Forum
A place to discuss topics/games with other webDiplomacy players.
Page 1244 of 1419
FirstPreviousNextLast
CommanderByron (801 D(S))
04 Apr 15 UTC
Tangent: Breasts or Rear?
So I was curious, what do you prefer? Why?; female opinions would also be appreciated...
32 replies
Open
lhrljr (106 D)
06 Apr 15 UTC
Anyone interested in World Diplomacy?
Here's my game gameID=158115
0 replies
Open
EmmaGoldman (1001 D)
06 Apr 15 UTC
Bread & Roses, ppsc, classic game, bet of 100 open
if you're looking for a straight up, classic game, with a bet of 100, Bread & Roses is for you.
0 replies
Open
Hazel-Rah (1262 D)
30 Mar 15 UTC
Second Anniversary Extravaganza!
Help me celebrate!
49 replies
Open
Thucydides (864 D(B))
05 Apr 15 UTC
Happy Easter everyone
On this auspicious day I would like to share with the community my belief that the resurrection of Jesus was figurative, and not literal. The "risen" Jesus is the one that won the greatest person in history tournament. Respectfully, that's what I believe. He is risen, risen indeed.
4 replies
Open
Valis2501 (2850 D(G))
17 Feb 15 UTC
(+2)
Reviving 150cc Club
I'm looking for players who are reliable, enjoy live Diplomacy, and are willing to adhere to somewhat higher standards than we impose on the general populace.
124 replies
Open
lhrljr (106 D)
04 Apr 15 UTC
What's the difference between vdiplomacy and webdiplomacy?
I've recently been to the vdiplomacy site and it was very interesting that the interface and logo look similar to the webdiplomacy one. Are the 2 sites somehow related?
5 replies
Open
Tru Ninja (1016 D(S))
04 Apr 15 UTC
seeking a replacement player
In the Webdiplomacy tournament. 1 game commitment and the game is at least half over. The takeover is France--top spot on the board:
gameID=155365
Game is anonymous. PM if interested
0 replies
Open
rovajuice (1202 D)
03 Apr 15 UTC
saboteur diplomacy
K so I've been wanting to create a variation of diplomacy for some time now but haven't been able to think of anything. I wanted it to actually be different than regular diplomacy to change it up a bit. And i finally got it. I give you.. saboteur diplomacy!
17 replies
Open
wpriestley (102 D)
04 Apr 15 UTC
Gunboat
Join Gunboat-554. Starts in 18 minutes
1 reply
Open
KingCyrus (511 D)
31 Mar 15 UTC
Indiana Religious Freedom Law
So, I have been hearing a lot about this. How does the forum weigh in?
Page 6 of 6
FirstPreviousNextLast
 
Sandman99 (95 D)
03 Apr 15 UTC
Except if they're a terrorist, never serve a terrorist
bo_sox48 (5202 DMod(G))
03 Apr 15 UTC
Yes, KC, and the fact that the Republican Party in my home state, disgraceful as they already were, wrote up a law like this one, and the fact that Governor Mike Pence signed the law in the midst of all of this fanfare, knowing full well that it would, no matter what its intentions, harm both businesses and consumers throughout the state, signed it anyway, shows just how shortsighted they are.

Please remember this moment in history when Mike Pence announces he is running for President on the Republican ticket. I thought he was more moderate than that. Actually, I liked him. Now I just hope we all remember how he'll screw businesses over in order to upset people he doesn't like.
KingCyrus (511 D)
03 Apr 15 UTC
I still don't think a lot of people would serve anyone anything. JMO already said he wouldn't serve someone from the KKK.
jmo1121109 (3812 D)
03 Apr 15 UTC
"JMO already said he wouldn't serve someone from the KKK."

You must not tell lies KingCyrus.
KingCyrus (511 D)
03 Apr 15 UTC
I don't.

