State-sanctioned violence

[Undiplomatic Solutionarian]

Was webDiplomacy complicate with state-sanctioned violence and racism prior to their new banner, or did the state-sanctioned violence and racism just start?

[Octavious]

The entire game revolves around state sanctioned violence... with the notable exception of the pacifist variant.

[Jamiet99uk]

Was webDiplomacy complicate with state-sanctioned violence and racism prior to their new banner, or did the state-sanctioned violence and racism just start?

I assume you mean "complicit"? The answer would be "meh, not really", but it is certainly the case that this site and its owners have previously been very lacking when it comes to standing up to fascism.

Therefore, the new attitude displayed in the banner is most welcome and I give it my full endorsement and support.

[Octavious]

And how long do you feel it's appropriate to keep the banner flying, out of interest? Now that webDip has apparently decided that banners such as this make a difference, when should webDip stop showing solidarity against state sanctioned violence and racism? And is the lack of a banner regarding state sanctioned oppression of women, such as in Saudi Arabia, or state sanctioned religious oppression, such as in... well... take your pick... mean that webDip is quite happy not making a difference on those issues?

[Jamiet99uk]

And how long do you feel it's appropriate to keep the banner flying, out of interest? Now that webDip has apparently decided that banners such as this make a difference, when should webDip stop showing solidarity against state sanctioned violence and racism? And is the lack of a banner regarding state sanctioned oppression of women, such as in Saudi Arabia, or state sanctioned religious oppression, such as in... well... take your pick... mean that webDip is quite happy not making a difference on those issues?

Why does it bother you so much?

[Octavious]

Surprisingly enough I'm not particularly bothered. You'd think, that after years of the webDip telling us over and over again that this is a diplomacy site and the discussion of politics is unimportant, that webDip deciding to go off on a political campaign would be irritating. And yet it isn't.

But I am curious as to the answers. It feels that webDip has done the equivalent to declaring war on Iraq. Where's the exit strategy, what does victory look like, and why haven't we invaded the other bastards out there?

Why so keen on the shutting down of discussion all of a sudden, by the way? You've never questioned political interest in umpteen thousand issues before. Is this a new left wing debating strategy?

[Octavious]

That, on the other hand, is deeply sick.

[Jamiet99uk]

Surprisingly enough I'm not particularly bothered. You'd think, that after years of the webDip telling us over and over again that this is a diplomacy site and the discussion of politics is unimportant, that webDip deciding to go off on a political campaign would be irritating. And yet it isn't.

But I am curious as to the answers. It feels that webDip has done the equivalent to declaring war on Iraq. Where's the exit strategy, what does victory look like, and why haven't we invaded the other bastards out there?

Why so keen on the shutting down of discussion all of a sudden, by the way? You've never questioned political interest in umpteen thousand issues before. Is this a new left wing debating strategy?

Recently it appears that you regularly feel the need to question or sneer at a lot of posts and threads which, to me, seem to express reasonable solidarity with oppressed people, and reasonable outrage at the oppression and mistreatment of those peoples.

I know you're well-qualified spokesman for white middle class male privilege but it's a bit tiresome.

[Jamiet99uk]

Sorry, a typo there:

* conservative white middle class male privilege

There I fixed it.

[Octavious]

I know you're well-qualified spokesman for white middle class male privilege but it's a bit tiresome.

No need to put yourself out, Jamie. I won't be at all offended if you ignore me.

Out of curiosity, though, do you believe our class to be different? I always considered our backgrounds to be reasonably similar.

[orathaic]

You can't be neutral on a moving train.

Not opposing the status quo and doing nothing amounts to implicit support.

As Edmund Burke said 'The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.'

[Octavious]

You believe that webDip implicitly supports the restrictions on women's rights in Saudi Arabia, ora?

[Octavious]

Or, more specifically to the current situation, if webDip were to withdraw their banner before a satisfactory conclusion had been reached, do you believe that this means webDip implicitly support the murder of minorities?

[Jamiet99uk]

I know you're well-qualified spokesman for white middle class male privilege but it's a bit tiresome.

No need to put yourself out, Jamie. I won't be at all offended if you ignore me.

Out of curiosity, though, do you believe our class to be different? I always considered our backgrounds to be reasonably similar.

Yes, I am white and middle class.

I recognise my privilege; I absolutely do not deny it. I try, flawed as my efforts may be, to take steps to use my privilege to benefit others and to fight overcome the effect of my privilege on society and civilisation.

You, on the other hand, are a conservative.

[Jamiet99uk]

You believe that webDip implicitly supports the restrictions on women's rights in Saudi Arabia, ora?

Whataboutery.

[Octavious]

"Whataboutery" is not an argument. It's barely even a word.

[Jamiet99uk]

"Whataboutery" is not an argument. It's barely even a word.

You are essentially making the argument that it is impossible to show support for *one* just cause unless one compiles a list of every possible just cause and declares that one supports all of them.

It's whataboutery of the first degree.

If you are motivated to take action to tackle both gender inequality in Saudi Arabia and racial inequality in the United States, that's great. But your prior words and actions demonstrate that you don't give a shit about either of those things, so please, give it a fucking rest.

[orathaic]

Whataboutery is a clear claim that you are trying to derail the conversation by saying 'what about other thing'. It is often used disingenuously, I see right groups responding to claims that asylum seeker need to provide with basic needs, by saying 'what about our own homeless people?' - but do you see them advocating for homelessness services or addressing the root cause of homelessness? No, they continue to attempt to distract and diminish and blame others.

Narrative is important, and today the story is about the US's particular use of violence against unarmed, peaceful protesters. About excessive use of force against black and minority communities, about racism and a history of enslavement.

If you want to start a conversation about Saudi Arabia, go ahead. I will criticise the US's military aid and how it supports the state sanctioned violence against any opposition in Saudi Arabia over there. Your contribution here suggests you don't have anything to add.

[Octavious]

I am trying to understand your train argument which is increasingly sounding like little more than virtue signalling over whatever issue happens to be in fashion.

I ask again, if webDip were to withdraw their banner before a satisfactory conclusion had been reached, do you believe that this means webDip implicitly support the murder of minorities? And if not, how do you justify the apparent inconsistency with your argument?

[flash2015]

You believe that webDip implicitly supports the restrictions on women's rights in Saudi Arabia, ora?

I am not particularly a fan of the banner either...even though I likely support it more than you. If webdip isn't going to be political we should be consistent about it. The same thing happened on nextdoor, the local social network. After saying that nextdoor should not be about politics, nextdoor pushed multiple articles to the front pages of every feed about George Floyd and BLM. I am not sure that was a good idea...even though I agree with the sentiments expressed.

Getting back specifically to your comments, I am not really sure what you are trying to imply here. Isn't it usually the case that people care more about issues closer to home or to people culturally closer to us? Gunman in Iraq kill 50 people, no one bats an eyelid. Gunman kill a few cartoonists in France and the whole Western world responds in mourning. Isn't this the same?

As well, given that many people on webdip likely live in the US, we may actually have **some** minimal control over the situation. We likely have zero control over what happens in Saudi Arabia (are there any webdippers from Saudi Arabia?).