this post was submitted on 19 Sep 2024
337 points (97.2% liked)

Greentext

4452 readers
1407 users here now

This is a place to share greentexts and witness the confounding life of Anon. If you're new to the Greentext community, think of it as a sort of zoo with Anon as the main attraction.

Be warned:

If you find yourself getting angry (or god forbid, agreeing) with something Anon has said, you might be doing it wrong.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] toynbee@lemmy.world 25 points 2 months ago (7 children)

What are "implication arrows"?

[–] clara@feddit.uk 44 points 2 months ago (2 children)

> implying you don't know what an implication arrow is

it's one of these: >

[–] toynbee@lemmy.world 12 points 2 months ago (1 children)

What do they imply?

I know that these stories are often accused of being fake, but I guess I don't understand the context of the response. It seems like the responder is saying "go to the doctor regardless of whether you actually have a problem requiring a doctor." Which I guess could be good advice in some circumstances, but ... Maybe I'm just taking things too literally.

Thanks for the answer!

[–] DogWater@lemmy.world 4 points 2 months ago

I think it's that people understand that 99% of green text stories are not real, so the reply is just saying yo if this is real, go to a doc.

Maybe I'm wrong tho

[–] ChaoticNeutralCzech@feddit.org 8 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

The anon got it wrong. These are ">" or "greater than" symbols, not arrows, although they look like arrowheads. They are used to signal a quote, which makes the text green on 4chan or inside a quote block on other platforms. In 4chan culture, the resulting greentext is not a quote, it has a meaning of its own.

The actual implication arrow, used in mathematical logic for statements like "if A, then B" or "A implies B", is "⇒" or "rightwards double arrow" in Unicode. Using ASCII characters, it can be written as "=>".

load more comments (4 replies)