@BwalyaHimself said in #28:
> So in the Name of Tolerance and Inclusivity, you decided to Discriminate against Religious people .
Yes.
> So in the Name of Tolerance and Inclusivity, you decided to Discriminate against Religious people .
Yes.
But seriously, we had to draw the line somewhere. Religion is probably the most common rationalization for the wholesale murder, subjugation, and appropriation of other peoples throughout the history of mankind. And it's probably best people can't throw up the Star of David or Crescent by their username right now.
@dboing said in #27:
> I understand the clarity of that dichotomy. But, such clarity is unfortunately only found in the small finite set of core chess rules. I am for a wide array of discussions but I like a good forum atmosphere. What to do?
>
> Religion is the clearest subjective boundary on the axis graduating your dichotomy, I would suggest.
>
> I guess, one might like lichess to watch the temper, not just hide full spectrum of forum from the lobby as cooling mechanism. But for now, I have not sensed the lichess "ideology" having been imposed on us or me. It has always been followed by discussion space. And I have seen hot reactions in discussion not exploding. Why would only the expected right-wing opinions be acceptable from such boats like lichess? Should I name other internet flagships. One might say that for-profit might make it acceptable that an ideology in that direction be voiced by the ship captain(s), and the profits even used to push political forces to amplify such objective, and diminish all foreseeable rise in other ideation in communication medias? I do not share the whole spectrum of possible activism we might perceive lichess is taking stands on, I have doubts, but in no way do I feel it not acceptable part of discourse, at least in here.
>
> I have limite stamina, but love discussions.. I often need to watch my enthusiasm in debating, as I may swing wide.. and regret how far I might have done so. I think I might not be alone in that. I believe in our abilities to not see eye to eye on things and still mingle with each other, but I don't know where the subjective line should be. There is also the scale of the internet population size of lichess userbase. That is beyond my individual abilities of social internal model (my words). There is some limit to how many different people over some duration we are able to track the "being in theirs shoes" thinking. We can have empathy (or its cognitive component, if not affective) for certain number of people, but we do tend to chunk people above that. The internet is like the wild west for that kind of psychology I would say. My point is that I may have my preferences but I do not have the lichess captains responsibility of such a big group, possibly socially interacting with each other.
>
> Thanks for your developed reply. It is clearer about your stance, and it makes sense. Some things may not have clear cut boundaries for best decision. I would have kept the joke flair though. It might be a sacrifice to make that religion protection decision on a joke, where there is actually no religious belief behind.. No offense there. No first "scandal" one having created some flares in some thread.
You put a whole paragraph on a rare religion? WOW!
> I understand the clarity of that dichotomy. But, such clarity is unfortunately only found in the small finite set of core chess rules. I am for a wide array of discussions but I like a good forum atmosphere. What to do?
>
> Religion is the clearest subjective boundary on the axis graduating your dichotomy, I would suggest.
>
> I guess, one might like lichess to watch the temper, not just hide full spectrum of forum from the lobby as cooling mechanism. But for now, I have not sensed the lichess "ideology" having been imposed on us or me. It has always been followed by discussion space. And I have seen hot reactions in discussion not exploding. Why would only the expected right-wing opinions be acceptable from such boats like lichess? Should I name other internet flagships. One might say that for-profit might make it acceptable that an ideology in that direction be voiced by the ship captain(s), and the profits even used to push political forces to amplify such objective, and diminish all foreseeable rise in other ideation in communication medias? I do not share the whole spectrum of possible activism we might perceive lichess is taking stands on, I have doubts, but in no way do I feel it not acceptable part of discourse, at least in here.
>
> I have limite stamina, but love discussions.. I often need to watch my enthusiasm in debating, as I may swing wide.. and regret how far I might have done so. I think I might not be alone in that. I believe in our abilities to not see eye to eye on things and still mingle with each other, but I don't know where the subjective line should be. There is also the scale of the internet population size of lichess userbase. That is beyond my individual abilities of social internal model (my words). There is some limit to how many different people over some duration we are able to track the "being in theirs shoes" thinking. We can have empathy (or its cognitive component, if not affective) for certain number of people, but we do tend to chunk people above that. The internet is like the wild west for that kind of psychology I would say. My point is that I may have my preferences but I do not have the lichess captains responsibility of such a big group, possibly socially interacting with each other.
