Anyone else know about how they use colors in media to brainwash people? what do you know?

Anyone else know about how they use colors in media to brainwash people?
what do you know?

POSIWID: The Purpose Of A System Is What It Does Shirt $21.68

Tip Your Landlord Shirt $21.68

POSIWID: The Purpose Of A System Is What It Does Shirt $21.68

  1. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    They don't. I've considered whether they do but then I've seen the blue and now I don't.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Its an apparent religious system revealed through color.
      You know the one im talking about, the one in squid games
      Color symbolism has started to dominate media lately.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        >Color symbolism has started to dominate media lately.
        Okay, more serious answer. Color symbolism existed always, even in regardsto people certain colors and associations are common. But any manipulation is related to just that - "blue implies cold, red implies hot", aside from such associations and symbolism there's not much going on - the medium of just color is too simple for any practical, powerful manipulation, only slight nudges.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          I mean this one.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          The entire system is dionysus worship, is it not?
          i think what many people who use this system might fail to realize is that dionysus is jesus christ

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Heres an opera for you
            this is a story about the color green.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            for you

            Except you're totally wrong and totally fricking moronic
            Jesus Christ you fricking morons need to have a nice day
            I'm going to need a minute to even get over how fricking stupid you are before I destroy your moronic argument
            FRICK!
            Well first of all
            >"blue implies cold, red implies hot", aside from such associations and symbolism there's not much going on
            This is absolutely wrong
            This is so wrong you should frick off and have a nice day for typing it out, getting a captcha, typing the captcha and hitting submit

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          Except you're totally wrong and totally fricking moronic
          Jesus Christ you fricking morons need to have a nice day
          I'm going to need a minute to even get over how fricking stupid you are before I destroy your moronic argument
          FRICK!
          Well first of all
          >"blue implies cold, red implies hot", aside from such associations and symbolism there's not much going on
          This is absolutely wrong
          This is so wrong you should frick off and have a nice day for typing it out, getting a captcha, typing the captcha and hitting submit

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Is this some bait? You act liek you're about to prove anon wrong on some important thing but then you just sperg out and shit yourself in anger.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            [...]
            I've come to the conclusion that you are so fricking wrong I'm not even going to give you the right answer because you wouldn't accept it if I told you and you wouldn't even accept it if you researched it yourself and found out for yourself
            Just have a nice day you moronic c**t

            So, you're just an angry dumbass with no valuable counter-argument. Keep being buttblasted.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Go and look at what light actually is you moronic c**t
            Go look at the fricking visible spectrum
            Then fricking understand that the frequency molecules vibrate at determines their temperature
            Then fricking understand how photons gain and lose energy when they bounce of molecules and how your eyes interpret that energy level as different colors you stupid moronic dumb c**t frick

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            you have no appreciation for art or subtlety, do you?

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            i have no appreciation for moronic c**ts spewing nonsense and trying to pass it off as 'art' or 'subtlety' or a 'joke' or a 'prank'
            you're literally fricking moronic c**ts that should literally have a nice day

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            So, you're moronic after all. I wrote about symbolism and associations with colors in effort to manipulate people. How society and evolution made certain colors signify certain ideas. Yet you, you abyssmal homosexual, started sperging out about mechanics of perceiving color.
            And you even rode in on your high horse, got so angry, while it's just about you having no fricking clue what people type about. Reading comprehension failure. I would recommend getting help, you're clearly unstable bu /x/ welcomes stunted individuals like that as well. They're hilarious.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            wow you fricking moronic c**t
            how do you think they use colors to brainwash people if the colors dont mean anything?

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >how do you think they use colors to brainwash
            people if the colors dont mean anything?
            Oh, I thought you're just shit at reading, but it sounds like you're a dumbass in general.
            First, you immediately try to set up "they brainwash people" as a premise everyone agreed on. That's untrue, dumb even.
            Second, you claim I've said "colors don't mean anything" in response to a post about meaning of colors and associations people make with them.
            You are an idiot. And it's amusing you thought you're in position to educate someone. No, you've learned things but you just lack intelligence to comprehend and properly regard the information. I am not sure if even therapy will help there, you just seem too low IQ to have a sensible conversation.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            First - You're full of shit
            Second - You're full of shit
            Third - You're full of shit
            Stop replying full of shit nonsense you moronic c**t

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Hahah, you've got broken so much. No arguments, just powerless spergery.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Hahah, you've got broken so much. No arguments, just powerless spergery.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Oh cute, anon so dumb that he thinks "no u" will work. Or jsut a lil kids who overestimated himself. You know this site is generally 18+, right?

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            You really think I'm under 18?
            I'm older than you, you stupid c**t

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >You really think I'm under 18?
            Yes. The alternative is that you're mentally and emotionally stunted, given you sperg out like a little dumb kid who was neither raised properly nor learned much on its own.
            >I'm older than you, you stupid c**t
            I doubt it and we both know you don't know my age so this claim looks childish as well. And you better hope you aren't older than me because at this age, acting like how you do means you're seriously fricked in the head. Not "I have issues" fricked, but "I am complete trash society would be better off isolating due to my idiocy".