"I would not, but I would do it because I will not condone other people infringing on others rights, which is what the KKK does. And that has nothing to do with my religion. "

--JMO
bo_sox48 (5202 DMod(G))
03 Apr 15 UTC
He literally said he wouldn't but he would, not just that he wouldn't.
bo_sox48 (5202 DMod(G))
03 Apr 15 UTC
And if anyone ever refused me service over my bisexuality or anyone around me over anything else like race or nationality or whatever then they would probably get a lot more shit over it than it's worth.
KingCyrus (511 D)
03 Apr 15 UTC
No, he wouldn;t, and he wouldn't do it because....

Also, bo, are you saying that what happened to that pizza company is rightful shaming? They are having their lives and store threatened and going into hiding. If that is being "rightly shamed," then I don't want to know what wrongly shamed is.
bo_sox48 (5202 DMod(G))
03 Apr 15 UTC
The fact that they got bad press is rightful. That they had their lives threatened is not and that they had to close is notz
Holen (222 D)
03 Apr 15 UTC
@oriathaic
A company is a group of people.

@jmo1121109
Yes that's their right as owners of the site. But the thing is if they did everyone with my religion would just move to another site. It's Diplomacy online. We'd form another site and play on that one. Many people who aren't banned for their religion would move to the new alternative and I would be fine. Either two websites would exist for the same purpose because of their policy or theirs would die because of user backlash. But they have that right, even if it would be impossible to enforce because it's a website, but I get the analogy.


@Sir Waffle of Iron

Suicide is a personal choice. Don't act like suicide is something thrust upon another person by the great and crushing outside world. If someone owned an ihop franchise and said no gay people are allowed, and someone killed themselves because of that it wouldn't be tragic it would be ridiculous.

Also a sense of superiority over me for being Canadian is just. Annoying and really makes you seem like an ass.

I would be offended in all those cases but if someone had this sentiments towards me I would hardly want to patronize them in the first place. I would leave. I'm sure I wouldn't be allowed in certain places if the laws changed. But I wouldn't want to go if they had that policy in the first place. The vast majority of places would make no changes to their current policies anyway. All that would change in the grand scheme of things is that people would be able to decide who they associate with freely without someone forcing them to do something they don't want.

An absolute monarchy is immoral on it's own so I'm going to disregard the last example.

Freedom doesn't mean others have to do things for you. Freedom doesn't mean you have to do things for others. Freedom means you can generally do what you want, manage your affairs and relationships and business how you want. Messing with any of that is a lack of freedom.

Also come on like. Real real human being to human being here. You can't just throw in weird 2006ish sarcasm about the Iraq War like that and act like it has anything to do with what we're talking about, with anything I said or referred or anything like that. And if you're going to at least be moderately intelligent in your attempt. More oil comes from Canada or Mexico than Iraq into America. If we were going to invade a country for a monopolization on a countries oil exports we would be better of doing it to a country in our own hemisphere that supplies us double what Iraq usually does. And if that was the point then why would we a little more than a decade later let it fall into the Iranian sphere of influence. Dude.


bo_sox48 (5202 DMod(G))
03 Apr 15 UTC
I'm just saying that it was pretty predictable. It's also worth noting that they have gotten over $50,000 in supportive donations, so they aren't exactly struggling.
Holen (222 D)
03 Apr 15 UTC
Also I'd like to add that I'm not arguing that people should not serve people because of their race or any other reason. Just that they should be allowed to not do something they don't want to and as others have said that's not even what law was doing.



Wait wait wait I thought we had the right to be an ass? So you mean that a sense of superiority over gay people is okay but a sense of superiority over being Canadian is not? I thought freedom meant I could hurt whoever's feelings I want?

Yeah but suicide doesn't exist in a vacuum either. If a person sees themselves as "lesser" and the world is corroborating this then it's gotta impact their decision. Are you suggesting that the outside world has absolutely nothing to do with a person's decisions? Here is the thing, we KNOW gay people have a higher chance of suicide, we KNOW they're less accepted overall - so do you think that knowing that they're not going to be accepted because who they are and how they feel for their entire lives has absolutely nothing to do with their suicides?

