Will Lichess not be accessible in US?
@SixtySecondsOfHell said in #756:
> Why not switch to an arcade setup like with e-sports? OTB chess was designed mostly for men, now you have women forced to sit across a board, with no phones or anything, for hours. Biology is going to work against that and the women have a right to feel safe. I suppose online is safest but there are ways to make OTB safer as well.
>
I'm still struggling to understand what you are trying to say here. No one is "forcing" women to play OTB. Unless this is some new kind of oppression I'm unaware of? They enter OTB tournaments knowing (I'm pretty sure) that they will be sitting across a table from their opponents for hours, playing chess.
I'm also pretty sure that they know they aren't going to be allowed to have their phones (or anything?) with them at the table.
How do you mean "biology is going to work against that"? There shouldn't be any "biology" happening, this is chess. There should just be chess happening, not a re-enactment of a David Attenborough documentary...
Women of course have a right to feel, and be safe. Are you suggesting the rampant horny male opponents are going to try to cop a sneaky feel under the table? Pretty sure that would just earn them a swift kick on the shins.
> Men behaving better would be the best option but it seems some are not there yet
Let's not make excuses for them, they need to get there, fast.
> Why not switch to an arcade setup like with e-sports? OTB chess was designed mostly for men, now you have women forced to sit across a board, with no phones or anything, for hours. Biology is going to work against that and the women have a right to feel safe. I suppose online is safest but there are ways to make OTB safer as well.
>
I'm still struggling to understand what you are trying to say here. No one is "forcing" women to play OTB. Unless this is some new kind of oppression I'm unaware of? They enter OTB tournaments knowing (I'm pretty sure) that they will be sitting across a table from their opponents for hours, playing chess.
I'm also pretty sure that they know they aren't going to be allowed to have their phones (or anything?) with them at the table.
How do you mean "biology is going to work against that"? There shouldn't be any "biology" happening, this is chess. There should just be chess happening, not a re-enactment of a David Attenborough documentary...
Women of course have a right to feel, and be safe. Are you suggesting the rampant horny male opponents are going to try to cop a sneaky feel under the table? Pretty sure that would just earn them a swift kick on the shins.
> Men behaving better would be the best option but it seems some are not there yet
Let's not make excuses for them, they need to get there, fast.
- "Women should do this"
- "Men should do that"
please let's move over
- "Men should do that"
please let's move over
Yes
Thank you again for your reply. I'll try to be brief and comment on some lines and phrases, especially where i hadn't been clear before
@svensp said in #756:
> in Forbes Magazine that references a WSJ article, eight (8) women have accused him... Shouldn't it matter when the numbers grow?
Thank you for that, i did not study the case, found out 2 days ago after reading the original Lichess post. I think it should matter when the numbers grow. It is my intuitive judgement, i did not study law professionally.
> so these statements are evidence
I partially agree with that, all witnesses' accounts in court are evidence but there should be a proper form and manner of collecting the evidence. For me, as we are not in a court room and i didn't even read the victims' accounts of what happened, how they tell it, they are not evidence and cannot be qualified as evidence yet, it's someone whose name i don't know, neither do i know if they had liked or hated Alejandro Ramirez before and what kind of violence and improper conduct there was, what kind of relationship they had or have. I know nothing. With all that, I'm not trying to degrade their feelings or emotions and concequences for victims of sexual violence. Violence and harassment, especially using an authority position, must not be tolerated (needless to say). And i understand it's a delicate issue, especially in sexist communities, and victims don't report and don't go public because they feel it might be humiliating and traumatising.
> Do you think there has to be video recording
No, in most cases there are no video or audio recordings or witnesses. That is why, if there was no violence and no medical and physical trace is left, just harassment or comments leave no material evidence. And accusing becomes very easy. With modern technologies there are sometimes screenshots and extracts from conversations via messengers. I am not ready to say they a harassment victim and a violence victim are in the same category. That is why i repeat that an underage girl is not in DANGER with Alejandro Ramirez. There are much worse cases of teachers, family members, friends of the family, policemen and priests where real physical violence or assault goes unpunished for many years.