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Nice superiority complex but you're right here in the dirt spewing shit with me so go frick yourself
            You're the one that brought age into it so if you think me countering that is childish you're a moronic c**t
            I guarantee my IQ is higher than yours, even counting the content of my posts vs yours.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Nice superiority complex but you're right here in the dirt spewing shit with me so go frick yourself
            Except it's you who shits himself like a neurotic kid, while I mostly explain and taunt such moron, you, so he'll amuse me some more. In better style, without it just being random, repeated insult with no logic behind it.
            >so if you think me countering that is childish
            I've pointed out your behavior. You didn't counter it, didn't show how mature you are, you doubled down on childish remark. If you think it was a counter, you only maintain my point - you're either a dumb kid or an adult so dumb he should be isolated.
            >I guarantee my IQ is higher than yours
            I doubt it. Even in this exchange you throw childish insults and cannot counterpoint well what I've said (example, just above regarding childishness). Such idiocy means that not only you don't seem very intelligent, but even at average level of intelligence your behavior would indicate severe emotional or neurological issues. Outright moronation, perhaps, maybe some form of disruptive autism. One way or another, some problem that makes you act like a complete idiot. Get help.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          Except you're totally wrong and totally fricking moronic
          Jesus Christ you fricking morons need to have a nice day
          I'm going to need a minute to even get over how fricking stupid you are before I destroy your moronic argument
          FRICK!
          Well first of all
          >"blue implies cold, red implies hot", aside from such associations and symbolism there's not much going on
          This is absolutely wrong
          This is so wrong you should frick off and have a nice day for typing it out, getting a captcha, typing the captcha and hitting submit

          I've come to the conclusion that you are so fricking wrong I'm not even going to give you the right answer because you wouldn't accept it if I told you and you wouldn't even accept it if you researched it yourself and found out for yourself
          Just have a nice day you moronic c**t

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          >certain colors and associations are common
          You mean like how the color white is associated with death? Or how brides wear red to symbolize fortune and success?

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Yup, cultural and evolutionary (certain colors and their patterns are associated with danger, stemming from markings on predators, venomous/poisonous fauna and flora etc) impressions due to association. There is some small potential to manipulate prople through that and it's used already in society, obviously, but I doubt it's a really solid venue to pursue more ambitious means of manipulation.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >evolutionary (certain colors and their patterns are associated with danger, stemming from markings on predators, venomous/poisonous fauna and flora etc
            No. You try to gloss over but this is not in evidence.
            Color association is purely cultural, and the diversity of such associations shows that your idea would only work intraculturally.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Color association is purely cultural
            Can't be, otherwise it'd only make a point from the standpoint of those who have culture, that is sapients. Yet evolution not only favored development of patterns/colors that'd let some venomous/dangerous creatures drive off predators aware said colors/pattern indicate certain dangerous characteristics, but even gave rise to other creatures which develop such colors and patterns to increase their chances of survival despite no defences like venom, in pure act of mimicry.
            I would agree that in case of humans associations are far more cultural than that, obviously, but some may go deeper than that.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            the idea that color association predates culture is as absurd as the idea that culture predates color itself.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            i meant antedates culture. i fricked that up

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            So you claim that aposematic patterns in animal kingdom only came to be and have meaning after creation of culture? Can you tell me what culture, say, coral snakes scaring off snake-hunting birds come from?

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >it'd only make a point from the standpoint of those who have culture
            Correct, and we see that each culture has developed its own associations.
            >evolution not only favored
            Evolution does not favor. This is a horrible misunderstanding of evolution.
            >development of patterns/colors that'd let some venomous/dangerous creatures drive off predators aware said colors/pattern indicate certain dangerous characteristics, but even gave rise to other creatures which develop
            Why do you talk like species are aware of evolution and can control it?

            So you claim that aposematic patterns in animal kingdom only came to be and have meaning after creation of culture? Can you tell me what culture, say, coral snakes scaring off snake-hunting birds come from?

