Press J to jump to the feed. Press question mark to learn the rest of the keyboard shortcuts
MentalAir commented on
Posted byu/[deleted]
Moderator of r/unpopularopinion, speaking officiallyScore hidden · 1 month ago · Stickied comment · edited 1 month ago

Is this a Popular or Unpopular opinion? Please reply to this comment with either 'popular' or 'unpopular'

Please do not vote on your own submissions.

Current Votes:

see more





No athlete in the world gets paid based in the revenue they pull in. Lebron games would make hundreds of millions

see more
Original Poster1 point · 1 month ago

You din’t get paid 50% of the revenue, you get paid proportional to the revenue your team/sport will make. But what you missed is that my post mainly refers to the prizes they get, not the salaries they are paid by their teams. As i answered to someone else, women football and men football are different sports.If the women team makes more money from ads and partnerships with nike they should get a higher salary than the men’s team.

But at the same time the prize for winning a competition (given by the competition) should be lower than the men’s, simply because their tournament brings in lower revenues than the men’s competition. This is applicable to the world cup, tennis tournaments and other sports.

So the united states women team could get higher salaries from the us association because they bring in more money for the us association (partnerships), but if they win the world cup their prize (given by fifa) should be lower than the one won by france last year.

If you take for example the olympics team they all get the some money from the US association for winning a gold medal, no matter the sport or gender, and I believe that’s fair as the sportive din’t bring revenue to the us in that context, it’s more about image (and it’s not given by a private company). But if you support giving prizes regardless of revenues in other sports then the NBA prize should be the same as the lacrosse final prize, the same as WNBA, same as the super bowl etc, you get the idea. It simply doesn’t make sense.

It’s a vicious circle. There is less interest in promotion because people don’t watch, but many people don’t watch because there isn’t promotion.

The WNBA is the best example I can think of for a spectacular failure in spite of significant effort to promote women’s sport; USA Women’s Soccer is the best example I can think of for a spectacular success in spite significant effort to ignore women’s sport. I think most fall in between.

As an anecdote, I remember college sports generally skewing towards interest in attending men’s sports even though it cost far more than attending women’s. It was only the sports where our women appeared to be technically on par or superior to male counterparts that people came out to watch. My recollection is that our women’s sports looked more like slow-paced instructional video while the men demonstrated more athletic freakishness.

see more
Original Poster6 points · 1 month ago

This might be a controversial opinion, but I believe the main reason people don’t watch women sports is the (much) lower quality. My country had a former no 1 female tennis player, and although I was very proud of her and watched all her games in grand slams, after watching women games for a while switching to any (men) ATP top 50 game felt like another sport. It’s simply much better, faster, more spectacular, it’s more fun to watch - I can barely watch a grand slam woman final and I love tennis, it’s just a bit boring and repetitive, maybe a couple of good rallies a set and 1-2 spectacular points. The difference in soccer is even bigger, same for basketball and other team sports.

Load more comments


These are truly amazing times. The vast majority of our population doesn’t have to worry too much about food, shelter, safety, health. The technological advancements are amazing, the jobs we do today are nothing compared to working in a factory 1 century ago. Child mortality is close to 0 compared to 100 years ago (40%), no large scale war for over 70 years. We can freely travel anywhere, you can start your own business, you have all the information ever written in your hand. The world is amazing and it’s only going to get better. Of course, this does not mean we should be complacent about our current situation, we should continuously improve, but we definitely have no reason to hate the world we live in. Could it be better? Of course. Is is amazing? Of course. So stop holding signs with “look where men being in charge brought us” and other similar messages, you most probably have an amazing quality of life.

Edit: surely there are places on earth with conflict or famine, but these are getting smaller and smaller and the percentage is rapidly shrinking.

Edit 2: as someone correctly pointed out, my post is mostly against people hating on the world, not just complaining about it as I wrote in the title.


You can't even imagine how difficult it is to "travel anywhere" unless you were born in one of the few chosen countries. Getting visas is a huge pain in the ass, for some countries like us it's just impossible. And plane travels aren't affordable for most people around the world.

see more
Original Poster1 point · 1 month ago

I meant no one’s keeping you from traveling. It used to be only for the rich, now you can get a 3000 km return flight for 100$. Of course some people won’t afford it, but that percentage is shrinking as well.

Comment deleted by user1 month ago
Original Poster1 point · 1 month ago

You can safely travel to more places than you could 70 years ago (almost the entire globe).

But homelessness is a minuscule problem compared to what used to be.

But you can get another job, and you’d also get some money if you’re fired to survive until the next job.

Bit it’s our choice if we elect those people, that’s the beauty of it: anyone can vote and anyone can get elected.

That’s a minor cost compared to what we get instead. And after all, do you care that much if google tracks you complaining about game of thrones?

Yes, under 30. But you’d be surprised to see how unpopular this opinion is among young adults ( I usually notice people above 35 tend to agree with it, as they’d experienced some change).

