If we were not quick with the orchidaceous psychoanalysis, I believe we would see that in the majority case (even when relevant) its not "street cred" but "ideological commitment" that compels the wearer. And there is nothing wrong with the latter. Even when misunderstood, I am happy to stand with my 70s lefty comrades than with the latest fifth-wave feminists, for the reason (among others) that I prefer parsimony over obfuscation!
..........
Uh oh.
When ochidaceous is pulled, like grandpa's rusty WW2 rifle, from the back of the attic, trouble's surely ahead.
"Ideological commitment" animates efforts to establish "street cred" via self deprecation. There's no mutual exclusivity there.
And, I do remember how you refuted the idea women hadn't reached the upper echelons of chess playing. That was crisply done. But others used the discussion as an opportunity to throw themselves under as many "I, and my chess playing ass are not worthy" buses as possible. I should go to the archives but time isn't on my side.
It's really very simple. I'm saying that when you wrote this:
I think maths (at the non-genius level) requires an element of stupidity or slowness, and perhaps certain small mental "disorders" such as OCD and paranoia.
[...]
You joined, apparently without meaning to, the ranks of the self-flagellating. No fancy, amateur psychoanalysis was applied: the words carry strong meanings all by themselves. "Stupidity" is not read as a neutral term and even though "disorders" is in quotes I bet it still looks like plain old 'mental disorders' to most people.
So, regardless of your state of mind or intentions (which I can't know without using...the mind probe), the words on screen look like yet another 'sensitive guy' style put down.
In other words, I'm taking your statement at face value. Which is the exact opposite of ornate, flower arrangement theorizing.
.d.