Controversial Billboard: Casa D'Ice

[turtlespeed 212]

Quote

It must lose somthing in translation from (United States) American into English I can find nothing remotely humourous in it

The Seatbelt one - I like it . . .

only because of the logic . . .

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[billvon 2,434]

Funny guy! Bit of a schizophrenic array of opinions though.

[Skyrad 0]

The term red neck comes to mind. (Not the poster the owner)

When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy.
Lucius Annaeus Seneca

[Shotgun 1]

This one cracked me up: http://www.casadice.com/signs/pages/outside_sign013.htm

And I got a laugh from all of the spelling mistakes in his signs, since he keeps going on about English.

[billvon 2,434]

>since he keeps going on about English.

Especially funny from someone whose bar has a Spanish name.

[Shotgun 1]

Quote

>since he keeps going on about English.

Especially funny from someone whose bar has a Spanish name.

True! I hadn't even noticed that...

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

If the owner puts a large display of his opinions outside his restaurant, then his opinions might affect my decision to eat there.

Short version -
If he posted positions like "I think employees that wash their hands after pooping is a stupid rule" or "people that complain about clean dishes and stomach cramps are wussies" - then I'd agree with you.


More verbose version -
your choice - I think it's a silly reason and a bit self-righteous (but you did say "might"). It's a passive form of punishing someone for disagreeing with your personal politics. Maybe it's just easier to ban free speech so we don't have to be uncomfortable with conflicting speech of all kinds.

Now my position is based on - exact same food, atmosphere, service, price for both the same restaurant with and without the signs. Then I don't consider the 'eating' experience any different. But one would have to come inside to find it out for sure.

I could "assume" that the inside of the restaurant is chock full of signs and verbage and recordings of 'dangerous' political speeches, etc. That would be a deal breaker as I'd be uncomfortable about someone starting a rant in my face during dinner...... But that would be pretty closed minded of me without checking it out directly.

IMHO - I could choose not to have a conversation with him or become a buddy because of the sign, but that's a lot different than just purchasing/eating a meal in a restaurant.

I'd think the activist free speech types would patronize the restaurant regardless of the actual message, thus supporting a right to speak out.

Frankly, I think it's just an eye catcher, good marketing gimmick if it resonates either good or bad with potential customers. Though Pittsburgh is a bit bland politically, I'd think a more wacked out area would really respond.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

Funny guy! Bit of a schizophrenic array of opinions though.

1 - so all opinions have to come from the same playbook to be valid? or can one be a bit left on environment and a bit right on taxes, etc.......?

2 - more likely, he's just posting odd "trollish" stuff to draw customers and doesn't really have subjective political positions other than retaining a decent customer base and getting a few laughs.... He'd probably love having all the SC folk in the restaurant just because the chatter would be lively and fun and people would be buying food and drinks constantly.....

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[jakee 1,259]

Quote

your choice - I think it's a silly reason and a bit self-righteous (but you did say "might"). It's a passive form of punishing someone for disagreeing with your personal politics. Maybe it's just easier to ban free speech so we don't have to be uncomfortable with conflicting speech of all kind

Very odd point of view. Yes he has the right to put forward whatever political views he wants, everyone else has the equal right not to eat there if it offends them. The suggestion that our individual choices on where to have dinner affects his right to free speech is absurd.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[billvon 2,434]

>so all opinions have to come from the same playbook to be valid?

?? No. The reference to schizophrenic was a commentary on how he is offended that people use languages other than english in phone systems, but his bar has a spanish name. And how he wants everyone out of Iraq but also wants to occupy it and take their oil.

>more likely, he's just posting odd "trollish" stuff to draw customers
>and doesn't really have subjective political positions other than
>retaining a decent customer base and getting a few laughs....

Perhaps!

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

Very odd point of view. Yes he has the right to put forward whatever political views he wants, everyone else has the equal right not to eat there if it offends them. The suggestion that our individual choices on where to have dinner affects his right to free speech is absurd.

Nuts - Your taking an exageration of a position to make the more subtle point directly is what's absurd.

I'm saying that allowing your political offense (or agreement) to affect your choice in dining is goofy. Not choosing to dine there based on something not related to dining is passive aggressive childishness. But it's better that throwing bricks through his window anyway.

Allowing your political offense (or agreemnt) to affect which politician you vote for makes true sense.

It really does unnecessarily complicate ones life to make all their decisions based on ones subjective politics.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

>so all opinions have to come from the same playbook to be valid?

?? No. The reference to schizophrenic was a commentary on .....

I understand, I read your words but misread your intent

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[billvon 2,434]

>I'm saying that allowing your political offense (or agreement)
>to affect your choice in dining is goofy.

Why? We tend to encourage people to make purchasing decisions based on their politics. (i.e. "Buy American!") As skydivers we encourage people to not support DZO's who may be nice people but make bad business decisions (like having unsafe aircraft or training programs.) I think it's a much better way of effecting change than going to a "free speech zone" and carrying a sign around.

