Announcement

Collapse

Civics 101 Guidelines

Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!

Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less

Hilary dead

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Cerebrum123
    replied
    Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post

    If I remember, somehow I just naturally looked "cross-eyed" at them, and they came quickly into focus.
    Yeah, that's pretty much what I mean by "unfocusing". It took about one second of letting them come back to normal to get the image. I do remember coming across people who couldn't see them no matter how long they looked at them. It usually took me at most around 3-4 seconds to see them. That is a bit on the longer end too.

    Leave a comment:


  • Cow Poke
    replied
    Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
    Fine. She absolutely believed the family stories. Even after the New England Historic Genealogical Society looked into it and could find no evidence to support her claim.

    But considering that she also plagiarized recipes she submitted for Pow Wow Chow: A Collection of Recipes from Families of the Five Civilized Tribes while declaring that they were authentic Native American cuisine family recipes, it seems that she was more than naïve.

    Likewise fabricating the story about how her parents were forced to elope because her mother was part Native American. And repeatedly claiming that she only started saying she was Native American while she was at Harvard.
    Well, other than that (and other examples), she was a very virtuous truth-teller!

    Leave a comment:


  • rogue06
    replied
    Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post

    If true, they certainly push the edge of what can be excused. But perhaps best to focus on the persistent use of the story than be so critical of the fact such a story was ever told? The is no acknowledgement in this thread, or the warren threads for that matter, of the fact the stories likely have innocent origin but only become an issue when they are repeatedly told after having been corrected.

    With Warren, it was fairly clear she absolutely believed the stories about her heritage until the DNA tests explicitly showed they were likely exaggerated over time (she does have Indian ancestry). I don't fault her on that account. DNA tests did not exist when she went to college, and I don't have any idea what evidence was required to prove what she had been told was true, but I do know that tribes have become increasingly skeptical of claims to indian heritage, requiring birth records and a minimum percentage inheritance (usually 1/16 - a full blooded great grandparent), specifically because of instance like Warren's where people were told they had Indian ancestry by parents and relatives and they believed and acted on it.

    With Hil(l)ary, it's such a trivial thing I find it hard to get worked up over it, but as for concern over her persisting in telling the story - that would depend a bit on whether her mom told her that regardless of what people were saying, she named her after the mountaineer. Like has been said, it is possible her mom was aware of him before 1953. So if your mom says she did, and it was possible, would you toss it in her face and say she was lying?

    This is the sort of thing I don't find indicative of poor character. Family stories are family stories. They tend to get changed over time, usually exaggerated in some positive way. We usually don't look too closely at them. Public figures - as we can see here - do need to be a bit careful about sharing them without checking them out - not because it's a big deal, but because their opponents will make it a big deal.
    Fine. She absolutely believed the family stories. Even after the New England Historic Genealogical Society looked into it and could find no evidence to support her claim.

    But considering that she also plagiarized recipes she submitted for Pow Wow Chow: A Collection of Recipes from Families of the Five Civilized Tribes while declaring that they were authentic Native American cuisine family recipes, it seems that she was more than naïve.

    Likewise fabricating the story about how her parents were forced to elope because her mother was part Native American. And repeatedly claiming that she only started saying she was Native American while she was at Harvard.

    ETA: As for Hillary, it's the continuing with the claim after acknowledging it wasn't true. Not as bad as some of the stuff old Joe keeps claiming even after having admitted wasn't true, but still.

    Honestly, I think you're surprised just how common it is for even prominent politicians to brazenly embellish their past -- and continue doing so long after admitting what they said wasn't true. One guy didn't start it in 2020 and was a rank amateur compared to some.
    Last edited by rogue06; 05-05-2021, 11:13 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Cow Poke
    replied
    Originally posted by Cerebrum123 View Post

    It didn't take long for me to see them, but I had to "unfocus" my eyes and let the refocus at a slower rate than normal to see them.
    If I remember, somehow I just naturally looked "cross-eyed" at them, and they came quickly into focus.