Okay, here is the thing with the absolute monarchy example - you're suggesting that it's immoral because you believe it is. I'm with you there, I think it is too. But the issue here is that someone there doesn't think it's immoral, or at least thinks it's in their best interests to do so. The thing here is that if you go and suggest someone has the right to impose their moral values on others then you don't really have a right to protest against an absolute monarchy's discrimination - someone there thinks that the way they're running things is the morally superior way to do so and if you don't like it, just leave the country. Again, you're taking things in a vacuum.

Okay, so why do hate speech laws exist? Why is racial discrimination illegal? Do you think it would be cool if a Nazi community built a community center across a synagogue, or a group that supported a Al-Qaida (vocally, without acting on it) build a meeting house in New York? So, these examples are a little far-fetched, I admit, but I'm using them just so point out that freedom stops where it begins actively harming others or infringing upon their freedoms. Your defense is literally "it's not illegal to be an asshole"

Finally - the oil thing was just a tiny tiny bit of that whole spiel (that admittedly, was weirdly sarcastic). My main point was - you can't pick and choose who freedom applies to. You're making a big fuss about freedom - while arguing that it's okay to limit some people's freedoms. It was also a more general statement - America as a whole makes a big fuss about freedoms, but god forbid foreigners immigrate, Muslims try and build a community centre, or someone makes a suggestion that maybe guns shouldn't be legal.

Also, while I am getting quite worked up, you're the first one who suggested I was being an "asinine jerk," you've followed up by telling me to be "moderately intelligent," and you've made a whole argument that "I'm allowed to hurt whoever's feelings I want" - so why are you getting so defensive over a sarcastic joke about freedom?

Sigh I'm out
semck83 (229 D(B))
03 Apr 15 UTC
@bo,

"You said that people aren't closing down businesses and changing careers due to bigotry towards LGBTQ individuals. I am saying that that's the first example I am aware of of a business that actually shut its doors because of their views."

I meant just bigotry, as opposed to sincerely held moral belief. As you point out, in this case the business probably closed because of the threats they received. I'm highly doubtful they would have closed just over having to serve gays, given that they have been doing so for years, so far as I can tell.

I don't find the "people are idiots who will misinterpret this law to their own harm, so it's a bad law" argument that persuasive. Had this pizza place gone to court under this law (assuming Indiana or their locality had a civil rights law protecting gays), they would have lost, period.

Nothing about this law will "force businesses to close" except perhaps the unbelievable inaccurate media coverage of it. If you're condemning lies by the media, then we are in full agreement.
orathaic (1009 D(B))
03 Apr 15 UTC
@Holen, as it happens, we do have a word for a group of people working together in business - it is called a partnership. Yep, 'being made partner' in a law firm is different from 'being made CEO' of a corporation.

Corporations have their own legal status, the are their own legal identity, they are not people and do not hold any beliefs. A board of directors can fire even damn employee and rehire whoever they want... It will still be the same legal entity with the same contractal responcibilities.

Unlike a partnership which (in ireland at least) automatically disolves when one of the partners dies.

Very specifically not the same thing. And the more rights the US give to corporations - including the right to free speech, and thus campaign contributions towards choosing your president, the less freedom people will have.
semck83 (229 D(B))
03 Apr 15 UTC
@orathaic,

Have you read Justice Alito's opinion in Hobby Lobby? I thought it did a very good job explaining why it was necessary to grant protection to the religious beliefs of closely-held corporations.
Holen (222 D)
03 Apr 15 UTC
I'm just telling you person to person while we're having a discussion that getting all high horsed and acting like a band of ignorant savages live across your border is ass-esque behavior. You can totally keep doing it, I'm not seeking any legal repercussions for you if you don't. I'm just telling you. I just want to add in the though neither one of us should get upset at each other and that I shouldn't have called you an asinine jerk but the whole suicide thing and acting as if someones feelings being hurt is a reason to limit someone elses freedom riled me up. Sort of merging the two more personal and unrelated arguments at the top and bottom. The whole oil thing was just silly and seemed really really stereotypical to bring up out of the blue so my reaction was more or less "Come on.".

