I’m imagining toddlers growing up to hate their parents’ music taste, because they already fucking hated it when they played it to them when they were a fetus in utero.
The dad hyped up “fuck yeah I’m gonna teach this kid to love Slayer because I’m playing it to him now when they’re in there!”. And then they hate it like “THIS IS WHAT THAT SHIT WAS, I HATED IT ALL THE FUCKING TIME, FUCK YOU!”
Like there was for a while the whole “Play Mozart/Beethoven to your kid in the womb and they’ll be smarter” and shit - there’s no way everyone universally likes classical music. I know several older people who don’t enjoy music at all, which just seems bizarre.
It’s not like every kids gonna pop out and be like “That Mozart’s Requiem was some shit, man! Play it again!”.
It’s also a fucking dumb approach to making the kid smart anyways. You don’t need a high iq to appreciate classical music, and there is nothing inherently intelligent about listening to music
There is evidence listening to music in your native language is good for language development. Probably any pop music is more educational than classical music to a baby.
Yeah well dumb people will try dumb ways to magically make their dumb kids smart. Wicked smaht. We played them Mozart 24/7 so they’d be smaht and look at him. So smaht. And the kid grows up to be an insomniac serial killer who grew dissecting any animals they got their hands on.
Music wasn’t always so easily accessible as it is now. I think really only the radio was something everyone would have access to. If you had vinyl, CDs etc then you were at least somewhat musically inclined and some folks would just not be and never really get into it or invest in getting their own music. Not that they would literally never hear or listen to music but it wasn’t one of their hobbies. Compared to today where we all have access to music on demand and it would be weird if you don’t have at least some preferences or something.
Young kids do not have the mental capacity to differentiate between “I learned something new” and “I always had this opinion”. They are simply incapable of the former position.
There are psychology experiments with children that show this effect, it’s pretty wild.
I would sing my daughter Johnny Cash in NICU. She loves it now. Best part is the chords tend to be easy if she wants to learn to play, or if I ever want to learn LOL
If she ever expresses an interest, maybe even without, buy a guitar and learn with her. Like you’re teaching, but you’re actually learning with her. Bonding x1000. You can both sing or take turns if it’s too difficult to play and sing from the get-go.
Oh haha, perfect. You have a ukulele? I highly recommend one even just for you if you want to learn. There’s something weirdly inoffensive and less threatening about a uke that it’s easier to approach while it’s literally just a mini guitar with four strings. I’ve played guitar since I was under 10 years old and I have half a dozen guitars, but I find myself playing most on these tiny, cute guitars. Like you have a minute till the water’s boiling, you can just grab it for a second and chuck it back on the corner of the sofa. Like you’re not “really playing” - you’re just killing time, but you actually are.
Also just the fact that it has less strings literally makes it less difficult and you can still play it like a guitar. I kind of hate this trend that everyone plays it like they’re on vacation in Hawaii, because it literally is just a tiny guitar. It’s the perfect starter guitar.
I don’t have a Ukulele, just an acoustic guitar I inherited from my grandma and another hybrid acoustic electric that I paid a decent chunk of change for… I also have two violins (don’t ask why) Ukulele sounds like a good thing, I often play around with the guitars when I am bored or want to annoy my wife.
Is the finger positioning easier on a Ukulele? That’s what I have the most trouble with, I don’t have long fingers, so getting all the strings pressed firmly is challenging.
I’d say it’s easier, already because there are less strings so the amount of fingers needed and frets to press are less. Like you can play an E minor chord with just one finger on one string. The standard tuning is like the highest 4 strings of a normal guitar. I’d say the size can make it softer on the fingers as well. Other than that it’s literally just a tiny guitar. Plus you van get one for pocket change or even a decent one for less than a 100€/€. Also because it’s so small you can take it literally anywhere.
It’s already bought…(I have an addiction to collecting instrumenta for some reason) got a cheap starter for like $70. I am pumped for it to come in. I feel like there is a chance I could play some basic things on it after researching the chords adjustment and some tabs for certain songs. Perfect timing because my daughter just had an operation, so now she can hear sound perfectly, where before it was muffled.
At what age do you start them? She isn’t 2 yet, so probably some time.
Haha perfect. Glad she can hear now. But lol yeah, maybe a little early to start.
Honestly I wouldn’t know really, I think it’s all kind of subjective. My nephews started expressing interest anywhere from 4-12 years old. Exposure can/will help though usually. The nephews and nieces that saw and heard me or my BIL play more got interested earlier. A ukulele is kind of automatically in an open tuning so you can just strum or pick the strings without even doing anything with the fret hand and it sounding nice can encourage them to learn more - when you can just make something that sounds nice with minimal effort it will make it easier to apporach. I didn’t even teach them any chords at first. Just kind of show like, how much you can do with just going up and down one string with even just one finger can make something that sounds nice. Kids are still developing the muscles their fingers and motor functions, just like adults who don’t play or use their fingers in such a way, but I think it might be even harder for kids. I can remember a hundred times I almost gave up be cause it was just too hard physically to hold the chords, especially on an oversized classical guitar for tiny child hands.
