Lichess celebrates Pride month?

i think he/she/it means that it should not in the long run. but social inequities can't be zapped because of sudden awakening, elite chess does not pop up out of nowhere. there is a legacy of unbalanced access before the elite chess question.

but chess the games, not its culture as it is right now, and not OTB culture has the chance to level that legacy for it is not inherently biased in its ruleset.

people should try to give each other some good will when debating, or some margin for incomplete communication via one sentence or 2 and the doubts... right? good luck.

@Abigail-III said in #50:
> Yes, chess is absolutely dominated by white men.
>
> How can that be, if race, gender, etc doesn't matter?

Perhaps I misunderstood your statement, you said chess is absoultely dominated by white men which i understood absoulutely as

Absoultely
1.
with no qualification, restriction, or limitation; totally.
"she trusted him absolutely"

I.e. white men have complete dominance over chess instead of just a majority.

I now think you meant it as

INFORMAL
used to express and emphasize one's assent or agreement.
exclamation: absolutely
"“Did they give you a free hand when you joined the band?” “Absolutely!”"

I.E. chess is majority white men. Which I agree the majority of chess players are white men, i don't agree with using the word dominate since players like Ding Liren, Hikaru, Wesley So and Anand defintely dominate against any chess player outside of the top 100. I would say white and asian men dominate or men dominate chess but it's unfair to say white people dominate over asian players.

Gender doesn't matter because whether or not you are male or female, a blunder is a blunder, a good move is a good move.

Also the burden of proof is one you to show how race, gender etc. DOES matter, all you've shown is a weak correlation, (A significant amount of good chess players are white) how does this show that race matters? The NBA is majority black, does this mean that race matters? And by matter i mean affect performance not matter as in political or social effects.

@Globglogabgalab said in #52:
> Perhaps I misunderstood your statement, you said chess is absoultely dominated by white men which i understood absoulutely as

Simple. Look at the top 100 (or 1000, or 10000, or whatever number). Tell me how many of them are women. Tell me how many are black. Go to your local club. Do the same. Now, it may be hard to tally gender and race of Lichess players, but I'm willing to bet the majority are white males.

Chess is dominated by white men by sheer numbers.

> Also the burden of proof is one you to show how race, gender etc. DOES matter, all you've shown is a weak correlation,

Wait. You make a claim (gender and race don't matter) and somehow the burden of proof isn't on you?

@Abigail-III said in #53:
> Simple. Look at the top 100 (or 1000, or 10000, or whatever number). Tell me how many of them are women. Tell me how many are black. Go to your local club. Do the same. Now, it may be hard to tally gender and race of Lichess players, but I'm willing to bet the majority are white males.
>
> Chess is dominated by white men by sheer numbers.

I already admitted that the majority of chess players are white men, and i admitted that the majority are white, a significant amount of players are asian so i wouldn't say it is dominated by white men, while a very small amount of players are female so i would say that chess is dominated by men.

If you want to claim that chess is dominated by white men feel free to agree to disagree

> Wait. You make a claim (gender and race don't matter) and somehow the burden of proof isn't on you?

You can't prove a negative, for example if i say santa claus does not exist, it is on the other party to prove that - he does indeed exist. I do not need evidence to claim a negative. If you are on trial for murder should you need to prove innocence or is it on the court to prove that you were guilty?

How long until @NoJoke closes this?

(I'm taking "the left cannot survive without censorship" screenshots)

@tabarjack said in #55:
> How long until @NoJoke closes this?
>
> (I'm taking "the left cannot survive without censorship" screenshots)

I should have put this on the other thread that went on for only 3 pages before it was closed. Your message seems to be an effective censorship deterrent haha

@bramblewild said in #27:
> For example, I found the recent US Supreme Court decision concerning Roe v Wade to be very good. The murder of unborn babies is a tragedy, and while the decision did not completely ban abortions, it still puts a damper on it by putting the decision in each state's hands, and some states are restricting or banning it (while others are not).
>
> Has lichess celebrated that? If not, why not? Surely the potential saving of millions of lives, perhaps even future chess masters and champions, should be celebrated, right?
Seriously? Overturning 50 years of precedent does not concern you? Sure Roe v Wade had problems - those couldn't have been addressed by a means other than throwing it out altogether, using exactly the same logic that could be applied to the rulings upholding same sex marriage and contraception?

While late term abortions could reasonably be argued to being close to the "murder of unborn babies", they are a vanishingly small proportion of cases and only supported by radical liberals. On the other hand, first trimester abortions is not that much different from a miscarriage: they're not ideal and a loss of possibility, but the foetus is NOT a person at that stage and it is NOT the same as murder. It should be the choice of the woman after consultation with her doctor, her family and her faith leaders, and not that of the government. Second trimester, I got no idea - I think that's where there's room for debate, especially when the demarcations between trimesters isn't precise.

@Talezassian said in #57:
> but the foetus is NOT a person at that stage

Murder is taking a life of a human, not taking a life of a person. The problem of the guys with your position is that you don't seem to understand that words have definitions and you can't willy-nilly change those to accommodate what you want.

You perfectly well know that difference between miscarriage and abortion is the intent - integral part of murder.

And you also know perfectly well that roe was constructed out of whole cloth. There is no "right to privacy" in constitution. But there is a 14th amendment, which clearly makes abortion illegal if you just start following the science and recognize humanity of a fetus.

@GrindingHardTo1000 said in #58:
> Murder is taking a life of a human, not taking a life of a person. The problem of the guys with your position is that you don't seem to understand that words have definitions and you can't willy-nilly change those to accommodate what you want.

I have no idea what definitions I am apparently changing here - are you saying that you agree that an fetus in the first trimester is not yet a person but is human, and that terminating a pregnancy in the first trimester is therefore murder because murder is the killing of a human, rather than the killing of a person? And that murder is never justified, even if the pregnancy is the result of rape or incest?

@Talezassian said in #59:
> I have no idea what definitions I am apparently changing here - are you saying that you agree that an fetus in the first trimester is not yet a person but is human, and that terminating a pregnancy in the first trimester is therefore murder because murder is the killing of a human, rather than the killing of a person? And that murder is never justified, even if the pregnancy is the result of rape or incest?

I am saying that personhood is a subjective thing and I am not going to debate those. And humanhood is an objective thing. Other than that - yes, everything is correct.