> I think there is a clear difference between women reporting sexual harassment and people in totalitarian regimes denouncing their neighbours anonymously to powerful intelligence agencies.
Indeed there is. I was comparing Lichess to "good neighbours", not the victims. We, as observers, not victims, "take action" out of GOOD INTENTIONS. I'm not blaming the victims of anything, don't even know how many there are. If he is guilty, there may be more. But we don't know yet, what i am seeng now is good neighbours, haidressers (Lichess) acting.
I may be wrong as i don't know the details and don't know what SLCC did. Just found it alarming.
Kevin Spacey was "cancelled" due to allegations, and there were other cases.
It's a bit too easy, even for me, to say: "George Clooney tried to kiss me 17 years ago". "And me too, he also wanted to kiss ME 19 years ago". Not mocking, just saying it's really easy. At the same time it's really hard for someone when an assault really happened and they kept it inside and it was causing depression or anxiety. The issue is delicate, the finger pointing is easy. And shouting in a choir of accusers is also easy, when it's safe and fashionable and everyone does it. (not saying it's you, people who shout "Get him/her" don't normally engage in long and wordy discussions)
@svensp said in #756:
> in Forbes Magazine that references a WSJ article, eight (8) women have accused him... Shouldn't it matter when the numbers grow?
Thank you for that, i did not study the case, found out 2 days ago after reading the original Lichess post. I think it should matter when the numbers grow. It is my intuitive judgement, i did not study law professionally.
> so these statements are evidence
I partially agree with that, all witnesses' accounts in court are evidence but there should be a proper form and manner of collecting the evidence. For me, as we are not in a court room and i didn't even read the victims' accounts of what happened, how they tell it, they are not evidence and cannot be qualified as evidence yet, it's someone whose name i don't know, neither do i know if they had liked or hated Alejandro Ramirez before and what kind of violence and improper conduct there was, what kind of relationship they had or have. I know nothing. With all that, I'm not trying to degrade their feelings or emotions and concequences for victims of sexual violence. Violence and harassment, especially using an authority position, must not be tolerated (needless to say). And i understand it's a delicate issue, especially in sexist communities, and victims don't report and don't go public because they feel it might be humiliating and traumatising.
> Do you think there has to be video recording
No, in most cases there are no video or audio recordings or witnesses. That is why, if there was no violence and no medical and physical trace is left, just harassment or comments leave no material evidence. And accusing becomes very easy. With modern technologies there are sometimes screenshots and extracts from conversations via messengers. I am not ready to say they a harassment victim and a violence victim are in the same category. That is why i repeat that an underage girl is not in DANGER with Alejandro Ramirez. There are much worse cases of teachers, family members, friends of the family, policemen and priests where real physical violence or assault goes unpunished for many years.
> I think there is a clear difference between women reporting sexual harassment and people in totalitarian regimes denouncing their neighbours anonymously to powerful intelligence agencies.
Indeed there is. I was comparing Lichess to "good neighbours", not the victims. We, as observers, not victims, "take action" out of GOOD INTENTIONS. I'm not blaming the victims of anything, don't even know how many there are. If he is guilty, there may be more. But we don't know yet, what i am seeng now is good neighbours, haidressers (Lichess) acting.
I may be wrong as i don't know the details and don't know what SLCC did. Just found it alarming.
Kevin Spacey was "cancelled" due to allegations, and there were other cases.
It's a bit too easy, even for me, to say: "George Clooney tried to kiss me 17 years ago". "And me too, he also wanted to kiss ME 19 years ago". Not mocking, just saying it's really easy. At the same time it's really hard for someone when an assault really happened and they kept it inside and it was causing depression or anxiety. The issue is delicate, the finger pointing is easy. And shouting in a choir of accusers is also easy, when it's safe and fashionable and everyone does it. (not saying it's you, people who shout "Get him/her" don't normally engage in long and wordy discussions)
I really don't know how true these things are like I mean....