>
> Thanks for your developed reply. It is clearer about your stance, and it makes sense. Some things may not have clear cut boundaries for best decision. I would have kept the joke flair though. It might be a sacrifice to make that religion protection decision on a joke, where there is actually no religious belief behind.. No offense there. No first "scandal" one having created some flares in some thread.
You put a whole paragraph on a rare religion? WOW!
Consider looking at this for reference, too: dutchreview.com/news/pastafarianism-the-newest-dutch-religion/
<Comment deleted by user>
<Comment deleted by user>
@four_legs_good said in #36:
>
I thought it meant freedom. My native language is fooling me. Freedom of thought, was my understanding. The most intimate of the individual rights I would assume.
on other matters related to flair and making statements of identification. There are quite a few tinted "people" flairs, and I find it offending that I have to choose one. Kidding, I feel corsetting into having to tote a color affiliation. I would like to choose a color not my own, but then it might be snaffu. Should I rotate daily? Why not an impossible human-biosphere skin color.. Why can the horsey be swamp green, but not the human presenting flairs. let me see.. there is one I would like in any color but not yellow, brown or white. I guess purple, could work but already taken kind of, so would pink be. What is a non-taken identifying color.
I seem to be making a point but no, I am only truly being selfish, wanting something more abstract, more "vivre ensemble" than toting some partition preference in skin color. Should I pick yelllow.. but then, .... white, brown, light brown.. I think apple green or that horsey green should exist. or blue planet blue. or red, burgundy red.. textured oak.. but flairs are small...
sorry, this is the only flair thread I could impulsively get to while passing by the lobby after my game move of the day..
>
I thought it meant freedom. My native language is fooling me. Freedom of thought, was my understanding. The most intimate of the individual rights I would assume.
on other matters related to flair and making statements of identification. There are quite a few tinted "people" flairs, and I find it offending that I have to choose one. Kidding, I feel corsetting into having to tote a color affiliation. I would like to choose a color not my own, but then it might be snaffu. Should I rotate daily? Why not an impossible human-biosphere skin color.. Why can the horsey be swamp green, but not the human presenting flairs. let me see.. there is one I would like in any color but not yellow, brown or white. I guess purple, could work but already taken kind of, so would pink be. What is a non-taken identifying color.
I seem to be making a point but no, I am only truly being selfish, wanting something more abstract, more "vivre ensemble" than toting some partition preference in skin color. Should I pick yelllow.. but then, .... white, brown, light brown.. I think apple green or that horsey green should exist. or blue planet blue. or red, burgundy red.. textured oak.. but flairs are small...
sorry, this is the only flair thread I could impulsively get to while passing by the lobby after my game move of the day..
so in search of the
> buffoon or court-jester holy grail flair
How much signal can such a tiny speck of graphics convey?
Is a chess buffoon, with bells on octopus with only 3 tentacles hat, too much info?
Which lead me to connecting with the topic of my previous post (I keep giving and giving).
I did find something getting closer to what I want:
> a juggler.
So again same problem. I tried all the colors, and guess what offer more signal?
The white face one. just by contrast. I suggest playing the tints of the tinier specks to optimize visual contrast information for the other colors. Or simplify with one non-human skin color.
I don't want to exhibit things or appropriate things I was born or not born with. I prefer to tote ideology than either my color of skin, or how thick is my eyebrow (I might have been of the cohort that have less number of brows, but the surface area might compensate). Or to culturally appropriate another color. Also, am I really white? or any of the colors there.
Make all human skin colors, like the swamp green horsey. I find that offensive that we have to choose a color of skin.
> buffoon or court-jester holy grail flair
How much signal can such a tiny speck of graphics convey?
Is a chess buffoon, with bells on octopus with only 3 tentacles hat, too much info?
Which lead me to connecting with the topic of my previous post (I keep giving and giving).
