Trans people
But… bathrooms!!! With the children!!! /s
I’m hated for no reason: Nah man, it’s because you’re paedo mutant potato looking faggot with a receding hairline in dire need of a noose.:hang_yourself:
Mmmm, no they deserve it and then some.
KYS
>the reasonKill yourself niggerfaggot, trans “people” all deserve the rope #TTD
A lot of that is just unavoidable lookism sadly, maybe I’m too doomer
At the individuated level, it likely plays a part, but it’s got nothing to do with the systemic institutional hatred
@ada @Lanky_Pomegranate530 there’s so many valid reasons, I’ll probably go over the character limit on my instance if I list them off.
I’m terrified of Weiner and vagina and everything in-between.
Edit: wtf is so special that Weiner auto capitalizes?
Weiner is a surname… and also a misspelling of wiener.
Big W
Cyclists, some people just see red when they came across cyclist at the road.
Cycle infrastructure, even.
Bike lanes are car infrastructure. We cyclists are perfectly within our rights to cycle in the middle of the lane at a speed comfortable for us. And it’s safer for us to do that than hug the shoulder and risk getting clipped by an impatient driver. A bike lane gets us out of your way so you can drive the speed limit. It’s for your benefit.
Holy words
I thought this as well but German drivers will dangerously swerve into oncoming traffic to overtake me sometimes when I block a lane. Even if there is a red stop light 50m down the road.
Well, it’s less of them, and at least they’re risking their own lives too. If there’s an accident I want the person responsible coming with me to the hospital. That might not be rational, but it’s how I feel.
Lol it’s not rational but I know how you feel. Sometimes I daydream somebody hits me and wrecks my bike and then feels so bad that they give me loads of money in hopes of me not suing them, and then I use that to buy a better bike. And then I wonder wtf is going wrong in my brain
That’s why it’s hate for no reason!
The same hatred from the same haters for public transport too: if everyone else is in public transport there more room for you on the road.
It’s a bizarrely prevalent attitude from a bizarrely large portion of car users.
We had some nice mini-traffic island things separating a cycleway on a road, drivers kept hitting them and damaging their cars. They complained and the council removed them despite it being obvious to anyone that they were doing extremely what they were supposed to do: stopping those idiots from hitting actual cyclists!
There’s really no winning as a cyclist when most people are in cars. If you stop at all stop signs, and obey they right-of-way, people will yell at you and/or try to wave you through ahead of your turn dangerously. If you do an Idaho stop (which is the safest way to approach a stop, whether it’s legal or not), people will honk and yell at you and possibly try to run you off the road.
I used to commute by bike a lot during rush hour. If there was a lineup of cars waiting at a red-light, and I just waited in line, people in cars behind me would honk at me as if me preventing them from being one cars-length further ahead in line would somehow affect them. If I filtered forward, like I should, people would actually edge their cars over to try and block me.
I think for the most part, it’s misplaced anger from drivers who don’t want to face the fact that they are the source of danger on roads. The worst bicycle collision is way less severe than a car crash. They also really hate when bicyclists can get anywhere faster than them, which is often the case because it shows them just how much time they waste being traffic.
what’s an Idaho stop?
If you are on a bike, you treat stop signs as yields, and red lights as stop signs. Iit has been shown to be safer.
If it were codified like this as law everywhere, people would accept it better. The rule breaking is what pisses a lot of people off. It would be much more predictable and safer too.
Yeah, the government needs to get behind it (and tell people about it). I’ve come up to stop signs before, and been nearly run over from behind by cars that didn’t expect me to stop.
Except Berliner cyclists. They scare me.
But not the cyclist as the cycle right through it.
Classic, I’m guilty of this. The best part about cycling in my small city is squeezing into the gaps and not waiting around in the wind for the lights to cycle.
I see it as my reward for biking instead of driving to be both a pedestrian when I want (go through red lights when traffic is clear on safe streets) and a car when I want (take a lane to get around a delivery truck)
That and getting places faster!
Congratulations, you’re one of the dickheads giving cyclists a bad name.
