Thank you, Lichess. Even more happy I donate to you now. You give your content away for free and you support survivors of sexual abuse. To those who said this site should just talk about chess; This is about chess. Chess players abusing other chess players. I hope the USCF and SLCC can come out an apologize over their lack of action and work to be better. Much love all.
So when I say "your view"
You say, "it's not my view, it's common decency"
And when I say "you are punishing"
You say "I am not punishing, I am applying common decency"
Okkkaaaayyyy... dude, this discussion ends here. We are irreconcilable by IQ difference, which could be either way, according to the Dunning-Kruger effect.
You say, "it's not my view, it's common decency"
And when I say "you are punishing"
You say "I am not punishing, I am applying common decency"
Okkkaaaayyyy... dude, this discussion ends here. We are irreconcilable by IQ difference, which could be either way, according to the Dunning-Kruger effect.
@ohcomeon_1 said in #778:
> Speaking out against intolerance is a form of intolerance.
Well of course. By *definition*. All is relative, that was taught in school, at my time.
> Speaking out against intolerance is a form of intolerance.
Well of course. By *definition*. All is relative, that was taught in school, at my time.
@AlexisPERR said in #782:
> So when I say "your view"
> You say, "it's not my view, it's common decency"
> And when I say "you are punishing"
> You say "I am not punishing, I am applying common decency"
>
> Okkkaaaayyyy... dude, this discussion ends here. We are irreconcilable by IQ difference, which could be either way, according to the Dunning-Kruger effect.
I know my IQ and I really doubt you have an irreconcilably higher or lower one. I think the difference lies elsewhere. But I am Ok with the discussion ending.
> So when I say "your view"
> You say, "it's not my view, it's common decency"
> And when I say "you are punishing"
> You say "I am not punishing, I am applying common decency"
>
> Okkkaaaayyyy... dude, this discussion ends here. We are irreconcilable by IQ difference, which could be either way, according to the Dunning-Kruger effect.
I know my IQ and I really doubt you have an irreconcilably higher or lower one. I think the difference lies elsewhere. But I am Ok with the discussion ending.
@AlexisPERR said in #783:
> All is relative, that was taught in school, at my time.
Oh my, some bad school you attended.
> All is relative, that was taught in school, at my time.
Oh my, some bad school you attended.
@h2b2 said in #759:
> This forum post is a prefect example why most victims of sexual assault don't report it to the police. Can you believe that? Most victims of sexual assault don't report it to the police.
>
> Some of the views, victim blaming, victim attacking are breath takingly regressive. A real eye opener people think that way. They so passionately and emotively attack the victims and lichess and make demands of the victims.
>
> Do you believe people have the right to free speech? I'm not sure if free speech is protected in canada, I assume it is.
>
> Free speech traditionally meant the government won't try to stop speech, it doesn't mean there won't be civil consequences, it doesn't mean you can say what you want on a private forum.
>
> So, if someone is OK with possible civil consequences for what they say, you believe they still don't have the right to say it?
>
> BTW, where are the civil lawsuits by the accused men?
>
> If we are going to turn the accused attackers into victims, victims of defamation and whatever else like being unjustly banned, unfairly dismissed, or whatever. If we're demanding the victims of sexual assault prove it in court, shouldn't we also be demanding the accused attackers prove defamation and whatever else in court?
>
> Until the accusers lose in court they have done nothing wrong. Similar to innocent until proven guilty.
>
> Until lichess lose in court, they have done nothing wrong. Similar to innocent until proven guilty.
Not once did I blame the victim. I stated that we have laws that prohibit certain actions, and someone is innocent until proven guilty of these actions. The nature of the crime should not matter, but it seems that some people think that certain circumstances warrant these basic human rights to be thrown away.
> This forum post is a prefect example why most victims of sexual assault don't report it to the police. Can you believe that? Most victims of sexual assault don't report it to the police.
>
> Some of the views, victim blaming, victim attacking are breath takingly regressive. A real eye opener people think that way. They so passionately and emotively attack the victims and lichess and make demands of the victims.
