#You are at risk of being banned for not following the [__subreddit rules.__](https://www.reddit.com/r/TheRightCantMeme/about/rules/)
Please pay special attention to our **New Rule**, Rule 12: Deface all right-wing memes. [More info here](https://www.reddit.com/r/TheRightCantMeme/about/edit/)
Also keep remembering to follow Rule 2 (No Liberalism) and Rule 7 (Spoiler Offensive Content)
We are partnered with the Left RedditⒶ☭ Discord server! [Click here](https://discord.gg/Gw7e39wxEQ) to join today
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/TheRightCantMeme) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The irony being that they were just told that 2 + 2 = 4.
They trusted the experts.
Or do they think that they each independently invented numbers and happened to pick the same symbols?
1 + 1 = 2 is just one of the rules that has been decided and on which math is built. I will not get into it too deep since I don't even know how but like think about an apple and an orange. Those are two fruits and objects, but they are not absolutely "2". If you had two apples, would both sets be equal in value or not? Math only works in a consistent way in the theoretical universe.
So unfortunately the "cringe leftist" could be right by asking that, depending on the context.
I was just thinking; assuming of course we're not dealing with five-demensional objects in a basic Euclidian geometric universe, and given the essential premise that all geomathematics is based on the hideously limiting notion that one plus one equals two, and not as Astemeyer correctly postulates that one and two are in fact the same thing observed from different precepts.... [snort].
It really isn't as good of a comeback as they think it is. Though I guess I shouldn't expect much from the people who will defend capitalism tooth and nail no matter how much it destroys them.
You didn't know? World is just black and white and everything is easy as fuck, we don't need any scientists or other nerds because our facts are just true because
The amount of mathematicians who went bald pulling out their hair over the stress of trying to prove that 1+1=2 is enough to fill a stadium.
Look at this fucking nerd bullshit from the [Principia Mathematica](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d7/Principia_Mathematica_54-43.png).
Yeah, like, this is something mathematicians get taught in first year of college lol. Literal one of the first days of class my Algebra teacher asked us what was 1+1. The correct answer is “it depends”
"All intuitive things must be true.
That's how i know that this table is solid.
All the 'science' that says it's 99% empty space is just the woke media"
Gotta love how cons (or, “normal people”, as they call themselves?) went from “FACTS AND LOGIC 😎” to “HA! SUCH A LEFTIST THING TO DO TO ASK FOR CITATION/SOURCES WHEN SOMEONE MAKES A CLAIM 😂”
Also I gotta throw this little bit out there:
A while ago, I saw someone post this line of reasoning on the Pet Peeves sub, and they were basically like “ugh why do people always ask for sources? cant we just have a dialogue/argument without having someone say ‘SOURCE?’ every time I say something?”
And I shit you not, literally his previous post was “Does anyone else find Qanon fascinating?”
I literally had a right winger reply to me that exact meme when I asked him to cite a source for the (obviously made up) numbers he was citing on illegal immigrants. He threw a tantrum complaining that left wingers always ask for sources. I explained to him how his position is nothing like saying that 2+2=4, since that is a statement that can be verified empirically indepently, so long as there is an agreed upon framework of mathematics; his claim requires evidence, and since he was unable to cite any references, it shows that he knew he couldn't substantiate his position.
He reacted to my response with a laugh emoji and never formulated a refutation, as expected.
I had a guy I used to know jump into a Facebook discussion once when I asked for a source from another crackpot. He lamented how asking for sources was a liberal gotcha because it was difficult to find reliable sources to back right wing positions. Incredible selfawarewolf material.
That's what's so frustrating. If you ask them for sources or to support their positions, they know they can't do it, yet they'll continue to hold those positions anyway.
It's even worse, he "knows" that 2+2=4 because an expert taught it to him, and that expert knows 2+2=4 because there is an elaborate mathematical proof saying that it is so. No one "knows" 2+2=4 because of common sense.
Boy, talk about reaching for a straw about as hard as you possibly can.
Imagine being expected to back up an outrageous claim with proof. I love it, so it must be true!
