|
On November 07 2015 15:03 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2015 14:45 Cascade wrote:On November 07 2015 14:33 GreenHorizons wrote:
Why is it that [any crime] by [not law enforcers] gets so much more attention than when it's done by [law enforcers]? Indeed.... Who guards the guards? Or another angle: On November 07 2015 14:33 GreenHorizons wrote:
Why is it that [any action] by [famous people] gets so much more attention than when it's done by [not famous people]?  I suppose I should say: Why aren't more people upset that our paid protectors commit domestic violence at a rate much greater than the NFL and the population in general than they are about an NFL player? Asked another way: In what way is it appropriate for a rational person to express more outrage about the NFL than the police committing the same crimes (at a much higher frequency).
First question is probably addressed by the second angle, and a bit by the first as well. All in all, it's about what media chose to report, and how they chose to report it. Most people get information mostly from mainstream media (by definition). What and how mainstream media report is in turn guided by what most people want to read: which click-baits work, which headlines sell and which juice articles people enjoy reading.
Second version of the question I think is answering itself. Outrage you hear about in (online?) media is rarely about "appropriate" or "rational". I'm not from US, so I am not familiar with this case though.
|
On November 07 2015 16:34 Cascade wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2015 15:03 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 07 2015 14:45 Cascade wrote:On November 07 2015 14:33 GreenHorizons wrote:
Why is it that [any crime] by [not law enforcers] gets so much more attention than when it's done by [law enforcers]? Indeed.... Who guards the guards? Or another angle: On November 07 2015 14:33 GreenHorizons wrote:
Why is it that [any action] by [famous people] gets so much more attention than when it's done by [not famous people]? I suppose I should say: Why aren't more people upset that our paid protectors commit domestic violence at a rate much greater than the NFL and the population in general than they are about an NFL player? Asked another way: In what way is it appropriate for a rational person to express more outrage about the NFL than the police committing the same crimes (at a much higher frequency). First question is probably addressed by the second angle, and a bit by the first as well. All in all, it's about what media chose to report, and how they chose to report it. Most people get information mostly from mainstream media (by definition). What and how mainstream media report is in turn guided by what most people want to read: which click-baits work, which headlines sell and which juice articles people enjoy reading. Second version of the question I think is answering itself. Outrage you hear about in (online?) media is rarely about "appropriate" or "rational". I'm not from US, so I am not familiar with this case though.
Why do most people talk about Hitler as an example of evil more than the real life examples already around us?
|
On November 07 2015 21:58 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2015 16:34 Cascade wrote:On November 07 2015 15:03 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 07 2015 14:45 Cascade wrote:On November 07 2015 14:33 GreenHorizons wrote:
Why is it that [any crime] by [not law enforcers] gets so much more attention than when it's done by [law enforcers]? Indeed.... Who guards the guards? Or another angle: On November 07 2015 14:33 GreenHorizons wrote:
Why is it that [any action] by [famous people] gets so much more attention than when it's done by [not famous people]? I suppose I should say: Why aren't more people upset that our paid protectors commit domestic violence at a rate much greater than the NFL and the population in general than they are about an NFL player? Asked another way: In what way is it appropriate for a rational person to express more outrage about the NFL than the police committing the same crimes (at a much higher frequency). First question is probably addressed by the second angle, and a bit by the first as well. All in all, it's about what media chose to report, and how they chose to report it. Most people get information mostly from mainstream media (by definition). What and how mainstream media report is in turn guided by what most people want to read: which click-baits work, which headlines sell and which juice articles people enjoy reading. Second version of the question I think is answering itself. Outrage you hear about in (online?) media is rarely about "appropriate" or "rational". I'm not from US, so I am not familiar with this case though. Why do most people talk about Hitler as an example of evil more than the real life examples already around us?
