Lichess and Russian Aggreesion

@Alex_1987 said in #49:
> It is actually funny that thanks to russian propaganda Ukraine always looked suspicious to West. Like, if we give them weapons, for sure they will sell it to some shady people or dictator. West always built relations with Ukraine through russian prism of view.
> And now modern fascism (the one which "never again") actually grown in russia, not in Ukraine.

I suggest you also to read this article:
www.cairn.info/revue-humanisme-2014-2-page-5.htm#no8 (Here is the original)
And here translated into English:
www-cairn-info.translate.goog/revue-humanisme-2014-2-page-5.htm?_x_tr_sl=auto&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=fr&_x_tr_pto=wapp#no8

@clousems said in #48:
> I'm not sure what I said that you're disagreeing with. I just raised the slippery slope problem and an ethical issue I have.

I don't even remember what I wrote anymore, so I'm not sure either!

@I_invented_google said in #51:
>

Well, that's what I am talking about! When I mentioned weapon for Ukraine, instantly another russian troll appeared with "undeniable proofs" and threatening me with Patriot.
russians would better think about numerous private military companies which pop up in their country and which are illegal by russian laws btw. But russians don't care about russia, they are too obsessed with Ukraine.

@I_invented_google said in #51:
> I suggest you also to read this article:
> www.cairn.info/revue-humanisme-2014-2-page-5.htm#no8 (Here is the original)
> And here translated into English:
> www-cairn-info.translate.goog/revue-humanisme-2014-2-page-5.htm?_x_tr_sl=auto&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=fr&_x_tr_pto=wapp#no8
But it's fake, I used to live in Ukraine for 12 years and I know better, how it was.

lol the western press accurately portrayed the ruthless neonazis in Ukraine as what they were for decades. then about 2018 or so stopped doing so.

Can y'all just stop arguing over this topic that has been milked dozens of times now?

@ThePushingPawn said in #24:
> I'm going to make some points that might be controversial here (just a disclaimer)
>
> It's quite hypocritical to censor the Russian flag. Ukraine supporters might say that Russia is suppressing Ukraine's identity but aren't you doing the same thing when censoring the flag of Russia? Just a reminder, Russia remains its own country whoever the leader is. The flag doesn't represent the ruler; it merely represents the people.
>
> I would also like to point out the heavy hand the U.S has had in spreading propaganda and demonizing Russia. Most medias decide to focus on the atrocities committed by Russians (I'm not denying the terrible and unforgivable things some of them have done) and not by the Ukrainians. Where humans go problems and corruption inevitably follow. The winner gets to write history.
>
> It is clear that the US and many of the other pro-Ukrainian countries are supporting Ukraine as a way of dealing a blow to China, one of the US' clear rivals. Russia and China have been long-standing allies (although Russia collapsed after transitioning from the USSR to Russia, where Russia turned to the US' political system), and the US cannot bear to see themselves not being the big boy on the block. Does the US really care about Ukraine? If so, why then did the US not help Ukraine before the war? The US has been very hypocritical about wanting to spread "democracy." The US has invaded a staggering 84 countries and has been militarily involved with 191 out of the total 193. Where is the US' moral high ground now?
>
> Please note that I am not in any way pro-Putin nor am I agreeing with the war in Ukraine. I am just trying to show some reason amongst the brainwashed people who mindlessly take what the biased media tells them.

chat gpt4 what do you make of this nonsense ?

This passage presents several arguments, and each of them has potential issues that might make them not fully sound or convincing.

Censorship of the Russian flag: The author assumes that censoring a flag is equivalent to suppressing a nation's identity. However, these two are not inherently the same. Censorship of a national symbol may be done for various reasons, such as protest or denouncement of a government's actions, not necessarily an attempt to suppress a people's identity. Furthermore, it's a false equivalence to compare the supposed censorship of a flag to the alleged actions of a state actor infringing upon another country's sovereignty.

Media Bias: The author suggests that the media is biased towards highlighting Russian atrocities while neglecting Ukrainian ones. While media bias can exist, this claim lacks evidence to support it. It's also crucial to note that the scale and context of "atrocities" can vary greatly, so it's not necessarily fair or accurate to equate or compare them without further analysis.

US Involvement: The author posits that the US and other countries are supporting Ukraine mainly to antagonize China. This assertion is speculative and oversimplified, ignoring the complexities of international relations, alliances, and historical context. The notion that the US didn't help Ukraine before the war is also not entirely accurate, as the US has been providing various forms of assistance to Ukraine for years.

US Hypocrisy: While it's true that the US has been militarily involved in many countries, the author's assertion that the US has "invaded" 84 countries and been involved with 191 out of 193 total countries lacks sources and context. The term "invasion" is strong and implies a particular kind of military action that doesn't accurately describe all US military involvement.

Bias accusation: The author accuses others of being "brainwashed" by the media, which is a form of ad hominem attack. It undermines the validity of others' views without providing a substantive argument against them.

