Breaking the Silence

I suppose it's easier to write a blog post than to run a major chess federation - and it shows.

I have been a lichess supporter for a while - I'm surprised the fancy thingy is gone already, but I have decided to put my subscription on hold. Not because I don't believe the accusations - I do - but because it awfully seems like throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Moral panic mob is a really vile thing too.

This thread is 78 pages long because it is a mix of two threads :

- the Ramirez/Shahade case
- Lichess becoming a social/moral activist

I am not interested at all in the Ramirez/Shahade case, EVEN if Ramirez is guilty of some sort, I vehemently CONTEST the right for Lichess to exert social punishment. Lichess exists because it has been financially supported, to be a neutral chess server, that would serve EVERYONE.
When Lichess uses its power to exert social activism, it DEFRAUDS its founders. It is a breach of trust, and it is with a sad heart that I thereby halt my financial support.

The slippery slope is real, one day my baker will refuse to sell me bread because of my twitter posts ? I say NO to this.

@AlexisPERR said in #772:
> This thread is 78 pages long because it is a mix of two threads :
>
> - the Ramirez/Shahade case
> - Lichess becoming a social/moral activist
>
> I am not interested at all in the Ramirez/Shahade case, EVEN if Ramirez is guilty of some sort, I vehemently CONTEST the right for Lichess to exert social punishment. Lichess exists because it has been financially supported, to be a neutral chess server, that would serve EVERYONE.
> When Lichess uses its power to exert social activism, it DEFRAUDS its founders. It is a breach of trust, and it is with a sad heart that I thereby halt my financial support.
>
> The slippery slope is real, one day my baker will refuse to sell me bread because of my twitter posts ? I say NO to this.

It is not like lichess is forcing its political views down anyone's throat. Demanding safe environment free of any sort of harassment (sexual or not) is not a partisan position. I'd expect everyone across the political spectrum to be in agreement here. But oh well, apparently not.

@ohcomeon_1 said in #773:
> [my view] is not a partisan position

It is always the same with you people, you start on the assumption that you are the Good, and proceed to discuss on that premises. It is impossible to have a fair discussion if you think you are not partisan. Everything is partisan (or relative, if you prefer). I contest everything you take for granted. Lichess is doing social punishment, it cannot be considered a neutral platform anymore.

@AlexisPERR said in #774:
> It is always the same with you people, you start on the assumption that you are the Good, and proceed to discuss on that premises. It is impossible to have a fair discussion if you think you are not partisan. Everything is partisan (or relative, if you prefer). I contest everything you take for granted. Lichess is doing social punishment, it cannot be considered a neutral platform anymore.

Well, apparently you are right and I am wrong. Apparently everyone not being sexually harassed is not universally desirable. Apparently, there are people who maintain that harassment has to be protected and if you disagree with them, you are not "neutral."

My sincere apology

@ohcomeon_1 said in #775:
> that harassment has to be protected

Lichess doing social justice is a harassment in itself, a harassment of the baddies, of course, but who decided they were baddies ? Who mandated Lichess to that task ? Where does that end ?
Do you even understand my concern ?

@ohcomeon_1 said in #775:
> Well, apparently you are right and I am wrong.

sadly it is the only thing that taliban understand

@AlexisPERR said in #776:
> Lichess doing social justice is a harassment in itself

Oh yeah. Fighting against racism is racism too. Speaking out against intolerance is a form of intolerance. Standing up to harassment is harassment. What am I forgetting?

@ohcomeon_1 said in #778:
> What am I forgetting?

Once again, we have a case of 'I am Good and it gives me right to punish Bad wherever/whenever'
Many such cases.
There are too much key concepts you are missing, that have been thought over and over by high level thinkers, and they came up with our "judiciary system". I suggest we stick to that, and let bakers cook bread to everyone, and chess servers serve chess to everyone.

Enough said.

@AlexisPERR said in #779:
> Once again, we have a case of 'I am Good and it gives me right to punish Bad wherever/whenever'

No. No one is saying "'I am Good and it gives me right to punish". Alright?

> Many such cases.
> There are too much key concepts you are missing,

Be concrete. What am I missing?

> that have been thought over and over by high level thinkers, and they came up with our "judiciary system". I suggest we stick to that, and let bakers cook bread to everyone, and chess servers serve chess to everyone.

Lichess is not trying to put Ramirez in jail or make him pay damages. Mentioning "judiciary system" is irrelevant.