If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The Atlantic Wire)   Orson Scott Card adresses efforts to boycott "Ender's Game" because of the author's outspoken opposition to gay marriage. Short version: You godless heathens and filthy sodomites won, now stop oppressing me   (theatlanticwire.com) divider line 587
    More: Dumbass, boycotts, marriages  
•       •       •

6743 clicks; posted to Geek » on 09 Jul 2013 at 10:23 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



587 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2013-07-09 09:40:27 AM  
Seems to me that short version is "we disagreed, you guys won.  let's move on."

Unlike some of the gay marriage opponents who are still up their eyeballs in a fight they've already lost.
 
2013-07-09 09:42:34 AM  
This is mostly why I won't see Ender's Game and why I stopped reading his books after I found out what type of person he was. Even if he weren't a homophobe, Orson Scott Card is a raging asshole. That's not to say I haven't enjoyed plenty of books and movies written by raging assholes, but his books are also incredibly overrated. Meh.
 
2013-07-09 09:46:46 AM  

bdub77: but his books are also incredibly overrated.


The only one I've read is Ender's Game, and it is completely mundane.  It topped several Top X Sci-Fi books lists, so I read it and was completely underwhelmed.
 
2013-07-09 09:49:02 AM  
"I love Chik-Fil-A.  I'm not ashamed of my love for chicken!!!"
 
2013-07-09 09:50:10 AM  
Orson Scott Card is not an "outspoken oppo[nent] to gay marriage", he is an outspoken opponent of gay people.
 
2013-07-09 09:51:33 AM  
efforts to boycott "Ender's Game"

Some website called Geeks Out, which I'm reasonably sure I've never heard of, and which is apparently targeted exclusively at homosexual "geeks," posts about boycotting the movie, and Card feels the need to play victim and send a press release to Entertainment Weekly. Okay then.

BizarreMan: Seems to me that short version is "we disagreed, you guys won. let's move on."


"We disagreed" is an utterly disingenuous characterization of the "debate." He actively worked for decades to demonize homosexuals through his proselytizing and his National Organization for Marriage fought tirelessly to deny them equal rights. So, no, this isn't a situation where you "agree to disagree" and shake your opposition's hand after a good-faith debate. He wants to "move on" because paying any attention to his past now is going to reveal him to a much broader audience as a hateful bigot.
 
2013-07-09 09:53:02 AM  
I enjoyed Ender's Game.

But Card can EABOD.
 
2013-07-09 09:54:59 AM  

kronicfeld: "We disagreed" is an utterly disingenuous characterization of the "debate."


As is:

"Ender's Game is set more than a century in the future and has nothing to do with political issues that did not exist when the book was written in 1984. "

That's like saying there was no racism during the slavery era.

I may see it.  I'm trying to force my way through the book now.  Not impressed thus far.  If anything I get an icky feeling with his obsession over militarized little boys.  But whatevs.  I'll reserve judgement until I've finished it.
 
2013-07-09 10:00:51 AM  
Meh. Let the gay community marry, fight, lie, cheat, divorce and generally treat each other like shiat the way the rest of the world works. Gay ain't special. This is a non-issue.
 
2013-07-09 10:05:54 AM  
"Now it will be interesting to see whether the victorious proponents of gay marriage will show tolerance toward those who disagreed with them when the issue was still in dispute."

What exactly kind of a tolerance is he looking for here? That statement/threat doesn't even make any sense.
 
2013-07-09 10:11:08 AM  

hinten: What exactly kind of a tolerance is he looking for here? That statement/threat doesn't even make any sense.


By "tolerance," he means "never bring up our decades of past bigotry and our ongoing bigotry."
 
2013-07-09 10:20:23 AM  
I'm far more disturbed by the moral system his works of fiction appear to support (even revel in) than by his opinions of homosexuality, unpleasant and retrograde as they may be.
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2013-07-09 10:22:51 AM  

Some Bass Playing Guy: I enjoyed Ender's Game.

But Card can EABOD.


He probably does on a regular basis.  Heterosexual men are not normally that obsessed with what gays do.
 
2013-07-09 10:24:42 AM  
I liked Pastwatch. It was entertaining, and it was recommended by someone I was dating at the time. Who happened to be lesbian. And a teacher at a Catholic school.

/have a feeling she had issues
//managed to not stick dildo in crazy. Yay!
///will not buy any other books by him though
 
2013-07-09 10:25:57 AM  
I don't particularly care whether he's a disgusting bigot--that's his business, not mine.

But I'll never forgive him for penning a sequel to Ender's Game. That was a standalone story if there ever was one.
 
2013-07-09 10:26:17 AM  

hinten: "Now it will be interesting to see whether the victorious proponents of gay marriage will show tolerance toward those who disagreed with them when the issue was still in dispute."

What exactly kind of a tolerance is he looking for here? That statement/threat doesn't even make any sense.


Wouldn't not going to see his movie because you disagree with his views be a perfect example of the free market?  Why do you hate the free market, Mr Card?
 
2013-07-09 10:27:33 AM  
How can you have a name like Orson Scott Card and NOT be gay?

It's not possible.
 
2013-07-09 10:31:29 AM  

bdub77: but his books are also incredibly overrated.


I enjoyed the first three Alvin Maker books. Somewhere along the way, though, it turned from a nice alternate history fantasy series into...don't even know what.
 
2013-07-09 10:32:18 AM  

Diogenes: kronicfeld: "We disagreed" is an utterly disingenuous characterization of the "debate."

As is:

"Ender's Game is set more than a century in the future and has nothing to do with political issues that did not exist when the book was written in 1984. "

That's like saying there was no racism during the slavery era.

I may see it.  I'm trying to force my way through the book now.  Not impressed thus far.  If anything I get an icky feeling with his obsession over militarized little boys.  But whatevs.  I'll reserve judgement until I've finished it.


I read Ender's game when it was a novella, and never really read the novel or its sequels, but when I had XM radio and a long commute a few years back I listened to parts of the two sequels while driving, and I came away with a very strong feeling that there was something very wrong wtih OSC (and that was back when I was even unaware of his LDS beliefs)  there is something about how he writes children, how he insists on   making them minature adults to the point where barely adolescent kids are nonetheless great military leader or poltical thinkers that just REALLY gives off a pedophile vibe to me, as many pedos justify thier actions by claiming their victims were "very mature for thier age"
 
2013-07-09 10:32:25 AM  

vpb: Some Bass Playing Guy: I enjoyed Ender's Game.

But Card can EABOD.

He probably does on a regular basis.  Heterosexual men are not normally that obsessed with what gays do.


I'm very pro gay marriage. Wrote some letters, stood at a rally (I'm in DC so it's easy to get involved) but the whole 'if you don't like gay people you must secretly be gay' argument is ridiculous. Have their been cases of closeted homophobes, certainly. Are the majority of homophobes gay, not likely.

Move on with your argument to something more meaningful and relevant.
 
2013-07-09 10:32:47 AM  
Sir, you have made yourself a public face for bigotry and hate.  It is a little late and perhaps a bit disingenuous to ask for tolerance from people that oppose you.  Spend a decade working for tolerance and atoning for your past sins.  Then we'll talk.
 
2013-07-09 10:33:10 AM  

Some Bass Playing Guy: I enjoyed Ender's Game.

But Card can EABOD.


This.

I read the book before I knew anything about his views. Hell, back then I wasn't sure of my own opinions on homosexuality and gay-rights.
 
2013-07-09 10:35:17 AM  
"How dare you be intolerant of my intolerance! WAH!"

Here's a deal, Orson: you stop being a homophobic asshole, and then I'll go see your movie.

You can either continue to be a chairman for NOM and write horrible anti-gay crap like your remake of Hamlet*, or you can have gay people willingly give you money. You can't have both, Mr. Card.

*He actually had the balls to re-write one of the greatest works of literary fiction, and change it so that Hamlet's dad was a pedophile who made most of the male cast gay by molesting them (because that's how OSC thinks it works) and tries to trick Hamlet into killing his uncle so he goes to Hell and daddy dearest can molest his son for eternity. Billy S. is spinning in his grave so hard, he drilled a tunnel to the Earth's core.
 
2013-07-09 10:35:43 AM  
It's been a while since I've read Ender's Game, but doesn't the book contain multiple scenes involving naked boys wrestling around with each other and whatnot?
 
2013-07-09 10:36:22 AM  
The man is entitled to his opinions, however repulsive they may be. Unless he's doing something like donating proceeds of the film, or dedicating it to, a group like the FRC, NOM, or AFA, there's no point to berating him for having a belief.  Birth of a Nation for gays, this is certainly not.
 
2013-07-09 10:36:32 AM  
 Orson Scott Card, after all, still wrote a version of Hamlet in which the eponymous character's father was a gay, as a way of explaining why he was a terrible king (Card also made Hamlet's father into a child molester).

Sounds like he's from the "gay = child molester" school of thought (Hi Dad!)
 
2013-07-09 10:37:29 AM  

Nonrepeating Rotating Binary: Sir, you have made yourself a public face for bigotry and hate.  It is a little late and perhaps a bit disingenuous to ask for tolerance from people that oppose you.  Spend a decade working for tolerance and atoning for your past sins.  Then we'll talk.



www.corbisimages.com
THIS!
 
2013-07-09 10:38:25 AM  

TuteTibiImperes: It's been a while since I've read Ender's Game, but doesn't the book contain multiple scenes involving naked boys wrestling around with each other and whatnot?


Yep! I got a pedo vibe from it. Pedos hate gays idk why.
 
2013-07-09 10:41:06 AM  
These guys are always such assholes until it stands to cost then money. Then you're the intolerant one for not looking past their intolerance and giving them money.
 
2013-07-09 10:41:28 AM  

Diogenes: I may see it. I'm trying to force my way through the book now. Not impressed thus far. If anything I get an icky feeling with his obsession over militarized little boys. But whatevs. I'll reserve judgement until I've finished it.


How old are you?  Because if you're older than about 18 or 20, the book is likely have very little impact on you. It's a great read when you're a teenager, but falls flat once you get close to, or reach, adulthood.

kronicfeld: "We disagreed" is an utterly disingenuous characterization of the "debate." He actively worked for decades to demonize homosexuals through his proselytizing and his National Organization for Marriage fought tirelessly to deny them equal rights. So, no, this isn't a situation where you "agree to disagree" and shake your opposition's hand after a good-faith debate. He wants to "move on" because paying any attention to his past now is going to reveal him to a much broader audience as a hateful bigot.


This.  The ongoing attitude of these backwards farksticks is amazing - "It's intolerant for you to call me out for being intolerant!  Let's just agree that you'll keep fighting for equal rights, while I keep fighting against it.  See, we're ethically equal, we just disagree!"
 
2013-07-09 10:41:43 AM  

Three Crooked Squirrels: bdub77: but his books are also incredibly overrated.

The only one I've read is Ender's Game, and it is completely mundane.  It topped several Top X Sci-Fi books lists, so I read it and was completely underwhelmed.


Ender's Game is written about and for smart kids. If you read it when you were an overachieving junior high student a lot of it resonates. All of the people I know who really like it were nerds who read it around that time in their life. If you pick it up when you're older it just doesn't work.
 
2013-07-09 10:41:55 AM  
This from the man who wrote "Songmaster"? That was a seriously creepy book. There's something off about a man who writes about the degradation of children so much. And don't get me started on "Lost Boys." Ugh, he's a repulsive human being who writes repulsive books. No thanks. I like "Ender's Game" but after the two aforementioned books, that was it. No more.
 
2013-07-09 10:42:59 AM  
So, "I'm still a homophobic jackass but you guys won so don't be mean to me?"  Sure.
 
2013-07-09 10:43:44 AM  
Is this like not reading/watching Game of Thrones because you don't like fat people who write really slowly?

If you isolate yourself from people you don't agree with everything on you will end up being a very dumb person.
 
2013-07-09 10:43:53 AM  
The tolerance he seeks is green in color.
 
2013-07-09 10:44:05 AM  

INeedAName: vpb: Some Bass Playing Guy: I enjoyed Ender's Game.

But Card can EABOD.

He probably does on a regular basis.  Heterosexual men are not normally that obsessed with what gays do.

I'm very pro gay marriage. Wrote some letters, stood at a rally (I'm in DC so it's easy to get involved) but the whole 'if you don't like gay people you must secretly be gay' argument is ridiculous. Have their been cases of closeted homophobes, certainly. Are the majority of homophobes gay, not likely.

Move on with your argument to something more meaningful and relevant.


He's referring to the people who obsess over the details of gay sex.  It reflects a mentality that very likely incorporates (unhealthily) homosexual urges.  Listen for the religious folks who describe homosexuality as a "temptation".
 
2013-07-09 10:44:33 AM  

TuteTibiImperes: It's been a while since I've read Ender's Game, but doesn't the book contain multiple scenes involving naked boys wrestling around with each other and whatnot?


This is broadening it a bit but why do sci fi writers all seem to love putting terrible sex scenes in their books?  Can't at least one of them get an editor that decides that the graphic descriptions of sex between future hermaphrodites or future 14 year olds or aliens or whatever doesn't really tell us anything important about the characters or advance the narrative and give those scenes the axe?
 
2013-07-09 10:46:20 AM  
I really enjoyed Ender's Game and Speaker of the Dead.  I was pretty bummed to hear this guy was such a dick.
 
2013-07-09 10:47:57 AM  

you have pee hands: TuteTibiImperes: It's been a while since I've read Ender's Game, but doesn't the book contain multiple scenes involving naked boys wrestling around with each other and whatnot?

This is broadening it a bit but why do sci fi writers all seem to love putting terrible sex scenes in their books?  Can't at least one of them get an editor that decides that the graphic descriptions of sex between future hermaphrodites or future 14 year olds or aliens or whatever doesn't really tell us anything important about the characters or advance the narrative and give those scenes the axe?


Heretics of Dune FTL....
 
2013-07-09 10:47:59 AM  

odinsposse: Three Crooked Squirrels: bdub77: but his books are also incredibly overrated.

The only one I've read is Ender's Game, and it is completely mundane.  It topped several Top X Sci-Fi books lists, so I read it and was completely underwhelmed.

Ender's Game is written about and for smart kids. If you read it when you were an overachieving junior high student a lot of it resonates. All of the people I know who really like it were nerds who read it around that time in their life. If you pick it up when you're older it just doesn't work.


Even then I disagree.  I was reading at a college sophmore level when I was in 4th grade according to the tests, and I read Enders (the original short story) right about then or a year or two later. And frankly my real take-away was "So this is what the author thinks being me is like (Yes I was a wildly arrogant shiat too)...way to miss it by a mile..."
 
2013-07-09 10:48:04 AM  

bdub77: This is mostly why I won't see Ender's Game and why I stopped reading his books after I found out what type of person he was. Even if he weren't a homophobe, Orson Scott Card is a raging asshole. That's not to say I haven't enjoyed plenty of books and movies written by raging assholes, but his books are also incredibly overrated. Meh.


The difference is, he doesn't inject his bigotry or his raving assholism into his books for the most part.  That's why I have no problem reading what he writes.

He may have distressing personal views, but at least he isn't trying to use his books as a medium to push those views.  Go look at someone like John Norman or L. Ron Hubbard.
 
2013-07-09 10:48:32 AM  
I've been reading all this hubbub regarding boycotting the movie because the guy's a bigot.. and I get that. But aren't you also forcibly screwing over a bunch of other people who don't share the same views and are just trying to make a good/decent/okay movie?

He likely already got paid a heavy sum for selling the rights, so there's not much that can be done. Wouldn't it be better to boycott the selling of the books?

/just a thought
 
2013-07-09 10:48:50 AM  

FuryOfFirestorm: "How dare you be intolerant of my intolerance! WAH!"

Here's a deal, Orson: you stop being a homophobic asshole, and then I'll go see your movie.

You can either continue to be a chairman for NOM and write horrible anti-gay crap like your remake of Hamlet*, or you can have gay people willingly give you money. You can't have both, Mr. Card.

*He actually had the balls to re-write one of the greatest works of literary fiction, and change it so that Hamlet's dad was a pedophile who made most of the male cast gay by molesting them (because that's how OSC thinks it works) and tries to trick Hamlet into killing his uncle so he goes to Hell and daddy dearest can molest his son for eternity. Billy S. is spinning in his grave so hard, he drilled a tunnel to the Earth's core.



Wait, wut? Where did this fresh hell of a novel come from?
 
2013-07-09 10:49:37 AM  
I loved the book when I was a kid. Didn't try and re-read it since then.

So I have to first politically vet every author, filmmaker, actor, artist and entertainer before I know if I can enjoy their art ??
 
2013-07-09 10:49:49 AM  
Also, let's review a summary of his Wikipedia page:

Against gay marriage, sits on the board of the "National Organization for Marriage", strong LDS faith, supported McCain for president despite being a registered Democrat, supported Newt Gingrich for president, global warming denier, intelligent design supporter.

His only redeeming factor seems to be that he wrote one really good young adult sci-fi book.
 
2013-07-09 10:49:50 AM  

you have pee hands: TuteTibiImperes: It's been a while since I've read Ender's Game, but doesn't the book contain multiple scenes involving naked boys wrestling around with each other and whatnot?

This is broadening it a bit but why do sci fi writers all seem to love putting terrible sex scenes in their books?  Can't at least one of them get an editor that decides that the graphic descriptions of sex between future hermaphrodites or future 14 year olds or aliens or whatever doesn't really tell us anything important about the characters or advance the narrative and give those scenes the axe?


This.  The "sex battle" in Heretics of Dune was a little over the top.  I lost respect for Herbert with that one.
 
2013-07-09 10:50:42 AM  

you have pee hands: TuteTibiImperes: It's been a while since I've read Ender's Game, but doesn't the book contain multiple scenes involving naked boys wrestling around with each other and whatnot?

This is broadening it a bit but why do sci fi writers all seem to love putting terrible sex scenes in their books?  Can't at least one of them get an editor that decides that the graphic descriptions of sex between future hermaphrodites or future 14 year olds or aliens or whatever doesn't really tell us anything important about the characters or advance the narrative and give those scenes the axe?


In some ways the best sci-fi novels are those that are about people and society, and that use the sci-fi/futuristic/alternate-history setting to make a point about how our morality/social mores change based on external stimuli or a different world - they make you think 'if this was going on, this is how we might react, and what does that say about how we react to certain issues today?'.  Sex is intrinsic to human nature, so it makes sense that there could be sex scenes to study how those desires and handled in the new world.

Now, that doesn't mean that all of them are handled well or for that reason, there are plenty that are likely there just to scratch a prurient itch the author had or to attract lonely horny nerds to the book.
 
2013-07-09 10:50:49 AM  
Ender's Game is set more than a century in the future and has nothing to do with political issues that did not exist when the book was written in 1984.  With the recent Supreme Court ruling, the gay marriage issue becomes moot.  The Full Faith and Credit clause of the Constitution will, sooner or later, give legal force in every state to any marriage contract recognized by any other state. Now it will be interesting to see whether the victorious proponents of gay marriage will show tolerance toward those who disagreed with them when the issue was still in dispute.

Orson Scott Card


I've disliked this guy ever since I saw him and his ego at a book signing years ago.  I wonder what his statement would have been if the Supreme Ct. had ruled the other way.  "We won.  We're right.  Get over it."?
 
2013-07-09 10:51:36 AM  

bukijin: I loved the book when I was a kid. Didn't try and re-read it since then.

So I have to first politically vet every author, filmmaker, actor, artist and entertainer before I know if I can enjoy their art ??


Art is a reflection of its creator.  The art is informed and shaped by the views, opinions, and thoughts of the artist.  Yes, you should know something about an artist before patronizing their work.
 
2013-07-09 10:53:14 AM  
What'll we have to wait -- 3 months -- for Orson Scott Card to become a right wing darling by playing the victim of the gay agenda to any asshat with a microphone?
 
2013-07-09 10:53:46 AM  
Here's the way I read it:

"Hey, guys. I'm about to make a metric farkton of money on this movie, but I know how Mob Rules go. If this 'OSC is a homophobe thing, so we should boycott his movie' thing gains traction, I'm farked. So, here, let me just say: The bad guys won. Ok? You got what you wanted, now you have to be the bigger man and quick picking on the losers, i.e. Me.

I mean, had we won, we wouldn't be chicken strutting around the country touting the victory in God's name, or taking to the interwebs to do our Church Lady Victory Dance in every forum, so why don't you do the same and go see my movie while not being sore winners. I promise to not call you names or attack you in God's name while the movie is in the theater, alright? Do we have a deal? You spend money on my movie and once it's done it's run in the theaters, I'll go back to calling you hedonistic heathens that spit in the face of God with your unnatural sex acts.

I'm glad we can be civilized about this."
 
2013-07-09 10:54:39 AM  

Khellendros: His only redeeming factor seems to be that he wrote one really good young adult sci-fi book.


I liked Speaker of the Dead more than Ender's Game.
 
2013-07-09 10:54:49 AM  
Meh, he didn't shove his anti-gay stuff in the book that I recall, did he?

Now if you really want to fark with the anti-gay people, they should turn The Forever War into a movie =)
 
2013-07-09 10:55:46 AM  
I actually enjoy a lot of OSC's early writing, but the moment I learned his politics was the last time I bought any of his books new.