Like you can even try for yourself. You don’t even need to tune the uke differently, just strum the open strings and then go up and down a basic scale on the highest pitched (E) string (on the bottom of the neck): 0-2-3-5-7-8-10-12 frets, in different variations and find a melody. You don’t need to do anything with any other string, just strum the open strings along with that one string. Just as an example. From there just expand the same mentality to other strings and start using more fingers. Too much theory can kill any interest very quickly and personally I think it’s such an ass-backwards way to approach music. Like learning grammar and how to write before learning to speak.
Oh I agree with basically everything you wrote. If my parents had just bought me a guitar earlier in life, instead of doing it when I was almost a teenager and pushing me into classic lessons. I hated everything about those lessons.
I am hoping my daughter will have a vastly different experience, then I had.
Sounds like she’s already off to a better start even before starting then! Hope you both have fun learning and sharing the love for music.
I didn’t even have a teacher, I just had a couple of books, and thought that was the only way to learn so I pushed myself to strain my hands and my head to figure it out because I really wanted to learn and it really fucked my hands up for decades leading to further and further problems with advancing. After over two decades I finally corrected my hand position and well, ergonomy and everything became so much easier. Problems I wouldn’t have had if I’d had proper teaching or even a proper instrument for my tiny hands. Carpal tunnel is no fun, especially when the number one thing you want to do is play. If only someone had told me the things I know now.
So what’s the correct hand positioning? I was playing it flat like a crab claw. But some youtuber teaching uke chords, says you need to rest your thumb on the neck and use your fingers to press directly down in a C shape. Would you say that’s good advice? Definitely puts more pressure on the fingers.
Oh it’s hard to explain through text but definitely don’t hold your thumb on/over the neck. Your fret hand should be same or similar as playing guitar. Your thumb should be usually pretty much “on the spine”/middle of the neck. If that feels uncomfortable, you might be holding the guitar awkwardly/wrong. Check out how people instruct you to hold classical/Spanish guitar, because that’s literally like guitar ergonomy 101.
My problems with my fret hand were mostly related to having too wide a neck for my hands which led to over stressing my fret hand, pressing too hard and having my wrist at an awkward angle. Which led to pressing even harder which led to wrist pain and overall difficulty reaching everywhere I was supposed to. Things you should take into consideration but not necessarily stress if you’re just playing to chill, but I was ambitious from the get go.
The way you describe “crab claw” sounds about right, but you can check out classical/Spanish guitar + wrist + ergonomy on YouTube or something if you want to. Your wrist should be fairly straight and you definitely can’t do that if you’re having your thumb over the neck. As little as your nerves and tendons and shit need to stretch unnecessarily, that’s the sweet spot. Look at how classical guitarists play. They have the guitar at an angle for a reason, because they’re kind of going to the extremes of the mobility of the fingers and tendons etc, and even if you aren’t, a more ergonomic stance is only going to do you good
E: almost forgot. It might do you good, especially for something as small as a Ukulele, to get a strap. It can be difficult to hold and fret and do all of that at the same time. A strap can make it a lot easier/automatic for the instrument to stay in a good position so as not to strain your wrists
workout regularly. Then you can act like it’s cause the gains instead of getting old.
I know it’s “because” and not a misspelling of “causing,” but I’m delighted by the idea of someone working out and getting ripped, who secretly thinks it’s the act of aging that’s making him strong, and that working out is just a placebo
Literally not a single thing in our world isn’t chemicals. Lemontek - chemicals interacting. Alcohol for some party - Chemicals. Every part of any meal - chemicals. All of it.
In general I think people are referring to things that are either A) heavily proccesed and/or B) something that isn’t naturally occurring. When they speak about “chemicals”
Your body is made to eat natually occuring plants and animals. Any deviation from that is risking long term issues. Effects that are very often (at least here in the states) ignored unless they just straight up kill you. And even then it’ll probably take a couple decades before anyone actually does something about it. So, yes while many people misuse the word “chemical,” their fear is not misplaced. You should be skeptical of things that are synthesized until they are proven to interact with the human body appropriately
Granted, there are things in this world that aren’t chemicals. Muons, stuff at the LHC, plasma… But everything that a normal person interacts with is a chemical.
