Politics and the LGS

[Ryltar]

If there is one personality trait a gamer should have, it is tolerance toward others who share the same hobby. This, IMO, includes all opinions prevalent in society - be they political, religious or otherwise - that are not illegal or extremist. It's about the game, after all, not about a person's views, and as long as one thing does not infringe on the other - just let everybody be as they like.

Similar to mouseferatu, one of my three or four favourite writers heavily infuses his books with political views from a spectrum that I, personally, do not support. Do they make for an enjoyable - and thought-provoking! - read nonetheless? Very much so.

Thus - to adress the OP - , the vast majority of signs or stickers would not make me abandon my FLGS. What might do it is if the owner's personality somehow offended me, but that does not necessarily mean for political reasons .

 

[Shades of Green]

I don't have any local game store where I live (Rehovot, Israel), and the nearest gaming store (in Tel Aviv - about an hour by train) usually doesn't have the kinds of gaming material I'm interested in. So I do my hobby shopping online.

That said, I wouldn't care if a gaming store's owner had a political view I disagree with, as long as he or she would be polite about it (except maybe for REALLY extreme cases). I wouldn't even be scared away if he or she would discuss some politics, as long as the discussion is friendly, mature and polite. On the other hand, an impolite, intolerant and/or unfriendly store owner would never get my money, regardless of politics.

 

[Lord Xtheth]

I don't know, to me it seems kind of petty, discontinuing one's FLGS going based on politicalviews of the owner. I mean I couldn't care less who someone supports or doesn't support or whatever.

... then again, if there's a big ol' swastica, I might stop going, but I think that's a slightly different story.

 

[Stumblewyk]

I honestly don't think that I would ever have a problem spending my money with a proprietor that disagreed with my political views. Displaying a sign, or simply overhearing the FLGS owner stating a political view I disagreed with would never be enough to drive me away, unless, as mentioned before it was in support of something I truly found abhorrent. And I find very, very few things truly abhorrent. But, in that case, I'd tell the owner why he was no longer receiving my money, and leave without making a scene.

Somewhat anecdotally, I DM for someone who is about as far from me on the political spectrum as you can get. We get along great, and he's one of my better gaming friends. We just don't talk politics at the game table. I think it's always better to keep that stuff in the arena it's best reserved for, and keep it away from the game table (or game store, or whatever).

 

[White Tornado]

None of the four LGS in my city have any political affiliation that I know of. Most political affiliations would not have any effect on my spending, but some affiliations that I find abhorrent (which is a nice word for "dumb" ) would. This would be equally true if I would overhear a conversation in which the owner or an employee share his political views, or if I would see them at a political rally or something similar.

I would agree that using your business (any business, imo) to promote any political cause or point of view is bad for business. I also doubt if it would have any effect on the political views of people visiting your business. I can't imagine anyone thinking: "Look, my FLGS supports party X or campaign Y, well, let's join them in their support!" I both think and hope people are more intelligent than that.

 

[Alexander123]

I do most of my shopping online but it really does depend on the cause which they are supporting. If I view the cause which they are supporting as evil then no I will not be supporting them. Otherwise even in my own family there are political differences.

 

[Dausuul]

For me, it would depend on a) what the political issue in question was, and b) how the game store was going about promoting its position. The more aggressive and hostile the store is being toward people on my side of the political spectrum, the more likely I am to say, "Y'know, I bet I could get that cheaper on Amazon."

Similarly, there are some issues that are more hot-button for me than others. There are issues where I would go out of my way to shop at a store that promoted my view and would almost certainly walk away from a store that promoted the opposite.

If there is one personality trait a gamer should have, it is tolerance toward others who share the same hobby. This, IMO, includes all opinions prevalent in society - be they political, religious or otherwise - that are not illegal or extremist. It's about the game, after all, not about a person's views, and as long as one thing does not infringe on the other - just let everybody be as they like.

I could not disagree more with this statement. To me, this is a classic example of "Geek Social Fallacy #2" in action.