Homosexuals and transsexuals are increasingly well accepted. Especially in certain areas. They still commit suicide and have skewed statistics regarding mental health, relationships and communicable diseases. This is separate thing from the rest of the argument really but. Maybe their problems as a group are really that, their own problems. Suicide by definition being a person killing themselves, kind of hampers my sympathy for it in most cases. Government doesn't exist to prevent what you're talking about. That's not why it was formed and it's not why we have it. It's not their job to ensure that sort of thing.

Okay so in the absolute monarchy example. We're talking a bit about what each persons views are right? And you're saying it's wrong for the king to impose his views on the people in his kingdom. But it's hypocritical to say that a private citizen can make decisions in his own life regarding his own association and business transactions, since it is essentially the same thing as a an absolute monarch handing down edicts to the unrepresented masses? That simply sitting in a room alone and refusing to open it to a person for whatever reason, is exactly the same as stoning them to death. That a man who simply wishes to not interact, and the person who wishes to kill another person, are the same. Regardless of the moral righteousness of either case, that those two actions are the same.

Both your two examples are active things. They would be more apt if someone tried to build a closed to gays business somewhere in a deeply homosexual area of San Francisco or New York. Nazi organizations are protected though and organizations that support Al-Qaeda in any sort of meaningful way are usually made illegal because it has to do with funding in some way terrorist activities and if they don't then groups that likely do have sympathies for radical Islamic terrorism generally just keep it to themselves, there are certain organizations that are suspect that do have headquarters in different places in the US.







Holen (222 D)
03 Apr 15 UTC
@oriathaic

It doesn't really make sense to say by forming any kind of corporation or partnership you give up the right to associate with who you choose in it's operation. Issues with corporate influence in politics and corruption are separate and are solved with reform in other arenas.

Do you have an issue with businesses trying to coerce the government of Indiana to change their policy?
bo_sox48 (5202 DMod(G))
03 Apr 15 UTC
@semck ...

I don't think your argument is unfair. I disagree with you, but you're probably more right than I realize. I am simply saying that, given the state of affairs in Indiana when this law surfaced in the public eye and given the scrutiny that surrounded it, it was flat out stupid to push it so hard to become law. Mike Pence shouldn't have signed it, and when he runs for President, he's going to have to answer why he would sign this kind of a law when he knew that it would cause such an uproar, and he's going to have to answer why the Republicans were so quick after the law was signed to concede to public outcry and clarify the language in such a way that explicitly says discrimination is not allowed if that wasn't allowed in the first place. They have made all the wrong moves here, plain and simple. Think about this:

The NCAA has threatened to move its headquarters out of Indianapolis. Angie's List, headquartered in downtown Indianapolis, has threatened to leave. Gen Con annually holds a convention in Indianapolis - hell, the city built the new convention center where the RCA Dome used to stand partially for them - which could result in a loss of $50+ million a year. Salesforce declared they will stop using the convention center too. Eli Lilly, which employs almost 12,000 people in Indiana, including my uncle, has threatened to pick up and leave. Cummings, the diesel engine producer, is considering leaving. There are plenty of other companies I could list too, likely resulting in billions of dollars at risk for the state.

The mayors of Seattle and San Francisco have already prohibited travel to Indiana by state employees on state business. I don't know how much of that there actually is, but given that Indianapolis is the West's central shipping hub to places like New York, Boston, and Chicago, there's surely some.

And yet, Mike Pence said this:

"Absolutely not. We’re not going to change the law."

A week later, the law is being thrown around the capitol under immense scrutiny and even the biggest supporters feel like they need to change it. It will probably be amended.

Mike Pence has openly said he is considering running for President. Who is gonna vote for this guy after this? Well, if he wins the Republican ticket, I'm sure a lot of people blindly will, but he has done nothing right in my eyes so far with regards to this piece of legislation.
semck83 (229 D(B))
03 Apr 15 UTC
@bo,

Thanks for the reply.

