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.
There’s 3 lights
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 see seven
Are my eyes fucked up
look at the ends. probably you’re thinking of seven (7) stacked together
No those are 14
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.
I don’t know why there’s even a debate over that. The answer is clearly “Yanny.”
no, it’s blue and gold
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”
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.
What it feels like having a conversation with conservatives
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.
and tankies*
0-based indexing vs. 1-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.
1-based indexing vs. 2-based indexing
9
There are four lights!
I fucking knew these comments would get political, they always do
Welcome to Lemmy
I give up fuck this shit
18
I see 37
