Image macros that make you laugh, cry, or both.

Chamomile · Post by **Chamomile** » Sun Mar 01, 2015 11:09 am

Pixels wrote:
Chamomile wrote:
Prak wrote:And yet it's perfectly legal to, say, pay one category of people less than another for the same work,
No, actually, it isn't. If you can prove that you're being paid less for no other reason than that you are a woman, you can sue for that. Trouble is, how are you supposed to prove that? Also: Sexism, not racism.
Yes, actually, it is, with a few exceptions. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Employment ... ted_States. Your example of discrimination based on sex is a protected category, but paying people who have annoying laughs less would be perfectly fine.

Okay, so technically you're correct, but Prak is clearly referring here to women, who are a protected class.

Prak wrote:Also, I was talking about the use of [x]ism to mean "Institutionalized [X]ism," in general, not specifically racism.

I'm specifically using racism to point out that by the Tumblr definition there is no racism in America, a clearly ridiculous assertion which therefore invalidates the Tumblr definition.

If you want, and give me a bit, I can come up with other cases where Castle Doctrine type laws only protect white men.

I don't need you to come up with cases where the Castle Doctrine effectively only protects white people, Prak. I need you come up with cases where the Castle Doctrine explicitly only protects white people. If there is no actual law or legal precedent, meaning the actual explicit word of a judge on a case and not just what we can infer about why he ruled the way he did, then there is no racism in United States law itself. There is only racism in the people who enforce United States law, and who ignore the law in subtle or in some cases blatant ways to serve their repugnant ideologies. But that still has nothing to do with what is actually the law, because the law is what's written, not what's done. Except the Tumblr definition of racism says that it doesn't count as racism unless it is a system of oppression in law and attitude which means that only explicit legal oppression of certain races qualifies as racism. And that is stupid.

Ancient History · Post by **Ancient History** » Sun Mar 01, 2015 4:26 pm

Shatner · Post by **Shatner** » Sun Mar 01, 2015 5:03 pm

Ancient History wrote:

Behold the Beholder's Beholder.

That's pretty bad-ass.

ishy · Post by **ishy** » Sun Mar 01, 2015 7:08 pm

What colour is this dress?

Foxwarrior · Post by **Foxwarrior** » Sun Mar 01, 2015 7:12 pm

Well, it's obviously not black, that's for sure.

Josh_Kablack · Post by **Josh_Kablack** » Sun Mar 01, 2015 7:27 pm

ishy wrote:What colour is this dress?
[/img]

Looks to be white (off-white/pearl/cream/ivory etc) with gold (yellow/flaxen/amber etc) trim. But also looks to be a photo taken with less-than-clear lighting conditions, so I suspect internet trickery.

Shiritai · Post by **Shiritai** » Sun Mar 01, 2015 7:33 pm

Definitely a dark brown and blue.

angelfromanotherpin · Post by **angelfromanotherpin** » Sun Mar 01, 2015 7:34 pm

I'm amazed anyone on the internet hasn't seen that yet. I've een bombarded with that dress for days. xkcd covered this. It's a white-balance illusion.

Count Arioch the 28th · Sun Mar 01, 2015 7:57 pm

I now know why women take so long to get dressed, their clothes change color all the goddamn time.

ishy · Post by **ishy** » Sun Mar 01, 2015 8:16 pm

Josh_Kablack wrote:
ishy wrote:What colour is this dress?
[/img]
Looks to be white (off-white/pearl/cream/ivory etc) with gold (yellow/flaxen/amber etc) trim. But also looks to be a photo taken with less-than-clear lighting conditions, so I suspect internet trickery.

The trickery part of the photo is that different people see different colours.
My friend saw the dress as black / blue, I saw it as white/golden.
Now that the sun is down, I see it as gold and blueish white.

Count Arioch the 28th · Sun Mar 01, 2015 8:36 pm

I have yet to see it as anything but blue and black.

schpeelah · Post by **schpeelah** » Sun Mar 01, 2015 8:41 pm

The issue is that people apparently adjust for lighting in two different directions. Here's the effect with color balance pushed to unambiguous in either, taken from the first hit on Google.

I can see how someone could be unsure if the lighter parts might be light blue or not. I cannot for the life of me understand how anyone looks at the dark yellow parts and conclude they are black.

Kaelik · Post by **Kaelik** » Sun Mar 01, 2015 8:49 pm

They look clearly black to me. So I suggest different brains/eyes.

angelfromanotherpin · Post by **angelfromanotherpin** » Sun Mar 01, 2015 8:54 pm

Just looking at it through a different computer screen's graphical vagaries can tip the balance from one state to the other, so opinions through the internet are unhelpful. It's white/gold on my desktop and blue/black on my laptop.

Kaelik · Post by **Kaelik** » Sun Mar 01, 2015 8:58 pm

angelfromanotherpin wrote:Just looking at it through a different computer screen's graphical vagaries can tip the balance from one state to the other, so opinions through the internet are unhelpful. It's white/gold on my desktop and blue/black on my laptop.

Or different computers I guess. I notice now that you mention it that it is less black on one of my monitors than the other, but yes I see it as clearly black, so I can understand why this might be an issue.

MGuy · Post by **MGuy** » Sun Mar 01, 2015 10:30 pm

I've looked at the dress on a number of computers, and phones now and I always see blue / black. I didn't even know it was a question of which color it was until after the third tiem I'd seen the dress. I first thought it was another shitty advertisement on my FB and simply scrolled past it until a friend and then my little sister started shitting bricks when I told them that it was clarly a blue and black/brown dress.

rampaging-poet · Post by **rampaging-poet** » Sun Mar 01, 2015 10:48 pm

Spooky. I was going to say this was the first time I'd seen it as white and gold, but when I scrolled back up it was back to black and blue.

Ancient History · Post by **Ancient History** » Sun Mar 01, 2015 10:50 pm

Fucking dress gets half a dozen posts, but no mention of the Duraplast Decepticon? Fucking heathens, the lot of you.

Ancient History · Post by **Ancient History** » Sun Mar 01, 2015 11:09 pm

erik · Post by **erik** » Mon Mar 02, 2015 12:24 am

Why are all those water pokemon white and gold?

hyzmarca · Post by **hyzmarca** » Mon Mar 02, 2015 12:54 am

Ancient History wrote:

I know that car from somewhere ...

I can't put my finger on it.

Ancient History · Post by **Ancient History** » Mon Mar 02, 2015 1:10 am

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trabant

Starmaker · Post by **Starmaker** » Mon Mar 02, 2015 1:35 pm

Ancient History wrote:Fucking dress gets half a dozen posts, but no mention of the Duraplast Decepticon? Fucking heathens, the lot of you.

If it makes you feel better, I read "Buddhism in the American Civil War" as a Krugman article and only caught on when I saw the three hashes in the end.

Ancient History · Post by **Ancient History** » Mon Mar 02, 2015 4:15 pm

That's terrifying. Have some rabbits.