/has a signed copy of Ender's Game
//bought it at a used book shop
 
2013-07-09 10:56:35 AM  

yukichigai: bdub77: This is mostly why I won't see Ender's Game and why I stopped reading his books after I found out what type of person he was. Even if he weren't a homophobe, Orson Scott Card is a raging asshole. That's not to say I haven't enjoyed plenty of books and movies written by raging assholes, but his books are also incredibly overrated. Meh.

The difference is, he doesn't inject his bigotry or his raving assholism into his books for the most part.  That's why I have no problem reading what he writes.

He may have distressing personal views, but at least he isn't trying to use his books as a medium to push those views.  Go look at someone like John Norman or L. Ron Hubbard.


Funny thing about John Norman..I met him once, and he was a tweedy, mousy little guy who was absolutely his wife's biatch, and was actually sort of horrified that people existed who used his books a blueprint for real-life relationships (yes they do exist....they're one step below furries on the "Who get to point an Laugh at Who" chart of geeky kinks)
 
2013-07-09 10:56:40 AM  
You know... if I boycotted any movie, show, or book because I disagree with something said by a writer, director, or actor... I wouldn't see or read much of anything.

/not defending LDS bigotry - just sayin'
 
mhd
2013-07-09 10:56:54 AM  
Hey Orson, I've spoken with apes more polite then you.
 
2013-07-09 10:57:47 AM  
I think you should do your best to separate the artist from the art, but everybody has their limits. Card has reached mine. He doesn't just hold bigoted views,he's incredibly vocal and active about it. That makes me super uncomfortable.

And correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't all the post ender's game books about how religious intolerance causes all sorts of conflicts between the colonists and natives? It's been a while, but I sort of remember that being the point.
 
2013-07-09 10:58:51 AM  
If we hate one author for his views, does that mean we shouldn't read anything from anyone with opposing viewpoints? Even if those viewpoints are hateful and bigoted? If that's the case there's a whole boat load of writers I wouldn't be able to read anything from...

Example 1

/Sorry for the Buzzfeed link, but seriously...
 
2013-07-09 11:00:37 AM  
Oh noes someone has an opinion that goes against the collective! I'm going to blog this as soon as I finish rage-vacuuming!
 
2013-07-09 11:01:24 AM  

meat0918: you have pee hands: TuteTibiImperes: It's been a while since I've read Ender's Game, but doesn't the book contain multiple scenes involving naked boys wrestling around with each other and whatnot?

This is broadening it a bit but why do sci fi writers all seem to love putting terrible sex scenes in their books?  Can't at least one of them get an editor that decides that the graphic descriptions of sex between future hermaphrodites or future 14 year olds or aliens or whatever doesn't really tell us anything important about the characters or advance the narrative and give those scenes the axe?

Heretics of Dune FTL....


Yes, my respect for Herbert dropped significanty with this book.  The specific Jump The Shark moment for me was the "sex battle" between Idaho and that Honored Matre.
 
2013-07-09 11:02:03 AM  
Ender's Game

Sounds homoerotic
 
2013-07-09 11:02:53 AM  

master of unlocking: I think you should do your best to separate the artist from the art, but everybody has their limits.


This, right here.
 
2013-07-09 11:06:37 AM  

Smoky Dragon Dish: meat0918: you have pee hands: TuteTibiImperes: It's been a while since I've read Ender's Game, but doesn't the book contain multiple scenes involving naked boys wrestling around with each other and whatnot?

This is broadening it a bit but why do sci fi writers all seem to love putting terrible sex scenes in their books?  Can't at least one of them get an editor that decides that the graphic descriptions of sex between future hermaphrodites or future 14 year olds or aliens or whatever doesn't really tell us anything important about the characters or advance the narrative and give those scenes the axe?

Heretics of Dune FTL....

Yes, my respect for Herbert dropped significanty with this book.  The specific Jump The Shark moment for me was the "sex battle" between Idaho and that Honored Matre.


For me it was Spice orgy. Water of life? Right
 
2013-07-09 11:07:20 AM  
Sorry I support gay rights as many people might have noticed if they notice my insane ramblings at all.  If his work is anti-gay that is one thing but if it isn't then who cares?  I work with a lot of different people every day and some of them have views that I personally consider to be repugnant.  They don't bring them up at work though so I am fully capable of working with them.  I'm not a huge fan of his writing and I think Ender's Game is a boring book but his personal opinions that do not exist in the books he has written does not change my opinion of the books.

Lots of classical authors were racist homophobic dicks as a product of the times they lived in, their works are still considered great works.  OSC's crappy (or good) books are crappy (or good) without any knowledge of his bigotry.

Jesus thought owning slaves was OK as long as you were nice to them, that doesn't automatically invalidate everything the guy stood for.
 
2013-07-09 11:07:25 AM  
Many a times I've reached up for a copy of Ender's Game at a bookstore only to remember what sort of douchetard wrote it in the first place, and then I reach for something, anything, else.

/he wants tolerance for his bigotry?
//he can kiss my hairy ass
 
2013-07-09 11:07:47 AM  

bukijin: I loved the book when I was a kid. Didn't try and re-read it since then.

So I have to first politically vet every author, filmmaker, actor, artist and entertainer before I know if I can enjoy their art ??



Yes, otherwise you agree with every one of their opinions and that means Newt Gingrich is automatically President for life.
 
2013-07-09 11:08:31 AM  
I'll be boycotting it because it doesn't look even remotely interesting.

I saw the preview last week. Commented how to looked like a movie from the 80s, but even that wasn't enough to make me want to see it.
 
2013-07-09 11:09:06 AM  

Strayha04: If we hate one author for his views, does that mean we shouldn't read anything from anyone with opposing viewpoints? Even if those viewpoints are hateful and bigoted? If that's the case there's a whole boat load of writers I wouldn't be able to read anything from...


And not just writers. This is a debate I have with folk all the time -- can you separate the art from the artist? I'm a big fan of Mel Gibson movies, even though I acknowledge he's an anti-Semitic douchebag. Can one be a Republican and still enjoy the music of Crosby, Stills & Nash? One of the pre-eminent writers on numismatic history is a convicted child molester -- does that fact invalidate his other work?

I don't have any answers, but as far as the Ender's Game movie, I'll judge it on its artistic merits, and not the political views of the writer or some grip's assistant.
 
2013-07-09 11:10:37 AM  

odinsposse: Ender's Game is written about and for smart kids. If you read it when you were an overachieving junior high student a lot of it resonates. All of the people I know who really like it were nerds who read it around that time in their life. If you pick it up when you're older it just doesn't work.


Meh. I was a geeky high school freshman when I read it, it was interesting enough but I'd read plenty of better science fiction by that time.
 
2013-07-09 11:11:09 AM  

Cthulhu_is_my_homeboy: I don't particularly care whether he's a disgusting bigot--that's his business, not mine.
But I'll never forgive him for penning a sequel to Ender's Game. That was a standalone story if there ever was one.


i'll agree that ender's game did not need a sequel, but speaker for the dead is twice as good as ender's game, so i'm glad he wrote it.  speaker is one of the best sci-fi books i've ever read.

Gunny Highway:  I liked Speaker of the Dead more than Ender's Game.

and here i was wondering if i was the only one.
 
2013-07-09 11:11:43 AM  

KellyX: Meh, he didn't shove his anti-gay stuff in the book that I recall, did he?


No, he just openly and self-righteously fought against gay people in real life, which is much, much worse. I'm really torn on this because the actors are great. But I don't think I can bring myself to reward OSC.
 
2013-07-09 11:13:11 AM  

Egoy3k: Sorry I support gay rights as many people might have noticed if they notice my insane ramblings at all.  If his work is anti-gay that is one thing but if it isn't then who cares?  I work with a lot of different people every day and some of them have views that I personally consider to be repugnant.  They don't bring them up at work though so I am fully capable of working with them.  I'm not a huge fan of his writing and I think Ender's Game is a boring book but his personal opinions that do not exist in the books he has written does not change my opinion of the books.

Lots of classical authors were racist homophobic dicks as a product of the times they lived in, their works are still considered great works.  OSC's crappy (or good) books are crappy (or good) without any knowledge of his bigotry.

Jesus thought owning slaves was OK as long as you were nice to them, that doesn't automatically invalidate everything the guy stood for.


As master of unlockingsaid there are limits. There are lots of writers I disagree with. There are lots of writers whose personal beliefs I don't know. Card doesn't just have bigoted beliefs he's a board member of NOM. He is an active, public figurehead in the fight against civil rights. That is too much to ignore. If Jerry Falwell wrote a novel, even if it was a pretty good novel, I wouldn't be able to bring myself to buy it because he's such a terrible person.
 
2013-07-09 11:13:12 AM  

Spad31: This is a non-issue.


No, it will be a non-issue when the gay community doesn't have to deal with hurdles like OSC and NOM.
 
2013-07-09 11:13:30 AM  
Now it will be interesting to see whether the victorious proponents of gay marriage will show tolerance toward those who disagreed with them when the issue was still in dispute.

Right, because a judicial decision about gay marriage is going to stop homophobes from being raging, loud-mouthed assholes.  Go fark yourself.
 
2013-07-09 11:13:49 AM  

yukichigai: bdub77: This is mostly why I won't see Ender's Game and why I stopped reading his books after I found out what type of person he was. Even if he weren't a homophobe, Orson Scott Card is a raging asshole. That's not to say I haven't enjoyed plenty of books and movies written by raging assholes, but his books are also incredibly overrated. Meh.

The difference is, he doesn't inject his bigotry or his raving assholism into his books for the most part.  That's why I have no problem reading what he writes.

He may have distressing personal views, but at least he isn't trying to use his books as a medium to push those views.  Go look at someone like John Norman or L. Ron Hubbard.


and to expand on your main point,  Heinlien had extremely strong, very right-wing poltical views, and he was not shy about sharing them in his essays, but in his novels and stories he was more circumspect,  yes he wrote Starship Troopers, a book many consider to be an endorsement of fascism, but he wrote what many consider to be one of seminal works of the hippie culture Stranger in Stange Land at the exact same time. A book that forces you to think or consider arguments you had not before, I have no objections to, but a book that is thinly veiled propaganda for the author's poltical or moral views I have ZERO patience for.  I recall a series I once picked up a used book store that started entertainingly enough, but then every single gorram book devolved into a paen to libertarianism so extreme even Ron Paul would say "Whoa there big fella, ease back on the stick a bit yeah?".  Or the most classic modern example, would be everything Terry Goodkind wrote after the first Sword Of Truth book, where a promising series devolved into nothing more than incompetent plotting overlaying  a mix of fan-fic level S&M fantasies and laughable poltical rantings.  That's unforgiveable to me.  And the Hamlet revision OSC apparently wrote sounds like it's in that company
 
2013-07-09 11:14:49 AM  
Egoy3k:
Lots of classical authors were racist homophobic dicks as a product of the times they lived in, their works are still considered great works.  OSC's crappy (or good) books are crappy (or good) without any knowledge of his bigotry.

Yea, but they're all dead, and not actively trying to oppress people.
 
2013-07-09 11:16:05 AM  

Mike Chewbacca: KellyX: Meh, he didn't shove his anti-gay stuff in the book that I recall, did he?

No, he just openly and self-righteously fought against gay people in real life, which is much, much worse. I'm really torn on this because the actors are great. But I don't think I can bring myself to reward OSC.


And he and his lost the battle more or less, he even admits this will eventually become the law of the land... Least he isn't still trying to deny reality, and even if he was, who cares, they lost... move on.
 
2013-07-09 11:16:14 AM  

Strayha04: If we hate one author for his views, does that mean we shouldn't read anything from anyone with opposing viewpoints? Even if those viewpoints are hateful and bigoted? If that's the case there's a whole boat load of writers I wouldn't be able to read anything from...

Example 1

/Sorry for the Buzzfeed link, but seriously...


That's an interesting list, I didn't realize that anti-semitism was so rampant amongst otherwise well respected authors.

I wonder how much of that comes from the cult of personality that many famous authors attract.  Someone starts out with a bigoted view, then they end up writing a hugely popular novel and are suddenly surrounded by people telling them how brilliant they are, which is likely to go to their heads and lead them to think that every idea they have is now brilliant and sacrosanct, so biases that they may have grown out of due to exposure and life experience with those that they disagreed with instead get forged into deep rooted beliefs.
 
2013-07-09 11:16:19 AM  
Is he still Islamophobic?
 
2013-07-09 11:16:54 AM  

flaminio: Strayha04: If we hate one author for his views, does that mean we shouldn't read anything from anyone with opposing viewpoints? Even if those viewpoints are hateful and bigoted? If that's the case there's a whole boat load of writers I wouldn't be able to read anything from...

And not just writers. This is a debate I have with folk all the time -- can you separate the art from the artist? I'm a big fan of Mel Gibson movies, even though I acknowledge he's an anti-Semitic douchebag. Can one be a Republican and still enjoy the music of Crosby, Stills & Nash? One of the pre-eminent writers on numismatic history is a convicted child molester -- does that fact invalidate his other work?

I don't have any answers, but as far as the Ender's Game movie, I'll judge it on its artistic merits, and not the political views of the writer or some grip's assistant.


Exactly. And, as I said before, a lot of people have a lot invested in this movie. Is it really fair to screw everyone over the douchey actions of an individual?

Also, shouldn't you judge a movie differently from the book? I've never read Ender's Game, but the trailer makes the movie look half way decent. I'll probably see it just to turn my brain off for an hour and a half.
 
2013-07-09 11:16:57 AM  

LewDux: Smoky Dragon Dish: meat0918: you have pee hands: TuteTibiImperes: It's been a while since I've read Ender's Game, but doesn't the book contain multiple scenes involving naked boys wrestling around with each other and whatnot?

This is broadening it a bit but why do sci fi writers all seem to love putting terrible sex scenes in their books?  Can't at least one of them get an editor that decides that the graphic descriptions of sex between future hermaphrodites or future 14 year olds or aliens or whatever doesn't really tell us anything important about the characters or advance the narrative and give those scenes the axe?

Heretics of Dune FTL....

Yes, my respect for Herbert dropped significanty with this book.  The specific Jump The Shark moment for me was the "sex battle" between Idaho and that Honored Matre.

For me it was Spice orgy. Water of life? Right


I read Dune in 6th grade, and sheltered as I was, had no idea what an orgy was.  I thought "drug induced dance party".

At least he didn't detail it as much as he did the the Idaho/Murbella thing.
 
2013-07-09 11:17:39 AM  
Rolander: Is this like not reading/watching Game of Thrones because you don't like fat people who write really slowly?

No.

If you isolate yourself from people you don't agree with everything on you will end up being a very dumb person.

Okay then.
 
2013-07-09 11:19:27 AM  
So wait, for decades he's been the most outspoken bigot in sci-fi, and now he wants me to shut up and give him my money? And if I don't put dollars in his pocket, I'm being unreasonable to a political opponent who happens to disagree with me?

Let me just consider that for a se - all right, Orson,  NOPE.  You're not entitled to my financial support for your movie, you horse's ass. Civil rights and human rights are not policy issues that polite people can politely disagree about.  Particularly in this case, where Card was actively engaged in denying equal rights to LGBTQ people by promoting bigotry.  This is what his fans' financial support allows him to do.

In any case, I don't want anything to do with the movie adaptation of his boring story that celebrates eugenics, child soldiers and xenophobia, with a side slice of Reagan-style foreign policy fantasy.  The book lacks literary merit, and unlike many politicized cultural works in the American style, it doesn't even have any element of awesome kitsch to make up for it.  (Ender's Game's contemporary Red Dawn, on the other hand?  A+)  This was my opinion well before I knew he was a bigot.
 
2013-07-09 11:19:57 AM  

Strayha04: But aren't you also forcibly screwing over a bunch of other people who don't share the same views and are just trying to make a good/decent/okay movie?


Well, those people chose to work with somebody who is this openly bigoted. They are not innocent little snowflakes in this scenario.
 
2013-07-09 11:20:03 AM  

Mike Chewbacca: KellyX: Meh, he didn't shove his anti-gay stuff in the book that I recall, did he?

No, he just openly and self-righteously fought against gay people in real life, which is much, much worse. I'm really torn on this because the actors are great. But I don't think I can bring myself to reward OSC.


I'm the same way with Roman Polanski movies. I don't care how good they are or what actors are in them, I just can't bring myself to support any of his projects considering what a repulsive person he is.
 
2013-07-09 11:23:37 AM  

Magorn: yukichigai: bdub77: This is mostly why I won't see Ender's Game and why I stopped reading his books after I found out what type of person he was. Even if he weren't a homophobe, Orson Scott Card is a raging asshole. That's not to say I haven't enjoyed plenty of books and movies written by raging assholes, but his books are also incredibly overrated. Meh.

The difference is, he doesn't inject his bigotry or his raving assholism into his books for the most part.  That's why I have no problem reading what he writes.

He may have distressing personal views, but at least he isn't trying to use his books as a medium to push those views.  Go look at someone like John Norman or L. Ron Hubbard.

and to expand on your main point,  Heinlien had extremely strong, very right-wing poltical views, and he was not shy about sharing them in his essays, but in his novels and stories he was more circumspect,  yes he wrote Starship Troopers, a book many consider to be an endorsement of fascism, but he wrote what many consider to be one of seminal works of the hippie culture Stranger in Stange Land at the exact same time. A book that forces you to think or consider arguments you had not before, I have no objections to, but a book that is thinly veiled propaganda for the author's poltical or moral views I have ZERO patience for.  I recall a series I once picked up a used book store that started entertainingly enough, but then every single gorram book devolved into a paen to libertarianism so extreme even Ron Paul would say "Whoa there big fella, ease back on the stick a bit yeah?".  Or the most classic modern example, would be everything Terry Goodkind wrote after the first Sword Of Truth book, where a promising series devolved into nothing more than incompetent plotting overlaying  a mix of fan-fic level S&M fantasies and laughable poltical rantings.  That's unforgiveable to me.  And the Hamlet revision OSC apparently wrote sounds like it's in that company


These books had potential, or so I thought.  I should have known something was up when they were sent to my kids from my mother, who NEVER sends any books unless it's a bible or bible stories.

Then we started reading them with the kids.  It's heavy handed biblical literature, not even a little bit thinly veiled, and trying way to hard.  At least C.S. Lewis is readable and enjoyable.
 
2013-07-09 11:23:50 AM  
I wrote a blog post about this earlier this morning.  Don't really want to repeat myself, so posting link here. Not sure if this is against Fark TOS (Couldn't find anything applicable), or would be considered AWing. Modmins, delete if so, and a mea culpa in advance.

http://touchoflunacy.com/2013/07/open-letter-to-orson-scott-card-on- to lerance/

/Yeah, my blog sucks.
//Not my blog, I just write something there every 6 months or so.
///Three slashies.  Five is right out.
////<praying>Please oh please don't Fark the server.</praying>
 
2013-07-09 11:23:59 AM  
It's not easy for me to pass judgement on this. 18 years of Christian indoctrination has its permanent scars, and I've enjoyed reading quite a few of Card's books.

So, to help me get perspective, I read his statement like this:


Ender's Game is set more than a century in the future and has nothing to do with political issues that did not exist when the book was written in 1984.

With the recent Supreme Court ruling, the gay marriage negro slavery issue becomes moot.  The Full Faith and Credit clause of the Constitution 13th Amendment will, sooner or later, give legal force in every state to any marriage contract recognized by any other state make free every black man, woman, and child.

Now it will be interesting to see whether the victorious proponents opponents of gay marriage negro slavery will show tolerance toward those who disagreed with them when the issue was still in dispute.


There. That's better. While not at all equal in injustice, the comparison is still valid.

So no, Mr. Card. No tolerance for slavers - I mean, opponents of gay marriage. We the People are still attempting to ensure that all people are treated equally in the eyes of the law. Odd how 150 years changes things - R's used to be proponents of that equality!
 
2013-07-09 11:24:22 AM  

The My Little Pony Killer: Strayha04: But aren't you also forcibly screwing over a bunch of other people who don't share the same views and are just trying to make a good/decent/okay movie?

Well, those people chose to work with somebody who is this openly bigoted. They are not innocent little snowflakes in this scenario.


While I understand what you mean... it's not like everyone knows this. I had no idea who this douche was until these articles about boycotts started popping up. I doubt everyone who is involved with the movie was given background information regarding the original author and told to choose between what they believe in or a paycheck.... Though I probably would have taken the paycheck regardless.
 
2013-07-09 11:24:41 AM  
Magorn:

Diogenes: If anything I get an icky feeling with his obsession over militarized little boys.  But whatevs.  I'll reserve judgement until I've finished it.

there is something about how he writes children, how he insists on   making them minature adults to the point where barely adolescent kids are nonetheless great military leader or poltical thinkers that just REALLY gives off a pedophile vibe to me, as many pedos justify thier actions by claiming their victims were "very mature for thier age"


How many of his works feature scenes with naked children (usually boys)?


Ender's Game, check.  Xenocide, check.  Ender's Shadow, check.  Worthing Saga, check.  Songmaster, check.  A couple more short stories from Maps in a Mirror that I don't remember the names of, check.
 
2013-07-09 11:24:49 AM  

rwhamann: hinten: "Now it will be interesting to see whether the victorious proponents of gay marriage will show tolerance toward those who disagreed with them when the issue was still in dispute."

What exactly kind of a tolerance is he looking for here? That statement/threat doesn't even make any sense.

Wouldn't not going to see his movie because you disagree with his views be a perfect example of the free market?  Why do you hate the free market, Mr Card?


Is he actually saying: tolerance = "you must see my movie" or "you must not boycott my movie because of my opinion"?