"and he's going to have to answer why the Republicans were so quick after the law was signed to concede to public outcry and clarify the language in such a way that explicitly says discrimination is not allowed if that wasn't allowed in the first place."

I think that's an easy one, actually. They refused to do it previously because the law simply didn't need it, and it would have been a confusing and strange clause to have, especially in a state that doesn't have any civil rights protections based on sexual orientation in the first place (like most states). (RFRA can't grant exceptions to laws that don't exist! Right now any business in Indiana that wants to can dicriminate against gays, irrespective of religious beliefs).

They added it afterward because they realized, "Wow, the media is not going to stop lying about what our law says, and we're getting all this flack about it based on things that have nothing to do with it. We had better go through the charade of adding language that will have no effect whatsoever just to calm people down."

That's pretty much the truth.

As for all those companies -- they were not reacting to the text of the law, either. If they have competent attornies, they realized that it didn't say what people were worried it said. They were reacting to the public outrage that had been stirred up by misinformation. Corporations in America try never to be slow to jump on a wave of public sentiment, lest it turn against them. It's interesting that it all ended up with such pressure being put on Indiana.

Frankly, I find this all a little frightening. The results in this case aren't that important -- the effect of the law is essentially unchanged -- but what if it happens sometime when it matters? Is misinformation stirring up crowd outrage, leading to online clamor leading to economic pressure leading to re-legislation a good model for a democracy? Do we want to hand ill-informed twitter users that power?

It doesn't matter, of course. We already have.
Holen (222 D)
03 Apr 15 UTC
Also it's wrong that so many outside Indiana business interests are supposed to matter or be respected when they attempt to coerce a state government to their will. It's disgusting.
mendax (321 D)
03 Apr 15 UTC
The whole point of the previous post being that they're not (atm) outside Indiana, but may be soon.
bo_sox48 (5202 DMod(G))
03 Apr 15 UTC
Personally, I find it a little bit frightening that "ill-informed twitter uses" as you say have the power to sway public opinion, but that fright is dispelled by the simple fact that Twitter, Tumblr, Facebook, Instagram, etc. have become such effective ways to a) communicate with legislators, as they all have their own PR pages, more efficiently than phone lines and letters ever could, b) gather support and centralize public outcry, again, to make communication of issues clearer to legislators, and c) popularize beliefs otherwise seen as radical - i.e. make change. My generation and the one after me (~5+ years after me, I don't know if that's actually another generation or not, but I was born in 1995, so they are all 2000 or later) are both using social media as an outlet to do all of those things. While it might be unfortunate that legislation like this got misconstrued, it's incredibly fortunate that people care so much about issues like discrimination that, even after the Civil Rights Era, they're still willing to make a relatively useless state law in the most useless state in the country a worldwide story. That's effective use of public opinion, and no one ever said that every public opinion has to be right.

Let's focus on Mike Pence, though, as a potential President.

"They refused to do it previously because the law simply didn't need it, and it would have been a confusing and strange clause to have, especially in a state that doesn't have any civil rights protections based on sexual orientation in the first place"

If, in a national debate against the Democratic candidate - presumably Hillary, but I hope not - Mike Pence dropped this line, the response would be "why not?" Then he would have to answer that, and he can't, because I've watched him try before. The fact of the matter is that, if Mike Pence understands politics at all, he doesn't want to have a subject like establishing various sexual orientations as protected classes come up at all. Now that he did this, it will, and he's going to be embarrassed by any remotely moderate opponent he faces on the matter because he's ignorant and incompetent in issues raised by the LGBTQ community, and he always has been. With a plethora of voters, typically those under 30 but nowadays many more whose children have been either exposed to or experienced a gender crisis or simply become involved in issues surrounding LGBTQ people (and any others who are simply well informed and progressive), voting largely on social policy and less so on economic and foreign policy as was more the case in the past two or three four-year election cycles, he's going to lose a lot of support simply by having to answer those questions

That said, I'm sure he'll magically know what to say. He'll try to be somewhat moderate, and he typically is somewhat moderate, and I'm sure a number of people will appreciate an evolved stance on the matter, but he'll still be called a hypocrite and rightly so, not only because of what he's said about this law but because of various things he's said over the course of his governorship.

