g) all the above.
What's with International?
What can we assume about chess.com members who identify themselves as International, rather than as the citizen of a particular country?
a) They find their own country to be a source of embarassment?
b) They are displaced persons on a UNHCR passport, playing on a laptop in a refugee camp?
c) They have a heightened sense of paranoia, and are reluctant to divulge even the merest snippet of information which might allow the drone planes to lock on?
d) They are hyper-enlightened and morally refined beings who eschew such tribal notions of nationality and embrace a universalistic viewpoint?
e) They actually don't know where they are?
None of the above :)
What can we assume about chess.com members who identify themselves as International, rather than as the citizen of a particular country?
a) They find their own country to be a source of embarassment?
b) They are displaced persons on a UNHCR passport, playing on a laptop in a refugee camp?
c) They have a heightened sense of paranoia, and are reluctant to divulge even the merest snippet of information which might allow the drone planes to lock on?
d) They are hyper-enlightened and morally refined beings who eschew such tribal notions of nationality and embrace a universalistic viewpoint?
e) They actually don't know where they are?
None of the above :)
+1
That was a smooth answer to a hairy question.
EDIT: in case no one knew what I meant, it was a play on words referencing the content of the verse alluded to by the OP's username.
Well, I can speak only for myself in this instance, since other "internationals" may have their own reasons. For me, it's a matter of choosing a descriptor that accurately reflects who I actually am as a person. At a basic personal level, I don't feel particularly defined or delimited by arbitrary nationalistic boundaries. So, I suppose that your option "d" would best fit me, although I'm not convinced that this confers any kind of hyper-enlighenment or moral refinement on me (anyhow, to me these kinds of hierarchical categories are every bit as arbitrary and ephemeral as nationalistic boundaries are). So, in essence, my choice of "international" is intended to reveal more (not less) about who I am than simply naming the country of my origin would -- especially at the level of what I find personally meaningful.
However, as I look over your options again, it seems to me that "e" fits somewhat, too. Of course, I can easily give you my geographical coordinates, but my deeper sense is that we inhabit an ultimately mysterious universe, and that at the end of the day, none of us really knows where we actually are. Perhaps my choice of "international" reflects that reality, too.
Cheers, Eric Dodson, Carrollton, Georgia, USA
Why the cynicism? If someone chooses to identify themselves as international then that is their choice. It does not mean they are arrogant or anything else. It's rather rude to question it actually, especially publicly. Who are we to judge someone's choice of how to identify themselves?
They just don't want their character to be identified with a certain country, or a certain country to be identified with them. Probably d?
What can we assume about chess.com members who identify themselves as International, rather than as the citizen of a particular country?
a) They find their own country to be a source of embarassment?
b) They are displaced persons on a UNHCR passport, playing on a laptop in a refugee camp?
c) They have a heightened sense of paranoia, and are reluctant to divulge even the merest snippet of information which might allow the drone planes to lock on?
d) They are hyper-enlightened and morally refined beings who eschew such tribal notions of nationality and embrace a universalistic viewpoint?
e) They actually don't know where they are?