Politics and the LGS

[Sunseeker]

Hopefully I'd use such a situation to stand on another, time-honored principal, namely "I may not agree with what you say, but I defend to the death your right to say it".

I say 'hopefully" because I'm not sure I would, I can be as partisan as the next partisan guy. But I don't think labeling people with different political views as "The Enemy" is a smart idea, tempting as it may be from time to time .

Let me ask this: if we should remove politics from the public square (or at least the local retail section of it), then where is it's proper place? Alone in our cars, listening to hyper-partisan political radio personalities --ie, entertainers and assorted rodeo clowns-- perhaps? I think we need more and better public political discourse here --ie, America-- and I don't see how that's served by refusing to patronize a shop because the owner voted for The Other Guy (and has his or her poster posted on the wall).

I suspect his example was intended to be a bit more extreme than that. Suppose the "chartible orginization" is funding armed militia groups in the country of your ancestry. Suppose perhaps the funding is going to legislation that would enforce the teaching of one religion over all others.

Sometimes, a business must suffer because of it's affiliations. But likewise when the store suffers, usually so do you. If you do not support the FLGS, it may go out of business, resulting in increased costs for your gaming supplies(by relying on the net or driving a great distance).

Because the root of the contention isn't what the store is supporting, it's that through the store, YOU end up supporting it too. To avoid supporting a cause you do not agree with, you do not spend your money in a place that sends money to that cause. The store can still say and support what it wants, but you are now not suppoting that cause as well, which IMO is the real issue.

 

[Korgoth]

Hopefully I'd use such a situation to stand on another, time-honored principal, namely "I may not agree with what you say, but I defend to the death your right to say it".

I say 'hopefully" because I'm not sure I would, I can be as partisan as the next partisan guy. But I don't think labeling people with different political views as "The Enemy" is a smart idea, tempting as it may be from time to time .

Let me ask this: if we should remove politics from the public square (or at least the local retail section of it), then where is it's proper place? Alone in our cars, listening to hyper-partisan political radio personalities --ie, entertainers and assorted rodeo clowns-- perhaps? I think we need more and better public political discourse here --ie, America-- and I don't see how that's served by refusing to patronize a shop because the owner voted for The Other Guy (and has his or her poster posted on the wall).

This specific question is actually unrelated to whether I or anyone else would defend someone's freedom of speech (either to the death or whatever other extent). I actually do have strident ideas about the extent and nature of freedom of speech, but we can't go into them here.

As to the proper place of politics... well, that's an interesting approach to the question. It seems suboptimal behavior on the part of the retailer, but that in itself is interesting (that it is more profitable to feign apoliticality). I don't actually think that politics is out of place in a retail establishment... in a way, my LGS did me a favor by tipping their hand. And then again, by signalling the affiliation they are associating their business with it; that seems to me to be somewhat different than just a case where the owner is vocal about his ideas.

I'm a very political person; it takes effort for me not to mention it. For me, religion and politics and daily life are all part of the same thing. I don't think that's a particularly Modern approach, though.

 

[Mallus]

Suppose the "chartible orginization" is funding armed militia groups in the country of your ancestry. Suppose perhaps the funding is going to legislation that would enforce the teaching of one religion over all others.

Well, sure, I suppose if a hypothetical shopkeeper was proudly displaying a "NAMBLA Now!" poster I'd take my business elsewhere.

Because the root of the contention isn't what the store is supporting, it's that through the store, YOU end up supporting it too.

No. Simply no. What I'm supporting is a fellow citizens freedom to hold political views different than mine and to express them without fear of economic reprisals. I think this is important.

 

[Mallus]

It seems suboptimal behavior on the part of the retailer, but that in itself is interesting (that it is more profitable to feign apoliticality).

And that's what doesn't sit well with me. The idea we should all keep quiet about our political beliefs in order not to offend potential customers. Or, to wax melodramatic for a moment: to abrogate our duties as citizens of a pluralistic democracy in order to make a quick buck.

I don't like that.

 

[Sunseeker]

No. Simply no. What I'm supporting is a fellow citizens freedom to hold political views different than mine and to express them without fear of economic reprisals. I think this is important.

Said "free speech" clause is protection from government reprisals. Citizens are still allowed to disapprove of other citizens decisions, and to not spend money at any private establishment they choose.

 

[Jacob Marley]

As to the proper place of politics... well, that's an interesting approach to the question. It seems suboptimal behavior on the part of the retailer, but that in itself is interesting (that it is more profitable to feign apoliticality). I don't actually think that politics is out of place in a retail establishment... in a way, my LGS did me a favor by tipping their hand. And then again, by signalling the affiliation they are associating their business with it; that seems to me to be somewhat different than just a case where the owner is vocal about his ideas.

My business is the leasing of commercial, industrial, and residential space. One particular property is located on a very highly trafficked corner. On this corner, I have allowed various civic and charitable organizations to post signs about upcoming events. Each election cycle, I have allowed particular candidates that I support to post their signs. Inside this particular building contains the offices of numerous dentists, lawyers, and other service-based businesses. Unless you pulled the tax statement at the county, you would have no idea that I owned this property.

Now, at what point would you [not particular to Korgoth] cease using my tenants services? Would you cease using their services based just on the sign on the corner of the property? Would you inquire about whether they owned the property, and thus, allowed the signs? The views expressed by ownership may not reflect the views of the tenants. The views expressed by an employee may not reflect the views expressed by ownership. And so on.

I am honestly curious about this as, in the fifteen years my family has owned this property, I have yet to recieve one complaint about any political or charitable sign.

 

[Sunseeker]

I am honestly curious about this as, in the fifteen years my family has owned this property, I have yet to recieve one complaint about any political or charitable sign.

I'm curious too, but I'd have to say, it depends on what you support, I suspect that you have never supported something to outrageous as to have people complain about it. For the most part, people accept that different people have different opinions.

"Vote for Bob for Sherrif" is an entirely different scale than "Death to *political figure*."

Of course, if you do post such signs, it is likely your local area supports them, as from my experience, reputable doctors, lawyers, and the like tend to avoid such messages as they know(especially lawyers) it costs them clients.

 

[Cyronax]

Another aspect of this debate might hinge on if the LGS's political stance delves into the social realm. Complaining about a certain state or federal tax policy is one thing, but social issues are the most divisive out there. I include immigration and affirmative action in this category. Nothing wrong with boycots. All sides have their fair share. Just listen to Glenn Beck or Al Sharpton, or other talking heads, long enough and they al eventually get to a boycott.

My family has boycotted Walmart for years ... based on their poor benefits packages (may have changed in the last few years admittedly). It was ironic and a little sad when I learned that both American political parties have big names on that corporation's board.

Another time I boycotted a place was way back in college. My ex-girlfriend and I used to go to a local dive restaurant for greaseball sandwiches once or twice a week. After several months going there I noticed that the main cook and manager happend to have swastica tattos on his knuckles.

Anyway, that was about as extreme a reason I can think of to never frequent a place again. I also was pretty vocal about my dislike of that guy and his restaurant to my fellow students from then on.

Hope my comments remained in bounds.

C.I.D.

 

[Alexander123]

Actually cryonax, I think you just went over the red line.

 

[Jools]

Nope. I live in Japan, Japanese people don't believe in the public display of political affiliations.