I guess Hitler is a more universal kind of evil?
|
On November 07 2015 22:06 OtherWorld wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2015 21:58 Thieving Magpie wrote:On November 07 2015 16:34 Cascade wrote:On November 07 2015 15:03 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 07 2015 14:45 Cascade wrote:On November 07 2015 14:33 GreenHorizons wrote:
Why is it that [any crime] by [not law enforcers] gets so much more attention than when it's done by [law enforcers]? Indeed.... Who guards the guards? Or another angle: On November 07 2015 14:33 GreenHorizons wrote:
Why is it that [any action] by [famous people] gets so much more attention than when it's done by [not famous people]? I suppose I should say: Why aren't more people upset that our paid protectors commit domestic violence at a rate much greater than the NFL and the population in general than they are about an NFL player? Asked another way: In what way is it appropriate for a rational person to express more outrage about the NFL than the police committing the same crimes (at a much higher frequency). First question is probably addressed by the second angle, and a bit by the first as well. All in all, it's about what media chose to report, and how they chose to report it. Most people get information mostly from mainstream media (by definition). What and how mainstream media report is in turn guided by what most people want to read: which click-baits work, which headlines sell and which juice articles people enjoy reading. Second version of the question I think is answering itself. Outrage you hear about in (online?) media is rarely about "appropriate" or "rational". I'm not from US, so I am not familiar with this case though. Why do most people talk about Hitler as an example of evil more than the real life examples already around us? I guess Hitler is a more universal kind of evil?
If Hitler is supposed to be universally evil, what does that make the members of the dozens of Nazi groups across the world?
|
On November 07 2015 22:14 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2015 22:06 OtherWorld wrote:On November 07 2015 21:58 Thieving Magpie wrote:On November 07 2015 16:34 Cascade wrote:On November 07 2015 15:03 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 07 2015 14:45 Cascade wrote:On November 07 2015 14:33 GreenHorizons wrote:
Why is it that [any crime] by [not law enforcers] gets so much more attention than when it's done by [law enforcers]? Indeed.... Who guards the guards? Or another angle: On November 07 2015 14:33 GreenHorizons wrote:
Why is it that [any action] by [famous people] gets so much more attention than when it's done by [not famous people]? I suppose I should say: Why aren't more people upset that our paid protectors commit domestic violence at a rate much greater than the NFL and the population in general than they are about an NFL player? Asked another way: In what way is it appropriate for a rational person to express more outrage about the NFL than the police committing the same crimes (at a much higher frequency). First question is probably addressed by the second angle, and a bit by the first as well. All in all, it's about what media chose to report, and how they chose to report it. Most people get information mostly from mainstream media (by definition). What and how mainstream media report is in turn guided by what most people want to read: which click-baits work, which headlines sell and which juice articles people enjoy reading. Second version of the question I think is answering itself. Outrage you hear about in (online?) media is rarely about "appropriate" or "rational". I'm not from US, so I am not familiar with this case though. Why do most people talk about Hitler as an example of evil more than the real life examples already around us? I guess Hitler is a more universal kind of evil? If Hitler is supposed to be universally evil, what does that make the members of the dozens of Nazi groups across the world?
Well, evil people. Though it could be argued that (1) they are not evil because they are blinded by their own stupidity and (2) they are not as evil as Hitler because their evil exists only in the intent and not in the acts.
|
Marketing... Hitler is considered more evil because he is more marketed and sold as such...
Popularity means more people know about you than other people/topics. Hence why popular figures (like NFL stars and Hitler) are more derided than less popular figures (random cops and random despots)
|
On November 07 2015 21:58 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2015 16:34 Cascade wrote:On November 07 2015 15:03 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 07 2015 14:45 Cascade wrote:On November 07 2015 14:33 GreenHorizons wrote:
Why is it that [any crime] by [not law enforcers] gets so much more attention than when it's done by [law enforcers]? Indeed.... Who guards the guards? Or another angle: On November 07 2015 14:33 GreenHorizons wrote:
Why is it that [any action] by [famous people] gets so much more attention than when it's done by [not famous people]? I suppose I should say: Why aren't more people upset that our paid protectors commit domestic violence at a rate much greater than the NFL and the population in general than they are about an NFL player? Asked another way: In what way is it appropriate for a rational person to express more outrage about the NFL than the police committing the same crimes (at a much higher frequency). First question is probably addressed by the second angle, and a bit by the first as well. All in all, it's about what media chose to report, and how they chose to report it. Most people get information mostly from mainstream media (by definition). What and how mainstream media report is in turn guided by what most people want to read: which click-baits work, which headlines sell and which juice articles people enjoy reading. Second version of the question I think is answering itself. Outrage you hear about in (online?) media is rarely about "appropriate" or "rational". I'm not from US, so I am not familiar with this case though. Why do most people talk about Hitler as an example of evil more than the real life examples already around us?
