What it feels like having a conversation with conservatives
It's a matter of perspective
Submitted 6 months ago by The_Picard_Maneuver@lemmy.world to [deleted]
https://lemmy.world/pictrs/image/d22fb208-2940-48cd-bb20-a4cb4f9bbed2.jpeg
Comments
A_Union_of_Kobolds@lemmy.world 6 months ago
GrammarPolice@lemmy.world 6 months ago
and tankies*
TherapyGary@lemmy.blahaj.zone 6 months ago
And liberals
(Just trying to be inclusive)
paladin3494@feddit.dk 6 months ago
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 6 months ago
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 6 months ago
This thread is basically what modern politics feels like
awwwyissss@lemm.ee 6 months ago
Too real.
PaupersSerenade@sh.itjust.works 6 months ago
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 6 months ago
funkless_eck@sh.itjust.works 6 months ago
alternative interpretation: it’s only possible to be neither right nor wrong on when the object is physically impossible
tehmics@lemmy.world 6 months ago
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 6 months ago
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 6 months ago
Pretty sure its a riff on this …fineartamerica.com/…/three-or-four-bar-optical-i…
Voyajer@lemmy.world 6 months ago
It’s an impossible object optical illusion but edited to be possible
Pinklink@lemm.ee 6 months ago
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 6 months ago
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 6 months ago
The original used XI where it was 9 or 11 depending on the side.
m0darn@lemmy.ca 6 months ago
At least there are no centrists in here claiming it’s 3.5
Phil_in_here@lemmy.ca 6 months ago
Or that we should agree on “throur”
can@sh.itjust.works 6 months ago
Is it though?
explodicle@sh.itjust.works 6 months ago
Typical. Both sides think theirs is the only correct answer, and that the other side is just wrong.
lugal@sopuli.xyz 6 months ago
But in this case, the other side is wrong!
nichtburningturtle@feddit.org 6 months ago
It might be.
cybermass@lemmy.ca 6 months ago
It could possibly go either way.
slaacaa@lemmy.world 6 months ago
Big if true
some_guy@lemmy.sdf.org 6 months ago
I can’t see four. I’m sure it’s there, it just doesn’t appear to me.
Sabata11792@ani.social 6 months ago
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.
Scubus@sh.itjust.works 6 months ago
We should build a wall around four, and make three pay for for it
Faresh@lemmy.ml 6 months ago
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 6 months ago
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.
Draconic_NEO@lemmy.world 6 months ago
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.
don@lemm.ee 6 months ago
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 6 months ago
Rectangular prisms have 6 sides though.
Allero@lemmy.today 6 months ago
You discovered “political nuance”
Tixanou@lemm.ee 6 months ago
I see seven
GeneralInterest@lemmy.world 6 months ago
interdimensionalmeme@lemmy.ml 6 months ago
It’s obviously nine you pan-arab zionist !
Ascend910@lemmy.ml 6 months ago
People take your joke so personally lol
rain_worl@lemmy.world 6 months ago
look at the ends. probably you’re thinking of seven (7) stacked together
FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 6 months ago
I don’t know why there’s even a debate over that. The answer is clearly “Yanny.”
HeyThisIsntTheYMCA@lemmy.world 6 months ago
no, it’s blue and gold
PeriodicallyPedantic@lemmy.ca 6 months ago
Instructions unclear, I got my dick caught in the number 8.
rob_t_firefly@lemmy.world 6 months ago
Top or bottom?
PeriodicallyPedantic@lemmy.ca 6 months ago
Yes?
lugal@sopuli.xyz 6 months ago
There are four lights!
trolololol@lemmy.world 6 months ago
There’s 3 lights
TherapyGary@lemmy.blahaj.zone 6 months ago
I’ll never lose another argument with this up my sleeve
paladin3494@feddit.dk 6 months ago
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 6 months ago
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.
biggerbogboy@sh.itjust.works 6 months ago
'bour tree fiddy
don@lemm.ee 6 months ago
Goddammit, Loch Ness Monster, I ain’t gonna give you no tree fiddy
FlickeringScreens@lemmy.world 6 months ago
I fucking knew these comments would get political, they always do
dragonfucker@lemmy.nz 6 months ago
Everything social is political, because politics are the mechanics of society. A non political conversation is impossible.
Thcdenton@lemmy.world 6 months ago
Welcome to Lemmy
Scubus@sh.itjust.works 6 months ago
What would you prefer we discuss?
FlickeringScreens@lemmy.world 6 months ago
I give up fuck this shit
RangerJosie@lemmy.world 6 months ago
9
therealjcdenton@lemmy.zip 6 months ago
I see 37
caseyweederman@lemmy.ca 6 months ago
In a row??
Tante_Meier@discuss.tchncs.de 6 months ago
0-based indexing vs. 1-based indexing
DonPiano@feddit.org 6 months ago
1-based indexing vs. 2-based indexing
Sam_Bass@lemmy.world 6 months ago
18
Lumisal@lemmy.world 6 months ago
Six
nifty@lemmy.world 6 months ago
Sure it’s a matter of perspective, but only so far because reality constraints that the number of items on the ground are either three or four. One of these people is closer to what’s real.
Thcdenton@lemmy.world 6 months ago
Image
SARGE@startrek.website 6 months ago
Goddamn cardies…