4 ms·

It's just a principle, used in some laws in some legal systems in some countries — nothing dictates all accusations made on the planet has to abide by "innocent

It's just a principle, used in some laws in some legal systems in some countries — nothing dictates all accusations made on the planet has to abide by "innocent until proven guilty" principle. Nothing dictates that burden of proof is always on the accuser, especially in the internet where there isn't really any authority or agreements on subjects like this. It's just a statement/opinion by grandparent and it baffles me why presumption of innocence is even brought up like it's something to be held everywhere.

concinds 4y ago
> If the chess community decides to trust Magnus and his credentials without any proof, that's their prerogative, the concept of criminal innocence doesn't come into play at all here. "Innocent until proven guilty" is not just a legal concept but a social norm. I'm a big Carlsen fan, but that same logic, applied to other domains, has led to witch-hunts throughout history, or character assassination/reputational damage when someone is accused of something but those accusations are never tested in court. Coming back to chess, this isn't a casual situation with your friends, but a professional environment with norms and with money on the line. Imagine the same thing at your workplace. Random non-experts taking sides here is inappropriate. Even many other Grandmasters have opinions on these accusations (true or false), but are refusing to state them publicly, preferring to let it play itself out, due to their respect for norms. Magnus is entitled to his opinion and to expressing them, but treating them as facts rather than accusations is just strange. Chess cheating expert Ken Regan thinks Niemann didn't cheat. "Innocent until proven guilty" obviously applies.
- lordnacho 4y ago
  > "Innocent until proven guilty" is not just a legal concept but a social norm. I think the question is whether it ought to be a social norm. What do you think of Prince Andrew? Hasn't been proven guilty. Should we just go about our business with him as usual? What about everyone else who settles a case? I think of "Innocent until proven guilty" as a sort of viral trope. People think it's the norm, so when the question comes up, this phrase appears in their minds and is the first thought on justice. But I'm not sure it's a good norm, at least I have yet to hear arguments about why we should follow it, especially outside of the legal realm.
  - bombcar 4y ago
    As a moral principle it’s kind of vague but you can take it as “when in doubt assume the best of people” which can work as an anti-prejudice tool. But just because the bar is set so high for criminal guilt doesn’t mean we can or should use it elsewhere. And much of personal interactions are basically “guilty until proven innocent” because the risk (even if minor) isn’t worth it. Most people have no problem being told they can’t share a bathroom stall with you even if you’d share one with a spouse. Even civil cases have a lower bar, and many personal interactions are way lower. And while I do have a problem with “do one crime and never be hirable again for anything” I do not have a problem with certain crime blocking certain types of work, and/or subjecting you to additional scrutiny.
  - concinds 4y ago
    Upvoted you, people shouldn't downvote perfectly fine comments. > What do you think of Prince Andrew? Hasn't been proven guilty. Should we just go about our business with him as usual? What about everyone else who settles a case? We have circumstantial evidence that he did it; testimonies from victims, who have made credible claims, etc. There's also a difference between making sure you're not victimized (e.g. being careful around alleged abusers, or Carlsen being suspicious about a suspected cheater), but that doesn't apply to internet gossipers. And the public's reaction to Prince Andrew would be different if he was a nobody, who was publicly vilified by the most influential people, with zero evidence available to the public; compared to him being a powerful person, who is publicly protected by the most influential people, with plenty of circumstantial public evidence. I think he's guilty, but there's context to my belief. What irks me is when people take sides in "he said she said" conflicts (i.e. with zero public evidence) between two people they've never met. "Innocent until proven guilty only applies to courts!" is reasoning I've seen far too often regarding accusations published in some random tweet, and it's really quite ugly.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]

concinds 4y ago

> If the chess community decides to trust Magnus and his credentials without any proof, that's their prerogative, the concept of criminal innocence doesn't come into play at all here. "Innocent until proven guilty" is not just a legal concept but a social norm. I'm a big Carlsen fan, but that same logic, applied to other domains, has led to witch-hunts throughout history, or character assassination/reputational damage when someone is accused of something but those accusations are never tested in court. Coming back to chess, this isn't a casual situation with your friends, but a professional environment with norms and with money on the line. Imagine the same thing at your workplace. Random non-experts taking sides here is inappropriate. Even many other Grandmasters have opinions on these accusations (true or false), but are refusing to state them publicly, preferring to let it play itself out, due to their respect for norms. Magnus is entitled to his opinion and to expressing them, but treating them as facts rather than accusations is just strange. Chess cheating expert Ken Regan thinks Niemann didn't cheat. "Innocent until proven guilty" obviously applies.

lordnacho 4y ago
> "Innocent until proven guilty" is not just a legal concept but a social norm. I think the question is whether it ought to be a social norm. What do you think of Prince Andrew? Hasn't been proven guilty. Should we just go about our business with him as usual? What about everyone else who settles a case? I think of "Innocent until proven guilty" as a sort of viral trope. People think it's the norm, so when the question comes up, this phrase appears in their minds and is the first thought on justice. But I'm not sure it's a good norm, at least I have yet to hear arguments about why we should follow it, especially outside of the legal realm.
- bombcar 4y ago
  As a moral principle it’s kind of vague but you can take it as “when in doubt assume the best of people” which can work as an anti-prejudice tool. But just because the bar is set so high for criminal guilt doesn’t mean we can or should use it elsewhere. And much of personal interactions are basically “guilty until proven innocent” because the risk (even if minor) isn’t worth it. Most people have no problem being told they can’t share a bathroom stall with you even if you’d share one with a spouse. Even civil cases have a lower bar, and many personal interactions are way lower. And while I do have a problem with “do one crime and never be hirable again for anything” I do not have a problem with certain crime blocking certain types of work, and/or subjecting you to additional scrutiny.
- concinds 4y ago
  Upvoted you, people shouldn't downvote perfectly fine comments. > What do you think of Prince Andrew? Hasn't been proven guilty. Should we just go about our business with him as usual? What about everyone else who settles a case? We have circumstantial evidence that he did it; testimonies from victims, who have made credible claims, etc. There's also a difference between making sure you're not victimized (e.g. being careful around alleged abusers, or Carlsen being suspicious about a suspected cheater), but that doesn't apply to internet gossipers. And the public's reaction to Prince Andrew would be different if he was a nobody, who was publicly vilified by the most influential people, with zero evidence available to the public; compared to him being a powerful person, who is publicly protected by the most influential people, with plenty of circumstantial public evidence. I think he's guilty, but there's context to my belief. What irks me is when people take sides in "he said she said" conflicts (i.e. with zero public evidence) between two people they've never met. "Innocent until proven guilty only applies to courts!" is reasoning I've seen far too often regarding accusations published in some random tweet, and it's really quite ugly.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]