Liberal Hypocrisy at its finest

[Guest]

Edited February 21, 2017 by Guest

[anatess2]

All of a sudden Stockholm syndrome being named such makes sense.

[Guest]

BTW,

This is the Swedish Women's Chess Championship Team.  The world chess championships are hosted by Iran this year.

The American reigning champion is boycotting the tournament this year because they told her she had to wear a hijab and avoid contact with men.

[anatess2]

1 hour ago, Carborendum said:

BTW,

This is the Swedish Women's Chess Championship Team.  The world chess championships are hosted by Iran this year.

The American reigning champion is boycotting the tournament this year because they told her she had to wear a hijab and avoid contact with men.

That's not the Swedish Chess Team.  That' s Lofven's delegation in his visit to Iran.

Now, here's adding insult to injury... Rouhani hosted the meeting with the Swedes in his Presidential Palace bringing an all-male Iranian representation.

 

Anyway, the Swedes said they wore the headscarves because it is the law in Iran.  They don't want to go into Iran and break their laws in defiance. 

Edited February 21, 2017 by anatess2

[Guest MormonGator]

2 hours ago, Carborendum said:

Leftists will generally throw anyone under the bus for the latest social cause. Since defending Islam is the latest thing, the rights of women and gays are ignored. Very sad, it'll lead to their own suicide.  

[anatess2]

About that Chess Championship...

So the women chess championships showcase hijab wearing women

Here is Pia Cramling - the feminist Swedish player:

And this is Susan Polgar's (feminist chess activist who is known for having broken the chess gender barrier) defense of FIDE's agreement with Iran to require the hijab:

"I have travelled to nearly 60 countries. When I visited different places with different cultures, I like to show my respect by dressing up in their traditional style of clothing. No one asked me to do it. I just do it out of respect.  I personally would have no issues with wearing a head scarf (hijab) as long as it is the same to all players. I believe the organisers provided beautiful choices for past participants of Women's Grand Prix.  I cannot speak on behalf of others but from my personal conversations with various players in the past year, they had no real issues with it."

Good for you, Polgar.  You have a choice in the matter.  You can choose to don the hijab for one week of your life to play Chess.  Iranian women don't get to have that choice.

The really tragic thing here is - Women in oppressive Muslim States who are fighting for women's rights have very little support in the feminist movements of the West due to the Western stance of not wanting to offend Muslims.

Edited February 21, 2017 by anatess2

[Guest MormonGator]

1 hour ago, Carborendum said:

BTW,

This is the Swedish Women's Chess Championship Team.  The world chess championships are hosted by Iran this year.

The American reigning champion is boycotting the tournament this year because they told her she had to wear a hijab and avoid contact with men.

The American champ is the true feminist here-she's standing up for Muslim woman who may not have the choice to wear a hijab or not. 

[Guest]

27 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

That's not the Swedish Chess Team.  That' s Lofven's delegation in his visit to Iran.

Now, here's adding insult to injury... Rouhani hosted the meeting with the Swedes in his Presidential Palace bringing an all-male Iranian representation.

Anyway, the Swedes said they wore the headscarves because it is the law in Iran.  They don't want to go into Iran and break their laws in defiance. 

Sorry about that.  I misread the article.  It was linking the hijab issue with the Swedish "delegation" (which I misread as the Swedish chess delegation).  Thanks for the correction.

[Blueskye2]

On 2/21/2017 at 6:56 AM, Carborendum said:

Wait a minute. Trump's immigration "policies" are great because they're enforcing the laws of the US, and we should all be on board because IT'S THE LAW. But! We should break THE LAW in Iran and go bareheaded.

Who are the hypocrites, again?

I say, protesting via breaking unjust laws, is up to each individual,  as it is each individual who is resisting the force of THE LAW and who will bear the consequences. Jeering from the sidelines, BREAK THE LAW, BREAK THE LAW, I WANNA SEE YOU BREAK THE LAW. ALL LAWS. EVERY LAW. BREAK THE LAW. Is stupidity.

[Guest]

Just now, Blueskye2 said:

Wait a minute. Trump's immigration "policies" are great because they're enforcing the laws of the US, and we should all be on board because IT'S THE LAW. But! We should break THE LAW in Iran and go bareheaded.

Who are the hypocrites, again?

I say, protesting via breaking unjust laws, is up to each individual,  as it is each individual who is resisting the force of THE LAW and who will bear the consequences. Jeering from the sidelines, BREAK THE LAW, BREAK THE LAW, I WANNA SEE YOU BREAK THE LAW. ALL LAWS. EVERY LAW. BREAK THE LAW. Is stupidity.

