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.
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!
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.
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)_/¯
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.
Maybe you're right and the truth is in the middle. Next time, someone will claim there are only two, I will say there are six, so we land at four, the true truth
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.
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)
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.
What? The first ordinal you start counting at doesn't change the total count, and alternatively the last item would be indexed at 2 if you used 0-based indexing.
Sure it’s a matter of perspective, but only so far because reality will constraint that the number of “items on the ground” are either three or four. One of these people is closer to what’s real.
100 Comments
Thcdenton@lemmy.world · 245 pts · 1y
SARGE@startrek.website · 17 pts · 1y
A_Union_of_Kobolds@lemmy.world · 191 pts · 1y
What it feels like having a conversation with conservatives
GrammarPolice@lemmy.world · 52 pts · 1y
and tankies*
TherapyGary@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 7 pts · 1y
And liberals
(Just trying to be inclusive)
trashgirlfriend@lemmy.world · 32 pts · 1y
Once again the anarchists are the only correct group
it's like the curse of Nostradamus
RestrictedAccount@lemmy.world · 17 pts · 1y
More like the curse of nostradumbass
trashgirlfriend@lemmy.world · 39 pts · 1y
lemmy user DESTROYS the philosophical tendency of anarchism with FACTS and LOGIC and EXTREMELY mediocre WORDPLAY
RestrictedAccount@lemmy.world · 5 pts · 1y
I disagree!
That wordplay is nowhere near good enough to be considered mediocre
trashgirlfriend@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 1y
I was considering editing my comment to say subpar but I decided I didn't care that much
SatansMaggotyCumFart@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 1y
Are anarchists actually practicing anarchism if they form groups?
trashgirlfriend@lemmy.world · 18 pts · 1y
"Anarchism is when there's one guy alone in the forest." -Mikhail Bakunin
SatansMaggotyCumFart@lemmy.world · -4 pts · 1y
Did Mikhail Bakunin think that women could not be anarchists?
trashgirlfriend@lemmy.world · 17 pts · 1y
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.
AbsoluteChicagoDog@lemm.ee · 16 pts · 1y
explodicle@sh.itjust.works · 14 pts · 1y
Iff they're not hierarchical
Shapillon@lemmy.world · 10 pts · 1y
Iffs in the wild make me happy.
imaqtpie@lemmy.myserv.one · 3 pts · 1y
Are "Iffs" a thing? I've been missing out.
YourNetworkIsHaunted@awful.systems · 1 pts · 1y
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!
trashgirlfriend@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 1y
Eh, most left leaning anarchists are fundamentally correct on the basics.
Visstix@lemmy.world · 7 pts · 1y
And my axe
paladin3494@feddit.dk · 1 pts · 1y
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
A_Union_of_Kobolds@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 1y
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.
ininewcrow@lemmy.ca · 82 pts · 1y
This thread is basically what modern politics feels like
awwwyissss@lemm.ee · 12 pts · 1y
Too real.
PaupersSerenade@sh.itjust.works · 69 pts · 1y
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)_/¯
Zombiepirate@lemmy.world · 214 pts · 1y
It's a riff on an old meme.
funkless_eck@sh.itjust.works · 97 pts · 1y
alternative interpretation: it's only possible to be neither right nor wrong on something when the object is physically impossible
imaqtpie@lemmy.myserv.one · 6 pts · 1y
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.
Asafum@feddit.nl · 13 pts · 1y
No, one! Lol
lugal@sopuli.xyz · 10 pts · 1y
I am very pluralistic so I'm ok with many numbers, except one, the singular is where I draw the line!
femboy_bird@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 2 pts · 1y
What about 1+(n/∞) where n is a finite integer
ChronosTriggerWarning@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 1y
tehmics@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 1y
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.
pyre@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 1y
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.
Spiralvortexisalie@lemmy.world · 28 pts · 1y
Pretty sure its a riff on this https://images.fineartamerica.com/images/artworkimages/mediumlarge/2/three-or-four-bar-optical-illusion-laguna-designscience-photo-library.jpg
Voyajer@lemmy.world · 16 pts · 1y
It's an impossible object optical illusion but edited to be possible
Pinklink@lemm.ee · 8 pts · 1y
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
lath@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 1y
I can think of a few ways, but considering where this is posted, there's no need to overthink. Just keep it simple.
sloppy_diffuser@sh.itjust.works · 2 pts · 1y
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.
https://infosec.pub/post/19153879
m0darn@lemmy.ca · 59 pts · 1y
At least there are no centrists in here claiming it's 3.5
Phil_in_here@lemmy.ca · 4 pts · 1y
Or that we should agree on "throur"
can@sh.itjust.works · 53 pts · 1y
Is it though?
explodicle@sh.itjust.works · 18 pts · 1y
Typical. Both sides think theirs is the only correct answer, and that the other side is just wrong.
lugal@sopuli.xyz · 27 pts · 1y
But in this case, the other side is wrong!
explodicle@sh.itjust.works · 17 pts · 1y
Do you even hear yourself? You sound just like them. /s
lugal@sopuli.xyz · 6 pts · 1y
Maybe you're right and the truth is in the middle. Next time, someone will claim there are only two, I will say there are six, so we land at four, the true truth
Scubus@sh.itjust.works · 2 pts · 1y
Got it, helping satanic anarchistic sex cult rise to rival Maga republicans
Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 1y
The rectangles sure are. They have an untrustworthy look to them, though..
nichtburningturtle@feddit.org · 11 pts · 1y
It might be.
cybermass@lemmy.ca · 5 pts · 1y
It could possibly go either way.
slaacaa@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 1y
Big if true
some_guy@lemmy.sdf.org · 51 pts · 1y
I can’t see four. I’m sure it’s there, it just doesn’t appear to me.