    Leave a comment:


  • Cerebrum123
    replied
    Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post

    Interesting.

    Remember those big paintings (or prints) you used to see at the mall, where you had to stand and stare at them for a long time before you saw the shark, or elephant, or whatever?

    I often wondered why other people had such a difficult time seeing the image.
    It didn't take long for me to see them, but I had to "unfocus" my eyes and let the refocus at a slower rate than normal to see them.

    Leave a comment:


  • Cow Poke
    replied
    Originally posted by Cerebrum123 View Post

    Yeah, the pattern would stand out more since you're not processing the color information. The best comparison I can make it changing the graphical settings in a video games so you can see things more clearly. In fact some tournament players will intentionally turn the graphics settings down to the lowest possible for two reasons.

    1. Things stand out more.
    2. You get higher frames per second, which means they see things happen before those who have lower frames per second.
    Interesting.

    Remember those big paintings (or prints) you used to see at the mall, where you had to stand and stare at them for a long time before you saw the shark, or elephant, or whatever?

    I often wondered why other people had such a difficult time seeing the image.

    Leave a comment:


  • rogue06
    replied
    Originally posted by Cerebrum123 View Post

    Early Technicolor often looks off in a similar way to "colorized" black and white movies. In the latter I'm able to see a second layer to everything. It's almost like how your brain looks at a movie with those old red and blue 3D glasses. Early Technicolor has a similar look, but not quite as pronounced.
    IIRC, the first color movies only used two colors instead of the three used today

    Leave a comment:


  • Cerebrum123
    replied
    Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post

    Color is an interesting thing -- I read about the military in WWII recruiting colorblind people because they could look at camouflaged scenes and pictures and easily spot the 'hidden'.

    And night vision - mine seems to be above normal.
    Yeah, the pattern would stand out more since you're not processing the color information. The best comparison I can make it changing the graphical settings in a video games so you can see things more clearly. In fact some tournament players will intentionally turn the graphics settings down to the lowest possible for two reasons.

    1. Things stand out more.
    2. You get higher frames per second, which means they see things happen before those who have lower frames per second.

    Leave a comment:


  • Cerebrum123
    replied
    Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post

    yeah - it's a process that hasn't reached 'invisibility' yet. Same with computer animation of dead people like in the recent Star Wars movies. Close - but no cigar - yet.
    Unless they make a huge breakthrough I doubt it will ever be invisible to me. Not only do I seem to see these things more intensely*, but everything seems to be at a lower framerate compared to what others see. My example for that would be "Into the Spiderverse" movie. Everyone else around me seems to think it looks at worst a little choppy. For me it looks like it is running at maybe 6 frames per second max. They animated that movie on twos, so it is running technically at 12 frames per second. Despite really liking the story I had to take breaks because of how off putting the low frame rate was.

    *I don't mean I have better vision. I have mild astigmatism combined with somewhat more myopia. I just seem to notice differences in colors, brightness, etc. that others don't.

    Leave a comment:


  • Cow Poke
    replied
    Originally posted by Cerebrum123 View Post
    Well, it's the best analogy for what I see when I watch them. Most anyone else I know doesn't seem to notice it much, and usually only after I point it out. My senses tend to pick up things most people have no idea is even there. For me it is like I have a 100x multiplier on how intense anything might be. It is good for some things, and terrible for others. I'm surrounded by people who don't have that level of sensitivity, so they aren't able to even notice when they do or make something that is unpleasant for me to be around.
    Color is an interesting thing -- I read about the military in WWII recruiting colorblind people because they could look at camouflaged scenes and pictures and easily spot the 'hidden'.

    And night vision - mine seems to be above normal.
    Last edited by Cow Poke; 05-05-2021, 10:24 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • oxmixmudd
    replied
    Originally posted by Cerebrum123 View Post

    I'm not colorblind, but they look "off" to me too. Especially something like "It's a Wonderful Life".
    yeah - it's a process that hasn't reached 'invisibility' yet. Same with computer animation of dead people like in the recent Star Wars movies. Close - but no cigar - yet.