            NTA, but they are right.
            You again confuse existence with meaning. The coral snake has NO IDEA that it's pattern is useful in that way. No e.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Evolution does not favor. This is a horrible misunderstanding of evolution.
            It's very common figure of speech. I am suspicious of you now given you take it literally.
            It does not favor as in making a decision to choose some over others, since obviously evolution is a process, not a being with mental faculties. But it's a process of propagation of the most adapted individual creatures in boundaries of the species. The ones adapted, for example, coral snake, getting certain survival advantage when met with snake-hunting birds over their breathren, which allows traits contributing to that advantage to (statistically) spread more.
            >The coral snake has NO IDEA that it's pattern is useful in that way.
            Who said anything about it having to have an idea? Of course it doesn't, it didn't choose the pattern, the pattern was spread through evolution as its ancestors of that particular evolutionary line sporting the pattern were more likely to survive than those who did not. Same with the birds - they didn't just decide "nope, these patterns/colors are just not good" - but through the process of evolution those in this particular environment which developed association of those patterns/colors with danger and avoided them survived and propagated more than those which did not.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >It's very common figure of speech
            So you excuse being uneducated by pointing to everyone else who is uneducated?
            Now that you understand, you can stop using common sayings as some sort of evidence, especially when the saying is wrong.
            >of the most adapted
            Wrong again. "Most adapted" doesn't make any sense at all, and.evolution is not about "most" anything, but only "does it work?"
            >getting certain survival advantage when met with snake-hunting birds over their breathren
            Except not all snakes dealing with predators go this route 6 very few do, in fact.
            By your logic, this means other methods are more adapted and should be the example you look to.
            >Who said anything about it having to have an idea?
            You did, when you talked about species knowing and choosing.
            >they didn't just decide "nope, these patterns/colors are just not good"
            And that is why your notion of color theory is wrong.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >So you excuse being uneducated by pointing to everyone else who is uneducated?
            I do not excuse it because I don't agree with that premise. I point it out for your sake rather than accusing you of being intellectually disingenuous when you take such common figure of speech for explanation of a process.
            > "Most adapted" doesn't make any sense at all, and.evolution is not about "most" anything, but only "does it work?
            You ARE being disingenuous. How "does it work" is determined in evolution? It IS mechanism of propagating the most adapted among the group/specie which over generations transfer the beneficial traits over those specimen which do not, thus dying more easily and not propagating as well. It's not just "does it work" for a single particular specimen, but it's about carrying the most beneficial adaptation further, increasing that specimen's spread over others of its group.
            >Except not all snakes dealing with predators go this route 6 very few do, in fact
            Yes, because different lines of creatures develop their own adaptations. On top of that, funnily enough, that's exactly how species of snake develop similar traits other, remote species do - because it turns out those traits benefit them too! It's exactly because evolution is just mechanism, where the most adapted creature can establish itself in various niches and develop different traits adapting specimen the most to that niche we have such variety and we're not just one-cell organisms.
            >You did, when you talked about species knowing and choosing.
            Either you misunderstood something or lied. Quote the part that gave you this impression and I'll explain. I even literally done a search for the "choos" and the only cases of it are when I was answering your silly accusation stemming from your misunderstanding of figure of speech.
            >And that is why your notion of color theory is wrong.
            If that's wrong then I ask you to provide evidence of birds just collectively holding a meeting and agreeing on it.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >I don't agree with that premise.
            But you said the premise, and with zero hint of understanding that is was wrong until I forced you to accept it as such.
            >It IS mechanism of propagating the most adapte
            Wrong. "Most adapted" is a nonsense term. No such thing and it shows your lack of understanding about evolution.
            If "most adapted" was the metric there would only be one species.
            >different lines of creatures develop their own adaptations.
            Gosh, and you think every one is the "MOST adapted" do you?
            Moron.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >But you said the premise
            No, I didn't set any premise regarding anyone being uneducated. You brought such accusation.
            >Wrong. "Most adapted" is a nonsense term.
            Then you are wrong or perhaps show another case of failing at understanding English language (the first being not understanding the figure of speech) - adaptability is a well-established term in regards to evolution and since not all organisms are adapted to the same circumstances to the same degree, it uses determiners.
            If I have to teach you basic English on top of explaining how evolution works, I'll have to start charging you.
            >If "most adapted" was the metric there would only be one species.
            Wrong. Because there exist divergent evolution paths. Environments and considerations change, certain beneficial traits in one niche may be less important and lost in the process of evolution for the sake of others in another niche. That's how you get fish eyes of which in open water - absolutely vital in that environment - become atrophied over generations as the fish spreads to underground lakes or caves where there's no sufficient light for their previously developed sense of sight to be as useful. The fact you didn't account for it proves you're clueless.
            >Gosh, and you think every one is the "MOST adapted" do you?
            What everyone? Is that another thing you need explained? Each of that lines in divergent paths is based upon individual specimens whose adaptation was the most beneficial for further propagation in their niche.
            Also, it's convenient how once again you ignore parts you cannot refute, so I repeat even just the last one:

            >So you excuse being uneducated by pointing to everyone else who is uneducated?
            I do not excuse it because I don't agree with that premise. I point it out for your sake rather than accusing you of being intellectually disingenuous when you take such common figure of speech for explanation of a process.
            > "Most adapted" doesn't make any sense at all, and.evolution is not about "most" anything, but only "does it work?
            You ARE being disingenuous. How "does it work" is determined in evolution? It IS mechanism of propagating the most adapted among the group/specie which over generations transfer the beneficial traits over those specimen which do not, thus dying more easily and not propagating as well. It's not just "does it work" for a single particular specimen, but it's about carrying the most beneficial adaptation further, increasing that specimen's spread over others of its group.
            >Except not all snakes dealing with predators go this route 6 very few do, in fact
            Yes, because different lines of creatures develop their own adaptations. On top of that, funnily enough, that's exactly how species of snake develop similar traits other, remote species do - because it turns out those traits benefit them too! It's exactly because evolution is just mechanism, where the most adapted creature can establish itself in various niches and develop different traits adapting specimen the most to that niche we have such variety and we're not just one-cell organisms.
            >You did, when you talked about species knowing and choosing.
            Either you misunderstood something or lied. Quote the part that gave you this impression and I'll explain. I even literally done a search for the "choos" and the only cases of it are when I was answering your silly accusation stemming from your misunderstanding of figure of speech.
            >And that is why your notion of color theory is wrong.
            If that's wrong then I ask you to provide evidence of birds just collectively holding a meeting and agreeing on it.