[jakee 1,259]

Quote

I'm saying that allowing your political offense (or agreement) to affect your choice in dining is goofy. Not choosing to dine there based on something not related to dining is passive aggressive childishness. But it's better that throwing bricks through his window anyway.

You also implied that boycotting his restaraunt because of his politics is like banning freedom of speech. Hows that for an exaggeration

Also, when it comes to choosing a restaraunt the entire package has to be looked at. You could argue that his road sign is part of the decor, and affects the tone and ambience of the gastronomic experiance

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

>I'm saying that allowing your political offense (or agreement)
>to affect your choice in dining is goofy.

Why? We tend to encourage people to make purchasing decisions based on their politics. (i.e. "Buy American!") As skydivers we encourage people to not support DZO's who may be nice people but make bad business decisions (like having unsafe aircraft or training programs.) I think it's a much better way of effecting change than going to a "free speech zone" and carrying a sign around.

Your examples illustrate my point, not yours.

Buy American! - Silly, it's a political marketing campaign that could very well have an adverse affect on world wide economy. Instead of buying the American car without consideration of anything else - you "should" buy the best car, thus driving the american (and all other) maufacturers to build the best car. I'd rather trust market forces rather than subjective political forcers. In this case, the political positioning could very well enable bad companies to stay in business - which is something the politics is very good at.

Not supporting DZO that make bad safety decisions - that's not political at all and I have no idea why you'd think it was.

I'll make it very, very simple - By boycotting a restaurant because of political speech, how are we making the food any better?

You are not. You are boycotting his speech, not his product. I'm not saying it's ineffective, I'm saying it's a petulant action and an arrogant way to progress one's personal political decision - you just as well make the owner wear a shock collar until he comes around to your viewpoint.

I also think boycotting the Dixie Chicks was stupid, and boycotting Alec/Barbra/etc films is stupid when the decision has NOTHING to do with their true product.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[Shotgun 1]

Quote

I think it's a silly reason and a bit self-righteous (but you did say "might"). It's a passive form of punishing someone for disagreeing with your personal politics. Maybe it's just easier to ban free speech so we don't have to be uncomfortable with conflicting speech of all kinds.

I didn't say anything about banning him from putting anything on his signs, but consumers are free to avoid supporting his business if they find his signs to be offensive. In this particular case, I didn't see any of his signs that offended me enough to avoid his restaurant. Now if he were to put up something that said, "LETS JUST KILL ALL THE DAMN BEANERS," then I would think he was an asshole/idiot and I wouldn't want to give him any of my money no matter how good his food might be.

Quote

Frankly, I think it's just an eye catcher, good marketing gimmick if it resonates either good or bad with potential customers.

Me too. I'd be willing to bet that he's gained a lot more business than he's lost from the messages on his signs.

Oh, and you can even buy a teddy bear with his message on it.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

You also implied that boycotting his restaraunt because of his politics is like banning freedom of speech. Hows that for an exaggeration

That's the one I was talking about. Boycotting a restaurant for "non-dining" reasons is a minor way of causing pain for a completely unrelated separate issue. The exageration of that point is just arbitrarily hitting someone whenever they disagree with you - take it to the next step - gag them. take it to the next step and take away their rights..........

your second point is better - if the extreme speech continues inside, then that affects your dining.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

consumers are free to avoid supporting his business if they find his signs to be offensive. In this particular case, I didn't see any of his signs that offended me enough to avoid his restaurant. Now if he were to put up something that said, "LETS JUST KILL ALL THE DAMN BEANERS," then I would think he was an asshole/idiot and I wouldn't want to give him any of my money no matter how good his food might be.

consumers are better off avoiding his restaurant if the food is bad - consumers are better off avoiding making the decision on non-restaurant reasons

If I have to choose between eating crappy food at my best friend's restaurant, or great food at some asshole's - I'll go eat at the asshole's restaurant

(as long as I don't have to eat 'with' the asshole)

once my friend's food improves, of course I'll go there at that point - everyone wins

I don't really care what their politics are unless they choose to run for office. At that point, I'll express my displeasure during debates, discussions and with my vote. I see no reason to torpedo their non-political business. I'd rather he made good food instead of run for Senate.

And, maybe he has employees and children, etc that live on the product (which has nothing to do with politics) why should I try to inflict my politics on their livelihood.

Edit: here's one for left. I'm not thrilled with illegal immigrants. The restaurant down the road is owned and run by illegal immigrants. The food is GREAT. Politics tell me I should avoid the place. dining experience tells me to go there. Since it's about lunch, and not the world of politics, I'll eat there.

They should be arrested and deported based on their illegal status. the punishment should be covered by the legal authorities. I'm not authorized to be petty about it thus it will neither discourage nor encourage my patronage. And if we enforced the laws on the books, then I wouldn't be put in that position in the first place.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[Shotgun 1]

Quote

And, maybe he has employees and children, etc that live on the product (which has nothing to do with politics) why should I try to inflict my politics on their livelihood.

