this post was submitted on 21 Jun 2025
704 points (90.6% liked)
memes
15768 readers
3405 users here now
Community rules
1. Be civil
No trolling, bigotry or other insulting / annoying behaviour
2. No politics
This is non-politics community. For political memes please go to !politicalmemes@lemmy.world
3. No recent reposts
Check for reposts when posting a meme, you can only repost after 1 month
4. No bots
No bots without the express approval of the mods or the admins
5. No Spam/Ads
No advertisements or spam. This is an instance rule and the only way to live.
A collection of some classic Lemmy memes for your enjoyment
Sister communities
- !tenforward@lemmy.world : Star Trek memes, chat and shitposts
- !lemmyshitpost@lemmy.world : Lemmy Shitposts, anything and everything goes.
- !linuxmemes@lemmy.world : Linux themed memes
- !comicstrips@lemmy.world : for those who love comic stories.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Ig what you're failing to understand is that since I, ykno, interpret the lighting correctly? I know I'm right? And everyone that's wrong is... Bad at looking at things.
If the question were literally referring to the pixel color codes, I wouldn't argue. But the question refers literally to the physical dress.
Can you explain why people see the lighting differently?
It’s not though, it’s about the picture. We don’t have access to the dress only a digital representation which objectively is a very pale blue and brown, not black and blue.
I gave some of the reasoning as to why this happened in my original comment, but given you’ve doubled down on ‘interpreting the lighting correctly’ and that people are just ‘bad at looking at things’ I guess it’s a bit above your pay grade.
Sorry, forgot to clarify in my last post:
How, exactly, is the lighting ambiguous? The entire picture is covered in golden light.
The image has a strong yellowish tone, but there’s no clear source of light, no visible shadows, no specular highlights, and no environmental cues like windows or lamps. The background is a blown-out mess of overexposure, and the lighting direction is totally unclear.
Some people’s brains interpret that yellow cast as warm lighting falling on a blue and black dress. Others interpret it as cool shadow across a white and gold dress. That’s why it’s ambiguous — the image lacks the kind of contextual clues we usually use to judge lighting. What you see as a scene bathed in golden light is your brain choosing one of two plausible explanations and running with it.
If the lighting were actually obvious, this would never have gone viral.
It's hard for me to agree it's ambiguous because to me, the lighting is pretty clearly coming from the direction of the camera, since that's how exposure works.
Yeah, so I'm better at looking at things. My brain chose the right solution. Skill issue for white and gold people, sorry.
The whole reason The Dress became a phenomenon is because there’s just enough visual ambiguity to make multiple interpretations plausible. That doesn’t mean your perception is more accurate — it just means your brain committed quickly to one version and stuck with it. Congrats, but calling it a skill issue only shows a lack of understanding about how perception works. If this were about raw visual ability, neuroscientists wouldn’t still be studying it. You didn’t “solve” anything — you just landed on one of two stable percepts and assumed it was the only correct one. And funnily enough, seeing it as white and gold might actually reflect a system tuned to compensate more for low-light environments, possibly allowing better function in situations where light is limited. So if anything, you might be the one running on default settings.
Raw visual ability is funny. You're a silly guy.
It's a skill issue, sorry.
Funny how “visual talent” doesn’t come with reading comprehension. I sense this is important to you because you lack actual skills.
Lol, you sense this is important to me? Skill issue.
Yes, or you're just really thick and incapable of higher levels of thought and analysis.
Aw, sorry, I didn't expect you to get so emotional.
Not emotions, just objectively you are struggling to grasp really basic stuff. Either wilful ignorance or just half daft.
Idk, you pretty clearly are and have been using ad hominem attacks.
What was I struggling to grasp again? Which part? The idea that it was ambiguous?
You don't have a monopoly on bad faith arguments, ad hom doesnt equal emotional it just means I've disregarded your input as valuable and I'm winding you up.
You struggled to grasp pretty much any of it.
For sure man, you're winding me up...
Btw, quick note, idk if your perception is just so malformed that you can't tell, but the first mention of "skill issue" was about where I started trolling you. I'm letting you know because you are clearly quite vulnerable to feeding the troll.
Can't kid a kidder wee man.
Ah man, for sure. Don't worry! Everyone who sees this WILL know how emotionally invested you were. You made probably like 30 comments, after all. Enjoy your day buckaroo!
I'm emotionally invested in my daughters this is nothing. Emotions don't factor in here.
Ah yes, that's why you're defending yourself relentlessly against a stranger on the internet. It's because you don't care. You're so detached and cool 😎
Not because I don't care, I care because I'm making a point & winding you up. Doesnt mean there needs to be emotions involved. Detached is my default.
💀
It's kinda funny, tho, don't you think? For you to be this mad AND wrong?