Studies show all the things I do actually make it safer for me as a biker. Example: https://www.vox.com/2014/5/9/5691098/why-cyclists-should-be-able-to-roll-through-stop-signs-and-ride
When you are riding in and around drivers in 2 ton machines because your city doesn’t have proper bike infrastructure, you take every single opportunity to avoid them. Call me a “bad cyclist” but I’m going to prioritize my safety over a law or someone’s bad driving any day.
That’s not “for absolutely no reason”. Some cyclists make a bad name for the rest.
I think the thread was titled poorly. Anything that gets a lot of hate usually has some sort of reason, even if it may not be justifiable.
There’s absolutely no reason to hate on a cyclist when you wouldn’t hate on a car polluter, because unlike car polluters, we aren’t murderers.
I’m sure there are many reasons to hate on a cyclist, (not that I personally believe this, but) such as when they block a single lane road slowing traffic to a crawl and placing the responsibility of possibly accidentally killing a cyclist in the motorist’s hands, though you could argue that’s more about the fact that the roads don’t have dedicated bike lanes, and that’s not the cyclist’s fault, but it is still a reason, not that that reason is justified, I like cyclists!
For thousands of years, people walked on roads. That’s what they were for. They were also for horses, donkeys, and carts, but humans were a big part of it. And none of those four things really goes faster than a bike. Cars are new. Taking people and horses off roads is new. Being able to drive the speed limit is a new, temporary condition, and it can be taken away at any time. Blaming this on cyclists is a reaction based on a misunderstanding of what roads are for. Personally, I support legislature to let people walk on the road however they like again.
That’s exactly what I was trying to say. I was also a (very cautious) cyclist until my bike was stolen.
Truth. Furthermore, accidents involving a bike and a car have mostly happened because of a lack of infrastructure and options for safe travel on bikes. Public residential streets, for example, are for all modes of transportation, not just cars. Car brains are hysterical and don’t like that, and my life has been threatened many times while riding my bike on residential streets. I even had an older woman match my speed, roll down her window, and say “Next time I see you I’m running you over.” Cyclists do absolutely nothing to deserve this, and even if they’re holding up traffic, it’s no excuse for homicide.
Downvoted for saying the truth. Most cyclist I met here are absolutely jerks, they drive not even on the sidelines - no, they fucking drive in the mid of the road and if you try to surpass they move to the left.
For some it’s not their fault they are a bit of a nuisance obviously (those who cycle near the sidewalks, who signal were they are going etc), the cyclist infastructure is non existent here
Yeah I know an A-hole driver so all drivers must be A**holes.
No some people just don’t have good reason.
You can say ass on the internet bud, it’s ok.
Socialism/Communism/Anarchism. Barely anyone who actually understands them and the theory supporting them hates them, but tons of people have been fed Red Scare propaganda on the matter.
Comic sans.
It is literally a font. Sometimes when some corporate partner is annoying me I will pdf lock a document, with a signature, to them in comic sans.
Pit-bulls. Most of their bad reputation comes from organizations that campaign against their very existence and people will quote pit-bull bite statistics with the same lack of irony as a white nationalist quoting FBI crime statistics about people of color.
Everyone knows the FBI is in the pocket of big-chihuahua.
Okay, I’m trying to understand your argument here. Are you saying that pitbulls are being racially profiled and that information from other dogs aren’t being collected or that bites of the same severity by other dogs aren’t being correctly gathered or are bring suppressed? And, if so, what are the factors that should be taken into account when discussing dog bites or dog aggression?
I think the reason they are making that comparison is that there are a lot of other factors that feed into the final numbers. Crime stats aren’t a final determination of the inherent criminality of different groups of people. Things like poverty, arrest rates, and conviction rates all skew the numbers.
With pit bulls, people often get them because they want a dog that’s “tough” and they essentially train (or don’t train) them to be bad dogs. The dog itself isn’t at fault.
Anyone who’s been around a lot of dogs will tell you that small dogs are more bitey. The fact that a pit bull is stronger and can do more damage is also not the dogs fault.
