4 ms·

I am always deeply disappointed with how little civic and ethical values the average person has left. Whenever the common narrative finds a way to blame someth

I am always deeply disappointed with how little civic and ethical values the average person has left. Whenever the common narrative finds a way to blame something or someone, the collective dehumanizes the target in a way that's quite terrifying, actually. People love to parrot about how "dictators are bad", "hitler was bad", etc, but when they find themselves in trivial situations where they have to show what they're made of not much more comes out of it. Without saying much about it, let me remind you that there is a Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which, among other things, it's pretty clear that no one should be discriminated because of their origin or nationality. Every single "developed" country shares a set of laws that guarantee similar rights to their citizens (and visitors!). Whether you think that people who are in these situations are having their rights dishonored or not it's up to you, I just want to remind people that some blades cut both ways so one has to be careful about which one is being honed today. Disclaimer: I'm not Russian, never been to Russia, no friends in Russia either. I am a human being and have empathy for all other fellow human beings.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
throwaway5752 5y ago
This is in reaction to a much greater moral outrage: thousands of dead Ukrainian civilians because of an unprovoked Russian invasion. One can either 1) sanction Russia (which impacts all Russians) 2) partially sanction (which is unavoidably subjective and abusable) or 3) not sanction Russia. This is a case of 1, based on the source link, "Norway announce that no Russian players will be able to play in the 2022 edition of the event" It is not fair to talk about "civic and ethical values" outside of this extremely relevant moral context.
- throwaway5754 5y ago
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- moralestapia 5y ago
  If a Russian in America gets hurt and goes to a hospital, should it be denied medical attention? Where do you draw the line, actually? If I'm not Russian but my parents are, should I be sanctioned as well? Again, where do you draw the line? If you happened to be at Russia, would you be okay if everyone denied their services to you? If your country got involved into a conflict, and you don't even live there anymore, and people started treating you like a pariah, would you feel be fine with that? Some guys thought about all these things, and wrote: "Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the POLITICAL, JURISDICTIONAL OR INTERNATIONAL STATUS OF THE COUNTRY OR TERRITORY TO WHICH A PERSON BELONGS, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty." I don't think that's open to interpretation but YMMV. Check it out by yourself at, https://www.un.org/en/about-us/universal-declaration-of-human-rights https://www.un.org/en/about-us/universal-declaration-of-huma... I think it's made by some guys at the UN or something, they seem to know a thing or two about human rights.
  - throwaway5752 5y ago
    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 categorize participation in a chess tournament as a human right? Where is your concern about Ukrainian human rights? If you are so passionate about Grischuk's human rights to participate in this competition, then you must be incensed the magnitude of the violation of individual rights being violated in Ukraine. Do you condemn the Russian invasion?
    - inkyoto 5y ago
      You do realise that Grischuk is a Ukranian surname, don't you? As well as the fact that Grischuk's first wife was Ukranian and his current wife is of the half-Russian, half-Ukranian descent?
- s1artibartfast 5y ago
  I think you are simply describing collective punishment. You are making the case that collective punishment is easier and more fair because you don't even consider about if any individual person punished is deserving or innocent. It is like Israel bulldozing random Palestine homes because someone else fired a rocket. It is like people beating up random Chinese on the streets of San Francisco because of some decision Xi Jinping made
- thway0987 5y ago
  > This is in reaction to a much greater moral outrage: thousands of dead Ukrainian civilians because of an unprovoked Russian invasion. No, this is racism and intolerance under a thin guise of outrage. We are talking about targeting individuals who bear zero responsibility for what people claim they are outraged about. The sole reason these individuals are targeted is because of their nationality. This is cancel culture at its worse - we don't even care about what people think or say anymore, and hurt them for something they can't change anything about. What next? Should we make the Russians immigrants in our countries live in fear of reprisals? Should our children bully theirs in schools? How far can we take it before the outrage excuse wears out? Outrage over the Russian invasion of Ukraine is warranted. I feel the same. It is good to see an international reaction to it, and I sincerely hope that this will pressure Putin to stop. The virtue signalling and posturing we have seen this week on social medias is not justice, however. It's a disgusting act of violence by people who feel they can get away with it. Is that violence comparable to what the Ukrainians live through at the moment? Of course not! But that doesn't make it excusable.
  - throwaway5752 5y ago
    Like I said - you can ban none, some, or all Russian participants. That is just simple logic. If you ban some participants, you harm the integrity of the competition by subjective criteria. If you ban none, you are failing to impose a cost for Russian war crimes. It's an awful situation for everyone involved and the best situation would be for an immediate cessation of hostilities and military withdrawal so the ban can be lifted. After all, this is simply chess and nobody is dying. On the other hand, thousands of civilians are dead, families are divided, and there is real hardship.
    - thway0987 5y ago
      > you are failing to impose a cost for Russian war crimes. Isn't the simple logic that the people who should bear the cost of war crimes are those who commit these war crimes? > It's an awful situation for everyone involved and the best situation would be for an immediate cessation of hostilities and military withdrawal so the ban can be lifted. Not only that, but the immediate cessation of hostilities and military withdrawal would be better for everyone even if there were no ban. Aside from a few deranged hawks in the Russian government I can't see how this conflict is good for anyone, Russian or not. > this is simply chess and nobody is dying. And the ban does nothing that would influence Putin's decisions. The economic sanctions might change his attitude (only time will tell). A ban of Russian chess players won't. Sanctions are a tool to force Putin to the negotiation table. Pointless actions like this are only harming people with no influence or responsibility on the conflict. > On the other hand, thousands of civilians are dead, families are divided, and there is real hardship. This war is dreadful, and I would like (without much hope) that Putin and those responsible for it respond for their crime. I just don't see how imposing hardships (however less strong they may be) on people unrelated to the conflict has any bearing on this.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