That one’s just for you. People always go off about it being a natural chemical reaction etc and it’s timely with all the conversation about growing acception of psychadelics for mental health
I think we need to understand what definition people are using for “chemicals”. They usually are referring to highly processed ingredients, with highly processed preservatives, highly processed artificial flavors (called “natural flavors”, but taken for example from the anal glans of a beaver… yes this is real and common). By the broadest definition, absolutely everything is a chemical. Generally, people should avoid any definition for a word that makes the word nonsensical. And also generally, you will find big lobbyist groups using that general definition to shell-game about the specific chemicals they are trying to protect.
When a food-concerned person mentions chemicals, they are referring to things like antibiotics or hormones, preservatives or processed sweeteners with known side-effects. Some of them are talking about isolates, like soy protein isolate to which there are valid health concerns.
And yes, sometimes people referring to chemicals don’t know what chemicals they’re complaining about. And yes, sometimes people complaining about chemicals are complaining that their meatless burger’s consistency comes from methyl cellulose, (probably) completely harmless but absolutely artificial.
The same way some vegans are made ill by the thought of meat, some folks are made ill by flavor- or consistency-related facts in their food. I mean, I think vegans would be concerned to know the beaver anal secretions above was in some plant milks under the term “natural flavors”.
Just drill so fast you’re basically in a freefall to the center of the earth, avoid the giant diamonds, and just detonate a few nukes in sequence around the core right?
unfortunately I think this is just him saying he’s a “woke communist” if being a woke communist is atheism, women’s rights, and gun control. I don’t think he’s a marxist of any stripe it seems. However, I am willing to be corrected here. I’ve only seen this post regarding to him.
I think his point is that people who call things “woke communism”, in a negative way, have no idea what communism actually is. To those people, everything from the center to the left of politics is woke communism.
I don’t think it has a meaningful effect. Libs call themselves socialists all the time. For every case you’re able to argue for socialism and not have people’s brains shut down, you get 10 “those tankies aren’t real socialists! Socialism is when you vote for food stamps and means-tested college subsidies”
The term you want is social democrat, which isn’t socialism but hey, it tries to like, stop people starving to death on the street, if only because it looks ugly.
His dad was a straight up member of the Finnish Communist Party. He’s still alive, and is even a member of the European Parliament, but seems more liberal/centrist these days.
Human rights should always be universal and immutable, we can't go around deciding who does or doesn't have basic human rights. Antifa has to be the better people because unfortunately we have to be the adults in the room and show the children what it means to be a decent human being. But, having your human rights respected doesn't mean that you're immune to the consequences of your actions like getting the shit kicked out of you for being a Nazi prick, or getting locked up in prison for the rest of your life.
Those aren't Human Rights, those are Freedoms. Freedoms are often included as part of Human Rights decrees but they are usually merely subsections of Human Rights decrees and can be restricted by governments if there is just cause, but never or rarely removed outright.
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights identifies a few key things like the Right to Life including protections from slavery and torture. The Freedom of Movement is one that can be restricted if you prove dangerous. The big one that most people are referring to when they mention Human Rights is all of the "constitutional liberties", here's a quote from the article I linked about that:
the so-called "constitutional liberties" and spiritual, public, and political freedoms, such as freedom of thought, opinion, expression, religion and conscience, word, peaceful association of the individual, and receiving and imparting information and ideas through any media.
The above linked declaration hasn't been ratified in every country, and it's sort of a basic boilerplate that countries may use to form their own Human Rights decrees. But again the big one that is quite universal is the constitutional liberties which are basically the freedom from discrimination and oppression.
My point being, restricting a person's Freedoms isn't necessarily the same as violating their Human Rights.
Human rights are bigger than just the United States. What happens there is a pretty atrocious infringement on the rights of inmates. It's not surprising though, considering the US prison system is essentially just modern slavery and that there are corporations who have a vested interest in dehumanizing the inmates so they can exploit them as slave labor without anyone objecting.
No, there are real adults with these opinions. Real adults that perform real actions based on their opinions. If they can’t stop themselves from being uncivilized animals based on bigotry and discrimination then we need to protect the rest of our society that is peaceful and tolerant. The only way to be decent to absolute villains is to relinquish them of their ability to take action. Otherwise everything we’ve built since Babylon comes tumbling down.
Let’s walk through an example. Please note that I absolutely do not mean anything of what I’m about to say. Imagine someone were to say the following things.
I’m going to kill you. I don’t think you have a right to exist. I’m going to torture, dismember, and end you because I personally believe this is morally right. You do not deserve life. I will come to your home. I will take you in the night. I will make you watch as your family screams in terror while I take them all away. I will do this to everyone like you. I will destroy you because I believe it is the right thing to do. I will experiment on you. You will be like cattle for my whims because I do not believe you are human like me. You are just a meat sack. I will abuse you simply for my enjoyment because you hold no value beyond the value I give you. You are worthless, and I will dispose of you.
