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.
I see 37
In a row??
There’s 3 lights
I fucking knew these comments would get political, they always do
Everything social is political, because politics are the mechanics of society. A non political conversation is impossible.
Welcome to Lemmy
At least there are no centrists in here claiming it’s 3.5
Or that we should agree on “throur”
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.
18
I’ll never lose another argument with this up my sleeve
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.
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!
What about 1+(n/∞) where n is a finite integer
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.
alternative interpretation: it’s only possible to be neither right nor wrong on 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.
I can think of a few ways, but considering where this is posted, there’s no need to overthink. Just keep it simple.
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.
It’s an impossible object optical illusion but edited to be possible
Instructions unclear, I got my dick caught in the number 8.
Top or bottom?
Yes?
8 is a switch
New trolley problem dropped
Holy hell
0-based indexing vs. 1-based indexing
1-based indexing vs. 2-based indexing
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.
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.
Rectangular prisms have 6 sides though.
You discovered “political nuance”
What it feels like having a conversation with conservatives
and tankies*
And liberals
(Just trying to be inclusive)
And my axe
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?
Iff they’re not hierarchical
Iffs in the wild make me happy.
Are “Iffs” a thing? I’ve been missing out.
“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.
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.
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
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.
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.