Load more comments

Comments are locked


Comment deleted by user1 month ago
Original Poster767 points · 1 month ago

Exactly my thoughts.

3 points · 1 month ago

It isn't for life. Calling myself the opposite gender pretty much has little impact. It's not "for life" at all.

see more
Original Poster1 point · 1 month ago

It is when it affects how everyone else is seeing you and how your relations will be affected.

Load more comments

Why do some people jump straight to murder like dying isn't horrible suffering?

Food is cheaper than bombs and doesn't cause suffering, do drop food instead.

What about the cancer patients family who wants him to survive? They suffer too

You take on suffering reduction is condemnable. And all too common, it this short-sighted like a bad sci-fi story.

see more

I was just showing you some events that are moral according to your definition. Of course there are other moral things you can do, and you’ve mentioned them, I was showing you the flaws in your definition. Morality cannot mean reducing suffering.

Murder increases suffering so you point was baseless.

see more

No it does not, not to that person. Take the family out of the equation.

Load more comments


The writers themselves couldnt think of a more interesting twist so they went with literally NONE.

No twist with the Night King, no twist with the conversation tyrion and cersei had that was cut off early, no twist with little finger, etc etc. They're literally spoonfeeding us what'll happen and im pretty positive it will happen. Dany goes crazy -> Jon kills Dany -> Jon is forced to be king. They'll call this "bittersweet" but it's hella predictable and terrible writing.

Again, the story is super streamlined and linear. Back in season 1-4 it was filled with unexpected twists and ACTUALLY ENJOYABLE (mainly because THEY ACTUALLY FOLLOWED THE SOURCE MATERIAL). Now it's just.... meh since the writers are deviating from the books.

see more
Original Poster0 points · 2 months ago

What huge twists were in the show? Except maybe for the red wedding. Ned stark killed by a crazy king: booring. Robert baratheon killed by his evil wife: booring. Tyrion killing his evil dad: booring and the list can go on for all the major events of the show.

Lol you literally answered your own question. No one expected any of that (which means they were "twists"). Now you're saying you didnt like any of the major events in previous season? I thought you liked the show, why'd you even stick with it?

see more
Original Poster1 point · 2 months ago

I’m saying that one can just as easily dismiss previus twists as they’re doing with the ones that are happening now - daenerys slowly turning against jon, varys turning against daenerys, the dragon dying, etc.

Load more comments


Can I ask how you are so sure about where the American right stands?

You say you are European (different political spectrum than ours). You've been in the U.S. for less than a year. You've presumably been exposed to relatively well educated people in a college town.

Yet, somehow you're all over this thread telling everyone that we don't know what the true American right is really about and that the things they vote for (and our experience with them) doesn't matter compared to the few college-educated people you met. If you really want to understand the right (instead of this cherry picked idea of the right), look at Trump's entire campaign. They still voted for him. Go to less progressive areas (you're in a bubble in the east coast). Hit up Alabama and see who is voting for Roy Moore.

If I judged the right based on the ones I met in college and high school, then I might share your sentiment. But I think those guys are in the minority in the right.

see more
Original Poster-1 points · 4 months ago

I also have a lot of friends in the south, specifically Texas, and they have hundreds of friends who share their beliefs. And the beliefs are surprisingly similar to those of the students I meet here. I believe there is a significant percentage of conservative voters who are racist , but I don’t think it anywhere as big as the media or the left presents it.

from Trump

Trump deleted a tweet calling for violence after the shooting took place. That is simply the most recent example, and it happened with 24 hours of the shooting.

Jordan Peterson

Peterson is a subpar professor who got famous by misconstruing legislation. Just like Shapiro, they are great oralists but their arguments are skin deep and meant to appeal to the simple minded. They are motivated by money, and if edgy ethno nationalist memes help them, then so be it. Just be a lobster, and make sure to have white babies, am I right??

or even pewdiepie

weeks before the shooting:

months before the shooting:

over two years before the shooting:

You are delusional if you do not believe Pewdiepie (and all the other people in this post) is a gateway into the alt right. Edgy dark humor is not an excuse to hide behind anymore... not after all the nefarious evidence.

These people are not directly responsible for the deaths of these people. T Hey did not pull any trigger. But they did contribute to an environment that allowed their beliefs to fester. They did enable their beliefs. They are not innocent in this.

see more
Original Poster-10 points · 4 months ago

Islam "is a gateway into the extremism. Fear of criticising islam is not an excuse to hide behind anymore... not after all the nefarious evidence." You have to agree with both or none of them, that's my point. I don't know which one is the right option, but accepting one and denying one is hypocrisy, that's what the post is about.

Load more comments

Cake day
March 18, 2018

Trophy Case (3)

One-Year Club

Not Forgotten

Verified Email

Cookies help us deliver our Services. By using our Services or clicking I agree, you agree to our use of cookies. Learn More.