            >If that's wrong then I ask you to provide evidence of birds just collectively holding a meeting and agreeing on it.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >I didn't set any premise
            Now you are being dishonest. I'll go back and quote your premise to you.
            >Yet evolution not only favored development of patterns/colors that'd let some venomous/dangerous creatures drive off predators aware said colors/pattern indicate certain dangerous characteristics, but even gave rise to other creatures which develop such colors and patterns to increase their chances of survival despite no defences like venom, in pure act of mimicry.
            This is what started it - your premise that evolution was favoring.
            You are wrong about how.evolutiom works as I have shown repeatedly and you are wrong to try and use it for an idea about color that is based on bad cultural assumptions.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >This is what started it - your premise that evolution was favoring.
            Yes, and based on that figure of speech YOU didn't understand, we've had exchange where you not only further proven lack of understanding of evolutionary mechanisms (divergent and convergent evolution, mimicry, atrophy) you didn't provide argument that wasn't refuted while making claims that I still wait you to make argument for (even the latest point I brought when you tried to move away from it after my answer - do tell me what mechanism made a specie of snake-hunting birds respond to aposematic patterns if you disagree with my reasoning for how it came to be).
            >You are wrong about how.evolutiom works as I have shown repeatedly and you are wrong
            What you shown was attempts at trying to argue on the grounds of semantics when you didn't understand the term and how it was employed (in accordance with rules of English language which we are using here, may I add) while ignoring arguments I've made when you couldn't refute them.

            Do tell me what is the mechanism of atrophy of various traits thorough the process of evolution if it's not what I've told.
            Again, do tell me what mechanism made a specie of snake-hunting birds respond to aposematic patterns if I am wrong.
            Do tell me how certain traits increasing chance of survival are chosen over other traits in boundary of one species if not through the process of natural selection.

            You tell me I am wrong, I defend my position and then you move on with another claim I have to correct due to your lack of understanding of certain evolutionary processes. Which you ignore to try more pokes on grounds of semantics and colloquial English. I gave you benefit of the doubt and hoped to iron out your holes in understanding but I start to assume you're not arguing in good faith.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Quote the part that gave you this impression and I'll explain.
            Already did and you failed
            >Can't be, otherwise it'd only make a point from the standpoint of those who have culture, that is sapients. Yet evolution not only favored development of patterns/colors that'd let some venomous/dangerous creatures drive off predators aware said colors/pattern indicate certain dangerous characteristics, but even gave rise to other creatures which develop such colors and patterns to increase their chances of survival despite no defences like venom, in pure act of mimicry.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            There is no mention of choice in the quote you provided but about an evolutionary tendency where those specimen which developed particular response to aposematic patterns had higher survival rate to pass that response to their offspring. So I still wait for you to provide a quote where I talked about "species knowing and choosing", as you've mentioned at

            >It's very common figure of speech
            So you excuse being uneducated by pointing to everyone else who is uneducated?
            Now that you understand, you can stop using common sayings as some sort of evidence, especially when the saying is wrong.
            >of the most adapted
            Wrong again. "Most adapted" doesn't make any sense at all, and.evolution is not about "most" anything, but only "does it work?"
            >getting certain survival advantage when met with snake-hunting birds over their breathren
            Except not all snakes dealing with predators go this route 6 very few do, in fact.
            By your logic, this means other methods are more adapted and should be the example you look to.
            >Who said anything about it having to have an idea?
            You did, when you talked about species knowing and choosing.
            >they didn't just decide "nope, these patterns/colors are just not good"
            And that is why your notion of color theory is wrong.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            I already showed where you said birds and snakes were choosing.
            I won't quote it again, you can go back and read since they were your words.
            Species don't choose evolutionary paths.
            Evolution does not favor paths.
            Evolution has zero concern for "most adapted".
            Meanings associated with color are cultural and have no deeper basis.
            You have provided nothing to counter this, and only shown a terrible misunderstanding of evolution along the way.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >I already showed where you said birds and snakes were choosing.
            No, you didn't, there was no fricking mention of terms "choosing". Even more, in case you didn't understand something I even rephrased it further at

            There is no mention of choice in the quote you provided but about an evolutionary tendency where those specimen which developed particular response to aposematic patterns had higher survival rate to pass that response to their offspring. So I still wait for you to provide a quote where I talked about "species knowing and choosing", as you've mentioned at [...]

            - I expect you to tell me what mechanism governs passing of certain behaviors regarding aposematic patterning if doesn't fall under purview of natural selection.
            >Species don't choose evolutionary paths.
            >Evolution does not favor paths.
            >Evolution has zero concern for "most adapted".
            Then you are dumb, unable to read and intellectually dishonest. I addressed this lack of basic understanding giving you benefit of the doubt here:

            >Evolution does not favor. This is a horrible misunderstanding of evolution.
            It's very common figure of speech. I am suspicious of you now given you take it literally.
            It does not favor as in making a decision to choose some over others, since obviously evolution is a process, not a being with mental faculties. But it's a process of propagation of the most adapted individual creatures in boundaries of the species. The ones adapted, for example, coral snake, getting certain survival advantage when met with snake-hunting birds over their breathren, which allows traits contributing to that advantage to (statistically) spread more.
            >The coral snake has NO IDEA that it's pattern is useful in that way.
            Who said anything about it having to have an idea? Of course it doesn't, it didn't choose the pattern, the pattern was spread through evolution as its ancestors of that particular evolutionary line sporting the pattern were more likely to survive than those who did not. Same with the birds - they didn't just decide "nope, these patterns/colors are just not good" - but through the process of evolution those in this particular environment which developed association of those patterns/colors with danger and avoided them survived and propagated more than those which did not.