What a bizarre statement coming from a bizarre little man.
 
2013-07-09 11:25:29 AM  
I love how he's playing the "tolerate the intolerant" card. I'm sorry, OSC, you used to be cool but then you not only were against marriage equality, which I would be willing to forgive as a difference of opinion, but you  actively fought it and used your standing to lie about homosexuals, repeatedly. You don't get to slander and entire group and then say, "well, you won so let's all be friends now."

So screw you, Card. You aren't seeing another dime from me. I can bloody well wait until the movie reaches basic cable before I see it.
 
2013-07-09 11:25:31 AM  

that bosnian sniper: The man is entitled to his opinions, however repulsive they may be. Unless he's doing something like donating proceeds of the film, or dedicating it to, a group like the FRC, NOM, or AFA, there's no point to berating him for having a belief.  Birth of a Nation for gays, this is certainly not.


OSC is on the board of directors for NOM.
 
2013-07-09 11:26:21 AM  

Rolander: Is this like not reading/watching Game of Thrones because you don't like fat people who write really slowly?

If you isolate yourself from people you don't agree with everything on you will end up being a very dumb person.


Writing slowly and being overweight isn't actively lobbying to take away rights and suppress a group you disagree with and call immoral.  If you don't understand the difference, that's pathetic.

I don't isolate myself from people I don't agree with, I don't patronize and fund bigotry and hate.
 
2013-07-09 11:27:51 AM  
It's hilarious when the "wrong side of history" people start playing their victim cards as that's usually the time when they lose the hand and tap out.
 
2013-07-09 11:28:08 AM  
I stopped liking Card after 9/11 when he wrote an editorial about what America should do next. It was basically: Bomb everyone who isn't Isreal in the Middle East, ignore any allies who complain and start kicking people out of the country now. It wasn't the content that upset me, it was the tone of the piece, he made it sound like every other option was childish and beneath contempt.
I still read the rest of the Shadow books after that and someof his American horror works(he writes creepy stuff pretty well).

Aside from the usual Hyper-Pro-America stuff (which can sometimes make reading some writers difficult or at least tedious)his politics never seem to drift into his stories that I have seen, although he did go off on Family Courts giving full custody to unfit mothers over the fathers objections in one. haunted house book(can't remember the name).
I don't like the guy but if I never read things by people I disagre with I'd never read anything challenging.
 
2013-07-09 11:28:34 AM  

Strayha04: The My Little Pony Killer: Strayha04: But aren't you also forcibly screwing over a bunch of other people who don't share the same views and are just trying to make a good/decent/okay movie?

Well, those people chose to work with somebody who is this openly bigoted. They are not innocent little snowflakes in this scenario.

While I understand what you mean... it's not like everyone knows this. I had no idea who this douche was until these articles about boycotts started popping up. I doubt everyone who is involved with the movie was given background information regarding the original author and told to choose between what they believe in or a paycheck.... Though I probably would have taken the paycheck regardless.


Fighting to give them a paycheck is fighting to give OSC a paycheck, and I will not support his bigotry. No, not even to support those who were unfortunate to be "stuck" working with him.

/none of them could have hopped on wikipedia to get an idea of the project they were about to work on?
//none of them at all?
 
2013-07-09 11:28:36 AM  
The first three Ender's books were pretty good.  The Worthing Saga was also pretty good.
 
2013-07-09 11:28:49 AM  

Egoy3k: Lots of classical authors were racist homophobic dicks as a product of the times they lived in, their works are still considered great works.


But Orson Scott Card is the product of  our times.

And you'd be surprised.  A lot of classical authors were not racist homophobic dicks.  Artists and writers throughout history have frequently taken the lead in challenging unjust social conditions.  The ability to see the common thread of humanity in people different from yourself - which is impossible for racists and homophobes - actually produces better and more interesting art (although nothing will ever sell me on Dickens.)
 
2013-07-09 11:28:50 AM  

Magorn: Diogenes: kronicfeld: "We disagreed" is an utterly disingenuous characterization of the "debate."

As is:

"Ender's Game is set more than a century in the future and has nothing to do with political issues that did not exist when the book was written in 1984. "

That's like saying there was no racism during the slavery era.

I may see it.  I'm trying to force my way through the book now.  Not impressed thus far.  If anything I get an icky feeling with his obsession over militarized little boys.  But whatevs.  I'll reserve judgement until I've finished it.

I read Ender's game when it was a novella, and never really read the novel or its sequels, but when I had XM radio and a long commute a few years back I listened to parts of the two sequels while driving, and I came away with a very strong feeling that there was something very wrong wtih OSC (and that was back when I was even unaware of his LDS beliefs)  there is something about how he writes children, how he insists on   making them minature adults to the point where barely adolescent kids are nonetheless great military leader or poltical thinkers that just REALLY gives off a pedophile vibe to me, as many pedos justify thier actions by claiming their victims were "very mature for thier age"


So he's like a manga / anime writer?
 
2013-07-09 11:29:36 AM  

meat0918: At least C.S. Lewis is readable and enjoyable.


Well...before The Last Battle, anyway.
 
2013-07-09 11:30:07 AM  
Magorn:
and to expand on your main point,  Heinlien had extremely strong, very right-wing poltical views, and he was not shy about sharing them in his essays,

Yeah, I loved me some Heinlein essays when I was younger, and actually, if it ever came down to a breakdown of civilization, some of his stuff is still pretty useful.  Plus Farnham's Freehold is still a good read for that element.

yes he wrote Starship Troopers, a book many consider to be an endorsement of fascism,

I've still never quite gotten that.  Yes, Fascism is Authoritatinism, but I wouldn't say the reverse is true, and I'd say that yes, Starship Troopers describes an Authoritarian society.

I recall a series I once picked up a used book store that started entertainingly enough, but then every single gorram book devolved into a paen to libertarianism so extreme even Ron Paul would say "Whoa there big fella, ease back on the stick a bit yeah?".

I'm wondering.  I started getting that impression about most of John Ringo's stuff that I've read.  I still enjoy the hell out of them, and I'm doomed with the phrase "fiddly bits" from the Maple Syrup War books (can't remember the name), but while annoying at points, I still enjoy the hell out of them.
 
2013-07-09 11:30:25 AM  

Wendy's Chili: Is he still Islamophobic?


Given all the other groups he hates, Muslims can't possibly be excluded.

I'm debating buying a ticket for another film and sneaking in.  Either that, or I'll wait for it on torrent.
 
2013-07-09 11:30:34 AM  

Magorn: I was reading at a college sophmore level when I was in 4th grade according to the tests, and I read Enders (the original short story) right about then or a year or two later. And frankly my real take-away was "So this is what the author thinks being me is like (Yes I was a wildly arrogant shiat too)...way to miss it by a mile..."


No, this is what the author thinks being the author as a child was like.
 
2013-07-09 11:31:29 AM  

odinsposse: Ender's Game is written about and for smart kids. If you read it when you were an overachieving junior high student a lot of it resonates. All of the people I know who really like it were nerds who read it around that time in their life.


I went to a nerdy magnet program.  Ender's Game was the only book banned from our reading groups in English, because everyone wanted to do a book report on it.
 
2013-07-09 11:31:42 AM  

Three Crooked Squirrels: bdub77: but his books are also incredibly overrated.

The only one I've read is Ender's Game, and it is completely mundane.  It topped several Top X Sci-Fi books lists, so I read it and was completely underwhelmed.


It's been a while since I read the book (around 2002), but I recall disliking Ender's supposedly innovative tactics that no one else could possibly be ready for. They just seemed like cheap gimmicks to me, reminding me of cartoons from my youth, like this one episode of Duck Tales when Duckworth suggested the kids swing their baseball bats like golf clubs, and all of a sudden they were magically unstoppable.

Also there was a side plot involving Ender's siblings strongly influencing politics by arguing on something like the internet. I thought it was incredibly stupid. It was like no one had up until then thought of making political arguments on the internet until those clever kids came along. And wow did they change everything!

Disclaimer: Again it's been a while so I may have a fact or two wrong.
 
2013-07-09 11:31:47 AM  

Three Crooked Squirrels: bdub77: but his books are also incredibly overrated.

The only one I've read is Ender's Game, and it is completely mundane.  It topped several Top X Sci-Fi books lists, so I read it and was completely underwhelmed.


It's a children's book Card wrote as a prelude to the hard sci-fi novel  Speaker For the Dead,which is a much more challenging novel to love. People who don't read sci-fi regularly love  Ender's Game because it's accessible, but fans of the genre tend to wonder what all the fuss is about.

I think Card is a good, but not great, writer who has gotten lazier over time. For example, the Alvin Maker books started out great and then gradually declined as they got away from being American Frontier fantasy and more into a fantasy version of the mythology of Joseph Smith. (Blech). Likewise, you don't hear too many people raving about the Ender saga or the Bean saga because they're just OK -- interesting, but just a cut above L. Ron Hubbard in terms of their sci-fi credentials.

What I do like about Card's writing is the way he writes villains. He has a tendency to create villains who are similar to the hero in terms of power or capability, but who are sociopaths with no regard for using their abilities to harm others. Even though he's used this trick several times in his writing, it makes his stories a lot more fun to read.

But since Frank Herbert had a similar tendency, I've often wondered if Card cribbed it from him. Herbert's villains (such as Baron Vladimir Harkonnen in Dune and Morgan Oakes in The Jesus Incident) tend to be grotesque and sociopathic, but also are extremely clever and often serve as a counterpoint to the hero. I should also add that Herbert is ten times the science fiction writer Card is, and anyone who enjoys sci-fi should give the  Dune and  WorShip series a try.
 
2013-07-09 11:31:51 AM  

PizzaJedi81: meat0918: At least C.S. Lewis is readable and enjoyable.

Well...before The Last Battle, anyway.


Well, yeah.

That wasn't just heavy handed.  That was "fashion Revelations into a giant sledgehammer and beat you over the head with it".
 
2013-07-09 11:31:59 AM  
I think the queers are being butthurt.  It can't have anything to do with all the dicks up asses
 
2013-07-09 11:32:09 AM  

Honest Bender: The first three Ender's books were pretty good.


First two-and-a-half books.  Then Xenocide had to get all magical.
 
2013-07-09 11:32:39 AM  

PizzaJedi81: meat0918: At least C.S. Lewis is readable and enjoyable.

Well...before The Last Battle, anyway.


That one was worth it though, because C.S. Lewis is still the only author I know of who would end his series by killing off all of his main characters at once.
 
2013-07-09 11:32:56 AM  
When Card declares that the fight is over, resigns from the board of NOM, and keeps his politics to himself, he can ask for some tolerance.

Meanwhile, he's continuing to actively fight equality - it's not like he's advocating that NOM stop pushing for a federal marriage amendment, or fighting in states attempting to repeal marriage bans. The statements he's made - publicly and without reservation - about gay people are reprehensible.

And now a "You won this round, so you must therefore you must forever stop calling me a douche, but I will continue fighting equality as long as I can". Sure, Orson. I'll get right on that.

I didn't buy his Xbox game, I'm not going to see his movie.
 
2013-07-09 11:33:04 AM  

yukichigai: The difference is, he doesn't inject his bigotry or his raving assholism into his books for the most part. That's why I have no problem reading what he writes.


but if you buy the book, he takes your money and spends it on his political projects. If he just held the beliefs, that would be one thing, but he spends a lot of money lobbying for them- money he makes through selling his books.
 
2013-07-09 11:33:04 AM  
Well, Speaker for the Dead was kind of magical too, but I was able to suspend my disbelief with the pseudoscientific justifications.  Not so with conscious philotes.
 
2013-07-09 11:33:21 AM  

zomega: FuryOfFirestorm: "How dare you be intolerant of my intolerance! WAH!"

Here's a deal, Orson: you stop being a homophobic asshole, and then I'll go see your movie.

You can either continue to be a chairman for NOM and write horrible anti-gay crap like your remake of Hamlet*, or you can have gay people willingly give you money. You can't have both, Mr. Card.

*He actually had the balls to re-write one of the greatest works of literary fiction, and change it so that Hamlet's dad was a pedophile who made most of the male cast gay by molesting them (because that's how OSC thinks it works) and tries to trick Hamlet into killing his uncle so he goes to Hell and daddy dearest can molest his son for eternity. Billy S. is spinning in his grave so hard, he drilled a tunnel to the Earth's core.


Wait, wut? Where did this fresh hell of a novel come from?


It's called "Hamlet's Father. It was originally printed in a quarterly Anthology, then got a limited print run as a 104 page novella. Dude even had the nerve to claim that he "left [Shakespeare's version] in shreds all over the floor".
 
2013-07-09 11:33:42 AM  

meat0918: PizzaJedi81: meat0918: At least C.S. Lewis is readable and enjoyable.

Well...before The Last Battle, anyway.

Well, yeah.

That wasn't just heavy handed.  That was "fashion Revelations into a giant sledgehammer and beat you over the head with it".


I felt really dumb when I realized that The Last Battle was Revelations and then had to go back and find the Christianity in the previous books.  They were still a good read though, IMO.
 
2013-07-09 11:34:37 AM  

Three Crooked Squirrels: bdub77: but his books are also incredibly overrated.

The only one I've read is Ender's Game, and it is completely mundane.  It topped several Top X Sci-Fi books lists, so I read it and was completely underwhelmed.


I felt the same way about The Forever War, which had similar levels of praise. I'll admit I enjoyed The Forever War more than Ender's Game, though, for sure.
 
2013-07-09 11:35:04 AM  

The My Little Pony Killer: PizzaJedi81: meat0918: At least C.S. Lewis is readable and enjoyable.

Well...before The Last Battle, anyway.

That one was worth it though, because C.S. Lewis is still the only author I know of who would end his series by killing off all of his main characters at once.


Jim Butcher seems to be wanting to give it a go.
 
2013-07-09 11:35:35 AM  

Magorn: yukichigai: bdub77: This is mostly why I won't see Ender's Game and why I stopped reading his books after I found out what type of person he was. Even if he weren't a homophobe, Orson Scott Card is a raging asshole. That's not to say I haven't enjoyed plenty of books and movies written by raging assholes, but his books are also incredibly overrated. Meh.

The difference is, he doesn't inject his bigotry or his raving assholism into his books for the most part.  That's why I have no problem reading what he writes.

He may have distressing personal views, but at least he isn't trying to use his books as a medium to push those views.  Go look at someone like John Norman or L. Ron Hubbard.

Funny thing about John Norman..I met him once, and he was a tweedy, mousy little guy who was absolutely his wife's biatch, and was actually sort of horrified that people existed who used his books a blueprint for real-life relationships (yes they do exist....they're one step below furries on the "Who get to point an Laugh at Who" chart of geeky kinks)


I had to wikipedia who John Norman was.

And yes, Gor is below Furries, Anybody who does BDSM, and even nerds who write Dr. Who-Picard Slashfic. Even Furry Dr. Who Picard Slashfic.
 
2013-07-09 11:35:38 AM  

xalres: I'm the same way with Roman Polanski movies. I don't care how good they are or what actors are in them, I just can't bring myself to support any of his projects considering what a repulsive person he is.


I'll have to disagree on this one.  I loathe Roman Polanski as an individual, his "you're persecuting me because u jelly" after raping a child is such a deplorable response that I don't even know where to start, but Chinatown at the very least has to be considered part of the modern movie canon.  If you haven't seen it, see it, and ponder that perhaps it takes a really repulsive person to make a movie about the most wretched depths to which humans can sink.
 
2013-07-09 11:36:28 AM  

JakeStone: They were still a good read though, IMO.


Oh, totally. I'm not a BIG fan of Magician's Nephew and Horse and His Boy, but they're still good.

Know what I hate? When people read them starting with Magician's Nephew. Call me a pedant, but even though the world begins there, the STORY starts with Lion, The Witch and the Wardrobe.
 
2013-07-09 11:36:54 AM  
I don't give two shiats about the guys politics. I do however care that all the kids at battleschool look to be in the mid-teens, instead of younger than ten. That defeats the whole point. I'll be seeing it anyhow, just in case it works, somehow.
 
2013-07-09 11:37:44 AM  

INeedAName: vpb: Some Bass Playing Guy: I enjoyed Ender's Game.

But Card can EABOD.

He probably does on a regular basis.  Heterosexual men are not normally that obsessed with what gays do.

I'm very pro gay marriage. Wrote some letters, stood at a rally (I'm in DC so it's easy to get involved) but the whole 'if you don't like gay people you must secretly be gay' argument is ridiculous. Have their been cases of closeted homophobes, certainly. Are the majority of homophobes gay, not likely.

Move on with your argument to something more meaningful and relevant.


Is the homophobe obsessed with gays?  A guy that hates gays but doesn't give it a second thought unless he sees someone he perceives as gay, okay maybe not gay.  However a homophobe that's obsessed with it is a different story.
 
2013-07-09 11:37:48 AM  

Actor_au: Aside from the usual Hyper-Pro-America stuff (which can sometimes make reading some writers difficult or at least tedious)his politics never seem to drift into his stories that I have seen,


He started injecting some religion and politics into Shadow of the Hegemon.  I quit the series after that.
 
2013-07-09 11:38:00 AM  

The My Little Pony Killer: Strayha04: The My Little Pony Killer: Strayha04: But aren't you also forcibly screwing over a bunch of other people who don't share the same views and are just trying to make a good/decent/okay movie?

Well, those people chose to work with somebody who is this openly bigoted. They are not innocent little snowflakes in this scenario.

While I understand what you mean... it's not like everyone knows this. I had no idea who this douche was until these articles about boycotts started popping up. I doubt everyone who is involved with the movie was given background information regarding the original author and told to choose between what they believe in or a paycheck.... Though I probably would have taken the paycheck regardless.

Fighting to give them a paycheck is fighting to give OSC a paycheck, and I will not support his bigotry. No, not even to support those who were unfortunate to be "stuck" working with him.

/none of them could have hopped on wikipedia to get an idea of the project they were about to work on?
//none of them at all?


Seriously though, do you wikipedia everyone you come into contact with? Imagine how many people work on a movie... I'm assuming at a minimum, it's maybe a couple hundred people from producers to gaffers. So if one of those people does something you don't like - you just refuse to work there?
 
2013-07-09 11:39:39 AM  

Khellendros: Diogenes: I may see it. I'm trying to force my way through the book now. Not impressed thus far. If anything I get an icky feeling with his obsession over militarized little boys. But whatevs. I'll reserve judgement until I've finished it.

How old are you?  Because if you're older than about 18 or 20, the book is likely have very little impact on you. It's a great read when you're a teenager, but falls flat once you get close to, or reach, adulthood.

kronicfeld: "We disagreed" is an utterly disingenuous characterization of the "debate." He actively worked for decades to demonize homosexuals through his proselytizing and his National Organization for Marriage fought tirelessly to deny them equal rights. So, no, this isn't a situation where you "agree to disagree" and shake your opposition's hand after a good-faith debate. He wants to "move on" because paying any attention to his past now is going to reveal him to a much broader audience as a hateful bigot.

This.  The ongoing attitude of these backwards farksticks is amazing - "It's intolerant for you to call me out for being intolerant!  Let's just agree that you'll keep fighting for equal rights, while I keep fighting against it.  See, we're ethically equal, we just disagree!"


Kind of like people on Fark who call you racist for pointing out another farker's racism.
 
2013-07-09 11:40:30 AM  

The My Little Pony Killer: PizzaJedi81: meat0918: At least C.S. Lewis is readable and enjoyable.

Well...before The Last Battle, anyway.

That one was worth it though, because C.S. Lewis is still the only author I know of who would end his series by killing off all of his main characters at once.


I was not the smartest kid in the worst (a trend that continued into adulthood) but I just read it as another chapter in my favorite book series.  I actually enjoyed reading it again when I was older and picking up on the obvious biblical parallels.
 
2013-07-09 11:40:31 AM  

Ambitwistor: Actor_au: Aside from the usual Hyper-Pro-America stuff (which can sometimes make reading some writers difficult or at least tedious)his politics never seem to drift into his stories that I have seen,

He started injecting some religion and politics into Shadow of the Hegemon.  I quit the series after that.


He started way before then. I forget her name, but the crazy-ass chinese girl with OCD in the first series was pretty ham fisted. And the series has always been politic heavy.
 
2013-07-09 11:40:53 AM  

PizzaJedi81: JakeStone: They were still a good read though, IMO.

Oh, totally. I'm not a BIG fan of Magician's Nephew and Horse and His Boy, but they're still good.

Know what I hate? When people read them starting with Magician's Nephew. Call me a pedant, but even though the world begins there, the STORY starts with Lion, The Witch and the Wardrobe.


I would LOVE to see a Magician's Nephew movie with Tilda Swinton reprising her role as the White Witch.

A film where she gets to wreak havok in the real world? Hell yes!
 
2013-07-09 11:41:33 AM  

flaminio: Strayha04: If we hate one author for his views, does that mean we shouldn't read anything from anyone with opposing viewpoints? Even if those viewpoints are hateful and bigoted? If that's the case there's a whole boat load of writers I wouldn't be able to read anything from...

And not just writers. This is a debate I have with folk all the time -- can you separate the art from the artist? I'm a big fan of Mel Gibson movies, even though I acknowledge he's an anti-Semitic douchebag. Can one be a Republican and still enjoy the music of Crosby, Stills & Nash? One of the pre-eminent writers on numismatic history is a convicted child molester -- does that fact invalidate his other work?

I don't have any answers, but as far as the Ender's Game movie, I'll judge it on its artistic merits, and not the political views of the writer or some grip's assistant.


