top 84 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 23 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (3 children)

What I’ve got in my pocket.

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 41 points 1 year ago (6 children)

    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.

  • source
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    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 🫤

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (1 child)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 19 points 1 year ago* (13 children)

    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

    1000009297

    :-)

  • source
  • hideshow 13 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 1 year ago (10 children)
  • [–] 9 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (9 children)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 10 points 1 year ago (6 children)

    On the other hand, I've never seen white and gold.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 1 year ago* (4 children)

    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

    1000009298

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • I see green socks and pink crocs lol

    But I think it's because I'm color correcting the Crocs from the green, but the socks, while I acknowledge are likely white in reality, do look very green from reflecting green light

    But then, yeah, there's the difference of "do we take it at face value, or try to figure out what the 'real' colour is in neutral light?"

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    Holy shit, I stared at the green socks really close for awhile and now the white and gold dress is blue and black! No way!

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 1 year ago

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 19 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    Nothing. These days? Not because I don't know things, but because a lot of people refuse to accept new information, even when it comes from reputable peer-reviewed sources and there's not much arguing with that.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 15 points 1 year ago

    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.

  • source
  • [–] 27 points 1 year ago

    Who the bestest boy/girl is.

    To a dog, of course.

  • source
  • [–] 13 points 1 year ago (4 children)
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    This one is one of the most stupid arguments IMO, the answer is so obvious that it's impossible to defend the other side of the argument in writing without misspelling the word.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 1 year ago

    Why privacy is important

  • source
  • [–] 9 points 1 year ago

    This parrot you sold me is dead.

  • source
  • [–] 8 points 1 year ago*

    Honestly nothing. The more I read and listen about any topic that can be debated the more unsure I am of my stance. I'm pretty sure that billionaires simply shouldn't be allowed to hoard so much money, but I'd probably fold under a multi-layered, informed rebuttal - it's more a gut feeling that i'd likely fail to articulate.

  • source
  • [–] 8 points 1 year ago (5 children)

    Indiana Jones could have just stayed home and Raiders Of The Lost Ark would have ended the exact same way but without him dragging that one lady through hell.

  • source
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    That is one hell of a point. Where would the Ark have ended up though?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    They’d have Top Men working on it.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 1 year ago* (4 children)

    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".

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Qualia is the only fundamental thing

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (1 child)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago

    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.

    There's the crux of it. Problem is that science is the product of the human mind. Experience isn't just the foundation of knowledge, it has to be the foundation of everything because to say anything about anything, nonsense or science, you need experience first. This includes any idea about what matter is or isn't. We must first have an experience, and then we conceptualize it in some way - and then we try to desperately conceptualize it in a way that makes sense in the context of our previous conceptualizations. Because ironically, while some people insist on matter being prior, without realizing it they often make the human mind equally prior ("thoughts ARE the thing itself"). Bring them the map-territory problem and they get it, but it's often hard to get them to apply the same idea onto their own mind.

    To be sure, science is a great and reliable way to make predictions. However, ultimate reality will always be grander than anything the mind can capture, and as such, science will never be able to distill it either. That said, one hopes, eventually science will meet this realization (and indeed some scientists have). To put it very shortly, as long as one insists on a logical continuum, one can keep asking "and what's beyond that" as logic necessarily requires a continuum of values to function. Foundation on which logic operates though, must be beyond what can be captured with logic.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 7 points 1 year ago*

    What do you win? No seriously.

    Winning means you shut down the other person and makes him feel stupid for being wrong? Then you havent won anything. You just lost.

    The entire school system is explicitly training people to be afraid of being wrong.

    You only learn something when you are wrong. It should be celebrated to be wrong. But in our culture, we have made it into a ego thing. That being right means you are better, smarter, more educated. Such bullshit.

  • source
  • [–] 7 points 1 year ago

    What am i confident i can explain in-depth using facts, or what am i confident i can explain in-depth using facts AND have the other person understand and change their view/opinion on? Two different scenarios

  • source
  • [–] 13 points 1 year ago

    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.

  • source
  • 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.

  • source
  • [–] 6 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    This is Lemmy. I'll give you one guess... and it ain't beans.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 6 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    I have opinions but I'm not confident to argue about them.

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    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.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago* (2 children)

    Nothing, conclusively, since I am already at a disadvantage because my brain processing speed can be low at times for debates and is riddled with over thinking about how to reply, but I sure as hell could try winning an argument on why cartoons are better than live action. Or why my absolute favorite webcomic Peter & Company is something people should give a try.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Why does the lizard speak in sarcasm format?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

    If I remember correctly, I am pretty sure it's implied he might be a little mentally slow, if you catch my drift. Though I don't think they play that off for laughs in a negative way, thankfully.

