Political statement on homepage

[Jamiet99uk]

We'll find out soon enough, I guess.

If it is a permanent change, what are your thoughts on its removal?

I did not particularly assume, when it appeared, that it was designed to be permanent. It was simply a statement of the site owners' position on a topical issue.

[Octavious]

We'll find out soon enough, I guess.

If it is a permanent change, what are your thoughts on its removal?

I did not particularly assume, when it appeared, that it was designed to be permanent. It was simply a statement of the site owners' position on a topical issue.

I didn't presume any different, but that's not my question. Are you satisfied that webDip has done it's bit? Do you think webDip has made any difference? Do you think it's been taken down too soon?

[Jamiet99uk]

We'll find out soon enough, I guess.

If it is a permanent change, what are your thoughts on its removal?

I did not particularly assume, when it appeared, that it was designed to be permanent. It was simply a statement of the site owners' position on a topical issue.

I didn't presume any different, but that's not my question. Are you satisfied that webDip has done it's bit? Do you think webDip has made any difference? Do you think it's been taken down too soon?

I feel that it has made very little difference, but I did not object to it either.

It was amusing that some people seemed to be offended by it.

[Muscovy_Duck]

Who was /is Pollyanna anyway?

Is it a reference to a character in 'Little Women'?

(And before anyone takes offence that is the title of a classic book, essentially a coming of age novel, and not an intention to demean women in anyway whatsoever, although the book itself was 'of its time' and hardly set out to empower women!)

[orathaic]

The biggest difference I suspect is to make people who don't like it consider whether to continue using this site.

Maybe some of them will consider why they don't like it, but that kind of thing usually takes a deeply personal experience.

So hopefully the banner has made PoC and those who have been subjected to state violence more comfortable here.

Neither of these effects are things I have a problem with.

[MajorMitchell]

Ha ha Octavious, those are ridiculous suggestions

[Octavious]

Ha ha Octavious, those are ridiculous suggestions

They are what the Black Lives Matter political organisation stands and campaigns for, Major. I agree that they are ridiculous, but my understanding was that you stood in solidarity with them? Perhaps we have a different understanding of what standing in solidarity means.

[Octavious]

Maybe some of them will consider why they don't like it, but that kind of thing usually takes a deeply personal experience.

Because they they don't like people breaking social distancing rules in the middle of a pandemic, and they are uncomfortable with their diplomacy website supporting a far left political organisation? It doesn't take a deeply personal experience to get to this point, ora, and I would indeed regret losing new and existing members to our many competitors because of it.

[Jamiet99uk]

Ha ha Octavious, those are ridiculous suggestions

They are what the Black Lives Matter political organisation stands and campaigns for, Major. I agree that they are ridiculous, but my understanding was that you stood in solidarity with them? Perhaps we have a different understanding of what standing in solidarity means.

I mean let's talk about these points:

1. The dismantling of capitalism

Well, I support the dismantling of capitalism. Capitalism is a morally corrupt system based on a selfish individualism that promotes greed, empowers the wealthy, and requires the exploitation of the majority by the wealthy minority. Capitalism is driving the over-exploitation of Earth's resources and perpetuates the poverty and suffering of many people. Of course it should be done away with.


2. Abolishing prisons and the police

This is complex and problematic but, bearing in mind BLM is a US-based movement (even though it has international supporters and partnerships) I think this is an understandable desire. The rapid growth of the prison-industrial complex in the United States, driven by capitalism, seeks to create and perpetuate a vast incarcerated labour force who are essentially the slaves of the present era. In this system there is an incentive for individuals to be incarcerated for very minor offences so that they may be exploited as a form of cheap labour. Such a system is not driven by public protection as it fails to provide meaningful rehabilitation and actively undermines communities. A high proportion of this incarcerated slave labour force is black. No wonder BLM aspires to dismantle the current prison system in the USA.

Likewise, the endemic, structural racism in US police forces (and in other countries too, including possibly the UK) which has been the subject of much debate, is a problem that may only be addressable, if it can be, by systematic change which rightly calls into question the reason for the existence of the police and their role and purpose in modern society.


3. Zero immigration controls

I have looked all over the BLM website today and cannot find a single item or policy statement on there, in which they call for this. Nonetheless, the vilification of immigrants (and refugees) in western countries, such as the UK, is deeply problematic.


4. The belief that big charities are nothing more than colonisers of the 21st century.

I will come to this one separately - I have strong views regarding charities - but I do think it is absolutely the case that some large national or international charities, are problematic and have accepted a role within the framework of neoliberal capitalism, rather than challenging that framework.

[Jamiet99uk]

Maybe some of them will consider why they don't like it, but that kind of thing usually takes a deeply personal experience.

Because they they don't like people breaking social distancing rules in the middle of a pandemic, and they are uncomfortable with their diplomacy website supporting a far left political organisation? It doesn't take a deeply personal experience to get to this point, ora, and I would indeed regret losing new and existing members to our many competitors because of it.

Do you genuinely fear that thousands of players have been driven to Playdip because of that banner?

[Octavious]

I doubt it's made any difference whatsoever, but some people have felt uncomfortable enough to make a thread about it so who knows? Maybe a few people genuinely will go to Playdip because of it. God knows it's been a long time since we had a clear advantage over them, and conspiracy kicks our arse in several areas these days. I'm here more out of habit than a genuine belief that we're best if I'm being totally honest. In such an environment little things can swing it.

