Goddamn cardies…
What it feels like having a conversation with conservatives
and tankies*
And liberals
(Just trying to be inclusive)
Once again the anarchists are the only correct group
it’s like the curse of Nostradamus
Are anarchists actually practicing anarchism if they form groups?
“Anarchism is when there’s one guy alone in the forest.” -Mikhail Bakunin
Did Mikhail Bakunin think that women could not be anarchists?
Of course not, if there were women in the forest they would be clearly accompanied by the Internet Argument Bear and therefore it wouldn’t be anarchism.
Iff they’re not hierarchical
Iffs in the wild make me happy.
Are “Iffs” a thing? I’ve been missing out.
Actually yes. As long as the group only acts in a way that all members approve of, and members are free to leave or join.
But only the specific subset of anarchists that I read about first in my early 20s! All the others are just like those fascists in the Judean People’s Front!
Eh, most left leaning anarchists are fundamentally correct on the basics.
More like the curse of nostradumbass
lemmy user DESTROYS the philosophical tendency of anarchism with FACTS and LOGIC and EXTREMELY mediocre WORDPLAY
I disagree!
That wordplay is nowhere near good enough to be considered mediocre
I was considering editing my comment to say subpar but I decided I didn’t care that much
And my axe
Interesting. I guess it’s about cultural conditioning. Growing up in Scandinavia the “both sides” and subjectivist approach was more common for leftists. Especially the “your terrorist is my freedom fighter”. In contrast rightists and liberals usually insisted on exactly this two-plus-two-is-four rhetoric. As analyzing American discourse from the outside I’m still not sure if the right wingers of my Nordic childhood was right anyway, or if American leftism has regressed horrendously
If we were talking about the normal version where one perspective does see 4 sides and the other 3, then I’d agree. But right wingers often completely ignore science and facts for what they feel is right - despite loudly claiming the opposite. They’re simply wrong about any number of things, from economics to gender studies to climate change, but they insist on their positions because of how they feel on a fundamental level - that all the common-sense folks around them think this way, their preacher thinks this way, and they don’t trust anyone they haven’t personally encountered long enough to understand. Time and time again, science has disproven explicitly conservative viewpoints, from race biology to Social Darwinism to climate change and so on. But they double down because to change their perspectives risks alienating their peers, or even worse, possibly damning them to Hell.
That’s why I said what I did. Liberals are a pain in the ass and generally incapable of accomplishing much of value, but at least they typically welcome new data that may contradict a previously-held position.
I fucking knew these comments would get political, they always do
I give up fuck this shit
Welcome to Lemmy
What would you prefer we discuss?
Everything social is political, because politics are the mechanics of society. A non political conversation is impossible.
Six
The one on the left is a MAGA, they’re unable to listen to logic even if the answer is right in front of them.
I don’t know why there’s even a debate over that. The answer is clearly “Yanny.”
no, it’s blue and gold
I can’t see four. I’m sure it’s there, it just doesn’t appear to me.
Originally it was supposed to be an optical illusion that looks like three or four rods from different angles.
This edit has changed it to be just literally three. It’s a joke on certain people denying reality.
I think the joke is that there’s indeed unequivocally just three, and that one of them still says four despite that fact, contradicting the readers expectations who normally for this format expects the middle thing to be something that changes with perspective (eg. 6 vs 9)
Do you not see four? Your really missing out. I think some guys even started worshiping it. We even started selling a book about four. Once you see it, you can join out super cool club and four based economy.
We should build a wall around four, and make three pay for for it
THERE ARE FOUR LIGHTS
Tea. Earl Grey. Hot.
Make it so.
Shut up, Wesley.
There’s 3 lights
There are four lights!
I’ll never lose another argument with this up my sleeve
18
Is there a way to see this as four? I’m assuming so but legitimately can’t see anything other than three. Is that the joke and I’m overthinking‽ ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
It’s a riff on an old meme.
alternative interpretation: it’s only possible to be neither right nor wrong on something when the object is physically impossible
I agree with you on that.
But alternatively: humans can only see a portion of the whole reality of a given situation, and that specific angle can often be misleading.
Thank you. I’ve seen the old one before and I knew there was an illusion but I obviously couldn’t find it in the OP.
my favorite thing is when a comic has a very clear message but it’s also written at the top what it’s about and whay i should take from the message is further explained below.
No, one! Lol
I am very pluralistic so I’m ok with many numbers, except one, the singular is where I draw the line!
deleted by creator
What about 1+(n/∞) where n is a finite integer
I can think of a few ways, but considering where this is posted, there’s no need to overthink. Just keep it simple.
It’s an impossible object optical illusion but edited to be possible
The original is one of those MC Escher type things where all the lines are connected and it actually does have four “ends” on one side
The original used XI where it was 9 or 11 depending on the side.
edit: Nope I was wrong. That post links this one, lol.
At least there are no centrists in here claiming it’s 3.5
Or that we should agree on “throur”
I see 37
In a row??
I guess it’s all a matter of cultural conditioning but growing up in Scandinavia this kind of rhetoric was always associated with right-wingers and other liberals whereas “both sides” was more common for progressives and leftists. The most common I saw was the one-persons-terrorist-is-another-persons-freedom-fighter.
It’s always been complicated, Chomsky famously got criticized around the world for opposing censorship of different perspectives. Censorship has always come from collectivist ideologies though.