Where did I say we should break the law?

[anatess2]

2 minutes ago, Blueskye2 said:

Wait a minute. Trump's immigration "policies" are great because they're enforcing the laws of the US, and we should all be on board because IT'S THE LAW. But! We should break THE LAW in Iran and go bareheaded.

Who are the hypocrites, again?

I say, protesting via breaking unjust laws, is up to each individual,  as it is each individual who is resisting the force of THE LAW and who will bear the consequences. Jeering from the sidelines, BREAK THE LAW, BREAK THE LAW, I WANNA SEE YOU BREAK THE LAW. ALL LAWS. EVERY LAW. BREAK THE LAW. Is stupidity.

That, of course, is liberal drivel.  Because, for a liberal, the only way to accomplish one's goal in life is to break the law... you know, like illegally immigrating and rioting.  Silly, silly, silly.

 

[Blueskye2]

5 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

That, of course, is liberal drivel.  Because, for a liberal, the only way to accomplish one's goal in life is to break the law... you know, like illegally immigrating and rioting.  Silly, silly, silly.

 

Of course this is alt-right drivel, painting everyone who is not on board with fascism, with the same darkly colored lens.

[Blueskye2]

9 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

Where did I say we should break the law?

We? 

[anatess2]

3 minutes ago, Blueskye2 said:

Of course this is alt-right drivel, painting everyone who is not on board with fascism, with the same darkly colored lens.

Touche.

In any case, this is another one of the consequences of losing diplomatic power in signing that idiotic Iranian Nuclear Deal.  Now Iran has all this money that Swedes need so they get to grovel in Iran instead of holding diplomatic power by having Iran come to them.

[Guest]

5 minutes ago, Blueskye2 said:

We? 

17 minutes ago, Blueskye2 said:

We should break THE LAW in Iran and go bareheaded.

Who are the hypocrites, again?

 

 

[Blueskye2]

5 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

 

 

You, using the word "liberals" as a form of "them", which for me is "we".

Me using the word "we", means us "liberals". If you're a liberal, then yeah, "we". In other words, not "you".

You're OP is encouraging "liberals" to break the laws of Iran, no?

Edited February 23, 2017 by Blueskye2

[Blueskye2]

9 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

Touche.

In any case, this is another one of the consequences of losing diplomatic power in signing that idiotic Iranian Nuclear Deal.  Now Iran has all this money that Swedes need so they get to grovel in Iran instead of holding diplomatic power by having Iran come to them.

I agree, that the Iranian nuclear deal has had bad consequences for the West. Though I think we probably disagree as to why?

I think it was made in good faith, that Iran was going to act in good faith, giving them a chance to act as less than the jerks they usually are. Proven, to be a false hope, and so yes, it should be revoked or modified if possible to address the games that Iran has shown will never cease.

Edited February 23, 2017 by Blueskye2

[anatess2]

13 minutes ago, Blueskye2 said:

I agree, that the Iranian nuclear deal has had bad consequences for the West. Though I think we probably disagree as to why?

 

The why is simple.  The West gave Iran privileges without demanding change from the status quo in return.  Why would Iran change?  They have no reason to.

[Guest]

21 minutes ago, Blueskye2 said:

You, using the word "liberals" as a form of "them", which for me is "we".

Me using the word "we", means us "liberals". If you're a liberal, then yeah, "we". In other words, not "you".

You're OP is encouraging "liberals" to break the laws of Iran, no?

I never said that.

I was pointing to the chess tournament because the American Chess champ decided to boycott the tournament.  She decided to not even step foot into Iran.  She also gave up the potential $100,000 prize.  

1. She broke no laws.  
2. She made her position known.
3. She suffered a personal sacrifice to make such a statement, doing something that hurt herself more than anyone else. 
4. She's my hero.

Marine Le Pen also cancelled her visit to Lebanon over similar issues.  She's also my hero.

Other women (especially from Sweden where they almost brag about their feminist advances) simply chose to forget about any moral high ground because they don't want to offend Muslims.  But they're perfectly OK with offending Christians.

I personally have no beef with the hijab.  It's just a piece of clothing that is similar to a scarf that was popular in the west in ages past.  But there were other behavioral requirements that they were given that would not have been given to men who visited.  But not a peep from these feminists.

