It's an arbitrary list of clothing items that is supposedly put together to "promote a good and positive image of chess", regardless of where you come from.
"Business casual (European standards), which means long trousers or pants, shirt, jacket, with or without tie (no t-shirts, no polo, no jeans, no sports shoes or sneakers or slippers, no hats or caps (except for religious reasons) and the equivalent style of dress for women players.
National costumes and team uniforms are allowed."
It quite literally says "European standards."
National costumes -- I don't know the context here -- usually means vetted traditional clothing (such as, for India, a sari, but not the much more common selwar suit). It also -- by definition -- excludes minority groups (for example, Inner Mongolia or Tibet in China, or the Kurds in Turkey). There's also the very practical matter that "minority groups" include neurodiversity too.
The whole point is to judge people on their chess and not on their looks. It's the exact same issue as professional hairstyles or, before that, professional skin colors. A 1930-era US or German management consulting firm would obviously look worse to clients with a non-white consultant. There was an objective reason to discriminate in positions. That didn't make it right.
In either case, if the goal of FIDE was to make money, discriminating would make complete business sense, regardless of ethical value.
If the goal is to promote chess, people should be able to see themselves in the game, and participate regardless of how they choose to look. Back to the management consulting example, in 1930, a qualified black management consultant would serve the additional benefit of being an ambassador to and role model for their community.
I find people who use it in a derogatory don’t do much actual thinking to start with.
The literal origin of its use in social justice realms was to put an emphasis and value on critical thinking.
By pondering the nature of society one can be “awoken” to the deeper sociological forces which shape individual lives.
I’ll freely admit the term has been perverted by a range of actors with motivations I disagree with.
But the original meaning and intent is valuable: all of us live in a world of hidden boundaries and power structures, but seeing that requires thought.
Many people don’t want to think for themselves, and they hate those that do.
motorest|1 year ago
I think you're commenting out of ignorance. FIDE's dress code does accepts "national costumes", on par with suits and Bermuda shorts.
https://www.fide.com/images/stories/NEWS_2013/FIDE/Proposal_...
It's an arbitrary list of clothing items that is supposedly put together to "promote a good and positive image of chess", regardless of where you come from.
blagie|1 year ago
National costumes and team uniforms are allowed."
It quite literally says "European standards."
National costumes -- I don't know the context here -- usually means vetted traditional clothing (such as, for India, a sari, but not the much more common selwar suit). It also -- by definition -- excludes minority groups (for example, Inner Mongolia or Tibet in China, or the Kurds in Turkey). There's also the very practical matter that "minority groups" include neurodiversity too.
The whole point is to judge people on their chess and not on their looks. It's the exact same issue as professional hairstyles or, before that, professional skin colors. A 1930-era US or German management consulting firm would obviously look worse to clients with a non-white consultant. There was an objective reason to discriminate in positions. That didn't make it right.
In either case, if the goal of FIDE was to make money, discriminating would make complete business sense, regardless of ethical value.
If the goal is to promote chess, people should be able to see themselves in the game, and participate regardless of how they choose to look. Back to the management consulting example, in 1930, a qualified black management consultant would serve the additional benefit of being an ambassador to and role model for their community.
lowbloodsugar|1 year ago
fnordpiglet|1 year ago
tedunangst|1 year ago
UniverseHacker|1 year ago
English already has a word for that- asleep
Arch485|1 year ago
Maybe an antonym to "woke" could be "slept"?
seattle_spring|1 year ago
What exactly do you think that word means?
griomnib|1 year ago
The literal origin of its use in social justice realms was to put an emphasis and value on critical thinking.
By pondering the nature of society one can be “awoken” to the deeper sociological forces which shape individual lives.
I’ll freely admit the term has been perverted by a range of actors with motivations I disagree with.
But the original meaning and intent is valuable: all of us live in a world of hidden boundaries and power structures, but seeing that requires thought.
Many people don’t want to think for themselves, and they hate those that do.