To me there is a significant difference between an actor and a writer, one is essentially a sock-puppet for another's words, so his personal views are less important.  Same with an author of technical manual or academic text in a non-subjective area like say Chemistry, as opposed to history or economics or psychology.   Now as to the CSN example,  I think it would be very strange to be a Republican and a Fan of say Bruce Springsteen or Pete Seeger,  less so of an equally liberal, but more apoltical singer like Johnny Cash (read the lyrics to Man in Black if you disacree with thtis characterization of Cash)
 
2013-07-09 11:41:45 AM  

KellyX: Mike Chewbacca: KellyX: Meh, he didn't shove his anti-gay stuff in the book that I recall, did he?

No, he just openly and self-righteously fought against gay people in real life, which is much, much worse. I'm really torn on this because the actors are great. But I don't think I can bring myself to reward OSC.

And he and his lost the battle more or less, he even admits this will eventually become the law of the land... Least he isn't still trying to deny reality, and even if he was, who cares, they lost... move on.


In 2008, OSC wrote an essay calling for a revolution "at any means necessary" if gay marriage was legalized. Where's your "revolutionary" army now, Orson? Looks like he's just another loudmouthed homophobe that's all bark and no bite.
 
2013-07-09 11:42:44 AM  

PizzaJedi81: JakeStone: They were still a good read though, IMO.

Oh, totally. I'm not a BIG fan of Magician's Nephew and Horse and His Boy, but they're still good.

Know what I hate? When people read them starting with Magician's Nephew. Call me a pedant, but even though the world begins there, the STORY starts with Lion, The Witch and the Wardrobe.


I actually liked Magician's Nephew in retrospect since it beings in the Professor or whoever the old man was that had the wardrobe as having a Narnia connection.  Otherwise it's a little too Aslan ex machina, as it were.  I agree with you though about starting with that one though.  It makes for good flashback material and an explanation for the mysterious Snow Queen from Lion.

Horse and His Boy can suck rocks.
 
2013-07-09 11:43:12 AM  

The My Little Pony Killer: PizzaJedi81: JakeStone: They were still a good read though, IMO.

Oh, totally. I'm not a BIG fan of Magician's Nephew and Horse and His Boy, but they're still good.

Know what I hate? When people read them starting with Magician's Nephew. Call me a pedant, but even though the world begins there, the STORY starts with Lion, The Witch and the Wardrobe.

I would LOVE to see a Magician's Nephew movie with Tilda Swinton reprising her role as the White Witch.

A film where she gets to wreak havok in the real world? Hell yes!


Magician's Nephew and a Horse and His Boy are, I think, my two favorite from the series. And yes, the White Witch wreaking havoc in the real world(horse-drawn taxi and all) would be all kinds of awesome. There's no way in fark HAHB would ever get made, not without serious rewrites and race-casting changes,
 
2013-07-09 11:43:36 AM  

Strayha04: The My Little Pony Killer: Strayha04: The My Little Pony Killer: Strayha04: But aren't you also forcibly screwing over a bunch of other people who don't share the same views and are just trying to make a good/decent/okay movie?

Well, those people chose to work with somebody who is this openly bigoted. They are not innocent little snowflakes in this scenario.

While I understand what you mean... it's not like everyone knows this. I had no idea who this douche was until these articles about boycotts started popping up. I doubt everyone who is involved with the movie was given background information regarding the original author and told to choose between what they believe in or a paycheck.... Though I probably would have taken the paycheck regardless.

Fighting to give them a paycheck is fighting to give OSC a paycheck, and I will not support his bigotry. No, not even to support those who were unfortunate to be "stuck" working with him.

/none of them could have hopped on wikipedia to get an idea of the project they were about to work on?
//none of them at all?

Seriously though, do you wikipedia everyone you come into contact with? Imagine how many people work on a movie... I'm assuming at a minimum, it's maybe a couple hundred people from producers to gaffers. So if one of those people does something you don't like - you just refuse to work there?


The fact of the matter is that giving money to the folks who work with OSC is the same as giving money to OSC, since money will be going to OSC anyway. I choose not to support OSC. The people who work with OSC are in the middle of this, and that sucks for them, but you can't sit there and pretend that all this NOM/OSC stuff has been entirely and completely unknown to anybody for the past few years, including during production on the film.

No, I don't feel bad that they won't be getting as paid for this as they would have had they worked with somebody with even a shred of decency.
 
2013-07-09 11:44:26 AM  

kronicfeld: "We disagreed" is an utterly disingenuous characterization of the "debate." He actively worked for decades to demonize homosexuals through his proselytizing and his National Organization for Marriage fought tirelessly to deny them equal rights. So, no, this isn't a situation where you "agree to disagree" and shake your opposition's hand after a good-faith debate. He wants to "move on" because paying any attention to his past now is going to reveal him to a much broader audience as a hateful bigot.


Yes, and it went far beyond just opposing marriage equality.  He advocated for sodomy laws to "send a clear message that those who flagrantly violate society's regulation of sexual behavior cannot be permitted to remain as acceptable, equal citizens within that society."  To my knowledge, while he has (sort of) walked back his position on criminalizing sodomy, he has never disavowed the broader point that gays should not be "equal citizens."
 
2013-07-09 11:44:53 AM  

Gunny Highway: The My Little Pony Killer: PizzaJedi81: meat0918: At least C.S. Lewis is readable and enjoyable.

Well...before The Last Battle, anyway.

That one was worth it though, because C.S. Lewis is still the only author I know of who would end his series by killing off all of his main characters at once.

I was not the smartest kid in the worst (a trend that continued into adulthood) but I just read it as another chapter in my favorite book series.  I actually enjoyed reading it again when I was older and picking up on the obvious biblical parallels.


I never read the series as a child. School librarians were too heavy-handed in trying to get us to read that one specifically, even going so far as to deck out the library as Narnia for an entire school year.
 
2013-07-09 11:45:05 AM  
Expecting others to hold themselves to a higher moral standard than you hold yourself, is to admit that your own morality is inherently flawed.
 
2013-07-09 11:45:51 AM  
The My Little Pony Killer:

I would LOVE to see a Magician's Nephew movie with Tilda Swinton reprising her role as the White Witch.

Holy...  I've never seen any of the Narnia movies, but just did GIS on her in the role and she's perfect!  Yeah, I'd go see that flick.

Also, my bad earlier for referencing her role as Snow Queen.  It's been a few years since I've reread the books.
 
2013-07-09 11:46:04 AM  

robohobo: The My Little Pony Killer: PizzaJedi81: JakeStone: They were still a good read though, IMO.

Oh, totally. I'm not a BIG fan of Magician's Nephew and Horse and His Boy, but they're still good.

Know what I hate? When people read them starting with Magician's Nephew. Call me a pedant, but even though the world begins there, the STORY starts with Lion, The Witch and the Wardrobe.

I would LOVE to see a Magician's Nephew movie with Tilda Swinton reprising her role as the White Witch.

A film where she gets to wreak havok in the real world? Hell yes!

Magician's Nephew and a Horse and His Boy are, I think, my two favorite from the series. And yes, the White Witch wreaking havoc in the real world(horse-drawn taxi and all) would be all kinds of awesome. There's no way in fark HAHB would ever get made, not without serious rewrites and race-casting changes,


The sun will appear dark in my eyes until I see Tilda Swinton ripping an iron bar off of a lamppost in London.
 
2013-07-09 11:46:15 AM  

Wade_Wilson: Expecting others to hold themselves to a higher moral standard than you hold yourself, is to admit that your own morality is inherently flawed.


I'm not asking him to hold himself to a higher standard, I'm asking him to have morals in the first place. HUUUUUUUGE difference.

/and no, 'muh bigotry' is NOT a moral
 
2013-07-09 11:46:51 AM  

JakeStone: The My Little Pony Killer:

I would LOVE to see a Magician's Nephew movie with Tilda Swinton reprising her role as the White Witch.

Holy...  I've never seen any of the Narnia movies, but just did GIS on her in the role and she's perfect!  Yeah, I'd go see that flick.

Also, my bad earlier for referencing her role as Snow Queen.  It's been a few years since I've reread the books.


They're worth it for her and her alone.
 
2013-07-09 11:47:04 AM  

dj_spanmaster: With the recent Supreme Court ruling, the gay marriage negro slavery issue becomes moot. The Full Faith and Credit clause of the Constitution 13th Amendment will, sooner or later, give legal force in every state to any marriage contract recognized by any other state make free every black man, woman, and child.

Now it will be interesting to see whether the victorious proponents opponents of gay marriage negro slavery will show tolerance toward those who disagreed with them when the issue was still in dispute.

There. That's better. While not at all equal in injustice, the comparison is still valid.

So no, Mr. Card. No tolerance for slavers - I mean, opponents of gay marriage. We the People are still attempting to ensure that all people are treated equally in the eyes of the law. Odd how 150 years changes things - R's used to be proponents of that equality!


Because holding someone as property is the same as not allowing Adam and Steve to get married?  That's where the gay rights people lose me.  That's not an apples to oranges comparison, it's freaking apples to squash.
 
2013-07-09 11:47:50 AM  

robohobo: Magician's Nephew and a Horse and His Boy are, I think, my two favorite from the series.


It's funny. HAHB is either someone's favorite, or their least favorite. I am in the latter category.
 
2013-07-09 11:47:51 AM  
Now it will be interesting to see whether the victorious proponents of gay marriage will show tolerance toward those who disagreed with them when the issue was still in dispute.

This really cracks me up... Not putting up with bigots isn't "intolerant", it's 'not putting up with the intolerant', there's a difference. Now, if Card had just said that he was personally against it for his own reasons, and left it at that, I would see his point here. Instead, he had to come across as Super-Prick, and now can't figure out why people aren't excited when he pokes his head out of the prairie dog hole.
 
2013-07-09 11:47:58 AM  

Kinek: I had to wikipedia who John Norman was.

And yes, Gor is below Furries, Anybody who does BDSM, and even nerds who write Dr. Who-Picard Slashfic. Even Furry Dr. Who Picard Slashfic.


I hang out with some BDSM-inclined folks and they're open-minded about human sexuality, to say the least.  I mean, they are  really open-minded.

But I have yet to have a conversation about Gor that didn't involve complete and utter disdain for anyone Gorean.  Mixed with a bit of pity and the general assumption that Goreans are 'tards.
 
2013-07-09 11:48:24 AM  
I saw this the other day, seems relevant:

amultiverse.com
 
2013-07-09 11:49:36 AM  

The My Little Pony Killer: The fact of the matter is that giving money to the folks who work with OSC is the same as giving money to OSC, since money will be going to OSC anyway. I choose not to support OSC. The people who work with OSC are in the middle of this, and that sucks for them, but you can't sit there and pretend that all this NOM/OSC stuff has been entirely and completely unknown to anybody for the past few years, including during production on the film.

No, I don't feel bad that they won't be getting as paid for this as they would have had they worked with somebody with even a shred of decency.


I should point out that most people who work on a movie don't get a cut of the gross. They get paid because the studio or producer fronts the money to make the film which is what pays the crew working on it. So if Ender's Game bombs the crew doesn't lose money.
 
2013-07-09 11:49:58 AM  

The My Little Pony Killer: I never read the series as a child. School librarians were too heavy-handed in trying to get us to read that one specifically, even going so far as to deck out the library as Narnia for an entire school year.


Ha!  I am a librarian (not in a school).  I will make sure not to let me personal fandom get out of hand.  I would hate to come across as pushy to a kid.

JakeStone: Horse and His Boy can suck rocks.


Blasphemy!
 
2013-07-09 11:50:10 AM  

PizzaJedi81: The My Little Pony Killer: PizzaJedi81: meat0918: At least C.S. Lewis is readable and enjoyable.

Well...before The Last Battle, anyway.

That one was worth it though, because C.S. Lewis is still the only author I know of who would end his series by killing off all of his main characters at once.

Jim Butcher seems to be wanting to give it a go.


You had to remind me. I'm twitching waiting for the next book. I didn't think they'd be as good as Carey's Felix Castor series, but they're better once you get past the werewolves in book 2.
 
2013-07-09 11:50:37 AM  

robohobo: I don't give two shiats about the guys politics. I do however care that all the kids at battleschool look to be in the mid-teens, instead of younger than ten. That defeats the whole point. I'll be seeing it anyhow, just in case it works, somehow.


You have to be lenient on that point.  Kids under ten tend to be lousy actors and because of child labor laws, there would be no way to complete the film before everyone was a teen anyway.  Game of Thrones had to age up all the kids and then hire actors a few years older anyway and still they struggle to get in 10 episodes per year.
 
2013-07-09 11:50:58 AM  

Some Bass Playing Guy: I enjoyed Ender's Game.

But Card can EABOD.


^^THIS^^
 
2013-07-09 11:51:37 AM  

angva: Also there was a side plot involving Ender's siblings strongly influencing politics by arguing on something like the internet. I thought it was incredibly stupid. It was like no one had up until then thought of making political arguments on the internet until those clever kids came along. And wow did they change everything!


Considering the book was written in 1985 that is somewhat revolutionary.
 
2013-07-09 11:51:37 AM  

CheetahOlivetti: PizzaJedi81: The My Little Pony Killer: PizzaJedi81: meat0918: At least C.S. Lewis is readable and enjoyable.

Well...before The Last Battle, anyway.

That one was worth it though, because C.S. Lewis is still the only author I know of who would end his series by killing off all of his main characters at once.

Jim Butcher seems to be wanting to give it a go.

You had to remind me. I'm twitching waiting for the next book. I didn't think they'd be as good as Carey's Felix Castor series, but they're better once you get past the werewolves in book 2.


But Billy and the Werewolves makes such a good band name!

Any word on a release date for Skin Game yet?
 
2013-07-09 11:52:26 AM  

The My Little Pony Killer: Strayha04: The My Little Pony Killer: Strayha04: The My Little Pony Killer: Strayha04: But aren't you also forcibly screwing over a bunch of other people who don't share the same views and are just trying to make a good/decent/okay movie?

Well, those people chose to work with somebody who is this openly bigoted. They are not innocent little snowflakes in this scenario.

While I understand what you mean... it's not like everyone knows this. I had no idea who this douche was until these articles about boycotts started popping up. I doubt everyone who is involved with the movie was given background information regarding the original author and told to choose between what they believe in or a paycheck.... Though I probably would have taken the paycheck regardless.

Fighting to give them a paycheck is fighting to give OSC a paycheck, and I will not support his bigotry. No, not even to support those who were unfortunate to be "stuck" working with him.

/none of them could have hopped on wikipedia to get an idea of the project they were about to work on?
//none of them at all?

Seriously though, do you wikipedia everyone you come into contact with? Imagine how many people work on a movie... I'm assuming at a minimum, it's maybe a couple hundred people from producers to gaffers. So if one of those people does something you don't like - you just refuse to work there?

The fact of the matter is that giving money to the folks who work with OSC is the same as giving money to OSC, since money will be going to OSC anyway. I choose not to support OSC. The people who work with OSC are in the middle of this, and that sucks for them, but you can't sit there and pretend that all this NOM/OSC stuff has been entirely and completely unknown to anybody for the past few years, including during production on the film.

No, I don't feel bad that they won't be getting as paid for this as they would have had they worked with somebody with even a shred of decency.


Unfortunately, this comes down to us both yelling at a brick wall. I understand and respect what you're trying to get at. As I said though, I have gone through almost 30 years without knowing about this guy or any of the crap he cares about. If I'd have read the book and loved it, only to find out the guy was a complete bigot, I don't genuinely think that would change my opinion about the original material.

There have been plenty of authors/actors/artists who have had highly questionable pasts. If we shunned everyone for being a douche bag...

/Again, never read the book, but the trailer looks mildly entertaining
 
2013-07-09 11:52:32 AM  

PizzaJedi81: robohobo: Magician's Nephew and a Horse and His Boy are, I think, my two favorite from the series.

It's funny. HAHB is either someone's favorite, or their least favorite. I am in the latter category.


It's one of the 'least' Narnia of the Nania books, I think. Very little magic, very few talking animals. It isn't the most inventive. Boy who dreams of power(who's actually a prince) shuttling a biatchy princess across the desert(will they or won't they, will they or won't they, OF COURSE they will) along with their two talking steeds. Something there just works for me, I dunno. Especially they bit where Bree goes all badass towards the end.

There's also the whole Calormen angle that people seem to have a problem with. Product of it's times.
 
2013-07-09 11:52:45 AM  

Cthulhu_is_my_homeboy: I don't particularly care whether he's a disgusting bigot--that's his business, not mine.

But I'll never forgive him for penning a sequel to Ender's Game. That was a standalone story if there ever was one.


Yeah, the sequels weren't very fresh.... I read them, but they were nowhere near as exciting as the original. I would have been happy with a single story.
 
2013-07-09 11:53:08 AM  

master of unlocking: Egoy3k:
Lots of classical authors were racist homophobic dicks as a product of the times they lived in, their works are still considered great works.  OSC's crappy (or good) books are crappy (or good) without any knowledge of his bigotry.

Yea, but they're all dead, and not actively trying to oppress people.


This is a good point.  I can completely understand boycotting but it still seems to me that we should let 'art' (I really didn't care for that book) stand on it's own.

Then again I don't like the idea of my money going to some douche who will probably donate it to NOM.

Magorn: I think it would be very strange to be a Republican and a Fan of say Bruce Springsteen or Pete Seeger, less so of an equally liberal, but more apoltical singer like Johnny Cash (read the lyrics to Man in Black if you disacree with thtis characterization of Cash)


I saw Springsteen in concert last August, he wasn't particularly political then.  Of course it was a Canadian Venue so he probably assumed we didn't care, and he never stopped performing for longer than 10 seconds anyway.   For his age the guy is one hell of a performer.
 
2013-07-09 11:54:40 AM  

Mikey1969: Cthulhu_is_my_homeboy: I don't particularly care whether he's a disgusting bigot--that's his business, not mine.

But I'll never forgive him for penning a sequel to Ender's Game. That was a standalone story if there ever was one.

Yeah, the sequels weren't very fresh.... I read them, but they were nowhere near as exciting as the original. I would have been happy with a single story.


I thought Speaker of the Dead was a great mystery and expanded Ender's Universe beyond where my imagination had taken it after finishing Ender's Game.
 
2013-07-09 11:55:09 AM  

HST's Dead Carcass: Here's the way I read it:

"Hey, guys. I'm about to make a metric farkton of money on this movie, but I know how Mob Rules go. If this 'OSC is a homophobe thing, so we should boycott his movie' thing gains traction, I'm farked. So, here, let me just say: The bad guys won. Ok? You got what you wanted, now you have to be the bigger man and quick picking on the losers, i.e. Me.

I mean, had we won, we wouldn't be chicken strutting around the country touting the victory in God's name, or taking to the interwebs to do our Church Lady Victory Dance in every forum, so why don't you do the same and go see my movie while not being sore winners. I promise to not call you names or attack you in God's name while the movie is in the theater, alright? Do we have a deal? You spend money on my movie and once it's done it's run in the theaters, I'll go back to calling you hedonistic heathens that spit in the face of God with your unnatural sex acts.

I'm glad we can be civilized about this."


So this is "Shut up and give me my money" from the other side.

Never read "Ender's Game". Never wanted to read it, controversy or not.
 
2013-07-09 11:56:40 AM  

The My Little Pony Killer: Wade_Wilson: Expecting others to hold themselves to a higher moral standard than you hold yourself, is to admit that your own morality is inherently flawed.

I'm not asking him to hold himself to a higher standard, I'm asking him to have morals in the first place. HUUUUUUUGE difference.

/and no, 'muh bigotry' is NOT a moral


Not my point.

HE expects others to be more tolerant than he is. The man is an asshat.
 
2013-07-09 11:57:09 AM  
I don't understand what exactly Card and people in this thread want us to do. Is Ender's Game entitled to our money? Do we not have the right to speak with our wallets for whatever reason we wish? What makes Card so special that refusing him money - that he was never entitled to in the first place - is an affront to his sense of decency. I'm seriously drawing a blank here. Do we as consumers have no right to determine where we spend our money?
 
2013-07-09 11:57:17 AM  

Persnickety: robohobo: I don't give two shiats about the guys politics. I do however care that all the kids at battleschool look to be in the mid-teens, instead of younger than ten. That defeats the whole point. I'll be seeing it anyhow, just in case it works, somehow.

You have to be lenient on that point.  Kids under ten tend to be lousy actors and because of child labor laws, there would be no way to complete the film before everyone was a teen anyway.  Game of Thrones had to age up all the kids and then hire actors a few years older anyway and still they struggle to get in 10 episodes per year.


Oh, I know. It's kinda why I was hoping for a Pixar-esque feature as opposed to live action. I'm dying to see a good battleroom sequence, and I've always had a bit of a crush on Val(first read the book when I was like 11 or something). I'm going to try to be open when I see it. It just takes away a bit of the awesome of sending genius children to war. Teenagers have fought in wars forever. Not so many 12 year olds commanding a galactic fleet.
 
2013-07-09 11:58:43 AM  
Ender's Game is set more than a century in the future and has nothing to do with political issues that did not exist when the book was written in 1984.

They existed Orson, you just willfully ignored it.

With the recent Supreme Court ruling, the gay marriage issue becomes moot.  The Full Faith and Credit clause of the Constitution will, sooner or later, give legal force in every state to any marriage contract recognized by any other state.