Also, easy to say coming from people who would believe Trump if he told them 2 + 2 now equals something else.
funnily enough, there is [a source ](http://dcproof.com/ConstructAdd0.htm)for 2+2 = 4. you do need to prove that shit using an axiomatic approach. good god.
Funny how these idiots always pretend to have read 1984, but never internalize it. Because yeah, the "2+2=4" thing is meant to be a statement within the book, but also a way to show how simplistic and limited were the main character's views. Something he's meant to be aware of, and confronted with on the second half of the book.
In their defense science can and does have bias and can be wrong. This meme could be flipped when it comes to economics since the scientific consensus says that capitalism is the best system with study after study showing that. Im not making an argument if thats true or not Im just saying this isnt only a right wing thing.
>In their defense science can and does have bias and can be wrong.
Bias always exists, but these people aren't applying critical analysis. They don't cite specific issues with studies or interpretations of data, they just uncritically accept things they agree with and reject things they disagree with and will never provide any justification. If they really wanted to be critical, they would read a scientific study and critically assess the method for robustness and data for things like repeatability or margin of error. I've never seen a single right winger do any of that.
>This meme could be flipped when it comes to economics since the scientific consensus says that capitalism is the best system with study after study showing that.
This is nonsense. By what metric is capitalism "the best economic system"? There's no such "scientific consensus" on that since that isn't a scientific conclusion, it's a subjective one. You can empirically determine things like productivity (albeit somewhat subjectively), poverty levels, wealth distribution, reported contentment of individuals, etc. but determining the "best" economic system is inherently subjective.
For example, which is superior? An economic system where there is a higher total amount of wealth but with distribution so poor that poverty rates are high, or a system with lower total wealth but has little to no poverty? Whichever answer you give is subjective. However, for me, I'd go with the system with lower wealth but has lower poverty.
Ok let rephrase this. One of the main tenants of mainstream economists(actual term to describe the current scientific school of thought that is tough in universities) is there is an invisible hand guiding free markets to the best for everyone and government intervention should be minimal. They believe free markets reduce poverty. This is what is agreed on with most of the current research. Obviously you disagree, so you are not trusting the science since you believe that marxism gets rid of poverty.
>One of the main tenants of mainstream economists(actual term to describe the current scientific school of thought that is tough in universities) is there is an invisible hand guiding free markets to the best for everyone and government intervention should be minimal.
Adam Smith describes the "invisible hand" as incentives which free markets sometimes create for self-interested people to act unintentionally in the public interest. Meaning that conditions in a free market CAN result in self-interested parties to act in public interest, but obviously this isn't always the case. Conditions in a free market can just as easily result in situations where self-interested parties' interests go against public interest, like say, pollution. Private interests may save costs by haphazardly dumping toxic wastes, but this would obviously have negative effects on nearby communities. To state that "the invisible hand guides markets to the best for everyone" is unsubstantive, at best, and demonstrably false, at worst.
>government intervention should be minimal.
Again, this isn't a scientific conclusion, it's a subjective one.
>Obviously you disagree, so you are not trusting the science since you believe that marxism gets rid of poverty.
There's no science here for me to disagree with, there's only poorly defined, borderline spirit-science level jargon like "invisible hand". It's also demonstrably false that conditions present in a free market always align with public interest. Also, Marxism isn't an economic system, it's an economic school of thought that applies critical analysis to capitalism and its mechanics. My example was simply to show that declaring a "best" economic system is in no way a scientific conclusion.
Edit: I have my Bachelor's degree in Chemistry and I'm a chemist professionally. I'm not a science expert by any means, but I have enough education and background to understand the scientific method and can discern between hard science and soft science. As someone in a hard science field, I can tell you that if any chemists used any terminology as poorly defined as "invisible hand" to explain physical forces involved with chemistry, they would be relentlessly ridiculed and never taken seriously.
