can we ban all anti-female topics

Compared to some kind of idealized thought transfer, language is a very crude way to communicate ideas. Unspoken assumptions are always necessary for any meaningful transfer of ideas between people through language. It's useful to bring up these assumptions for clarification sometimes... but not all the time and endlessly. I feel like you sometimes do this by offering various points of view or either widening or narrowing the idea itself... to the point that it's no longer practical to the conversation.

There will always be 10 more points of view, and each clarification or narrowing of ideas leaves things out, while each widening includes more. It can be an endless cycle if you want it to be. But this points more towards the deficiency of language than your deep thinking IMO!

Just to contrast with my previous post, I think this is great. I have the same sort of personality where I can retreat inside my mind like that and think endlessly about all sorts of useless stuff lol :)

But in a conversation it's not practical!

I'm reminded of the difference between analysis and playing chess. In analysis you can go over everything to your heart's content. But during a game with another player you're forced to find a way to get to the point (or lose on time heh).

Point taken of course. But let's look at the other side of things, the people that aren't willing to break down what they think. You can't tell me that is more effective. Someone who just assumes something is sexist because there is the word "woman" is simply going to be hard to either convince or learn from. But just replying to him or her with a similarly silly remark on the other extreme will do nothing at all. The only chance is to break things down because otherwise a person's prejudices will get in the way of any kind of reasoning. So that's where I'm coming from.

I agree that things have a context, and you can always take something out of context by widening or narrowing the scope. And sure, I can create confusion that way... but so does everybody. The "concise folk" are misunderstood all the time because they'll say something unqualified and then they'll say "hey, I didn't mean it like that." Language is a mess for everyone to navigate, not just me. I never said I was perfect with language -- not at all.

I don't think being a "deep" thinker is really the key here, it's about being a "flexible" one. I can give you a relatively simple idea. A good habit when you see something opposed to you, such as an opinion, is to simply stop for a second, think before you act. It's tempting to act right away, like a kid on christmas, but hold it back. You will learn a lot more that way, you'll be more open to new things. You're not always going to change your mind, but sometimes you will.

Works for chess too. You're really excited to play a move you found that looks awesome... but resist that temptation. It's very easy to get fooled. The flashiest move often ends up lacking real substance. Just take a deep breath at least, before playing the move.

"But during a game with another player you're forced to find a way to get to the point (or lose on time heh)."

Haha, that's a cool observation!

I like the point about deep vs flexible. I wonder if chess players are more likely to be flexible or flexible people are more likely to like chess heh. Anyway a good example I think.

Good point about topics which incite bias. I guess it's just that sometimes it seems you take it to an extreme and it start to lose context.

And yes, people who don't take time to think about controversial subjects (like... 99.99% of people it seems) are the reason I never talk on these topics with anyone face to face lol.

Instant gratification can be dangerous hehe :) If you have a good tolerance for not having instant gratification all the time, that almost in itself will make you a clear chess thinker hehe.

"I wonder if chess players are more likely to be flexible or flexible people are more likely to like chess heh"

Probably both, but I'm pretty sure chess has made me more flexible. It I think is what really trained me to know my assumptions and not abuse them. Because I would realize that, sometimes, if I attack my opponent's queen, they don't have to move it back. It just seemed like that because of the underlying assumption that they can't make an equal or better threat (and sometimes they can). I didn't always realize I was making that implicit assumption.

I don't know, that kind of stuff really had an impression on me -- it was the first time where I would think like that. Now, when I hear something like "x is y" I almost always add in my head the words "assuming that..." because every idea has an assumption behind it. It's not convoluted at all to recognize that. That's just what ideas and facts are. But having that ingrained in my head always leaves me flexible to, if appropriate, think about what it would be like if we dropped an assumption, or used a different one, just to make sure I'm not locked into one way of thinking.

I started thinking that way all the time as a teenager (before I found chess). When people would talk, I'd listen quietly and continuously challenge assumptions and arguments in my mind. Not as often, but I'd also go over my own thought process and challenge it for assumptions and errors. I thought I was really clever for realizing that just because I reasoned something carefully, and I was right in the end, that the result doesn't prove my reasoning was correct. I could have erred and gotten lucky with the outcome. Like conformation bias but before I knew that word. I loved looking for bias like this whether it was in myself or others.

That doesn't mean in chess I didn't assume all over the place like any beginner would though heh. Some simple chess things took me years to realize.

I personally will not be sorry if I never see another anti-female thread on here, but banning's not necessarily the answer. Equally, if the powers that be see fit to impose a ban, that's their call and they're within their rights to make it.

yes, banning is not the answer, many members enjoy these threads so much.

yes

*(1) me i think i assume if i mind i guess : 

fun for me can be funnny for others,

not funny at all,

and never funny for everybody. 

example 1 :  * first sentence is funny for people knowing what is assertiveness, not funny at all for people ignoring that.

example 2 : what is funny for crazy horse and hundred people or more is not funny at all for 14 millions.

example 3: what is funny for WASP is not for chicanos, etc ...

Me, personnally, thinks ALL THREADS ARE FUN INSIDE : 

* either you find sthg funny for u

*either you BRING somethg funny, for u, and share it.

*99.99 of people aren't hilarious, never, the best post they can offer is "do u think it is funny?"   and generally i answer "ty, u agree than ME, i think ..does it happen to U?"

1/1000 of postpeople, thread's legends! they take risk, can be bad, can be judged, glossed over. and then ...the best !!!!!!!!!

ty for this thread OP back to the topic

"yes we can"  . Some female posts should be banned too, as some insult to female we're in love, bigger insults than any male post, they may be nuisances for causes they wanna defend, me I think !!!

no naming