TOPIC: Gen Con's letter to the IN governor re SB101

Kirk Bauer wrote: Did GenCon have any sort of policy on being inclusive? Or do they have one now?

I am pretty sure they were inclusive by default. The sad thing is that people now have to post some type of message/sign saying that they are.

Kirk Bauer wrote: Did GenCon have any sort of policy on being inclusive? Or do they have one now?

I think they made their policy very clear this week.

EDIT: I don't think businesses should have to post their tolerance policy. That should be the default. The burden should be on those who want to exercise an exclusion policy to post theirs.

Brad Mortensen wrote: Was happy to see THIS from Scotty's.

As if i didn't need another reason to patronize a great bar that collectively i average more time at then the dealer hall/hotel room.

I'm tempted to join in on this fun conversation however I will continue to resist sharing my view which is very complicated. I make it a point to avoid mixing politics with business and to avoid mixing politics with gaming and other hobbies. In my case it is especially troublesome because my views are distinct from mainstream political ideologies while sharing beliefs with many of them. I find most people will categorize me into one of the mainstream belief systems which will lead to some very poor assumptions about what I do and don't believe.

So why am I even posting? Well, I enjoy interesting discussions, and I really enjoy looking at things both logically and from various perspectives. So I'm going to ask a question but please don't make any assumptions on my beliefs based on my questions. I regularly will play devil's advocate with my own and other people's ideas and beliefs.

OK, first thing with this topic is most people seem to approach it as a black and white issue... perhaps not completely as blatant as I'm about to describe but under the scenes it seems this way to me. In this case some people seem to split opinions up into two distinct camps: people who are bigots and support the law and people who aren't bigots and who don't support the law. However I believe it is possible and logical for somebody to support the law without being a bigot, and it is possible for somebody to be a bigot while being against the law.

I think the confusion here is that there are a few topics being co-mingled. Is it moral for ME to discriminate? Is it moral for other people to discriminate? Should it be illegal to discriminate? I feel it is important to differentiate morality from legality.

For example, many (most?) people consider extramarital affairs to be immoral, however in the US it is legal, but in some countries it could be punished with the death penalty. Alternatively, many people in the US consider prostitution to be immoral, and it IS illegal in most of the US, but completely legal in other countries. So as a community we have decided that SOME "immoral" acts should be legal (allowed, tolerated, etc) while other "immoral" acts should be illegal. I quote "immoral" because these depend on each individual's belief system.

Note that I am not stating my opinion on the law, again I'm just pointing out that morality and legality are not one in the same. Some people tend to apply their own morality to themselves, others tend to apply their own morality to others, and yet others tend to push for legal enforcement of that morality.

What I find most interesting is the topic of "inclusiveness". I think that most people, especially gamers and the TD community, are pretty inclusive. I include myself in that category FYI. But it is easy to say you are "inclusive" until you approach some of the edge cases and then it becomes more murky.

In this case I find it very interesting to consider whether or not an "inclusive" person/community/culture should be inclusive of people who are NOT inclusive themselves. One could argue that to be truly inclusive you have to accept other people who themselves are not inclusive (similar to the saying regarding freedom of speech: "I don't agree with what you are saying but I support your right to say it"). But one could argue that inclusiveness doesn't need to extend to others who themselves are not inclusive. Then yet others could argue that such an attitude is hypocritical.

To provide a concrete example for discussion which could reflect exactly how far one could take inclusiveness: what would happen if somebody came to GenCon in a KKK costume? Would they be accepted or excluded? SHOULD they be accepted or excluded? If they were excluded should that be legal?

Again (for the third time if you are counting, I just want to be clear), I'm not stating anything about my own opinion or views here, it is just the kind of thing I like to think about. I will state that I am not a member of the KKK nor agree with their beliefs .

Edit: I think what I'm saying is, the more I think about it the more "inclusiveness" and "discrimination" is really a spectrum, everybody would likely discriminate against a serial rapist, but others will discriminate against anybody who isn't a married white male between the age of 30 and 35.

SATIRE....... And Gen con now uses this as a way to remove con attendees who haven't bathed at least once during the convention.

Adam Guay wrote: SATIRE....... And Gen con now uses this as a way to remove con attendees who haven't bathed at least once during the convention.

Double satire... My belief system restricts me to one bath/shower per month, I am going to protest.

Kirk Bauer wrote: Did GenCon have any sort of policy on being inclusive? Or do they have one now?

