Politics and the LGS

[Alexander123]

I am going to disagree. Boycotting a store is not overreacting. It really depends on the cause which they are supporting. If you give your money to a store that money will help the business become successful and that business will be better able to support political issues which they think to be right which you may not. Now we can't get into specifics but it really depends on the cause which they are supporting.

 

[billd91]

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.

Politics don't have to be genocidal to be dehumanizing. The political view itself, regardless of conduct, can be controversial, even abhorrent and inflammatory, to the observer.

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.

I might not care what a store owner does in his spare time (or store employees for that matter), but I do care where the money I spend at a store flows. If I can can expect that it's going to flow to a political cause I detest, perhaps one that affects my family or people I care for in a negative way, my money's going elsewhere. I may not be able to stop all of my money flowing in that direction because not all businesses will be up front about the causes they support, but I can cut out the most likely channels for it that I can identify.

 

[billd91]

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.

But if that swastika is there to show a political belief, that's not really a different story at all. It just illustrates that you may have a different level of tolerance for politics than someone who might stop going to a place because of a partisan sign for the current city council or school board races. It may take a more extremist view to get you to balk, but you're still balking at a political statement.

 

[TheYeti1775]

Yes, my buying descisions would be affected by things like that.
Heck I stopped using a barber because of it before.
When it comes to money, I don't want to support 'x' so I won't shop at a store that predominately displays for 'x'. Now if its a case of a clerk with a button for 'x'. It's less likely to effect my buying.

I think a better question is do you let it affect your playing group dynamics.
I know in my playing group it's quite a divergance in affliations. Yeah we make jokes and have a few 'political' arguements back and forth but we are all mature enough to not take it personal. None of us throw it in another's face either.

 

[jaerdaph]

Heck I stopped using a barber because of it before.

LOL! - I've done that too back when I was in college - walked right out the chair in mid cut.

When it comes to small talk, I'd rather talk sports. My barber now is a Red Sox fan yet I'm still in his chair, go figure.

 

[Dedekind]

Something I disagree with would discourage me from regularly visiting.

Something I agree with would not encourage me to regularly visit.

I suspect most people are the same. Hence, no retailer should ever publicize political views.



******

All that said, I will also keep away from stores that have gamers who continually want to talk about it. Which is why Enworld's policies are so wonderful!

 

[Ryltar]

Politics don't have to be genocidal to be dehumanizing. The political view itself, regardless of conduct, can be controversial, even abhorrent and inflammatory, to the observer.

Not arguing your point about horrible policies, just asking why anyone would feel the need to feel 'attacked' (equal to: violated in his integrity) or 'abhorred' by a differring (again: non-extremist, whereas extremist would probably cover dehumanizing et al.) view. This may be semantics to you, but I feel that words as strong as these should be reserved for things or persons that truly deserve them, not your everyday politics, and especially not for a shop owner who just put a sticker in his window.

 

[Crothian]

I'd stop going there and that is what I did. One of the local stores (one most people consioder the best in Columbus) I have stopped going to becasue about 9 months ago I was there on a weekday afternoon when the place was mostly empty. One guy was working there and talking with some others that seem to be in there a lot paiting and their talk turned racist and homophobic right in front of me. And while I could not care less about their own personal views I think it was highly inappropriate to do in front of customers and a stranger. I left that day without buying a thing and have never and will never go back.

 

[billd91]

Not arguing your point about horrible policies, just asking why anyone would feel the need to feel 'attacked' (equal to: violated in his integrity) or 'abhorred' by a differring (again: non-extremist, whereas extremist would probably cover dehumanizing et al.) view. This may be semantics to you, but I feel that words as strong as these should be reserved for things or persons that truly deserve them, not your everyday politics, and especially not for a shop owner who just put a sticker in his window.

Depends on what the everyday politics includes. If it's a question of whether or not to support investing in a light commuter rail between two cities, that's one thing and comparatively minor. But everyday politics has included things like Jim Crow laws that enforced racial segregation.

 

[Korgoth]

Guys, first of all thanks to all of you for keeping it civil and within the rules. It goes to show what a good community this is.

I am going to disagree. Boycotting a store is not overreacting. It really depends on the cause which they are supporting. If you give your money to a store that money will help the business become successful and that business will be better able to support political issues which they think to be right which you may not. Now we can't get into specifics but it really depends on the cause which they are supporting.

I might not care what a store owner does in his spare time (or store employees for that matter), but I do care where the money I spend at a store flows. If I can can expect that it's going to flow to a political cause I detest, perhaps one that affects my family or people I care for in a negative way, my money's going elsewhere. I may not be able to stop all of my money flowing in that direction because not all businesses will be up front about the causes they support, but I can cut out the most likely channels for it that I can identify.

Yes to those two statements. Being familiar with small business retail, I know that a retailer's charitable/advocacy contributions generally come out of the profits (if there are any); the more profitable an establishment, theoretically the more the establishment as an entity or the proprietor as an individual has to support these causes. So my money might indirectly go to something I don't support. Now, that could happen anywhere... but if the store is advertising an affiliation, then I think one can at least argue that by consenting to be a patron, I'm buying in on some level to the affiliation. Especially if I have other purchasing options, especially if I can get the exact same product elsewhere (in this case, other similar stores or Amazon).

The other thing is that oftentimes in politics the issue is not the issue. What I mean by that is that what is at stake can be much more far-reaching than one simple practical matter.

Since we're into fantasy, take the following example: in the land of Giloola, there are two parties. The Fliboolians, who among whatever else they support or reject (free bus rides for battle robots, emissions testing on dragon-rockets, etc.), support the construction of a roto-disk arena on the island of Groff. However, the other party, the Quorians, insist that since the Totem-Obelisk of Barzak, around which the whole capital city is constructed, forbids any Giloolan from setting foot on Groff, a roto-disk arena is out of the question. After all, is Giloolan society based upon the tenets of the Totem-Obelisk of Barzak, or isn't it?

That last coda is the crux. In the above example, the issue (the roto-disk arena) isn't the issue. The issue is really about the source of political and moral authority in the society. And that is a basis for extreme contention, because it gets down to the very heart of why those people do what they do and live as they live.