Do you believe that you as an American should be a pawn ruled by Kings or Queens?

[Uncle Joe]

Poll question: Do you believe that you as an American should be a pawn ruled by Kings or Queens?

I'm not asking if you believe that you are, but whether you should be.

I'm asking this because all these "Chess" analogies seem to contradict what the spirit of the Constitution is about namely the concept of, "We the People."

[vi5]

1. I do, but only if the Kings/Queens are democrats.

Kidding. I'm kidding. But sadly that is the blatant subtext of far too many posts and posters here on DU.

[Uncle Joe]

2. And although it's not in the U.S., here is another sub-text.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=4659859&mesg_id=4660354

Metropolitan Police Commissioner Sir Paul Stephenson referred to the level of violence in recent student protests against the rise in tuition fees, saying that he does not rule out banning all future student protests across the country, the daily Independent reported.

I have to wonder, how much money is going to be spent on the royal wedding this spring?

[guitar man]

3. Hell no!!

I have no use for kings, queens, royalty or aristocrats of any kind. :grr:

[Bucky]

4. I just assumed the poll options would be either "Kings" or "Queens". Voting 'neither' is a cop out.

<== No

<== Yes

[Uncle Joe]

5. It's kind of ironic, their anthem, "We are the Champions" seems to argue against pawn-dom.

[Bucky]

8. As long as we can both agree this is an idiotic poll, then it's all good.

[Uncle Joe]

11. It's all good even if we don't agree.

[KamaAina]

6. I believe in pawns advancing to the eighth rank

and being promoted to Queens. :-)

[Bucky]

9. .

[JoePhilly]

7. Other ...

I think all of the hyper-ventilating about chess analogies is hilarious.

BTW ... in chess, the king and queen don't make ANY DECISIONS and they don't rule the pawns.

They are inanimate objects.

[Uncle Joe]

10. I believe analogies have psychological value as they both tell a story and create identity.

If you view the actions of the people's elected agents as playing chess, then by extension issues affecting real people's lives are nothing but pawns or lower pieces to be sacrificed as a means to insure the King's survival.

[JoePhilly]

13. Maybe we should use football analogies instead?

Or wait, I know ... how about Baseball analogies?

No no ... so let's do this ... let's throw out ALL use of analogy during political discourse on DU, because, as you I think correctly imply, every analogy when taken to an extreme, fails ... because after all, it is not the ACTUAL thing, just an ANALOGY. No analogy fits perfectly.

Now ... in my view, when a person uses an analogy, what they do is they select some ASPECT of a secondary topic (like chess or football), as a way to describe the topic of primary interest (say political decision making). That's how an analogy works. The person creating the analogy intentionally selects a part that they thing is similar.

During all of DU's ranting about Obama ... DOZENS of analogies have been put forward (using a wide array of secondary topics) by those who dislike Obama, and by those that support him.

In each and every case, the person putting forward the analogy has tried to structure the analogy to make some specific point (not to demonstrate that the two things are EXACTLY the same, but to make some specific point). Then others join the thread. They agree, they disagree, they dismiss the analogy. Great fun.

Now ... what I find funny is when a person creates an analogy with specific aspects in one thread, and then others decide that the secondary topic can't be used in an analogy because the secondary topic in question is not a PERFECT fit. Using this approach, all analogies must be rejected, not on the specifics of the analogy as presented, but because NO secondary topic can be a perfect fit.

And so in this case ... I have never heard anyone using aspects of chess as an analogy to argue that we should be ruled by kings and queens. As an avid chess player, I'd have no problem destroying that analogy were it to be made. But no one IS making that argument.

So the OP has constructed an argument about a chess analogy that no one is actually making, apparently as a way to stop people from using some other aspect of chess as part future analogies that folks might argue on the specific merits of the analogy.

And I find it funny.

I also think that there are many aspects of Chess that are like politics (complex problem solving, Strategy versus Tactics), or football (you need a good ground game), Baseball (sacrifice fly to score a run) ... boxing (Jabs and knock out punches) ... cooking, Frisbee golf, on and on and on.

Be sad to end the use of analogies.

[Uncle Joe]

15. You can use any analogy that you like when describing politics and I can

use my reason to argue against the use of said particular analogy, whether on it's particular merits or it's sub-textual, sociological effects.