It is not moot. There's still discrimination. You don't get to decide when it's over, especially when you lost.

Now it will be interesting to see whether the victorious proponents of gay marriage will show tolerance toward those who disagreed with them when the issue was still in dispute.

Guess what, people don't have to tolerate your intolerance. You're a dickhead and a bigot, ignoring you would be a kind response, one you don't really deserve.

Verdict: He's reached Mel Gibson levels of non-apology on this one. "I'm sorry you're so gay. I'm sorry you have mental problems."
 
2013-07-09 12:00:58 PM  

bdub77: but his books are also incredibly overrated.


Ender's Game was great, entertaining, unique, and had a nice twist. I also scored a random copy of something of his called Folk of the Fringe that I enjoyed. Beyond that, I only read the Ender sequels, and they weren't THAT good, but Ender shouldn't have had sequels anyway, as was previously mentioned, so it's no real surprise that he didn't get those to work as well.
 
2013-07-09 12:02:14 PM  

JakeStone: meat0918: PizzaJedi81: meat0918: At least C.S. Lewis is readable and enjoyable.

Well...before The Last Battle, anyway.

Well, yeah.

That wasn't just heavy handed.  That was "fashion Revelations into a giant sledgehammer and beat you over the head with it".

I felt really dumb when I realized that The Last Battle was Revelations and then had to go back and find the Christianity in the previous books.  They were still a good read though, IMO.


Tolkien, the devout Catholic who actually converted Lewis from Atheism to Christianity, was famously displeased with what he felt was sloppy storytelling over obvious allegory in the Narnia books.   I have to say that as a young kid, 10-12 or thereabouts, I actually enjoyed them.   I was aware of how Christian they were fromt he get-go (largely because the first play I was ever in as a kid was an adaptation of the Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe put on by a local church) but I read an enjoyed them anyway , in part because they were F&SF my parents actively encouraged me to read, as opposed to the rest of it which they were vaguely suspicous of.  His Sci-fi is much more difficult sledding, but overall better writing, but still basically Christian allegory, albeit much more theologically advanced than the Narnia series which in his opinion were YA novels.

My parents at the time also gifted me several books by Steven Lawhead, who now is mostly known for his pretty decent Arthurian Myth-cycle retelling, was originally a writer of explicitly Christian Fantasy and SF-and for the Genre actually pretty damned readable.
 
2013-07-09 12:03:43 PM  

PizzaJedi81: CheetahOlivetti: PizzaJedi81: The My Little Pony Killer: PizzaJedi81: meat0918: At least C.S. Lewis is readable and enjoyable.

Well...before The Last Battle, anyway.

That one was worth it though, because C.S. Lewis is still the only author I know of who would end his series by killing off all of his main characters at once.

Jim Butcher seems to be wanting to give it a go.

You had to remind me. I'm twitching waiting for the next book. I didn't think they'd be as good as Carey's Felix Castor series, but they're better once you get past the werewolves in book 2.

But Billy and the Werewolves makes such a good band name!

Any word on a release date for Skin Game yet?


Not yet. The Kindle version is on Amazon, but not available for pre-order yet.
 
2013-07-09 12:04:51 PM  
Bender's Game was awesome.
 
2013-07-09 12:04:58 PM  
Why is it 100% moral, perfect, and humane to boycott a product because someone involved in it has conservative views (Ender's Game) but stupid and intolerant to boycott a product because someone involved in it has liberal views (Dixie Chicks records)?

Let me guess, it's just another example of dogmatic hypocrisy.
 
2013-07-09 12:05:53 PM  

Kinek: Magorn: yukichigai: bdub77: This is mostly why I won't see Ender's Game and why I stopped reading his books after I found out what type of person he was. Even if he weren't a homophobe, Orson Scott Card is a raging asshole. That's not to say I haven't enjoyed plenty of books and movies written by raging assholes, but his books are also incredibly overrated. Meh.

The difference is, he doesn't inject his bigotry or his raving assholism into his books for the most part.  That's why I have no problem reading what he writes.

He may have distressing personal views, but at least he isn't trying to use his books as a medium to push those views.  Go look at someone like John Norman or L. Ron Hubbard.

Funny thing about John Norman..I met him once, and he was a tweedy, mousy little guy who was absolutely his wife's biatch, and was actually sort of horrified that people existed who used his books a blueprint for real-life relationships (yes they do exist....they're one step below furries on the "Who get to point an Laugh at Who" chart of geeky kinks)

I had to wikipedia who John Norman was.

And yes, Gor is below Furries, Anybody who does BDSM, and even nerds who write Dr. Who-Picard Slashfic. Even Furry Dr. Who Picard Slashfic.


I'd never heard of Gor either.  After a little Googling...

images1.wikia.nocookie.net
Why yes, this is certainly relevant to my interests....

Then Googling further....

images.encyclopediadramatica.se

Nope...  I'm thinking the reality doesn't quite measure up to the fantasy there.
 
2013-07-09 12:06:42 PM  

Strayha04: Seriously though, do you wikipedia everyone you come into contact with?


If I'll be manning an IT desk at a 200-person company I've never heard of, probably not (though I did wiki several companies I was interviewing with). If I'll be working on a major motion-picture with them (or based on their work) I might.

More out of curiosity than anything else, but if I got word that (for example) the principal designer of my prospective company's flagship product was a raging racist/anti-Semite, I might decline to work there or start looking for new work.

Look, I like some of Rush's early Rand-inspired songs (though that was only the lyrics - the music itself wasn't inspired by selfishness so far as we know), and Wagner wrote some pretty good music as well. Separate the art from the artist, sure, but recognize that an artist's views may make them...difficult to work with, or that working with them may result in the propulsion of themes and images which may be counter to your own beliefs.
 
2013-07-09 12:06:44 PM  

CheetahOlivetti: Not yet. The Kindle version is on Amazon, but not available for pre-order yet.


Out of curiositym what did you think of Changes, Ghost Story and Cold Days, plot-wise?
 
2013-07-09 12:06:57 PM  
Saying you can appreciate the work and can somehow separate the art from the creator is akin to appreciating a lamp made out of human skin.

"It's a nice lamp, very uh, radiant..uh...oh god."

You can't. Art is reflective of the individual, the two are forever emotionally linked. Hitler's paintings take on extra meaning when you learn about his other activities.

So, no. I feel like I've bitten into a chocolate that had the illusion of awesome, and was filled with pus.
 
2013-07-09 12:08:48 PM  

Three Crooked Squirrels: bdub77: but his books are also incredibly overrated.

The only one I've read is Ender's Game, and it is completely mundane.  It topped several Top X Sci-Fi books lists, so I read it and was completely underwhelmed.


I think I read it too, too late -- but I agree 100%.  It's really not terribly good.  Maybe it's better if you read it as a young kid.  If you're older, it's just a bunch of young boys having conversations and fights standing naked in showers (weird enough) and then some clever battle maneuvers.  Not a big deal when it's not being skeevy.  Didn't live up to its reputation.
 
2013-07-09 12:09:20 PM  
Anyone bring up the twin conspiracy theories about the Ender series yet?  To wit - first that Ender's Game may have been an attempt at Hitler apologia, based on several loose parallels between Ender and Adolf, and second that the first Ender books were ghost written, leading to the large shifts in tone and release delays in later novels.

I don't buy the theories entirely, but they're hugely entertaining.
 
2013-07-09 12:09:21 PM  

Silly_Sot: Why is it 100% moral, perfect, and humane to boycott a product because someone involved in it has conservative views (Ender's Game) but stupid and intolerant to boycott a product because someone involved in it has liberal views (Dixie Chicks records)?

Let me guess, it's just another example of dogmatic hypocrisy.


^This.

I'm not a fan of most boycotting these days because it seems to be fruitless. If you boycott Chick-fil-a because they're anti-gay, than that part of America that thinks being gay is icky is just going to boycott you right back and their sales are going to sky rocket.
 
2013-07-09 12:09:21 PM  
bdub77:
This is mostly why I won't see Ender's Game and why I stopped reading his books after I found out what type of person he was. Even if he weren't a homophobe, Orson Scott Card is a raging asshole.

I want to be like this, but I can't help listening to Wagner once in a while, and let me tell you, that guy was a real asshole.

eg., from recent rock music alone:

John Lennon?  Asshole.
Dylan?  Asshole.
Jello Biafra?  Kind of an asshole.
Metallica?  Assholes.
Phil Spector?  He killed someone.  Super asshole!

So if you avoid the assholes, you end up with a couple of Cyndi Lauper CD's, some Henry Winkler shows (the ones that somehow didn't also star assholes), and the complete works of Sir Terry Pratchett on your shelf.  Not too shabby but it'll get boring eventually.
 
2013-07-09 12:09:29 PM  

BizarreMan: dj_spanmaster: With the recent Supreme Court ruling, the gay marriage negro slavery issue becomes moot. The Full Faith and Credit clause of the Constitution 13th Amendment will, sooner or later, give legal force in every state to any marriage contract recognized by any other state make free every black man, woman, and child.

Now it will be interesting to see whether the victorious proponents opponents of gay marriage negro slavery will show tolerance toward those who disagreed with them when the issue was still in dispute.

There. That's better. While not at all equal in injustice, the comparison is still valid.

So no, Mr. Card. No tolerance for slavers - I mean, opponents of gay marriage. We the People are still attempting to ensure that all people are treated equally in the eyes of the law. Odd how 150 years changes things - R's used to be proponents of that equality!

Because holding someone as property is the same as not allowing Adam and Steve to get married?  That's where the gay rights people lose me.  That's not an apples to oranges comparison, it's freaking apples to squash.


As I'd said, the injustice of the two are not equal. One legally denies a person (slave) the ability to do really anything of their choosing; the other legally denies a person (homosexual) the ability to do one thing of their choosing. Here's the catch: merely understanding that statement means you recognize that they are both legal injustices.

Some people are okay with legal injustices - legislators make billions off of documented, legal corruption; the rich pay proportionally lower taxes than the lower class; competent children are frequently forced to obey their parents' will, even if what they desire is not best for them. If this is one you support, we can simply agree to disagree. I am not in support of any legal injustice.
 
2013-07-09 12:10:12 PM  

Scorpitron is reduced to a thin red paste: Three Crooked Squirrels: bdub77: but his books are also incredibly overrated.

The only one I've read is Ender's Game, and it is completely mundane.  It topped several Top X Sci-Fi books lists, so I read it and was completely underwhelmed.

I think I read it too, too late -- but I agree 100%.  It's really not terribly good.  Maybe it's better if you read it as a young kid.  If you're older, it's just a bunch of young boys having conversations and fights standing naked in showers (weird enough) and then some clever battle maneuvers.  Not a big deal when it's not being skeevy.  Didn't live up to its reputation.


Arent you almost always naked in the shower?
 
2013-07-09 12:10:14 PM  

Znuh: So, no. I feel like I've bitten into a chocolate that had the illusion of awesome, and was filled with pus.


I'm stealing that.
 
2013-07-09 12:10:40 PM  

KellyX: Now if you really want to fark with the anti-gay people, they should turn The Forever War into a movie =)


Eh, that could piss off people on both sides.  Seems to me that one of the assumptions is that sexuality is a choice and dependent on social reinforcement.
 
2013-07-09 12:11:52 PM  
Well in the old testament god wanted certain groups of people put to death. This is one of the many reasons that Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed. He apparently later changed his mind and said love everyone. People all over the world have no problem with this.

People better stop thanking god cause he was said some offensive things and done horrible things to gays in his past.
 
2013-07-09 12:12:13 PM  

Strayha04: Silly_Sot: Why is it 100% moral, perfect, and humane to boycott a product because someone involved in it has conservative views (Ender's Game) but stupid and intolerant to boycott a product because someone involved in it has liberal views (Dixie Chicks records)?

Let me guess, it's just another example of dogmatic hypocrisy.

^This.

I'm not a fan of most boycotting these days because it seems to be fruitless. If you boycott Chick-fil-a because they're anti-gay, than that part of America that thinks being gay is icky is just going to boycott you right back and their sales are going to sky rocket.


...What do you think the word boycott means?

No, other than what OSC call his bed.
 
2013-07-09 12:13:36 PM  

Magorn: His Sci-fi is much more difficult sledding, but overall better writing, but still basically Christian allegory, albeit much more theologically advanced than the Narnia series which in his opinion were YA novels.


Ugg.  I slogged through Out of the Silent Planet about 15 years ago, and I honestly can't remember a thing about it.  I do recall that I gave up somewhere in the 2nd book and fortunately discovered Michael Flynn, so there was a plus to that little fiasco.

In theory, I'm a little more mature now, so maybe I'll give it another go.
 
2013-07-09 12:13:37 PM  

Wade_Wilson: Strayha04: Silly_Sot: Why is it 100% moral, perfect, and humane to boycott a product because someone involved in it has conservative views (Ender's Game) but stupid and intolerant to boycott a product because someone involved in it has liberal views (Dixie Chicks records)?

Let me guess, it's just another example of dogmatic hypocrisy.

^This.

I'm not a fan of most boycotting these days because it seems to be fruitless. If you boycott Chick-fil-a because they're anti-gay, than that part of America that thinks being gay is icky is just going to boycott you right back and their sales are going to sky rocket.

...What do you think the word boycott means?

No, other than what OSC call his bed.


/You win this thread.
 
2013-07-09 12:14:35 PM  

hinten: "Now it will be interesting to see whether the victorious proponents of gay marriage will show tolerance toward those who disagreed with them when the issue was still in dispute."

What exactly kind of a tolerance is he looking for here? That statement/threat doesn't even make any sense.


'I can be a hateful asshole all I want, but I DEMAND you take the high road.'
 
2013-07-09 12:16:05 PM  
Wade_Wilson:

...What do you think the word boycott means?

No, other than what OSC call his bed.


Keyboard. New.  Owed.
 
2013-07-09 12:17:11 PM  

Wade_Wilson: Strayha04: Silly_Sot: Why is it 100% moral, perfect, and humane to boycott a product because someone involved in it has conservative views (Ender's Game) but stupid and intolerant to boycott a product because someone involved in it has liberal views (Dixie Chicks records)?

Let me guess, it's just another example of dogmatic hypocrisy.

^This.

I'm not a fan of most boycotting these days because it seems to be fruitless. If you boycott Chick-fil-a because they're anti-gay, than that part of America that thinks being gay is icky is just going to boycott you right back and their sales are going to sky rocket.

...What do you think the word boycott means?

No, other than what OSC call his bed.


I think what he's saying is shouting 'boycott' is a waste of time. If you want to boycott, fine, do it. You needn't shout it to the sky. Cause one you do, there'll be throngs of people partaking of what you're boycotting, both people who oppose your views, and those who would partake just to be contrarian cause boycotters are loudmouts..Also boycotts are largely worthless and really only serve to make those doing the boycotting feel superior in some fashion.
 
2013-07-09 12:17:46 PM  
Now it will be interesting to see whether the victorious proponents of gay marriage will show tolerance toward those who disagreed with them when the issue was still in dispute.

Okay, from this I gather that at this point the depth to which he's thought of what "tolerance" actually means in practice is to define it as "going to see the movie".

He can say and believe what he likes.  And I can ignore the movie and not put money in his pocket.
 
2013-07-09 12:18:24 PM  

Arkanaut: KellyX: Now if you really want to fark with the anti-gay people, they should turn The Forever War into a movie =)

Eh, that could piss off people on both sides.  Seems to me that one of the assumptions is that sexuality is a choice and dependent on social reinforcement.


I haven't read that particular book, but there is evidence that there are elements of sexuality that are a choice.  Most people aren't 100% straight or 100% gay, but somewhere in the spectrum between the absolutes.  The choice doesn't come into play as 'I think I'm going to be straight, or, I think I'd like to be gay' but rather from choosing to acknowledge and act on the same-sex desires that most people have to one degree or another.

It wasn't uncommon for men in ancient Grecian and Roman armies to take part in homosexual relationships with each other, and then go back home to their wives after the war.  Plenty of men who would identify as straight voluntarily take part in homosexual relations in prison (though there are certainly some whose involvement is involuntary).

When in a society that accepts it or in a situation where there are no other options people seem to be more willing to indulge in sexual activity that would on the surface seem to go against their dominant sexual identity.
 
2013-07-09 12:19:28 PM  
http://www.fark.com/comments/7833425/85254192#c85254192" target=_blank data-cke-saved-href="http://www.fark.com/comments/7833425/85254192#c8 5254192">robohobo: The My Little Pony Killer: PizzaJedi81: JakeStone: They were still a good read though, IMO.

Oh, totally. I'm not a BIG fan of Magician's Nephew and Horse and His Boy, but they're still good.

Know what I hate? When people read them starting with Magician's Nephew. Call me a pedant, but even though the world begins there, the STORY starts with Lion, The Witch and the Wardrobe.

I would LOVE to see a Magician's Nephew movie with Tilda Swinton reprising her role as the White Witch.

A film where she gets to wreak havok in the real world? Hell yes!

Magician's Nephew and a Horse and His Boy are, I think, my two favorite from the series. And yes, the White Witch wreaking havoc in the real world(horse-drawn taxi and all) would be all kinds of awesome. There's no way in fark HAHB would ever get made, not without serious rewrites and race-casting changes,


Mine too.  As I've gotten older, The Silver Chair has risen in my estimation as well.

And yeah, HAHB would be impossible to cast and film right now without riots.  But Tilda Swinton beating the shiat out of turn of the century Bobbies?  Hellz yeah.  It's just a shame that Bob Hoskins is probably too old now to play the Cabbie.
http://www.fark.com/comments/7833425/85254192#c85254192" target=_blank data-cke-saved-href="http://www.fark.com/comments/7833425/85254192#c8 5254192">robohobo: The My Little Pony Killer: PizzaJedi81: JakeStone: They were still a good read though, IMO.

Oh, totally. I'm not a BIG fan of Magician's Nephew and Horse and His Boy, but they're still good.

Know what I hate? When people read them starting with Magician's Nephew. Call me a pedant, but even though the world begins there, the STORY starts with Lion, The Witch and the Wardrobe.

I would LOVE to see a Magician's Nephew movie with Tilda Swinton reprising her role as the White Witch.

A film where she gets to wreak havok in the real world? Hell yes!

Magician's Nephew and a Horse and His Boy are, I think, my two favorite from the series. And yes, the White Witch wreaking havoc in the real world(horse-drawn taxi and all) would be all kinds of awesome. There's no way in fark HAHB would ever get made, not without serious rewrites and race-casting changes,


Mine too.  As I've gotten older, The Silver Chair has risen in my estimation as well.

And yeah, HAHB would be impossible to cast and film right now without riots.  But Tilda Swinton beating the shiat out of turn of the century Bobbies?  Hellz yeah.  It's just a shame that Bob Hoskins is probably too old now to play the Cabbie.  Maybe that british guy from Dead Like Me as Uncle Andrew?  He'd be sooo good at pathetic slimy.
 
2013-07-09 12:19:39 PM  
Ah, yes, the age-old question of whether people who preach tolerance must tolerate intolerance. The answer, IMO, is no. If we tolerated intolerance, intolerance would win and would quickly extinguish tolerance. His views on gay people absolutely fit the extreme picture of intolerance. He called gays delusional and deviant, and he said he would "act to destroy" any government that tried to recognize marriages involving same-sex couples. These actions and verbal outbursts must be decried.
 
2013-07-09 12:21:16 PM  
Card's PR folks need to tell him that he can't win this fight.  For one thing, the "boycott" won't make even a tiny dent in whatever the final box-office figures are for this film; for another, you can't argue against a boycott without CHANGING something.  If he's not going to change his views and actions (which have been virulently aggressively against gay people, not just gay marriage, up until now) then he should just ignore it.  You can't tell people who you are harming that it's not a problem.
 
2013-07-09 12:22:11 PM  

Three Crooked Squirrels: bdub77: but his books are also incredibly overrated.

The only one I've read is Ender's Game, and it is completely mundane.  It topped several Top X Sci-Fi books lists, so I read it and was completely underwhelmed.


I had the same experience. And this was before his despicability came to light. *shrug*
 
2013-07-09 12:22:36 PM  

Gunny Highway: Scorpitron is reduced to a thin red paste: Three Crooked Squirrels: bdub77: but his books are also incredibly overrated.

The only one I've read is Ender's Game, and it is completely mundane.  It topped several Top X Sci-Fi books lists, so I read it and was completely underwhelmed.

I think I read it too, too late -- but I agree 100%.  It's really not terribly good.  Maybe it's better if you read it as a young kid.  If you're older, it's just a bunch of young boys having conversations and fights standing naked in showers (weird enough) and then some clever battle maneuvers.  Not a big deal when it's not being skeevy.  Didn't live up to its reputation.

Arent you almost always naked in the shower?


I haven't checked on how little boys stand around, talk, or have wrasslin' fights in showers, but apparently Orson Scott Card checks ALL THE TIME.
 
2013-07-09 12:23:32 PM  

bdub77: This is mostly why I won't see Ender's Game and why I stopped reading his books after I found out what type of person he was. Even if he weren't a homophobe, Orson Scott Card is a raging asshole. That's not to say I haven't enjoyed plenty of books and movies written by raging assholes, but his books are also incredibly overrated. Meh.


Big big THIS.  I've read maybe half a dozen of his novels (way back, before I found out he was a raging bigot, and before I developed some taste in literature).  Every single one, I find myself finishing and thinking, "wow, that was a new and really fascinating premise, but I just wish the actual storytelling had been written by some more capable author."