If you recall my original comment
So I figured you'd be a good example of someone who doesn't 'get it' (even when explained with clear logic). Something in that maybe.
I do recall, that's why I started trolling you when I noticed the vulnerability you have to it.
Nonononono, you are wrong. The question has always been "is this DRESS this color or this color?" NEVER EVER has the question been "Is this PICTURE of the dress this color or this color?
I doubled down on... being correct? I mean. That's what happened. I interpreted the lighting correctly. So... go ahead and argue against that?
What do you mean you gave your reasoning? You're talking about how you explained how some people interpreted the lighting incorrectly because they are bad at looking at things?
It is a picture of a dress. It’s not a real dress. It’s a digital representation. Any question posted alongside it is regarding the digital representation obviously as it is not a real dress in front of us.
You doubled down on lacking the depth to understand what’s actually going on and why you cannot see the true pixels displayed when others can.
Yeah, buddy, sorry. You're wrong. The debate was solved when the store selling the dress came out and said it was black and blue. You, and maybe some other people who have particularly literal interpretations of things, may have misunderstood the debate entirely from the beginning. It seems that's the case.
I already established that I wouldn't argue against pixel values on the picture matching white and gold. I believe you.
People that are arguing that they see black and blue DO SEE THE WHITE AND GOLD that is literally present in the picture DUE TO THE EXPOSURE. They just know it's obviously black and blue, because they can look at it and interpret it correctly.
Everyone agrees the physical dress is black and blue. That was never the actual debate. The reason this became a global phenomenon is because the photo is so overexposed and lacking in lighting cues that different people genuinely perceive different colors. It’s not about being literal or mistaken — it’s about how the brain interprets visual ambiguity.
Saying black and blue viewers “see” white and gold but just know better doesn’t line up with the research or lived experience of the people who see it differently. Many white and gold viewers don’t consciously override anything — they see pale blue and brownish gold as stable, consistent colors. And those are close to the actual pixel values. So in terms of what’s present in the image, their perception is just as grounded as anyone else’s.
First two sentences in. You're wrong. When the store owners came out and told everyone the correct colors, the debate ended. Sorry. That's what happened.
Don't need to read the rest of your narrative based on a faulty premise.
Skill issue btw.
That isn't what happened. Your entire life is a skill issue.
Check the wikipedia page ig? That is exactly what happened lmao.
The wikipedia page details how it's been studied for over a decade since, and how it was never 'unknown' so you check the wikpedia page ig
The wikipedia page details how it was a viral buzzfeed quiz positing the question "what color is this dress?" The wikipedia page also details how the buzzfeed quiz blew up overnight(feb26)- oh, you're right, I can't find when they announced the color. It was the next day, feb 27th. I just used google to find the old tweet.
So anyway, the wide world did NOT know the color of the dress from the beginning, it went viral overnight without that context at all. Sorry? I don't know why you seem to care so much?
Yeah nothing wider here because some people on Tumblr for a day didn't know. Not like its still being discussed and studied a decade later.
The wider debate, dawg. When everyone knew the truth, the debate over what color the dress was died or at least started dying. There may have been people who continued debating without that knowledge, and there are certainly people who continued discussing afterwards. The debate can only be one of two things: either it's the color of the dress or the color of the picture of the dress. The question has TWO objective answers. Most people, again, not knowing the wider context when they entered the conversation, took a position based on what they thought the color of the ACTUAL DRESS was. And when that objective question was answered, everyone stopped caring. You know, the royal everyone. Society at large.
Also... reading comprehension, dawg. NO ONE knew what the color of the dress was when the quiz went viral except for the originators of the image and their real life social circle/community which had been discussing it. The tumblr bit is almost completely irrelevant to what you're trying to argue.
Thank you for continue to demonstrate your lack of critical thinking.
You're welcome! Thank you for disregarding facts because they don't align with your narrative!
What facts
The fact that the real color wasn't widespread knowledge from the get go. 🥱🥱
It was though, the origin got withheld for a day when it went viral but it's been going viral for years now and the discussion continues so it's a strange hill to die on. 99% of discussions about this image have occured when the physical dresses colours were known.
Debate vs discussion semantics.
Debate regards the color.
Discussion regards the overall cultural effect, studies in neuroscience, etc
If you're going to move the goal posts you usally need a segue to be coherent- what?
But yes your arguments lack understanding in those areas too.
My arguments haven't even touched on those areas 😭 can you stop being annoying? I'm not gonna fall for your troll bait, so if you keep being annoying, I'll just block you lmao.
I know, hence - lacking in understanding.
You fell for my troll bait 40msgs ago
for sure bro, you're really trolling me 😎
Which goalpost did I move?