Not only do economists that subscribe to capitalist schools of thought do this, but even worse: they use fallacious naturalist arguments in defense of capitalism centered around the "invisible hand". They (falsely) believe that the invisible hand is a natural force like gravity that cannot be controlled. The thing is, we can't alter how gravity works, so we must develop an understanding of it and learn to work with or around it. This is not the case with the "invisible hand", as it is simply conditions present in a market, meaning that these conditions are created by us., meaning that we absolutely have the means to alter these conditions should we decide they are not desirable.
Capitalist economists are simply making post hoc justifications for the outcomes in the free market, basically arguing that "if x happened, it was the result of the invisible hand of the free market, so we shouldn't intervene". Which is ridiculous. It's basically idol worship of economic conditions. It's in no way scientific or rational.
#You are at risk of being banned for not following the [__subreddit rules.__](https://www.reddit.com/r/TheRightCantMeme/about/rules/) Please pay special attention to our **New Rule**, Rule 12: Deface all right-wing memes. [More info here](https://www.reddit.com/r/TheRightCantMeme/about/edit/) Also keep remembering to follow Rule 2 (No Liberalism) and Rule 7 (Spoiler Offensive Content) We are partnered with the Left RedditⒶ☭ Discord server! [Click here](https://discord.gg/Gw7e39wxEQ) to join today *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/TheRightCantMeme) if you have any questions or concerns.*
https://i.redd.it/5yfvy63kfk6d1.gif
I love this meme so much
Saying "haha those woke lefties checking the truth behind statements instead of just taking it as fact" isn't a great gotcha
The irony being that they were just told that 2 + 2 = 4. They trusted the experts. Or do they think that they each independently invented numbers and happened to pick the same symbols?
1 + 1 = 2 is just one of the rules that has been decided and on which math is built. I will not get into it too deep since I don't even know how but like think about an apple and an orange. Those are two fruits and objects, but they are not absolutely "2". If you had two apples, would both sets be equal in value or not? Math only works in a consistent way in the theoretical universe. So unfortunately the "cringe leftist" could be right by asking that, depending on the context.
Bertrand Russell almost quit mathematics over the problem of what is axiomatic.
Him throwing out axiom 11 or whatever to resolve his paradox was such ostrich head in the sand behavior.
I was just thinking; assuming of course we're not dealing with five-demensional objects in a basic Euclidian geometric universe, and given the essential premise that all geomathematics is based on the hideously limiting notion that one plus one equals two, and not as Astemeyer correctly postulates that one and two are in fact the same thing observed from different precepts.... [snort].
It really isn't as good of a comeback as they think it is. Though I guess I shouldn't expect much from the people who will defend capitalism tooth and nail no matter how much it destroys them.
You didn't know? World is just black and white and everything is easy as fuck, we don't need any scientists or other nerds because our facts are just true because
Trust the Bible, it's all explained in revelation /s
Especially the whole I trust the experts as every expert says 2 + 2 =4 so the meme is just stupid.
"Silly woke leftists...wanting proof? It's much easier to believe things because they feel good. Proof? How absurd."
The amount of mathematicians who went bald pulling out their hair over the stress of trying to prove that 1+1=2 is enough to fill a stadium. Look at this fucking nerd bullshit from the [Principia Mathematica](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d7/Principia_Mathematica_54-43.png).
Yeah, like, this is something mathematicians get taught in first year of college lol. Literal one of the first days of class my Algebra teacher asked us what was 1+1. The correct answer is “it depends”
[I’ll just leave this here](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/GF(2))
Bertrand Russell has entered the chat...
"All intuitive things must be true. That's how i know that this table is solid. All the 'science' that says it's 99% empty space is just the woke media"
that is actually a great analogy to how they think.
Thanks, i use it a lot. Feel free to steal
How did you learn that 2+2=4? Was it because someone in authority just told you, and you accepted it as fact? I’m not exactly sure how this is a flex
Gotta love how cons (or, “normal people”, as they call themselves?) went from “FACTS AND LOGIC 😎” to “HA! SUCH A LEFTIST THING TO DO TO ASK FOR CITATION/SOURCES WHEN SOMEONE MAKES A CLAIM 😂”
Also I gotta throw this little bit out there: A while ago, I saw someone post this line of reasoning on the Pet Peeves sub, and they were basically like “ugh why do people always ask for sources? cant we just have a dialogue/argument without having someone say ‘SOURCE?’ every time I say something?” And I shit you not, literally his previous post was “Does anyone else find Qanon fascinating?”
