1963 - when birth control pills were illegal and colleges could still enforce loco parentis... Yep crappy times indeed.
Nigel Short: Women's brains not chess brains
Sort:
the media was always out to get BF.
one clown interviewed him on tv once to question BF about the need to be physically fit for top class chess, he played to the audience with "wink wink" wisecracks about needing good butt muscles to play chess with. murica needs baseball heros and comic book heros. probably one of the last things they needed was for the rest of the world to think they were good at intellectual stuff.
Untracking
man down guys :(
e-check wrote:
I have created a zombie. In the form of Nigel Short.
He definitely hasn't aged well.
The more people say they want this to die, the more I want it to live. LIVE!
Ah yes! the zombies are coming out of the ground in droves now :)
Bobby Fischer had a great sense of humor. Underappreciated really.
Well, this now ties into the "BF had no creativity" post. Do you need creativity to have a sense of humor? Did he have both? None?
Might be a good idea to ask a yeti, or is yogi I can't remember.
Best to steer clear of them evalooshin guys though, they don't admit creativity in any form and will just troll our butts off :(
Honestly, this website would mock the disabled.
Masamune314 wrote:
The more people say they want this to die, the more I want it to live. LIVE!
I don't really understand why people would feel threatened by a thread on a chess forum. Live and let live, I say.
What if the thread tried to shoot you in the face ? What would you do then ?
Duck.
bstevewander wrote:
Personal chess skills of are of a minor concern. They are in fact should be considered as a distant secondary to the goal of every individual feeling good about themselves and this could be done only by promoting equality.
Actually, this reminds me of an article I read recently. I totally identify with this guy:
http://www.vox.com/2015/6/3/8706323/college-professor-afraid
bstevewander wrote:
Clearly this topic is a trigger. It just keeps triggering and triggering.
We need a safe zone in chess.com where all women, LGBTI and racially underprivileged people may come together without fear of being hurt, abused or ridiculed.
Personal chess skills of are of a minor concern. They are in fact should be considered as a distant secondary to the goal of every individual feeling good about themselves and this could be done only by promoting equality.
This could be achieved by weeding out the triggering discussions, but also by banning people who exhibit too much of a patriarchal, dominating chess playing style, unless they are women.
On every skill level of a chess.com (1800-2000), (2000-2200) etc there must be at least 50% women and transgender people. How? Via the affirmative action, of course, even this means banning white cis-males for no other reason but being white male.
Proportionate racial and ethnical representation is also of concern. Are there enough Inuit people and Australian aborigines amongst us? I don't think so.
How about mentally disabled? Lovely Down syndrome? Special Championship for the low IQ people?
We haven't even started yet.
It's a long way to go and requires a lots of money and human effort, but with a proper funding and access to the control I am ready to tackle the issue.
top tier strawmanning!
Azukikuru wrote:
bstevewander wrote:
Personal chess skills of are of a minor concern. They are in fact should be considered as a distant secondary to the goal of every individual feeling good about themselves and this could be done only by promoting equality.
Actually, this reminds me of an article I read recently. I totally identify with this guy:
http://www.vox.com/2015/6/3/8706323/college-professor-afraid
Nice article. I believe the issue is that most leftists oppose freedom of speech and pragmatism (I wonder why).
Also it is amazing how in our western cultures actual bullying-sometimes physical- between students is tolerated and even praised as it teach "good darwinian values" to kids; whereas a teacher can get in serious trouble because of his speech is "offensive".
Ok Let's clear this freedom of speech issue. At least in the US freedom of speech means you cannot be locked up for speaking in the public square. It does not mean that if others don't like your speech they can't boycott, ridicule, out shout unsponsored you or whatever else. We are all free to retaliate in non violent ways to speech we don't like. Now, government regulation or penalty, I get that, but not other people shouting back or pulling money from your cause, etc.
'bout time we had a Nigel vs Bobby thread, probly be a real blockbuster.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=gXNhL4J_S00