Members · Prefs · Collections · Openings · Endgames · Sacrifices · History · Search Kibitzing · Kibitzer's Café · Chessforums · Tournament Index · Players · Kibitzing User Profile Chessforum
Member since Jul-29-04
<"All ideas, beliefs, and ideologies are open to criticism, debate, mocking, ridicule, and other forms of scrutiny. Nothing, no one, no ideology gets a free pass."> -- Dr. Gad Saada

<"The feminists hate me, don’t they? And I don’t blame them. For I hate feminism. It is poison."> -- Margaret Thatcher, first female Prime Minister of U.K. (to her advisor, Paul Johnson)

"[...] Dean [D. Esmay, interviewer]: [...] I’ve met a lot of women who consider themselves feminists in some form or other and they look at you like you’re from Mars if you say this business about it [feminist movement] being Marxist in origin or…

Erin [E. Pizzey, founder of world's first domestic violence shelter, Chiswick Women's Aid*, located in Chiswick, U.K,]: <Yes, but most of them don’t even know anything about the beginning of this movement. And the thing I have to point out, very simply, the beginnings of the women’s movement happened way back when a lot of women were fighting for the rights of people, of Americans, to end the apartheid that was going on at that time. When they had finished marching for the civil rights movement—There’s a whole storied history that you can read it. They came back and decided that the leftist women wanted their own movement. So instead of it being Capitalism, which everyone was against in the left-wing movements, they simply changed the goal posts and said it was Patriarchy. Everything was because of men, because of the power that men have over women. And then the second part of their argument was that all women are victims of men’s violence because it’s The Patriarchy. And that is such a lot of rubbish. Because, we know, and everybody in the business knows, that both men and women in interpersonal relationships can be violent. And that’s in every single study all across the Western world. All this time—40 years—we’ve been living a big lie led by these Feminist women who essentially have created a huge billion dollar industry all across the world and they have shut the doors on men. No men can work in refuges; no men can sit on Boards; boys under the age of 12 often can’t go into the refuges. A mother has to make a difficult choice of what she should do.>


Dean: [...] But it seems to me as if people either want to see women as exclusively victims or as somehow angelic figures.

Erin: <That’s mostly men. Women know. We know each other. And privately, they’ll say what they really believe. But an awful lot of men will not hear a word about violent women. They like women on pedestals. It makes them feel safe.>

Dean: So then, it’s not just the feminists, although the feminists appear to be part of it. The feminists get angry and the men become derisive or protective. They don’t want to believe there can be violent women. Seems like.

Erin: <No, but once you start saying that any group like radical feminists, “Look, we have a problem that we need to resolve among women.” You’re talking about almost saying, possibly, “There is a million-dollar industry out there, you have to share it with men because men and women can equally be violent,” and you’re actually talking about money and they aren’t going to give up on that. They’ve built an empire over 40 years, very, very powerful. And we have women in very powerful situations, Canada, Australia, and here, because at one point officials list that the Attorney General in this country was a woman—Harriet Harman is a woman who does huge amounts of damage. And she’s been the Women’s Minister. And I have awful problems with her and several others because they are now very powerful. They’re powerful in the judiciary, they’re powerful in Social Services … particularly in Canada, that’s one of the worst countries in the world.>

Dean: Harriet Harman, she’s a Member of Parliament there in Britain, yes? From what I’ve read about her, she seems very hateful. She is a feminist, yes?

Erin: <Well, I tried to reason with her once. We were both at the conference and I just said to her, “Look, Harriet, you’ve simply got to accept the figures about violent women.” She just swung around on me and her face changed. She said, “The amount of men who are beaten up is miniscule.” And I just looked at her, and I thought, “There’s nothing I can do with you because your mind is closed.”>

Dean: Well, the government’s own figures don’t even show that to be true, do they?

Erin: <Yes, the British Home crime figures show virtually equal between men and women, domestic violence.>

Dean: Wow.

Erin: <It doesn’t matter how often you say this, or you point it out. You tell a lie long enough, Goebbels said, you can brainwash the entire community. And that’s what’s happened here. ...>" -- Excerpts from

*Chiswick Women's Aid (1971-79) --> Chiswick Family Rescue (1979-93) --> Refuge (1993-present).

Pizzey has since distanced herself from Refuge, writing in 2011: <... Over the past ten years, domestic violence has become a huge feminist industry.

