<Comment deleted by user>
Each country has it's costumes/ tradition. Why forcing western values, thinking they are the best?
Nobody criticise western values (if something's left of "western values") ?
Repression is a common issue in lots of countries for one reason or another, included western countries.
Nowadays lots of people are talking about "respect" but talking about it not the same as living it.
Nobody criticise western values (if something's left of "western values") ?
Repression is a common issue in lots of countries for one reason or another, included western countries.
Nowadays lots of people are talking about "respect" but talking about it not the same as living it.
Shohreh Bayat is an absolute legend, I applaud her for standing up for what is right. FIDE is trying to gaslight us into thinking that this is not an absolutely perfect example of *integrity*, it's unbelievably ironic that they use that word to criticise her.
@ninguno said in #44:
> Each country has it's costumes/ tradition.
I assume you won't be going to prison, if you don't adhere to yours.
> Each country has it's costumes/ tradition.
I assume you won't be going to prison, if you don't adhere to yours.
@zozzers said in #46:
> I assume you won't be going to prison, if you don't adhere to yours.
Sure you go to prison/ get a fine if you don't respect certain "western values".
Just inform yourself better.
I cannot write here about politics, costumes, "western values", "eastern values", "middle east values", ecc..
1st because lichess is for playing chess and not for political/ custome discussion.
2nd people are not enough open-minded,
3rd cannot think on their own,
4th they only care what the mainstream media says.
> I assume you won't be going to prison, if you don't adhere to yours.
Sure you go to prison/ get a fine if you don't respect certain "western values".
Just inform yourself better.
I cannot write here about politics, costumes, "western values", "eastern values", "middle east values", ecc..
1st because lichess is for playing chess and not for political/ custome discussion.
2nd people are not enough open-minded,
3rd cannot think on their own,
4th they only care what the mainstream media says.
@ninguno said in #44:
> Each country has it's costumes/ tradition. Why forcing western values, thinking they are the best?
> Nobody criticise western values (if something's left of "western values") ?
> Repression is a common issue in lots of countries for one reason or another, included western countries.
> Nowadays lots of people are talking about "respect" but talking about it not the same as living it.
Opinions, ideas and especially (constructive) criticisms should be freely exchanged between every human being no matter what their background is: this is basis for human interaction and (positive) evolution of our worldwide civilisation. You certainly cannot go to another country and try to impose your way of thinking: it would be like going to someone else's home and try to impose your personal rules and lifestyle. Nevertheless both sides should be ready and open to engage in a civil conversation, possibly in a neutral arena (which is very difficult to find). If the other side doesn't want to listen - yet they are still free to listen and ignore you altogether - you shutdown the conversation: there's none so deaf as those who will not hear.
> Each country has it's costumes/ tradition. Why forcing western values, thinking they are the best?
> Nobody criticise western values (if something's left of "western values") ?
> Repression is a common issue in lots of countries for one reason or another, included western countries.
> Nowadays lots of people are talking about "respect" but talking about it not the same as living it.
Opinions, ideas and especially (constructive) criticisms should be freely exchanged between every human being no matter what their background is: this is basis for human interaction and (positive) evolution of our worldwide civilisation. You certainly cannot go to another country and try to impose your way of thinking: it would be like going to someone else's home and try to impose your personal rules and lifestyle. Nevertheless both sides should be ready and open to engage in a civil conversation, possibly in a neutral arena (which is very difficult to find). If the other side doesn't want to listen - yet they are still free to listen and ignore you altogether - you shutdown the conversation: there's none so deaf as those who will not hear.
Este artículo debe publicitarse más. Me avergüenza saber que estas iniciativas siempre son individuales, que no parten de las instituciones que deben defender a los individuos... o desaparecer. FIDE, ONU, Amnistía Internacional... No se puede dejar en manos de los jugadores una decisión como ésta: son las instituciones quienes deben poner normas del juego que impidan la intromisión de los estados, de los totalitarismos, de los líderes religiosos. El miedo de los individuos es normal y predecible. Sin miedo serían muchos los jugadores que a nivel individual se posicionarían en la defensa de los Derechos Humanos. Pero las instituciones deben prever toda posibilidad de atentar contra la libertad del individuo, deben erradicar toda posibilidad de miedo.
Lichess también es una institución. Y todos formamos parte, de algún modo, de esa institución. Propongo, por ejemplo, que se prohíba la exhibición de una bandera del país que atenta contra los Derechos Humanos. (Probablemente esto suponga la eliminación de todas las banderas, la mía también). Siempre que se envíe previamente un comunicado de advertencia a la Federación del país en cuestión, y se haga público el comunicado y la respuesta. Por ejemplo: yo me niego a jugar con los que exhiben la bandera rusa.