I think their letters on March 23 and March 26 make their position on inclusiveness rather clear.

balthasar wrote:

Adam Guay wrote: SATIRE....... And Gen con now uses this as a way to remove con attendees who haven't bathed at least once during the convention.

Double satire... My belief system restricts me to one bath/shower per month, I am going to protest.

Please wear these complimentary cardboard pine trees as I spritz the crap out of you with Febreeze...

Kirk Bauer wrote: Should it be illegal to discriminate?

Everyone discriminates. Everyone! But not all discrimination is equal. Nobody is going to give a rat's ass if you choose one person over another to ask out on a date based on what that person looks like, even though you are discriminating between the two people. But in all 50 states, if you choose to hire one person over another based on the color of their skin, that is not legally acceptable. In some states, it also applies to sexual orientation.

So to answer your aforementioned question, the answer is sometimes it should be illegal to discriminate, depending on the circumstances.

As recently as 1978, some strongly held religious beliefs blatantly said Blacks were not equivalent to Whites. Did that make it okay for people with those strongly held beliefs to discriminate against Blacks? (That's a trick question. The answer is "NO!")

Kirk Bauer wrote: I regularly will play devil's advocate with my own and other people's ideas and beliefs.

I like playing devil's advocate as well!

OK, first thing with this topic is most people seem to approach it as a black and white issue...

Very few things are truly black and white. One could make legitimate (though probably corner-case) arguments in favor of murder, cannibalism, or incest.

I feel it is important to differentiate morality from legality.

Legality is definitely different. If you have enough power or authority or votes, you can pass any law you want. Which doesn't necessarily make it "right" or moral.

For example, many (most?) people consider extramarital affairs to be immoral, however in the US it is legal, but in some countries it could be punished with the death penalty. Alternatively, many people in the US consider prostitution to be immoral, and it IS illegal in most of the US, but completely legal in other countries. So as a community we have decided that SOME "immoral" acts should be legal (allowed, tolerated, etc) while other "immoral" acts should be illegal. I quote "immoral" because these depend on each individual's belief system.

Yes, an interesting analogy is viewing how different addictive substances are legal or illegal across different countries, cultures, and times.

In the U.S. and European countries you have:

1. Legal alcohol (whereas it is illegal in many Muslim countries, and even during the Prohibition period in the U.S.)

2. Legal Cigarettes (and other forms of nicotine)

3. Borderline Marijuana

Yet it prohibits drugs that other cultures/countries may find permissible (peyote being a classic example).

You could also argue that legal addictive substances should include:

4. Caffeine

5. Sugar

What I find most interesting is the topic of "inclusiveness". I think that most people, especially gamers and the TD community, are pretty inclusive. I include myself in that category FYI. But it is easy to say you are "inclusive" until you approach some of the edge cases and then it becomes more murky.

Yes, "inclusive" as well as "diversity" are trendy words that people like the idea of, as long as it is their definition of it.

In many areas, "diversity" only refers to racial diversity, and sometimes only one or two racial groups.

Similarly, "religious diversity" often only refers to Christianity + Judaism + maybe Islam (not even any of the other Abrahamic religions, let alone the numerous non-Abrahamic ones). Or it only refers to different denominations within Christianity (and usually only Protestant ones).

And of course this is further exacerbated by the species-ist perspective that most humans have.

Druegar wrote:

Kirk Bauer wrote: Should it be illegal to discriminate?

Everyone discriminates. Everyone! But not all discrimination is equal.

I agree with you on these points.

Besides the more common forms of discrimination (e.g. race, religion, sex/gender, sexual orientation, age), there is also Weight Discrimination, Height Discrimination, and Appearance Discrimination.

Nobody is going to give a rat's ass if you choose one person over another to ask out on a date based on what that person looks like, even though you are discriminating between the two people. But in all 50 states, if you choose to hire one person over another based on the color of their skin, that is not legally acceptable. In some states, it also applies to sexual orientation.

Well, if you hire a prostitute (legal in parts of Nevada) or an escort, most people probably would discriminate based on color of skin and/or sexual orientation (due to their personal attraction preferences).

Incognito wrote: if you hire a prostitute (legal in parts of Nevada) or an escort, most people probably would discriminate based on color of skin and/or sexual orientation (due to their personal attraction preferences).

Congratulations! You found a ridiculously minor exception to my overall point. Thank you for enriching this conversation with that corner case.