Gen Con Takes Stand For Inclusiveness

This rather breaks all my rules, in that I'm reporting on politics, and regional politics at that. That said, Gen Con, the hobby's largest American convention, intersects with this particular example, so it's hard to ignore; and this is an RPG news blog, after all. Plus, I agree with the sentiment, even if I'm doubtful about its actual effectiveness given the current contract. Gen Con has written to the local politician in its home city of Indianapolis, USA, threatening (kind of - they're contracted to stay there for five more years whether they like it or not) to consider moving elsewhere if a local law relating to businesses being able to refuse custom to same-sex couples is passed.

With multiple recent articles in just the last week (Monte Cook Games & Thunderplains, Green Ronin's Blue Rose), the subject of inclusiveness is not one that anybody can afford to ignore. However, the vitriolic comments these topics give rise to make discussion on them difficult at best.

Here's the letter they wrote.

​

 

[Grimstaff]

Said the straight, white, male.

Oh boy, here we go.

Actually, I'm impressed it only took 20 posts to get to the villain-du-jour.

 

[Waller]

Oh boy, here we go.

Actually, I'm impressed it only took 20 posts to get to the villain-du-jour.

No, not villain. Person opining about rights for a group of people of which he is not one. There's a big difference.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Well, you can still discriminate against a person in a protected class, as long as you are not discriminating against them based on their membership in that class.

IOW, you could refuse service to someone because he is a dick, but not because he is Jewish. Such behavior has been...circumscribed.

 

[uriel222]

When you start talking about classes, I get very disheartened.

I believe the goal for our culture should be to have no classes. Equal opportunity (not outcomes) should be guaranteed for everyone. That includes the opportunity to determine which transactions you wish to participate in. The more you start building rules and laws around classes, the more permanent the divisions become.

Identity politics and collectivism perpetuate conflict and division.

You cover a lot of ground there. Let me respond to the points you make one by one:

• "I believe the goal for our culture should be to have no classes" - I'm not sure what to make of this, exactly. The goal is everyone should be the same, homogenous mass? Or that everyone should be judged based on their own actions?
• "Equal opportunity (not outcomes) should be guaranteed for everyone." Fair enough.
• "That includes the opportunity to determine which transactions you wish to participate in." You really need to stretch the meaning of the word "opportunity" to make that fit, and if you do make "opportunity" into such an over-riding absolute, does that include the opportunity to commit other crimes, as well?
• "The more you start building rules and laws around classes, the more permanent the divisions become." How so? If you prohibit persecution of transsexuals, are they likely to disappear?
• "Identity politics and collectivism perpetuate conflict and division." If people weren't already divided and in conflict, there would be no need of specific rules, for the same reason there isn't a burning need to prohibit discrimination against left-handed people. Or are you arguing prohibiting business from denying service will itself increase hatred of that class? If so, I'd argue that the opposite has been demonstrated to be true, for example, racism in the deep south is less now than before the civil rights movement. If you have a counter-example, I'll listen.

 

[pdmiller]

Why should anybody be forced to move to another city/state/country if they want to buy groceries?

So there is only one grocery shop in this hypothetical city/state/country?

The genius of the free market is that someone will always fill a need. If idiots don't want to sell you groceries, someone else will. There's money in it.
The difficulty only arises when the law mandates discrimination.

 

[Grimstaff]

No, not villain. Person opining about rights for a group of people of which he is not one. There's a big difference.

Yeah, it's called disqualification.

As in, "I don't think your opinion on this subject is valid, based on your race, gender, and sexual orientation".

Welcome to tolerance, 2015-style.

 

[uriel222]

I don't care whether you want to sell to nazis or not. Your decision.
I don't care if someone is a nazi as long as they do not act in such a way as to impinge upon another person's rights. Note that no-one has a right to not be offended.

If you change that there will be despotism. Seemingly benign, unless you hold unpopular views. All you are doing by creating "protected classes" is creating different rules for different people, and that never ends well.

Exactly. Prevent businesses from creating "different rules for different people" (e.g. Whites are served, Blacks are not).

 

[uriel222]

Oh boy, here we go.

Actually, I'm impressed it only took 20 posts to get to the villain-du-jour.

Fair enough. That was overly-glib, and I apologize.

 

[uriel222]

So there is only one grocery shop in this hypothetical city/state/country?

The genius of the free market is that someone will always fill a need. If idiots don't want to sell you groceries, someone else will. There's money in it.
The difficulty only arises when the law mandates discrimination.

Except, if the supply of something goes down (e.g. some business won't serve you), the price goes up (e.g. immigrant-friendly businesses charge more).

The free market is like the honey badger. But it's not ethical, or fair.

 

[uriel222]

Yeah, it's called disqualification.

As in, "I don't think your opinion on this subject is valid, based on your race, gender, and sexual orientation".

Welcome to tolerance, 2015-style.

No, you're right. For what it's worth, I had written a longer post which expressed the point more fairly (and with much more subtlety), but when it was accidentally deleted I went with the "YouTube comment" version.

The point stands, however, that if a harm doesn't directly affect you, one should be especially careful before dismissing it as a harm out of hand. "First they came for the Socialists", and all that.