Regarding the companies, I highly doubt they give a damn about the law. As you said, though, they realize that this law, given the outcry against it, was bad business from the very beginning. When Mike Pence signed it, he was screwing businesses over. If any one of the 20+ major national companies that has threatened to leave Indianapolis does, he'll have screwed the city over, which is why Mayor Ballard specifically came out against the law, saying that Indianapolis was open to all and that discrimination will never be okay in the city. As before, it's not like he's saying something crazy, but he's appealing to the populous in order to keep the city from losing, and Mike Pence should have done the exact same thing.
bo_sox48 (5202 DMod(G))
03 Apr 15 UTC
@Holen ... all of the businesses I listed are in Indianapolis. The NCAA is headquartered in Indy, holds the Final Four there every few years, which is free national attention, and the Big Ten, part of the NCAA, holds their tournament there for either men or women (or football) every year. Again, free attention. The NFL is thinking about holding the Super Bowl in Indianapolis in 2017 or 2018 (I forget which), and now I doubt they will. The MLS listed Indianapolis as one of the cities eligible for an expansion team that they just established will be in Minneapolis, so they may not get another shot at an MLS team now either. The MLB does business in Indianapolis with the Pirates' Triple-A affiliate, and one of the prospects playing for that team last year was openly gay. Notice that I haven't even left the realm of sports, which are notoriously progressive in terms of social issues like LGBTQ rights, and I haven't even left Indianapolis.

There's a number of others in Fort Wayne, Evansville, South Bend, Bloomington, Lafayette, Gary, etc. that have threatened to pick up and go. The effects of the law, regardless of whether they are right to be upset or not, are clear, and it was obvious what was going to happen before the governor signed the law. It's ridiculous. It has the potential to blow billions of dollars.
@Holen

Thanks for your reply, after sleeping it over, I realized that I got WAY too worked up about this. So I apologize, personally, for that
I still do feel that this parallels the discussions had about black individuals not being allowed in certain diners, grocery stores etc. and feel that there is something quite morally wrong with being able to disallow people in places due to religious reasons.

But the law is not doing that, as a few people stated, so I will have to look into that a lot more.
Holen (222 D)
03 Apr 15 UTC
@bo_sox48 Yeah you are right. I was wrong to put it that way. But it's still not right that it's businesses interests trying to influence government policy in that way. What I'm trying to say is that it's wrong to have a small wealthy segment of the population exert pressure on elected officials who at least seem like they are doing what the majority of Indiana's population wants. Not that it doesn't happen all the time anyway and in different ways but it's still wrong when it happens and it's no reason not to do something even if they're within the state, since they're threatening you economically over what the people want, and even if the people change their mind because of the threats they were still frightened into it at the prospect of unemployment and poverty.

@Sir Waffle of Iron

I appreciate your reply as well and I want to apologize for being rude when I was and if I worked you up inappropriately. What I would say is as tough as the whole civil rights racial element of this sort of discussion goes, if we're talking about the broad issue then what might be right is that as long as it's not a government institution discriminating then it's that entities own business. It is a difficult set of things to think about. I hope you come to a personally satisfactory conclusion.
bo_sox48 (5202 DMod(G))
03 Apr 15 UTC
"What I'm trying to say is that it's wrong to have a small wealthy segment of the population exert pressure on elected officials who at least seem like they are doing what the majority of Indiana's population wants"

I agree, but I don't see that happening. Seems like popular public outcry is causing these big businesses to realize that, if this law is on the books, doing business in Indiana is a bad investment. Similarly, businesses have always taken individual stances on these issues - hell, Chick-fil-A needlessly did so a few years ago and they lost money off of it. I don't see any of the businesses threatening to pick up and go over this law as anything more than a business choice and them taking a stance on a social issue. They have the right to leave for whatever reason they want, so they are just using that right to make a threat.

