First, the black Queen is pinned to her King. If she moves, he dies. So she must stay in place or the player find some other way to eliminate the threat.
The pin isn't immediate though... because the white Rook is in the way. But, if that Rook moves, it's on!
So 1. Rxa6!
The King is in check, and the only piece within reach to capture it is the Black Queen...but she's pinned! So black only has the single "forced move" of 1..Kb8.
But, the party isn't over yet.
The Black Queen is no longer pinned by the White Queen, but now the white Bishop pins the pawn to the King.
How can white take advantage of that?
2. Rb6!
Now the Rook pins the Queen to the King!
Black will lose the Queen after 2..Qxb6 and 3. axb6
Mea culpa here, when I created the position I made the mistake of leaving room for black to throw in some "spite checks" to delay white's win.
I hope you enjoyed this little chess thread. I try not to only talk messy stuff on here.
I made the question about me, and I stated something more firmly threatening than anything Jordan Neely was said to do. Most wouldn't justify my death for it.
I suspect the value placed on my life far exceeds that granted to his, and that's the difference.
Credit to those who don't think I deserve to be killed in my hypothetical, but also don't think there's any evidence presented justifying the killing of Jordan Neely.
I respect valuing life, including for the poor and mentally ill.
6% of people said I deserve to be killed, and while I think that's a terrifying reflection, I appreciate their response.
Don't want to be in any secluded places with people like that.
This kind of stuff has been explained to Bo many times, and he actually does get it. This is a rhetorical and political tactic though. It works by demanding that people accept the premise that race is biologically real, a position rejected by genomics and biological anthropology.
But there's also the fact that even when talking about sex, a lot of "theories" are also seen as sexist, particularly those forwarded by the EvoPsych crowd.
What's the line? Plausibility. Not just plausibility in terms of feelings, but in terms of evidence.
Those who think individuals obviously differ in innate characteristics, find the allegation of being "blank slatist" odd, not realizing that the term is now primarily used to reference rejection of specific claims about "group differences".
This significant difference in referents causes a lot of confusion and conflict. I reject many standard claims about biological race and race differences, and thus end up being labeled a blank slatist.
Many reject certain claims about inherent differences in male/female brains at conception, and that gets them labeled blank slatists.
In very few cases can we find people saying for example "every individual in my family was the same at conception", but this isn't the accusation
One really weird personal IQ test artifact: my dad only graduated high school. He has 8 descendants. 3 of them tested above 130 on professional IQ tests.
His brother managed to get a Doctor of Theology degree, was the only kid from his area to ace a standardized test, and 2 of his 3 kids also tested above 130 on an IQ test.
Another of his brothers has a grandchild who also tested above 130.
I know this sounds like a humble brag given what people think of these tests, but I'm really just thinking that I don't have set thoughts on the whole thing.
“To refer to the African population, is to refer to something that doesn’t really exist, because it’s a conglomerate of several populations, each of which is as different and as large as the ones they’re being compared to.” - @JonathanKaplan
This is a really good article on scientific racism, how they distort science to claim credibility for their belief system, and how scientists are pushing back.
This is such a difficult thing to explain to people and to help them understand.
People fundamentally believe that "individuals in group X are more like others in group X", and it's hard to convince them otherwise.