Happy Hanukkah!!!

@greenteakitten
I did realise that you were remaining "neutral", and I actually also did read your blog post where you complain about people using "critical thinking" wrong.

And even though you make some good points, the middle ground fallacy is still a fallacy and in some cases can have serious consequences.

Taking the middle ground position is only neutral when the situation is neutral.
Taking the middle ground position when there is a clear agressor is taking the side of the agressor.
This is true for gender discrimination and violences as well as for geopolitical matters.

handling both side the same in a discussion where one side posts a picture of the prouds IDF on the ruins they just produced, with a comment about the night vision goggles, and the side who says that this might be over the top and decides to not wish Benjamin happy Hanukkah, well, it is taking the side of the agressor.

I didn't put words in your mouth. I clarified what logically follows of your comment.

Edit : About the "y'all", I didn't mean that you were wrong using it, i was merely trying to illustrate that it's often not a matter of making sth political, but things are political if we like it or not.

Speaking of Hanukkah, because of the overlaps in the Jewish and Gregorian calendars, there will be no Hanukkah in 3031, instead there will be 2 in 3032, one in January and one in december.

@TurtleMat

I didn't put words in your mouth. I clarified what logically follows of your comment.

Except you did.

I asked for no politics. That does not say anything about my stance or suggest that I think that #2 and #5 are equivalent in being political. I didn't take any middle ground because I never said they were the same. (Although I'd argue some later posts here were definitely a lot less tame than #2.)

I am allowed to think that they are not the same, and still think that they both shouldn't be said on a non-political thread. (Also, you don't know anything about my stance on the war and neither do a lot of people on here who think they do.) Just because one post is ordinary and the other carries genocidal intent does not mean I am not allowed to condemn both, and indeed, again many later posts from both sides. Is it such a bad thing to ask that this not turn into every single other thread where anything Israeli or Palestinian is mentioned?

Like I said before, I don't really like it when people assume the worst in everything I type. I'm obviously not going to write three paragraphs to say what could be said in two sentences just to clarify every single possible interpretation...or so I hope I won't have to.

@greenteakitten said in #57:

I asked for no politics.

@TurtleMat said in #56:

Taking the middle ground position when there is a clear agressor is taking the side of the agressor.

asking for no politics is taking the middle ground.

@TurtleMat said in #56:

I didn't put words in your mouth. I clarified what logically follows of your comment.

Edit : What you think but not write is not relevant on an online forum. Even if you were the most ardent pro-palestinian activist out there IRL, what you write here is no less biaised towards a pro-Israeli politic position.

@TurtleMat

asking for no politics is taking the middle ground.

Since when was Hanukkah, a celebration of events thousands of years before, related to the current conflict? Just because some people want to make it that way doesn't mean it is. It'd be one thing if I said this on an Israel-Palestine thread. But I didn't.

Believe what you want, I guess. I'll quit arguing here - no point in derailing the thread further.

Happy Hanukkah, indeed, @schwasd. And to you, too, @greenteakitten.

It really is as simple as that as I think both of you already realize.

"What has the Palestinian genocide to do with Hanukkah?"
"what has sexism to do with this chess club/FIDE ?"

@greenteakitten said in #57:

Is it such a bad thing to ask that this not turn into every single other thread where anything Israeli or Palestinian is mentioned?

it is exactly as much a bad thing as asking feminists to shut up not make a fuss/derail the topic on topics concerning problematic chess players/entities.

it's called silencing the victim.

@TurtleMat said in #42:

Also, funny how some discourse change depending on subject. I can recall @greenteakitten finding important to "push politics" when it was about sexist and sexual violences in the chess world. Please be consistent, other people are suffering from other issues, and discarding politics only when you are not the target is not really morally justifiable.

It's a shame you cann't see those are the same. But since you don't seem to be able to, you are right, this discussion can not really go further. I guess we will be on the same side again when the discussion is about something that affects you personally.

Untill then

@TurtleMat and @all

I agree with #61! As Israel is a nation-state representing Judaism the politics of what Israel is doing does in fact reflect on things such as 'Hanukkah.' I think this could be slightly different if there was a qualifier in the initial post intrinsically separating the "Happy Hanukkah" sentiment from the IDF or something like that, but then again maybe not. The fact remains that fundamental Judaism is quite nationalistic and ethnocentric. It's somewhat strange to be surprised when politics enters the realm of Hanukkah, just like it would be perhaps very strange for me to wish people a "Merry Christmas" only to then pretend to be surprised if someone brings up the crusades or the KKK (which is extreme yet still was a Christian organization in name.) If you're going to bring good wishes towards any "religious/nationalistic" holiday, then you have to have the humility to accept that "other voices" are going to voice opposing views to what such 'well wishing' happens to mean just to you personally.

@TurtleMat

it is exactly as much a bad thing as asking feminists to shut up not make a fuss/derail the topic on topics concerning problematic chess players/entities.

If somebody said Bobby Fischer was a feminist, I would welcome people to explain otherwise.

If someone said that they thought Bobby was the GOAT but only in chess and an AH everywhere else, but requested that everybody stick to discussions about his playing, I would very much considered it justified if that same person asked others to not bring up his attitudes about women. There is nuance to it -- if someone says they want to keep a topic apolitical, and don't do so with a tone that suggest they really just want to silence a specific viewpoint, more power to them really.

And in this case, that is what OP has done. Made it very clear that they want this to remain strictly an apolitical thread, clear of ALL viewpoints, conservative or not. And I totally support that.

"What has the Palestinian genocide to do with Hanukkah?"
"what has sexism to do with this chess club/FIDE ?"

That is a very dangerous logic you are using, and it echoes a lot of what anti-Islamic, anti-Semitic, other racists/sexists use when trying to justify what they say. And while I trust from other forums that that is not you, it is still dangerous.

What you are basically presenting here (from what I can see, feel free to correct me if I'm wrong) is that since FIDE contains players that happen to be sexist, sexism is valid to bring up in all discussions of FIDE (a viewpoint that I would beg to differ on) and that since Hanukkah is celebrated by the IDF, therefore discussions of Palestine are valid in all discussions of Hanukkah. By this same logic, I can suggest that since ISIS celebrates Eid, I am allowed to bring up terrorists whenever someone discusses Eid. Does that not seem like a problematic slippery slope to you? (Before you consider calling this a false equivalency, notice that I just essentially equated the IDF with ISIS. Make of that what you will.)

Also, to #62 above -- it happening does not mean it should, and I think your example of Christmas quite proves that (especially with it being a largely secular holiday these days).

guess we will be on the same side again when the discussion is about something that affects you personally.

Don't think I haven't also seen your last couple attempts at a subtle insult. Or pretend to forget the many times I have indeed argued for sides not my own in the past when there was a valid reason to (ex: others harrassing them over nonsensical reasons in debates). I also do indeed debate on things that don't concern me as a person (ex: all threads on other countries). You don't need to be personally affected to have an opinion.

Thanks for proving my point that ya'll just wanna see the worst in everything I say these days.