Anyone whos been around a lot of dogs will tell you that small dogs are more bitey.
There you go, thats exactly the point. But they aren’t killing any babies. Pitbulls were bred for fighting. People have Tigers and Lions as pets too. Is that also justified?
The fact that a pit bull is stronger and can do more damage is also not the dogs fault.
Of course it’s not the dog’s fault. It is just an animal. It’s the breeders’ and the owners’ fault. Nobody is advocating for euthanasing Pitbulls. Maybe just get a Golden Retriever if you’re just looking for a pet next time.
What do you think happens to all the unadopted pitbulls, pizza parties every Friday? Nope, it’s euthanasia.
Nobody is advocating for euthanasing Pitbulls.
There are a shitload of people who advocate for completely destroying this breed of dog.
Yes, the breed should be distroyed. But not the poor living animals. We should simply stop breeding more of them. Pitbulls are a freak of nature created for the amusement of humans.
I mean, dog breeding is in general terribly inhumane. All dogs should ideally be mutts. They’d certainly all be healthier and have a better quality of life.
The real difference is pitbulls bite to kill, most other dogs dont. Any dog can get triggered, but certain breeds like bullies and dogos, ridgbacks, they bite to kill. It is as instinctual as a pointer pointing or a sheep dog herding.
Just watch a lot of footage of a shepard attacking a human vs a pitbull. The shepard generally goes for the arm or leg and the bully drags you down so it can go for the face and neck.
Heck, one time when I was driving a bully charged my van! I was doing 50km and he charged out, and bashed into my door! I didnt stop, and it didnt seem hurt it just went after the car behind me…
The other user who responded to you, @evasive_chimpanzee@lemmy.world, does a good job of analyzing the core idea here. To quote Benjamin Disraeli, there’s lies, damn lies, and statistics. Black people are no more “innately inclined towards criminality” than a pit-bull is innately inclined towards mauling people. Where people of color have been historically over policed, profiled by the criminal justice system, and generally set up to have a higher rate of criminal statistics than other ethnic groups, pit-bulls face similar statistical problems. Bite statistics are often self-reported by people who either witnessed a dog attack or who were themselves victims of one. Identifying a dog’s breed by sight, especially for mixed breed dogs, is nearly impossible, and more error prone than accurate. And for a pound, any “big dog with a blocky head” immediately gets labeled as a pit-bull, even if it has literally no pit-bull DNA. These dogs are routinely adopted by people who explicitly train a dog to be mean to people, as opposed to socializing them. The fact that they also have this reputation as guard dogs or attack dogs exacerbates their reputation.
I already suggested this in another comment, but you can easily apply a thought experiment here. Magically replace all white people with black people with the same upbringing: does crime go up, down, or basically stay the same? Magically replace all pitbulls with chihuahuas with the same upbringing: do maulings go up, down, or basically stay the same?
Couldn’t tell the cops if the mugger was white or black? Pretty understandable. Couldn’t tell the cops if the dog that bit you was a chihuahua or a pitbull? Really?
Any “big dog with a blocky head” should be banned from breeding or sale, and nobody who agrees with that statement cares about DNA. It is a matter of public safety and it doesn’t matter that humans are the real problem, because humans are notoriously hard to control. The pitbulls and similar breeds we have today deserve all the love and comfort we can give them now, but they shouldn’t be bred into the future because there is no legitimate reason to own one except for its potential for violence and flatulence-scapegoating.
Couldn’t tell the cops if the dog that bit you was a chihuahua or a pitbull? Really?
Because those are the two dog breeds that exist. Pitbull and Chihuahua. There are no others.
I worked as an insurance agent. In the states I had my P&C licenses in, we were legally required to base rates on data. i.e statistically how much the company paid out in claims given certain factors. One of the things we based rates on was the breeds of dog people owned. Pitbulls and certain other dog breeds do not just have a bad reputation because people irrationally fear/hate them, they actually do pose a greater risk. Just like teenagers by and large, aren’t as safe drivers. It isn’t “fair” in that the dog didn’t choose to be the breed it is and some of them really are good dogs but statistically, averaged over the whole, they are more of a risk than other dog breeds are.
