

So sure, we should try to give everyone the same opportunities, although that will never fully happen, but after that it is up to them to make the most of that and "minority groups" should not expect special privileges to help them that others don't get.

Third, abortion.

Even when I was a lefty I had misgivings about this. Now, you might think that as a libertarian I should support the freedom for women to control their own bodies. Well, of course I do, but I don't support their right to control someone else's body.

According to the best evidence I can find, the majority of biologists say that life begins at conception, so abortion always involves killing another independent person. Again, I am not an absolutist about this, because there are situations where abortion is justified: when the woman's life is credibly threatened by the pregnancy, for example, but in the vast majority of cases I find it problematic.

By the way, I'm not interested in these silly statements, like as a male I have no right to have an opinion on this. If I'm wrong, say why, don't just try to dismiss an awkward opinion by attacking the holder of that opinion.

Fourth, gay rights.

I see gay (I will use that as a simple overall term) people as just people. They deserve exactly as much respect as everyone else, and I treat them just like everyone else. What I don't want is for them to be treated as more than equal.

If we start making a special effort for a group like that where does it end? Do we give other groups like women, Muslims, and indigenous groups special privileges too? Oh wait, yes we do! But should we? Well, by now I'm sure you know my answer to that.

Fifth, trans rights.

Is this post controversial enough yet? No? OK...

I think people who say they have changed sex are still fundamentally the biological sex they were at birth. This should be the a basic fact which can not be disputed (except in a very small number of cases with genetic abnormalities). If someone identifies as a different sex (or as some people rather unkindly put it: they pretend to be another sex) I will usually go along with that and refer to them with the appropriate pronouns and any new name they might have chosen, but if I think someone is taking my cooperation on this too far I will refuse further support. Note that I have never needed to do this!

But there are times when the person's true sex needs to be acknowledged: I disagree with trans women (who were previously men) competing in women's sport, for example. The same applies to trans women going to women's prisons, and to using female changing rooms, toilets, etc.

I am a bit flexible about this though, because I think think a person who has gone through a "comprehensive transition" to their new sex, including hormone treatment and surgery, might have a case to participate as a new person, but I'm still thinking through the consequences of that.

Sixth, the pay gap.

It is alleged that men are unfairly paid more than women, despite the fact that there are laws specifically presenting that in most advanced countries. So is this real or not?

Well, I've never seen any evidence to show that it is real. I have discussed this in depth in other posts, so I won't go into detail here, but generally any apparent differences in pay are caused by mean and women preferring different jobs, being prepared to make different sacrifices for their job, and being more or less confrontational when negotiating pay and conditions.

So the pay gap doesn't seem to be anything caused by systemic bias; it is just that a person who is prepared to do a certain type of job, is prepared to sacrifice their personal life to enhance their professional life, and makes greater demands of their employer, is always going to get paid more.

Seventh, women in sport.

There are many demands today for women in professional sport to be paid the same as men, but is that reasonable? Should the pay be dependent on how good the person is? Should it be related to how much income that sport can generate? Should it be left to the "market" or to a mutual negotiation between two parties, or should it be regulated? A case could be made to answer these questions with yes or no, but I would tend towards no.

In the vast majority of cases women are not as good as men at sport. The rather embarrassing case of the US women's soccer team - generally thought of as being one of the best teams in the world - being beaten by some 15 year old school boys emphasises this. And it goes on in every sport. Even Serena Williams has admitted that she would be lucky to win a point against any top male player.

What about sharing in the money generated from their sport? Well, of course, that is only fair, but most women's sports don't generate much. Going back to the the US women's soccer team again, they get paid a greater proportion of the income from their games than the men. In fact, there has been a suggestion the men subsidise the women. What if it was the other way around? It would never happen, right?

Eight, indigenous and traditional cultures.

We often hear about how great indigenous cultures were; about how peaceful they were, about how they looked after the land, about how they knew many things better than we do in the modern world. Well, that just isn't true, in the vast majority of cases.

The fact is that those cultures had two advantages: one, they generally didn't have very big populations, so their effect on the environment was less; and two, their technology was primitive, so again they were limited in the damage they could inflict. And war and violence was generally the norm, unlike today where it is rare.

Nine, global warming.

I think the evidence indicates that the climate is changing and that there is a very good chance that most of that is caused by human activity, but that is where my agreement with many of the claims and demands of climate activists ends.

I don't think this is an existential threat, and I don't think we are in the middle of a "crisis" or "emergency". Climate change is something we need to be aware of, and if we can burn less fossil fuel that is great, but the hysterical nonsense we get from climate activists and many in the media is not helpful.

It seems to me that, given the attitude of China, Russia, and India, we are never going to effectively manage warming gas emissions, and we might be a lot better off working on technology to reduce the inevitable effects.

It would cost billions for New Zealand to reduce its emissions, but why bother? It won't make any difference to the global picture, and maybe that money would be better spent on ways of coping with a warming world.

There are several other issues I could add to this post, but I've probably upset enough people already, so I will leave it there. These opinions seem like people would find them controversial, but I really don't know why. They are all based on facts, and what's the point of getting upset with facts? In fact, what many people are really upset about is being shown the facts. They would prefer to remain ignorant!

Comment 1 (7180) by Anonymous on 2022-05-27 at 12:33:44:

Is that it or do you have other areas of ignorance you want to confess to?

Comment 2 (7182) by OJB on 2022-05-27 at 14:43:31:

Well, I have more unpopular opinions, if that's what you mean. If there is any ignorance, please point out where. As per usual, I don't mind making corrections.

Comment 3 (7247) by Ken Spall on 2022-08-02 at 21:49:05:

In response to comment 1 I fail to see how being honest about one’s opinions can be considered ignorant.

Comment 4 (7249) by OJB on 2022-08-03 at 14:00:04:

Well, my opinions might be invalid because I am writing from a position of ignorance. But if that is the case I expect to be told what it is I am ignorant about, specifically. Just some vague statement that I might be wrong is worthless.

You can leave comments about this entry using this form.

Enter your name (optional):
Enter your email address (optional):
Enter the number shown here:
Enter the comment:

To add a comment: enter a name and email (optional), type the number shown, enter a comment, click Add.
Note that you can leave the name blank if you want to remain anonymous.
Enter your email address to receive notifications of replies and updates to this entry.
The comment should appear immediately because the authorisation system is currently inactive.