Lichess should remain non-geopolitical

@chessguy007 said in #20:
> See my comment on page 1 for an explanation. The essence of freedom of speech is "I may disagree, but I defend to death the right for you to say it." It is not "You have the right to disagree, but if you do so, I am going to attack your livelihood as a personal individual and make it more difficult for you to afford to eat, support your family, or make productive contributions to society."
>
> That is one of the reasons why cancel culture is wrong. Boycott corporations by all means, because corporations are not people. Do not cancel individuals. As long as they are not preaching anything about actually hurting anyone, even bad people deserve the right to support their family, be employable and contribute to society, and above all, to be able to make money so they can eat.

He is literally attacking the lives of the world. Comparing this to cancel culture downplays this situation and is a false equivalency. This is how important this event is in our history. Words matter and We need to defend our institutions and our ideals. Because like I said above if not we might as well be encouraging their suppression ourselves, which is no different then encouraging more war leading to death.

Freedom is not free, and that includes freedom of speech. It costs a great deal. But the price is worth paying, even if it means we have to put up with people using their freedom of speech to oppose freedom of speech, such as yourself. Attacking someone financially for their political views is going too far and goes against the essence of what freedom of speech means. If you do not believe in freedom of speech, fine. That is your personal value judgment. But in the end, you value some things more than freedom, and you should be honest about that. You value other things more than freedom of speech, just like the far-left does, just like lichess does, and just like Putin does.

Meanwhile, for other people, freedom is worth fighting and dying for. Freedom is worth more than peace or safety to them. Ukraine can have peace and safety from Russia by surrendering and submitting to their unfair terms. Instead, they have chosen to fight and die for their freedom, or at least however much freedom they were allowed to have under the Ukrainian government before the war.

@CooloutAC said in #14:
> > > It might be political, but it is definitely NOT politics as usual.
> > Wars happen all the time.
> That doesn't make it ok.
We're not talking about whether war is OK or not. We're talking about the selective mention and stances of wars by Lichess.

> Even more for an organization like Lichess. You make yourself sound like you don't want people to hear it said and amplified by a more powerful voice like an organization such as Lichess.

Yes. I speak for myself. There are surely plenty of organisations which are dedicated to stances on global wars and not chess.

> Apparently they represent mine. I stand on the side of "freedom, openness, and collabaration". Any society or individual against these things, are an enemy of humanity.

I addressed this in the initial post. Unqualified and without context, these words are just vacuous words

When one specifically says "freedom of <something>", "openness of <something>", "collaboration between <some people>", then one begins to make coherent statements.

Lichess is meant to be dedicated to "freedom of software", "openness of chess", "collaboration between all individuals" (or something similar).

Lichess is not meant to be dedicated to "freedom of Ukrainians" or "freedom of Russian Irredentists" or "freedom of the people of Donetsk and Luhansk" or "openness of the Zelenski Ukranian cabinet", or any other possible *geopolitical* stance.

> No need for that snark.

I was not snarky. I mean that lichess clearly distances itself from what looks to me like the largest manipulator in the world.
I respect that you have problems with lichess' actions.
I can understand what lichess is doing in these desperate times.
People are different, but personally I just hate when people shut up in order to not anger an evil person.
They are accomplices.
I have seen far too much of that.

At a time that many thousands of Lichess users are suffering at the hands of extreme aggression, staying silent would also be a massive political statement. People who claim to be non-political are either very lucky and privileged or they're bullshitting. The right of chess players, and everybody else, to live in peace and security is absolutely central to what Lichess does.

I assume Lichess will also condemn NATO expansion eastward as it is a clear and overt threat to Russia and also a violation of the explicit (!) agreement made with the russian government to never expand eastwards into eastern europe. Since NATO expansion is a threat to Russia I assume Lichess will withhold any prize money to players who support ukrainian induction into NATO.

Actually I don't expect them to do any of this since they're part of this whole psuedoliberal right-think hive mind that treats the latest op ed from the Washington Post as the word of the Almighty without actually knowing squat about anything.

If there were at least some sort of discernible principle involved that'd be one thing, but as always with said psuedoliberal right-think hive mind there are no principles, there is only PC.

@torresjrjr said in #23:
> We're not talking about whether war is OK or not. We're talking about the selective mention and stances of wars by Lichess.

That in its essence is talking about whether war is OK or not.

> Yes. I speak for myself. There are surely plenty of organisations which are dedicated to stances on global wars and not chess.

You make this statement. Then go on to say that Lichess should not make vacuous statements. My friend, chess and the rest of the world do not live in a vacuum no matter how much you want us to. Quality of Life trumps everything.

> I addressed this in the initial post. Unqualified and without context, these words are just vacuous words
>
> When one specifically says "freedom of <something>", "openness of <something>", "collaboration between <some people>", then one begins to make coherent statements.
>
> Lichess is meant to be dedicated to "freedom of software", "openness of chess", "collaboration between all individuals" (or something similar).
>
> Lichess is not meant to be dedicated to "freedom of Ukrainians" or "freedom of Russian Irredentists" or "freedom of the people of Donetsk and Luhansk" or "openness of the Zelenski Ukranian cabinet", or any other possible *geopolitical* stance.

What would be "qualifed" to you? Someone living on this planet is not enough qualifications to be dedicated to freedom of all human beings, especially those who are fighting for those very same ideals? How bout freedom to express yourself on these very forums as one example. The freedom to even play chess here. Do you know why Libre software is even important?

@Gingersquirrelnuts said in #25:
> At a time that many thousands of Lichess users are suffering at the hands of extreme aggression,

> staying silent would also be a massive political statement.

If silence is political, all hope is lost. That is a dangerous precident. The freedom to express requires the freedom to express nothing.

Similarly, that's why US police say "you have the right to remain silent".

> People who claim to be non-political are either very lucky and privileged or they're bullshitting.

To be clear, I have no qualms with people being political (though it can be annoying :) ). I have no problem with individual Lichess users expressing their views on current geopolitical affairs. The problem is Lichess' unwisely written article.

> The right of chess players, and everybody else, to live in peace and security is absolutely central to what Lichess does.

Not really. Chess is the central dedication of Lichess. Peace and security is dealt by people's respective military/police/etc. Lichess is not meant to provide military aid and support to any wars.

Sorry to sound so cold and pedantic lol.

@WS83 said in #26:
> I assume Lichess will also condemn NATO expansion eastward as it is a clear and overt threat to Russia and also a violation of the explicit (!) agreement made with the russian government to never expand eastwards into eastern europe. Since NATO expansion is a threat to Russia I assume Lichess will withhold any prize money to players who support ukrainian induction into NATO.
>
> Actually I don't expect them to do any of this since they're part of this whole psuedoliberal right-think hive mind that treats the latest op ed from the Washington Post as the word of the Almighty without actually knowing squat about anything.
>
> If there were at least some sort of discernible principle involved that'd be one thing, but as always with said psuedoliberal right-think hive mind there are no principles, there is only PC.

When Ukraine demands freedom and democracy for themselves, that is different then another country imposing its ideals of oppression on them by force.

@CooloutAC said in #29:
> When Ukraine demands freedom and democracy for themselves, that is different then another country imposing its ideals of oppression on them by force.

This isn't about freedom and democracy. It's about the Ukraine entering a military alliance which habitually invades other countries and is placing missiles along the russian border.