Women, Life, Freedom
@Cynosure said in #53:
> @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....
I get your point that this is in accordance to their values.
I personally support free software and open source. I mostly agree about trackers and ads, especially in the context of the modern web. Regardless, this is a limited set of values, and they can be reached in different ways. The pursuit of liberty is just one way to come to the conclusion that these things are good (in the case of FOSS) or bad (ads/trackers). I'm sure that even if we had a discussion around politics in general, there would likely be a lot of points of agreement.
> 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.
The problem that I was trying to articulate, is that by taking speech in the name of liberty to its logical conclusion, you should follow up the discussion about why other transgressions against liberty that are a thousand times as great have not been mentioned. Should they be mentioned?
The question then becomes, which toes will we be stepping on? Iran? France? This leads to heated debates that even the Lichess team may find intolerable.
This is why a good limit to these discussion is desirable. When people think of Lichess, they think of Chess, maybe FOSS, but mostly just Chess. That is why they are are here.
> 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.
My point is that it wouldn't be, especially not if it was titled "Two centuries of imperialism: French chess in 2023" or something equally politically charged.
> @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....
I get your point that this is in accordance to their values.
I personally support free software and open source. I mostly agree about trackers and ads, especially in the context of the modern web. Regardless, this is a limited set of values, and they can be reached in different ways. The pursuit of liberty is just one way to come to the conclusion that these things are good (in the case of FOSS) or bad (ads/trackers). I'm sure that even if we had a discussion around politics in general, there would likely be a lot of points of agreement.
> 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.
The problem that I was trying to articulate, is that by taking speech in the name of liberty to its logical conclusion, you should follow up the discussion about why other transgressions against liberty that are a thousand times as great have not been mentioned. Should they be mentioned?
The question then becomes, which toes will we be stepping on? Iran? France? This leads to heated debates that even the Lichess team may find intolerable.
This is why a good limit to these discussion is desirable. When people think of Lichess, they think of Chess, maybe FOSS, but mostly just Chess. That is why they are are here.
> 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.
My point is that it wouldn't be, especially not if it was titled "Two centuries of imperialism: French chess in 2023" or something equally politically charged.
Imho this blog post isn’t „charged“ at all. It’s actually stating the facts in a very matter-of fact tone. I applaud the author for managing to keep this summary with so many facts and names and occupations and quotes so short, but not boring.
And as mentioned earlier, it’s fine to critique western countries for imperialism, economic imperialism and unjust wars they fought recently or further back in history. Using it as a distraction argument addressed to the current affairs in Iran (whether it’s somehow related or not!) does not make any sense. Two wrongs don’t make a right. Pretending this is the case exactly fits the Wikipedia link‘s description.
And as mentioned earlier, it’s fine to critique western countries for imperialism, economic imperialism and unjust wars they fought recently or further back in history. Using it as a distraction argument addressed to the current affairs in Iran (whether it’s somehow related or not!) does not make any sense. Two wrongs don’t make a right. Pretending this is the case exactly fits the Wikipedia link‘s description.
@beakofjustice
Your points are valid and I agree with many of them, but I still disagree with your final conclusion regarding what is noteworthy within chess news. In this article, we have an Iranian arbiter who has taken a stand, broken no rules within FIDE, and yet has been removed from all of her positions.
The context behind that is a long-running issue around Iranian women and the hijab in chess, and what it means in Iran. It is challenging to report on this news without giving that context. We could say that an Iranian arbiter who recently defied the FIDE President with a politically charged message is not newsworthy within the chess world, but this seems unlikely.
We could say that the issue facing Iranian women (including those within chess) is not newsworthy within the chess world, but that seems even less likely considering the international media attention Sarasadat Khademalsharieh received just a week or two ago.
It's like arguing that within rugby there should have been no coverage of Israel Folau within rugby media because his homophobic comments were inherently political and there should be no politics within rugby.
Your points are valid and I agree with many of them, but I still disagree with your final conclusion regarding what is noteworthy within chess news. In this article, we have an Iranian arbiter who has taken a stand, broken no rules within FIDE, and yet has been removed from all of her positions.
The context behind that is a long-running issue around Iranian women and the hijab in chess, and what it means in Iran. It is challenging to report on this news without giving that context. We could say that an Iranian arbiter who recently defied the FIDE President with a politically charged message is not newsworthy within the chess world, but this seems unlikely.
