> Stating that we need affirmative actions is not racist, it's ANTI-RACIST.
"Anti-racism" is just racism from the opposite direction. I'm not going to get into the philosophical and historical evils behind the invention of the phrase "anti-racist". This conversation is about chess.
> Many groups are discriminated either by society and by "luck".
Do you have any evidence of this currently happening in chess? Especially on Lichess? In what way do some players not have the same opportunities in chess as others, especially in online chess where race, sex, orientation and more don't play ANY role in how your account is treated or how it works?
Chess is a pure meritocracy. There are little to no ways to gain rating without actually being good enough for that rating.
Chess ratings are NOT luck.
Statistically variable? Sure.
Subject to the mood/mental state of the player? Certainly.
But lucky? Never.
The only way to get a rating is to actually be that good. (or to cheat, but that's a different discussion)
> No it doesn't. Society makes harder for certain groups to achieve success.
Not in chess.
> and that's why we have to recompense it.
No. We don't have to recompense it. We just have to offer the exact same opportunity, which Lichess is doing.
> As I said before: having colorblind laws doesn't mean colorblind results.
Of course not. Cultural differences between different groups will always result in different results. But different results doesn't mean that any discrimination is happening. See the next response:
> Among chess grandmasters there are over 7000 men and only 40 women...
Have you considered that chess doesn't exactly appeal to most women? Men and women are biologically and psychologically different. They will, on average, have differences in interest and that will result in different numbers of each that reach different levels. It has nothing to do with some inherent skill difference, and it has little to nothing to do with discrimination. Especially here on Lichess where nobody knows who's male or female.
If women were equally interested in chess, then there would be just as many women as men at all levels of chess.
Just because one person chooses to focus on chess and the other person chooses not to, doesn't mean that the person who chooses not to is somehow discriminated against.
> I'm not assuming that some groups are not able to achive anything in chess, but belonging to some groups makes it harder, because of discrimination THAT LICHESS HAVE TO FIGHT!
Again, do you have any specific examples of Lichess making it harder for some groups of players to play chess?
> All I want is equal treatment of people from various races and genders, there is nothing wrong in it.
And we already have that in Lichess.
> I say that some groups are discriminated and we need to recompense it.
Again, no we don't. We just need to offer the same opportunity, which Lichess is doing.
Everyone on Lichess already has totally equal and fair opportunities to play, learn, and improve.
Chess ratings, especially the Glicko2 ratings, very accurately reflect the skill levels of the players.
Your suggestion would not only not help anyone, it would only create even more discrimination.
Again, "anti-racism" is just racism from the opposite direction. Don't fall for the lies and moral evils behind that philosophy.
"Anti-racism" is just racism from the opposite direction. I'm not going to get into the philosophical and historical evils behind the invention of the phrase "anti-racist". This conversation is about chess.
> Many groups are discriminated either by society and by "luck".
Do you have any evidence of this currently happening in chess? Especially on Lichess? In what way do some players not have the same opportunities in chess as others, especially in online chess where race, sex, orientation and more don't play ANY role in how your account is treated or how it works?
Chess is a pure meritocracy. There are little to no ways to gain rating without actually being good enough for that rating.
Chess ratings are NOT luck.
Statistically variable? Sure.
Subject to the mood/mental state of the player? Certainly.
But lucky? Never.
The only way to get a rating is to actually be that good. (or to cheat, but that's a different discussion)
> No it doesn't. Society makes harder for certain groups to achieve success.
Not in chess.
> and that's why we have to recompense it.
No. We don't have to recompense it. We just have to offer the exact same opportunity, which Lichess is doing.
> As I said before: having colorblind laws doesn't mean colorblind results.
Of course not. Cultural differences between different groups will always result in different results. But different results doesn't mean that any discrimination is happening. See the next response:
> Among chess grandmasters there are over 7000 men and only 40 women...
Have you considered that chess doesn't exactly appeal to most women? Men and women are biologically and psychologically different. They will, on average, have differences in interest and that will result in different numbers of each that reach different levels. It has nothing to do with some inherent skill difference, and it has little to nothing to do with discrimination. Especially here on Lichess where nobody knows who's male or female.
If women were equally interested in chess, then there would be just as many women as men at all levels of chess.