Organisations such as the National Federation of Women’s Aid and Refuge have a vested interest in pushing this agenda.

This is girls-only empire building, and it is highly lucrative at that. Men are not allowed to be employed at these organisations. Boys over the age of 12 are not allowed into safe houses where their mothers are staying, which I think is scandalous. I am now, incidentally, persona non grata at Refuge, having fallen out with them over policies like those.

And they are on a feminist mission to demonise men — even those who never have and never will hit a woman. ...>

It is frustratingly difficult to get feminists--with a few exceptions such as Christina Hoff Sommers and Camille Paglia--to have a public debate with their opposition (usually antifeminists) about issues surrounding feminism on a level playing field. But such debates do exist. The following closing statement was given by Yiannopolous during one such occasion.

*<I want to address the men in the audience. Sorry, ladies, I love you but this is for the boys.

Question posed to us today was whether we reached an age of gender equality. I don't think we have. We've overshot the age of gender equality by a long stretch, and men of your generation are going to be the primary victims of this era.

In secondary school you will have experienced a system that is tilted against boys.** Your exams will have been primarily modulate, not linear--a system that favors girls. Teachers will have tried to control and apologize for your boisterous behavior, branding you young offenders for pranks or "cyber bullies" for typical male teenage trash talk. Taunting, after all, is how men bond. Your female peers will be encouraged at every stage of their educational journey. They will be told to join a STEM [Science, Technology, Engineering, Mathematics] field, they will be given--showered, in fact--with grants and awards, prizes and encouragement.*** And when they do get to apply for those jobs, you will be discriminated against--just because they're a girl. You'll be the recipients of nothing. There were no programs for men. The suggestion of having a Men's Officer at your university was laughed at by the student union.

At university, you will be told that you are rapists in waiting, that you need to attend consent classes. Your natural love and affection for women will be neutered. You will be faced with an impossible choice: suppress your natural, healthy romantic interest in women or risk a charge of rape or sexual harassment.**** If you speak out against this hostile and unfair environment, you will be persecuted by rabid mobs of politically correct lunatics as well as the full force of the establishment media as well.

When your studies have completed you will enter a jobs market that is stacked against you. With companies pressured from all directions to hire women, you will be at a 2-to-1 disadvantage if you are in STEM subjects and possibly worse in others.***** If you do happen to land a job, a single inappropriate remark or a single accusation of an inappropriate remark, or any unsubstantiated allegation, can destroy your reputation forever.******

Despite all this, I am not worried for you. 'Cause you're men. Your incalculable, intolerable, impossible obstacles have been placed before you precisely to overcome, and overcoming is what men do best. It's in the nature of men to battle on under impossible odds: we do that in war, we do that in all sorts of things, and we will do it here. Throughout your education you will have been fed a grim history of what men have done through the centuries. You will be told straight white men are worse than the Nazis. You will have been told nothing good about your sex, your race, or your orientation, but I'm going to tell you something good, and it is: if the patriarchy exists, women should be grateful for it. It is what took us to space, it is what build roads--it builds roads--it is what built the internet, it is what protects and provides for women. If it exists, thank god it does.

With their strengthened determination, men have tamed the wilderness. Men built cities and walls around us, they built the buildings that we're in. And that curiosity has led us to explore the oceans, their ingenuity has allowed us to reach for the moon. And whenever, you know, feminism rises up and tries to ridicule you, to demean you for what you are--and, you know, it's interesting, like, how I was gonna talk at this university, right, and I was called by my interlocutor, "troll". She said it would demean the institution to have me here. When she talked about a Sunday Times article by a respected journalist, she sought to demonize him even though he's not here to defend himself. She said Martin Daubney was a bad person. Martin Daubney is a personal friend of mine. He is a great person. He spent the last five years of his life advocating for the rights of men and boys.

But this is what they do. Don't pay any attention to it. Don't listen to it. We're not in an age of equality. Straight white women in the West [today] are the most privileged class(*) in the history of our species.

But you'll be fine.>

-- Milo Yiannopolous, in his address to the men at the University of Bristol (U.K.), November 2015, in the closing statement of the debate, "Have we reached an age of gender equality?" Full debate:

*As of Dec. 2015, no transcript exists for this speech as far as I know, so I typed it out myself and double-checked it. The citations provided are my own, although it is possible they are the exact ones used by Milo Yiannopoulous (he brought a stack of papers with sources, notes and citations to the debate).