I think it's a rhetorical trick to find a common ground to start from. No matter how mad someone is, if you go "ok, let's start from Hitler. He wasn't a very nice guy right?", they are bound to agree with you, although suspiciously. It's simply not socially acceptable to disagree to that... And once they have agreed to something, it takes some of the rage away, and are more likely to be led to agree to more things.
|
On November 07 2015 23:33 Cascade wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2015 21:58 Thieving Magpie wrote:On November 07 2015 16:34 Cascade wrote:On November 07 2015 15:03 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 07 2015 14:45 Cascade wrote:On November 07 2015 14:33 GreenHorizons wrote:
Why is it that [any crime] by [not law enforcers] gets so much more attention than when it's done by [law enforcers]? Indeed.... Who guards the guards? Or another angle: On November 07 2015 14:33 GreenHorizons wrote:
Why is it that [any action] by [famous people] gets so much more attention than when it's done by [not famous people]? I suppose I should say: Why aren't more people upset that our paid protectors commit domestic violence at a rate much greater than the NFL and the population in general than they are about an NFL player? Asked another way: In what way is it appropriate for a rational person to express more outrage about the NFL than the police committing the same crimes (at a much higher frequency). First question is probably addressed by the second angle, and a bit by the first as well. All in all, it's about what media chose to report, and how they chose to report it. Most people get information mostly from mainstream media (by definition). What and how mainstream media report is in turn guided by what most people want to read: which click-baits work, which headlines sell and which juice articles people enjoy reading. Second version of the question I think is answering itself. Outrage you hear about in (online?) media is rarely about "appropriate" or "rational". I'm not from US, so I am not familiar with this case though. Why do most people talk about Hitler as an example of evil more than the real life examples already around us? I think it's a rhetorical trick to find a common ground to start from. No matter how mad someone is, if you go "ok, let's start from Hitler. He wasn't a very nice guy right?", they are bound to agree with you, although suspiciously. It's simply not socially acceptable to disagree to that... And once they have agreed to something, it takes some of the rage away, and are more likely to be led to agree to more things.
Unless they are Bernie Ecclestone*
|
I heard Hitler once tried to fuck a goat, but the goat didn't like it and bit off one of Hitler's balls.
|
On November 08 2015 01:52 riotjune wrote:
FACT: Hitler once tried to fuck a goat, but the goat didn't like it and bit off one of Hitler's balls.
Fixed that for you.
|
On November 08 2015 06:05 Cascade wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2015 01:52 riotjune wrote:
FACT: Hitler once tried to fuck a goat, but the goat didn't like it and bit off one of Hitler's balls. Fixed that for you.
Oh, come on. This isn't the Republican debate...
|
On November 07 2015 21:58 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2015 16:34 Cascade wrote:On November 07 2015 15:03 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 07 2015 14:45 Cascade wrote:On November 07 2015 14:33 GreenHorizons wrote:
Why is it that [any crime] by [not law enforcers] gets so much more attention than when it's done by [law enforcers]? Indeed.... Who guards the guards? Or another angle: On November 07 2015 14:33 GreenHorizons wrote:
Why is it that [any action] by [famous people] gets so much more attention than when it's done by [not famous people]? I suppose I should say: Why aren't more people upset that our paid protectors commit domestic violence at a rate much greater than the NFL and the population in general than they are about an NFL player? Asked another way: In what way is it appropriate for a rational person to express more outrage about the NFL than the police committing the same crimes (at a much higher frequency). First question is probably addressed by the second angle, and a bit by the first as well. All in all, it's about what media chose to report, and how they chose to report it. Most people get information mostly from mainstream media (by definition). What and how mainstream media report is in turn guided by what most people want to read: which click-baits work, which headlines sell and which juice articles people enjoy reading. Second version of the question I think is answering itself. Outrage you hear about in (online?) media is rarely about "appropriate" or "rational". I'm not from US, so I am not familiar with this case though. Why do most people talk about Hitler as an example of evil more than the real life examples already around us?
