It always struck me as odd that the checkmate definition should be so (relatively) complicated. A much simpler definition is "you lose if the opponent captures your king". A checkmate is just a situation where you can't avoid getting your king captured. If someone doesn't notice their king is on check, then they could lose the next move. After you pass the beginner phase, this will almost never happen to you anyway, so most games will end the same way: checkmate or losing because of time.
When I was in school, we used to play blitz like that. You lost track of your king, boom, you're dead
I'm not saying the author does that. My point is that too many articles do the West vs country at hand. You can, of course, write from the perspective of South Carolina vs Saudi Arabia and make all your comparisons that way, but I think authors could sometimes take a broader perspective, since the internet is, after all, international.
Maybe more importantly, I take issue with the identification of concepts we like (democracy, human rights, etc) with being Western.
I think this is a relative concept. It's less secular than pretty much all other developed nations and also less secular than many other less developed countries
>Most Westerners could witness the change with their own eyes in 2019 when Saudi Arabia began issuing tourist visas for the first time.
The internet is a big place and most people lurking around aren't "westerners". Most people aren't arabs nor Westeners. We are also interested in Saudia Arabia and also find their extreme gender segregation shocking. I also see this when they talk about, say, democracy in China. "We Westeners have democracy so that's why we oppose China".
Am I being too sensitive? Maybe, but it makes me feel excluded and makes me think that a bit percentage of Westeners think it's them vs the topic at hand (whether it be Saudi Arabia, China, etc).
I agree, they are using two different definitions of "good listening". I'd say the "fit in with the social interaction" one is usually the most relevant. This reminds me of Wittgenstein's "language games"[1]. Maybe I'm butchering Wittgenstein's thought, but my understanding is that language works in a social situation as a game, as an activity where things "work ok" or don't work ok. It's not about me communicating my inner mental state and you making sure you're understanding my inner mental state (Wittgenstein's argument is that this is not generally possible, but also maybe it's not even what we usually care about)
Of course, when you're in a specific setting (such as doing science or a police investigation) the other definition can be more relevant.
When I was in school, we used to play blitz like that. You lost track of your king, boom, you're dead