**"Eliminating feminist teacher bias erases boys' falling grades, study finds"

<... Examining student test scores and grades of children in kindergarten through fifth grade, Cornwell found that boys in all racial categories are not being “commensurately graded by their teachers” in any subject “as their test scores would predict.”

The answer lies in the way teachers, who are statistically mostly women, evaluate students without reference to objective test scores. Boys are regularly graded well below their actual academic performance."

Boys are falling significantly behind in grades, “despite performing as least as well as girls on math tests, and significantly better on science tests."

After fifth grade, he found, student assessment becomes a matter of “a teacher’s subjective assessment of the student’s performance,” and is further removed from the guidance of objective test results. Teachers, he says, tend to assess students on non-cognitive, “socio-emotional skills.” This has had a significant impact on boys’ later achievement because, while objective test scores are important, it is teacher-assigned grades that determine a child’s future with class placement, high school graduation and college admissibility.

Eliminating the factor of “non-cognitive skills…almost eliminates the estimated gender gap in reading grades,” Cornwell found. He said he found it “surprising” that although boys out-perform girls on math and science test scores, girls out-perform boys on teacher-assigned grades. ...

... The study, he said, shows that “teachers’ assessments are not aligned with test-score data, with greater gender disparities in appearing in grading than testing outcomes”. And the “gender disparity” always favours girls. ...>

This problem has been recognized at least as early as year 2000. "The War Against Boys" (May 2000) <This we think we know: American schools favor boys and grind down girls. The truth is the very opposite. By virtually every measure, girls are thriving in school; it is boys who are the second sex>

Also see "Why Boys Fail (and What You Can Do)"

And the book "Boys Adrift: The Five Factors Driving the Growing Epidemic of Unmotivated Boys and Underachieving Young Men" (2009; new edition to arrive in June, 2016)

As well as "The War Against Boys: How Misguided Policies are Harming Our Young Men" (revised edition, 2015; first published in 2001 as "The War Against Boys: How Misguided Feminism is Harming Our Young Men")

And last but not least, a 2014 study with a slightly different perspective (you decide what or who to believe): "Gender Differences in Scholastic Achievement: A Meta-Analysis"

Abstract: <A female advantage in school marks is a common finding in education research, and it extends to most course subjects (e.g., language, math, science), unlike what is found on achievement tests. However, questions remain concerning the quantification of these gender differences and the identification of relevant moderator variables. The present meta-analysis answered these questions by examining studies that included an evaluation of gender differences in teacher-assigned school marks in elementary, junior/middle, or high school or at the university level (both undergraduate and graduate). The final analysis was based on 502 effect sizes drawn from 369 samples. A multilevel approach to meta-analysis was used to handle the presence of nonindependent effect sizes in the overall sample. This method was complemented with an examination of results in separate subject matters with a mixed effects meta-analytic model. A small but significant female advantage (mean d = 0.225, 95% CI [0.201, 0.249]) was demonstrated for the overall sample of effect sizes. Noteworthy findings were that the female advantage was largest for language courses (mean d = 0.374, 95% CI [0.316, 0.432]) and smallest for math courses (mean d = 0.069, 95% CI [0.014, 0.124]). Source of marks, nationality, racial composition of samples, and gender composition of samples were significant moderators of effect sizes. <Finally, results showed that the magnitude of the female advantage was not affected by year of publication, thereby contradicting claims of a recent “boy crisis” in school achievement. The present meta-analysis demonstrated the presence of a stable female advantage in school marks while also identifying critical moderators.> Implications for future educational and psychological research are discussed.>

***A good example: "'No Boys Allowed' day teaches girls about science, math"

<SEATTLE, Wash. -- Classrooms at Seattle University had a new rule on Saturday: No Boys Allowed.

That's because it's the annual Expanding Your Horizons program, bringing together 500 middle school girls from Washington State to learn about science, math and engineering.

The girls rotated through workshops focusing on veterinary medicine, infectious diseases and robotics, to name a few.

"We're not trying to exclude boys," said Jen Sorensen, the program's organizer and chemistry professor at Seattle University. "We're trying to provide an opportunity for girls who might not even realize these career opportunities are available to them." ...> Who is preventing girls from realizing that STEM career opportunities are available to them? Citation needed.

Google "girls and science" and you will find countless articles and programs on how to get girls interested in STEM.