throwaway5752 5y ago

This is in reaction to a much greater moral outrage: thousands of dead Ukrainian civilians because of an unprovoked Russian invasion. One can either 1) sanction Russia (which impacts all Russians) 2) partially sanction (which is unavoidably subjective and abusable) or 3) not sanction Russia. This is a case of 1, based on the source link, "Norway announce that no Russian players will be able to play in the 2022 edition of the event" It is not fair to talk about "civic and ethical values" outside of this extremely relevant moral context.

throwaway5754 5y ago
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
moralestapia 5y ago
If a Russian in America gets hurt and goes to a hospital, should it be denied medical attention? Where do you draw the line, actually? If I'm not Russian but my parents are, should I be sanctioned as well? Again, where do you draw the line? If you happened to be at Russia, would you be okay if everyone denied their services to you? If your country got involved into a conflict, and you don't even live there anymore, and people started treating you like a pariah, would you feel be fine with that? Some guys thought about all these things, and wrote: "Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the POLITICAL, JURISDICTIONAL OR INTERNATIONAL STATUS OF THE COUNTRY OR TERRITORY TO WHICH A PERSON BELONGS, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty." I don't think that's open to interpretation but YMMV. Check it out by yourself at, https://www.un.org/en/about-us/universal-declaration-of-human-rights https://www.un.org/en/about-us/universal-declaration-of-huma... I think it's made by some guys at the UN or something, they seem to know a thing or two about human rights.
- throwaway5752 5y ago
  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 categorize participation in a chess tournament as a human right? Where is your concern about Ukrainian human rights? If you are so passionate about Grischuk's human rights to participate in this competition, then you must be incensed the magnitude of the violation of individual rights being violated in Ukraine. Do you condemn the Russian invasion?
  - inkyoto 5y ago
    You do realise that Grischuk is a Ukranian surname, don't you? As well as the fact that Grischuk's first wife was Ukranian and his current wife is of the half-Russian, half-Ukranian descent?
s1artibartfast 5y ago
I think you are simply describing collective punishment. You are making the case that collective punishment is easier and more fair because you don't even consider about if any individual person punished is deserving or innocent. It is like Israel bulldozing random Palestine homes because someone else fired a rocket. It is like people beating up random Chinese on the streets of San Francisco because of some decision Xi Jinping made
thway0987 5y ago
> This is in reaction to a much greater moral outrage: thousands of dead Ukrainian civilians because of an unprovoked Russian invasion. No, this is racism and intolerance under a thin guise of outrage. We are talking about targeting individuals who bear zero responsibility for what people claim they are outraged about. The sole reason these individuals are targeted is because of their nationality. This is cancel culture at its worse - we don't even care about what people think or say anymore, and hurt them for something they can't change anything about. What next? Should we make the Russians immigrants in our countries live in fear of reprisals? Should our children bully theirs in schools? How far can we take it before the outrage excuse wears out? Outrage over the Russian invasion of Ukraine is warranted. I feel the same. It is good to see an international reaction to it, and I sincerely hope that this will pressure Putin to stop. The virtue signalling and posturing we have seen this week on social medias is not justice, however. It's a disgusting act of violence by people who feel they can get away with it. Is that violence comparable to what the Ukrainians live through at the moment? Of course not! But that doesn't make it excusable.
- throwaway5752 5y ago
  Like I said - you can ban none, some, or all Russian participants. That is just simple logic. If you ban some participants, you harm the integrity of the competition by subjective criteria. If you ban none, you are failing to impose a cost for Russian war crimes. It's an awful situation for everyone involved and the best situation would be for an immediate cessation of hostilities and military withdrawal so the ban can be lifted. After all, this is simply chess and nobody is dying. On the other hand, thousands of civilians are dead, families are divided, and there is real hardship.
  - thway0987 5y ago
    > you are failing to impose a cost for Russian war crimes. Isn't the simple logic that the people who should bear the cost of war crimes are those who commit these war crimes? > It's an awful situation for everyone involved and the best situation would be for an immediate cessation of hostilities and military withdrawal so the ban can be lifted. Not only that, but the immediate cessation of hostilities and military withdrawal would be better for everyone even if there were no ban. Aside from a few deranged hawks in the Russian government I can't see how this conflict is good for anyone, Russian or not. > this is simply chess and nobody is dying. And the ban does nothing that would influence Putin's decisions. The economic sanctions might change his attitude (only time will tell). A ban of Russian chess players won't. Sanctions are a tool to force Putin to the negotiation table. Pointless actions like this are only harming people with no influence or responsibility on the conflict. > On the other hand, thousands of civilians are dead, families are divided, and there is real hardship. This war is dreadful, and I would like (without much hope) that Putin and those responsible for it respond for their crime. I just don't see how imposing hardships (however less strong they may be) on people unrelated to the conflict has any bearing on this.