            >It's very common figure of speech. I am suspicious of you now given you take it literally.
            >It does not favor as in making a decision to choose some over others, since obviously evolution is a process, not a being with mental faculties.
            It's one thing if you just misunderstood me and were just on top of that not giving me any benefit of the doubt, but when I still, for your own sake, elaborate and explain, point out where you've misunderstood me and you still try to use that as an argument, it proves you have nothing - you are just stubborn, couldn't rebute actual arguments so in your petty behavior you tried to hang your stance on words, ones which I used correctly by the way.
            I'll repeat:

            Do tell me what is the mechanism of atrophy of various traits thorough the process of evolution if it's not what I've told.
            Again, do tell me what mechanism made a specie of snake-hunting birds respond to aposematic patterns if I am wrong.
            Do tell me how certain traits increasing chance of survival are chosen over other traits in boundary of one species if not through the process of natural selection.

            Those were the actual claims I argue for, if you have no explanation for those processes diverging from mine which you contested, then, again, you've got nothing but overestimation of your knowledge on the topic.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Good post
      Too bad it will go over most of their heads

  2. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    it's rude to call them colors nowadays

  3. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    the same way God uses colors to entice you to eat or to scare you away. Its literally just the instrumental use of Attraction and Warning coloration to frick with your subconscious. Being aware of color theory essentially removes its power over you, unless you willingly engage with the work hypnotically. Meaning once you know color thoery, the color shit in Eva wont effect you unless you relax and absorb the show pssively instead of analyzing.

    It only works on the uninitiated and the mentally weak willed. A mind control cantrip if you will, essentially harmless to you if you post here.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      I love the colors
      they add a new depth of meaning to everything, i think they should be taught in schools. 😉

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        realize that you can use color theory in the planning of your wizard robes to induce people to have shared psychadelic experiences even if they didn't partake 😉
        color theory is nice.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          This is a cat language.
          cats have a symbiotic relationship with brain parasites; did you know that they can use mind control?

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            what do you mean by "this is a cat language" do you mean my manner of text? or are you to say cats possess language? (they don't). They are capable of light mind control, but it is not them doing it, more its the parasite you are referring to creating a syncretic situation for its own survival without the conscious will of either the human, the cat, or the parasite being involved at all.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            There are 3 catagories
            dogs
            cats
            rats

            if a dog is an angel, a cat is a devil and a rat is a human.
            If a dog is an angel, a cat is a fairy and a rat is a devil.

            If a dog is a cop, a cat is a criminal and a rat is a victim.

            A dog beats a cat, it is strongest it is loyal, it obeys.
            a cat beats a rat, it is a predator. the lion is the king of the jungle.
            a rat beats a dog, it is a traitor, it is first in the chinese zodiac.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            this goes over my head.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            dog = dogma
            cats love apples
            dogs love oranges

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            apples can be red or green

            If green is purgatory, red is hell

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            In hell there are 2 rivers
            one makes you forget, it is yellow
            one makes you remember, it is green

  4. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    The proper function of a dog is to serve
    The proper function of a cat is to play
    the proper function of a rat is to suffer

    dogs correspond to heaven
    cats correspond to elysium
    rats go to hell

  5. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    red - power, lust
    blue - loyalty/obedience (fear)
    green - sociality (shame)
    yellow - innocence (guilt)
    black - absolutism
    etc.,

    etc.,

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      the important modifier is white and black
      every color has a correct and an incorrect use

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        i'm not discussing in depth. just a primer/jumping point

        their combinations and context also matters more than anything, but i hope people understand that

        red corresponds to survival.
        orange to performance.

        right

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          It is only the language of art.
          But art is the spirit of god.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            the pen with equal ease can write "hope" or "despair"

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            yellow
            animal
            reincarnation

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      red corresponds to survival.
      orange to performance.

  6. 2 months ago
    Anonymous
    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      https://i.imgur.com/ppf66dC.png

  7. 2 months ago
    Anonymous
  8. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    pepe is green
    so is Jonathan Greenblatt
    so is adam green

  9. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    ive heard that devon stack keeps killer bees

  10. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    I don't know about the paranormal implications but I know they use psychological tricks with colors to influence your behavior. To counter that at least on a smartphone you can use it in grayscale mode which I found to be working pretty well but of course everything looks like shit that way

  11. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Nothing else needs to be said.
    >Species don't choose evolutionary paths.
    >Evolution does not favor paths.
    >Evolution has zero concern for "most adapted".
    >Meanings associated with color are cultural and have no deeper basis.
    >You have provided nothing to counter this, and only shown a terrible misunderstanding of evolution along the way.
    Your color theory is wrong, and entirely based on the culture you grew up in.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      I've addressed and linked both answers and rephrasing of things you once again repeat. The fact that you have no argument or counterargument and try to pass it off as anything but is now obvious
      My advice for you in the future is to rather than entrenching yourself, to manage good faith argument trying to understand people first or, if you're incapable of it, to not argue at all.
      I won't begrudge for being ESL (I really hope you are, otherwise it's a serious issue you need to deal with) and not understanding certain phrases in English, technically I am ESL as well. But if someone still was kind enough to explain and elaborate what you've misrepresented and you still go at it, it means you, personally, both in argument and as a person failed.
      Please improve in this regard, since otherwise you will fail both at many mundane pursuits as well as /x/-related ones.
      >Your color theory is wrong, and entirely based on the culture you grew up in.
      Which claim you reiterate but cannot prove, or disprove my claims to the contrary. Making such accusation ad nauseum with nothing to prop it up won't make it so.
      >Nothing else needs to be said
      That one part is, at this point, true - and it doesn't do you credit.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        My argument isd that you dont understand evolution - as evidenced by your repeated use of terms implying deliberation and the nonsense phrase "most adapted" which is just blatantly wrong.
        Nothing else needs to be said
        >Species don't choose evolutionary paths.
        >Evolution does not favor paths.
        >Evolution has zero concern for "most adapted".
        >Meanings associated with color are cultural and have no deeper basis.
        >You have provided nothing to counter this, and only shown a terrible misunderstanding of evolution along the way.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          >My argument isd that you dont understand evolution
          That's a claim, one which you need argument to substantiate.
          >as evidenced by your repeated use of terms implying deliberation and the nonsense phrase "most adapted"
          That'd be an argument if the terms would be used incorrectly. It turns out they're used as prescribed by English language's definitions, and in proper context. I repeat, you failed at understanding them and then started contesting my claims. Somehow you keep ignoring those points which you'd go over if you'd really be arguing in good faith:

          Do tell me what is the mechanism of atrophy of various traits thorough the process of evolution if it's not what I've told.
          Again, do tell me what mechanism made a specie of snake-hunting birds respond to aposematic patterns if I am wrong.
          Do tell me how certain traits increasing chance of survival are chosen over other traits in boundary of one species if not through the process of natural selection.

          You were contesting them but even this post is bullshit - you repeat the content of the previous post and still fail at addressing points raised.

          >Nothing else needs to be said
          Heh, and then in my response you've kept saying more. Overestimation of your own understanding, ego too big to argue in good faith, a failure of communication. Please learn a bit about evolution - processes of natural selection, associated atrophy, aposematic patterns. That's your homework, do it or not, it's your ignorance that will persist.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >It turns out they're used as prescribed by English language's definitions, and in proper context.
            But not by science or correct understanding of evolution.
            >Species don't choose evolutionary paths.
            >Evolution does not favor paths.
            >Evolution has zero concern for "most adapted".
            >Meanings associated with color are cultural and have no deeper basis.
            >You have provided nothing to counter this, and only shown a terrible misunderstanding of evolution along the way.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >But not by science or correct understanding of evolution.
            Very much by it. Also, I see you also try to be petty. It's okay, though that's a bit of butthurt showing. I hope I didn't hurt your ego too much. Seriously, learn a bit of the things I've mentioned, it'll do you good.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Very much by it.
            Not in the slightest, despite attempts to backtrack.
            >Species don't choose evolutionary paths.
            >Evolution does not favor paths.
            >Evolution has zero concern for "most adapted".
            >Meanings associated with color are cultural and have no deeper basis.
            >You have provided nothing to counter this, and only shown a terrible misunderstanding of evolution along the way.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Not in the slightest, despite attempts to backtrack.
            I like how kind attempt at explaining things to a clueless shmuck suffering Dunning-Kruger effect, due to his failing at English, is now backtracking. But I guess it salves your booboos to convince yourself of it.
            And it was "Nothing else needs to be said", too. Heheh. Keep rubbing in that salve, you seem to need it!

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            what backtracking do you see me do, fool?
            We all saw you go
            >this is science
            >well, this is what people say about science
            >well actually, this is just shorthand for the science
            >well actually...
            While I have been steady and consistent and yes - nothing more needs to be said.
            >Species don't choose evolutionary paths.
            >Evolution does not favor paths.
            >Evolution has zero concern for "most adapted".
            >Meanings associated with color are cultural and have no deeper basis.
            >You have provided nothing to counter this, and only shown a terrible misunderstanding of evolution along the way.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >what backtracking do you see me do, fool?
            Ahahahaa..
            Holy frick, I was talking about your accusations of ME backtracking and even that you took for me accusing you! Your own words! And you just thought I-... oh, this is yoo rich!
            You really don't fricking understand English! Please, a few more of such basic misunderstandings and it'll be really hilarious! Keep at it!

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            You really have nothing left to say whatsoever.
            >Species don't choose evolutionary paths.
            >Evolution does not favor paths.
            >Evolution has zero concern for "most adapted".
            >Meanings associated with color are cultural and have no deeper basis.
            >You have provided nothing to counter this, and only shown a terrible misunderstanding of evolution along the way.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >You really have nothing left to say whatsoever.
            Said the guy repeating himself in every post since proving his lack of understanding! Spamming the same thing I even explained to him! Told you, hilarious!
            Let all anons, small and big, see what too big an ego and too little of understanding, of topic at hand, language one tries to speak and of other people - leads to!
            I really hope you haven't tried practicing any esoteric tradition, your current failing of character would be even more embarassing! Wait, belay that, I hope you DID have!

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            There's no counter to what I am repeating, which is why you wont even try.
            >Species don't choose evolutionary paths.
            >Evolution does not favor paths.
            >Evolution has zero concern for "most adapted".
            >Meanings associated with color are cultural and have no deeper basis.
            >You have provided nothing to counter this, and only shown a terrible misunderstanding of evolution along the way.
            Now you want to misunderstand the term esoteric? Lol.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >There's no counter to what I am repeating, which is why you wont even try.
            I already did! Even linked you relevant posts before! But I bet you didn't understand those either, hm? Why do you think you lying like that would work? Everyone can just search "figure of speech" and "those were the actual claims"!