Books need to have cover versions like songs do.
 
2013-07-09 12:23:34 PM  

you have pee hands: TuteTibiImperes: It's been a while since I've read Ender's Game, but doesn't the book contain multiple scenes involving naked boys wrestling around with each other and whatnot?

This is broadening it a bit but why do sci fi writers all seem to love putting terrible sex scenes in their books?  Can't at least one of them get an editor that decides that the graphic descriptions of sex between future hermaphrodites or future 14 year olds or aliens or whatever doesn't really tell us anything important about the characters or advance the narrative and give those scenes the axe?


Yeah, because sex doesn't sell at all.................
 
2013-07-09 12:24:13 PM  

TuteTibiImperes: Arkanaut: KellyX: Now if you really want to fark with the anti-gay people, they should turn The Forever War into a movie =)

Eh, that could piss off people on both sides.  Seems to me that one of the assumptions is that sexuality is a choice and dependent on social reinforcement.

I haven't read that particular book, but there is evidence that there are elements of sexuality that are a choice.  Most people aren't 100% straight or 100% gay, but somewhere in the spectrum between the absolutes.  The choice doesn't come into play as 'I think I'm going to be straight, or, I think I'd like to be gay' but rather from choosing to acknowledge and act on the same-sex desires that most people have to one degree or another.

It wasn't uncommon for men in ancient Grecian and Roman armies to take part in homosexual relationships with each other, and then go back home to their wives after the war.  Plenty of men who would identify as straight voluntarily take part in homosexual relations in prison (though there are certainly some whose involvement is involuntary).

When in a society that accepts it or in a situation where there are no other options people seem to be more willing to indulge in sexual activity that would on the surface seem to go against their dominant sexual identity.


Important to remeber that in greek and Roman societies Homosexuality was very frowned upon and usually very illegal.   However, farking another man was NOT considered homosexual behavoir so long as the person you were farking wasn't of equal station and rank as you, and you weren't the bottom in such an equal pairing, (OK if the man was higher rank/older/ your mentor, etc) AND even that was at least tolerated if you also gave your wife/the Republic a couple kids first
 
2013-07-09 12:24:18 PM  

CarnySaur:  Orson Scott Card, after all, still wrote a version of Hamlet in which the eponymous character's father was a gay, as a way of explaining why he was a terrible king (Card also made Hamlet's father into a child molester).

Sounds like he's from the "gay = child molester" school of thought (Hi Dad!)


I had no idea such a thing even existed, until two weeks ago when I stuck in a car with a contractor that tried to bring up that very argument.  It took all I had not to straight up call him an ignorant bigot.

/would have made the rest of the trip very uncomfortable
//my boss probably wouldn't have been pleased either.
 
2013-07-09 12:25:17 PM  

rwhamann: http://www.fark.com/comments/7833425/85254192#c85254192" target=_blank data-cke-saved-href="http://www.fark.com/comments/7833425/85254192#c8 5254192">robohobo: The My Little Pony Killer: PizzaJedi81: JakeStone: They were still a good read though, IMO.

Oh, totally. I'm not a BIG fan of Magician's Nephew and Horse and His Boy, but they're still good.

Know what I hate? When people read them starting with Magician's Nephew. Call me a pedant, but even though the world begins there, the STORY starts with Lion, The Witch and the Wardrobe.

I would LOVE to see a Magician's Nephew movie with Tilda Swinton reprising her role as the White Witch.

A film where she gets to wreak havok in the real world? Hell yes!

Magician's Nephew and a Horse and His Boy are, I think, my two favorite from the series. And yes, the White Witch wreaking havoc in the real world(horse-drawn taxi and all) would be all kinds of awesome. There's no way in fark HAHB would ever get made, not without serious rewrites and race-casting changes,

Mine too.  As I've gotten older, The Silver Chair has risen in my estimation as well.

And yeah, HAHB would be impossible to cast and film right now without riots.  But Tilda Swinton beating the shiat out of turn of the century Bobbies?  Hellz yeah.  It's just a shame that Bob Hoskins is probably too old now to play the Cabbie.
http://www.fark.com/comments/7833425/85254192#c85254192" target=_blank data-cke-saved-href="http://www.fark.com/comments/7833425/85254192#c8 5254192">robohobo: The My Little Pony Killer: PizzaJedi81: JakeStone: They were still a good read though, IMO.

Oh, totally. I'm not a BIG fan of Magician's Nephew and Horse and His Boy, but they're still good.

Know what I hate? When people read them starting with Magician's Nephew. Call me a pedant, but even though the world begins there, the STORY starts with Lion, The Witch and the Wardrobe.

I would LOVE to see a Magician's Nephew movie with Tilda Swinton reprising her role as the White Witc ...


Hoskins would be perfect. Too bad about the parkinsons, cause otherwise I don't think he's too old. I don't think I've ever pictured uncle Andrew as anything other than very cartoonish mad scientist, even amongst my brains otherwise live-action cast.

Puddleglum is one of my favorite characters. I annoy the ever-loving SHIAT out of my wife by doing what I imagine to be Puddleglum's voice, whenever we're discussing a less than ideal situation/meal/movie, etc.
 
2013-07-09 12:25:44 PM  

secularsage: He has a tendency to create villains who are similar to the hero in terms of power or capability, but who are sociopaths with no regard for using their abilities to harm others.


He writes what he knows.
 
2013-07-09 12:27:28 PM  
Most of my favorite artists, authors, actors, directors, musicians, brands, companies, etc. have personal politics I partially disagree with, but I'll consume their work. Alternately, there are some whose politics I do like, but I'm not a fan of their work.

Unless someone is materially supporting a cause I find especially egregious, I'm not going to boycott someone or something every time I hear something I don't like. I'd literally have to avoid everything I consume.
 
2013-07-09 12:27:34 PM  

PizzaJedi81: CheetahOlivetti: Not yet. The Kindle version is on Amazon, but not available for pre-order yet.

Out of curiositym what did you think of Changes, Ghost Story and Cold Days, plot-wise?


Changes messed me up. I didn't like Susan that much, but still. Ghost Story was good because it was interesting to see Harry deal with a lack of powers, and I like Morty. And Cold Days was very interesting in that it told a lot about how the Nevernever works (and I like Demonreach), but I'm getting sick of Molly. I'm also sick of Marcone, but I've been tired of him since he first showed up.
 
2013-07-09 12:28:27 PM  

kronicfeld: efforts to boycott "Ender's Game"

Some website called Geeks Out, which I'm reasonably sure I've never heard of, and which is apparently targeted exclusively at homosexual "geeks," posts about boycotting the movie, and Card feels the need to play victim and send a press release to Entertainment Weekly. Okay then.

BizarreMan: Seems to me that short version is "we disagreed, you guys won. let's move on."

"We disagreed" is an utterly disingenuous characterization of the "debate." He actively worked for decades to demonize homosexuals through his proselytizing and his National Organization for Marriage fought tirelessly to deny them equal rights. So, no, this isn't a situation where you "agree to disagree" and shake your opposition's hand after a good-faith debate. He wants to "move on" because paying any attention to his past now is going to reveal him to a much broader audience as a hateful bigot.


Every artist has some views that you're not going to support. Their commitment to supporting these views will vary, but they will undoubtedly exist.

Right now, I'm wondering how many Farkers are in love with the Foo Fighters, even though they had a link to an AIDS denial website on their website for quite a while.
 
2013-07-09 12:28:43 PM  

robohobo: Puddleglum is one of my favorite characters. I annoy the ever-loving SHIAT out of my wife by doing what I imagine to be Puddleglum's voice, whenever we're discussing a less than ideal situation/meal/movie, etc.


Oh dear. I always picture Puddleglum as the Jar Jar Binks of Narnia.
 
2013-07-09 12:28:58 PM  

robohobo: I think what he's saying is shouting 'boycott' is a waste of time. If you want to boycott, fine, do it. You needn't shout it to the sky. Cause one you do, there'll be throngs of people partaking of what you're boycotting, both people who oppose your views, and those who would partake just to be contrarian cause boycotters are loudmouts..Also boycotts are largely worthless and really only serve to make those doing the boycotting feel superior in some fashion.


Pretty much. There's always the dicks out there (I've been one a time or two) who are just going to say Fark you, I didn't care before but now I'm going to do it because it pisses you off.

Once someone says something loud enough and it gets publicized, it's going to piss people off. I generally think most people who want to boycott something should make the boycotting impromptu and without much spectacle, much like sit-ins in the 60's.
 
2013-07-09 12:29:03 PM  
"How long before married people answer the dictators thus: Regardless of law, marriage has only one definition, and any government that attempts to change it is my mortal enemy. I will act to destroy that government and bring it down, so it can be replaced with a government that will respect and support marriage, and help me raise my children in a society where they will expect to marry in their turn.
 Biological imperatives trump laws. American government cannot fight against marriage and hope to endure. If the Constitution is defined in such a way as to destroy the privileged position of marriage, it is that insane Constitution, not marriage, that will die."
 
2013-07-09 12:31:12 PM  

CheetahOlivetti: robohobo: Puddleglum is one of my favorite characters. I annoy the ever-loving SHIAT out of my wife by doing what I imagine to be Puddleglum's voice, whenever we're discussing a less than ideal situation/meal/movie, etc.

Oh dear. I always picture Puddleglum as the Jar Jar Binks of Narnia.


I favor his cynicism. Always thought it funny that he was the light-hearted, by the seat of his pants Marshwiggle.
 
2013-07-09 12:31:19 PM  

KellyX: Mike Chewbacca: KellyX: Meh, he didn't shove his anti-gay stuff in the book that I recall, did he?

No, he just openly and self-righteously fought against gay people in real life, which is much, much worse. I'm really torn on this because the actors are great. But I don't think I can bring myself to reward OSC.

And he and his lost the battle more or less, he even admits this will eventually become the law of the land... Least he isn't still trying to deny reality, and even if he was, who cares, they lost... move on.



He's still working to oppose civil rights for gays. So long as he continues to use his fame as a soapbox for his hate, I'll continue to boycott his works. His argument is literally, "yes, I'm a bigoted asshole who worked tirelessly to oppress other Americans and failed, but give me money anyway even though I still hate these people and will continue to oppress them to the best of my ability."
 
2013-07-09 12:31:23 PM  

Magorn: TuteTibiImperes: Arkanaut: KellyX: Now if you really want to fark with the anti-gay people, they should turn The Forever War into a movie =)

Eh, that could piss off people on both sides.  Seems to me that one of the assumptions is that sexuality is a choice and dependent on social reinforcement.

I haven't read that particular book, but there is evidence that there are elements of sexuality that are a choice.  Most people aren't 100% straight or 100% gay, but somewhere in the spectrum between the absolutes.  The choice doesn't come into play as 'I think I'm going to be straight, or, I think I'd like to be gay' but rather from choosing to acknowledge and act on the same-sex desires that most people have to one degree or another.

It wasn't uncommon for men in ancient Grecian and Roman armies to take part in homosexual relationships with each other, and then go back home to their wives after the war.  Plenty of men who would identify as straight voluntarily take part in homosexual relations in prison (though there are certainly some whose involvement is involuntary).

When in a society that accepts it or in a situation where there are no other options people seem to be more willing to indulge in sexual activity that would on the surface seem to go against their dominant sexual identity.

Important to remeber that in greek and Roman societies Homosexuality was very frowned upon and usually very illegal.   However, farking another man was NOT considered homosexual behavoir so long as the person you were farking wasn't of equal station and rank as you, and you weren't the bottom in such an equal pairing, (OK if the man was higher rank/older/ your mentor, etc) AND even that was at least tolerated if you also gave your wife/the Republic a couple kids first


Interesting.  There's also plenty of anecdotal evidence suggesting that women tend to experiment more with same sex liaisons while at college, again, where there's little social stigma against it.

While there are certain biological imperatives in who we find attractive, societal norms seem to be able to override them.  Look at the concept of the ideal woman or man and how it has changed over time as well - while attraction is in many ways a very personal thing, it's also influenced a great deal by the media, advertising, and societal expectations.  There would likely be quite a bit more sex going on, both heterosexual and homosexual, if certain traits, acts, or practices didn't have social stigmas associated with them.
 
2013-07-09 12:32:15 PM  
I've been alternating between the twitter feed for OSC and here, and it's been a good entertaining morning while I'm home sick.  Now I'm going to go take some more pain drugs and try to get some sleep.  Have fun, y'all.

OSC Twitter feed:  https://twitter.com/search/realtime?q=%40orsonscottcard&src=typd
 
2013-07-09 12:32:27 PM  
Does anyone know what kind of royalties he's getting from the movie?

More or less unrelated, but I tried re-reading Xenocide a few years ago.  Turns out that book suuuuuuuuuucks when you're not 14.  Ender's Game, The Speaker for the Dead, and Ender's Shadow are all good reads, though.  Also, if you don't think he's injected his personal beliefs into his books, you must have not read Xenocide and Children of the Mind.  Those get super religiousy, although I guess they're not directly related to Mormonism.

Also, am I crazy or was one of the characters in his Homecoming Saga gay and also one of the more positive characters?  IIRC, it was a man who hid his sexuality for fear of being murdered.
 
2013-07-09 12:33:45 PM  
That's not at ALL what the statement says, subliar.

All right. Card gets to have opinions. You get to either share them or not share them. If you boycott his work because of his opinions, you are exactly the same as those who would boycott a work because the author was gay. Exactly the same. No difference. Now farking forget about the manxe's political stance, enjoy his stories, and go on with your lives. And dudes, don't be a dick.
 
2013-07-09 12:35:05 PM  

Travos: "How long before married people answer the dictators thus: Regardless of law, marriage has only one definition, and any government that attempts to change it is my mortal enemy. I will act to destroy that government and bring it down, so it can be replaced with a government that will respect and support marriage, and help me raise my children in a society where they will expect to marry in their turn.
 Biological imperatives trump laws. American government cannot fight against marriage and hope to endure. If the Constitution is defined in such a way as to destroy the privileged position of marriage, it is that insane Constitution, not marriage, that will die."


That is what I've never understood.  How is allowing people to marry somehow damaging the institution of marriage?  You'd think it woudl be encouraging it!
 
2013-07-09 12:37:04 PM  

CheetahOlivetti: but I'm getting sick of Molly


I can see this, but given what happened in Cold Days, you're probably going to have to get used to her. Although, I can't wait for Michael to come back into the story because of it.

CheetahOlivetti: I'm also sick of Marcone, but I've been tired of him since he first showed up.


Really? Why's that? He's been one of my favorites since...shiat, I can't remember which book, but the one with the Shroud, where Harry follows him at the end.

/how's THAT for a spoiler free discussion?
 
2013-07-09 12:37:07 PM  

Serious Black: Ah, yes, the age-old question of whether people who preach tolerance must tolerate intolerance. The answer, IMO, is no. If we tolerated intolerance, intolerance would win and would quickly extinguish tolerance. His views on gay people absolutely fit the extreme picture of intolerance. He called gays delusional and deviant, and he said he would "act to destroy" any government that tried to recognize marriages involving same-sex couples. These actions and verbal outbursts must be decried.


Exactly.  Even when I was mired in fundie-ism and trying my best to be a good Christian and hate homosexuality (it didn't take), I never could wrap my head around the "why can't you be tolerant of my views" crowd.  They just completely missed the point that tolerant means you accept others, or at minimum disagree without hate, and the one thing that does work on is ... hate.


robohobo: Puddleglum is one of my favorite characters. I annoy the ever-loving SHIAT out of my wife by doing what I imagine to be Puddleglum's voice, whenever we're discussing a less than ideal situation/meal/movie, etc.


www.nndb.com
 
2013-07-09 12:37:09 PM  

Antimatter: Travos: "How long before married people answer the dictators thus: Regardless of law, marriage has only one definition, and any government that attempts to change it is my mortal enemy. I will act to destroy that government and bring it down, so it can be replaced with a government that will respect and support marriage, and help me raise my children in a society where they will expect to marry in their turn.
 Biological imperatives trump laws. American government cannot fight against marriage and hope to endure. If the Constitution is defined in such a way as to destroy the privileged position of marriage, it is that insane Constitution, not marriage, that will die."

That is what I've never understood.  How is allowing people to marry somehow damaging the institution of marriage?  You'd think it woudl be encouraging it!


I agree.  If they were really so protective about the institution of marriage you'd think they'd be fighting against divorce or working to reduce the rate of marriages that end that way.
 
2013-07-09 12:38:33 PM  
I'll just wait for the parody : Rear Ender's Game
 
2013-07-09 12:39:44 PM  

Bunny Deville: If you boycott his work because of his opinions, you are exactly the same as those who would boycott a work because the author was gay. Exactly the same. No difference.


Except that your boycott wouldn't be based on irrational fear and hatred?
 
2013-07-09 12:44:34 PM  

No Such Agency: Metallica? Assholes.


m.brobible.com

Concurs.
 
2013-07-09 12:44:39 PM  

Egoy3k: Bunny Deville: If you boycott his work because of his opinions, you are exactly the same as those who would boycott a work because the author was gay. Exactly the same. No difference.

Except that your boycott wouldn't be based on irrational fear and hatred?


Agreed, but they may argue the same stance.
 
2013-07-09 12:44:53 PM  

vpb: Some Bass Playing Guy: I enjoyed Ender's Game.

But Card can EABOD.

He probably does on a regular basis.  Heterosexual men are not normally that obsessed with what gays do.


People who aren't homophobes normally don't use suggestions that people are gay as a slur.
 
2013-07-09 12:44:53 PM  

Egoy3k: Bunny Deville: If you boycott his work because of his opinions, you are exactly the same as those who would boycott a work because the author was gay. Exactly the same. No difference.

Except that your boycott wouldn't be based on irrational fear and hatred?


I'm sure the boycotts have gone quite a ways in getting the man to change his opinions. I mean, look at him... he's going to be collecting royalties off of a movie staring Harrison Ford.

If the LGBT community and their allies want to change guys like Card, they're going to have to approach them as normal human beings. Not screaming at a protest, not taking communion at anti-gay churches in drag, not naming bodily fluids after them.
 
2013-07-09 12:45:24 PM  

Bashar and Asma's Infinite Playlist: These guys are always such assholes until it stands to cost then money. Then you're the intolerant one for not looking past their intolerance and giving them money.


There are two kinds of boycotts. There is the "march around carrying signs" boycott and there's the "simply refuse to use the boycotted service" boycott. Someone mentioned Chik-Fil-A earlier and I'm curious to know what their profit margin is like these days. People making additional purchases to show their solidarity can only last so long, while it is simple and easy to stop frequenting a business or simply never to start. I've never been in a Chik-Fil-A and, while I wouldn't skip a meal if there were nowhere else to eat, given the choice between Chik-Fil-A and almost anyplace else, I'll take anyplace else. Similarly, I'll never buy another Card novel again, or pay to see this movie (although I might watch it someday on TV, which is more than I'll say for any Mel Gibson movie). Card can hardly complain when conservatives are boycotting businesses that withdrew their advertising from the Limbaugh show, although I wonder how they're doing on the whole "boycott Microsoft" thing. In any case the market has spoken and pointing out to conservatives how hypocritical their attitudes are on this kind of issue is a notably useless activity.
 
2013-07-09 12:46:12 PM  

Bunny Deville: That's not at ALL what the statement says, subliar.

All right. Card gets to have opinions. You get to either share them or not share them. If you boycott his work because of his opinions, you are exactly the same as those who would boycott a work because the author was gay. Exactly the same. No difference. Now farking forget about the manxe's political stance, enjoy his stories, and go on with your lives. And dudes, don't be a dick.


Not exactly.  If a bunch of fundamentalists wanted to boycott an author because he was gay AND stated repeatedly in public that all heterosexual sex should be made illegal and prosecuted to the fullest extent to fhte law, AND that heterosexuals SHOULD be made to feel like second-class citizens because of society's moral disapproval of those actions, AND that author sate on the board of a well-funded poltical action committe that was devoted to making those views the law of the land?   Then you'd be in an equivalent situation, and not only would a boycott be justified, but I'd join them more than likely
 
2013-07-09 12:46:54 PM  

Marine1: Egoy3k: Bunny Deville: If you boycott his work because of his opinions, you are exactly the same as those who would boycott a work because the author was gay. Exactly the same. No difference.

Except that your boycott wouldn't be based on irrational fear and hatred?

I'm sure the boycotts have gone quite a ways in getting the man to change his opinions. I mean, look at him... he's going to be collecting royalties off of a movie staring Harrison Ford.

If the LGBT community and their allies want to change guys like Card, they're going to have to approach them as normal human beings. Not screaming at a protest, not taking communion at anti-gay churches in drag, not naming bodily fluids after them.


Or we could refuse to give him our money, and encourage others not to give him money ether.  Nothing wrong with that.
 
2013-07-09 12:46:57 PM  
If we start boycotting movies because of the political leanings of the actors writers directors etc.... no movie will ever make a profit because half of the people will be boycotting every single movie.

I love Enders game, Enders shadow, the prequels are pretty good so far as is the pathfinder series.

I will be there opening night at the very first showing.
 
2013-07-09 12:47:20 PM  

bukijin: So I have to first politically vet every author, filmmaker, actor, artist and entertainer before I know if I can enjoy their art ??


Seriously.  A lot of great artists were real douchebags.  It's a bummer finding that out, but I'm not going to pretend their work suddenly sucks as a result.
 