Also see "Why Do Boys and Girls Prefer Different Toys?"

and "Hormones Explain Why Girls Like Dolls & Boys Like Trucks"

****"California colleges to make proving innocence a punishable offense"

<Advocates for due process knew this day was coming. We knew that one day colleges would notice that there was only one way for students accused of sexual assault would be able to defend themselves and that the colleges would make that defense itself a violation of policy.

Of course the new policy is coming out of California, which led the way in inserting campus bureaucrats into the bedroom with its "affirmative consent" policies. These policies mandate how students must engage in sexual activity – not as a passionate act but as a contractual question-and-answer session. The only way to prove one followed such a policy is to videotape the encounter, but now, California colleges are making such recordings a violation of school policy. ...

New policies in effect at California universities also shift the adjudication process away from hearings and evidence and deliberation to the single-investigator model, which is opened to severe bias. Now, an investigator and the university (who is under pressure from the Education Department to find more students responsible) will conduct the investigation and determine culpability. If the accused student is found responsible he or she (more likely he) can appeal the decision and only then will he get a hearing. ...>

In more detail: "Q&A: UCLA Title IX officer talks new model to investigate sexual assault reports"

Update (good news): "Due process advocates starting 2016 off strong" <Advocates for due process on college campuses have come out in full force in the first months of 2016. Law professors, legislators, editorial boards and even a presidential candidate have stepped up to defend the constitutional rights of those accused of sexual assault on college campuses. ...>

And in a related article: "Georgia legislator: Adopt due process protections or forget about your budget" <A Georgia legislator responsible for appropriating state funds to colleges and universities is threatening to halt budget discussions with his state's schools unless they adopt basic due process protections for accused students.

State Rep. Earl Ehrhart, chairman of the Appropriations subcommittee on Higher Education, told college presidents in no uncertain terms to adopt such protections. ...

"If you don't protect the students of this state with due process, don't come looking for money," Ehrhart added. ...>

*****"National hiring experiments reveal 2:1 faculty preference for women on STEM tenure track"

<National randomized experiments and validation studies were conducted on 873 tenure-track faculty (439 male, 434 female) from biology, engineering, economics, and psychology at 371 universities/colleges from 50 US states and the District of Columbia. ... Results revealed a 2:1 preference for women by faculty of both genders across both math-intensive and non–math-intensive fields, with the single exception of male economists, who showed no gender preference. ...>

******Not even Nobel Laureates are safe: "Sir Tim Hunt To Leave Britain: How Feminists Chased Away One of Britain’s Geniuses" (Dec. 18, 2015) <Feminists have chased away one of Britain’s finest scientific minds. Sir Tim Hunt, the Nobel prize-winning scientist who was forced to resign from an honorary professorship at University College London (UCL) after false allegations of sexism is now set to leave Britain for Japan.>

Also see "'Sexist' Scientist Tim Hunt: The Real Story" (July 23, 2015) <Remember Tim Hunt, the Nobel Prize-winning British biochemist mocked and vilified on Twitter and in the media after he reportedly told a gathering of women scientists that "girls" in the lab are a nuisance because they are lovesick crybabies, and suggested sex-segregated labs as the solution? Remember how we were told that this shocking incident reveals still-entrenched sexism in the world of science? Well, now that the dust has cleared and the story has faded from the American press, there’s a postscript that amounts to: Never mind. It turns out that, just as Hunt has claimed, the 72-year-old scientist’s comments during a luncheon at a science journalism conference in Korea in June were an awkward self-deprecating joke—greeted with laughter (not the reported "stony silence") by a mostly female audience. ...>

(*)Yiannopolous is referring to the feminist perspective of women as a class (versus men as class) as opposed to the standard classification of women as a demographic.


For fun...

<Red Pill or Blue Pill> Neither. Not a Purple Piller either. I don't subscribe to labels. But the Red Pill theories on female hypergamy and gynocentrism sound plausible.

<Are you a MGTOW (Men Going Their Own Way)?> Not really, but I don't plan on having a long-term relationship. I agree with some MGTOW values such as self-actualization and self-determination. Its views on women? Not sure yet.

<Why do you personally oppose feminism?> I almost decided to follow Milo's advice and ignore it, to not pay attention to it, but a former close friend of mine convinced me otherwise. That wasn't his intention, though. There are currently three people in the world who have managed to really @@## me off, and he recently became one of them. Unfortunate, but he's not the worst of the three.