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >I already did!
            No, you attempted and failed. You have no scientific understanding of evolution which is why you tried to point to social context and linguistics. you JUST SAID you have not backtracked away from phrases and terms that are complete nonsense like "most adapted".
            >Species don't choose evolutionary paths.
            >Evolution does not favor paths.
            >Evolution has zero concern for "most adapted".
            >Meanings associated with color are cultural and have no deeper basis.
            >You have provided nothing to counter this, and only shown a terrible misunderstanding of evolution along the way.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >No, you attempted and failed. You have no scientific understanding of evolution which is why you tried to point to social context and linguistics.
            Oh, more lies? I've pointed out your issues with language because YOU claimed that's what began your bullshit AND I've pointed out where you fail in regards to understanding of evolution! Even more, you pathetic liar, I even, when still hoping you don't argue in bad faith, summed up the points YOU contested in regards to evolutiona and asked you to elaborate on it:

            >Do tell me what is the mechanism of atrophy of various traits thorough the process of evolution if it's not what I've told.
            >Again, do tell me what mechanism made a specie of snake-hunting birds respond to aposematic patterns if I am wrong.
            >Do tell me how certain traits increasing chance of survival are chosen over other traits in boundary of one species if not through the process of natural selection.

            I did it several times and unlike your spam of bullshit I regarded, you didn't even manage to give me any answer to any of these that would differ from mine AND (not or!) I could dispute!
            So, how come such a small thread unearthed such personal failure on your part? Lack of understanding first, then lack of personal responsibility for your own mistakes, then escalating, but dishing badly and unable to take it despite oversized ego and now, lying.
            Come on, coward. Address the questions. Or keep alternating between spouting bullshit, repeating things addressed like an NPC and crying a river at being called out on your failure like a little b***h!

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >your issues with language
            The issue isnt with language, it's with your understanding of evolution. This is you again deflecting to linguistics because you know you have failed to understand science.
            >Species don't choose evolutionary paths.
            >Evolution does not favor paths.
            >Evolution has zero concern for "most adapted".
            >Meanings associated with color are cultural and have no deeper basis.
            >You have provided nothing to counter this, and only shown a terrible misunderstanding of evolution along the way.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >The issue isnt with language, it's with your understanding of evolution. This is you again deflecting to linguistics because you know you have failed to understand science.
            Defelcting HOW? I just brough the questions regarding evolution, to YOU. The very things you were contesting me on! Rather than just throwing shit at you, I offered you, repeatedly, to give me the right answers if mine were supposedly wrong! In the very post you reply to!

            Are your moronic? How is natural selections linguistics? That's a topic related to evolution. Mechanism of aposemativ patterns acquisition and reaction? That's linguistics?
            You told me I am wrong on it, you coward, you are expected to offer the explanation then! I did when I contested you, I did answer the bullshit you repeat now, like a petulant children.

            I know you failed this. Anons ITT will easily be able to say you have nothing but clinging to claims already brought down. You know this too. But you're angry and with your fragile ego you think that if you won't admit it, you'll retain some dignity.
            Like I've said, you're a failure. Oh, by the way, didn't want to kick you over another mistake but, if we are to escalate and I can laugha t your expense:

            There's no counter to what I am repeating, which is why you wont even try.
            >Species don't choose evolutionary paths.
            >Evolution does not favor paths.
            >Evolution has zero concern for "most adapted".
            >Meanings associated with color are cultural and have no deeper basis.
            >You have provided nothing to counter this, and only shown a terrible misunderstanding of evolution along the way.
            Now you want to misunderstand the term esoteric? Lol.

            >Now you want to misunderstand the term esoteric? Lol.
            "Want to misunderstand"? Can you make a sensible sentence working in the context? How? How is expressing hope you didn't waste time on something you're clearly not fit enough to pursue "wanting to misunderstand? Guess mentioning a term you're unfamiliar with is enough for your persecution complex to flare up? Eh? Do you attend some therapy? You may want to, whatever is wrong with you on top of your lack of understanding of evolution AND language - may be severe!

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Defelcting HOW?
            >the problem is with your understanding of evolution
            >here are the ways I learned english to work in my admitted ESL
            >its not about the english, the concepts you are proposing are wrong - evolution doesnt work that way
            >no no, these phrases are correct and people use them all the time
            That is deflecting. Keep posting more and more. you dont address this, because you cant.
            >Species don't choose evolutionary paths.
            >Evolution does not favor paths.
            >Evolution has zero concern for "most adapted".
            >Meanings associated with color are cultural and have no deeper basis.
            >You have provided nothing to counter this, and only shown a terrible misunderstanding of evolution along the way.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >That is deflecting. Keep posting more and more. you dont address this, because you cant.
            But I already did! You've made a bunch of statements, then tried to catch me on the basis of "choose" in quote that didn't even use the term and which I explained for your own benefit!

