Thirded

Sounds good to me.

Though I am sympathetic towards the (peaceful) protesters in the USA, I don't agree with the decision of the webDip team to use the website to make political statements, and I would be saddened if vDip were to follow the same path.

Yes, we may agree with this particular political statement, but if they use the banner to make political statements once, they can do it again, and how would you feel if in the future the banner said something that you didn't agree with or that you thought was lacking nuance? Some people are bound to already feel that way. Why can't the website just be politically neutral so that everyone who likes Diplomacy can enjoy playing on it?

What is ironic is that the webDip team has made the Politics section of the forum invisible on the front page because they said they don't want to alienate new members by showing particular political content on the front page. Yet now they deliberately do show political content on the front page, which shows the problem to them was never about showing political content - just about showing political content that they didn't like.

And again, I do agree with the message on webDips header; it's about the principle.

Who could implement? Like should I email someone about this? I would just talk to a mod but I'm not sure who controls what shows up on the website

Oh sorry I just saw your reply. My response would be that I don't see police brutality or state sanctioned violence as a political issue, I see it as more of a human rights issue. By saying that a statement in support of protests against police brutality and systemic racism and state sanctioned violence is political and then calling for a politically neutral space, you are taking a side against the protestors and in support of all the problems listed above by. Does that make sense?

Sorry that may have sounded more condescending than I meant it to, tone is hard to convey while typing. I'm not trying to be dismissive I'm more trying to explain how I feel and I hope that comes across!

@mercy, we don't view fighting for equal human rights as political and we hide politics so people aren't exposed to bigoted views that target a demographic of the population. But today a group of the population is already being targeted, and it's happened because people refused to speak out against it for decades in bulk. That is why our banner is currently up. And it isn't just about black people in America, it's state sponsored violence all across the globe. Ethnic genocide, minority suppression, etc happens every day and people stand by and do nothing. We won't ask you to donate to any group etc ever. But we do feel a responsible to indicate that our rules against racism on webdip are something we truly believe, on and off the site.

Data backed causes such as this, net neutrality, and climate change are the only topics we've ever spoken out for. You'll never see support for individual parties in countries or various leaders.

Hope that explains a bit why we made the choice we did over on webdip.

I think this is a good idea!

Mercy, I think you made a good point about the dangers of setting precedents. And I have to admit that my endorsement of CalvinWallC's suggestion was motivated by the fact that I agree with this particular message.

On the other hand, I think that the people who run a website, of whatever sort, have the right to make statements like this on that website when they see fit.

I agree with KingOfSwords.

+1 Mercy.

I'd have to also add that I agree with KingOfSwords as well, the mods/Oli obviously have the final say on something like this.

Though I still agree with Mercy that vDiplomacy should remain as apolitical as possible.

Ok I can understand your points can you all not also understand mine? Do you not see the danger in labeling state sanctioned violence as a political issue?

In addition, Mercy talked about trying to keep this website as a place where everyone who likes diplomacy can play, but I can't imagine anyone who has been a victim of police brutality or felt the effects of systemic racism could feel good about playing diplomacy here after seeing their real and difficult issues labeled as political and ignored in order to make others more comfortable.

I also don't want to argue on behalf of people or talk over voices more qualified to speak on these issues than me, so if anyone feels that I haven't fully engaged with the topics at hand please correct me.

Again, absolutely no disrespect is meant to anyone, I just assumed an issue like this is a political one because it is controversial(regardless of the validity of arguments on either side). "Political" to me simply insinuates anything that is a debate and is connected to the government in some way. Is that not the case? However, I concede I may be wrong on this and am open to listening.

I will again make another thing clear, in no way am I trying to ignore or mislabel those real issues, I simply believe that having some places in the world where people(of all kinds) don't have to be bombarded by it constantly is not a terrible thing. I understand how some might perceive that as "ignoring in order to make others comfortable," but I want to make it clear that that is not my intention.

Anyway, I'll shut up and deal with it if there is consensus and the people in charge are on board with it. I just think any statements from the real world should not be on this site, it's simply not the purpose of playing an online game. At the same time, we're just playing an online game, so why are we arguing about this?

Lastly, I am deeply sorry if anything I said is in any way offensive to those of us who are directly affected by this issue. And I'd like to ask if anyone closer to this issue would like to speak, if you haven't already. Obviously you don't have to, but if you wish the rest of us will listen.

The idea that the Black Lives Matter movement is controversial or political stems from a place of ignorance and racism; whether or not that was the intention. Like jmo said, this is a human rights issue, extraordinarily prevalent in the US, but not exclusive to them. I'm a white male living in America and I have every opportunity and privilege to ignore the issues wherever I go. That's a huge part of the problem. Staying silent and not voicing an opposition to racial injustice *IS* ignoring the problem to makes yourself and others more comfortable; it's not just a perception. Regardless of your intentions.

I love this site. I've been around for a while, met plenty of great players over the years. I want to see this community voice support against the injustices being highlighted in America right now, but are present everywhere.

I think a banner at the top of the site like WebDiplomacy has would be welcome.

Look: Cops need to stop shooting black people without justification. But this does not mean that I need to reminded of this fact every time I log on to vDip. I, an American, come here to avoid all this grim talk. This is not another white person sticking their head in the sand, but rather someone who wants to be able to play a game and not have to remember, for the 20 minutes it takes to check moves, what awful things happen in my country.

While I understand the sentiment, that's exactly the problem. You're affording yourself the luxury of "forgetting about it" whenever you want to. Would it be so bad to come to this site and see that there is support for these changes that need to happen? Wanting to avoid the issues because they are grim or uncomfortable is not a solution that helps.

I see I didn't elaborate why I consider the webDip banner 'political', so let me elaborate.

Firstly, it is a political choice which issues get priority. There are many issues that are basically uncontroversial and not all get a webDip banner. As an example with recent events, it is true that among the peaceful protesters in the USA, there were looters who have pillaged stores, right? So what if the banner on webDip would have said something along the lines of: 'We stand in solidarity with business owners against looting and we support law and order'? I would have agreed with that, too (who is not against looting and who is against having law and order?) but it would obviously be a political choice to only focus on that (a choice Trump has made).

Secondly, a lot of nuance lies in framing. Let's for example take the term 'state-sanctioned violence'. Does the banner mean to say that what happened in the USA was 'state sanctioned'? If it would have said 'bad apples in law enforcement', that would have been different framing. And there is a continuum between 'state-sanctioned violence' and 'bad apples in law enforcement'. Which framing to use is, again, a political choice, regardless of which framing you personally think is the best descriptor.

Spartan, I did not say I spent all of my time denying or avoiding discussion of racism in America. I spend time thinking about it, and what I can do to alleviate it. But when I am relaxing, I want to be in a place that does not have banners about current political topics. This site is about playing Diplomacy, not talking about racism. Can we talk about racism? Yes, we can. Does the site have to take a stand on political topics? No, it does not have to, and arguably it should not have to.

Speaking from Minneapolis, George Floyd (also a Minneapolitan from Houston, Texas) represents the third high profile death at the hands of the local police. The previous one was a white woman (shot by a Black officer) and one before that was a Hispanic man (shot by a Hispanic officer). The Black Lives Matter narrative is not as cut and dry as people are acting. Additionally, the iconic image locally has been of a bearded, white hipster setting fires.

@Mercy, I agree that there could/would/should always be a discussion about which issues are a "priority" and placed on a banner. I don't have the answers for that. What I can do is voice my support of saying *something* against a systemic issue that does not have two sides. I don't think your example of looting as an alternative issue that could warrant a banner is appropriate. I for one do not support "law and order" right now (though that's an entirely different discussion to get into). What you say about framing I completely agree with. Framing is a challenge and has nuance, but does that mean you should stay silent because it's hard? There are a lot of examples of people and companies speaking up to draw from, I'm sure something could be well written.

@bonatogether I never said you spend all of your time denying or avoiding discussions either. But you did day you want to come to this site "to avoid all this grim talk" which is part of the problem. Even if you're well intentioned and thinking about it elsewhere. If you're Black in America, you can never escape or avoid the grim realities around racism. If you're white, you can turn a blind eye whenever you want. Maybe it's 20 minutes today so you can be on vdip, maybe it's one day all of next week because you just need a break. Maybe it's all of next month, or next year, or the next decade because you forget about it. You have that luxury and it perpetuates the problem. Nobody is perfect in all of this, I know I've been guilty of avoiding it in the past. But acknowledging that it is a problem, not shying away from it, and trying to make progress towards change is important. Do you have to come here and talk about it? Absolutely not. Does coming here when there is a banner in support of the Black community ruin your day? Please ask yourself why that it.

Two additional pieces I'll add:
1. If this was the early 1940's and the issue was the mass genocide in Germany, would you be equally as adamant about the site not saying anything?
2. Do you ever shop on Amazon? Are you now done shopping there because they have a banner on their website?

@spartan You have said you did not say I avoid the issue altogether, but then you go to say exactly that. Besides, not spending all of my time on racism is *not* the most pressing thing. Race matters, but this does not have to mean that every person in the USA has to spend all their time trying to resolve it. There are other issues that need to be thought about as well (gun control, abortion, the pandemic, etc).

1. Depends on when during the war you are. pre-1941, stories (using Poles in occupied territories as the main source) were being run in the newspapers, but not on the front page because similar claims of atrocities had been made in WW1. By late 1942, American journalists caught in Germany at the beginning of the war who had been traded for German nationals confirmed similar stories. But even after this, in 1943 only half of Americans believed it. No one in the public knew the sheer scale until soldiers literally walked into the camps. Of course, Roosevelt, Churchill, and similarly high-ranking people in the US and British governments knew. This is not an excuse for them, but most ordinary people did not know what exactly was going on, so no banner would be put up.

Sources: https://www.facinghistory.org/holocaust-and-human-behavior/chapter-9/what-did-world-know
https://ropercenter.cornell.edu/public-understanding-holocaust-wwii-today
https://time.com/5327279/ushmm-americans-and-the-holocaust/

2. No one here has said they are boycotting the site because of the prospective banner.

This site belongs to whoever owns it and provides it to us and the person/people that do the work and provide the money get to do what they think is right.

Personally, I'm kinda tired of everyone making a big public display of how unracist they are. It is very popular right now. It is generally the people that do the least that make the biggest displays.

I'd admire a banner (here or anywhere) that offered the opportunity to donate to a particular organization, with contributions matched by the person/people that put the banner up.

I'm kinda biased against the current trend of people patting themselves on the back saying how unracist they are, while having no history of fighting racism, or any other societal problem.

Saying you are against racism isn't a bold stand. It is about the safest thing you can say. It is like saying you are against children being hungry.

The last thing I will say on the subject is that I won't complain if a banner is put up. I'm not trying to shut the whole thing down. I merely think that this site has had a wonderful precedent of almost never talking about current events, however, this time might be a notable exception.

If everyone already on both sides of the aisle agrees with this sentiment, (I have not met anyone who disagrees with this, and I only imagine actual racists to do so), what is the point of raising awareness? We can all say, "Racism is bad," but is there really any point? Everyone already has heard this. Let the news sites do their thing, and let the diplomacy sites do their thing.

ScubaSteve's idea of a donation banner (with or without vdip matching donations) is one I would support.

America is tearing itself apart on natinalistic lines. Many places were teared appart by this (Syria, Yugoslavia, many places in europe, most places who were colonized and are now independent), with very little benefit for anyone (other the weapon traders). I can't see why anyone would want to get invloved in this. Americans, take my advice: do not join the protesters, try to calm them down if you are in the police, military or national guard. The government should probably replace the whole police force of mineapolis based on @gopher27 's response.
I will probably now shock everyone, but racism and black lives matter (the organization) are two sides of the same coin, and the coin is racial nationalism in the united states.

Ok so I'm seeing that discussion is slowing down about this but I just have a few more words to say.

First things first, could anyone point me towards who owns this website? I see lots of people saying things along the line of "Well if consensus is reached I won't complain" or "The final decision is of course in the hands of those that run the website" but I'm not sure who would actually make that decision? They should certainly speak up here, at least so a modicum of closure could be reached.

On a different note, I would like to return to Mercy's idea of framing and wording. While I agree that the full context of a statement should be considered when talking about its meaning, I would disagree that only focusing on looting and the idea of law and order (an entirely different discussion - see Law and Order as a political buzz word for tougher sentences and the War on Crime) instead of focusing on the discrimination and violence is a political choice. I would say that focusing on the looting and ignoring the police brutality and systemic racism that led to this point would be reckless and intentionally distracting from the real issues, and in fact would be taking a side against the protestors fighting for their right to be free from violence because, as a statement, focusing on the looting values capital and property over human life. Being more outraged by the looting than the murder of George Floyd, whether the death was a product of state sanctioned violence or a few bad apples is unconscionable. This is not a question of allocation of funding, or this candidate over that candidate, this is a question of human rights and freedom from violence, two things that are well worth standing up for.

I would also like to address ScubaSteve and their discussion of making a display of being 'unracist'. I agree that performative acts that don't fight racism in any way and serve only as self-gratification are not productive and I dislike them as well. However, using a platform in order to speak out against police brutality and draw attention to the deep flaws in American culture that result in the disenfranchisement and exclusion of minorities is not performative. It is no longer enough to simply be not racist, in order to defeat discrimination it is necessary to be anti racist, and a statement against racism and violence against minorities, especially Black people in America is decidedly anti racist. Links to places to donate to help this cause would be wonderful as well! Bail and mutual aid funds could always use some extra cash, and petitions could always use more signatures. A banner should never be the end of the things done to combat systemic racism, but it could always be a start.

Along with the paragraph above, I would like to speak a moment on the idea of vdiplomacy as a place to escape the grim talk of police brutality and racism. Like Spartan22 said, the ability to ignore racism, or even to escape for twenty minutes to write orders is a luxury and a privilege not equally distributed, and I will not make this point again (although anyone looking to further their understanding should check out Jane Elliott and the Brown eyed Blue eyed exercise). I would however like to make the further point that I am not saddened or made uncomfortable by the banner on webdiplomacy. I am reminded that I live in a country that is built (intentionally or not, because the origin of injustice does not change the fact that injustice exists) to disadvantage POC, and this fact makes me sad and I am uncomfortable that I haven't done more to combat this discrimination, but the banner itself makes me happy. The banner makes me happy because we, as a community of people that come together to play a game that we all love, have further come together to condemn and draw attention to an awful thing, and stand in solidarity with those fighting for their rights. I am proud that we have decided to stand for something, and I was hoping that vdiplomacy would do the same.