Breaking the Silence

@maumaramau said in #790:
> innocentists would like to coach young girls themselves
Could be, maybe not, who knows ? I am not sure about the woke mob motives either.
Pretending to defend women, with the hidden motive to get their favor later, is such an obvious move, this is called white-knighting in internet slang.
There was a scandal in France, in the migrant camp of Calais, when it appeared the some pro-migrant helpers were in fact inattractive out-of-the-market slobs hoping to get some last action with the deprived... Lame.

Qxf7#

Rf8#

@LazerMing bro is in his own world, living the chess life

this is horrific, and the official's response or lack there of is also horrific if not more

@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?

you have posted nothing but this kind of garbage throughout the thread.

Tell you what, as you are a candidate master, I shall send an anonymous letter to your chess club accusing you of sexual assault. If the association does not ban you and revokes your title, or it investigates the matter IN ANY WAY before it declares you guilty, then I shall consider them as harboring sexual predators, and you a hypocrite.

I will await the following Lichess article.

The same logic applies to health clubs, where women can legally segregate from men. Why not just require them to work out with each other and punish the men who can't handle it?

The rules also apply in reverse. Let's make sure we enforce them when females are the aggressors, or are there no same-sex predators? Chess has a long history of abuse scandals and the perpetrators were not always men.

The e-sport model offers a level of privacy not possible with OTB chess, which never had to deal with it.

As this is the *third* time you have made the same point, I don't feel the need to keep responding, even to a Lion of the Sea.

@QueenRosieMary said in #764:
> 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.
>
>
>
> Let's not make excuses for them, they need to get there, fast.

Strong move, thank you lichess for taking action.

@SixtySecondsOfHell said in #797:
> The same logic applies to health clubs, where women can legally segregate from men.
>

Your points are becoming less relevant and even more bizarre every time you reply. We are not talking about health clubs, I and many women I know have no issue working out in a gym full of men or playing chess in a website full of men, as long as those men are behaving properly, which the vast majority do. Why the constant need to segregate everyone rather than just require decent standards of behaviour from everyone? You seem to be obsessed with segregation.

>Why not just require them to work out with each other and punish the men who can't handle it?

Are you suggesting that there are men who would object to being "required" to work out with fit women in skimpy gym gear in a gym? Or did you mean punish the men who can't handle the temptation and act on it?

> The rules also apply in reverse. Let's make sure we enforce them when females are the aggressors,

Are you talking about female-to-female aggression or female-to-male aggression here? And what does this have to do with the alleged male-to-female aggression that this original topic is about? There are two male alleged aggressors and 8 or so female alleged victims?

> ...or are there no same-sex predators?

Female to female aggression? Male to male? What do you mean?

>Chess has a long history of abuse scandals and the perpetrators were not always men.

Deflection and whataboutery, "what about that vague time when the aggressor was a woman?" (which one, incidentally?) What about it?

> The e-sport model offers a level of privacy not possible with OTB chess,

Why do we need privacy exactly?

> which never had to deal with it.

It was never an issue because previously, OTB chess was exclusively a gentlemen's club. But now there are women as well, you think all of a sudden we need "privacy"? Are you a dinosaur? Did you go to an all-boys school? I am getting the impression you somehow have a problem with men and women integrating and having physical proximity with each other, for example in gyms or chess tournaments.

> As this is the *third* time you have made the same point, I don't feel the need to keep responding,

I am making the point again because you have not given me satisfactory answers yet, in fact, you are coming up with increasingly ridiculous scenarios and statements.

> ....even to a Lion of the Sea.

I don't think anyone has ever called me a Sealion before...did something get lost in translation?

No need for personal attacks sounds like your mind was made up and you want universal agreement on a public forum.

@QueenRosieMary said in #799:
> Your points are becoming less relevant and even more bizarre every time you reply. We are not talking about health clubs, I and many women I know have no issue working out in a gym full of men or playing chess in a website full of men, as long as those men are behaving properly, which the vast majority do. Why the constant need to segregate everyone rather than just require decent standards of behaviour from everyone? You seem to be obsessed with segregation.
>
>
>
> Are you suggesting that there are men who would object to being "required" to work out with fit women in skimpy gym gear in a gym? Or did you mean punish the men who can't handle the temptation and act on it?
>
>
>
> Are you talking about female-to-female aggression or female-to-male aggression here? And what does this have to do with the alleged male-to-female aggression that this original topic is about? There are two male alleged aggressors and 8 or so female alleged victims?
>
>
>
> Female to female aggression? Male to male? What do you mean?
>
>
>
> Deflection and whataboutery, "what about that vague time when the aggressor was a woman?" (which one, incidentally?) What about it?
>
>
>
> Why do we need privacy exactly?
>
>
>
> It was never an issue because previously, OTB chess was exclusively a gentlemen's club. But now there are women as well, you think all of a sudden we need "privacy"? Are you a dinosaur? Did you go to an all-boys school? I am getting the impression you somehow have a problem with men and women integrating and having physical proximity with each other, for example in gyms or chess tournaments.
>
>
>
> I am making the point again because you have not given me satisfactory answers yet, in fact, you are coming up with increasingly ridiculous scenarios and statements.
>
>
>
> I don't think anyone has ever called me a Sealion before...did something get lost in translation?