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
![:) :)](/media/kunena/emoticons/smile.png)
.
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.