Just because one person chooses to focus on chess and the other person chooses not to, doesn't mean that the person who chooses not to is somehow discriminated against.
> I'm not assuming that some groups are not able to achive anything in chess, but belonging to some groups makes it harder, because of discrimination THAT LICHESS HAVE TO FIGHT!
Again, do you have any specific examples of Lichess making it harder for some groups of players to play chess?
> All I want is equal treatment of people from various races and genders, there is nothing wrong in it.
And we already have that in Lichess.
> I say that some groups are discriminated and we need to recompense it.
Again, no we don't. We just need to offer the same opportunity, which Lichess is doing.
Everyone on Lichess already has totally equal and fair opportunities to play, learn, and improve.
Chess ratings, especially the Glicko2 ratings, very accurately reflect the skill levels of the players.
Your suggestion would not only not help anyone, it would only create even more discrimination.
Again, "anti-racism" is just racism from the opposite direction. Don't fall for the lies and moral evils behind that philosophy.
Wasn't sure at first if this was intersectionality or parody of intersectionality. It's kind of in its nature to be difficult to parody. Trying to reason with intersectionals is like trying to reason with christians who think the earth is 5000 years old. You might as well be talking to a wall. The institutions/corporations/countries yielding to their demands are all killing themselves. They're like agents of institutional evolution or something.
My recommendation is to save yourselves the time and headache.
My recommendation is to save yourselves the time and headache.
@danegraphics said in #13:
> "Anti-racism" is just racism from the opposite direction. I'm not going to get into the philosophical and historical evils behind the invention of the phrase "anti-racist". This conversation is about chess.
Bullshit. Anti racism is simply being opposed to racism. What you are referring to is called "reverse discrimination" and I don't propose that (the only view share that can be called "reverse discrimination" is that homosexual parents should have more adoption rights than heterosexual ones, as studies show that their kids have better lives, www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2014/07/07/children-of-same-sex-couples-are-happier-and-healthier-than-peers-research-shows/).
> Do you have any evidence of this happening in chess? Especially on Lichess? In what way do some players not have the same opportunities in chess as others, especially in online chess where race, sex, orientation and more don't play ANY role in how your account is treated or how it works?
This is happening all over the world, with almost every aspect of life.
> Chess is a pure meritocracy. There are little to no ways to gain rating without actually being good enough for that rating.
It's not. Some groups have better circumstances to master this game same groups are told by society to not study chess.
> Chess ratings are NOT luck.
>
> Statistically variable? Sure.
>
> Subject to the mood/mental state of the player? Certainly.
>
> But lucky? Never.
>
> The only way to get a rating is to either actually be that good, or to cheat.
Not true. If males (on average) have better coaches (because they on average earn more money), then they are going to have an unfair advantage.
> Not in chess.
It's happening everywhere.
> No. We don't have to recompense it. We just have to offer the exact same opportunity, which Lichess is doing.
Another bullshit - if some group is discriminated, then we need to recompense it to achieve a true equality
> Of course not. Cultural differences between different will always result in different results. But different results doesn't mean that any discrimination is happening. See the next response:
Then how are you going to explain the fact that blacks on average have worse ratings in chess. In fact there are only three black GMs. This MUST be some kind of discrimination, otherwise you would need to say that they are intellectually inferior, which would make you a disgusting racist.
> Have you considered that chess doesn't exactly appeal to most women? Men and women are biologically and psychologically different. They will, on average, have differences in interest and that will result in different numbers of each that reach different levels. It has nothing to do with some inherent skill difference, and it has little to nothing to do with discrimination. Especially here on Lichess where nobody knows who's male or female.
You just proved you are a sexist. The same things were said about women right to vote. And even if we assume that chess actually doesn't belong to women nature, you still have to explain how is it possible that there is so few blacks on top.
> If women were equally interested in chess, then there would be just as many women as men at all levels of chess.
If society tells women to not interested in chess, when from technical point of view they actually are (on average) less interested in it, but in practice it's a form cultural discrimination. That's what feminists call "patriarchy".
> Just because one person chooses to focus on chess and the other person chooses not to, doesn't mean that the person who chooses not to is somehow discriminated against.
