It's a matter of perspective

- Goddamn cardies....

What it feels like having a conversation with conservatives
- and tankies*
  
  And liberals
  (Just trying to be inclusive)
- 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.

This thread is basically what modern politics feels like
- Too real.

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.
  
  alternative interpretation: it's only possible to be neither right nor wrong on something when the object is physically impossible
  
  No, one! Lol
  
  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.
  
  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.
- 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
- It's an impossible object optical illusion but edited to be possible
- 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
- 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 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

At least there are no centrists in here claiming it's 3.5
- Or that we should agree on "throur"

Is it though?
- Typical. Both sides think theirs is the only correct answer, and that the other side is just wrong.
  
  But in this case, the other side is wrong!
- It might be.
  
  It could possibly go either way.
- Big if true

I can’t see four. I’m sure it’s there, it just doesn’t appear to me.
- 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.
  
  THERE ARE FOUR LIGHTS
  
  We should build a wall around four, and make three pay for for it
- 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)
- 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.

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 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"

Permanently Deleted
- It's obviously nine you pan-arab zionist !
  
  People take your joke so personally lol
- look at the ends. probably you're thinking of seven (7) stacked together
  
  Permanently Deleted

I don't know why there's even a debate over that. The answer is clearly "Yanny."
- no, it's blue and gold

There are four lights!

Instructions unclear, I got my dick caught in the number 8.
- Top or bottom?
  
  Yes?
  
  8 is a switch

There's 3 lights

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

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

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.

I see 37
- In a row??

18

Six

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

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 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
- What would you prefer we discuss?
- I give up fuck this shit