Cause he did all the shit that bad rulers do and carried it to the next lvl. Hunt down minorities like Erdogan, Hussein and many other dictators do? 9 million dead. Wage a war with the neighbor countries? Well let's wage a world war (not that he wanted it when it happened, but he would have declared soon anyways and there can be little doubt that his aggressive diplomatic expansion escalated the situation enough for the war to break out).
Hitler was just exceptionally good at doing bad things.
And since both english-speaking countries (arguably the cultural dominant countries) were at war against him the public opinion of him wasn't to good to begin with.
|
so what's the deal with the idea of tuning music/instruments to A=432Hz rather than A=440Hz(which is the current standard in music)?.
crazy conspiracy theories?.
|
On November 09 2015 06:40 xM(Z wrote:
so what's the deal with the idea of tuning music/instruments to A=432Hz rather than A=440Hz(which is the current standard in music)?.
crazy conspiracy theories?.
Why would you do that? Who suggested that? >_>
|
On November 09 2015 06:40 xM(Z wrote:
so what's the deal with the idea of tuning music/instruments to A=432Hz rather than A=440Hz(which is the current standard in music)?.
crazy conspiracy theories?.
I heard of tuning instruments to A=442Hz, but 432? Oo
|
your Country52798 Posts
On November 09 2015 06:40 xM(Z wrote:
so what's the deal with the idea of tuning music/instruments to A=432Hz rather than A=440Hz(which is the current standard in music)?.
crazy conspiracy theories?.
I have no idea. 432 almost sounds closer to Ab than A to me. (I slightly prefer 438 to 440)
|
On November 09 2015 07:53 The_Templar wrote:Show nested quote +On November 09 2015 06:40 xM(Z wrote:
so what's the deal with the idea of tuning music/instruments to A=432Hz rather than A=440Hz(which is the current standard in music)?.
crazy conspiracy theories?. I have no idea. 432 almost sounds closer to Ab than A to me. (I slightly prefer 438 to 440)
Isn't it essentially impossible to tell if someone use 432, 438 or 440 as A, unless you have absolute pitch?
(Assuming you don't have direct access to a true 440 at the moment)
|
well i found this https://www.ultimate-guitar.com/columns/music_theory/432hz_crazy_theory_or_crazy_fact.html
Pythagoras, the ancient Greek all-round smart person, was attributed a tuning with a reference of 432hz for an A now simply called Pythagorean Tuning. It is/was based on a tuning ratio of 3:2, whereas most Western musical tuning is based on a ratio of 1:1 (not really sure what means, but its an easily researchable topic). The sound of the scale reportedly makes the sound of perfect 5ths sound harmonically rich and "smooth" while 3rds (particularly major and minor), which have relatively complex tuning ratios of 81:64 and 32:27 respectively, sound dissonant. To counter-act this problem with certain intervals, the Pythagorean Scale idea came along. A Pythagorean Scale is simply put, any scale that is comprised entirely of perfect 5ths and octaves. An example would be that old chestnut, C Major. The dissonant intervals that arose from the Pythagorean tuning are known as "wolf intervals" due to their sound (presumably, it sounds like a wolf). According to another internet page (which I lost the link to), 432hz is tied with the Music of the Spheres, where planets and celestial bodies (another name for planets, I think) generate their own frequency. Its not entirely ignorable: Science previously discovered that the static on your TV is actually the sound and energy of dying stars, and that anything producing energy actually produces some kind of sound, whether loud or quiet (that includes atoms vibrating). This possibly means that, given our knack for living on earth, we're "tuned" to the cosmic hum of the planets rotation (kind of a cool idea actually). And for some reason, this is believed to be in the tuning of 432hz
and there's a lot of other stuff about it; all just as weird. http://www.collective-evolution.com/2013/12/21/heres-why-you-should-convert-your-music-to-432hz/ 432 Hz is said to be mathematically consistent with the patterns of the universe. It is said that 432 Hz vibrates with the universe’s golden mean PHI and unifies the properties of light, time, space, matter, gravity and magnetism with biology, the DNA code, and consciousness. When our atoms and DNA start to resonate in harmony with the spiralling pattern of nature, our sense of connection to nature is said to be magnified. The number 432 is also reflected in ratios of the sun, Earth, and moon, as well as the precession of the equinoxes, the Great Pyramid of Egypt, Stonehenge, and the Sri Yantra, among many other sacred sites. so yea...is there any actual science behind it?.