As I said before: it's not 100% personal choice, patriarchal society forces some women to not focus on chess, that's why we need affirmative actions - to achieve a true gender equality.
> Again, do you have any specific examples of Lichess making it harder for some groups of players to play chess?
I can go even further and give you examples from whole chess world:
There are over 7000 GMs, but only 40 women and 3 blacks. This must be due to some kind of discrimination.
www.google.com/amp/s/lifestyle.livemint.com/amp/news/big-story/why-women-lose-at-chess-111634531727434.html
www.google.com/amp/s/www.newsweek.com/chess-grandmaster-black-pontus-carlsson-racism-protests-1511591%3famp=1
> And we already have that in Lichess.
We have colorblind laws in lichess and in society as we have, colorblind laws doesn't mean colorblind results.
> Again, no we don't. We just need to offer the same opportunity, which Lichess is doing.
> Everyone on Lichess already has totally equal and fair opportunities to play, learn, and improve.
Only in theory, in practice society discriminates certain groups.
> Chess ratings, especially the Glicko2 ratings, very accurately reflect the skill levels of the players.
Glicko2 would be an excellent rating system, if achieved true equality, but now ne need to adjust it.
> Your suggestion would not only not help anyone, it would only create even more discrimination.
It wouldn't. The same as all of affirmative actions it would help compensate racist society.
> Again, "anti-racism" is just racism from the opposite direction. Don't fall for the lies and moral evils behind that philosophy.
Nope. Anti racism is being opposed to racisms. Of course racist towards whites is also bad. I would even say that it's almost as bad as racism towards blacks.
> "Anti-racism" is just racism from the opposite direction. I'm not going to get into the philosophical and historical evils behind the invention of the phrase "anti-racist". This conversation is about chess.
Bullshit. Anti racism is simply being opposed to racism. What you are referring to is called "reverse discrimination" and I don't propose that (the only view share that can be called "reverse discrimination" is that homosexual parents should have more adoption rights than heterosexual ones, as studies show that their kids have better lives, www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2014/07/07/children-of-same-sex-couples-are-happier-and-healthier-than-peers-research-shows/).
> Do you have any evidence of this happening in chess? Especially on Lichess? In what way do some players not have the same opportunities in chess as others, especially in online chess where race, sex, orientation and more don't play ANY role in how your account is treated or how it works?
This is happening all over the world, with almost every aspect of life.
> Chess is a pure meritocracy. There are little to no ways to gain rating without actually being good enough for that rating.
It's not. Some groups have better circumstances to master this game same groups are told by society to not study chess.
> Chess ratings are NOT luck.
>
> Statistically variable? Sure.
>
> Subject to the mood/mental state of the player? Certainly.
>
> But lucky? Never.
>
> The only way to get a rating is to either actually be that good, or to cheat.
Not true. If males (on average) have better coaches (because they on average earn more money), then they are going to have an unfair advantage.
> Not in chess.
It's happening everywhere.
> No. We don't have to recompense it. We just have to offer the exact same opportunity, which Lichess is doing.
Another bullshit - if some group is discriminated, then we need to recompense it to achieve a true equality
> Of course not. Cultural differences between different will always result in different results. But different results doesn't mean that any discrimination is happening. See the next response:
Then how are you going to explain the fact that blacks on average have worse ratings in chess. In fact there are only three black GMs. This MUST be some kind of discrimination, otherwise you would need to say that they are intellectually inferior, which would make you a disgusting racist.
> Have you considered that chess doesn't exactly appeal to most women? Men and women are biologically and psychologically different. They will, on average, have differences in interest and that will result in different numbers of each that reach different levels. It has nothing to do with some inherent skill difference, and it has little to nothing to do with discrimination. Especially here on Lichess where nobody knows who's male or female.
You just proved you are a sexist. The same things were said about women right to vote. And even if we assume that chess actually doesn't belong to women nature, you still have to explain how is it possible that there is so few blacks on top.
> If women were equally interested in chess, then there would be just as many women as men at all levels of chess.
If society tells women to not interested in chess, when from technical point of view they actually are (on average) less interested in it, but in practice it's a form cultural discrimination. That's what feminists call "patriarchy".