    Leave a comment:


  • Cow Poke
    replied
    With Warren, she persisted even after it was proven false, so she doesn't get a pass on "I really believed it was true".
    She 'believed' it because she wanted to, it worked to her advantage, and she didn't have the moral character to admit she was wrong.

    With Hillary, it's just another lie in a long pattern of lies.

    Leave a comment:


  • Cerebrum123
    replied
    Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post

    Interesting - makes sense.
    Well, it's the best analogy for what I see when I watch them. Most anyone else I know doesn't seem to notice it much, and usually only after I point it out. My senses tend to pick up things most people have no idea is even there. For me it is like I have a 100x multiplier on how intense anything might be. It is good for some things, and terrible for others. I'm surrounded by people who don't have that level of sensitivity, so they aren't able to even notice when they do or make something that is unpleasant for me to be around.

    Leave a comment:


  • oxmixmudd
    replied
    Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
    The problem with Hillary and Warren was that they continue telling their tales even after they get debunked. That is where the problem lies.

    And with Hillary, who was proclaimed "the smartest woman in America" when Bill was POTUS, you would think at some point basic math would have come into play.

    And with Warren, aside from lying about never using her "minority status" to advance herself, she also plagiarized some recipes and passed them off as old family recipes reflecting her supposed Native American heritage.

    Those are what changes family stories into deliberate lies.
    If true, they certainly push the edge of what can be excused. But perhaps best to focus on the persistent use of the story than be so critical of the fact such a story was ever told? The is no acknowledgement in this thread, or the warren threads for that matter, of the fact the stories likely have innocent origin but only become an issue when they are repeatedly told after having been corrected.

    With Warren, it was fairly clear she absolutely believed the stories about her heritage until the DNA tests explicitly showed they were likely exaggerated over time (she does have Indian ancestry). I don't fault her on that account. DNA tests did not exist when she went to college, and I don't have any idea what evidence was required to prove what she had been told was true, but I do know that tribes have become increasingly skeptical of claims to indian heritage, requiring birth records and a minimum percentage inheritance (usually 1/16 - a full blooded great grandparent), specifically because of instance like Warren's where people were told they had Indian ancestry by parents and relatives and they believed and acted on it.

    With Hil(l)ary, it's such a trivial thing I find it hard to get worked up over it, but as for concern over her persisting in telling the story - that would depend a bit on whether her mom told her that regardless of what people were saying, she named her after the mountaineer. Like has been said, it is possible her mom was aware of him before 1953. So if your mom says she did, and it was possible, would you toss it in her face and say she was lying?

    This is the sort of thing I don't find indicative of poor character. Family stories are family stories. They tend to get changed over time, usually exaggerated in some positive way. We usually don't look too closely at them. Public figures - as we can see here - do need to be a bit careful about sharing them without checking them out - not because it's a big deal, but because their opponents will make it a big deal.

    Leave a comment:


  • Cow Poke
    replied
    Originally posted by Cerebrum123 View Post
    Early Technicolor often looks off in a similar way to "colorized" black and white movies. In the latter I'm able to see a second layer to everything. It's almost like how your brain looks at a movie with those old red and blue 3D glasses. Early Technicolor has a similar look, but not quite as pronounced.
    Interesting - makes sense.

    Leave a comment:

Related Threads

Collapse

Topics Statistics Last Post
Started by little_monkey, 03-27-2024, 04:19 PM
16 responses
162 views
0 likes
Last Post One Bad Pig  
Started by whag, 03-26-2024, 04:38 PM
53 responses
400 views
0 likes
Last Post Mountain Man  
Started by rogue06, 03-26-2024, 11:45 AM
25 responses
114 views
0 likes
Last Post rogue06
by rogue06
 
Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 09:21 AM
33 responses
198 views
0 likes
Last Post Roy
by Roy
 
Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 08:34 AM
84 responses
379 views
0 likes
Last Post JimL
by JimL
 
Working...
X