We could say that the issue facing Iranian women (including those within chess) is not newsworthy within the chess world, but that seems even less likely considering the international media attention Sarasadat Khademalsharieh received just a week or two ago.
It's like arguing that within rugby there should have been no coverage of Israel Folau within rugby media because his homophobic comments were inherently political and there should be no politics within rugby.
<Comment deleted by user>
@Rookitiki said in #56:
> And as mentioned earlier, it’s fine to critique western countries for imperialism, economic imperialism and unjust wars they fought recently or further back in history. Using it as a distraction argument addressed to the current affairs in Iran (whether it’s somehow related or not!) does not make any sense. Two wrongs don’t make a right. Pretending this is the case exactly fits the Wikipedia link‘s description.
I wholeheartedly agree with your reasoning. My intention is not to make some kind of whataboutism argument, rather it was mostly to voice concerns about what could happen when these sorts of political discussions go far on the internet. One possible (negative) outcome is censorship and amplification of divisive ideas.
> And as mentioned earlier, it’s fine to critique western countries for imperialism, economic imperialism and unjust wars they fought recently or further back in history. Using it as a distraction argument addressed to the current affairs in Iran (whether it’s somehow related or not!) does not make any sense. Two wrongs don’t make a right. Pretending this is the case exactly fits the Wikipedia link‘s description.
I wholeheartedly agree with your reasoning. My intention is not to make some kind of whataboutism argument, rather it was mostly to voice concerns about what could happen when these sorts of political discussions go far on the internet. One possible (negative) outcome is censorship and amplification of divisive ideas.
@beakofjustice there is nothing we can do about Algeria now. that is done. we can do something about the people of Iran (maybe). we should not forget the injustice of the past, but we need to focus on what is happening now.
"a thousand times greater" ? how are you measuring that? to repress all the women, half the population, of a vast nation like Iran, that is a large enough struggle to justify our efforts
"a thousand times greater" ? how are you measuring that? to repress all the women, half the population, of a vast nation like Iran, that is a large enough struggle to justify our efforts
@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.
Am I allowed to criticize a government that condemns its own citizens to death penalty because they have protested against a law that allows morality police in Iran to beat and torture women because they don't weak a scarf properly? Or should I mind my own business because that is simply part of a country's values?
> 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.
Am I allowed to criticize a government that condemns its own citizens to death penalty because they have protested against a law that allows morality police in Iran to beat and torture women because they don't weak a scarf properly? Or should I mind my own business because that is simply part of a country's values?
When it comes to censorship I don’t think lichess does that to a concerning degree.
Regarding divisive ideas I would argue that dividing humans by gender with brute force is a pretty strong way of dividing. Reporting about it is not the issue.
Regarding divisive ideas I would argue that dividing humans by gender with brute force is a pretty strong way of dividing. Reporting about it is not the issue.
@sparowe14 said in #60:
> @beakofjustice there is nothing we can do about Algeria now. that is done. we can do something about the people of Iran (maybe). we should not forget the injustice of the past, but we need to focus on what is happening now.
I brought it up because the idea is as follows: if France, a significant military power, has no remorse for its actions in Algeria, then how can we be sure it wont commit similar atrocities in the future or isn't doing so today. It's a significant threat to liberty. At the very least it shows a serious moral failing from France's side. France is engaged in military operations in Africa still, but to an arguably smaller extent.
> to repress all the women, half the population, of a vast nation like Iran, that is a large enough struggle to justify our efforts
You could easily argue that repression in Iran is not gender-specific. And it's likely not every woman in Iran protesting against wearing hijab. It's therefore not an accurate way of framing the whole issue.
> @beakofjustice there is nothing we can do about Algeria now. that is done. we can do something about the people of Iran (maybe). we should not forget the injustice of the past, but we need to focus on what is happening now.
I brought it up because the idea is as follows: if France, a significant military power, has no remorse for its actions in Algeria, then how can we be sure it wont commit similar atrocities in the future or isn't doing so today. It's a significant threat to liberty. At the very least it shows a serious moral failing from France's side. France is engaged in military operations in Africa still, but to an arguably smaller extent.
> to repress all the women, half the population, of a vast nation like Iran, that is a large enough struggle to justify our efforts
You could easily argue that repression in Iran is not gender-specific. And it's likely not every woman in Iran protesting against wearing hijab. It's therefore not an accurate way of framing the whole issue.
This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.