Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Fide Women’s Grand Prix Collapses into “Chaos” as Players Withdraw

lichess.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 108 posts

Re: Fide Women’s Grand Prix Collapses into “Chaos” as Players Withdraw

#51

Post by kstenerud »

EGreg wrote: post #48
kstenerud wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're being downvoted for engaging in whataboutism, which is a variation of the tu quoque logical fallacy [1]. It's been overused in recent times (especially in relation to the Russian invasion of Ukraine) and people are growing tired of it (and rightly so, as it merely derails discussion and fuels flame wars - contrary to the spirit of HN). [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque

I have been around political discourse long enough to realize that people saying "whataboutism" is a shibboleth that is used to excuse extreme double standards and hypocrisy. If you are running a sports competition, and you are told "please ban these Russian athletes, because Russia's invasion of Ukraine is unprovoked and unjustified", I do not think it is a logical fallacy to ask "can I also ban US athletes for the…

> I have been around political discourse long enough to realize that people saying "whataboutism" is a shibboleth that is used to excuse extreme double standards and hypocrisy.

Please actually read https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque

Re: Fide Women’s Grand Prix Collapses into “Chaos” as Players Withdraw

#52

Post by EGreg »

smoldesu wrote: post #37
EGreg wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

EDIT: I originally wrote this to ask if anyone else is bothered by the hypocrisy. If you're going to downvote this, I would definitely appreciate if you at least write why you disagree. Also if you are bothered by the hypocrisy, I'd appreciate if you said so. Either way, am I just being crazy? I know I'm not the only one, but I also want to understand where I'm wrong. "What appears to be the position of the Muzychuks…

> Now we need that for Ukraine. I get what you're saying and I admire your attempt at a moderate take here. That being said, there is a global concept of civil conduct. It was pretty relaxed in the 1700s (you wont find many who disagree), but now we've moved on to recognizing sovereign nations and solving civil conflict without violence. Russia is resisting this path of conduct and threatening us rather than acceptin…

When did we move onto this? I guess you are referring to the UN, and the "rules-based international order" where you need UN approval to go bomb a country that didn't attack you. Stuff like that, right?

Well, just to keep on that narrow focus (and not even invoking anything else), the USA and NATO has violated it multiple times in the last 25 years alone. Let's just take one relatively tame example:

In 1999, NATO bombed Yugoslavia after being denied approval by the UN. Their rationale: "to stop a genocide of Kosovar Albanians" sounds very much like Russia's rationale: "to stop a genocide of ethnic Russians in Donbass". They bombed it for many days, killing hundreds of civilians in the process. Well, thankfully, Russia did not send endless weapons to Yugoslavia to defend itself against NATO, so Yugoslavia surrendered and had to agree to let NATO peacekeepers be stationed in Kosovo. This is not normally considered "NATO occupying part of Yugoslavia", but peacekeepers.

Afterwards Yugoslavia fell apart. Kosovo declared independence unilaterally. This all has parallels with the Ukraine war. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kosovo_independence_precedent

At the very least, we cannot seriously say that "NATO is a purely defensive alliance". And we can't say "Russia's invasion was unprovoked and unjustified" while simultaneously defending NATO interventions in Kosovo, Libya, Syria, or USA invasions of Iraq, Afghanistan, etc.

Many countries did in fact denounce what NATO was doing. And many countries denounced the invasion of Iraq. However, I have heard people bring up ad-hoc justifications for it like "well, it's not as bad because we didn't want to annex any part of Iraq".

Re: Fide Women’s Grand Prix Collapses into “Chaos” as Players Withdraw

#53

Post by sbaiddn »

77pt77 wrote: post #46
andsoitis wrote: post #11

why is chess separated by gender? we don't separate by gender other intellectual pursuits, e.g. best author, best director, jeopardy winner, etc. [edit] Just checked Wikipedia, and it turns out Chess mostly isn't separate by gender so I stand corrected: The majority of chess tournaments are open to all participants regardless of gender. Very few, if any, international tournaments are restricted to men, but a few are…

> why is chess separated by gender? Like most other sports, the "male" league is actually open to everyone, women just aren't competitive.