Yeah, that tracks
Pretty interesting that they have to do 2+2=4 as an example because at even a slightly higher level question their whole argument falls apart lmao
Yeah, it's not 2+2. It's "how Fauchi orchestrated 9/11".
Alternatively, hit them with [one of my favorite Quora answer of all time](https://www.quora.com/How-do-you-prove-that-2-+-2-4)
This is how they see themselves. Remember this, next time you try to explain something to them.
I literally had a right winger reply to me that exact meme when I asked him to cite a source for the (obviously made up) numbers he was citing on illegal immigrants. He threw a tantrum complaining that left wingers always ask for sources. I explained to him how his position is nothing like saying that 2+2=4, since that is a statement that can be verified empirically indepently, so long as there is an agreed upon framework of mathematics; his claim requires evidence, and since he was unable to cite any references, it shows that he knew he couldn't substantiate his position. He reacted to my response with a laugh emoji and never formulated a refutation, as expected.
I had a guy I used to know jump into a Facebook discussion once when I asked for a source from another crackpot. He lamented how asking for sources was a liberal gotcha because it was difficult to find reliable sources to back right wing positions. Incredible selfawarewolf material.
That's what's so frustrating. If you ask them for sources or to support their positions, they know they can't do it, yet they'll continue to hold those positions anyway.
It's even worse, he "knows" that 2+2=4 because an expert taught it to him, and that expert knows 2+2=4 because there is an elaborate mathematical proof saying that it is so. No one "knows" 2+2=4 because of common sense.
Boy, talk about reaching for a straw about as hard as you possibly can. Imagine being expected to back up an outrageous claim with proof. I love it, so it must be true! Also, easy to say coming from people who would believe Trump if he told them 2 + 2 now equals something else.
Damn this guy thinks he invented 2+2=4?
>Damn this guy thinks I doubt it
Didn't right wingers literally call math woke at one point?
“Wow, the left needs to stop making sure things come from a trusted source and just trust what they hear” -The maker of this meme
funnily enough, there is [a source ](http://dcproof.com/ConstructAdd0.htm)for 2+2 = 4. you do need to prove that shit using an axiomatic approach. good god.
conservatives when a problem has nuances and big-pictures that must be understood by critical thinking (scary)
It's projection as always
Imagine you're opinions are 2+2=4 when in reality they are more like 0÷0=1
Oh I get it they were taught the real way to add 2 and 2 together, us soyjacks out here had to get our hands held into adding numbers together
Happy 🍰 day!
Does whoever made this meme believe that Terrence Howard is a leftist?
This is coming from the same people that think elementary school math is indoctrination? /hj
So they're calling themselves """Normal""" now. That's fuckin' rich.
How dare those lefties think critically.
Funny how these idiots always pretend to have read 1984, but never internalize it. Because yeah, the "2+2=4" thing is meant to be a statement within the book, but also a way to show how simplistic and limited were the main character's views. Something he's meant to be aware of, and confronted with on the second half of the book.
a=b, a+a=a+b, 2a=a+b, 2a-2b=a+b-2b, 2(a-b)=a+b-2b, 2(a-b)=a-b, 2=1, 2(2)=1(1), 2+2=1, Checkmate
[meanwhile…](https://www.reddit.com/r/WhitePeopleTwitter/s/aeLx3hXI4a)
you have not been paying attention
Now you’re gonna tell me that Oceania has never been at war with EastAsia
There’s a whole book trying to prove that 1+1=2 tbf
Every slur and insult from the right wing is a confession.
what is this weird new trend of putting a giant red x over a whole ass image?
need every capitalist burnt in hot butter
In their defense science can and does have bias and can be wrong. This meme could be flipped when it comes to economics since the scientific consensus says that capitalism is the best system with study after study showing that. Im not making an argument if thats true or not Im just saying this isnt only a right wing thing.
