this post was submitted on 26 Dec 2025
135 points (79.0% liked)

Unpopular Opinion

8329 readers
519 users here now

Welcome to the Unpopular Opinion community!


How voting works:

Vote the opposite of the norm.


If you agree that the opinion is unpopular give it an arrow up. If it's something that's widely accepted, give it an arrow down.



Guidelines:

Tag your post, if possible (not required)


  • If your post is a "General" unpopular opinion, start the subject with [GENERAL].
  • If it is a Lemmy-specific unpopular opinion, start it with [LEMMY].


Rules:

1. NO POLITICS


Politics is everywhere. Let's make this about [general] and [lemmy] - specific topics, and keep politics out of it.


2. Be civil.


Disagreements happen, but that doesn’t provide the right to personally attack others. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Please also refrain from gatekeeping others' opinions.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Shitposts and memes are allowed but...


Only until they prove to be a problem. They can and will be removed at moderator discretion.


5. No trolling.


This shouldn't need an explanation. If your post or comment is made just to get a rise with no real value, it will be removed. You do this too often, you will get a vacation to touch grass, away from this community for 1 or more days. Repeat offenses will result in a perma-ban.


6. Defend your opinion


This is a bit of a mix of rules 4 and 5 to help foster higher quality posts. You are expected to defend your unpopular opinion in the post body. We don't expect a whole manifesto (please, no manifestos), but you should at least provide some details as to why you hold the position you do.



Instance-wide rules always apply. https://legal.lemmy.world/tos/

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] BarneyPiccolo@lemmy.today 15 points 3 hours ago (1 children)

I'm not going to comment on the subjective nature of her shallow art, but the way she treated Julian Lennon was unforgivable.

She began cutting him out when John was still alive, and then fully cut him out of the estate when John died. He wanted some of his father's letters, but she forced him to buy them at auction. He eventually had to sue her, and eventually got a generous settlement, but he never should have had to go through all that.

You can blame John for not doing enough for his son, but we all know that Yoko was whispering poison in his ear like Wormtongue.

Nah, I'm not going to be one of her apologists. Yoko sucks.

[–] Themosthighstrange@lemmy.world 7 points 2 hours ago

Im a millennial, and all my my homies think Yoko Sucks dog shit.

[–] JigglySackles@lemmy.world 1 points 1 hour ago

Subjectiveness of art aside she's just a garbage person. Troll or not, whatever.

I learned recently that Yoko Ono was a huge inspiration for the B-52's. Apparently John Lennon once heard them playing (before they broke out in fame) and immediately recognized her style in their music.

I thought it was an interesting bit of trivia.

[–] Itdidnttrickledown@lemmy.world 4 points 2 hours ago

She is a complete POS. Just look at how she treated her step son.

[–] prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone 8 points 9 hours ago (3 children)

I'm kind of just ambivalent toward her. I don't think she deserves the hate that she gets. Her and John were clearly in love, so who the fuck am I to question that?

Her role in the breakup of the Beatles is absolutely blown out of proportion as well. They were already falling apart by that point, and if it hadn't been Yoko, it would have been someone/something else.

[–] Themosthighstrange@lemmy.world 2 points 2 hours ago

the main reason reason the beatles broke up is they lost their orginal manger epstein (not JE epstein)

[–] presoak@lazysoci.al 5 points 3 hours ago

I judge a musician by the quality of their music. Everything yoko creates is bad, as far as I can tell.

[–] hamid@crazypeople.online 5 points 9 hours ago (1 children)

I think its really interesting that an avant-garde artist who made pieces about provoking patriarchy is able to elicit intense misogyny decades later from people who are pretty unaware of anything about her other than media stories about John Lennon who was an abusive man.

[–] borari@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 2 hours ago

It’s just more of the typical hippie boomer bullshit lol. They didn’t sell out, they were always buying product.

[–] sartalon@lemmy.world 54 points 23 hours ago (24 children)

Yoko Ono is a terrible fucking human being

Her "art" is absolute trash, in the worst sense. As in, she says it is art, but it is objectively garbage.

She treated people around her like shit.

Just read about how she handled the letters between John Lennon and his son.

Fuck that bitch. She rode the coat tails of someone who was an actual artist and the only discussion her "art" has created was whether or not it could be called art.

Seriously, she is trash.

load more comments (24 replies)
[–] CarbonatedPastaSauce@lemmy.world 94 points 1 day ago (14 children)

I would love to get behind the idea she was some kind of genius Andy Kaufman type, but she was just a narcissist who couldn’t stand not being the center of attention.

load more comments (14 replies)
[–] abigscaryhobo@lemmy.world 20 points 22 hours ago (6 children)

I don't know if she was a troll or a narcissist or whatever everyone else claims. But she did seem to be a little nuts, or at least tone deaf. You can see in that performance with John and Chuck Berry where she just starts sort of screeching in the background on mic for no reason she was at least a little unhinged.

You can call it avant garde, you can say she was annoying, etc. Etc. but she did seem to just shove herself into Johns limelight a lot. There are plenty of other spouses that are just happy to be with their partner, and go with them, but she clearly was intent on shoving herself into the spotlight with him, through whatever means she felt was accessible.

load more comments (6 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›