Sabata11792@ani.social · 47 pts · 1y
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.
dragonfucker@lemmy.nz · 18 pts · 1y
THERE ARE FOUR LIGHTS
don@lemm.ee · 5 pts · 1y
Tea. Earl Grey. Hot.
irreticent@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 1y
rob_t_firefly@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 1y
Shut up, Wesley.
Scubus@sh.itjust.works · 8 pts · 1y
We should build a wall around four, and make three pay for for it
Faresh@lemmy.ml · 25 pts · 1y
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)
ameancow@lemmy.world · 7 pts · 1y
don@lemm.ee · 24 pts · 1y
I see the problem, the artist forgot the rest of the sentence:
“Four-sided objects, of which there are three.”
Boom. Done. EZPZ. Do better, artist.
elrik@lemmy.world · 22 pts · 1y
Rectangular prisms have 6 sides though.
Allero@lemmy.today · 9 pts · 1y
You discovered "political nuance"
Draconic_NEO@lemmy.world · 24 pts · 1y
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.
Tixanou@lemm.ee · 22 pts · 1y
GeneralInterest@lemmy.world · 25 pts · 1y
interdimensionalmeme@lemmy.ml · 6 pts · 1y
It's obviously nine you pan-arab zionist !
Ascend910@lemmy.ml · 4 pts · 1y
People take your joke so personally lol
rain_worl@lemmy.world · 0 pts · 1y
look at the ends. probably you're thinking of seven (7) stacked together
Tixanou@lemm.ee · 1 pts · 1y
rain_worl@lemmy.world · 0 pts · 1y
cover up the ends. the spaces between the lines are the tops of the blocks, except the bottom-most one, which is the side of a block.
FlyingSquid@lemmy.world · 19 pts · 1y
I don't know why there's even a debate over that. The answer is clearly "Yanny."
HeyThisIsntTheYMCA@lemmy.world · 12 pts · 1y
no, it's blue and gold
lugal@sopuli.xyz · 15 pts · 1y
There are four lights!
PeriodicallyPedantic@lemmy.ca · 14 pts · 1y
Instructions unclear, I got my dick caught in the number 8.
rob_t_firefly@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 1y
Top or bottom?
PeriodicallyPedantic@lemmy.ca · 3 pts · 1y
Yes?
interdimensionalmeme@lemmy.ml · 2 pts · 1y
8 is a switch
untorquer@lemmy.world · 5 pts · 1y
New trolley problem dropped
A7thStone@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 1y
Holy hell
trolololol@lemmy.world · 11 pts · 1y
TherapyGary@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 9 pts · 1y
I'll never lose another argument with this up my sleeve
biggerbogboy@sh.itjust.works · 8 pts · 1y
'bout tree fiddy
don@lemm.ee · 4 pts · 1y
Goddammit, Loch Ness Monster, I ain’t gonna give you no tree fiddy
paladin3494@feddit.dk · 7 pts · 1y
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.
aidan@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 1y
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.
RangerJosie@lemmy.world · 7 pts · 1y
9
therealjcdenton@lemmy.zip · 6 pts · 1y
I see 37
caseyweederman@lemmy.ca · 12 pts · 1y
In a row??
Sam_Bass@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 1y
18
Lumisal@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 1y
Six
Tante_Meier@discuss.tchncs.de · 1 pts · 1y
0-based indexing vs. 1-based indexing
DonPiano@feddit.org · 6 pts · 1y
1-based indexing vs. 2-based indexing
elrik@lemmy.world · 5 pts · 1y
What? The first ordinal you start counting at doesn't change the total count, and alternatively the last item would be indexed at 2 if you used 0-based indexing.
nifty@lemmy.world · 0 pts · 1y
Sure it’s a matter of perspective, but only so far because reality will constraint that the number of “items on the ground” are either three or four. One of these people is closer to what’s real.
FlickeringScreens@lemmy.world · -7 pts · 1y
I fucking knew these comments would get political, they always do
dragonfucker@lemmy.nz · 6 pts · 1y
Everything social is political, because politics are the mechanics of society. A non political conversation is impossible.
Thcdenton@lemmy.world · 5 pts · 1y
Welcome to Lemmy
Scubus@sh.itjust.works · 2 pts · 1y
What would you prefer we discuss?
FlickeringScreens@lemmy.world · -2 pts · 1y
I give up fuck this shit