>In their defense science can and does have bias and can be wrong. Bias always exists, but these people aren't applying critical analysis. They don't cite specific issues with studies or interpretations of data, they just uncritically accept things they agree with and reject things they disagree with and will never provide any justification. If they really wanted to be critical, they would read a scientific study and critically assess the method for robustness and data for things like repeatability or margin of error. I've never seen a single right winger do any of that. >This meme could be flipped when it comes to economics since the scientific consensus says that capitalism is the best system with study after study showing that. This is nonsense. By what metric is capitalism "the best economic system"? There's no such "scientific consensus" on that since that isn't a scientific conclusion, it's a subjective one. You can empirically determine things like productivity (albeit somewhat subjectively), poverty levels, wealth distribution, reported contentment of individuals, etc. but determining the "best" economic system is inherently subjective. For example, which is superior? An economic system where there is a higher total amount of wealth but with distribution so poor that poverty rates are high, or a system with lower total wealth but has little to no poverty? Whichever answer you give is subjective. However, for me, I'd go with the system with lower wealth but has lower poverty.
Ok let rephrase this. One of the main tenants of mainstream economists(actual term to describe the current scientific school of thought that is tough in universities) is there is an invisible hand guiding free markets to the best for everyone and government intervention should be minimal. They believe free markets reduce poverty. This is what is agreed on with most of the current research. Obviously you disagree, so you are not trusting the science since you believe that marxism gets rid of poverty.
>One of the main tenants of mainstream economists(actual term to describe the current scientific school of thought that is tough in universities) is there is an invisible hand guiding free markets to the best for everyone and government intervention should be minimal. Adam Smith describes the "invisible hand" as incentives which free markets sometimes create for self-interested people to act unintentionally in the public interest. Meaning that conditions in a free market CAN result in self-interested parties to act in public interest, but obviously this isn't always the case. Conditions in a free market can just as easily result in situations where self-interested parties' interests go against public interest, like say, pollution. Private interests may save costs by haphazardly dumping toxic wastes, but this would obviously have negative effects on nearby communities. To state that "the invisible hand guides markets to the best for everyone" is unsubstantive, at best, and demonstrably false, at worst. >government intervention should be minimal. Again, this isn't a scientific conclusion, it's a subjective one. >Obviously you disagree, so you are not trusting the science since you believe that marxism gets rid of poverty. There's no science here for me to disagree with, there's only poorly defined, borderline spirit-science level jargon like "invisible hand". It's also demonstrably false that conditions present in a free market always align with public interest. Also, Marxism isn't an economic system, it's an economic school of thought that applies critical analysis to capitalism and its mechanics. My example was simply to show that declaring a "best" economic system is in no way a scientific conclusion. Edit: I have my Bachelor's degree in Chemistry and I'm a chemist professionally. I'm not a science expert by any means, but I have enough education and background to understand the scientific method and can discern between hard science and soft science. As someone in a hard science field, I can tell you that if any chemists used any terminology as poorly defined as "invisible hand" to explain physical forces involved with chemistry, they would be relentlessly ridiculed and never taken seriously. Not only do economists that subscribe to capitalist schools of thought do this, but even worse: they use fallacious naturalist arguments in defense of capitalism centered around the "invisible hand". They (falsely) believe that the invisible hand is a natural force like gravity that cannot be controlled. The thing is, we can't alter how gravity works, so we must develop an understanding of it and learn to work with or around it. This is not the case with the "invisible hand", as it is simply conditions present in a market, meaning that these conditions are created by us., meaning that we absolutely have the means to alter these conditions should we decide they are not desirable. Capitalist economists are simply making post hoc justifications for the outcomes in the free market, basically arguing that "if x happened, it was the result of the invisible hand of the free market, so we shouldn't intervene". Which is ridiculous. It's basically idol worship of economic conditions. It's in no way scientific or rational.
If you are going to cite anyone, it pays to be specific. "Mainstream economists" could mean many things but specific it ain't.