It's kind of like how a guy with a gun that says he's gonna kill you is a lot more threatening than a guy who is 5'4" and hasn't picked up a weapon before. It's just how it is.
semck83 (229 D(B))
04 Apr 15 UTC
@bo_sox,

" Personally, I find it a little bit frightening that "ill-informed twitter uses" as you say have the power to sway public opinion, but that fright is dispelled by the simple fact that Twitter, Tumblr, Facebook, Instagram, etc. have become such effective ways to a) communicate with legislators, as they all have their own PR pages, more efficiently than phone lines and letters ever could, b) gather support and centralize public outcry, again, to make communication of issues clearer to legislators, and c) popularize beliefs otherwise seen as radical - i.e. make change."

What you're saying, bo, if you boil this down, is that twitter may facilitate rapid spread of misinformation and extremely wide-scale uproar over that misinformation, but that's OK, because it enables its users to be more powerful in accomplishing their goals. Excuse me if this alarms me much more than comforting me.

Frankly, twitter just amplifies crowd dynamics, which have been well-known for centuries to be one of the primary threats to a democracy. It doesn't in the least better empower individual twitter users.

In a somewhat different (non-political) context, here is a story about the kind of dynamics one can see on twitter that are concerning, and which are all the more concerning when political power and misconceptions enter the picture.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/15/magazine/how-one-stupid-tweet-ruined-justine-saccos-life.html?_r=0
Jeff Kuta (2066 D)
04 Apr 15 UTC
ALEC does not stand for "popular public outcry"
bo_sox48 (5202 DMod(G))
04 Apr 15 UTC
Media has been the most accepted means of spreading information since the independence of the United States, and it is ust as capable of facilitating "rapid spread of misinformation and extremely wide-scale uproar over that misinformation." Social media is simply its newest extension, but the difference is that, unlike corporate media and the media we have always known, it is much easier to fact check and differentiate that misinformation from fact. I can't control whether or not people actually do that. In many cases, like this one, it appears that people failed to do that.

This country runs on crowd dynamics already. It's a two-party system. You're either in this crowd or that one, and once you pick, you roll with the tide. I'm not sure how social media affects that at all and I don't consider a two-party system that restricts outside influence to the extent that ours does a democratic system in the first place.


180 replies
Sandman99 (95 D)
01 Apr 15 UTC
What are the best April Fool's Pranks you've pulled
I'm at school and need some last minute ideas
52 replies
Open
JECE (1322 D)
01 Apr 15 UTC
I uploaded SunZi's "Little Dipper" Android application to Aptoide
Our very own SunZi (userID=19506) once created a useful Android app Diplomacy adjudicator based on webDiplomacy code. SunZi publically published this adjudicator app ("Little Dipper") on GetJar, where it is still free to download.

For the sake of archiving SunZi's work, which our comrade gave the bare minimum of advertising (threadID=879472 & threadID=882356), I uploaded the app to Aptoide.
4 replies
Open
Hannibal76 (100 D(B))
03 Apr 15 UTC
What to do?
What do you do when you're playing with an asshole that has the chance to draw, but refuses to do so when it is obvious that another player is going to get a solo? He's so annoying it hurts I really don't know what to do I mean it's obvious that if we continue the game will be a solo for another guy. He simply REFUSES TO DRAW
19 replies
Open
steephie22 (182 D(S))
01 Apr 15 UTC
(+5)
Unofficial Announcement
I'm not an admin, no one hacked the site and jmo is a joykill.