Thanks for explaining in great detail @getting_there , but I am getting confused by your views.
You agree that the number of allegations does matter. You also seem to understand why the victims don't feel safe or comfortable reporting to legal authorities. The allegations against Ramirez seem pretty serious and convincing to me. It is true we can never know for sure what happened here unless there is any physical proof, you seem to agree there too. Yet you go on to say the following, sorry, I don't see how.
@getting_there said in #767:
> That is why i repeat that an underage girl is not in DANGER with Alejandro Ramirez. There are much worse cases of teachers, family members, friends of the family, policemen and priests where real physical violence or assault goes unpunished for many years.
What does it matter if there are worse cases? I fail to see this point.
> It's a bit too easy, even for me, to say: "George Clooney tried to kiss me 17 years ago". "And me too, he also wanted to kiss ME 19 years ago". Not mocking, just saying it's really easy. At the same time it's really hard for someone when an assault really happened and they kept it inside and it was causing depression or anxiety. The issue is delicate, the finger pointing is easy.
Also, you are creating false or extreme analogies. Sure, any allegation is plausible theoretically unless you can disprove it. But that does not mean it is reasonable or convincing. If you claim George Clooney wanted to kiss you, sure why not? :) It can happen, but if you want others to believe you, you need to substantiate it with some evidence or rationale if not definite proof. I think in this case, Lichess had enough to take condemn the role of USCF and STLCC in failing to provide a safe and fair environment to its members, more specifically women. It does not even matter by that logic whether these allegations are true or false because they can't be both.
You can equate this with being a good neighbor. And I can equate not doing it with being a bad parent. Imagine the case where one parent is abusive and abuses their children, but the other parent stays silent due to fear and co-dependency and allows the abuse to continue. There we see a bad parent, not only the parent who abuses but also the one who tolerates. I think this is an extreme analogy too, but it counters the point you are trying to make with your extreme analogy.
Inaction is an action too, and it has consequences as well.
You agree that the number of allegations does matter. You also seem to understand why the victims don't feel safe or comfortable reporting to legal authorities. The allegations against Ramirez seem pretty serious and convincing to me. It is true we can never know for sure what happened here unless there is any physical proof, you seem to agree there too. Yet you go on to say the following, sorry, I don't see how.
@getting_there said in #767:
> That is why i repeat that an underage girl is not in DANGER with Alejandro Ramirez. There are much worse cases of teachers, family members, friends of the family, policemen and priests where real physical violence or assault goes unpunished for many years.
What does it matter if there are worse cases? I fail to see this point.
> It's a bit too easy, even for me, to say: "George Clooney tried to kiss me 17 years ago". "And me too, he also wanted to kiss ME 19 years ago". Not mocking, just saying it's really easy. At the same time it's really hard for someone when an assault really happened and they kept it inside and it was causing depression or anxiety. The issue is delicate, the finger pointing is easy.
Also, you are creating false or extreme analogies. Sure, any allegation is plausible theoretically unless you can disprove it. But that does not mean it is reasonable or convincing. If you claim George Clooney wanted to kiss you, sure why not? :) It can happen, but if you want others to believe you, you need to substantiate it with some evidence or rationale if not definite proof. I think in this case, Lichess had enough to take condemn the role of USCF and STLCC in failing to provide a safe and fair environment to its members, more specifically women. It does not even matter by that logic whether these allegations are true or false because they can't be both.
You can equate this with being a good neighbor. And I can equate not doing it with being a bad parent. Imagine the case where one parent is abusive and abuses their children, but the other parent stays silent due to fear and co-dependency and allows the abuse to continue. There we see a bad parent, not only the parent who abuses but also the one who tolerates. I think this is an extreme analogy too, but it counters the point you are trying to make with your extreme analogy.
Inaction is an action too, and it has consequences as well.
This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.