Con todo, soy consciente de que las instituciones también dependen de decisiones individuales. Con cierta vergüenza por no hacer todo lo que debería en estos temas, publico este comentario, a nivel individual, por supuesto, del mismo modo que estaría dispuesto a cortarme los cinco centímetros de cabello. O a raparme la cabeza.
¡Gracias!
Lichess también es una institución. Y todos formamos parte, de algún modo, de esa institución. Propongo, por ejemplo, que se prohíba la exhibición de una bandera del país que atenta contra los Derechos Humanos. (Probablemente esto suponga la eliminación de todas las banderas, la mía también). Siempre que se envíe previamente un comunicado de advertencia a la Federación del país en cuestión, y se haga público el comunicado y la respuesta. Por ejemplo: yo me niego a jugar con los que exhiben la bandera rusa.
Con todo, soy consciente de que las instituciones también dependen de decisiones individuales. Con cierta vergüenza por no hacer todo lo que debería en estos temas, publico este comentario, a nivel individual, por supuesto, del mismo modo que estaría dispuesto a cortarme los cinco centímetros de cabello. O a raparme la cabeza.
¡Gracias!
@Rookitiki said in #24:
> Libre chess
> Not
> Oppression chess
>
> The article is in perfect alignment with what lichess stands for. Critiquing a regime that jails and kills people for acting on basic human rights seems perfectly normal and natural. More so since Iran has a strong chess scene.
>
> @Corvisquire
@zozzers said in #31:
> en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism
If you would like, we can also talk about the 10 million killed in Algeria (the Algerian genocide) by the French, something they have not apologized for: www.politico.eu/article/france-apologize-algeria-colonization/
I'm sure this genocide has had an effect on Algeria's ability to cultivate a strong class of Grandmasters.
Lichess is French btw, and has its own biases. You wont see blog posts about the aforementioned genocide or lack of apology by the French establishment, or how it somehow relates to chess.
I can keep mentioning examples of such atrocities, they are many.
As @Corvisquire has rightfully stated, this is not the place for charged political rhetoric. I firmly believe that this is a slippery slope to politically and ideologically motivated censorship by the moderating team in the future. I am personally not interested in the Lichess team's own political biases.
I am, like many others, are here to play Chess. Nothing else.
> Libre chess
> Not
> Oppression chess
>
> The article is in perfect alignment with what lichess stands for. Critiquing a regime that jails and kills people for acting on basic human rights seems perfectly normal and natural. More so since Iran has a strong chess scene.
>
> @Corvisquire
@zozzers said in #31:
> en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism
If you would like, we can also talk about the 10 million killed in Algeria (the Algerian genocide) by the French, something they have not apologized for: www.politico.eu/article/france-apologize-algeria-colonization/
I'm sure this genocide has had an effect on Algeria's ability to cultivate a strong class of Grandmasters.
Lichess is French btw, and has its own biases. You wont see blog posts about the aforementioned genocide or lack of apology by the French establishment, or how it somehow relates to chess.
I can keep mentioning examples of such atrocities, they are many.
As @Corvisquire has rightfully stated, this is not the place for charged political rhetoric. I firmly believe that this is a slippery slope to politically and ideologically motivated censorship by the moderating team in the future. I am personally not interested in the Lichess team's own political biases.
I am, like many others, are here to play Chess. Nothing else.
@beakofjustice @Corvisquire
Lichess is inherently political. A free software / open source platform, with no paywalls, adverts, or trackers, which has said in the past that "advertising is a cancer"... the entire website is an economic and philosophical statement. To say "I don't think Lichess should be political", you are missing the point that on such a platform where the biggest influence is liberty, it would be against their values to not speak out.... and the article is about the impact on chess players and the chess world, it's not even particularly political.
When Lichess is political and benefits you, you are indifferent to it. When it's political (and what even kind of politics is this? what, advocating that women should be treated equally globally?) you find it uncomfortable and complain.
As to the Algeria example - I am sure if an Algerian arbiter spoke against the imperialism of France and was silenced and removed by FIDE for it, it would be newsworthy for Lichess.
Lichess is inherently political. A free software / open source platform, with no paywalls, adverts, or trackers, which has said in the past that "advertising is a cancer"... the entire website is an economic and philosophical statement. To say "I don't think Lichess should be political", you are missing the point that on such a platform where the biggest influence is liberty, it would be against their values to not speak out.... and the article is about the impact on chess players and the chess world, it's not even particularly political.
When Lichess is political and benefits you, you are indifferent to it. When it's political (and what even kind of politics is this? what, advocating that women should be treated equally globally?) you find it uncomfortable and complain.
As to the Algeria example - I am sure if an Algerian arbiter spoke against the imperialism of France and was silenced and removed by FIDE for it, it would be newsworthy for Lichess.
This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.