These are only a few points to consider, and it's important to remember that any argument can be improved with additional evidence, clearer reasoning, and a more nuanced understanding of the complexities involved.

our AI overlord is not convinced lols , yeah basically it is right ,false equivalence is the main issue here IMO ,Russia is an authoritarian dictatorship ,not much better than the mafia ,and you're comparing them to the actions of a democracy .

tell you what this LLM'S are brilliant for debunking the absolute horse shit people say online

stay sharp edgelord x

@sausage4mash said in #57:
> chat gpt4 what do you make of this nonsense ?
>
> This passage presents several arguments, and each of them has potential issues that might make them not fully sound or convincing.
>
> Censorship of the Russian flag: The author assumes that censoring a flag is equivalent to suppressing a nation's identity. However, these two are not inherently the same. Censorship of a national symbol may be done for various reasons, such as protest or denouncement of a government's actions, not necessarily an attempt to suppress a people's identity. Furthermore, it's a false equivalence to compare the supposed censorship of a flag to the alleged actions of a state actor infringing upon another country's sovereignty.
>
> Media Bias: The author suggests that the media is biased towards highlighting Russian atrocities while neglecting Ukrainian ones. While media bias can exist, this claim lacks evidence to support it. It's also crucial to note that the scale and context of "atrocities" can vary greatly, so it's not necessarily fair or accurate to equate or compare them without further analysis.
>
> US Involvement: The author posits that the US and other countries are supporting Ukraine mainly to antagonize China. This assertion is speculative and oversimplified, ignoring the complexities of international relations, alliances, and historical context. The notion that the US didn't help Ukraine before the war is also not entirely accurate, as the US has been providing various forms of assistance to Ukraine for years.
>
> US Hypocrisy: While it's true that the US has been militarily involved in many countries, the author's assertion that the US has "invaded" 84 countries and been involved with 191 out of 193 total countries lacks sources and context. The term "invasion" is strong and implies a particular kind of military action that doesn't accurately describe all US military involvement.
>
> Bias accusation: The author accuses others of being "brainwashed" by the media, which is a form of ad hominem attack. It undermines the validity of others' views without providing a substantive argument against them.
>
> These are only a few points to consider, and it's important to remember that any argument can be improved with additional evidence, clearer reasoning, and a more nuanced understanding of the complexities involved.
>
> our AI overlord is not convinced lols , yeah basically it is right ,false equivalence is the main issue here IMO ,Russia is an authoritarian dictatorship ,not much better than the mafia ,and you're comparing them to the actions of a democracy .
>
> tell you what this LLM'S are brilliant for debunking the absolute horse shit people say online
>
> stay sharp edgelord x

Ah yes, another 10 year old kid relying on ChatGPT to help them make coherent sentences. Kudos to the creativity.

@ThePushingPawn said in #58:
> Ah yes, another 10 year old kid relying on ChatGPT to help them make coherent sentences. Kudos to the creativity.

Hey @ThePushingPawn, on seeing our reply . Gotta say, it's like watching a kitten play with a laser pointer. Quite endearing, really.

Now, on to the meat of the matter, the whole "I'm a 10-year-old, it's GPT-4, so ignore it" thing. Let me break it down for you, Chuckles. your argument holds about as much water as a colander.

Doesn't matter if the truth was delivered by a one-eyed, brain-damaged parrot or a sentient AI or a 10yr old . If your ideas have been busted, well, they've been busted! So maybe pick up the pieces and make a mosaic, because that's all that's left, buddy. Can't wait to see what you come up with next!

@Raspberry_yoghurt said in #41:
> So let me get this straight.
>
> Invading countries and murdering and torturing in order to grab their stuff is not offensive.
>
> In all the liberated areas there's been found torture basements and piles of executed people. In Bucha, there were dead bodies just strewn around in the streets. But this is not offensive?

I do not even understand your perspective on this...

- Russia invades the Ukraine (but let's not talk about the Ukraine inavding the Donbass)...
- It's OK to censor everything about this and squash dissent because it is offensive to have invaded the Ukraine..?

The reason why gore & pxrn should be banned has to do with the fact that seeing graphic images like this is wrong for minors and even for adults who, while capable of handling it (and some of us even seek it out), mnany of us want to be unbothered by this garbage...

Political discussion about real world events like invasions can never be offensive.

The idea that a Chess forum (!!!) and FIDE get to throttle discussion of it shows to us how weak y our case actually is, IMO: if you really could link provable war crimes and had a slam dunk case against Putin, you would not need to silence people who correct.

... Now I am not denying that war crimes could have been committed in Bucha or that tortures were committed by some Russian soldiers, but is it the case that LBJ is guilty of the My Lai massacre, or is it that the immediate officers there are guilty of it..? Of course, this reflects negatively on the whole Russian army, just like the videotaped murders we have seen from the Ukrainians reflects negatively on the UA, but you can't be serious in suggesting Putin is guilty of the Bucha massacre when you cannot provide any shred of evidence that there was some order from on top to kill civilians en masse... And we even have people disputing the idea that it was the Russians who did all of the massacring.