|
On November 09 2015 16:33 xM(Z wrote:well i found this https://www.ultimate-guitar.com/columns/music_theory/432hz_crazy_theory_or_crazy_fact.htmlShow nested quote +Pythagoras, the ancient Greek all-round smart person, was attributed a tuning with a reference of 432hz for an A now simply called Pythagorean Tuning. It is/was based on a tuning ratio of 3:2, whereas most Western musical tuning is based on a ratio of 1:1 (not really sure what means, but its an easily researchable topic). Show nested quote +The sound of the scale reportedly makes the sound of perfect 5ths sound harmonically rich and "smooth" while 3rds (particularly major and minor), which have relatively complex tuning ratios of 81:64 and 32:27 respectively, sound dissonant. To counter-act this problem with certain intervals, the Pythagorean Scale idea came along. A Pythagorean Scale is simply put, any scale that is comprised entirely of perfect 5ths and octaves. An example would be that old chestnut, C Major. The dissonant intervals that arose from the Pythagorean tuning are known as "wolf intervals" due to their sound (presumably, it sounds like a wolf). Show nested quote +According to another internet page (which I lost the link to), 432hz is tied with the Music of the Spheres, where planets and celestial bodies (another name for planets, I think) generate their own frequency. Its not entirely ignorable: Science previously discovered that the static on your TV is actually the sound and energy of dying stars, and that anything producing energy actually produces some kind of sound, whether loud or quiet (that includes atoms vibrating). This possibly means that, given our knack for living on earth, we're "tuned" to the cosmic hum of the planets rotation (kind of a cool idea actually). And for some reason, this is believed to be in the tuning of 432hz and there's a lot of other stuff about it; all just as weird. http://www.collective-evolution.com/2013/12/21/heres-why-you-should-convert-your-music-to-432hz/ Show nested quote +432 Hz is said to be mathematically consistent with the patterns of the universe. It is said that 432 Hz vibrates with the universe’s golden mean PHI and unifies the properties of light, time, space, matter, gravity and magnetism with biology, the DNA code, and consciousness. When our atoms and DNA start to resonate in harmony with the spiralling pattern of nature, our sense of connection to nature is said to be magnified. The number 432 is also reflected in ratios of the sun, Earth, and moon, as well as the precession of the equinoxes, the Great Pyramid of Egypt, Stonehenge, and the Sri Yantra, among many other sacred sites. so yea...is there any actual science behind it?.
After a quick skim of your post: no.
Only thing that could potentially have some sense (but most likely it doesn't) is the part where we are for whatever reason specially tuned to a special frequency. I have no idea why that would be the case, or why setting A on exactly that frequency would be beneficial, but apart from that... The rest seems like complete gibberish.
|
432 Hz is said to be mathematically consistent with the patterns of the universe. It is said that 432 Hz vibrates with the universe’s golden mean PHI and unifies the properties of light, time, space, matter, gravity and magnetism with biology, the DNA code, and consciousness. When our atoms and DNA start to resonate in harmony with the spiralling pattern of nature, our sense of connection to nature is said to be magnified. The number 432 is also reflected in ratios of the sun, Earth, and moon, as well as the precession of the equinoxes, the Great Pyramid of Egypt, Stonehenge, and the Sri Yantra, among many other sacred sites.
This sounds like utter nonsense to me. Spirit science level nonsense.
" the properties of light, time, space, matter, gravity and magnetism with biology, the DNA code, and consciousness" What does that even mean. It sounds completely made up.
"When our atoms and DNA start to resonate in harmony with the spiralling pattern of nature, our sense of connection to nature is said to be magnified. " Dafuq.
"The number 432 is also reflected in ratios of the sun, Earth, and moon, as well as the precession of the equinoxes, the Great Pyramid of Egypt, Stonehenge, and the Sri Yantra, among many other sacred sites." citation needed.
Then i went into the original article which cited the wonderful "water memory" study from Masaru Emoto, which is non-reproducable pseudoscience. At which point i stopped. This stuff isn't science, it is new age esoterics masking as science.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