            Here here, anon! Read this, got all the explanations to your bullshit

            >I already showed where you said birds and snakes were choosing.
            No, you didn't, there was no fricking mention of terms "choosing". Even more, in case you didn't understand something I even rephrased it further at [...] - I expect you to tell me what mechanism governs passing of certain behaviors regarding aposematic patterning if doesn't fall under purview of natural selection.
            >Species don't choose evolutionary paths.
            >Evolution does not favor paths.
            >Evolution has zero concern for "most adapted".
            Then you are dumb, unable to read and intellectually dishonest. I addressed this lack of basic understanding giving you benefit of the doubt here: [...]
            >It's very common figure of speech. I am suspicious of you now given you take it literally.
            >It does not favor as in making a decision to choose some over others, since obviously evolution is a process, not a being with mental faculties.
            It's one thing if you just misunderstood me and were just on top of that not giving me any benefit of the doubt, but when I still, for your own sake, elaborate and explain, point out where you've misunderstood me and you still try to use that as an argument, it proves you have nothing - you are just stubborn, couldn't rebute actual arguments so in your petty behavior you tried to hang your stance on words, ones which I used correctly by the way.
            I'll repeat:

            Do tell me what is the mechanism of atrophy of various traits thorough the process of evolution if it's not what I've told.
            Again, do tell me what mechanism made a specie of snake-hunting birds respond to aposematic patterns if I am wrong.
            Do tell me how certain traits increasing chance of survival are chosen over other traits in boundary of one species if not through the process of natural selection.

            Those were the actual claims I argue for, if you have no explanation for those processes diverging from mine which you contested, then, again, you've got nothing but overestimation of your knowledge on the topic.

            Now, about deflecting? Where's explanations to the stuff I asked you to explain if I am wrong?
            I am waiting, hypocrite. Nice, accusing of deflection, but not regarding my answer to supposed things I deflect AND not regarding the question on topic in regards to which I supposedly deflect? I gave you the questions, moron. They're about evolution, not linquistics! Respond to them or prove in yet another post how much you fail both at dishing out and at debating!

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >But I already did!
            You failed to, and have said quite clearly you did not backtrack away from your statements, thus why there is no need to go any further.
            >Species don't choose evolutionary paths.
            >Evolution does not favor paths.
            >Evolution has zero concern for "most adapted".
            >Meanings associated with color are cultural and have no deeper basis.
            >You have provided nothing to counter this, and only shown a terrible misunderstanding of evolution along the way.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >You failed to
            And yet you have no counter to what I've said, but whining about being called out on your lack of understanding of English, even if it's that lack of understanding that made you argue in the first place!
            >thus why there is no need to go any further
            I could believe that posts ago, but you still posted your whining.
            So, coward, if you are about proving yourself right, where are the answers to my questions, on topic? Will you try to ignore them again, further proving you were wrong about all of it? Or will you outright run away? Either way, you amuse me. Dance, monkey, dance.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >And yet you have no counter to what I've said
            I've been repeating the counter over and over. Here, I'll do it again.
            >Species don't choose evolutionary paths.
            >Evolution does not favor paths.
            >Evolution has zero concern for "most adapted".
            >Meanings associated with color are cultural and have no deeper basis.
            >You have provided nothing to counter this, and only shown a terrible misunderstanding of evolution along the way.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >I've been repeating the counter over and over. Here, I'll do it again.
            You lie. It's not a counter and it was regarded in posts I've already linked. Like your "choosing" bullshit. As a petulant child, with fragile ego, you just ignore answers.
            If you'd care about proving yourself right and me wrong, you'd regard the questions I've posed. They were open questions, allowing you whatever (factual) answer that you could find and which would disprove mine.
            But you know you'd be unable to find it. Because unlike you, I knew what I was talking about.
            So, you prove yourself liar and a coward. Cry some more now?

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >hours of nonsense because he cant get around the simple disproving of his bullshit
            >Species don't choose evolutionary paths.
            >Evolution does not favor paths.
            >Evolution has zero concern for "most adapted".
            >Meanings associated with color are cultural and have no deeper basis.
            >You have provided nothing to counter this, and only shown a terrible misunderstanding of evolution along the way.
            Came back to make you dance one more time.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            How cute. "Dance monkey, dance" really stung you, eh? Shame you never developed better banter than various attempts at "no u". I wish you to learn humility, care and consideration from this event. Or more people will rekt you in the future!
            Or maybe you like being proven a liar and a coward?

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Ironic. A baby not knowing its not even a baby. Clever dumbfrick

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Even more than that. Guess who's the baby is smiling at. Read it. Heh.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >like a petulant children
            Oh no, the aura of powerful moronation from the self-absorbed and unable to admit mistakes anon with no humility, understanding or grace is starting to affect me! The things I do to let a lying fool like him show off his true colors!
            *petulant child

  12. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    so nobody else knew anything, huh?

  13. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    >Anyone else know about how they use colors in media to brainwash people?

  14. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Try to put a gray filter on your device of choice (best done with mobile phones) and see how something that's so addicting becomes boring and uninteresting all of a sudden where you immedietly want to put it down or turn the colors back on.

    It's actually brutal to me.

  15. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Sure what color and what effect you want?

  16. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    they brainwashed me 🙁

  17. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    I'll post some white and blue symbols. White and blue means clean, new, futuristic, technology, sanitized. This became popular with the new millennium. Also, the Democratic Party tried so hard to make it look like an official public service like a hospital or handicapped sign. I'm sure it works swimmingly on a lot of people. It just disgusts me because of the hubris.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous
      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous
        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous
          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous
          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous
  18. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Natural colors vs social interpretation of color, color arrangement / vibration. I mean all of these things are pretty basic in the design and art world. Sometimes the way they're used goes too far but that isn't the colors fault.

  19. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Red always means danger, stay away, don't use, etc.
    Whenever you see excessive use of color red, that means they want you to deny, don't use, don't accept that information.

    That's all I know.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *