Norway Chess cancels Alexander Grischuk • Hacker News Board

Re: Norway Chess cancels Alexander Grischuk

#261

Post by throwaway5752 » Fri, Mar 04, 2022, 9:55 PM UTC

0xedd wrote: post #259

throwaway5752 wrote: post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You seem to be confused about the moral weight of being temporarily banned in gaming and sports tournaments to unprovoked invasion and warfare. They aren't equivalent. Your questions are just absurd slippery slope fallacies that I won't give the dignity of answering, and you should be a little embarrassed about using that technique in a good faith discussion. Which article in the UN link that you sent would categoriz…

Just because you can speak or write, doesn't mean you should. Nothing you said is reasonable. Japanese American imprisonment without due process or access to legal counsel during WW2 was condemnable. You advocate the opposite. I mean, nothing was written against then, was it? Advocating for an individual's human rights and disassociation from their government's actions doesn't mean unequivocal support for the latter.

I think it's pretty reasonable to separate injustices by magnitude. If one doesn't do that, one begins to think things like "being asked to wear a mask is like the Holocaust because in both cases the government told people what to do". It is a lazy way for one to make a point when they struggle to make a point on its own merits.

In fact it is a special and famous case of sophistry to leverage a tenuous connection between two things and declare they are comparable: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_equivalence. To quote, "This fallacy is committed when one shared trait between two subjects is assumed to show equivalence, especially in order of magnitude, when equivalence is not necessarily the logical result"

You are correct - in both cases, Japanese Internment camps during WW2 and Norway Chess's banning of Russian competitors in a chess tournament are examples of cases where innocent individuals were harmed by collective punishment. I completely agree with you on that.

However, only a very silly person would think both actions are comparable. It would be extremely offensive to suggest they are. While they exist on a continuum, they are very, very far apart and any reasonable person can see that 1) the forced imprisonment of 100,000+ people for multiple years while being charged with no crime and 2) the temporary exclusion of several dozen entrants from an international chess tournament are not in the same moral universe.

The moral calculus of applying pressure to Russia to withdraw from a war of aggression that is killing thousands still isn't easy, and decent people can disagree civilly about it.

Re: Norway Chess cancels Alexander Grischuk

#262

Post by [deleted] » Sat, Mar 05, 2022, 2:16 AM UTC

inkyoto wrote: post #217

throwaway5752 wrote: post #214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And he's also vocally against the conflict, which matters much more to me than his ancestry. His moral character in this regard is extremely admirable. Many people in Russia have Ukrainian surnames for obvious reasons of proximity, which is why so many Russians are against this invasion.

I don't know anything about his personal circumstances, but it is not inconceivable that he, or his spouse, or both have relatives in Ukraine who are potentially being shelled at this very moment or hiding it out, and that Grischuk and his relatives are in a great distress right now.

[deleted]

Re: Norway Chess cancels Alexander Grischuk

#263

Post by throw10920 » Sun, Mar 06, 2022, 9:48 PM UTC

endisneigh wrote: post #124

throw10920 wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is completely, totally wrong. There's no "discrimination" here - Grischuk is a Russian citizen , which is why he's being kicked out of the tournament, along with the other Russian citizens mentioned - their ethnicity is a non-factor. The only relevant issue is the question as to whether all Russian citizens (regardless of ethnicity) should be banned from these kinds of events (more generally: have sanctions and…

Your comment is the one that’s blatantly wrong - no one mentioned discrimination on the basis of ethnicity other than you. Discriminating on nationality is still discrimination.

Discriminating based on nationality is only "discrimination" in the sense that you're differentiating between two groups of people, and treating them differently. It's not bad - unlike discriminating based on race. GP clearly meant "discrimination" in the discriminating-against-a-protected-class use of a term, which discrimination based on nationality is not.