Chess And The Hijab: Iran's Dorsa Derakhshani Finds Her Way

[Major Nikon]

“They made me wear a scarf against my will," says Dorsa, "and I thought that that was pretty stupid, because, 'Well, I’m 6. Why would I need to wear a scarf?’ So I ruined the live TV and I ran out. Then they told me that whenever I changed my mind, I can go back. I never did, so I never went back for the TV.

...

“Well, actually, in Iran, there is no rule that when the girl is 8 or 10 years old, she has to wear a scarf," Dorsa says. "So between 10 until 12, the girls start to want to wear one, because everybody else is wearing one. But I tried to delay as much as possible. So I wasn't wearing the scarf up until I was 12. And when I entered under 13, I decided, 'OK, it’s time that I start wearing the scarf.'"

...

Dorsa and her brother, Borna, played an international tournament in late January and early February in Gibraltar. A computer decides the matchups, and in the opening round, 14-year-old Borna was paired with grandmaster Alexander Huzman. Borna played the game, but there was one problem. Huzman represents Israel, a fact that the pairings sheet didn’t show. Tournament organizers usually manually manipulate the pairings to avoid these matchups, but for this one, the organizers apparently forgot.

...

A few weeks after the tournament ended, Mehrdad Pahlevanzadeh announced that Borna was banned from both playing for Iran and entering tournaments inside Iran. In the same press conference, he also banned Dorsa for not wearing a headscarf.

https://www.wbur.org/onlyagame/2017/09/29/chess-hijab-dorsa-derakhshani

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dorsa_Derakhshani

[3Hotdogs]

1. Don't she know? Jesus wants girls to wear headscarfs.

Of course, Jesus hanging with 12 guys.....

[Major Nikon]

2. Yeah kinda funny how supreme beings only want women to be modest

[trotsky]

3. Yes but the Chinese government is persecuting a group of Muslims.

So therefore there is no such thing as religious intolerance by religious groups.

Pretty sure that's how it goes, right?? /s

[guillaumeb]

4. From your framing here,

I would say no, you do not see how intolerance works.

[trotsky]

6. Can intolerance ever be justified by religious teachings?

Yes or no, g. Answer the question if you dare. Or just insult my intelligence and attack me like you usually do.

Your choice.

[guillaumeb]

7. Your question is faulty. Allow me to correct it for demonstrated bias.

Can intolerant people use religious teachings to justify their intolerance?

Yes.



The key here is that intolerant individuals will attempt to justify their own behavior using whatever belief or philosophical system they hold.

[trotsky]

8. Explain how my question is faulty then.

Don't rewrite the question to justify your biases.

[Major Nikon]

9. it's only faulty to someone who is only interested in giving sermons

Noted is how he decided to attack you exactly as predicted instead of answering a straightforward question. Then he proceeds to repeat his favorite sermon about how organized religion can never be responsible for anything bad, yet gets all the credit for anything good.

Attempting meaningful discussion is like trying to have a conversation with a bullhorn carrying street corner zealot. All you are ever going to get is a one-sided sermon.

[guillaumeb]

11. You reveal yourself as you attempt to analyze others.

Well done.

[trotsky]

14. "I'm rubber and you're glue"?? Really, that's your childish response?

You just proved his point. You have absolutely no interest in actual discussion, or else you'd engage him right now to explain why he's wrong. Instead, he hit a little too close to home for your comfort, and so you lash out as usual.

[Major Nikon]

15. Just another one of his canned responses

It’s pretty clear he doesn’t put any thought into any of them. All of them are designed to give the appearance of an actual response without actually engaging in discussion. As far as his agenda goes, he only has a few canned sermons as well and just repeats those like he does with his primary school level retorts.

[guillaumeb]

17. More attempts at analysis?

You too reveal much.

[trotsky]

18. Are you afraid to engage in actual discussion?

I think that's it. Major Nikon has you pegged perfectly.

[guillaumeb]

19. Not at all.

And When I find it in this group, I engage in it.

[trotsky]

20. That's a load of horseshit and you know it.

I've given you multiple chances to engage in real, actual discussion, and the only thing you can do is smear me in return.

Step up and be the decent person you think you are, g. Quit with the baloney and actually discuss these concepts and ideas.

Or, as usual, just insult me again.

Either way, you'll be informing others of exactly how sincere you are in your commitment to dialog.

FYI, here's a real, actual discussion question that I posed to you but you left unanswered. There are many more, but I'd like you to demonstrate your willingness to engage in dialog. Let's go. I'm game.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=321715

[guillaumeb]

21. You asked another question.

My many responses here provide the answer.

[trotsky]

22. I've already told you that I won't be gaslit.

Thank you for showing everyone your actual commitment to discussion and dialog, though. Now people can decide for themselves whether or not you're being a total flaming hypocrite when you call for the same.

[guillaumeb]

23. 9% of my current posts are in the Religion group.

Perhaps you missed the other 91%.

But even speaking about that 9%, I regularly engage with people in the Religion group.

As others can clearly see.

[trotsky]

24. Yeah it's no wonder.

When you act like you do, it shouldn't be a surprise. That's why I keep exposing your tactics and agenda.

[trotsky]

13. Yeah, I don't expect him to grow or change or engage in any kind of meaningful discussion.

After all, I've given him countless chances to actually defend his ideas and beliefs, but he always refuses and instead attacks me.

I post only for the benefit of others, so his agenda and bias are revealed for all to see.

[Major Nikon]

16. If you've ever tried to have a discussion with a zealot you will notice a similar pattern

They will never engage in two sided discussion about their ideas. They know from experience when they have to defend their ideas this leads to critical thinking their ideas simply can’t tolerate. So you never will get a straightforward answer from them.

Your straightforward question is a perfect example. He could have just answered it with a straightforward answer, or he could have just ignored it. Instead he chose to reframe it into the question he wish had been asked and then proceeded to answer his own question instead of yours. Then he even went so far as to pretend he actually answered your question as if everyone is just too stupid to see his obvious tactic. Then again, perhaps his invisible fan club can’t.

[guillaumeb]

10. I gave my answer. eom

[trotsky]

12. No you didn't.

You can't gaslight me.

[Major Nikon]

5. Exactly

As long as any secular group anywhere is intolerant of religion, that proves religion can’t possibly have any role to play with intolerance orchestrated by religionists even if they claim their invisible sky daddy commands it.