That's part of not being a pawn, the right of dissension.

You see no effects on political society and I do, but that's okay.

For the record, I enjoy playing chess as well.

[JoePhilly]

16. You didn't dissent from to anything.

If some one HAD made an argument that we should be pawns, ruled by kings and queens, like in chess ... THEN, you'd be dissenting from something. But no one has made any such an argument.

What you did is find something that makes chess DIFFERENT from American politics (which isn't hard to do) to argue the point that Chess isn't a valid point of comparison. The same can be done to any topic from which one constructs an analogy to prove its NOT the primary topic.

As for the "sociological effects" of chess analogies relative to Americans politics, you are correct that I don't see any significant impact on "political society" ... not for chess analogies, not for football analogies, or any other analogy one might pick.

[Uncle Joe]

17. I'm dissenting from your point of view.

"As for the "sociological effects" of chess analogies relative to Americans politics, you are correct that I don't see any significant impact on "political society" ... not for chess analogies, not for football analogies, or any other analogy one might pick."

I believe asking the question of whether you wish to be identified as being ruled by royalty is directly related to the continued use of chess analogies, that's why I used pawn in the title and posted about chess analogies in the OP.

[JoePhilly]

18. So I return to my first point ...

The King and Queen do not rule the pawns in chess.

Given that, one's use of a chess analogy does not in anyway indicate that they "wish to be identified as being ruled by royalty", nor should anyone come to that conclusion about them.

[Uncle Joe]

19. And I return to my post # 10

I believe analogies have psychological value as they both tell a story and create identity.

If you view the actions of the people's elected agents as playing chess, then by extension issues affecting real people's lives are nothing but pawns or lower pieces to be sacrificed as a means to insure the King's survival.

[JoePhilly]

22. Your devaluation of PAWNS causes your line of reasoning to fail completely.

You assume that in Chess, pawns are "lower pieces to be sacrificed as a means to ensure the kings survival".

That is simply wrong, although I can understand this mistake. Its not uncommon. One of the first things a new chess player learns is that the different pieces have a different value.

They are ranked ..
Queen = 9
Rook = 5
Knight / Bishop = 3
Pawns = 1

Pawns are the lowest valued piece. And so they are weak.

However, when we look at the number of each of the pieces the ranking changes.

2 Rook = 10
1 Queen = 9
8 Pawns = 8
2 Bishops = 6
2 Knights = 6

Suddenly, the value of the pawns, taken TOGETHER, increases their overall relative material value.

Next, if we study the game, most of the preferred opening start with a pawn move. So in most games, nothing happens until a pawn moves.

Past that, pawns working together, create not only walls of defense, but also PAWN CHAINS which push deep into enemy territory. These chains, far from being weak structures, often DOMINATE the play of the game because the block in the bishops of the same color as that on which the chain sits. They also position leading pawns for the threat of potential promotion, making them extremely valuable.

Pawns often take supporting positions, not protecting the King, but working to strengthen the attack paths for bishops on the long diagonals or increasing the range of a centralized knight.

Importantly, when pawns fail to work together, they break into what are called PAWN ISLANDS. These are small groups of pawns with disconnections or gaps between them (think of groups of single issue voters). The gaps between these pawn islands create weakness that can be exploited by the enemy. Not only can the enemy slip through the gaps, pawn islands create opportunities for picking off pawns.

Of course, the pawn is the only piece that can actually be rewarded for its efforts, as it is the only piece that can be promoted and take on a new form (a form which does not always have to be a queen).

And then, the individual pawn can actually go UP in material value. In higher level chess, a pawn on the 8th rank has the ability to become a queen, and so to trade a queen to capture it is common (pawn=9 points). If a pawn reaches the 7th rank, a trade for it is generally viewed as equivilent as that for a rook (5 points), 6th rank, a trade of a knight or bishop.

And then ... in high level chess, the most common endings come not with a flourish, no 4 move check mate, no. In high level chess, the queens are gone, the rooks are gone, the knights and bishops are gone. THEY have all been traded away.

Each side has a King, and one or more pawns. So if you decided to WASTE pawns early in the game in a manner such as you suggest, you will now lose, because a king can move no faster than a pawn. And what you think of as a "lowly pawn" is the most important piece on the board. And so in many endgames, it is in fact the KING who protects the PAWN.

