Breaking Barriers one move at a time

This conversation has run its course. I’ve clarified my points, pointed out the flaws in your argument, and addressed how you misrepresented the studies. Instead of engaging with that, you’ve chosen to deflect and throw out baseless accusations.

At this point, there’s nothing more to say. If you’re open to a real discussion, great. If not, have a great day

@Computah23 said in #89:

As I've told you I don't have time to argue, I'm more than occupied with other productive conversation and actions than to waste time here arguing with you...as the original poster said, you desperately need someone to argue with but you are getting none so you can keep arguing with yourself.

The post is out and its creating the awareness that it's meant to do...and believe it or not, you've been very instrumental in that. That's something I'm grateful to you for. .so keep the argument going(even if it's against yourself) <3

And yes the Captchas are interesting, Kudos to Lichess for them.

Good for you. Goodbye.

@WuraolaA said in #90:

Do you even read your own messages?

You asked:

I explained the difference between cherry-picking and scrutiny, saying that if what you said was all what you did, it would be scrutiny, not cherry- picking.

But that’s not what you actually did.

You dismissed one study for having only seven participants, even though stereotype threat is a well-documented phenomenon with extensive research backing it.

You fixated on a mention of biological differences while ignoring that the study examined multiple factors contributing to gender disparities.

Instead of engaging with the overall body of evidence, you nitpicked minor details to discredit the argument as a whole.

That is what you did. That is cherry-picking.

Now, I guess it’s clear who’s actually copying and pasting responses.

And regarding the abusive statement—you called someone "stupid." That’s why I deleted the message.

If you conveniently forgot about that, well, I suppose that’s just another sign you’re copying and pasting without actually reading what you wrote.

At no point have I insulted anyone, yet we've now reached the stage of continuous personal accusations.
Frankly, I have no intention of standing here and being insulted by someone who resorts to fascist tactics like deleting my messages only to falsely claim that I have offended someone. This is nothing but a blatant lie.

From my perspective, in this "game", your interventions are the best moves you could have played in my favor.
From your perspective, my comments are the best moves I could have played in yours.
We shall let posterity decide whether our words reflect the same comprehension oh this discussion as our ratings may suggest our understainding of our beloved game.

I have nothing more to add.

congratulations wurola u just made a lot of people mad

wake up we are not living in the past

@OldTimes pretty much said everything i have to say about this topic.

@OldTimes said in #93:

I have nothing more to add.

Well, That sounds like good news.

@TurtleMat said in #19:

No, you clearly do not. It is not ideology to note that there is no "structural violence" with reference to chess. That term itself is extremely ideological. Noting that is not "denial".

That you stoop to personal attacks with no basis in reality (calling me a "bigot") is a thought-terminating cliché that reveals you're not interested (and possibly not capable) of discussing anything rationally.

Noting that you stoop to personal attacks is not "violence" by any meaningful understanding of that word. These are simply tired tropes that don't belong in rational conversation. So if you'd like to try again, without all the smokescreens and silly accusations, be my guest.

You appear to be casting pearls. I wish you luck, but there appears to be a distinct lack of critical thinking, or basic courtesy among a majority of participants in this forum.

@OldTimes said in #20:

The links you provide are nothing more than anecdotal accounts, not actual evidence.
These accounts do not constitute objective proof that an entire group of individuals is guilty of sexism.
At most, they illustrate isolated incidents that cannot be extrapolated to condemn an entire community.

You then proceed to cite two privately written articles on Lichess—one of which was heavily criticized at the time in the blog section, while the other, quite remarkably, was authored by you. In it, you lament being attacked online simply for being a woman.

I am sorry, but I must call you a liar.

I personally know dozens of female chess players, and not one of them has ever reported encountering sexist remarks. Many of them even had profile pictures on Chess.com—one would assume that, for a malevolent sexist villain, hell-bent on upholding the patriarchy, such images would be an irresistible invitation to harass a poor, defenseless damsel. And yet—nothing. No harassment, no vitriol. And yet you, a mere floating username in the vast ocean of the internet, claim to be a victim.

This is not the struggle of a true sufferer—it is victimhood as an aesthetic choice, not a necessity. The reality is simple: on the internet, all it takes to silence any unwelcome voice is a block button and a report to the moderators.

What I see before me is not oppression but a username accompanied by a rating that betrays a rather meager level of play. Perhaps your time would be better spent studying chess instead of fabricating accusations against an entire community just to cast yourself as the protagonist of some imagined injustice.

@Hacktical said in #99:

You appear to be casting pearls. I wish you luck, but there appears to be a distinct lack of critical thinking, or basic courtesy among a majority of participants in this forum.

you just repeated his offensive comment...