2013-07-09 12:47:28 PM  
Ha anyone mentioned all the great literature we'd have to throw out based on the author's racism/sexism/homophobia?
 
2013-07-09 12:48:23 PM  

bukijin: I loved the book when I was a kid. Didn't try and re-read it since then.

So I have to first politically vet every author, filmmaker, actor, artist and entertainer before I know if I can enjoy their art ??


That's what some here will have you believe.  Honestly, I have a "Is he a child rapist" rule.  If he's a child rapist, I won't see his work.  Anything less than that?  Honestly, if you excluded the work of every asshole, bigot, criminal, or person with whom you disagree politically, then you're going to have precious little music, books, TV, or movies.
 
2013-07-09 12:48:55 PM  

Antimatter: Marine1: Egoy3k: Bunny Deville: If you boycott his work because of his opinions, you are exactly the same as those who would boycott a work because the author was gay. Exactly the same. No difference.

Except that your boycott wouldn't be based on irrational fear and hatred?

I'm sure the boycotts have gone quite a ways in getting the man to change his opinions. I mean, look at him... he's going to be collecting royalties off of a movie staring Harrison Ford.

If the LGBT community and their allies want to change guys like Card, they're going to have to approach them as normal human beings. Not screaming at a protest, not taking communion at anti-gay churches in drag, not naming bodily fluids after them.

Or we could refuse to give him our money, and encourage others not to give him money ether.  Nothing wrong with that.


Then you're coming across as a threat to him.

Get the most milquetoast gay dude we can find to move in next door to him or something. If he can't see past the man's homosexuality, then fine. We let him die a bigot.
 
2013-07-09 12:52:05 PM  

Marine1: If the LGBT community and their allies want to change guys like Card, they're going to have to approach them as normal human beings. Not screaming at a protest, not taking communion at anti-gay churches in drag, not naming bodily fluids after them.


The culture is changing.  In 20 years Card will be as much of an anachronism as someone arguing for school segregation.  The LGBT community is appealing to youth and the middle and letting societal pressure do the rest.  They don't really need to change guys like Card, just make sure that the next generation has fewer of him.
 
2013-07-09 12:54:45 PM  

Marine1: Get the most milquetoast gay dude we can find to move in next door to him or something.


I love the whole "ignore the problem and hope it fixes itself" solution to civil rights issues.

A high percentage of the population in the South is black.  Clearly, races living together has completely eliminated racism for everyone in that part of the country.

God forbid we use the free hand of the market to support (or not) a person or business.

He'll die a bigot or he won't, but he'll do it without my $8.
 
2013-07-09 12:55:40 PM  

you have pee hands: Marine1: If the LGBT community and their allies want to change guys like Card, they're going to have to approach them as normal human beings. Not screaming at a protest, not taking communion at anti-gay churches in drag, not naming bodily fluids after them.

The culture is changing.  In 20 years Card will be as much of an anachronism as someone arguing for school segregation.  The LGBT community is appealing to youth and the middle and letting societal pressure do the rest.  They don't really need to change guys like Card, just make sure that the next generation has fewer of him.


I am one of those youths. 22 years old. I say it's worth getting him to open up his mind, but this isn't going to work.

I'd argue he's already an anachronism, actually...
 
2013-07-09 01:00:26 PM  

PizzaJedi81: CheetahOlivetti: but I'm getting sick of Molly

I can see this, but given what happened in Cold Days, you're probably going to have to get used to her. Although, I can't wait for Michael to come back into the story because of it.

CheetahOlivetti: I'm also sick of Marcone, but I've been tired of him since he first showed up.

Really? Why's that? He's been one of my favorites since...shiat, I can't remember which book, but the one with the Shroud, where Harry follows him at the end.

/how's THAT for a spoiler free discussion?


I guess it's because he's so, uh, mortal. :) His only real power is mob management skills. But once Butcher reveals his back story, he is a bit more interesting. I suppose Murphy has the same limitations, but there is something about her living in her grandma's house that makes her appealing, plus I picture her looking like me (although I'm not nearly the badass that she is).
 
2013-07-09 01:00:44 PM  

clambam: Bashar and Asma's Infinite Playlist: These guys are always such assholes until it stands to cost then money. Then you're the intolerant one for not looking past their intolerance and giving them money.

There are two kinds of boycotts. There is the "march around carrying signs" boycott and there's the "simply refuse to use the boycotted service" boycott. Someone mentioned Chik-Fil-A earlier and I'm curious to know what their profit margin is like these days. People making additional purchases to show their solidarity can only last so long, while it is simple and easy to stop frequenting a business or simply never to start. I've never been in a Chik-Fil-A and, while I wouldn't skip a meal if there were nowhere else to eat, given the choice between Chik-Fil-A and almost anyplace else, I'll take anyplace else. Similarly, I'll never buy another Card novel again, or pay to see this movie (although I might watch it someday on TV, which is more than I'll say for any Mel Gibson movie). Card can hardly complain when conservatives are boycotting businesses that withdrew their advertising from the Limbaugh show, although I wonder how they're doing on the whole "boycott Microsoft" thing. In any case the market has spoken and pointing out to conservatives how hypocritical their attitudes are on this kind of issue is a notably useless activity.


news.bbcimg.co.uk

This is Alan Turing. He is widely known as one of the fathers of the reprogrammable computer. He broke the Enigma cipher that allowed the Allies to hack into the Nazis' communcations and helped win World War II. He was chemically castrated because he was gay, and he later committed suicide, likely because of extreme intimidation. If you want to boycott anything even remotely pro-gay, you must sever yourself from modern society and join a neo-Nazi group. Period.
 
2013-07-09 01:00:58 PM  

enderthexenocide: Cthulhu_is_my_homeboy: I don't particularly care whether he's a disgusting bigot--that's his business, not mine.
But I'll never forgive him for penning a sequel to Ender's Game. That was a standalone story if there ever was one.

i'll agree that ender's game did not need a sequel, but speaker for the dead is twice as good as ender's game, so i'm glad he wrote it.  speaker is one of the best sci-fi books i've ever read.

Gunny Highway:  I liked Speaker of the Dead more than Ender's Game.

and here i was wondering if i was the only one.


Speaker is easily his best book, and is easily among of my favorites and the best books I've read.  Ender is a great YA book, but not a great novel
 
2013-07-09 01:01:35 PM  
I'm sure someone has said something similar already, but to me this is like saying I shouldn't boycott a store owner who's in the KKK because he lost the civil rights battle.

I'd fight for you right to believe your crazy bigoted belief, just as I will fight you if you try to impose those beliefs on others, but at any rate I am certainly not interested in giving you my business.

For the record, I loved Ender's Game (the other books, not so much) but even so I can't open the book any more since I found out about OSC personal beliefs.  It makes me feel ... dirty.  I am conflicted about seeing the movie.
 
2013-07-09 01:02:52 PM  

Marine1: Antimatter: Marine1: Egoy3k: Bunny Deville: If you boycott his work because of his opinions, you are exactly the same as those who would boycott a work because the author was gay. Exactly the same. No difference.

Except that your boycott wouldn't be based on irrational fear and hatred?

I'm sure the boycotts have gone quite a ways in getting the man to change his opinions. I mean, look at him... he's going to be collecting royalties off of a movie staring Harrison Ford.

If the LGBT community and their allies want to change guys like Card, they're going to have to approach them as normal human beings. Not screaming at a protest, not taking communion at anti-gay churches in drag, not naming bodily fluids after them.

Or we could refuse to give him our money, and encourage others not to give him money ether.  Nothing wrong with that.

Then you're coming across as a threat to him.

Get the most milquetoast gay dude we can find to move in next door to him or something. If he can't see past the man's homosexuality, then fine. We let him die a bigot.


You can't believe how little a shiat I give that he thinks a boycott against him is threatening.  We are under no responsibility to give the man money, and we are free to encourage others not to give him money.

Ignoring the problem will not make it go away.  Hitting him the wallet, however, will hurt him, and that could change things in the end.
 
2013-07-09 01:04:50 PM  
You mean the juvenile masturbatory power-trip fascism that is so much (but not all!) of science fiction is written by juvenile  masturbating, power-tripping fascists?

I am stunned.
 
2013-07-09 01:06:16 PM  

RagnarDanesk: If we start boycotting movies because of the political leanings of the actors writers directors etc.... no movie will ever make a profit because half of the people will be boycotting every single movie.


HA HA!  Movies don't make money.  They won't until the pirates and streamers are put out of business.  Then they'll make mountains of money.

Just ask the MPAA.
 
2013-07-09 01:06:18 PM  

CheetahOlivetti: His only real power is mob management skills.


Well...that and managing to wrangle the only non-supernatural entity to sign the Unseelie Accords. And managing to survive various supernatural attacks in and arund Chicago.

/what color would you like your Farkie?
 
2013-07-09 01:07:42 PM  

Serious Black: clambam: Bashar and Asma's Infinite Playlist: These guys are always such assholes until it stands to cost then money. Then you're the intolerant one for not looking past their intolerance and giving them money.

There are two kinds of boycotts. There is the "march around carrying signs" boycott and there's the "simply refuse to use the boycotted service" boycott. Someone mentioned Chik-Fil-A earlier and I'm curious to know what their profit margin is like these days. People making additional purchases to show their solidarity can only last so long, while it is simple and easy to stop frequenting a business or simply never to start. I've never been in a Chik-Fil-A and, while I wouldn't skip a meal if there were nowhere else to eat, given the choice between Chik-Fil-A and almost anyplace else, I'll take anyplace else. Similarly, I'll never buy another Card novel again, or pay to see this movie (although I might watch it someday on TV, which is more than I'll say for any Mel Gibson movie). Card can hardly complain when conservatives are boycotting businesses that withdrew their advertising from the Limbaugh show, although I wonder how they're doing on the whole "boycott Microsoft" thing. In any case the market has spoken and pointing out to conservatives how hypocritical their attitudes are on this kind of issue is a notably useless activity.

[news.bbcimg.co.uk image 304x270]

This is Alan Turing. He is widely known as one of the fathers of the reprogrammable computer. He broke the Enigma cipher that allowed the Allies to hack into the Nazis' communcations and helped win World War II. He was chemically castrated because he was gay, and he later committed suicide, likely because of extreme intimidation. If you want to boycott anything even remotely pro-gay, you must sever yourself from modern society and join a neo-Nazi group. Period.


Wow.  I have some reading to do.
 
2013-07-09 01:08:15 PM  
Everytime Orson Scott Card opens his homophobic mouth, all I can think is: "Dude, you wrote a book called 'Songmaster'.  You need to STFU."
 
2013-07-09 01:11:37 PM  
I didn't know anything about him beyond his shiatty books until now. At first I was thinking we should give him a pass because he's an old man, but he's only 61. Still, the quote from the Mormon Times article suggests severe dementia of some sort: "Marriage has only one definition, and any government that attempts to change it is my mortal enemy. I will act to destroy that government and bring it down."


I've always hated his writing, so I wasn't planning to see the movie anyway.
 
2013-07-09 01:11:52 PM  
I don't care if Orson Scott Card is a complete asshole douchebag, which by many accounts, he actually is. I don't particularly care how stringently and vigorously he has advocated against homosexuality and gay marriage.

He is entitled to be opposed to a rampant societal embracing of homosexuality. As a Mormon, that's what he believes, and frankly that is what every major religion believes. He is entitled to take whatever political stance he chooses.

And he is certainly also entitled to be criticized for opinions he broadcasts into the public arena, and we are all entitled to voice our opinions.

But I really dislike this notion that "failure to embrace homosexuality" makes you a bigot, or a homophobe, or a bad person. OSC may, in fact, be a bad person, but outside of a zealous attack on homosexuality, I haven't heard much, and prior to that, I believe he was well regarded and generally well liked.

Whether it is Chik-Fil-A, Hobby Lobby, or Ender's Game, I think we are going down the wrong path with all of this "They don't think the way we think, so they are bad people and must be punished!" mindset. Boycotts are fine and all, but not when they are predicated on a personal attack against someone's deeply held convictions or political views.

It's a free country. You aren't required to "think the right way" about anything, much less homosexuality. We may not agree, but our fellow Americans are perfectly entitled to disapprove of homosexuality. It's a valid position, whether we agree or not, and it doesn't automatically mean that they are hate-mongers just because they don't see things our way.

And we should stop trying to shut down dissenting opinions.
 
2013-07-09 01:11:58 PM  
OSC is a classic example of a successful creative who peaked early.

Happens to a bunch of them.  Other examples include George Lucas, Frank Miller, M. Night Shyamalan, and more.  They have a brief but intense period where they turn out pure gold but then slowly but surely lose whatever mojo they had and they spend the rest of their lives in a futile attempt to recapture it.

Not all of them turn crazy.  For example Lucas, while from most counts is still a little loopy, still was very constructive and went on to foster a lot of great technical innovations through his companies after his peak

But a lot of them do go a little nutty.  They get delusional and even megalomaniacal, refusing to believe their golden creative time is over.

Card is that all over.  Starting from about the 1990, you can see a very serious and steady decline in the quality of his novels and stories.  You read his current stuff, and you have a hard time believing this was the same guy who wrote Ender's Game.  It also tends to make them lash out and seek scapegoats, emotional and otherwise, to blame their loss on.  With OSC this was apparently the gay community.  Its sad in many ways.
 
2013-07-09 01:12:46 PM  

Marine1: I'd argue he's already an anachronism a social atavism, actually...


This, unfortunately. It's going to take some time for such atavisms to die out - it's been well over a century since slavery was abolished in the United States, but we've still fools waving Confederate flags, burning crosses, and hanging up nooses on election day. He's just another fool.
 
2013-07-09 01:16:33 PM  

PizzaJedi81: CheetahOlivetti: His only real power is mob management skills.

Well...that and managing to wrangle the only non-supernatural entity to sign the Unseelie Accords. And managing to survive various supernatural attacks in and arund Chicago.

/what color would you like your Farkie?


Jim Butcher is a close friend of  a relative of mine.  thus, I may be able to find out where he lives.  If he ever goes Full George Martin and kills off certain characters, I may consider exercising that ability just so I can punch him in the nose.
 
2013-07-09 01:16:38 PM  

PizzaJedi81: CheetahOlivetti: His only real power is mob management skills.

Well...that and managing to wrangle the only non-supernatural entity to sign the Unseelie Accords. And managing to survive various supernatural attacks in and arund Chicago.

/what color would you like your Farkie?


OK, you have a good point. :)  I'm partial to orange as long as it doesn't flag me as a nutter.
 
2013-07-09 01:17:21 PM  

Serious Black: This is Alan Turing. He is widely known as one of the fathers of the reprogrammable computer. He broke the Enigma cipher that allowed the Allies to hack into the Nazis' communcations and helped win World War II. He was chemically castrated because he was gay, and he later committed suicide, likely because of extreme intimidation. If you want to boycott anything even remotely pro-gay, you must sever yourself from modern society and join a neo-Nazi group. Period.


encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com
 
2013-07-09 01:20:01 PM  

Magorn: off certain characters,


Considering who he's already killed, I can't think of who you could actually mean.
 
2013-07-09 01:22:40 PM  

CheetahOlivetti: I'm partial to orange as long as it doesn't flag me as a nutter.


Oh, you absolutely are. But let me let you in on a secret. The best people are.
 
2013-07-09 01:25:14 PM  
Pretty sure he's already gotten paid for the Ender movie, so I don't much think he cares. At best, you'll prevent him from being paid for the rights to another one.

/assuming he hasn't already sold those, too
 
2013-07-09 01:28:21 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: It's a free country. You aren't required to "think the right way" about anything, much less homosexuality. We may not agree, but our fellow Americans are perfectly entitled to disapprove of homosexuality. It's a valid position, whether we agree or not, and it doesn't automatically mean that they are hate-mongers just because they don't see things our way.


You also aren't required to follow through with this boycott.  If it doesn't meet your standards of what an appropriate response to OSC's actions should be then by all means see or don't see his movie as you would have done before being told of this boycott.  Nobody is forcing you to miss seeing the movie or go see the movie.

If the company that is paying to make the movie decides that it's too much of a risk to have a movie based on the writing of a man that has managed to piss off a large and vocal enough segment of the population then so be it. It's their money to spend as they like. I'm aware the movie is made already so there is no way it's getting cancelled but still it was always in the hands of the producers.
 
2013-07-09 01:28:28 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: Whether it is Chik-Fil-A, Hobby Lobby, or Ender's Game, I think we are going down the wrong path with all of this "They don't think the way we think, so they are bad people and must be punished!" mindset. Boycotts are fine and all, but not when they are predicated on a personal attack against someone's deeply held convictions or political views.


Nobody boycotted CFA for what the owner said, we boycotted CFA because they used corporate profits (to the tune of $5 million over several years) to fund ant-gay organizations, and they actively lobbied against gay rights. In fact, despite saying they've stopped donating to anti-gay groups, they still are.

Nobody is boycotting Hobby Lobby because they're Christian, they're boycotting HL because HL is trying to force other people to abide by the owner's religious beliefs.

Nobody is boycotting OSC because he's a bigot, we're boycotting him because he uses his fame and money as a bullhorn to oppress gays. He serves on the board for the National Organization for Marriage, an anti-gay group created specifically to pass Prop 8 in California. Please note: Orson Scott Card lives in North Carolina, not California. He's able to do all this because he earns enough money as a writer that he has a lot of free time.
 
2013-07-09 01:29:31 PM  

Dhusk: OSC is a classic example of a successful creative who peaked early.

Happens to a bunch of them.  Other examples include George Lucas, Frank Miller, M. Night Shyamalan, and more.  They have a brief but intense period where they turn out pure gold but then slowly but surely lose whatever mojo they had and they spend the rest of their lives in a futile attempt to recapture it.

Not all of them turn crazy.  For example Lucas, while from most counts is still a little loopy, still was very constructive and went on to foster a lot of great technical innovations through his companies after his peak

But a lot of them do go a little nutty.  They get delusional and even megalomaniacal, refusing to believe their golden creative time is over.

Card is that all over.  Starting from about the 1990, you can see a very serious and steady decline in the quality of his novels and stories.  You read his current stuff, and you have a hard time believing this was the same guy who wrote Ender's Game.  It also tends to make them lash out and seek scapegoats, emotional and otherwise, to blame their loss on.  With OSC this was apparently the gay community.  Its sad in many ways.


It's a condition brillaintly decsribed by the They Might be Giants song "There's only two songs in me (and I just wrote the third)"
 
2013-07-09 01:29:40 PM  

ArcadianRefugee: At best, you'll prevent him from being paid for the rights to another one.


Residuals and royalties from using characters he'd originally created.
 
2013-07-09 01:30:19 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: I don't care if Orson Scott Card is a complete asshole douchebag, which by many accounts, he actually is. I don't particularly care how stringently and vigorously he has advocated against homosexuality and gay marriage.

He is entitled to be opposed to a rampant societal embracing of homosexuality. As a Mormon, that's what he believes, and frankly that is what every major religion believes. He is entitled to take whatever political stance he chooses.

And he is certainly also entitled to be criticized for opinions he broadcasts into the public arena, and we are all entitled to voice our opinions.

But I really dislike this notion that "failure to embrace homosexuality" makes you a bigot, or a homophobe, or a bad person. OSC may, in fact, be a bad person, but outside of a zealous attack on homosexuality, I haven't heard much, and prior to that, I believe he was well regarded and generally well liked.

Whether it is Chik-Fil-A, Hobby Lobby, or Ender's Game, I think we are going down the wrong path with all of this "They don't think the way we think, so they are bad people and must be punished!" mindset. Boycotts are fine and all, but not when they are predicated on a personal attack against someone's deeply held convictions or political views.

It's a free country. You aren't required to "think the right way" about anything, much less homosexuality. We may not agree, but our fellow Americans are perfectly entitled to disapprove of homosexuality. It's a valid position, whether we agree or not, and it doesn't automatically mean that they are hate-mongers just because they don't see things our way.

And we should stop trying to shut down dissenting opinions.


Try to understand, it's not just about "feeling differently" or "thinking the right way". This isn't just some bond measure or tax referendum they're supporting. The people and businesses you mentioned are fighting against equal treatment of citizens for no other reason than because their God says they're icky. And, at least in the case of OSC and CFA, they're actively involved in anti-gay groups. Card is on the board of NOM, which pushes an agenda of turning LGBT folks into ostracized second class citizens, whereas Chik-Fil-A donates profits to anti-gay groups with the same kind of agenda.

I vehemently disagree with these groups and what they aim to accomplish, so I go out of my way to not patronize businesses or support people that give money and support to them. Oddly, to some, this is the wrong thing to do because they might perceive it as being mean or disrespectful and would just encourage the braindead troglodytes who agree with them to go out and give them more business. At least to me, it's not about trying to put them out of business, it's about making damn sure none of MY money goes to support these vile groups. I could give two shiats if my behavior encourages Bubba-Joe-Billy-Bob and Auntie-Sister-Cousin-Mom Becky-Sue-Bob to stuff their faces with Chik-Fil-A before they watch Ender's Game, I absolutely WILL NOT give these people one damn cent of my money.
 
2013-07-09 01:31:25 PM  
The Enemy's Gay Is Down!


/what?
//gate, dammit. gate.
///stupid farkheads that can't enunciate properly
 
2013-07-09 01:32:16 PM  

PizzaJedi81: Magorn: off certain characters,

Considering who he's already killed, I can't think of who you could actually mean.