Racing for example. F1 is open to women, and yet women have their own racing league

Re: Fide Women’s Grand Prix Collapses into “Chaos” as Players Withdraw

#54

Post by lbwtaylor »

EGreg wrote: post #12
rippercushions wrote: post #2

Is there a TL;DR, or is this just a complex clusterfuck? I was expecting standard Ukraine vs Russia issues, but the article goes on to describe what looks like a personal vendetta between two top Kazakh players, safety concerns about travel in Delhi, etc etc.

EDIT: I originally wrote this to ask if anyone else is bothered by the hypocrisy. If you're going to downvote this, I would definitely appreciate if you at least write why you disagree. Also if you are bothered by the hypocrisy, I'd appreciate if you said so. Either way, am I just being crazy? I know I'm not the only one, but I also want to understand where I'm wrong. "What appears to be the position of the Muzychuks…

I don't understand - what do you find confusing about Ukrainian players not wanting to play with those playing under their invader's flag?

What hypocrisy have those Ukrainian players shown? If the US invaded Ukraine they may we'll have decided not to play American chess players.

As for your note that there are multiple "actors" in the Ukrainian conflict, many people don't buy that. They don't think Russia has any legitimate right to "buffer" states.

Re: Fide Women’s Grand Prix Collapses into “Chaos” as Players Withdraw

#55

Post by athrowaw »

kstenerud wrote: post #39
EGreg wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

EDIT: I originally wrote this to ask if anyone else is bothered by the hypocrisy. If you're going to downvote this, I would definitely appreciate if you at least write why you disagree. Also if you are bothered by the hypocrisy, I'd appreciate if you said so. Either way, am I just being crazy? I know I'm not the only one, but I also want to understand where I'm wrong. "What appears to be the position of the Muzychuks…

You're being downvoted for engaging in whataboutism, which is a variation of the tu quoque logical fallacy [1]. It's been overused in recent times (especially in relation to the Russian invasion of Ukraine) and people are growing tired of it (and rightly so, as it merely derails discussion and fuels flame wars - contrary to the spirit of HN). [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque

It doesn't seem whataboutism in the comment, as the author says "Russia is a bad actor", so it's not about someone did something before, so it should be accepted now. It's more about non equal treatment of the same bad situation done by different parties. Correct me if I'm wrong here.

Re: Fide Women’s Grand Prix Collapses into “Chaos” as Players Withdraw

#57

Post by EGreg »

kstenerud wrote: post #51
EGreg wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have been around political discourse long enough to realize that people saying "whataboutism" is a shibboleth that is used to excuse extreme double standards and hypocrisy. If you are running a sports competition, and you are told "please ban these Russian athletes, because Russia's invasion of Ukraine is unprovoked and unjustified", I do not think it is a logical fallacy to ask "can I also ban US athletes for the…

> I have been around political discourse long enough to realize that people saying "whataboutism" is a shibboleth that is used to excuse extreme double standards and hypocrisy. Please actually read https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque

Trust me, not only did I read it, but I also thought through these issues over the years.

"Yes, Politician B did do this-or-that immoral thing, but then again so do other politicians. So what's the big deal?"

This is not what's being said. What's being said is:

We typically want to stay neutral among conflicts. You are pressuring us to take an unprecedented step of banning athletes from country X because country X did an extremely egregious thing B. Sure, let's do it. Can we also ban country Y who did B times 10?

No, you can't. If you try we will retaliate!

So, you aren't really concerned about the principle. You first pick a target country (e.g. Israel) and then you come up with some spurious reasons which you don't actually believe in, just to bully us into taking this action

It's not about "whether it's not a big deal". It's about comparing apples to apples. Having a sense of proportion.

"You must eject this person from the group. They farted. That's beyond the pale."

"But you have been farting far more, and also punching people in the face, and you are still here. Should I eject you too?"

"Stop your Whataboutism! We are only talking about this one person!"

