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

Lichess will no longer cooperate with the USCF and the Saint Louis Chess Club

lichess.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 160 posts

Re: Lichess will no longer cooperate with the USCF and the Saint Louis Chess Club

#151

Post by em-bee »

lamontcg wrote: post #149
em-bee wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

it does negate people are free to have red flags that cause them to cut ties with other people because you are not free to have whatever red flags you want. if you see red flags you should evaluate them and make sure they are not just prejudice.

you're actually free to be racist in your personal life. nobody will imprison you.

at home, sure, but not in public.

remember that joke about a someone in an airplane sitting next to a black person, complaining loudly that they want to sit somewhere else. the stewardess comes over and says: "my apologies, it is of course unacceptable that you should have to sit next to such an obnoxious person". and then invites the black person into first class to everyones applause.

Re: Lichess will no longer cooperate with the USCF and the Saint Louis Chess Club

#152

Post by lamontcg »

em-bee wrote: post #151
lamontcg wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

you're actually free to be racist in your personal life. nobody will imprison you.

at home, sure, but not in public. remember that joke about a someone in an airplane sitting next to a black person, complaining loudly that they want to sit somewhere else. the stewardess comes over and says: "my apologies, it is of course unacceptable that you should have to sit next to such an obnoxious person". and then invites the black person into first class to everyones applause.

you can actually be racist in public as well.

get out of a swimming pool if a black person shows up and nobody can or will force you back into it.

Re: Lichess will no longer cooperate with the USCF and the Saint Louis Chess Club

#153

Post by em-bee »

lamontcg wrote: post #152
em-bee wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

at home, sure, but not in public. remember that joke about a someone in an airplane sitting next to a black person, complaining loudly that they want to sit somewhere else. the stewardess comes over and says: "my apologies, it is of course unacceptable that you should have to sit next to such an obnoxious person". and then invites the black person into first class to everyones applause.

you can actually be racist in public as well. get out of a swimming pool if a black person shows up and nobody can or will force you back into it.

you can leave, but if you complain you should probably be kicked out.

i don't know why we are having such a stupid argument. it should be clear that racism is unacceptable and that it doesn't give you any right to show disrespect.

Re: Lichess will no longer cooperate with the USCF and the Saint Louis Chess Club

#154

Post by lamontcg »

em-bee wrote: post #153
lamontcg wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

you can actually be racist in public as well. get out of a swimming pool if a black person shows up and nobody can or will force you back into it.

you can leave, but if you complain you should probably be kicked out. i don't know why we are having such a stupid argument. it should be clear that racism is unacceptable and that it doesn't give you any right to show disrespect.

I said "people are free to have red flags that cause them to cut ties with other people" and you continue to twist what was a statement about free association into statements (that you want to argue about) regarding active discrimination. If you'd stop doing that, the argument would end pretty quickly.

Re: Lichess will no longer cooperate with the USCF and the Saint Louis Chess Club

#155

Post by em-bee »

lamontcg wrote: post #154
em-bee wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

you can leave, but if you complain you should probably be kicked out. i don't know why we are having such a stupid argument. it should be clear that racism is unacceptable and that it doesn't give you any right to show disrespect.

I said "people are free to have red flags that cause them to cut ties with other people" and you continue to twist what was a statement about free association into statements (that you want to argue about) regarding active discrimination. If you'd stop doing that, the argument would end pretty quickly.

that's because i have always only been concerned about active discrimination. and your statement is too generic to exclude that. let me repeat what i said:

innocent until proven guilty should apply to every interaction we have with any human being

as individuals we need to be careful to not allow prejudice to control our actions

if you see red flags you should evaluate them and make sure they are not just prejudice

you seem to be claiming that the right to free association should allow people to remain to be racist. no, it shouldn't.

i not twisting anything, especially not since this thread started with your criticism of my first statement, and this whole argument looks like you seemingly trying to use the right of free association to excuse people being racist.

what if a person was asking for help? but they couldn't because you turned away? can you see how an action that according to you is just your expression of free association turns into active discrimination?

Re: Lichess will no longer cooperate with the USCF and the Saint Louis Chess Club

#156

Post by inemesitaffia »

moshun wrote: post #150
inemesitaffia wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Everything is fine till it happens to you. Im sure you've watched House M.D

If this kind of ban was happening all over the place for similar reasons I’d argue that you have a point. After digging a bit, however, I wasn’t able to find many males banned for harassment or assault on another member. So it seems you’re protesting on the basis of an unlikely hypothetical scenario.

I don't know about Chess but I've seen cases elsewhere of both men and women.

Nothing hypothetical here.

Like I said it all makes sense till it happens to you

Re: Lichess will no longer cooperate with the USCF and the Saint Louis Chess Club

#157

Post by paulddraper »

djcannabiz wrote: post #56
glenda wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And from what I can see those courts have shown to be pretty ineffective against crimes like sexual assault.

Why are you being downvoted? https://www.rainn.org/statistics/criminal-justice-system I definetly agree with user glenda, but if anyone disagrees at the very least leave a comment explaining why!

Comment: Glenda has provided no substance just a wild claim.

Re: Lichess will no longer cooperate with the USCF and the Saint Louis Chess Club

#158

Post by ethanbond »

lettergram wrote: post #139
ethanbond wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Lack of representation [in state affairs] Lack of due process [in exercise of state power] The Founding Fathers never said “if you’re accused of horrible things, everyone still needs to be nice to you and want to hang out with you until you’re convicted of a crime.”

Clearly, I was referring to the ethos. It’s also that you’re taking their profession (grandmasters often make significant income), off accusations.

Actually the ethos is precisely the opposite and is enshrined in our Constitutional right to association. You have the right to associate and disassociate with whoever you wish for whatever reasons you wish.

Re: Lichess will no longer cooperate with the USCF and the Saint Louis Chess Club

#159

Post by atakan_gurkan »

mbg721 wrote: post #110
JoshTriplett wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Absolutely true (civil cases are "preponderance of the evidence"), but the same principle still applies, just with lower numbers. 51% likely might be enough for a verdict against someone in a civil case and a legally enforceable monetary judgement. But if you have someone 30% likely to have done something (where the baseline should be close to 0%), that's still enough that reasonable risk-averse organizations may rea…

The problem with that is that if the accused is only 30% likely to have done something, then there may be an equal or greater likelihood that the accuser is maliciously lying (allowing for some likelihood of genuine misunderstanding).

Not necessarily. Unless the presence of the accusation already was used to get that 30% number, you also need to take into account the a priori probability of someone maliciously lying (or better yet, the particular accuser to be lying in this case) and apply Bayes's theorem.

Re: Lichess will no longer cooperate with the USCF and the Saint Louis Chess Club

#160

Post by mbg721 »

atakan_gurkan wrote: post #159
mbg721 wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem with that is that if the accused is only 30% likely to have done something, then there may be an equal or greater likelihood that the accuser is maliciously lying (allowing for some likelihood of genuine misunderstanding).

Not necessarily. Unless the presence of the accusation already was used to get that 30% number, you also need to take into account the a priori probability of someone maliciously lying (or better yet, the particular accuser to be lying in this case) and apply Bayes's theorem.

I should have expected Simpson's Paradox here. Nevertheless, I think the possibility of witch-hunting is high.
Post reply on HN