If someone legitimately said these things to you, if they really meant it, would you want the government to just be like, “hey man, they can say whatever they want. Human rights?” This is a Nazi’s inner monologue.
Uttering death threats is a crime in most nations. So they would hopefully be put in jail long before they acted upon those thoughts. If someone is that disturbed then there's something wrong with them on a fundamental level -- be that nature or nurture. What I would hope for that person is that they're locked away from society, but treated as well as they can be considering some safety measures need to be in place for even prison guards to interact with someone like that.
I'm not arguing at all that we never lock anyone up, that's absurd and anyone who thinks that is probably intentionally misunderstanding my meaning. I just think that treating people with as much dignity and respect as we can is the right thing to do in all circumstances. Dehumanizing and othering people is what fascists do, if we want to call ourselves the good guys, we can't act like fascists. It's just plain wrong, and it's evil.
Edit: Perhaps I should say “fair treatment” instead of “equality”, as “equality” is rather loaded and can mean different things depending on context. My bad.
And besides, now that I am editing anyway and haven’t received any answers to this comment. I do not think that everyone needs to be tolerant or needs to be tolerated, as that is a fallacy. Tolerate those who tolerate you, respect those who show you respect. And yet, one should at least try to tolerate those who disrespect one, unless they cause you significant harm, as there will always be those with differing opinions.
We can’t make everybody happy, and I personally despise both extremes of this argument; those who tolerate nobody, and those who advokate to tolerate everybody, but themselves choose only to do so when it’s comfortable. Of course this includes those who are so tolerant that they go on ‘witch hunts’ against those who are ‘intolerant’, with little or no aggression from the other side.
The TL;DR is that in order to create a tolerant society, ironically, the only thing that cannot be tolerated is intolerance. The paradox comes from the idea that if intolerance is tolerated and allowed to gain any kind of a foothold then the society is no longer tolerant, but if we stamp it out and nip it at the bud then that's also intolerant.
However, the paradox obviously has one preferred outcome which is that intolerance of intolerance is the only way to maintain a (mostly) tolerant society. The other option is letting the Nazis win.
The German federal government had petitioned for the Communist Party to be banned in 1952 on the basis that the party’s revolutionary practice means “the impairment or the abolition of the fundamental liberal democratic order in the Federal Republic”. Following hearings, the Federal Constitutional Court ordered in 1956 that the party be dissolved and its assets confiscated, and banned the creation of substitute organizations.
It’s blatant stock manipulation. The stock price goes up because they increase demand for the stock for no reason. The value of the company doesn’t change at all other than they’re holding stock as an asset instead of the cash. Yet the stock is worth more now. It’s stock manipulation, plain and simple.
Lol what. I dont believe in any religion but I wouldnt say Im atheist either. I dont understand the need to talk about it at all. Like let people do as they want and judge them by what they do?
Same here. The limey taste of hops makes the beer for me, when I get a lighter beer I’m more often than not left disappointed, like I’m drinking bubbly water that’s been sitting in a pipe for 25 years. Craft IPAs on the other hand range from “meh it’s alright” to “this is amazing”.
That’s Soviet MBV-2, two were made in Kirov manufacturing plant in Leningrad in 1936-37, though i guess the transformation of one of them into a Thomas was post war development (second one is preserved in museum).
Oh jeebus fucking christ. Sometimes the dumb hurts and then you get the existential dread knowing you’re about to have to call this moron. And, even better, they usually make more money than you.
Silicone isn’t what makes parchment paper heat-resistant (and isn’t even used on most standard parchment papers). Cellulose pulp is treated with sulfuric acid to cross-link the cellulose molecules, making them more chemically and thermally resistant, and the result is parchment paper.
I would prefer you to be correct, because I am reading other comments that say some parchment paper is teflon coated. PFA pollution arising from PTFE production for pots and pans is bad enough, but to use Teflon on a consumable item should be an obvious “ban the fuck out of it already” action item. I mean, all PTFE production should be banned based on what we’re learning about PFAs, but for fucks sake, disposable items? EDIT: google says the vast majority of parchement paper is silicone coated, not teflon coated like one German asserts in another comment in here.
Because the only comment that mentioned Teflon wasn’t a part of this comment chain, so your response feels like a total non-sequitur in the context of this particular comment chain. I assume you were responding not just to the original comment in this chain, but also to the other unrelated comment about German baking paper being Teflon-coated (which was incorrect), but without anything directly connecting the two comments it just seems like you went off of an unrelated tangent.
WTF. I never knew this. All this time I thought I was being responsible using parchment paper. I did not know it was silicone coated damnit. Need to look for other options now.
lemmy.ml
Top