People Share Controversial Opinions That Are Worth A Listen.

We all have one or two opinions that we try to keep to ourselves because we don't want to offend our friends and colleagues. But these Quorans threw caution to the wind in order to tell you what they really think. What do you think?

Class privilege matters much more than race or gender privilege.

Im a brown girl, which means that I am the subject of many a BuzzFeed dark is beautiful article. Yet I still experience and internalize the status and privilege generally associated with being a white male. Why?

Because I am part of the middle class. My family has been educated for generations, and my parents value my education enough to devote time and money to it. Money speaks more than race. 

This is not to say that racism and sexism are unimportant. Of course not. I have faced some adversity for being female, from microaggressions to straight-up discrimination. I have heard racist generalizations about my ethnicity, and have been asked if I speak Indian. Other people have faced much worse racism and sexism. 

These are issues that must be solved. But you cannot have social justice until you have economic justice.

Divya Prakash

I encourage white people to say the n-word. Before you comment and call me names, hear me out.

As a Black man living in the south, white people have called me a that word all my life. Personally, I never took offence because I don't really care about other people's opinions of me. 

I remember one time, this white girl at my school called somebody the n-word on social media. The entire school was outraged. My peers started making that girls life a nightmare. 

They constantly bullied her online, got her kicked off the cheer team, and somehow managed to get her fired from her job. We even had to have a school assembly where the students got to talk about how they felt. 

Now, I understand why my peers were mad, but their anger is exactly why I encourage white people to say the n-word. (continued…)

Keep reading on the next page!

Black people can tell white people all we want, Don't say the n-word. It's racist and offensive and you shouldn't say it. But I guarantee white people will continue to say it.

So I got to thinking, Why is everybody so mad? It's just a word. Words only have as much power as you let them.

Of course, words have meaning. The n-word is a slur used to degrade and dehumanize Black people. I never let that word have power, and that's why I was never mad when white people used it.

By now you're probably thinking, But why would you want white people to say the n-word?

If you just let white people say the n-word, and don't give the word that power, it will never offend you. If white people were allowed to say the n-word, no one would care. And if no one cares, white people wouldnt even have a reason to say it.  If no one cared, no one would get hurt.

So, yeah, thats why I encourage white people to use the N word; to take the power of the word away so nobody gets hurt.

Caleb Smith

All social programs, including welfare programs, should be administered and paid for at the state level.

There shouldnt be a country-wide Social Security or Medicare or Medicaid programs.

The rules for each program should be left up to the states. If, say, New York has an amazing welfare program, and people start to move there just for that program, New York should be able to regulate how long you have to live in that state before you can take advantage of their welfare program.

If the citizens of one state dont want to have any programs at all, they should have that right.

If the citizens of another state want to double the size of existing programs, and double taxes on their citizens as a result, they should be able to do that.

This includes healthcare. If one state wants to go single-payer, let them. That doesnt mean we all should.

Matthew Bates

Terrorism is not a major threat to the citizens of the United States, and should not be a major piece of any US political agenda. (continued...)

Keep reading on the next page!

Despite the fear-mongering and rhetoric, the idea that Americans are in imminent danger of being harmed or killed by radical Islamic terrorists is simply untrue.

This isn't even an opinion; my view on this issue is based on statistical fact.

Here are other causes of death in comparison to death from terror attacks, with terrorism highlighted in red:

As you can see, you're more likely to die from things like choking on your dinner, riding your bike, being poisoned by your angry ex-girlfriend, getting shot by your own communitys police officers, or even just a really hot day in Arizona.

Don't even get me started on the potential refugee attacks that people are so scared of these days. You are more likely to be eaten by a shark, struck by lightning, killed by your neighbors dog, stung by bees to death.

Even an asteroid is more likely to kill you than a refugee terrorist.

Despite these ridiculously low odds, the government has spent on average $500 million per victim on anti-terrorism. The government is spending $150 billion per year on one of the least probable causes of death, while the most probable causes such as heart disease and cancer only get $12 billion.

Why are we doing this? Fear.

Karim Elsheikh

Certain conservatives love to proclaim that this shows how no one really likes Democrats because look at all that red!

Liberals must be out of touch with common folk if all these people voted Republican. I dont care if many arbitrary sections of land voted for Trump; I care about real live people, and what they think, and how they vote. 

To see that, you need to look at a different image. (continued...)

Keep reading on the next page!

Some even go so far as to say that people who live in rural, red counties should have more representation, because they live in what some Democrats call flyover country. But that is ridiculous. Just because someone lives on one side of an imaginary line, doesnt mean that their vote should count for more or less.