One of the things we based rates on was the breeds of dog people owned. Pitbulls and certain other dog breeds do not just have a bad reputation because people irrationally fear/hate them, they actually do pose a greater risk.
This is a classic example of someone observing a statistical correlation between specific factors and using that to assert a direct causal relationship between them. It implies that an insurance agency is able to 1) accurately identify every single breed of dog in every single insurance related incident (which is definitely not the case, because I doubt every insurance company is doing genetic testing on every single dog it comes across) and 2) tie a causal relationship between dog breed and incident. If I were going by typical insurance metrics, and to borrow from your analogy of “teenagers as unsafe drivers,” you would also assume that red Camarros, something more expensive to insure than your more conservative sedan, were statistically more dangerous than, say, a white Civic, as if they were what caused their drivers to get into car accidents, as opposed to young, reckless people interested in a fast sports car to simply go out and buy one. These are people who would be reckless behind the wheel of any car, but who are statistically correlated with a particular type of one. But you still mark the red Camaro as more expensive to insure regardless of who buys it because it’s statistically correlated with a higher degree of accidents.
No one is ascribing any casual links here.
The causal link is implied. When someone says “Pitbulls and certain other dog breeds do not just have a bad reputation because people irrationally fear/hate them, they actually do pose a greater risk,” this is another way of saying that a particular breed of dog is innately more dangerous than another. Not that it has the potential to be more dangerous, but objectively is. The only logical deduction from this statement is that there must be something about the animal’s breed that makes it this way. It’s literally the exact same logic used by people who cite FBI crime statistics in order to paint specific entire ethnic groups as innately “more criminal” than another ethnic group.
These are multibillion dollar companies (actually they insure trillions in assets) whose whole job is to be very very good at assessing risk. You thinking you know better is peak Dunning-Krueger.
“If a big corporation says something is one way, it must be so. They have a lot of money, after all.” Your argument is peak “Argument to Authority.” I guess it’s a good thing those insurance companies like AIG were able to effectively assess their degree of risk exposure in the housing markets in 2008 and avoid collapsing when the housing market imploded. Oh, wait…
OMFG there is no evil conspiracy by USAA and every other insurance company against pitbulls JFC. Pitbulls are just statistically much more dangerous than other animals.
They’re statistically correlated with incidents of mauling. Nobody is denying the statistical correlation. But there is a difference between observing a statistical correlation between breed and maulings and asserting a causal relationship. My argument is that the assertion that “pit-bulls are innately, biologically predisposed towards violence against people and other animals” is not supported by meaningful evidence. If you are arguing that they are, then you’re gonna have to convince me with more than “insurance companies say they are.”
Quick thought experiment - magically replace every pitbull in the world with a chihuahua instead. Do the number of maulings go up or down?
Question: Does his company factor FBI crime stats into it too? Why not? “Despite being 12% of the population black people commit 50% of crime” and suddenly now since it’s optically bad to charge black people higher rates “causation only equals correlation when we can’t be called racist for it?”
That shit don’t sit right with me tbh.
And what about German Shepherds that have bit 11 secret service agents? Secretly pits? Hating pits but not other large breeds is frankly silly imo (unless you hate black people too because the only important thing ever is statistics). At least hate Chows too, since they’re arguably more aggressive, and German Shepherds, Presas, Boxers, Rotts, etc. Shit at the very least German Shepherds were the Nazis dogs and they’re the ones the cops use now, and they’re “not” “bred to attack” over pits? Come off it.
How many owners are morons that wanted cool mean dog though. I’ve known dog owners that get those breeds specifically and they have no understanding of how to treat a dog. Like they’ll get a working dog and an cage it all day then wonder why it’s aggressive. I’d like to know the difference. Because too many people get dogs for looks and don’t actually give a fuck a about the dogs soul.
Sorry if I come off aggressive, I just talk like that… I’m genuinely curious about this.
How many owners are morons that wanted cool mean dog though.