<Favorite ideology> None. I don't subscribe to any ideology. So, independent.

<Favorite philosopher> Emperor Marcus Aurelius Antoninus.

<Favorite feminist> Camille Paglia, who once said, "If civilization had been left in female hands we would still be living in grass huts." Not a popular feminist among feminists. Always fun to see her criticize feminism.

<What's your take on the intrinsic nature of feminism?> That feminism is politicized female nature. Perhaps the worst kind.

<"Feminism is politicized female nature"? You're delusional.> Dissenting viewpoints/opinions are welcome.

<Feminism is about equality. If you're against feminism, you're against women's rights, you misogynist!> Two can play this game. Communism is about the common people. If you're against communism, you're against workers' rights, you capitalist pig!

>> Click here to see knight13's game collections. Full Member

   Knight13 has kibitzed 11895 times to chessgames   [more...]
   May-29-16 chessforum
Knight13: <> This is your site. What you say, goes.
   May-14-16 Fischer vs Spassky, 1972
Knight13: Good game.
   May-08-16 jessicafischerqueen chessforum (replies)
Knight13: <jessicafischerqueen> Do you have a Youtube channel?
   May-08-16 Knight13 chessforum
Knight13: Fact Free: Academia Edition - <"(BABY) STEPS TOWARD FEMINIST PHYSICS"> An excerpt from page 130 (pdf pg. 16): <"My feminist training has taught me that science is a socially constructed artifact of human culture. My scientific training has taught me that science is an ...
   May-07-16 Fusilli chessforum (replies)
Knight13: <Fusilli> I never graduate from anything. My age? I'm old. Probably older than you. Not good. I'm sorry for the excessively late reply. Also not good.
   Apr-29-16 Topalov vs Kramnik, 2016 (replies)
Knight13: <chancho: Bonus coverage... yes!> Of course.
   Apr-20-16 Carlsen vs N Grandelius, 2016 (replies)
Knight13: Go Carlsen!
   Apr-20-16 Topalov vs Carlsen, 2016 (replies)
Knight13: <I've never seen a knight on b6 (QN3) that looked happy. I think it's the worst square for a knight. Even h1 seems better.> Any Alekhine Defense players here who want to comment on this?
   Apr-17-16 US Chess Championships (2016) (replies)
Knight13: <Sokrates> Understood.
   Apr-07-16 World Championship Candidates (2016) (replies)
Knight13: <Absentee> Because he's not an overlord, that's why. Overlords at least get some free time plus a few hours of sleep. Gods get bothered by humans 24/7 with no breaks. Overgods have other gods to deal with in addition to incessant pestering of mortals, so give him a break, ...
(replies) indicates a reply to the comment.

Fact Free

Kibitzer's Corner
< Earlier Kibitzing  · PAGE 25 OF 25 ·  Later Kibitzing>
Premium Chessgames Member
  Knight13: <chessmoron> I found the article:

Didn't you know? Everything is sexist! Get with the program. Anyway, apparently a freshman college student said it. People are probably using the word, "too", five times more frequently around her now than ever before just to mess with her.

Premium Chessgames Member
  Knight13: Why do people hate feminism and feminists?

<Why Do People Hate #Feminism? #1 - Feminists Hate Men>

<Why Do People Hate #Feminism? #2 - The Patriarchy>

<Why Do People Hate #Feminism? #3 - The Gender Pay Gap (#EqualPayDay)>

<Why Do People Hate #Feminism? #4 - Gender Studies Degrees>

<Why Do People Hate #Feminism? #5 - Hashtag Hate Group>

<Why Do People Hate #Feminism? #6 - Everything is Sexist>

<Why Do People Hate #Feminism? #7 - Male Feminists>

Premium Chessgames Member
  Knight13: <chessmoron> Wrong article. Here's the right one: <The 3-Letter Word That Cuts Women Down Every Day>
Premium Chessgames Member
  playground player: <Knight13> It's true: feminists and other radicals just can't be happy. It's not in their DNA.

When they're not complaining about words like "too" and other microaggressions, they're out campaigning against things like the number 4.

Yup, 4 has got to go.

Premium Chessgames Member
  Knight13: <playground player> I am still waiting for them to declare men who pee standing up to be sexists. :-p
Premium Chessgames Member
  TheAlchemist: You oppressive agent of the patriarchy! Check your privilege :-)

Did you see the SJWs banning insensitive Halloween costumes? Fortunately things aren't this crazy here, but unfortunately it's getting worse and I've been preparing myself for some time now for the inevitable, since they will undoubtedly have the media on their side.