Politics is about stuff that matters. For all we sometimes treat it like a sporting event, when you get right down to it, politics is about issues that affect a whole lot of people in very fundamental ways. There are some fairly widespread political views that I regard as direct attacks on people I care about. If you're actively promoting those views, you don't get a pass from me on account of you own dice with more than six sides.

Moreover, if a game store is promoting a political agenda (via window signs and the like), then anything I buy there is going in part to fund those promotions. It's not like there's a prismatic wall keeping politics and gaming separate.

Similar to mouseferatu, one of my three or four favourite writers heavily infuses his books with political views from a spectrum that I, personally, do not support. Do they make for an enjoyable - and thought-provoking! - read nonetheless? Very much so.

I don't know which author you're talking about, but I can guess. If it's the one I think it is... well, I read the first book in his flagship series, when the politics were still fairly subtle. I didn't like it (based purely on the quality of the writing) and never picked up the second. However, even if the writing in a series is stellar, if it's promoting a point of view I find sufficiently repellent, there comes a point when I will walk away. Partly this is because I don't want to hand over money to see that point of view propagated, and partly it's because I will spend half the book wanting to scream at the author.

 

[Wednesday Boy]

If any of my FLGSs advocted publicly for Senator Palpatine or President Luthor, I would leave and choose to spend my money elsewhere.

 

[jonesy]

If any of my FLGSs advocted publicly for Senator Palpatine or President Luthor, I would leave and choose to spend my money elsewhere.

Because, why vote for a lesser evil?

Cthulhu fhtagn.

 

[Ryltar]

Dausuul: We seem to be approaching this discussion from entirely different sides here. Let me explain, before you use words such as 'fallacy' when they are not applicable.

I think you misunderstood my statement above. I was not talking about instant agreement with a differring political or (whatever) messages. As much as everyone is free to have his or her own opinion and to make that opinion public, this freedom at the same time exposes the person speaking out to criticism - and rightly so. Discurse - be it political or otherwise - is the thing that keeps any society going. There just is no such thing as "an inherently right opinion" - just an opinion that has stood the test of time, can be substantiated by facts and has weathered criticism levelled at it. Thus, if someone voices an opinion I don't share, I will either listen to it but keep silent (because, let's be honest - not every situation calls for an all-out discussion) or I will try to challenge that opinion. The end result being that no matter the outcome of this discussion, I will have learned something about another person's views on a certain subject matter. This can only serve to further my understanding of said matter, even if I think that the point my counterpart is making is not valid. Again, I am excempting extremist opinions here (see above).

I, in turn, could not disagree more with your statement that 'politics is inflammatory' and 'political views can be a direct attack on people you care about'. Politics, per se, is not inflammatory; it is how certain people conduct politics that makes it (and them) controversial. I have never understood the need for that - a rational discussion is superior in all accounts, even and especially if the subject matter is something I care about. Furthermore, I have yet to encounter any political view that I would consider 'a direct attack' on anyone (the only example I can think of is extremist genocidal politics or something similar). Differring standpoints is one thing, but even talking about 'attacks' in this context is overstating it.

With regard to a certain author: I think we are talking about the same person. And, again, I feel that you are losing out by not subjecting your own viewpoint to criticism, even if it is just derived from differring opinions expressed in a book. You are, of course, free to dislike the writing - everyone has a different stylistic taste.

Finally, I don't think that your premise is valid where you stated that 'anything you buy is going in part to fund those promotions'. In fact, I would estimate that less than 10 % of the people who share any given view would also supply an organization promoting said views with funding. Just to give an (hopefully non-inflammatory) example: I think that the vast majority of people in any Western country would agree with the goals of UNICEF. However, by far not all of these people also contribute financially.

Long story short - boycotting stores because of things like differring opinion is - to me - overreacting. I go to a store because of product availability, pricing and customer service. I couldn't care less about what the store owner does in his free time.