But I can see some absolutes not being absolute and maybe that's bad or good
What it's really like being a female chess player.
Sort:
Mar 21, 2016
0
#202
theonlycatintheworld wrote:
aw jeez! that's a brill post by trysts! it even beats cognito ergo sum! it's a great historical day on chessdotcom! oh de tymes dey r a chayyyyyhayhayjen!
Well, she's just reusing her old material, so it's not really all that clever :)
Mar 21, 2016
0
#204
Maybe it's old material for some, but it could be new material for others, not that I'm saying "others" cannot be me
Oh well, better to get made fun of like this than to be accused of being sexist. Oh wait never mind, that still somehow happens. Hehe. I make my view as balanced as physically possible, and it still happens. People are interesting creatures. Never know what they're gonna do cause they don't have a rational pattern of behavior :)
Laughing out load!
Whatever dude. You're known for obfuscating your radical views with wishy-washy verbiage.
The ridicule is not because of the verbiage, but the underlying prejudice wrapped in a cloak of tolerance.
Mar 22, 2016
0
#208
Do you ever do that thaing where you like, wander into a topic... and can't remember exactly what you went in for? No, not me either. Where's the door?
there is no such thing as "what it's really like being a female chessplayer"; the experience is different for every woman; as every experience of everything is different for every person. I can't stand it when people try to make generalizations about half the population
"Generalisations"?? what is that, British spelling?
Mar 22, 2016
0
#211
ab121705 wrote:
there is no such thing as "what it's really like being a female chessplayer"; the experience is different for every woman; as every experience of everything is different for every person. I can't stand it when people try to make generalizations about half the population
I agree with you, ab! Marking that down on the calendar
in that case, I need to rething my position
alexm2310 wrote:
If you know it's the British English spelling, why ask?
I don't know, why do you ask?
What's hilarious about it? Just askin
Mar 22, 2016
0
#216
Elubas wrote:
ab121705 wrote:
women love being attractive to men, spend tons of time and money to look attractive, but call us pigs for being attracted to them; they blame us and say "Why do women have to look a certain way, when men don't?" Answer: you DON'T have to look a certain way, so stop. And stop blaming us.
I just want more honesty in all of it. Just admit that you get a lot of good impressions on others and yourself based on looks (among other things, but looks being a fairly big one). I tend to prefer the less superficial personally, but I don't think there's any real problem with those who somewhat care about their looks -- but then you have to at least admit that you're giving into your more basic urges, and letting them influence you somewhat. And that's fine. Humans can be influenced by lots of things. But there are too many people that are influenced by how they look, yet at the same time insist, no, they don't need any approval, they take an hour to get ready purely for the fun of it. And maybe some legitimately do, but a lot of people are lying about it. So I dunno.
Some (all?) real life paradoxes can be resolved with more information.
Women like to look good, but don't want to be looked at? That's a paradox because it's over simplifying lots of things. The most obvious is that "women' is a lot of people -- there are many of shades of gray in there. Also that "looking at" can mean a lot of different things, some negative, some positive.
I like when people look at me, but not when they look at me. See
And anyway, just a random example... I do basic hygiene and clean clothes in the morning so people don't notice me lol.
he'll never resolve his mommy issues.
bigpoison wrote:
Whatever dude. You're known for obfuscating your radical views with wishy-washy verbiage.
The ridicule is not because of the verbiage, but the underlying prejudice wrapped in a cloak of tolerance.
Right, ridicule could never be the fault of the ridiculer. What you call obfuscation actually takes a lot of self-reflection. When I qualify my statements, well, the only way I can do that is to consider other points of view with almost every point I make. That is putting in a ton of effort in looking at the other side. You think that's fun? lol. I consider it a necessary part of understanding my own view. Because frankly I care about that. More so than ridiculing those who disagree with me. I respond fairly to people's points, including yours, rather than ridicule your style, for example.