[flash2015]

Ha ha Octavious, those are ridiculous suggestions

They are what the Black Lives Matter political organisation stands and campaigns for, Major. I agree that they are ridiculous, but my understanding was that you stood in solidarity with them? Perhaps we have a different understanding of what standing in solidarity means.

As I have said before, I have not been a fan of the banner as well. If we say politics shouldn't be on the front page we should be consistent about it, even for issues that the moderators strongly believe in.

And the issue is far more complex that "systemic racism, QED". At least part of it is also due to police training in the US which affects people of all races (US police on average kill 4x the number of people that Australian police do and 30x the number of people killed by British police), gun policy which forces police in the US to assume that any traffic stop can be potentially fatal, racial profiling, mass incarceration, the breakdowns of African American families, poverty etc.

Having said all this I do take issue with you suggesting that there is a binary choice here. Surely it is possible to believe there is a big problem and have some understanding for the protestors without believing in every crackpot idea or action that they do? For example I don't believe in "defunding the police" but at least in the US they are way, way over militarized (many police departments have tanks, wtf???) and overused so something needs to change. These confederate symbols have always been a big middle finger to civil rights...they should have been removed decades ago. We should have a discussion about which people we should actually revere.

I personally don't believe there is any significant risk of a marxist revolution. Unfortunately these types tend to infiltrate these sorts of movements (and leftists are not good with focus) but I don't see that this should invalidate the whole cause.

[Octavious]

It's not a case of the Black Lives Matter organisation being infiltrated by a few Marxists. It is, and always has been, a far left organisation pursuing far left goals. Standing in solidarity with Black Lives Matter isn't much different to standing in solidarity with the Soviet Union because you like what they say about gender equality.

You can support the principle that black lives matter, and you can support reform in reforming various aspects of US policing and prison policy, and I'd give it my full backing. You can even have sympathy for many of the protesters, who I have no doubt are largely well intentioned even though their actions will cause suffering and death. But as far as showing solidarity with the Black Lives Matter political group goes, I'm afraid that is black and white. Not a chance in hell I can support that.

The webDip banner was clearly in support of Black Lives Matter (the capitalised political group). They did not say "we at webDip believe black lives matter", but that they are in solidarity with Black Lives Matter. It is an important distinction. It is quite a contemptible feature of modern American politics where groups are inclined to call themselves slogans that can't on their own be disagreed with. The same shite as in the abortion debate where one side likes to be called pro life and the other pro choice, when anyone with an ounce of sense is clearly both. The idea being to try and portray anyone who disagrees with them as against their slogan. Pathetic stuff, but the Black Lives Matter bastards seem to have done their weasel politics more effectively than most. Or maybe people just need time to recognise them for what they are.

[Jamiet99uk]

But as far as showing solidarity with the Black Lives Matter political group goes, I'm afraid that is black and white.

A rather unfortunate turn of phrase?

[Jamiet99uk]

Pathetic stuff, but the Black Lives Matter bastards seem to have done their weasel politics more effectively than most.

Wow, look at the angry white man.

He seems to feel threatened.

[Octavious]

But as far as showing solidarity with the Black Lives Matter political group goes, I'm afraid that is black and white.

A rather unfortunate turn of phrase?

Not really. What makes you say so?

[Octavious]

Pathetic stuff, but the Black Lives Matter bastards seem to have done their weasel politics more effectively than most.

Wow, look at the angry white man.

He seems to feel threatened.

Jamie, you are by far and a way the angriest man on these forums. Do you feel threatened by everything you're angry at? That must be a lot of work. Most people are quite capable of disagreeing with something without being motivated by some primal threat response.

[Jamiet99uk]

But as far as showing solidarity with the Black Lives Matter political group goes, I'm afraid that is black and white.

A rather unfortunate turn of phrase?

Not really. What makes you say so?

Is this sarcasm?

[Octavious]

Nope. Are you really such a victim of self imposed woke thought policing that you are unable to see a common phrase like "black and white" without automatically panicking about possible racist connotations?

I don't think I've ever felt sorry for you before... What a horrible way to exist.

[orathaic]

<snip>

4. The belief that big charities are nothing more than colonisers of the 21st century.

I will come to this one separately - I have strong views regarding charities - but I do think it is absolutely the case that some large national or international charities, are problematic and have accepted a role within the framework of neoliberal capitalism, rather than challenging that framework.

@Jamie, think I agree pretty much entirely with you on 3/4th of your points (so I snipped them). On your last point, I had a good friend discussing it with me last night, and they came to a succinct conclusion.

When charity is required in order to provide basic necessities of life, it becomes a tax on kindness - thus it acts as a monetary incentive to be cruel. A system which rewards cruelty is I guess not surprising given the things you just said about capitalism above.

That said I argued in depth about positive of charitable organisations, however in every example I could come up with, the person giving (usually time) to charity were doing so by choice, not because the felt forced to do so.

And this is entirely like saying 'work is good, but forced work is bad' (aka slavery)
I could also substitute work for sex, except forced sex is violence...

So I would argue there is a distinction worth making.