this post was submitted on 10 Sep 2024

293 points (98.3% liked)

196

16224 readers

3935 users here now

Be sure to follow the rule before you head out.

Rule: You must post before you leave.

^other^ ^rules^

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

293

Queen behavior rule (lemmy.world)

submitted 1 week ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

21 comments fedilink hide all child comments

https://www.npr.org/2022/10/08/1127689337/a-chess-grandmaster-banned-from-irans-team-examines-protests-in-her-native-count

top 21 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] [email protected] 74 points 1 week ago (1 children)

She's a great chess player but she's never been a World Champion. There's no need to embelish her story. She's currently training to become a surgeon at University of Missouri School of Medicine.

[–] [email protected] 31 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (2 children)

I think that's an honest mistake. She was awarded the Women's Grandmaster title and the International Master which is confusing unless you look at the standards. It's arguably a world title holder? Maybe? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dorsa_Derakhshani

[–] [email protected] 14 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

Grandmaster just means you have reached a certain elo and have completed certain requirements (win a number of games, against certain opponents etc), and won a certain number of competitions. There are around 2000 current grandmasters.

World champion is much much more selective, meaning literally winning the world championship.

Don’t get me wrong, grandmaster is incredibly prestigious, but is much more “common” than world champion.

(International Master is the rank below grandmaster).

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 week ago

For clarification, the Women's Grandmaster and International titles are conferred after a certain level of achievement overall in one's career. There is no limit to the number of people who can have those titles. I feel like if you use a phrase like "world title holder" there's an implication that such a world title is like "champion of whatever" and is only held by one person at a time (like a "World Champion(ship title)").

[–] [email protected] 12 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Iran playing checkers

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 week ago

Funny, when I tried that I tripped.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 week ago

Impressive

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 week ago

Sounds like a checkmate

[+] [email protected] -11 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Oooooooohhh yes fuck hijabs and Islam

[–] [email protected] 45 points 1 week ago (2 children)

Nah, just fuck theocracies.

[–] [email protected] 24 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (2 children)

Fuck hijabs and Islam.
Fuck christofascists and tradwives.
Fuck hindu nationalists and caste systems.

Fuck any and every religion that insists they need to impose their ways on others to be in good favor with their God. Fuck them in any and every form.

[–] [email protected] 16 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Women can choose to wear a hijab, just like women can choose to be a stay at home parent, out of their free will. But pressuring them one way or the other is cringe.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 week ago

Choosing to wear a hijab is totally cool, as long as it's not because of a religion.

Religion uses coercion and indoctrination to control people.

It doesn't matter if it's state sanctioned or not: the social contract imposed by religion is violence. It doesn't matter if it's the government threatening jail time or your friends threatening social isolation. It's coercive.

And you can't distinguish between those who do it willingly and those who are forced: so a civil society can permit neither.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 week ago (2 children)

Hijab is supposed to be voluntary under Islamic scripture. Islam does not include anything about having to impose anything on others. Attempting to downvote you results in a server error.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 1 week ago (1 children)

And Christians are supposed to give up all early possessions, renounce sex and serve God all their days.

What's your point? Theory means fuck all.

Religions are coercive social structures. You cannot distinguish those doing it willingly from those corrected into "proper behavior". As such a civil society can permit neither.

Re: downvotes - no idea why it's not working, but your anger is obvious enough without it

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Christians are not obligated to give up sex or “all early possessions”. At most they’re just obligated to give up personal trinkets during lent and fund the church. My point is that there is no coercion within Islam to wear a hijab, kinda like how there is no coercion within Christianity to be a virgin.

People who want to oppress women will do it regardless of means. Islam is just an excuse. There are many atheists who use their moral code instead.

To distinguish them, just get their confidence and ask them in a safe environment.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 week ago

all earthly possessions

Matthew 6:19-34 and Luke 18:22-25

Pretty unequivocal: give up everything and serve God.

there is no coercion within Islam to wear a hijab, kinda like how there is no coercion within Christianity to be a virgin.

The fuck there isn't. Coercion in Christian sects is rampant. Your parents finding out you're not a virgin will have you disowned in plenty of Christian households.

People who want to oppress women will do it regardless of means

And people who want to murder will do it regardless of means. That doesn't allow us to throw up our hands and let murder cults exist. Instead we extirpate them, outlaw them, stamp them out both legally and culturally.

To distinguish them, just get their confidence and ask them in a safe environment.

Pragmatically speaking this is, unfortunately, the best we can hope for. I'm not talking about pragmatics here though: I'm talking about fundamentals. Theory. What is a truly polite society?

It's not one where religious coercion is allowed to fester.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 week ago (2 children)

Can anybody with more knowledge about this explain this? I don't know much about islam but i thought husbands and/or fathers would force women to wear them?

[–] [email protected] 11 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

It's a complex issue, but think of it like backwards fundamentalist Christians going ballistic over women (especially their daughters) wearing anything more revealing than a sweater. That kind of familial coercion is couched in religious terms and springs from religious values, but is not, strictly speaking, fundamental (ha) to the religion itself.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 week ago

The root of tune thing is that Islamic teachings require practitioners to dress modestly.

Interpretations of this range from "cover your sex bits" to "don't show an inch of skin to anybody except your husband".

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 week ago

Indeed