A YouTube chat about chess got flagged for hate speech

Post by kleer001 » Fri, Jul 23, 2021, 3:27 AM UTC

commandlinefan wrote: post #402

zarzavat wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The best thing to do is to ignore these people, they will never be happy so there's no point trying to please them. If you ignore someone who is never happy then in time they may respect you, but if you always comply then they will never respect you and their perceived power over you simply increases, which means they feel empowered to ask for more and more.

> ignore these people Unfortunately for the rest of us, they've been put in charge.

Post by l33t2328 » Fri, Jul 23, 2021, 3:29 AM UTC

commandlinefan wrote: post #421

l33t2328 wrote: post #419

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why do you say that?

Well, for one, it's not actually defined - and this is deliberate, because if one were try to define it in any meaningful way it could immediately be proven to be incorrect. For the most part, its proponents point to (somewhat arbitrary) statistics, but ignore counter-statistics (like incarceration rates of men vs. women, for example) that undermine their position.

Post by jtsiskin » Fri, Jul 23, 2021, 5:32 AM UTC

zarathustreal wrote: post #412

1337shadow wrote: post #292

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They are uneven, having the first move is a documented advantage called "initiative". Your first move as black depends on the first move that white made, typically you won't have the same response for 1. d4 and 1. e4! Anyway, I've been looking forward to this day, where SJW start trying to change chess because it's "racist" because white have advantage of initiative and "sexist" because it makes you sacrify the queen…

That’s weird, there’s a documented advantage to being the second player to move as well known as the “defender’s advantage” since you have more information to make your move. Your information includes both the board state and the knowledge of the other player’s move while the first player only has knowledge of the board state. No idea where the idea of an advantage to being first came from

Post by f1refly » Fri, Jul 23, 2021, 6:16 AM UTC

cryptoz wrote: post #416

f1refly wrote: post #330

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The results were very clear. Subjects that held anti-homosexual views supported significantly higher cuts for the gay and lesbian organization after they were exposed to anti-gay humor, compared to subjects who were not prejudiced against gays and lesbians who were exposed to the same jokes. So, let me rephrase that > after hearing jokes featuring homosexuals, the anti-homosexuals (however those where determined an…

That doesn't disprove my point at all.

Post by BoxOfRain » Fri, Jul 23, 2021, 9:53 AM UTC

sellyme wrote: post #440

BoxOfRain wrote: post #439

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's still dumping a "bad" on the poor old algorithm though, which has done nothing wrong simply by existing and doing what it is programmed to do. Algorithms aren't bad, it's the programmers who write them and the managers who decide they should be written who are bad when things like this happen.

I don't see how you could believe this point, unless you think things like "There's no bad music, only bad musicians" as well. Perhaps an elucidating counterpoint is an algorithm written in such a manner that it is deliberately worthless, as a joke (e.g., StackSort, Bogosort). Obviously they're not the result of a bad programmer, they're just an inherently bad algorithm.