State-sanctioned violence

[Octavious]

Thank God for that. A genuinely coherent argument! That makes sense, flash, although I don't believe that Jamie and ora subscribe to the view that culturally distant people deserve less attention. I could be wrong on that, but I doubt it. I would like to think that webDip works along similar lines. Again, perhaps I'm wrong.

In terms of influence, I believe you're right in that we have no, or at least very few, Saudi members. However we have an awful lot of American and British members. Saudi Arabia is a major trading partner for both nations (and many other webDip nations) for goods such as oil and arms. The influence that the likes of America and Britain, and by extension their people, can exert on Saudi Arabia is very significant, so I'd argue that zero control is not correct.

Perhaps you'd be willing to have a go at answering the question of when the right time to remove the banner might be? I can't for the life of me see how it is possible to do so without falling foul of accusations of complicity from arguments like ora's.

[orathaic]

How can you possibly worry about when Webdiplomacy.net's banner is removed when India is persecuting Muslims? What about the Rohingya people of Myanmar? What about the Chinese govt's treatment of Uyghurs? Why aren't you worried about the Australian government's treatment of aboriginals and South Asian migrants? What about the Irish govt's policy of direct provision? How can you even post on about a Web banner at a time like this?

[Octavious]

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.'

You see, ora, the problem with your last post is that I don't believe the above. I believe it is perfectly possible to be neutral, especially so if you're a niche boardgame website. I believe that it is entirely justifiable, and indeed preferable, to focus on localised issues, and that not opposing the status quo on some overseas issue does not amount to support. Doing nothing about those matters you've just posted about, tragic though they are, does not in any way go against my world view and beliefs ...

...but it does go against yours.

Unless I've fundamentally misunderstood your beliefs and that train metaphor.

[Jamiet99uk]

Do you know what's not important at the moment?

Reading another bloody word of Octavious's self-satisfied chuntering about when would be the correct date to remove a banner about Black Lives Matter from a website. THAT is not important.

This was a thread about state-sanction violence and we could be talking about that, but no. Octavious has succeeded in his mission to derail and nullify that discussion.

What a horrible fucking arsehole.

[orathaic]

The 'train metaphor' is, for those interested, the title of an excellent documentary by US hIstorian and civil rights activist, Howard Zinn.

[Jamiet99uk]

The 'train metaphor' is, for those interested, the title of an excellent documentary by US hIstorian and civil rights activist, Howard Zinn.

But what about metaphors involving buses or cars or aeroplanes? We can't have a proper debate until you include all of those.

[flash2015]

Thank God for that. A genuinely coherent argument! That makes sense, flash, although I don't believe that Jamie and ora subscribe to the view that culturally distant people deserve less attention. I could be wrong on that, but I doubt it. I would like to think that webDip works along similar lines. Again, perhaps I'm wrong.

I don't think Jamie or Ora subscribe to this either...but it is just human nature to do this. Also I would argue we hold those countries culturally similar to our own to higher standards. This would also explain why there is such an emphasis on Israel's bad behaviour. Since they are supposed to have the same values we have, they should know better!

In terms of influence, I believe you're right in that we have no, or at least very few, Saudi members. However we have an awful lot of American and British members. Saudi Arabia is a major trading partner for both nations (and many other webDip nations) for goods such as oil and arms. The influence that the likes of America and Britain, and by extension their people, can exert on Saudi Arabia is very significant, so I'd argue that zero control is not correct.

I would agree it is theoretically greater than zero...but for all intents and purposes you can treat it as zero. We have had a quite bad track record in using trade to bring about change overseas. South Africa was definitely a win but I think it was an outlier...Cuba and Iran have had sanctions on them for decades without much happening. Even though Aung San Suu Kyi got into power in Burma at least partially due to decades of sanctions, the military are still effectively in charge and are just as bad as they always were (e.g. Rohingya crisis).

Perhaps you'd be willing to have a go at answering the question of when the right time to remove the banner might be? I can't for the life of me see how it is possible to do so without falling foul of accusations of complicity from arguments like ora's.

Buggered if I know. I feel the outpourings of sympathy and rage are somewhat directionless. If the protestors don't coalesce around some real reform proposals soon it will all end with a wimper and nothing will really change. I suspect we will just find the banner gone one day without explanation.

[Octavious]

This was a thread about state-sanction violence and we could be talking about that, but no. Octavious has succeeded in his mission to derail and nullify that discussion.

Lying again, Jamie? This was not a thread about state sanctioned violence. This was a thread about webDip's use of the banner. I suggest that you reread the opening post.

[Jamiet99uk]

This was a thread about state-sanction violence and we could be talking about that, but no. Octavious has succeeded in his mission to derail and nullify that discussion.

Lying again, Jamie? This was not a thread about state sanctioned violence. This was a thread about webDip's use of the banner. I suggest that you reread the opening post.

Fine, please, go ahead and chunter endlessly to yourselves about banners.

I no longer give a shit about this thread.

[Undiplomatic Solutionarian]

This was a thread about state-sanction violence and we could be talking about that, but no. Octavious has succeeded in his mission to derail and nullify that discussion.

Lying again, Jamie? This was not a thread about state sanctioned violence. This was a thread about webDip's use of the banner. I suggest that you reread the opening post.

Fine, please, go ahead and chunter endlessly to yourselves about banners.

I no longer give a shit about this thread.

Is that because you never actually gave a shit about the banner?

[orathaic]

As to flash's explanation, yes our news does the d to be biased towards other 'white' /'western' nations. How and ever, we are also more likely to be able to influence such self-declared democracies. Public opinion in these places is supposed to matter (for Trump, public opinion seems to only matter if you are part of the hard-core pro-Trump cohort).

So while we should care about other things equally, human aren't capable of giving more than 100%, and it makes sense to focus efforts on things where we can have the biggest impact. At the moment the narrative is based around one man's murder. George Floyd.

The is the start of the story, the anger at state sanctioned violence and systemic racism in this context is clearly a part of that story. As to when webdip should remove the banner, I suspect that the story will not last long. That the context will change.

If the point of the banner is to be clear to racists that they are not welcome here, then great. I'm glad to hear it.

Is that what you are taking an issue with?