@sgtlaugh said in #722:
> @Pashut, you are right that there are uncertainties involved here and we are discussing disputed facts. Therefore, just as Lichess' blog or the testimonials mentioned cannot be used as definitive proof for the allegations, similarly the US Chess statement cannot be used for disproving the allegations either :)
100% true. Which is why I think Lichess' reaction is premature (imature?).
> 1. Do you agree that in matters of sexual allegations, people doubt the validity of these allegations much more when compared to non-sexual allegations?
Yes, I agree.
> 2. If the answer to the previous question is yes, do you think this is justified?
I don't know how to answer that. Truthfully. Is it right it's happening? No. Is it undestandable? Yes.
In sexual allegation matters there are things that don't usually occur in other cases. For example: the issue of consent (affirming / withdrawing), the usually private settings in which sexual stuff happens, which in turn leads to a lack of (or a diminished number of) witnesses, cultural differences, personal bias, sexism (both genders), tribalism ("us" vs "them") etc. It's a hard question to answer.
> 3. What would you do if you got assaulted sexually and there was no evidence? It's a rhetorical question, we both know that you will go to the police and it's the right thing to do. I know I will too. The question is, can you accept and understand how for most women it would be very difficult and that's why most sexual assaults are in fact not reported.
Correct, I would go straight to police. I would tell them my story, provide what little evidence I can gather (if any). I would ask them to do their job and investigate. I would file for a restraining order while the investigation is ongoing. And yes, if the evidence found doesn't support my case, I'd be sad. Maybe devastated. I would feel perhaps this adds insult to injury. And then I'll try to move on. Because life isn't always fair and just, and the world is not perfect. It might sound cynical or fake, but I truly believe it.
What I would most certainly *not* do is try to replace the police with public opinion. Why? Because when doing this, several things happen (in random order, and list is not exhaustive):
(a) chances of obtaining justice and preventing future misconduct diminish
(b) evidence (particularly from witness testimony) is potentially tainted
(c) the victim is subjected to *more* (not less!) scrutiny, shame, criticism, acusations, labeling etc.
(d) the message sent is weakened ("yeah, it was bad, but not bad enough for me to go to police")
(e) it detracts and diverts attention from the accusation itself
(f) the victim is portrayed as a zealot for vigilante justice rather than a law-abiding moral individual
(g) it encourages doubt about the whole case, rather than help eliminate it
> 4. If US chess were in fact negligent, suppose the accusations against them are true. What do you think would their statement look like in that case?
Look, I hear where you're going with this... But these public declarations are *always* politically correct. :) Lawyers write them. Then other lawyers review them. First thing they teach you in the US is to "admit no wrongdoing". Don't accept liability. Ever. Plead the fifth.
Now. I've said it before: I feel their actions + declaration *are* an acknowledgement of sorts, the maximum we can hope for. Imagine they came out now and said: "yep, we did it, guilty as charged". Do you think all this would be over? Do you think the officials would be congratulated for finally owning up to their mistakes and "repenting"? Not a chance! They would instead be shunned, bashed, sued for damages based on their own admissions and cancelled even more. That is the ugly reality in USA (and elsewhere). Honestly, I woudn't be surprised if all this will be settled in a confidential agreement, somewhere, somehow.
> @Pashut, you are right that there are uncertainties involved here and we are discussing disputed facts. Therefore, just as Lichess' blog or the testimonials mentioned cannot be used as definitive proof for the allegations, similarly the US Chess statement cannot be used for disproving the allegations either :)
100% true. Which is why I think Lichess' reaction is premature (imature?).
> 1. Do you agree that in matters of sexual allegations, people doubt the validity of these allegations much more when compared to non-sexual allegations?
Yes, I agree.
> 2. If the answer to the previous question is yes, do you think this is justified?
I don't know how to answer that. Truthfully. Is it right it's happening? No. Is it undestandable? Yes.
In sexual allegation matters there are things that don't usually occur in other cases. For example: the issue of consent (affirming / withdrawing), the usually private settings in which sexual stuff happens, which in turn leads to a lack of (or a diminished number of) witnesses, cultural differences, personal bias, sexism (both genders), tribalism ("us" vs "them") etc. It's a hard question to answer.
> 3. What would you do if you got assaulted sexually and there was no evidence? It's a rhetorical question, we both know that you will go to the police and it's the right thing to do. I know I will too. The question is, can you accept and understand how for most women it would be very difficult and that's why most sexual assaults are in fact not reported.
Correct, I would go straight to police. I would tell them my story, provide what little evidence I can gather (if any). I would ask them to do their job and investigate. I would file for a restraining order while the investigation is ongoing. And yes, if the evidence found doesn't support my case, I'd be sad. Maybe devastated. I would feel perhaps this adds insult to injury. And then I'll try to move on. Because life isn't always fair and just, and the world is not perfect. It might sound cynical or fake, but I truly believe it.
What I would most certainly *not* do is try to replace the police with public opinion. Why? Because when doing this, several things happen (in random order, and list is not exhaustive):
(a) chances of obtaining justice and preventing future misconduct diminish
(b) evidence (particularly from witness testimony) is potentially tainted
(c) the victim is subjected to *more* (not less!) scrutiny, shame, criticism, acusations, labeling etc.
(d) the message sent is weakened ("yeah, it was bad, but not bad enough for me to go to police")
(e) it detracts and diverts attention from the accusation itself
(f) the victim is portrayed as a zealot for vigilante justice rather than a law-abiding moral individual
(g) it encourages doubt about the whole case, rather than help eliminate it
> 4. If US chess were in fact negligent, suppose the accusations against them are true. What do you think would their statement look like in that case?
Look, I hear where you're going with this... But these public declarations are *always* politically correct. :) Lawyers write them. Then other lawyers review them. First thing they teach you in the US is to "admit no wrongdoing". Don't accept liability. Ever. Plead the fifth.
Now. I've said it before: I feel their actions + declaration *are* an acknowledgement of sorts, the maximum we can hope for. Imagine they came out now and said: "yep, we did it, guilty as charged". Do you think all this would be over? Do you think the officials would be congratulated for finally owning up to their mistakes and "repenting"? Not a chance! They would instead be shunned, bashed, sued for damages based on their own admissions and cancelled even more. That is the ugly reality in USA (and elsewhere). Honestly, I woudn't be surprised if all this will be settled in a confidential agreement, somewhere, somehow.
