1) Be nice and; have fun
Doxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, and toxicity are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them
2) All posts must end with a '?'
This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?
3) No spam
Please do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.
4) NSFW is okay, within reason
Just remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either !asklemmyafterdark@lemmy.world or !asklemmynsfw@lemmynsfw.com.
NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].
5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions.
If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email info@lemmy.world. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.
6) No US Politics.
Please don't post about current US Politics. If you need to do this, try !politicaldiscussion@lemmy.world or !askusa@discuss.online
Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.
Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu
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.
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.
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.
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.
That is one hell of a point. Where would the Ark have ended up though?
Who the bestest boy/girl is.
To a dog, of course.
What I’ve got in my pocket.
That hitting your children is NOT a good discipline technique.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
I just did the same thing. I had never seen the blue/black, ever. Now I can't see white/gold. I don't known who I am anymore!
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?"
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.
This parrot you sold me is dead.
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.
Why does the lizard speak in sarcasm format?
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.
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
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.
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.
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!!
Nothing
Why privacy is important
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.
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.
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.
I challenge anyone to debate me about deez nutz