Anyway, keep fighting the good fight.

Premium Chessgames Member
  Knight13: <TheAlchemist> Yes, I have--they had to ask to see if their costumes MIGHT offend certain demographic(s). To them, freedom of expression is okay--unless it MIGHT hurt someone's feelings.

Unfortunately, they already have the media on their side here. :-( They're organized, so it's hard to fight against.

Thanks for your sentiments.

Premium Chessgames Member
  TheAlchemist: <Knight13>

Yeah. The problem as I see it, is that everything can be deemed offensive by someone. At this rate today's PC language will soon be found offensive and we will have to come up with new terminology. Rinse and repeat. Maybe it's just a way the social justice league can perpetuate its existence. And how would they even go about legislating "offensiveness" I have no idea.

Here's a video for you, everything you need to know in 6 seconds:

I don't know how much you follow it, their main "battleground" here has been the migrant crisis, but I don't remember there being this many SJWs and other PC police before (maybe they just weren't as loud?). The media coverage is quite skewed and generally censors (or better: doesn't provide a platform for) dissenting comments (where they're even still allowed, cynically dressing it as maintaining a high standard of debate) and this is certainly a bad omen, for this could very well become a norm.

Premium Chessgames Member
  Knight13: <TheAlchemist> I follow the feminists more than I follow the SJWs, although many feminists are also SJWs. I think the feminists and SJWs made a blunder when they went after video games and gamers themselves, declaring games and the gaming industry to be misogynistic and the men who play them misogynists. The gaming demographic is super large so they now have a lot of enemies and people who hate feminism and SJWs just because of people like Anita Sarkeesian, Zoe Quinn, Brianna Wu, and also #GamerGate. #GamerGate is about journalistic integrity and ethics but of course the SJWs and feminists (and the media) have spun it as a movement made of misogynists who harass women online just because they are women.

I have only followed the immigration crisis a little bit. I know of the censorship going on and how people who speak out against it may lose their jobs and/or be branded "Islamphobes". I also know of the bad behavior of some of the refugees in the streets that really pi$$ed off a lot of people, but of course it's politically incorrect to talk about them. Some also demand cultural change and acceptance of Sharia Law. Then there is the rape crisis, where Muslim refugees who rape non-Muslim women are swept under the rug because the authorities and media don't want to be seen as "Islamphobes".

Most of these SJWs and feminists are middle to upper middle class. I guess for a lot of young people, when life gets too good for them and they can't find a purpose in life they become SJWs to "fight the good fight."

Premium Chessgames Member
  TheAlchemist: <Knight13> GG is actually how I was made aware of all this funnily enough, even though I only discovered it several months after it all started. I guess I never paid much attention before, but what is really horrifying is how universities are plagued by this crap, when they're supposed to encourage diversity of thought. Are you a student now or have recently been? What's your experience?
Premium Chessgames Member
  Knight13: <TheAlchemist> I have been a student recently and may be a student again soon. My university wasn't affected by it when I was there, but it might be now for all I know, though I doubt it.

I also hate that the universities have been infested with SJWs. Now California has mandatory consent classes and consent laws and guilty-until-proven-innocent rules if a woman accuses a man of rape on campus. U.K. has it worse than the United States.

Premium Chessgames Member
  TheFocus: Sorry, but what is an SJW?
Premium Chessgames Member
  Knight13: <TheFocus> They are people who fight for (their own subjective versions of) social justice, primarily online through social media. Social justice warrior, or SJW, is a term they picked for themselves. They seek to change, destroy, or censor certain characteristics of Western culture that they find problematic or harmful. These include rules regarding freedom of speech, freedom of expression, inter-racial interactions, moral status of people they regard as privileged vs. people they regard as disadvantaged, how men should and shouldn't interact with women, the "harmful" and "problematic" effects of media, etc.
Premium Chessgames Member
  TheFocus: <Knight13> Thank you very much. That clarifies it for me.
Premium Chessgames Member
  Knight13: Never accept something as true just because everyone else says it is true.
Premium Chessgames Member
  Knight13: Anybody but Hillary Clinton for president. People like Hillary are the reason I will not volunteer for the military when there is a war. Especially her because of her callous disregard for the lives of men in war:

"Women have always been the primary victims of war. Women lose their husbands, their fathers, their sons in combat. Women often have to flee from the only homes they have ever known. Women are often the refugees from conflict and sometimes, more frequently in today’s warfare, victims. Women are often left with the responsibility, alone, of raising the children."