Edited February 23, 2017 by Guest

[Blueskye2]

I agree with this POV, except that "moral high ground". It isn't always so black and white. Sometimes we have to go into the den of vipers in order to improve the den. I think this is a very Christian principle.

Women playing chess publicly, in a society where women are excluded from public life, is a statement in itself. If no one shows up to play, then it serves the male oppression that is the life for women, in Iran.

I'm also OK with the hijab, as long as it is not enforced as a law with capital punishment as the penalty for not wearing one. It isn't a fashion statement, BTW, it is considered modest to cover one's head (for both men and women), in many societies, and was so in the West until society changed, and going bare headed was no longer viewed as immodest. I'm certainly ok with people choosing to be modest. 

 

Edited February 23, 2017 by Blueskye2

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, Blueskye2 said:

I agree with this POV, except that "moral high ground". It isn't always so black and white. Sometimes we have to go into the den of vipers in order to improve the den. I think this is a very Christian principle.

Women playing chess publicly, in a society where women are excluded from public life, is a statement in itself. If no one shows up to play, then it serves the male oppression that is the life for women, in Iran.

Except that they weren't doing it in public.  They were specifically restricted as far as where to walk, who to talk to (no men except those directly related to the tournament) what times of day they were allowed out of their housing.

True, we can go into a den of vipers to improve it.  But what good was done here as far as women's rights?  What this activity said was that Muslims can go about remaining in the dark ages regarding women's rights and most of the world will be perfectly ok with joining them.  This is the statement these feminists made by submitting to these rules.

Imagine what a statement would have been made if only Muslim women showed up.

[Blueskye2]

4 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

Except that they weren't doing it in public.  They were specifically restricted as far as where to walk, who to talk to (no men except those directly related to the tournament) what times of day they were allowed out of their housing.

True, we can go into a den of vipers to improve it.  But what good was done here as far as women's rights?  What this activity said was that Muslims can go about remaining in the dark ages regarding women's rights and most of the world will be perfectly ok with joining them.  This is the statement these feminists made by submitting to these rules.

Imagine what a statement would have been made if only Muslim women showed up.

I can agree with this POV. BUT (always a but, ha), if only Muslim women showed up there would be cause for the male dominated society to rule that women don't "need" to play chess, because they have no competitors. It could further isolate women from other societies and other POV. I think it does well, to demonstrate that it is OK for women to travel, to play in tournaments, to actively participate in society. Further isolating people, as a political statement, that improves one's personal agenda, is not a sacrifice for the "other".

Edited February 23, 2017 by Blueskye2

[Guest]

13 minutes ago, Blueskye2 said:

I can agree with this POV. BUT (always a but, ha), if only Muslim women showed up there would be cause for the male dominated society to rule that women don't "need" to play chess, because they have no competitors. It could further isolate women from other societies and other POV. I think it does well, to demonstrate that it is OK for women to travel, to play in tournaments, to actively participate in society. Further isolating people, as a political statement, that improves one's personal agenda, is not a sacrifice for the "other".

I'd disagree with that projected sequence of events.  I guess we'll never know since they chose to bow down.  BTW, they are not isolated.  These tournament women are allowed to travel to non-Muslim countries.

The other side of the coin is asking why "feminists" decry the minor injustices (if they even exist as they present them) in the west, while submitting to the 1000x worse treatement of women in Muslim countries and don't say a word?

Edited February 23, 2017 by Guest

[anatess2]

12 minutes ago, Blueskye2 said:

I can agree with this POV. BUT (always a but, ha), if only Muslim women showed up there would be cause for the male dominated society to rule that women don't "need" to play chess, because they have no competitors. It could further isolate women from other societies and other POV. I think it does well, to demonstrate that it is OK for women to travel, to play in tournaments, to actively participate in society. Further isolating people, as a political statement, that improves one's personal agenda, is not a sacrifice for the "other".

I agree with this.

The answer, of course is, for FIDE to negotiate an exemption from the hijab law.  If Iran refuses to concede, then there are 195 other countries where the tournament can be held and Iranian women can join in or spectate - hijab or no hijab.

Edited February 23, 2017 by anatess2

[Blueskye2]

2 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

I agree with this.

The answer, of course is, for FIDE to negotiate an exemption from the hijab law.  If Iran refuses to concede, then there are 195 other countries where the tournament can be held.

*shrug* I'm not a political scientist, but my gut feel on this, is that isolating regimes and countries doesn't work. See North Korea, which uses isolationism to further misinform and oppress its citizens.