Still with that said, what I meant was, like, if someone cries, man or woman, they are much less likely to get judged by a female than a male. Which is generally a good thing about females I think.
Nigel Short: Women's brains not chess brains
Sort:
Also, please excuse my grammar again. I'm using a tablet and it's flaky.
"Courage is dealing with fear. So "to like it takes courage" boarders on contradiction of terms."
And how do you deal with fear? You say, ok, this is going to happen if I do x, and you know what, I don't care. I'll do it anyway. Trust me, no one likes negativity. If Nigel is happy about the controversy and pissing people off, he's happy about it despite having to, psychologically, face negativity towards his end, not because of it.
Isn't that how we face fears? We say, overall, it's a good thing for me to do this. You fight your psychology that thinks about how doing it will make you feel uncomfortable at certain points, and see the big picture. Others never get past that psychological discomfort to do something, even though they "know" the positives to doing it outweigh the negatives.
I'm not saying I like Nigel though... just like I can say Fischer was not a good man but I admire his chess... it's kind of like that.
Judging by your last paragraph though it seems like we agree for the most part.
"Again though, he has nothing to,lose really. It's not like oh, was it Die Hard where Bruce Willis is forced to wear a sign stating he hates (Insert inflammatory word) in the middle of Harlem? Now THAT's when you have something to lose. I don't think Nigel seems to be the kind of man that can have his feelings hurt by criticism."
Yeah this is a good point, it's just that I've been spending time replying to bbgum before I could acknowledge it :)
But you don't think Nigel has it in him to be hurt by criticism? I don't know, I think it's more reasonable to suggest that he can put things aside, rather than that there is nothing for him to put aside. He's human.
But yeah I dunno, was it my word choice of courage? I'm not comparing him to like, a historical figure. I don't mean his level of courage is legendary, I'm just saying it's a notable amount. Obviously that's just one way to show courage. I do want to say though... if Nigel spent his courage (guts?) on an issue that was politically correct, people would call him a hero. You know it, don't you? :) Like if his article was, instead, a feminist article to a bunch of non feminist readers, rather than the other way around :)
It's sort of like saying a person doing something courageous isn't impressive because they were born courageous. Or that murderers are unlucky because they were born with bad genes/bad culture that made them do it and then get punished for it. Deterministic stuff :)
"Given his track record, I get the feeling it would take more daily effort for Short to be polite and reasonable than otherwise."
That's a good insight.
The only point about trolls though is that trolls perhaps handle insults by insulting back. To sort of cancel out the other guy's insult. Then again, not all trolls are like that.
the word troll is so 1970s. do chess people have any originality at all ?
Elubas wrote:
"Again though, he has nothing to,lose really. It's not like oh, was it Die Hard where Bruce Willis is forced to wear a sign stating he hates (Insert inflammatory word) in the middle of Harlem? Now THAT's when you have something to lose. I don't think Nigel seems to be the kind of man that can have his feelings hurt by criticism."
Yeah this is a good point, it's just that I've been spending time replying to bbgum before I could acknowledge it :)
But you don't think Nigel has it in him to be hurt by criticism? I don't know, I think it's more reasonable to suggest that he can put things aside, rather than that there is nothing for him to put aside. He's human.
But yeah I dunno, was it my word choice of courage? I'm not comparing him to like, a historical figure. I don't mean his level of courage is legendary, I'm just saying it's a notable amount. Obviously that's just one way to show courage. I do want to say though... if Nigel spent his courage (guts?) on an issue that was politically correct, people would call him a hero. You know it, don't you? :) Like if his article was, instead, a feminist article to a bunch of non feminist readers, rather than the other way around :)
Actually if he made a PC argument he'd be getting death threats. Not to say it's great to be PC all the time. And do you truly think he would be hailed as a hero by EVERYONE? If he made a PC argument? By way of something being PC in the common vernacular, it's a position people OUTWARDLY agree with in public, but usually when people make PC arguments they get threatening backlash. PC or not really means nothing. It's the difference between being publicly shunned and being threatened in private. PC just sends the opposition underground. So in reality, PC language is not the greatest thing. It's like putting a bandaide on a puss filled sore and pretending everything is ok while the infection grows. But, to be truly brave, you have to do it in a state of fear. You have to be terribly afraid and go forward anyway. In that way the level of courage is determined within. Not by someone else's yardstick. Therefore, to be brave Nigel has to be terribly frightened of the backlash of his comments for me to give him any credit for that.
Besides, what is acceptable changes over time. Back in the day, I knew gay kids that if they had come out of the closet or anyone made any pro gay statement, they'd have to watch themselves. It was considered ok to "teach" these people a lesson. Especially in the South several decades back. It was freaking dangerous just to say something that is labeled PC today, as though it were never the other way around. Politically correct is judged by time and place. It sure was politically correct back in that time and place to be hostile to gay folks. Not just the "you're going to hell" hostile but we are going to beat you up/kill you hostile. As I get older, the more perspective I seem to have, seeing how attitudes change through the decades.
I guess I am arguing for perspective, but this does not mean I have to agree with Short. To some extent I do think he is onto something with the men's brains being more savant in extreme cases, but I just have a feeling he gets joy from needling folks. That's my impression. He is not at all surprised by this reaction. He'd have to be a total idiot.
a lot of time is spent on this website finding fault with people, the time could be better spent looking at self and improving what's there, but I guess it's easier to point fingers.
Any finger-pointing contests coming up here ?
May 14, 2015
0
#1553
Azukikuru wrote:
trysts wrote:
You have a bunch of people in a room. You let Nigel Short walk in. Your social intelligence score will be rated by how quickly you leave the room
Do you mean that it takes social intelligence to tolerate all kinds of people and opinions, even if they differ from your own? So the longer you can tolerate to stay, the more intelligent you are? I guess you're right... Throwing your hands up in despair and saying, "I don't get this guy, I'm outta here" is pretty much the same as saying, "I don't get math, I'm outta here" and walking out of the exam room.
A big part of tolerance is to know when to walk away
Nice way to spoil a good joke searching for splitting hairs...
women are good only to wipe, to cook, to f...k and to bible. to be a chess master or a worldmaster at first you must be a man!
tomy_gun wrote:
women are good only to wipe, to cook, to f...k and to bible. to be a chess master or a worldmaster at first you must be a man!
Comfy under that bridge, or does the constant trip-trapping start to wear you down?
May 14, 2015
0
#1558
tomy_gun wrote:
women are good only to wipe, to cook, to f...k and to bible. to be a chess master or a worldmaster at first you must be a man!
power_2_the_people wrote:
i just thoogut that wall looked better like it. sorry if you can read something in it that i don't
I think ít says ODFIN ?
Elubas wrote:
bb_gum234 wrote:
Brave, hmm.
It seems to me Short doesn't endure the attention, but rather he likes it.
I don't know, that's a little cheap, don't you think? Hell, I think it's hard to make objections even when you're in the majority -- even minority backlash isn't so easy to deal with. So to just dismiss this with one rationalization "oh well he likes it so whatever," is kind of unfair, I think.
To like it in itself takes courage. Because you have to view negative attention positively somehow. You still have to have a mindset that can avoid being scared of it. He has bad characteristics too, but I do admire his courage in that way anyway. There are probably many people who think what Nigel thinks (to some extent) but would be too afraid to express it so blatantly in public.
Again though, he has nothing to,lose really. It's not like oh, was it Die Hard where Bruce Willis is forced to wear a sign stating he hates (Insert inflammatory word) in the middle of Harlem? Now THAT's when you have something to lose. I don't think Nigel seems to be the kind of man that can have his feelings hurt by criticism.