Well, I can certainly imagine being a soldier, watching my friend get blown to pieces next to me and thinking, "well, at least he had it better than his wife back home." Not!

By the way, speaking of war victims, please consider donating to War Child. Children are the primary victims of war.

Premium Chessgames Member
  Knight13: No, I shouldn't have said that children are the primary victims of war even though they have the least agency of all. War Child could be right in saying that children suffer the most during wars, but we shouldn't be comparing war victims to begin with. Men do comprise most of the deaths in wars, though... I'm not dying for Hillary Clinton. She can send women into the two-way firing ranges and let them be the secondary victims. I'll be perfectly fine being the "primary victim" thank you very much.
Mar-20-16  Whiterun Guard: <Knight13> I find your hand in my pocket, I'm going to cut it off.
Mar-21-16  Thief: <Whiterun Guard> LOL!
Premium Chessgames Member
  Knight13: <Thief> That is funny.
Mar-23-16  Whiterun Guard: <Thief> Hands to yourself, sneak thief.
Premium Chessgames Member
  Knight13: Worth checking out for those it may concern: <SJWs Always Lie: Taking Down the Thought Police> by Vox Day
Premium Chessgames Member
  Knight13: Fact Free News -- <Feds Paid $709,000 To Academic Who Studies How Glaciers Are Sexist> The paper is linked in the article, which I will share here, entitled <Glaciers, gender, and science: A feminist glaciology framework for global environmental change research>
Premium Chessgames Member
  Knight13: Absolute freedom is no different from absolute chaos.
Premium Chessgames Member
  Knight13: Fact Free: Academia Edition - <"(BABY) STEPS TOWARD FEMINIST PHYSICS">

An excerpt from page 130 (pdf pg. 16): <"My feminist training has taught me that science is a socially constructed artifact of human culture. My scientific training has taught me that science is an empirically based and theoretically constructed description of the natural world. It is important to understand both sides of picture, to see that physics is a socially constructed project that is strongly constrained (though not determined) by the natural world.

Feminists are certainly correct to criticize contemporary science as oppressive and aligned with the rich and powerful, and for contributing to the destruction of the natural world. This is an important part of the legacy of science in the contemporary world. But, as the quotes above attest, many scientists are motivated by a deep love of the natural world, and a humble respect for its complexity. If we will listen, science can teach us humility for our ignorance and respect for the Universe we study.>

Tax payers paid for this. What's your take on this, Mr. Benjamin Franklin? Is there a third certain thing in life: taxes will be wasted on completely useless things?

Jump to page #    (enter # from 1 to 25)
< Earlier Kibitzing  · PAGE 25 OF 25 ·  Later Kibitzing>

A free online guide presented by
NOTE: You need to pick a username and password to post a reply. Getting your account takes less than a minute, totally anonymous, and 100% free--plus, it entitles you to features otherwise unavailable. Pick your username now and join the chessgames community!
If you already have an account, you should login now.
Please observe our posting guidelines:
  1. No obscene, racist, sexist, or profane language.
  2. No spamming, advertising, or duplicating posts.
  3. No personal attacks against other members.
  4. Nothing in violation of United States law.
  5. No posting personal information of members.
Blow the Whistle See something that violates our rules? Blow the whistle and inform an administrator.

NOTE: Keep all discussion on the topic of this page. This forum is for this specific user and nothing else. If you want to discuss chess in general, or this site, you might try the Kibitzer's Café.
Messages posted by Chessgames members do not necessarily represent the views of, its employees, or sponsors.

You are not logged in to
If you need an account, register now;
it's quick, anonymous, and free!
If you already have an account, click here to sign-in.

View another user profile:

home | about | login | logout | F.A.Q. | your profile | preferences | Premium Membership | Kibitzer's Café | Biographer's Bistro | new kibitzing | chessforums | Tournament Index | Player Directory | World Chess Championships | Opening Explorer | Guess the Move | Game Collections | ChessBookie Game | Chessgames Challenge | Store | privacy notice | advertising | contact us
Copyright 2001-2016, Chessgames Services LLC
Web design & database development by 20/20 Technologies