Open Menu
AllLocalCommunitiesAbout
lotide
AllLocalCommunitiesAbout
Login

It's a matter of perspective

⁨676⁩ ⁨likes⁩

Submitted ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago⁩ by ⁨The_Picard_Maneuver@lemmy.world⁩ to ⁨[deleted]⁩

https://lemmy.world/pictrs/image/d22fb208-2940-48cd-bb20-a4cb4f9bbed2.jpeg

source

Comments

Sort:hotnewtop
  • Thcdenton@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    Image

    source
    • SARGE@startrek.website ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      Goddamn cardies…

      source
  • A_Union_of_Kobolds@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    What it feels like having a conversation with conservatives

    source
    • GrammarPolice@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      and tankies*

      source
      • TherapyGary@lemmy.blahaj.zone ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

        And liberals

        (Just trying to be inclusive)

        source
        • -> View More Comments
    • paladin3494@feddit.dk ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ 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

      source
      • A_Union_of_Kobolds@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ 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.

        source
  • ininewcrow@lemmy.ca ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    This thread is basically what modern politics feels like

    source
    • awwwyissss@lemm.ee ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      Too real.

      source
  • PaupersSerenade@sh.itjust.works ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ 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)_/¯

    source
    • Zombiepirate@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      It’s a riff on an old meme.

      Image

      source
      • funkless_eck@sh.itjust.works ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

        alternative interpretation: it’s only possible to be neither right nor wrong on when the object is physically impossible

        source
        • -> View More Comments
      • Asafum@feddit.nl ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

        No, one! Lol

        source
        • -> View More Comments
      • tehmics@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ 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.

        source
      • pyre@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ 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.

        source
    • Spiralvortexisalie@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      Pretty sure its a riff on this …fineartamerica.com/…/three-or-four-bar-optical-i…

      source
    • Voyajer@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      It’s an impossible object optical illusion but edited to be possible

      source
    • Pinklink@lemm.ee ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ 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

      source
    • lath@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      I can think of a few ways, but considering where this is posted, there’s no need to overthink. Just keep it simple.

      source
    • sloppy_diffuser@sh.itjust.works ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      The original used XI where it was 9 or 11 depending on the side.

      source
  • m0darn@lemmy.ca ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    At least there are no centrists in here claiming it’s 3.5

    source
    • Phil_in_here@lemmy.ca ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      Or that we should agree on “throur”

      source
  • can@sh.itjust.works ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    Is it though?

    source
    • explodicle@sh.itjust.works ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      Typical. Both sides think theirs is the only correct answer, and that the other side is just wrong.

      source
      • lugal@sopuli.xyz ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

        But in this case, the other side is wrong!

        source
        • -> View More Comments
    • nichtburningturtle@feddit.org ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      It might be.

      source
      • cybermass@lemmy.ca ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

        It could possibly go either way.

        source
    • slaacaa@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      Big if true

      source
  • some_guy@lemmy.sdf.org ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    I can’t see four. I’m sure it’s there, it just doesn’t appear to me.

    source
    • Sabata11792@ani.social ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ 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.

      source
      • dragonfucker@lemmy.nz ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

        THERE ARE FOUR LIGHTS

        source
        • -> View More Comments
      • Scubus@sh.itjust.works ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

        We should build a wall around four, and make three pay for for it

        source
    • Faresh@lemmy.ml ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ 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)

      source
    • ameancow@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ 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.

      source
  • Draconic_NEO@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ 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.

    source
  • don@lemm.ee ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ 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.

    source
    • elrik@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      Rectangular prisms have 6 sides though.

      source
      • Allero@lemmy.today ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

        You discovered “political nuance”

        source
  • Tixanou@lemm.ee ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    I see seven

    source
    • GeneralInterest@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      Image

      source
    • interdimensionalmeme@lemmy.ml ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      It’s obviously nine you pan-arab zionist !

      source
      • Ascend910@lemmy.ml ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

        People take your joke so personally lol

        source
    • rain_worl@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      look at the ends. probably you’re thinking of seven (7) stacked together

      source
      • Tixanou@lemm.ee ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

        No those are 14

        source
        • -> View More Comments
  • FlyingSquid@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    I don’t know why there’s even a debate over that. The answer is clearly “Yanny.”

    source
    • HeyThisIsntTheYMCA@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      no, it’s blue and gold

      source
  • PeriodicallyPedantic@lemmy.ca ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    Instructions unclear, I got my dick caught in the number 8.

    source
    • rob_t_firefly@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      Top or bottom?

      source
      • PeriodicallyPedantic@lemmy.ca ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

        Yes?

        source
      • interdimensionalmeme@lemmy.ml ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

        8 is a switch

        source
        • -> View More Comments
  • lugal@sopuli.xyz ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    There are four lights!

    source
  • trolololol@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    There’s 3 lights

    source
  • TherapyGary@lemmy.blahaj.zone ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    I’ll never lose another argument with this up my sleeve

    source
  • paladin3494@feddit.dk ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ 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.

    source
    • aidan@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ 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.

      source
  • biggerbogboy@sh.itjust.works ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    'bour tree fiddy

    source
    • don@lemm.ee ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      Goddammit, Loch Ness Monster, I ain’t gonna give you no tree fiddy

      source
  • FlickeringScreens@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    I fucking knew these comments would get political, they always do

    source
    • dragonfucker@lemmy.nz ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      Everything social is political, because politics are the mechanics of society. A non political conversation is impossible.

      source
    • Thcdenton@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      Welcome to Lemmy

      source
    • Scubus@sh.itjust.works ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      What would you prefer we discuss?

      source
    • FlickeringScreens@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      I give up fuck this shit

      source
  • RangerJosie@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    9

    source
  • therealjcdenton@lemmy.zip ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    I see 37

    source
    • caseyweederman@lemmy.ca ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      In a row??

      source
  • Tante_Meier@discuss.tchncs.de ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    0-based indexing vs. 1-based indexing

    source
    • DonPiano@feddit.org ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      1-based indexing vs. 2-based indexing

      source
  • Sam_Bass@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    18

    source
  • Lumisal@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    Six

    source
  • nifty@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ 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.

    source