Ramona-Carbona wrote:
jeez (some members are smoking some heavy dope)
Well, good to know I guess, lol.
Nigel Short: Women's brains not chess brains
Sort:
"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."
I mean, I get it, and bbgum was making a similar point. But... well, look: if I did something courageous, I wouldn't want everyone looking for every possible reason for what I did other than me being courageous. So like if I saved a cat, everyone says, well, he did it because he likes to save cats. He's not really that awesome. Or if I went into a burning building to do it: well, maybe he has a lot of experience with burning buildings, I don't know him, but let's just assume he does, so really what he did isn't even that cool.
So I mean, sure, I won't assume Nigel is courageous. Maybe there are rational explanations for every single thing he did. But when I see someone doing something that many people are too afraid to do, it seems like rather a disservice to just immediately assume, nope, there had to be some bad thing about him, even though it seems like he's courageous, nope, let's insist it's any reason other than that. In the chance that he has more guts than a lot of people, no, I don't want to take the chance that I'm giving him a lot less credit in that department than he deserves. Goodness, it's easy to say "well, speaking out really isn't that hard" -- why don't you try it. It's not a trivial skill, not one I'm inclined to just dismiss right off the bat.
All because what? There are other characteristics you don't like about him? Are his teeth too ugly? You don't have to like everything about a person to like one thing about them.
Besides, we praise people for not being afraid of things all the time. Someone wears an outfit not favored by society, that person says, yeah you know what, I'm not afraid, and then everyone praises him/her, wow, that takes a lot of character. And indeed I think that does deserve praise. But it seems like when it's about something not politically correct things change. If it was on a politically correct topic, if Nigel posted an article with the opposite thesis, would we be this sceptical? Would we say, well, he's not really that brave since we don't know how scared he is.
"but I just have a feeling he gets joy from needling folks. That's my impression."
Yeah, I agree, but that is the fault of the needling folks.
power_2_the_people wrote:
''someone doing something that many people are too afraid to do''
that is very very very hard for me to read and so i'm, afraid you are not gonna have any feedback from me
It doesn't have to be from you, it could be from Aristotle or some chinese philosopher or something :)
Elubas wrote:
Besides, we praise people for not being afraid of things all the time. Someone wears an outfit not favored by society, that person says, yeah you know what, I'm not afraid, and then everyone praises him/her, wow, that takes a lot of character. And indeed I think that does deserve praise.
My personal opinion is that is not really brave. That's more rebellious. I think there is a difference. My opinion is still if you are afraid snd saddle up anyway as John Wayne once said, that is courage. I will admit though that my definition is different from most folks. I guess you can call what he did the "courage of his convictions" if you want. I mean really he is getting some backlash, but there are enough people who agree with him where he should not feel uncomfortable. Thus, it's not terribly impressive to me. That's just me though.
Ok, rebellious perhaps. And I admire that. I'm not making a claim about Nigel as a whole, but I admire that aspect. His ability to do that. Perhaps he misues such an ability, but he has it. And not so many people do, to that extent.
But yeah, in general, I just get the impression that when a person speaks out about a view that you agree with, they're a hero of sorts, but if another person, with the opposite view, speaks with the same energy and so on, now they're not impressive... in fact, they're even looked at negatively!
I don't think I'm like that to be honest. Once I saw a fillibuster of a woman speaking out for some pro choice policy (on the abortion issue) I think. I'm more pro life at this point, but I really did admire her courage. I don't care that it was about a view I didn't hold, I think it took energy, passion and courage, and I admired that.
Elubas wrote:
Ok, rebellious perhaps. And I admire that. I'm not making a claim about Nigel as a whole, but I admire that aspect. His ability to do that. Perhaps he misues such an ability, but he has it. And not so many people do, to that extent.
But yeah, in general, I just get the impression that when a person speaks out about a view that you agree with, they're a hero of sorts, but if another person, with the opposite view, speaks with the same energy and so on, now they're not impressive... in fact, they're even looked at negatively!
I don't think I'm like that to be honest. Once I saw a fillibuster of a woman speaking out for some pro choice policy (on the abortion issue) I think. I'm more pro life at this point, but I really did admire her courage. I don't care that it was about a view I didn't hold, I think it took passion and courage, and I admired that.
Courage to me is Rosa Parks not going to the back of the bus. Knowing full well what may happen. There's just so much really awful stuff in the world, and I don't take the term "courageous" lightly. Again, just my opinion.
power_2_the_people wrote:
trysts wrote:
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
i think a big part of tolerance is to know what you want to tolerate.
Oh come on lol. I mean I get your point, but that's awfully convenient. Yeah, I just decided not to listen to this person, I decided to symbolize tolerance by not being tolerant. Yeah, because I'm just that awesome that I am above contradictions :)
"Courage to me is Rosa Parks not going to the back of the bus. Knowing full well what may happen. There's just so much really awful stuff in the world, and I don't take the term "courageous" lightly. Again, just my opinion."
I used bravery first, you didn't like it. I used courage, you didn't like it. Don't make me get out the thesaurus :)
But yeah I get it.
power_2_the_people wrote:
and that 'put 5 minutes into something' idea, i don't remember who it was who said it, although i remember well the intention was not to make all the people feel better about their time management skills, i still wouldn't say for sure it was such a bad idea. what i'm sure of is that i could certainly come up with many examples of things that you can do and things that you can learn in fives minutes. here is only one example https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vVsXO9brK7M
I thought I was the one who came up with the 5 minute thing lol.
Elubas wrote:
"Courage to me is Rosa Parks not going to the back of the bus. Knowing full well what may happen. There's just so much really awful stuff in the world, and I don't take the term "courageous" lightly. Again, just my opinion."
I used bravery first, you didn't like it. I used courage, you didn't like it. Don't make me get out the thesaurus :)
But yeah I get it.
Yeah, social retribution and shaming? Eh. If you may get sent to jail, tortured, raped, killed, or to a lesser extent lose your job or your home for expressing an opinion, I'm impressed. Again, that's just me.
lol
I mean nyuknyuknyuknyuknyuknyuk.
"or to a lesser extent lose your job"
Well, maybe there was some risk that Nigel would lose his job as a columnist. I mean, true, he's kind of expected to make these kinds of comments, but in chess, pretty much the biggest taboo is talking about the elephant in the room that is women and chess. It could make New in Chess magazine (which I believe houses the article) look bad.
Elubas wrote:
"or to a lesser extent lose your job"
Well, maybe there was some risk that Nigel would lose his job as a columnist. I mean, true, he's kind of expected to make these kinds of comments, but in chess, pretty much the biggest taboo is talking about the elephant in the room that is women and chess. It could make New in Chess magazine (which I believe houses the article) look bad.
But he's in Britain. I have no idea how serious they are about these sorts of things.
May 14, 2015
0
#1597
Ramona ?....It's wonderful to have you back....I wish you'd go over and harrass Elroch tho' like the old days...remember ?....we were a team ?....Your Lola....
....
Hi Lola! Smelroch is poosy.
power_2_the_people wrote:
after what i have seen yesterday in my research on women in chess by countries, i'm just wondering why i've find so few women chess players in England and i wonder if it has something to do with the culture. not an exhaustive research i admit, that i've done. but you know. russia has more women in chess, china, india also maybe...
It's becase women in general have much better conditions in Russia and China, whereas in England they are discouraged from developing their thinking and encouraged to only care about raising chidren. "Macho" culture is very strong in England, while in Russia a "good man" is a much more softer and understanding figure, that understands that women need to have space to emancipate their spirits.
you have the floor! ;)