You must log in or register to comment.
It’s pronounced gif
Probably nothing.
Winning an argument would mean your opponent has enough sense to admit they were wrong, and I just don’t hold 99% of the people I come across to that standard anymore.
The fact that police can lie to your face in order to trick you into saying something they can label as “incriminating” leads to society having no trust for the police.
I’m a woman who has slurs about her. Depending on who I’m arguing and what winning means I can’t win an argument about whether it’s raining as we slowly get drenched.
That said in a constructive discussion I’m really good at convincing people that comprehensive public transit is valuable, that public services are important, and that a general sense of cooperation is invaluable for society.
I convinced three crown attorneys that Macron did Notré Dame. That says a lot about the Canadian justice system, I just don’t know what.
Why we need to hold climate criminals accountable with extreme prejudice right now in 2025, and to make the case for full transition away from fossil capitalism.
You are right and I would vore for this 11/10 times.
Yet, it would break the economy of it were to happen. And 99999/100000 people are status quoers 🫤
Break the economy for who? Who is it actually working the best for now? The wealthy elite love the status quo because they are the ones benefitting from it the most.
Even a random middle class midwest family would benefit from moving away from fossil capitalism, since if done correctly the renewable investments would create millions of new jobs (“new” meaning in a different industry). People need to be able to envision what an ideal future could look like, instead of just the dystopian version of the current reality.
I don’t think that the Midwest is where the people majorly negatively-impacted would be. It’s people in the states that have low populations and a lot of fossil fuel extraction, like Wyoming.
Why we need to hold climate criminals accountable with extreme prejudice right now in 2025, and to make the case for full transition away from
fossilcapitalism.Good luck getting them to do that. The real climate criminals live in the Vatican.
Nah get outta here with your weird cult bullshit. Here’s a list for you
That this dress is white and gold. I mean, just look at it. It’s self-evident.
https://lemmy.today/pictrs/image/88909fd1-7021-4c1e-84a7-d5272f4b6541.jpeg
:-)
I still don’t see it.
I spent so long trying to make myself see blue-and-black. Kind of resigned that I can’t do it.
I’ve managed to game other optical illusions by covering bits of them up, to break the effect, and then slowly shift the amount covered. Cover one eye. Focus on one part of the image.
I can make the Necker cube be in either orientation.
I’ve seen The Spinning Dancer run in both directions.
But The Dress remains determinedly white-and-gold.
On the other hand, I’ve never seen white and gold.
So this is really strange. I followed the link in the post above to look at the dress again and, as always, it’s obviously blue and black, but I kind of stared at the white background of the wiki page, and just barely kept the top left corner of the dress in my vision. I shit you not, the dress slowly turned more white and I looked down at the rest of the dress and the stripes were gold! At first it was subtle but it gradually became blatantly white and gold.
Then I looked away, and it was black and blue again.
Weird.
These guys apparently reproduced the effect.
One apparently either sees white socks and pink crocs, or green socks and gray crocs.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-life-of-the-mind/202502/the-dress-10-years-on
https://lemmy.today/pictrs/image/b41aa1cd-3d1b-4ef8-886f-2c6494141805.jpeg
If it is true that the differential interpretation of the light source causes the disagreement about the percept, we should be able to recreate the effect de-novo:
And we did: We put a pink croc under green light so it looks grey, then added white socks which — reflecting the green light appeared green. People who know that these socks are white used the green tint as a cue that something is off with the light and mentally color-corrected the image. To them, the croc looked pink, even though the pixels are objectively grey. People who took the color of the socks — green — at face value, saw the croc — consistent with its pixel values – as grey.
EDIT: For me, it’s green socks and gray crocs.
yea I can see the cube both ways
spinning dancer is only clockwise
dress is always white/gold
Who the bestest boy/girl is.
To a dog, of course.
What I’ve got in my pocket.
Is it… MY PRECIOUS?!?
That’s not fair! It’s against the rules!
Do mean, “what controversial topic would I be correct about”, or do you mean, “what can i make the other person shut up about”? Because those are different skills, and it’s the reason why politicians win over the public and scientists get derided.
I had intended the former, so I’m regretting my choice of verbiage now. Oops.
I got 2:
That there does not exist an argument one could reliably win on account of there always being someone people stupid enough to insist they are right even when confronted with absolute proof and perfect knowledge.
—————-
Any argument as long as i am willing to stop caring about facts.
Assuming people are actually able and willing to recognize when they start hiding in circular reasoning (or other logical fallacies but by experience, begging the question is most common):
Argument about matter being the foundation of reality. It’s not. And I’d start by questioning your understanding of the word “matter”.
Matter has a specific meaning in physics but for this purpose I’d define matter as anything that exists in the world and behaves according to the rules of physics.
We can do science to determine how matter behaves and we can determine it keeps behaving that way whether any conscious being is interacting with it. That’s why I think matter is more of a foundation of reality than experience. Experience can come and go but matter keeps doing its thing.
Certainly we must rely on experience to learn anything about matter so from an epistemological point of view it is the foundation of knowledge but I do think we can discover a deeper foundation for reality through science.
Qualia is the only fundamental thing
You know, I feel like I see a surprising amount of people on Lemmy who have stepped out of the basic materialistic view. It’s encouraging but also a bit bizarre. There seems to be a weird subsection of people who are able enough computer nerds to not be scared by the interface here, but have actually looked into some pretty deep philosophical stuff (though some definitely have just done enough psychedelics). I include myself in the weird subsection of course but I really didn’t expect to see as many others here as I have.
Why privacy is important
I have opinions but I’m not confident to argue about them.
“You prefer strawberry ice cream to all of chocolate, mint chip, and French vanilla.”
Came here to say something similar. And also to point out that this opinion is a perfectly sound argument in and of itself, thus making it somewhat paradoxical in context.
By the amount of times I had moderators act bratty to me for: proving the Roman Catholic Church had control of our world since 538 AD or earlier.