> Just because one person chooses to focus on chess and the other person chooses not to, doesn't mean that the person who chooses not to is somehow discriminated against.
As I said before: it's not 100% personal choice, patriarchal society forces some women to not focus on chess, that's why we need affirmative actions - to achieve a true gender equality.
> Again, do you have any specific examples of Lichess making it harder for some groups of players to play chess?
I can go even further and give you examples from whole chess world:
There are over 7000 GMs, but only 40 women and 3 blacks. This must be due to some kind of discrimination.
www.google.com/amp/s/lifestyle.livemint.com/amp/news/big-story/why-women-lose-at-chess-111634531727434.html
www.google.com/amp/s/www.newsweek.com/chess-grandmaster-black-pontus-carlsson-racism-protests-1511591%3famp=1
> And we already have that in Lichess.
We have colorblind laws in lichess and in society as we have, colorblind laws doesn't mean colorblind results.
> Again, no we don't. We just need to offer the same opportunity, which Lichess is doing.
> Everyone on Lichess already has totally equal and fair opportunities to play, learn, and improve.
Only in theory, in practice society discriminates certain groups.
> Chess ratings, especially the Glicko2 ratings, very accurately reflect the skill levels of the players.
Glicko2 would be an excellent rating system, if achieved true equality, but now ne need to adjust it.
> Your suggestion would not only not help anyone, it would only create even more discrimination.
It wouldn't. The same as all of affirmative actions it would help compensate racist society.
> Again, "anti-racism" is just racism from the opposite direction. Don't fall for the lies and moral evils behind that philosophy.
Nope. Anti racism is being opposed to racisms. Of course racist towards whites is also bad. I would even say that it's almost as bad as racism towards blacks.
@WS83 said in #14:
> Wasn't sure at first if this was intersectionality or parody of intersectionality. It's kind of in its nature to be difficult to parody. Trying to reason with intersectionals is like trying to reason with christians who think the earth is 5000 years old. You might as well be talking to a wall. The institutions/corporations/countries yielding to their demands are all killing themselves. They're like agents of institutional evolution or something.
>
> My recommendation is to save yourselves the time and headache.
Calling simple affirmative actions "a parody" shows us many bad things about our society :(
> Wasn't sure at first if this was intersectionality or parody of intersectionality. It's kind of in its nature to be difficult to parody. Trying to reason with intersectionals is like trying to reason with christians who think the earth is 5000 years old. You might as well be talking to a wall. The institutions/corporations/countries yielding to their demands are all killing themselves. They're like agents of institutional evolution or something.
>
> My recommendation is to save yourselves the time and headache.
Calling simple affirmative actions "a parody" shows us many bad things about our society :(
@AQUA_9691
Well racial discrimination like anything did not exist back then when White pieces start the game of chess and not Black. Many don't know this and simply compared it with modern human demerit of act of racially discriminating people.
Well racial discrimination like anything did not exist back then when White pieces start the game of chess and not Black. Many don't know this and simply compared it with modern human demerit of act of racially discriminating people.
@Akbar2thegreat said in #17:
> @AQUA_9691
> Well racial discrimination like anything did not exist back then when White pieces start the game of chess and not Black. Many don't know this and simply compared it with modern human demerit of act of racially discriminating people.
I think is was not intended to discriminate anyone, but an option to visually swap piece colors should be available in customization menu.
> @AQUA_9691
> Well racial discrimination like anything did not exist back then when White pieces start the game of chess and not Black. Many don't know this and simply compared it with modern human demerit of act of racially discriminating people.
I think is was not intended to discriminate anyone, but an option to visually swap piece colors should be available in customization menu.
@AQUA_9691 said in #18:
> I think is was not intended to discriminate anyone, but an option to visually swap piece colors should be available in customization menu.
I was just telling a fact though.
And yes, even I vote for having a game where Black should move first as well.
> I think is was not intended to discriminate anyone, but an option to visually swap piece colors should be available in customization menu.
I was just telling a fact though.
And yes, even I vote for having a game where Black should move first as well.
@Akbar2thegreat said in #19:
> And yes, even I vote for having a game where Black should move first as well.
Thanks God that there are people like you.
> And yes, even I vote for having a game where Black should move first as well.
Thanks God that there are people like you.
This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.