Re:Lichess will no longer cooperate with the USCF and the Sa...
by moate on Thursday August 10, 2023 @03:57PM
(#37080949)
Oh I know, I once got into a massive Twitter blowout with Brendan Eich because he believes that all computing conferences should invite "the best" speakers (how do you determine that? well I assume "invented JS" would be a qualifier...) regardless of their personal or legal issues.
It's a tough philosophical space balancing between free speech/association and criminal discrimination and I think it shouldn't be surprising that an ecosystem that produced a "free speech absolutist" like Musk who bans dissenting opinions would also create a group of people who think that everyone has to tolerate them no matter how abhorrent their behavior or ideas as long as it doesn't cross a line into "criminal".
Re:Lichess will no longer cooperate with the USCF and the Sa...
by altairprime on Thursday August 10, 2023 @04:08PM
(#37081086)
I would change one word only here, to represent the flexibility of beliefs that typically ensues from any unfavorable interpretation thereof:
> as long as it doesn’t cross a line into “excluding them”.
Re:Lichess will no longer cooperate with the USCF and the Sa...
by moate on Thursday August 10, 2023 @04:44PM
(#37081530)
Well yea. Nothing white dudes hate more than being told women and minorities are allowed to do something they aren't (and since it appears to be just us talking here, I think we can both admit that's really all that's going on).
"Oh no, a problematic white man suffered a consequence. I'm a problematic white dude, I wouldn't want to be kicked out! This should be illegal!"
Banning criminals is a popular rhetorical construction used by those who do not have felony records, in order to scaremonger others into supporting an argument that promotes existing biases and status quos; in this case, in favor of the “sexual misconduct is disregarded” bias.