this post was submitted on 30 Jan 2025
141 points (98.0% liked)
chat
8286 readers
234 users here now
Chat is a text only community for casual conversation, please keep shitposting to the absolute minimum. This is intended to be a separate space from c/chapotraphouse or the daily megathread. Chat does this by being a long-form community where topics will remain from day to day unlike the megathread, and it is distinct from c/chapotraphouse in that we ask you to engage in this community in a genuine way. Please keep shitposting, bits, and irony to a minimum.
As with all communities posts need to abide by the code of conduct, additionally moderators will remove any posts or comments deemed to be inappropriate.
Thank you and happy chatting!
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
One thing I've been thinking about a but over the past few years is how standardization is really strange and sort of paralyzing. For how many hundreds of years were there hundreds of regional variants of chess, each with their own history and culture? But at some point these things have become standardized and whatever natural tendency they had to change has been neutered completely. Same thing with a pack of standard playing cards: are those going to have kings, queens and jacks on them forever, even after any sort of resonance these concepts once had have vanished?
Dialectics: standardization just changed the form of the diversity. As standardization came to resolve contradictions in rulesets, it allowed a broader amount of play and deeper tactics and strategies which now define the diversity found. It also makes accessibility higher, so the diversity came in the form of education levels and such too.
That's not to say it's all good, just that the shift is a very normal sort of centralization like you find in many fields.
Idea: replace the king with Stalin, queen with Mao, and the jack will be Lenin.
Stirner will be the joker