    I'd have to go way back to when they first introduce him and read a few more issues with him in it afterwards to verify that, though, since it's been forever since I've read some of the earlier issues.

    Edit:

    Looks like in the short storyline Peter and Iggy first meet, Iggy was written using with some letters flipped alongside having random lowercase letters dotted about uppercaps, so I definitely think they were going a little overboard on the mentally slow thing. It kinda looks like the sArCaSm thing is more of a way to show he's still a little slow, but in a slightly less offensive manner.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago

    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.

  • source
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago

    If the argument is fair and both parties are open then I think I could win an argument that exercise is crucial for a long and healthy life.

  • source
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago
    [–] 3 points 1 year ago

    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.

  • source
  • [+] 3 points 1 year ago* (6 children)
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Have you seen the heat argument?

    In short, the Young Earth Creationist position is that all the plate tectonics and radiological dating issues happened because of the flood. This means the plates would have to have moved very fast, and the resulting friction creates heat. Incredible amounts of heat. Likewise, radioactive decay releases heat, too. To do all the changes necessary to do that in the space of about a year it would generate enough heat to turn the entire planet into a plasma.

    This may actually be "checkmate, YEC!", at least in a sense. Not because they'll change their mind about God or anything, but because they prefer to have physical solutions if possible. It's easier to convince other people if you keep reliance on the supernatural to a minimum. But there's just no way around this one. You have to rely on the supernatural to fix it. There's just too much heat, otherwise.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (3 children)

    I thought that the Earth was molten rock, then cooled, then rained/flooded, and then sometime later, single cell organisms/life.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [+] 2 points 1 year ago (2 children)
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    kagis

    https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2021/04/harvard-scientists-determine-early-earth-may-have-been-a-water-world/

    According to a new, Harvard-led study, geochemical calculations about the interior of the planet’s water storage capacity suggests Earth’s primordial ocean 3 to 4 billion years ago may have been one to two times larger than it is today, and possibly covered the planet’s entire surface.

    “It depends on the conditions and parameters we look at in the model, such as the height and distribution of the continents, but the primordial ocean could have flooded more than 70, 80, and even 90 percent of the early continents,” said Junjie Dong, a Ph.D. student in Earth and Planetary Sciences at the Graduate School of Arts and Sciences, who led the study. “In the extreme scenarios, if we have an ocean that is two times larger than the amount of water we have today, that might have completely flooded the land masses we had on the surface of the early Earth.”

    They're saying that there isn't enough water on the surface today, but that an undetermined amount of water that used to be on the surface is now below the surface, and it's possible that that amount is sufficient that all land was at one point submerged.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago

    Nothing. I've spent my life arguing and several years arguing professionally. There are not many bigger wastes of time. I still do it, just to speak my peace, not because I'm hoping to change a bunch of minds.

  • source
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago

    Magenta is a mass delusion. It has no wavelength, it exists only because of the boundaries in our perception.

    We aren't able to see the world as it is, and yet hubris is so baked into the very essence of our being that our brains invent something to deny it. That is majenta. It is an egregore of vision, something we have dreamed into being and subsequently found ourselves made hostage to. It is a stalwart guardian protecting our feeble minds from the unfiltered reality of the world.

    If humanity has a god, then that god is Majenta.

    And the printers want to take it from us!!

  • source
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    any topic, so long as I don't need to commit to a positive claim. if someone else is willing to construct an argument, I can attack the premises.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    I can argue the uselessness of most American gun laws. I should note, a great many of the arguments rely on the fact of the 2nd Amendment and our court's historical interpretation of it.

    Almost every law I see proposed either runs afoul of the 2nd, is useless, and worse, many are counterproductive.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Ooh thats a good one.

    Can I ask what your solution is to the problem besides going door to door and raiding people's homes? Because youre never going to get the guns away from people who have them. I have yet to see a solution.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago

    Nowadays nothing. Part of the problem is im not really looking to win an argument. Im looking to discuss but I have my own conclusions since at this age there is little to nothing I have not thought about at some point. When I say conclusions though that is just a current end state not some sort of this is it and could never be different thing. All the same its not like someone stating they really really think its different or this written thing in my belief is definitive fact is going to cause me to jump up and change.

  • source
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago

    I challenge anyone to debate me about deez nutz

  • source
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago

    That Barry Bonds deserves to be in the HOF. And how sports writers should not be the only bar for an exceptional athlete is being snubbed (Clemens included even though I think he's a jerk).

    That corporate greed is the root of almost every problem we have as a society. The game is fixed and it needs to change.

  • source
  • load more comments
    view more: next ›