So... yeah, I think it's kind of a problem that, not only do people really want to ridicule an opposing view, when a person doesn't do that for a change, it's considered obfuscation, rather than progress. That's kind of sad. I do none of the ridiculing (ok, search all of my posts for an exception, then forget about my point completely as always), but I'm blamed when I am ridiculed. I think that's kinda dickish, and shows clearly who's not putting in effort to be understanding, but ok, that's life.
I would say, it's a perfectly valid thing to take issue with my views, but to try to turn the extremely careful way in which I express them into a negative, rather than the complete opposite, it is a bit sad. There's a massive difference between liking a person's view and liking the way in which that person expresses it.
theonlycatintheworld wrote:
he'll never resolve his mommy issues.
And she will not obfuscate her issues with me, will she bigpoison? :)
0110001101101000 wrote:
Elubas wrote:
ab121705 wrote:
women love being attractive to men, spend tons of time and money to look attractive, but call us pigs for being attracted to them; they blame us and say "Why do women have to look a certain way, when men don't?" Answer: you DON'T have to look a certain way, so stop. And stop blaming us.
I just want more honesty in all of it. Just admit that you get a lot of good impressions on others and yourself based on looks (among other things, but looks being a fairly big one). I tend to prefer the less superficial personally, but I don't think there's any real problem with those who somewhat care about their looks -- but then you have to at least admit that you're giving into your more basic urges, and letting them influence you somewhat. And that's fine. Humans can be influenced by lots of things. But there are too many people that are influenced by how they look, yet at the same time insist, no, they don't need any approval, they take an hour to get ready purely for the fun of it. And maybe some legitimately do, but a lot of people are lying about it. So I dunno.
Some (all?) real life paradoxes can be resolved with more information.
Women like to look good, but don't want to be looked at? That's a paradox because it's over simplifying lots of things. The most obvious is that "women' is a lot of people -- there are many of shades of gray in there. Also that "looking at" can mean a lot of different things, some negative, some positive.
I like when people look at me, but not when they look at me. See
And anyway, just a random example... I do basic hygiene and clean clothes in the morning so people don't notice me lol.
I agree, there is a lot of grey like with anything. But I do notice a lot of dishonesty. There are women who will put effort into their looks, and will admit, hey, I want to enjoy a little vanity sometimes, etc. -- I can actually respect that a little because at least that's honest. There are women who will act very similarly with their looks, but will be very stubborn about admitting to enjoy any kind of vanity whatsoever. That tends to be at least a little dishonest. I do think we always need to look at things on a case by case basis, but people can be really dishonest... when it comes to the small things. Men and women will tweak little aspects of who they are when describing themselves, lots of little stuff like that, to make themselves look better. It can get annoying sometimes.
women love being attractive to men, spend tons of time and money to look attractive, but call us pigs for being attracted to them; they blame us and say "Why do women have to look a certain way, when men don't?" Answer: you DON'T have to look a certain way, so stop. And stop blaming us.
I just want more honesty in all of it. Just admit that you get a lot of good impressions on others and yourself based on looks (among other things, but looks being a fairly big one). I tend to prefer the less superficial personally, but I don't think there's any real problem with those who somewhat care about their looks -- but then you have to at least admit that you're giving into your more basic urges, and letting them influence you somewhat. And that's fine. Humans can be influenced by lots of things. But there are too many people that are influenced by how they look, yet at the same time insist, no, they don't need any approval, they take an hour to get ready purely for the fun of it. And maybe some legitimately do, but a lot of people are lying about it. So I dunno.
I wonder what you mean? Not that you mean anything, humans can mean something or not, they don't necessarily mean something. But I do wonder, even though I'm able to wonder about anything, it's not like I have to wonder, and some people don't wonder which is fine. So lets say I am wondering about your meaning, that doesn't mean it's all I do, or all anyone does, it's just as meaningful not to mean or wonder. Some humans wonder about meaning and others don't. And that's fine. I tend to think everything is fine, even though I see that you could look at it and perceive and view and use the sense of sight with your eyes that everything may not be fine for everyone, et cetera, et cetera....
just don't get stuck in a lift with him
It's kind of sad that, not only can people not argue rationally and politely, when someone does do that, it's regarded as a negative. Yeah, that's the road to progress, not.