I'd like to go through these points in one post step by step, because they seem to be symptomatic of a certain type of argumentation that strives to appear as being matter of factly and merely expressing logical conclusions (indirectly painting the other person as irrational), but is actually everything but. For context, this was directed at the author of the blog post. It plays at being logical, but actually not a single point is very convincing in my opinion.
@OldTimes said in #35:
> You started by agreeing that chess is purely meritocratic and that there were no rules preventing you from competing. Yet now, you claim that invisible “barriers” exist. Which is it?
This is not a contradiction, because one is a statement about the game itself and the other is something that can result from the behavior of human beings.
>
> You said your goal was not to frame this as oppression. Yet now, you insist that historical exclusion and societal conditioning are active obstacles. If no one stopped you from playing, then participation is a choice, not a restriction.
I don't think anybody claimed that participating was a restriction. How could participation be restriction? Also, oppression can exist regardless of an intent to frame statements in an article one way or another.
>
> You admitted that walking into the tournament hall was not about locked doors but about personal perception. Then you argue that this perception is proof of systemic issues. Feelings are not facts.
>
They are not, but feelings can definitely be an indication of something factual. If I'm being robbed I am going to be fearful during that experience. My fear does of course not constitute proof that I am being robbed, but neither is it disconnected from that reality. You are right that emotion alone doesn't prove systemic issues. But of course it also doesn't disprove them either.
> You claimed breaking barriers is about “showing up where few have before.” Then you argue that low female participation itself is evidence of exclusion. No—lack of interest does not equal discrimination.
>
The statement you are referring to did not claim that lack of interest equaled discrimination. So it is actually not a contradiction. It seems to me that you are making a fresh point here ('fresh' as in, that it's not in the referenced statements) that low female participation was due to lack of interest instead of discrimination. But that is just a claim, you are not providing any evidence for that here.
What's more it would even make some sense if people have little interest to participate in unwelcoming spaces or in spaces that they perceive are not for them, therefore lack of female interest in chess might theoretically actually be indirectly connected to sexism on some level.
> You said the chessboard does not discriminate. Now, you invoke a misconduct case unrelated to gameplay as proof that it does. A crime committed outside of competition does not affect the game's meritocracy.
I don't think she ever claimed that chess itself did discriminate or wasn't meritocratic.
There is, once again, a difference between what is inherent to the game and the community or parts of the community.
One is a game with rules, the other is a group of human beings with its own social rules, norms or expectations and part of wider society, unfortunately not freshly derived from the game without social context. These norms can be exclusionary even when there are no physical barriers or when the rules of the competition (which is a third, separate aspect) are not exclusionary. It can also be the case when people aren't consciously aware of it.
Of course the game matters greatly to the community and we love it, but there is still a clear conceptual difference between the game and us people playing it.
>
> You argue that representation matters. Yet your own victory disproves the idea that women are prevented from succeeding. You played. You won. End of story.
I don't see any contradiction between playing and winning on one hand and the statement that representation matters on the other. Neither do I see a contradiction between representation mattering and women not being prevented from succeeding.
yay forums
@svensp said in #141:
> One is a game with rules, the other is a group of human beings with its own social rules, norms or expectations and part of wider society, unfortunately not freshly derived from the game without social context. These norms can be exclusionary even when there are no physical barriers or when the rules of the competition (which is a third, separate aspect) are not exclusionary. It can also be the case when people aren't consciously aware of it.
You'd need to demonstrate that there are actually exclusionary norms which is something I haven't seen even the faintest evidence for. Playing the "it's there it's just unconscious" card is unfalsifiable and therefore not valid unless you can prove it.
Additionally, given that any concrete barriers have been removed, it leaves, if any, only psychological barriers, in which case there isn't an obligation of any given community to deal with someone else's personal psychological hangups. If I'm a dumb person and I don't want to start playing Chess because I don't think Chess is for dummies I'm not entitled to the Chess community organizing initiatives to encourage me that Chess is actually for dumb people too.
If you like Chess then play it, if you don't like it or feel too scared for whatever reason then you won't be missed by anyone.
i don't know why people feel THIS compelled to post and get involved about something that does not concern them and they do not understand anything about. why can't you just let her celebrate in peace??
wow oh my god a woman has posted an encouraging post about how women shouldn't be discouraged by a lack of representation and to just go ahead and do it!!!!
we ABSOLUTELY must go and tell them the TRUTH of how their experiences are subjective and silly and stupid and invalid and it's our SACRED DUTY to not let them get away with this. holy dog forbid this goes unchecked that absolutely cannot happen FACTS don't care about your feelings, all this ideology is ruining my life and everything (says while performing an ideologically motivated action)
???????????
In this day and age when women are not just allowed to compete in sports but they're given preferential treatment, you're still posting some agenda rubbish.
Well done Wuraola.
@DeadLost said in #143:
> You'd need to demonstrate that there are actually exclusionary norms which is something I haven't seen even the faintest evidence for. Playing the "it's there it's just unconscious" card is unfalsifiable and therefore not valid unless you can prove it.
>
This is a good point especially the last bit, however the presence of sexism in wider society has been clearly shown and there have been many accounts by women as well as documented incidents of it within the chess world.
If it was unfalsifiable it couldn't be proven. I don't think it's unfalsifiable and the post didn't intend to prove it, I was merely arguing that a lack of conscious intent for exclusion doesn't prove its absence.
> Additionally, given that any concrete barriers have been removed, it leaves, if any, only psychological barriers, in which case there isn't an obligation of any given community to deal with someone else's personal psychological hangups. If I'm a dumb person and I don't want to start playing Chess because I don't think Chess is for dummies I'm not entitled to the Chess community organizing initiatives to encourage me that Chess is actually for dumb people too.
I disagree that in the absence of discriminatory rules all that remains in terms of participation barriers are psychological in nature and on the part of people feeling excluded. Anybody who went to school can probably recall either themselves or other people being socially excluded without the presence of any formal written rules that could be pointed to. It happens at work too and wherever there are groups of people. There is such a thing as informal social exclusion and its targets aren't imagining things. Some of that exclusion is justified, some of it unjustified, some of it based on irrational dislike for entire groups as in the case of sexism. The absence of discriminatory formal rules doesn't show the absence of informal exclusionary social practices.
There are three different aspects: The game itself, the rules of competitions for this game, the behavior of people playing the game. I agree that the first two aspects are free from discrimination and that is great.
>
> If you like Chess then play it, if you don't like it or feel too scared for whatever reason then you won't be missed by anyone.
We have to agree to disagree there. If for example somebody with social anxiety was too scared to go to a chess tournament, I feel that would be a loss for the community and they might well be missed, at least by some.
What I also find really interesting is how quite a lot of peoples ONLY participation in lichess forums is shiting on a Womans achievment (well, to be fair, some of them also shat on trans people).
As if a woman winning something were more threatening to them than any other topic one could be exposed to in the lichess blogs/forums. This is where they have to draw the line and get involved.
Great priorities guys. Really classy, much manly.
What an inspiration!
I take this blogpost as a reason why I love playing chess and why I am thankful for @lichess
Reading in Germany about chess in Nigeria. Having recently played a few Bullet Games with Palyers from India, the Philippines, the USA and a lot more countries.
This is what chess is about: People all over the World are connected through their passion. And thus it may not always be possible to meet OTB, there is still a platform that gives you opportunity to play online.
Thank you @lichess thank you @WuraolaA and may you break a lot more barriers. And may you inspire a lot more people all over the World to follow your example.
Let's go!! Huge respect and props to u for not being intimidating and playing ur own game. Keep doing ur thing!!