THAT is a logical fallacy

Re: Fide Women’s Grand Prix Collapses into “Chaos” as Players Withdraw

#58

Post by havblue »

xkcd1963 wrote: post #16
andsoitis wrote: post #11

why is chess separated by gender? we don't separate by gender other intellectual pursuits, e.g. best author, best director, jeopardy winner, etc. [edit] Just checked Wikipedia, and it turns out Chess mostly isn't separate by gender so I stand corrected: The majority of chess tournaments are open to all participants regardless of gender. Very few, if any, international tournaments are restricted to men, but a few are…

I find it rather puzzling why people seggregate genders even though the idea is to make society more equal? Wouldn't it be much more beneficial for women and men to share the same room so to say.

I guess an open question is if there are two categories of women and everyone, does it imply that the female category is less competitive? And, if so, is that a bad thing? And, finally, if fewer men played chess competitively and the shoe was entirely on the other foot, would male-only tournaments then be acceptable?

Re: Fide Women’s Grand Prix Collapses into “Chaos” as Players Withdraw

#59

Post by stametseater »

Aeolun wrote: post #31
EGreg wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

EDIT: I originally wrote this to ask if anyone else is bothered by the hypocrisy. If you're going to downvote this, I would definitely appreciate if you at least write why you disagree. Also if you are bothered by the hypocrisy, I'd appreciate if you said so. Either way, am I just being crazy? I know I'm not the only one, but I also want to understand where I'm wrong. "What appears to be the position of the Muzychuks…

I think the difference is that we’re doing the invading in those instances. This is the opposite, where our literal backyard is being invaded. They’d have to be stomped on for no other reason than to prevent them doing it again. I’m also of the opinion that the US and allies probably had more valid reasons to invade any of the countries they did in the past 25 years than Russia had to invade Ukraine. I feel like the…

Emancipation of women wasn't the reason Afghanistan was invaded. It kind of became a sort of disingenuous revisionist justification somewhere along the line, but the stated justification at the time was the Taliban were harboring al-Qaeda, particularly bin Laden.

The whole of it seems quite farcical to me, particularly in retrospect, but I wouldn't equivocate it with Russia's invasion of Ukraine because I don't think the American government ever intended on annexing Afghanistan territory. It does however resemble the Soviet Union's own invasion of Afghanistan to topple the (then communist) government of Afghanistan. In that case there was also a fig leaf of humanitarianism, since the PDPA, lead by Taraki and Amin, were massacring civilians and generally losing control of the country. Taraki evidently got cold feet and requested a Soviet intervention, but was subsequently assassinated at Amin's order before that occurred. The assassination of Taraki and the PDPA's general inability to stop murdering people served as the Soviet justification for the invasion. Of course the reality of the invasion was not particularly humanitarian, but the same can be said of the American invasion.

Anyway, all of it was and is shameful and none of it excuses the rest of it.

Re: Fide Women’s Grand Prix Collapses into “Chaos” as Players Withdraw

#60

Post by EGreg »

dragonwriter wrote: post #42
EGreg wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

EDIT: I originally wrote this to ask if anyone else is bothered by the hypocrisy. If you're going to downvote this, I would definitely appreciate if you at least write why you disagree. Also if you are bothered by the hypocrisy, I'd appreciate if you said so. Either way, am I just being crazy? I know I'm not the only one, but I also want to understand where I'm wrong. "What appears to be the position of the Muzychuks…

> If you’re going to downvote this, I would definitely appreciate if you at least write why you disagree. Downvoting says that “this is not a contribution to productive discussion on HN”. If it is worth discussing, it is not worth downvoting. > I am a libertarian, and I am against invasions, occupations, violence, and certainly against war crimes. I’m also against accepting millions of people’s lives being destroyed…

That's fine. You can ignore the But.

And thank you for saying this:

Downvoting says that “this is not a contribution to productive discussion on HN”.

If it is worth discussing, it is not worth downvoting.

I happen to think so as well. I don't downvote things unless they are completely derailing the conversation, disingenuous, malicious, etc. Any good-faith argument, especially if expressed clearly and with details, should be upvoted, even if you disagree with it!

I usually agree with pg BUT I disagree with him that downvotes should be used to express disagreement. They should be used to express bad faith, bad form, etc.

Post reply on HN