I did find something getting closer to what I want:
> a juggler.
So again same problem. I tried all the colors, and guess what offer more signal?
The white face one. just by contrast. I suggest playing the tints of the tinier specks to optimize visual contrast information for the other colors. Or simplify with one non-human skin color.
I don't want to exhibit things or appropriate things I was born or not born with. I prefer to tote ideology than either my color of skin, or how thick is my eyebrow (I might have been of the cohort that have less number of brows, but the surface area might compensate). Or to culturally appropriate another color. Also, am I really white? or any of the colors there.
Make all human skin colors, like the swamp green horsey. I find that offensive that we have to choose a color of skin.
It the hatred that is Lichess.
If you just ban all posting in forums the problem would be gone.
If you just ban all posting in forums the problem would be gone.
@four_legs_good said in #36:
> The rainbow flag usually expresses identification with the LGBTQ community.
> Being LGBTQ is not an ideology. It is an identity.
>
> On the other hand, the belief that LGBTQ people shouldn't be able to express themselves, or to even exist IS an ideology.
>
> And finally let me point out that if Lichess was to ban every ideology from its website, then Lichess would need to ban Lichess from Lichess. As you know "Li" stands for "libre". Libre is an ideology.
Well, yes and no ; I've never said that the act of being gay is an ideology. The ideology is what is built around, for example, the fact that "Being LGBTQ" differentaties from the ordinary, which is what you call "an identity". Usually, with this identity, quite some political views etc. are put under the rainbow flag as well ; the time of it being a symbol "purely" for gay rights has passed. With the addition of gender discussions et cetera, I do believe it can be called an ideology, some authors going as far as to call it a religion (like Braunstein). This, of course, is wokism, and could be separated from the rainbow flag, as it is not present exclusively in the LGBTQ environment, and as it is not wholly present in this environment, as we can also see its effects in the BLM-movement notably. However, the question of trans rights, just like the question of genders, is one that is to be found both under the name of LGBTQ and wokism. Wokism is indubitably an ideology, and there are strong links in position between the LGBTQ-movement and wokism, therefore I call the rainbow flag a symbol of an ideology.
In short, the flag is a symbol not of an identity, but of a movement, following certain morals and political positions, which is very close if not exactly what the Cambridge Dictionary tells us under the meaning of "Ideology" : "a set of beliefs or principles, especially one on which a political system, party, or organisation is based". Organisation of course being the rainbow movement, with a set of beliefs or principles. There you go.
> The rainbow flag usually expresses identification with the LGBTQ community.
> Being LGBTQ is not an ideology. It is an identity.
>
> On the other hand, the belief that LGBTQ people shouldn't be able to express themselves, or to even exist IS an ideology.
>
> And finally let me point out that if Lichess was to ban every ideology from its website, then Lichess would need to ban Lichess from Lichess. As you know "Li" stands for "libre". Libre is an ideology.
Well, yes and no ; I've never said that the act of being gay is an ideology. The ideology is what is built around, for example, the fact that "Being LGBTQ" differentaties from the ordinary, which is what you call "an identity". Usually, with this identity, quite some political views etc. are put under the rainbow flag as well ; the time of it being a symbol "purely" for gay rights has passed. With the addition of gender discussions et cetera, I do believe it can be called an ideology, some authors going as far as to call it a religion (like Braunstein). This, of course, is wokism, and could be separated from the rainbow flag, as it is not present exclusively in the LGBTQ environment, and as it is not wholly present in this environment, as we can also see its effects in the BLM-movement notably. However, the question of trans rights, just like the question of genders, is one that is to be found both under the name of LGBTQ and wokism. Wokism is indubitably an ideology, and there are strong links in position between the LGBTQ-movement and wokism, therefore I call the rainbow flag a symbol of an ideology.
In short, the flag is a symbol not of an identity, but of a movement, following certain morals and political positions, which is very close if not exactly what the Cambridge Dictionary tells us under the meaning of "Ideology" : "a set of beliefs or principles, especially one on which a political system, party, or organisation is based". Organisation of course being the rainbow movement, with a set of beliefs or principles. There you go.
This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.