oh look. it’s the brave little cis boy

You’re right, and I don’t want you to feel like no-one agrees with you.

I think you’re missing the point of the original comment. Describing modern conservatism as a disability at once absolves conservatives of their responsibility not to hold abhorrent views, by classing it as a characteristic they have no control over, and lumps people with disabilities into a group that, in a non-insignificant number of cases, wants them dead or sterilised.

That’s why the commenter was upset with you; not because you’ve criticised eugenics, but because you’ve been massively insensitive, and when someone pointed out that insensitivity you became defensive and attacked them in return.

I reckon i could have a stab at Xhosan, but only because I’ve watched so much Xhosan rugby commentary (the passion they have for their team is absolutely infectious and carries a game: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=KPpVLIpt9eg&pp=ygUWeGhvc2EgcnVnYnkgY29tbWVudGFyeQ%3D%3D)

:)

Looks ai generated, so not too surprised it’s wrong

What do you think is in the beans??

Stan Rogers song ‘Lies’ is one I find really poetic and uplifting on this exact topic

Eh, rabbit could be cis. Up to rabbit to tell us how they identify. Sometimes men like to look pretty too :3

Also surgery. But we’re capable of knowing which homonym is meant by context ;)

Eh, you wouldn’t use the noun water to refer to atoms of water. ‘How many waters are there?’ to refer to atoms of water is the statement of someone deranged

And yet you opened the image they sent 🤨📸

Depends on if you’re using water to include types of water (if, like a maniacal madman, you have mixed Evian, Buxton and Harrogate mineral water into one jug). Then ‘i mixed fewer waters’ or ‘there are fewer waters in that glass’ would be valid.

To be clear: I’m not the person you replied to, just someone who finds it quite interesting (in the same way that the plural fishes is valid if you’re talking about different species of fish).

And yes, I know prescriptivism is bad, but also it is quite fun.

Does that mean chatgpt considers me a beautiful woman 🥺🥺🥺🥺🥺🥺🥺🥺

Not really --the reason being that no-one would play this who is experienced at the game, and I’ll do my best to explain why:

1. Black’s bishops are incredibly passive. If you’re going to sit back and let white take the centre, generally you’re going to stick the bishops on the long diagonal so you have long-term compensation (as in e.g. the King’s Indian). On the long diagonal (a1-h8 or a8-h1), the bishop is always going to apply pressure to the centre, and once the centre opens control a lot of key squares.

Compare that to black’s bishops here. Which squares are they looking at? Not ones you particularly care about. You are completely free to carry on developing, then play e4, clamping down on the centre.

2. Black’s knights are doing nothing. You may have heard the phrase ‘a knight on the rim is dim’. Black’s knight on h7 is doing not very much, while yours are controlling key central squares (the one on d2 prepares e4).

3. Pawn structure. Generally in an opening like the King’s Indian, black prepares pawn moves like e5, c5 or f5 to strike back at white’s centre, and when the centre opens their great pieces (like a fianchettoed bishop or active Knights) can take advantage. Your opponent doesn’t have any pieces geared towards making these pawn breaks useful. e5 loses a pawn, d5 opens up your dark squared bishop, c5 can be ignored and allows you to apply pressure to the weak d6 pawn.

The bottom line is: black has wasted a lot of their time, and you are developed and ready to crack their position. In terms of how to press an advantage, many people overbalance and try to push too hard. The best way to punish passive play is to finish developing (Qe2, and put the rooks on d1 and e1), then pick a side to attack on, and gear yourself towards pushing pawns, and manoeuvring your pieces to support those breaks. Your opponent is hoping you overextend and collapse; don’t give them the satisfaction. Good luck!

They’re referring to this: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_Name_(brand)

Fingers crossed!

The sheer pleasure in watching an arrogant tit get humbled was chef’s kiss. Once by someone who couldn’t give a shit about him, and was good enough to simply crush him the first few games and then dick about, and once by someone who really wanted a statement victory

It funny because yesterday the chess did not, in fact, speak for itself

I read that as courting. Which honestly… Yeah?