The map above goes beyond the asinine, nave idea of determining popularity by counting pieces of land. Instead, it allows you to see the reality of how people voted.

Ethan Baker

Islam isn't a good religion. As an atheist, I don't really believe that any religion is an inherently good one. Religions are objects and ideas; they can't be inherently good or bad.

Their followers may have good intentions or bad intentions, and the religion is often just a tool. I recognize that. Judaism thinks that God chose their specific people over others. Christianity has been used to justify horrible atrocities. I could go on and on.

I'm not exempting any religion from this, but in our modern political discourse, it seems Islam gets a hall pass. But you can criticize ideas without attacking the people who hold them. Were sitting at a crossroads where every type of system of belief should be examined closely.


Voting should be compulsory. Put the pitch-forks down and hear me out before you accuse me of being undemocratic.

In my opinion, everyone should have to vote, in the same way everybody has to complete the census. If you dont, you get fined.

When you turn up to vote however, you would still have an option to abstain, as well as all of the regular candidate choices.

So if you really didnt want to vote for personal reasons, you still dont have to. But the excuse of laziness doesnt fly anymore. You are turning up to the booth.

There are two reasons why I think this would work. (continued...)

Keep reading on the next page!

Firstly, this would give a much clearer idea of what the country actually wants. 

For example, in the UK election yesterday, around 32 million people voted out of a possible 47 million. If all of those 47 million at least had to turn up, we would see a more accurate view of the country. Even if those 15 million decided to abstain, at least it would clearly show exactly how much of the electorate supported which party.

Secondly, its going to encourage more people to get into politics. If politics bore you (which it does for many people) and voting is optional, theres no real reason to read into it. But if youre now forced to turn up, many people may think to get more involved.

Overall, I think this is simply a fairer system, which is worth the slight hassle of having to vote.

Ivan Tregear

There should be a license for voting.

Seriously, people need a license for fishing, dog breeding, and even marriage!

So why don't we have a license for deciding the future of our country?

Way too many people are uninformed on policies and current issues, and they oftentimes make bad decisions that negatively impact us all!

We complain about the idiots who are in office, but who do you think voted for those particular idiots in the first place? That's right, idiots who can vote.

I believe people should at least be able to pass a US naturalization test to vote.

After all, immigrants have to pass tests to become citizens; why not us?

If you can't even name your current representative, you should not be deciding on the future of our country!

Obviously, there are some issues with this theory, and there would need to be a non-partisan committee that tests people, but it is still feasible!

So get out there and vote… After you take a test that certifies you aren't a total idiot!

Alex Yang

Keep reading on the next page!

No human is rational 100% of the time. Stop claiming you're a rationalist. You are not. You might be reasonable, well thought-out, etc. But don't pretend like you're this being of pure logic unphased by emotion, and were all running around screaming over non-issues. Bullcrap.

Ashley Land

Basically, heres my view. If people are concerned about keeping alcohol out of schools, then make the age 19, as in most of Canada.

However part of the issue is the culture surrounding alcohol. In Europe, kids will have wine and it wont be a big deal. In Germany, you can have beer or wine legally when an adult is around when youre 14. Instead, in the US, its treated like a drug. 

Now, Im not saying that getting drunk is not dangerous or that you can be careless while under the influence; Im just saying that it shouldnt be equated to a lot of other more dangerous drugs.

If it was introduced in small amounts when kids are young, they would become familiar with it and less likely to abuse it when they reach 19. We would avoid a lot of issues telling kids they cant have it at all because if youre told you cant have something, that just makes you want it more.

They do drug ed in health class and tell us not to smoke and all that. Along with that, they should educate kids about alcohol rather than making it a taboo. It would probably solve a lot of issues.

Lane Norman

Freedom of speech means freedom of speech.

Im a libertarian and I believe the 1st Amendment of the Constitution is there for a reason; to defend the right of the individual to express her ideas, no matter how disgusting they are. 

This doesnt mean other people need to accept her idea, this just means she needs to have the right to say it.

I'm against any form of censoring free speech, no matter how stupid and offensive it may be.

Why am I sharing this as controversial? Because according to a Pew Research poll, 40% of millennials think the government should be able to restrict freedom of speech if it is offensive. 40%!

Bruno Andrade


Westend61/Getty Images

When you're a kid most adults will tell you one thing or another is "cool" and "fun." Odds are you're too young to form any kind of opinion on the matter one way or another. You're a kid, right? You don't know what you're eating for breakfast. However, when you get older and form that larger worldview, you realize that yeah, maybe that one time when you were a kid actually wasn't fun.

These are those stories.

Keep reading... Show less