This is sort of my point. A pit bull that’s socialized, well trained, and cared for is generally very safe to be around. A pit bull that has the opposite kind of life? Well, what kinda dog wouldn’t be an asshole under those circumstances?
Sure but then the problem is moron owners, not the dog or it’s breed. Those morons could be just as cruel to a German Shepherd, Boxer, Rottweiler, Presa Canario, Bullmastiff, etc. Nature vs Nurture I guess.
I don’t hate the breed or agree with breed bans but both my niece and my friend’s daughter were badly bitten by pits and they do make me nervous.
I’m this way with German Shepherd s . I live dogs, Ive had big dogs, I met plenty of friendly Sheperds, but both my mom and I have been bite by 3 different ones (over our lifetimes). Now I am on edge around them.
The one in my neighbourhood jumps all over me. I am also a bit on edge, although most of it seems to be goofiness.
Nickelback. I mean they’re not good but they’re not really bad either, just a complete nonevent. They don’t deserve the hate they get, they don’t really deserve anything
I second this. I love Nickelback. They are unique in their own way .
Gay people
trans people
Trans people, seriously, they just want to live their lives in peace. They’re not here to radicalise anything or to “trick” anyone. They just want to get on with their lives and be left alone.
Women.
Misogyny is extremely widespread and socially acceptable.
Add men to the list.
Misandry is also extremely widespread and socially acceptable.
IMHO both groups have bad apples. In conservative societies, women are often mistreated. In modern/contemporary societies men are often misstreated.
I’d say modern being wealthy modern people.
adult men are treated fine in modern societies, it’s boys/teenagers who are feeling increasingly out of place and are turning to misogyny as an outlet
IMHO both groups have bad apples
Oh bad people can come from anywhere, what a salient observation.
By every important measurable standard, women are still treated worse in contemporary society. The fact you would respond with this nothing take when someone brings up misogyny is incredibly telling. Wishing well to any women unlucky enough to be in your life.
Non-monogamists. Not referring to simply polyamorists or even relationship anarchists, but non-monogamists in general. When I saw LGBT equality unfold in the first world, I thought “yay we’re finally throwing off those norms” but here we are a decade or so later and polyamory still gets everyone saying “meh”. The only time I’ve ever seen polyamorists in late night media was in an episode of The Resident, and it was used to illustrate the man as a cult leader, which tied into the show like pineapple ties into pizza (I do not miss that show). But you have an LGBT couple in every five episodes.
Male abuse/SA victims. It’s already not taken seriously enough when it happens to women, but when it happens to a guy they get put down even more and are more often laughed off, sometimes even by people who’d take it seriously if the sexes were swapped.
Satanists get persecuted a lot; although, they do a lot to protect religious freedom.
Nickelback
Haha my first thought when I read the title was Creed. We had similar thoughts.
They chose to be commercially popular. They CAN absolutely shred, they ARE very talented. But they chose the top 40 route and are laughing all the way to the bank.
Everyone has a price, if you’re an artist and you havent “sold out” its because nobody offered you enough money.
The “sold out” thing bothers me sometimes, yes the ARE bands who come from less popular genres towards more mainstream sound because thats where they found commercial success and wanted/needed that money to keep doing what they do.
But there are also many bands who change genres and sound over time and some bands just enjoy playing that kind of ‘radio friendly’ music. Personally i feel like nickleback are in the ‘we just like this kind of music’ category.
(Personally I cant stand nicklebacks genre, so no bias here)
Music is a medium and playing is a craft. Some people play to express themselves in artistic ways and others play to make a living. It’s all music, even when it’s not art.
Nobody hates the guy who paints walls for a living for not being Picasso, but when it comes to music, everyone looks at any guy with a guitar expecting him to be the next artistic genius.
Sometimes he’s just there to play three chords, get paid and go home.
I don’t really like Nickelback’s music, but if I ever need a house painted, I’d call them before calling someone who hasn’t “sold out”. I think that’s their appeal.
Oh they deserve it, just not because of their music. I used to hang with a few guys that grew up in the same town, the stories they would tell…
do tell
They were always taking photographs of everything. Ugh.
White people.