>
> Do you believe people have the right to free speech? I'm not sure if free speech is protected in canada, I assume it is.
>
> Free speech traditionally meant the government won't try to stop speech, it doesn't mean there won't be civil consequences, it doesn't mean you can say what you want on a private forum.
>
> So, if someone is OK with possible civil consequences for what they say, you believe they still don't have the right to say it?
>
> BTW, where are the civil lawsuits by the accused men?
>
> If we are going to turn the accused attackers into victims, victims of defamation and whatever else like being unjustly banned, unfairly dismissed, or whatever. If we're demanding the victims of sexual assault prove it in court, shouldn't we also be demanding the accused attackers prove defamation and whatever else in court?
>
> Until the accusers lose in court they have done nothing wrong. Similar to innocent until proven guilty.
>
> Until lichess lose in court, they have done nothing wrong. Similar to innocent until proven guilty.
Not once did I blame the victim. I stated that we have laws that prohibit certain actions, and someone is innocent until proven guilty of these actions. The nature of the crime should not matter, but it seems that some people think that certain circumstances warrant these basic human rights to be thrown away.
@NekomancerBC said in #786:
> Not once did I blame the victim. I stated that we have laws that prohibit certain actions, and someone is innocent until proven guilty of these actions.
OK. We have 9 or 10 people of different ages and from different countries state the same person sexually assaulted them. I am going to use critical thinking and decide there's something to the reports and if nothing is done more people are in danger of becoming victims.
> The nature of the crime should not matter, but it seems that some people think that certain circumstances warrant these basic human rights to be thrown away.
Is it a human right to be employed as a chess coach?
I would have thought it was a human right to not be sexually assaulted.
Most sexual assaults go unreported and of the ones reported, a fraction end up being prosecuted, and of those a fraction with a guilty verdict. Let's just pretend the ten aren't lying, the odds are there won't be a guilty verdict, let's pretend there's no guilty verdict. now what?
> Not once did I blame the victim. I stated that we have laws that prohibit certain actions, and someone is innocent until proven guilty of these actions.
OK. We have 9 or 10 people of different ages and from different countries state the same person sexually assaulted them. I am going to use critical thinking and decide there's something to the reports and if nothing is done more people are in danger of becoming victims.
> The nature of the crime should not matter, but it seems that some people think that certain circumstances warrant these basic human rights to be thrown away.
Is it a human right to be employed as a chess coach?
I would have thought it was a human right to not be sexually assaulted.
Most sexual assaults go unreported and of the ones reported, a fraction end up being prosecuted, and of those a fraction with a guilty verdict. Let's just pretend the ten aren't lying, the odds are there won't be a guilty verdict, let's pretend there's no guilty verdict. now what?
I WANT AN ANSWER: SHOULD ALEJANDRO-INNOCENT-UNTIL-PROVEN-GUILTY-RAMIREZ AND TIMUR-NO-EVIDENCE-GAREYEV KEEP THEIR JOBS AND COACH YOUNG GIRLS? OR WHAT IS YOUR POINT?
Strong move but is morally right. SUpport!
@Sarg0n said in #788:
> I WANT AN ANSWER: SHOULD ALEJANDRO-INNOCENT-UNTIL-PROVEN-GUILTY-RAMIREZ AND TIMUR-NO-EVIDENCE-GAREYEV KEEP THEIR JOBS AND COACH YOUNG GIRLS? OR WHAT IS YOUR POINT?
probably a lot of innocentists would like to coach young girls themselves (if there is no some big bad woke nearby threatening their freedom)
> I WANT AN ANSWER: SHOULD ALEJANDRO-INNOCENT-UNTIL-PROVEN-GUILTY-RAMIREZ AND TIMUR-NO-EVIDENCE-GAREYEV KEEP THEIR JOBS AND COACH YOUNG GIRLS? OR WHAT IS YOUR POINT?
probably a lot of innocentists would like to coach young girls themselves (if there is no some big bad woke nearby threatening their freedom)
This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.