So you see ... this notion that Pawns exist in Chess as "lower pieces to be sacrificed as a means to ensure the king's survival" is simply wrong.

[Uncle Joe]

24. Thanks for the lesson, but you didn't tell me anything I didn't already know, and you continue

to miss my point re: using analogies of chess and politics.

So here is the Dictionary to help.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/pawn

pawn

5. a person serving as security; hostage

(snip)

2. someone who is used or manipulated to further another person's purposes.

The President already lives in a bubble, disconnected from the people and the beltway aka; corporate media do nothing to connect him/her to the critical issues affecting the people.

The corporate media and courtesans' primary concern being most about their own welfare or that of their mega-wealthy clients and patrons.

I believe making the President out to be some sort of cosmic chess player when millions of lives are at stake only serves to reinforce that bubble, waging war becomes easier, endangering social security through careless tax cuts for the mega-wealthy, or ignoring the looming catastrophe of global warming climate change, etc. etc. becomes just part of the game.

The preeminent point in chess is the survival of the King, period, when its' lost, game over, so policy becomes subverted to serve politics.

When enough bad policy is passed under the supposition of just passing something, usually to protect the King you end up losing the Congress and at some point the opposing player with its' King gets a turn for four to eight years.

Finally using your own language from an earlier post about chess pieces just being inanimate objects, it isn't the pawns that "fail to work together" it's the player that breaks them up in to "Pawn Islands" and I believe using chess analogies to depict Presidential politics only makes it easier for a President to think of him/her self as a player and not a President.

Importantly, when pawns fail to work together, they break into what are called PAWN ISLANDS. These are small groups of pawns with disconnections or gaps between them (think of groups of single issue voters). The gaps between these pawn islands create weakness that can be exploited by the enemy. Not only can the enemy slip through the gaps, pawn islands create opportunities for picking off pawns.

[Javaman]

12. Wait, what? You mean we're not? nt

[Uncle Joe]

14. I believe the PTBs would have us believe that's all we are and can ever be. I

also believe that's a major motivating factor behind them wanting to repeal the XVII Amendment; allowing for Senators to elected by direct popular vote.

[Octafish]

20. That's why America's great.

The Constitution. An idea realized. That is, that each human is free, equal and master of his or her fate.

"L'État, c'est moi" -- Louis XIV

If he didn't say that on the way to the guillotine, he should have. Kings and Queens are, at heart, solipsists. They believe only in their own existence. All others are in their picture to serve them in whatever manner K and Q wish.

That's tyranny. And, despite what Johnny Ashcan, KKKarl Rove and all their followers say, we the People are in charge.

Thank you for a great OP and thread, Uncle Joe.

[Uncle Joe]

21. Thanks for the reply, Octafish.

Peace to you, I'm heading out for the evening.:hi:

[Javaman]

23. As long as our government doesn't fear us, we are not in charge. nt

[sarcasmo]

25. We currently are a pawn ruled by Corporations.

[Uncle Joe]

27. But do you think that we should be?

[L. Coyote]

26. Only if we get to keep pretending there is a Santa Claus and toys trickle down

http://www.dancingsantacard.com/en/?santa=279789

[LanternWaste]

28. Any analogy or metaphor will inevitably break down...

"all these "Chess" analogies seem to contradict what the spirit..."

Any analogy or metaphor will inevitably break down if stretched to a point which denies or does not recognize the original context of the analogy or metaphor. :shrug:

Explaining bandwidth can be done with everyday an everyday analogy... “I compare it to a water pipe and multiple people trying to take a shower.” However, if one believes that showers are un-American, that does not, in and of itself render the analogy fallacious; nor does it predicate any special association with an individual's own opinion about a shower.


On the other hand, I imagine a lack of nationalism, like an insult may be found anywhere if one looks hard enough... even in places where they simply do not exist.

[Uncle Joe]

29. I agree with your point of view, LanternWaste but I also view analogies

as having some psychological/sociological impact, especially if it becomes a common meme or frame.

I don't feel insulted so much by the analogy, as I see this as a sort of mission creep.

Are Presidents to be players or Presidents?