Since he is the one choosing to loudly express his political beliefs using his non-political business, he is the one that would be inflicting his politics on his children's livelihood. The employees can pretty much choose whether they want to work there or not.

[billvon 2,434]

>Not supporting DZO that make bad safety decisions - that's not
>political at all and I have no idea why you'd think it was.

Now you know as well as I do that any such issue is a safety issue when it's at other drop zones, but "it's all politics" when it is at a jumper's own drop zone. And that's as accurate a way to characterize it as any.

The label of "politics" is a way to trivialize any issue. But for a US autoworker who loses his job, or a US soldier who dies in Iraq (or a skydiver involved in a plane crash) it can have real meaning.

>I'll make it very, very simple - By boycotting a restaurant because
>of political speech, how are we making the food any better?

You're not! You are expressing your dislike of his opinion in a way that will (if followed by many) result in his sign being bought by someone else, who might use it to advertise a $2.99 breakfast special or a happy hour. If the owner realizes this, he may elect to start putting up breakfast specials in order to increase his income. Problem solved; opinion expressed.

>You are boycotting his speech, not his product.

Not at all! You would not be boycotting his speech - just his billboard.

There are peaceful ways of effecting change in any society, and such means should not be supressed. The most important one is free speech. Which means you can say pretty much whatever you want, put almost any opinion on the radio or TV, carry a sign that says most anything, even put up a billboard. All are fine.

Another way is to support (monetarily) those causes you agree with. That might mean donating money to the Nature Conservancy, or buying only organic produce, or not buying Exxon gasoline, or deciding to go to a specific restaraunt that uses organic produce, or supports a kids program or something.

A third way is going out and actually doing stuff. Might mean installing a solar power system at a drop zone on your own time, or volunteering at a soup kitchen, or joining Earthwatch, or the Peace Corps, or the military.

All three ways of effecting change have a place. Now I should point out that I don't, for the most part, care what a sign says. (I might care if someone put an obscenity-laced sign near the neighborhood school, but that's extreme.) Nor do I care what Charlie Daniels or the Dixie Chicks sing about. But supporting or not supporting someone who disagrees with your politics via how you decide to spend your money is, I think, a perfectly good way to express one's political views - and is considerably more effective than carrying a sign in a cordoned-off parking lot a mile from a political event.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

A third way is going out and actually doing stuff. Might mean installing a solar power system at a drop zone on your own time, or volunteering at a soup kitchen, or joining Earthwatch, or the Peace Corps, or the military.

that's the only thing, IMHO, in your post I agree with - and I agree heartily

For the others, I agree they can be 'effective' in a Machiavellian way. I just think they are petty and childish and indirect and, frankly, a bit cowardly and anonymous way to 'express' your politics. If you disagree, put up your own sign, or go in face to face and respectfully debate the message. It's much better than letting the air out his tires while his back is turned.

As far as your obsession with 'free speech' zones, I have no idea why you choose to include that in you responses to me. I didn't go with that discussion as you and I agree on that one.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[Shotgun 1]

Quote

It's much better than letting the air out his tires while his back is turned.

How is not going to his restaurant the same as letting the air out of his tires?

He has a sign for his restaurant. Signs are used for advertising. He has decided to use his political opinions as part of his advertising by putting them on his restaurant's sign. This type of advertising will appeal to some people and it will turn others away (and some will be indifferent), same as with any other type of advertising.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

Quote

It's much better than letting the air out his tires while his back is turned.

How is not going to his restaurant the same as letting the air out of his tires?

http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=2302550#2302550

2nd paragraph, 2nd sentence. I'll try and be more direct next time.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[Shotgun 1]

Ok, I just don't see avoiding his restaurant as "expressing your politics." I see it as not supporting someone who chooses to use offensive advertising (for those who find it to be offensive). If it's important enough that you want to go let the air out of his tires then maybe you should go in and debate the message with the owner. But personally I'd probably just assume it wasn't worth my time and avoid the restaurant. I've never lived anywhere where there was such a shortage of restaurants or grocery stores that I felt the need to eat somewhere that I found to be offensive for whatever reason.

Now if it was the only place within hundreds of miles where I could get some decent crab legs or barbecue, then I might have a different opinion...

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

That's the one I was talking about. Boycotting a restaurant for "non-dining" reasons is a minor way of causing pain for a completely unrelated separate issue. The exageration of that point is just arbitrarily hitting someone whenever they disagree with you - take it to the next step - gag them. take it to the next step and take away their rights..........

your entire line of reasoning is just goofy on this.

he has every right to post any signage he wants - that's his freedom of speech in a nutshell. And I have the right to express myself by not spending money there. As indicated in Supreme Court decisions, money is a form of speech. And such a boycott does not infringe on his rights in any way whatsoever. He has the right to say anything, but he doesn't have the right to offend the public w/o financial consequences.

Living in one of the restaurant meccas of the world, I have enough options that I'll never have to choose between quality and the other issues.