-Member with a checkerboard
13 replies
Open
VirtualBob (242 D)
01 Apr 15 UTC
Someone seems to have hacked the symbols
Someone seems to have hacked the symbols:
Moderators now show the big red X and everyone online shows the mod flag.
21 replies
Open
abgemacht (1076 D(G))
18 Mar 15 UTC
(+1)
Nation Simulator: WebDipia
This is the official thread for the WebDipia Nation Simulator Game. I encourage everyone to follow along, but I would kindly ask you not post in this thread if you aren't one of the 16 players. Please PM me if you have any questions or concerns.
2051 replies
Open
tvrocks (388 D)
01 Apr 15 UTC
(+1)
bow down before me
see below
10 replies
Open
zultar (4180 DMod(P))
01 Apr 15 UTC
(+3)
webDip Religious Freedom Act
Following the leads of Indiana and Arkansas, we are also allowing game creators to deny players from joining due to religious reasons. We also reserve the right to deny players from enjoying our site for religious as well as non-religious reasons.
21 replies
Open
Thucydides (864 D(B))
02 Apr 15 UTC
Who the hell are you people???
Like wtf Lol
7 replies
Open
The Czech (41806 D(S))
01 Apr 15 UTC
when and why did checkerboards appear on my id?
See question in title
6 replies
Open
orathaic (1009 D(B))
01 Apr 15 UTC
Income inequality and the American Dream
www.scientificamerican.com/article/economic-inequality-it-s-far-worse-than-you-think

What do americans think of these studies?
83 replies
Open
KingCyrus (511 D)
24 Mar 15 UTC
Another Plane Down
And this one is German.
89 replies
Open
CommanderByron (801 D(S))
01 Apr 15 UTC
(+1)
On joining the mod team.
Hello fellow webdippers, I just wanted to thank the community and new mod team for appointing me as the latest mod. I am looking forward to giving back to this community and can not wait to help anyone. Officially I will now be the "population and growth committee chairman" my job is to help new players become comfortable with webdip and find new ways to increase our player base.
9 replies
Open
2ndWhiteLine (2736 D(B))
01 Apr 15 UTC
(+3)
PlayDiplomacy
Is the best site for Diplomacy and will probably win the cross-site tournament.
21 replies
Open
Porthmeus (104 D)
31 Mar 15 UTC
Convoying Question - the roundabout
Let us suppose someone has an army in Yorkshire and a fleet in North Sea. However, the army is beset by enemies in London and Liverpool.
Our army in Yorkshire is going to be pushed out. If we assume the attack will come from London supported by Liverpool... could our army in Yorkshire, convoy through the fleet in North Sea and land again at the newly vacated London?
5 replies
Open
steephie22 (182 D(S))
01 Apr 15 UTC
(+3)
Official Announcement
Dear webDippers,
Draugnar and I are proud to announce that we managed to hack the site, ban the current regime and turned some enlightened members into mods.
We are looking into the cases of other previously banned players to see which were banned unjustly. We're not making any major policy changes, but we're ending the previous tyranny.
Enjoy your stay!
4 replies
Open
Mujus (1495 D(B))
24 Mar 15 UTC
Seeing through the Mystique of Bad Science
http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/2015/03/23/sociologist-steve-fuller-scientists-arent-more-rational-than-the-rest-of-us/
7 replies
Open
obiwanobiwan (248 D)
31 Mar 15 UTC
2015 MLB Preview and Predictions
It's that time of year again. Buy yourself some peanuts, some crackerjacks...maybe some syringes and performance-enhancing drugs, and get ready for another baseball season! My predictions for the standings, 10 playoff teams, playoff picks, World Series winner and then 10 predictions for the season are below...add your own. :)
11 replies
Open
VashtaNeurotic (2394 D)
13 Dec 14 UTC
The Greatest People in History Tournament
Now that nominations are in, it is time to decide who really was the greatest person form all of History. Will Ghengis Khan rise to conquer the bracket? Will Tolkien or the Beatles be the first Nominees to win two tournaments? Will Aristotle be proved wrong in his prediction that he will win? Or will a Wild Card take the whole tournament? Only one way to find out.
3816 replies
Open
Page 1244 of 1419
FirstPreviousNextLast
Back to top