Well I've held off reading Cold Days because of other commitments but a short list includes Charity Carpenter, Father Forthill,  Murphy, and Mouse
 
2013-07-09 01:32:54 PM  

bukijin: I loved the book when I was a kid. Didn't try and re-read it since then.

So I have to first politically vet every author, filmmaker, actor, artist and entertainer before I know if I can enjoy their art ??


Nah. I still watch Sean Penn movies even though he is a socialist fascist nutjob who would gladly sell your constitutional rights for a photo op.

If you boycott every good or service that somewhere along the line involved one person with whom you have an
ideological disagreement, you would probably be a hermit in a mud hut somewhere foraging for tubers.
 
2013-07-09 01:34:23 PM  

Magorn: Charity Carpenter, Father Forthill, Murphy, and Mouse


The only one of those I disagree with is Forthill. Not that I want him to die, but his death could be one of those heartbreakers that spurs Harry to...I dunno, kick some unholy ass or something.

AND GO READ COLD DAYS NOW!
 
2013-07-09 01:34:59 PM  

The My Little Pony Killer: PizzaJedi81: meat0918: At least C.S. Lewis is readable and enjoyable.

Well...before The Last Battle, anyway.

That one was worth it though, because C.S. Lewis is still the only author I know of who would end his series by killing off all of his main characters at once.


Susan's not dead. She's still alive as of book's end.
 
2013-07-09 01:38:21 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: I don't care if Orson Scott Card is a complete asshole douchebag, which by many accounts, he actually is. I don't particularly care how stringently and vigorously he has advocated against homosexuality and gay marriage.

He is entitled to be opposed to a rampant societal embracing of homosexuality. As a Mormon, that's what he believes, and frankly that is what every major religion believes. He is entitled to take whatever political stance he chooses.

And he is certainly also entitled to be criticized for opinions he broadcasts into the public arena, and we are all entitled to voice our opinions.

But I really dislike this notion that "failure to embrace homosexuality" makes you a bigot, or a homophobe, or a bad person. OSC may, in fact, be a bad person, but outside of a zealous attack on homosexuality, I haven't heard much, and prior to that, I believe he was well regarded and generally well liked.

Whether it is Chik-Fil-A, Hobby Lobby, or Ender's Game, I think we are going down the wrong path with all of this "They don't think the way we think, so they are bad people and must be punished!" mindset. Boycotts are fine and all, but not when they are predicated on a personal attack against someone's deeply held convictions or political views.

It's a free country. You aren't required to "think the right way" about anything, much less homosexuality. We may not agree, but our fellow Americans are perfectly entitled to disapprove of homosexuality. It's a valid position, whether we agree or not, and it doesn't automatically mean that they are hate-mongers just because they don't see things our way.

And we should stop trying to shut down dissenting opinions.


Oh Jesus, FARK is full of really dense people.

No one is saying that OSC can't be a bigot, say anti-gay things, or write books. No one is saying that you should stop liking someone's work because their views aren't parallel to yours. Clint Eastwood and Arnold Schwarzenegger are Republicans, and I still watch their films.

What we are saying is that some of us are not going to give our money to OSC because as a board director of NOM, he uses that money to actively prevent people from having equal rights. If Stephen King started to use his profits to fund the KKK, I wouldn't give him a single cent either.

Card has a legal right to say what he wants, and we have also have a legal right to spend our money elsewhere.
 
2013-07-09 01:38:38 PM  

zomega: Susan's not dead. She's still alive as of book's end.


I thought she got killed too and just went to hell because she liked boys and parties and wore stockings or something.
 
2013-07-09 01:40:55 PM  

Super_pope: zomega: Susan's not dead. She's still alive as of book's end.

I thought she got killed too and just went to hell because she liked boys and parties and wore stockings or something.


neil gaiman has a really good short story about her. I think it's called "The Problem with Susan".
 
2013-07-09 01:42:07 PM  

master of unlocking: Super_pope: zomega: Susan's not dead. She's still alive as of book's end.

I thought she got killed too and just went to hell because she liked boys and parties and wore stockings or something.

neil gaiman has a really good short story about her. I think it's called "The Problem with Susan".


Even more reading!
 
2013-07-09 01:42:08 PM  

Egoy3k: Nobody is forcing you to miss seeing the movie or go see the movie.


Of course not, nor did I suggest that.

My point is a generalized "Can we all act like grown-ups and stop calling for a fatwah boycott against every damn person that doesn't share our viewpoint?

It is the "They don't think like we think they should think, so they should be punished" mindset that is so alarming here regardless of the effectiveness of the boycott. It is the intent, less than the action itself.

Egoy3k: If the company that is paying to make the movie decides that it's too much of a risk to have a movie based on the writing of a man that has managed to piss off a large and vocal enough segment of the population then so be it.


Good Point. Let's Boycott Lionsgate! Those homophobic supporting assholes! Boycott the Hunger Games, Red 2, Joss Whenon's Shaespear movie too! Heck, everyone burn their Hurt Locker and  Juno DVDs! teach those bastards a lesson! Besides, Lionsgate put out a Mel Gibson movie, so they are clearly homophobic anti-semites.

Nah. If it's a good movie, see it. If it sucks, don't.

Just stop this "boycott the wrongthinkers!!!!" nonsense.
 
2013-07-09 01:42:23 PM  

Super_pope: zomega: Susan's not dead. She's still alive as of book's end.

I thought she got killed too and just went to hell because she liked boys and parties and wore stockings or something.




Nope, she's still alive but still not Saved.
 
2013-07-09 01:43:00 PM  

Magorn: Heinlien had extremely strong, very right-wing poltical views, and he was not shy about sharing them in his essays, but in his novels and stories he was more circumspect, yes he wrote Starship Troopers, a book many consider to be an endorsement of fascism, but he wrote what many consider to be one of seminal works of the hippie culture Stranger in Stange Land at the exact same time.


Where do you get that assessment?  Or are we talking about the uber-derpy interpretation of his books by political activists?  Starship Troopers was extremely political (half the book is classroom lectures FFS) whereas Stranger in a Strange Land takes place in a utopian bubble.  In the latter case, politics only rears its ugly head long enough to serve as Jubal's antagonist and prove how awesome he is; he subsequently paves a nice wide path through it (with relative ease I might add) so Mike can start having hippie sex and make stuff disappear.   Both books are thought experiments so tightly controlled I can almost imagine them taking place in oversized petri dishes.  Nice food for thought, which is perhaps his greatest writing strength (the highest compliment of any serious writer is "your work made me think" and Heinlein certainly gets that honor), but anyone who thinks Heinlein had all the answers should be chained to a wall just to prevent them from running for public office.  The guy wrote some pretty entertaining hard sci-fi but his grasp of sociology was downright awful.

Ender's Game is the opposite, no?  Never read the book but I don't know anyone who'd describe it as political.  It's generally regarded as teen nerd wish fulfillment with a dash of gay.
 
2013-07-09 01:43:48 PM  
Orson Scott Card, after all, still wrote a version of Hamlet in which the eponymous character's father was a gay

But what was Shakespeare's opinion on gay marriage?

THERSITES
Prithee, be silent, boy; I profit not by thy talk: thou art thought to be Achilles' male varlet.

PATROCLUS
Male varlet, you rogue! what's that?

THERSITES
Why, his masculine whore. Now, the rotten diseases of the south, the guts-griping, ruptures, catarrhs, loads o' gravel i' the back, lethargies, cold palsies, raw eyes, dirt-rotten livers, wheezing lungs, bladders full of imposthume, sciaticas, limekilns i' the palm, incurable bone-ache, and the rivelled fee-simple of the tetter, take and take again such preposterous discoveries!

[Gasp!] Boycott Shakespeare!
 
2013-07-09 01:44:01 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: everyone burn their Hurt Locker


They should, but for other reasons. It's an overrated suckfest.
 
2013-07-09 01:46:59 PM  

Mike Chewbacca: Nobody boycotted CFA for what the owner said, we boycotted CFA because they used corporate profits (to the tune of $5 million over several years) to fund ant-gay organizations, and they actively lobbied against gay rights. In fact, despite saying they've stopped donating to anti-gay groups, they still are.


Nobody boycotted CFA for what the owner said...
Nobody is boycotting Hobby Lobby because they're Christian...
Nobody is boycotting OSC because he's a bigot, ...


Yes. NONE of those boycotts were about punishing people who opposed gay marriage. Of course not. All perfectly justified. After all, these were bad people. You can tell because they had a different viewpoint and actually advocated that viewpoint in public and opposed the things they were opposed to. Only bad people would advocate in opposition to homosexuality, so it is perfectly reasonable for all of us to try to punish them.

I think you are missing the point. Here's a hint. I felt exactly the same way about the evangelicals calling for a boycott of Disney way back when they decided to offer healthcare benefits to same sex partners.
 
2013-07-09 01:48:00 PM  

ThrobblefootSpectre: bukijin: I loved the book when I was a kid. Didn't try and re-read it since then.

So I have to first politically vet every author, filmmaker, actor, artist and entertainer before I know if I can enjoy their art ??

Nah. I still watch Sean Penn movies even though he is a socialist fascist nutjob who would gladly sell your constitutional rights for a photo op.

If you boycott every good or service that somewhere along the line involved one person with whom you have an
ideological disagreement, you would probably be a hermit in a mud hut somewhere foraging for tubers.


Card is "one person" who happened to be a part of Ender's Game?
 
2013-07-09 01:50:47 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: Egoy3k: Nobody is forcing you to miss seeing the movie or go see the movie.

Of course not, nor did I suggest that.

My point is a generalized "Can we all act like grown-ups and stop calling for a fatwah boycott against every damn person that doesn't share our viewpoint?

It is the "They don't think like we think they should think, so they should be punished" mindset that is so alarming here regardless of the effectiveness of the boycott. It is the intent, less than the action itself.

Egoy3k: If the company that is paying to make the movie decides that it's too much of a risk to have a movie based on the writing of a man that has managed to piss off a large and vocal enough segment of the population then so be it.

Good Point. Let's Boycott Lionsgate! Those homophobic supporting assholes! Boycott the Hunger Games, Red 2, Joss Whenon's Shaespear movie too! Heck, everyone burn their Hurt Locker and  Juno DVDs! teach those bastards a lesson! Besides, Lionsgate put out a Mel Gibson movie, so they are clearly homophobic anti-semites.

Nah. If it's a good movie, see it. If it sucks, don't.

Just stop this "boycott the wrongthinkers!!!!" nonsense.


Why are you trying to get people to boycott the boycott?
 
2013-07-09 01:51:11 PM  

Silly_Sot: Why is it 100% moral, perfect, and humane to boycott a product because someone involved in it has conservative views (Ender's Game) but stupid and intolerant to boycott a product because someone involved in it has liberal views (Dixie Chicks records)?

Let me guess, it's just another example of dogmatic hypocrisy.


I'll bite.

I don't recall OSC getting death threats and vandalism against him for his points of view.

The same people who railed against the Dixie Chicks for (respectfully) disagreeing with a sitting President have said and done much worse in regard to their response to his successor.  To the point where it becomes a textbook example of "dogmatic hypocrisy".

As has been pointed out, he does not just have   conservative views , but actively uses his finances and position to work against the interests of people that he now claims should have no problem giving him more money to continue with that agenda.  The hypocrisy is OSC's to display,  warning people to be careful of buying into a product that may be against their own interests is simply the Free Market and normal Political Discourse in action.

I have no problem with (and served to promote the freedom of) the KKK and American Nazi Parties in the exercise of their right to make themselves known as idiots in my eyes.   But I also don't go out of my way to donate to their causes.
 
2013-07-09 01:52:56 PM  

ThreadSinger: BojanglesPaladin: Egoy3k: Nobody is forcing you to miss seeing the movie or go see the movie.

Of course not, nor did I suggest that.

My point is a generalized "Can we all act like grown-ups and stop calling for a fatwah boycott against every damn person that doesn't share our viewpoint?

It is the "They don't think like we think they should think, so they should be punished" mindset that is so alarming here regardless of the effectiveness of the boycott. It is the intent, less than the action itself.

Egoy3k: If the company that is paying to make the movie decides that it's too much of a risk to have a movie based on the writing of a man that has managed to piss off a large and vocal enough segment of the population then so be it.

Good Point. Let's Boycott Lionsgate! Those homophobic supporting assholes! Boycott the Hunger Games, Red 2, Joss Whenon's Shaespear movie too! Heck, everyone burn their Hurt Locker and  Juno DVDs! teach those bastards a lesson! Besides, Lionsgate put out a Mel Gibson movie, so they are clearly homophobic anti-semites.

Nah. If it's a good movie, see it. If it sucks, don't.

Just stop this "boycott the wrongthinkers!!!!" nonsense.

Why are you trying to get people to boycott the boycott?


Because they disagree with his stance on the issue. They're not thinking correctly.
 
2013-07-09 01:53:26 PM  

xalres: Try to understand, it's not just about "feeling differently" or "thinking the right way". This isn't just some bond measure or tax referendum they're supporting. The people and businesses you mentioned are fighting against equal treatment of citizens for no other reason than because their God says


Are you saying that not only what they think is wrong, but that their religious convictions make those opinions invalid? Since when is religious conviction alone an insufficient reason to advocate? The validity of their positions is not determined by whether or not I agree with them.

xalres: I absolutely WILL NOT give these people one damn cent of my money.


Which is perfectly fine. I myself haven't bought gasoline from Shell in almost two decades because of their policies in Africa, particularly Nigeria. Give your trade to whomever you choose. Again, it is the "punish the wrongthinkers!" mentality that is the problem, not whether THIS particular issue is appropriate. Understand?
 
2013-07-09 01:54:13 PM  

dragonchild: It's generally regarded as teen nerd wish fulfillment with a dash of gay.


I must have missed all those parts.
 
2013-07-09 01:54:53 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: Egoy3k: Nobody is forcing you to miss seeing the movie or go see the movie.

Of course not, nor did I suggest that.

My point is a generalized "Can we all act like grown-ups and stop calling for a fatwah boycott against every damn person that doesn't share our viewpoint?

It is the "They don't think like we think they should think, so they should be punished" mindset that is so alarming here regardless of the effectiveness of the boycott. It is the intent, less than the action itself.

Egoy3k: If the company that is paying to make the movie decides that it's too much of a risk to have a movie based on the writing of a man that has managed to piss off a large and vocal enough segment of the population then so be it.

Good Point. Let's Boycott Lionsgate! Those homophobic supporting assholes! Boycott the Hunger Games, Red 2, Joss Whenon's Shaespear movie too! Heck, everyone burn their Hurt Locker and  Juno DVDs! teach those bastards a lesson! Besides, Lionsgate put out a Mel Gibson movie, so they are clearly homophobic anti-semites.

Nah. If it's a good movie, see it. If it sucks, don't.

Just stop this "boycott the wrongthinkers!!!!" nonsense.


You're so purposefully obtuse that it's laughable. Would you shop at a store owned by a guy, who in his off time, spent it marching up and down the street calling for the deaths of all Jews? Like maybe he sells really awesome scones, so you're willing to overlook the overwhelming amount of vitriolic hate that he otherwise champions. Because it would be childish to let something like the constant drumbeat for the genocide of all Jews to affect your desire for scones, right?
 
2013-07-09 01:56:37 PM  

Bashar and Asma's Infinite Playlist: ThrobblefootSpectre: bukijin: I loved the book when I was a kid. Didn't try and re-read it since then.

So I have to first politically vet every author, filmmaker, actor, artist and entertainer before I know if I can enjoy their art ??

Nah. I still watch Sean Penn movies even though he is a socialist fascist nutjob who would gladly sell your constitutional rights for a photo op.

If you boycott every good or service that somewhere along the line involved one person with whom you have an
ideological disagreement, you would probably be a hermit in a mud hut somewhere foraging for tubers.

Card is "one person" who happened to be a part of Ender's Game?


One part of the movie, yes. Hint: he didn't actually make the movie.
 
2013-07-09 01:56:52 PM  

Bashar and Asma's Infinite Playlist: obtuse


3.bp.blogspot.com

What? What did you call me?
 
2013-07-09 01:57:22 PM  

Diogenes: kronicfeld: "We disagreed" is an utterly disingenuous characterization of the "debate."

That's like saying there was no racism during the slavery era.

If anything I get an icky feeling with his obsession over militarized little boys.


So much this.  The amazing irony of the OSC saga is that Ender's Game is totally homoerotic.  Ender expresses deep love for his fellow boys, but the young girls are almost uniformly antagonists.  SPOILER: one of the pivotal events of the book is a naked wrestling match.

I fear OSC's internet cache is smoother than a baby dolphin.
 
2013-07-09 01:57:58 PM  

BizarreMan: Seems to me that short version is "we disagreed, you guys won.  let's move on."

Unlike some of the gay marriage opponents who are still up their eyeballs in a fight they've already lost.


He didn't "disagree." He devoted himself to actively working against equality for years. He was one of those hateful people who pressed the gay=pedo slander, too, which is one of the ugliest, least forgivable things that the anti-gay crowd did. I'm sure you "disagree" with people all the time without suggesting that they are child molestors.. Fark Orson Scott Card and his overrated Ender's Game.
 
2013-07-09 01:58:11 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: Yes. NONE of those boycotts were about punishing people who opposed gay marriage. Of course not. All perfectly justified. After all, these were bad people. You can tell because they had a different viewpoint and actually advocated that viewpoint in public and opposed the things they were opposed to. Only bad people would advocate in opposition to homosexuality, so it is perfectly reasonable for all of us to try to punish them.

I think you are missing the point. Here's a hint. I felt exactly the same way about the evangelicals calling for a boycott of Disney way back when they decided to offer healthcare benefits to same sex partners.


What are you advocating, then?  Mindless consumerism?  Why is it okay to speak your mind, but not okay to speak with your wallet and ask others to do the same?

Also, as others have pointed out, advocating intolerance and condemning the intolerant are not two sides of the same coin.
 
2013-07-09 01:59:02 PM  

ThrobblefootSpectre: Bashar and Asma's Infinite Playlist: ThrobblefootSpectre: bukijin: I loved the book when I was a kid. Didn't try and re-read it since then.

So I have to first politically vet every author, filmmaker, actor, artist and entertainer before I know if I can enjoy their art ??

Nah. I still watch Sean Penn movies even though he is a socialist fascist nutjob who would gladly sell your constitutional rights for a photo op.

If you boycott every good or service that somewhere along the line involved one person with whom you have an
ideological disagreement, you would probably be a hermit in a mud hut somewhere foraging for tubers.

Card is "one person" who happened to be a part of Ender's Game?

One part of the movie, yes. Hint: he didn't actually make the movie.


Ok, feel free to be guilted into a movie you don't want to see from a property created by a bigot because the best boy already got paid for his work he already did. Congratulations?
 
2013-07-09 01:59:38 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: Just stop this "boycott the wrongthinkers!!!!" nonsense.


What do you think actually happens when someone decides to boycott something?  Do you actually believe that there is some magical phone directory of left leaning boycotters that actually has a significant impact on the economic prospects of multimillion dollar movies, nation wide retail outlets or chicken restaurants?

There isn't. Each boycott has to stand on it's own legs.  Basically all a boycott does is educate people about the issue and ask them to make a choice.  I had no idea that OSC was anything but a mediocre novelist before today. I am also sure that I'm not the only one to just learn this now.
 
2013-07-09 01:59:52 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: Egoy3k: Nobody is forcing you to miss seeing the movie or go see the movie.

Of course not, nor did I suggest that.

My point is a generalized "Can we all act like grown-ups and stop calling for a fatwah boycott against every damn person that doesn't share our viewpoint?

It is the "They don't think like we think they should think, so they should be punished" mindset that is so alarming here regardless of the effectiveness of the boycott. It is the intent, less than the action itself.

Egoy3k: If the company that is paying to make the movie decides that it's too much of a risk to have a movie based on the writing of a man that has managed to piss off a large and vocal enough segment of the population then so be it.

Good Point. Let's Boycott Lionsgate! Those homophobic supporting assholes! Boycott the Hunger Games, Red 2, Joss Whenon's Shaespear movie too! Heck, everyone burn their Hurt Locker and  Juno DVDs! teach those bastards a lesson! Besides, Lionsgate put out a Mel Gibson movie, so they are clearly homophobic anti-semites.

Nah. If it's a good movie, see it. If it sucks, don't.

Just stop this "boycott the wrongthinkers!!!!" nonsense.


So, what, we should just accept his actively campaigning for stripping gay people of their dignity, if not their life? If he wants to hate gay people and homosexuality, he is more than welcome to do so. If others want to love gay people and homosexuality, they are more than welcome to do so as well. If they just want to be indifferent about it, the same applies. But the buck stops at using those beliefs to throw gay people into a lower caste or to outright murder them. Let's not mince words: that is exactly what many people are trying to do. Look up the funding history of the Ugandan death penalty bill for homosexuality and you will see a number of Americans are still pushing for gay people to be murdered.
 
2013-07-09 02:01:47 PM  

ThreadSinger: Why are you trying to get people to boycott the boycott?


I like recursive loops?

FuryOfFirestorm: What we are saying is that some of us are not going to give our money to OSC because as a board director of NOM, he uses that money to actively prevent people from having equal rights.


Like the name. Original or New 52? ***

I get that you and others think that OSC qualifies for punishment because he really, truly, absolutely is an honest to god confirm bigot who does the most hatey hating while bigotting his bigotry with a bigot hate group. You are free to keep your money in your pocket. It's the increasingly reflexive use of the boycott as a punishment for people with whom we politically disagree.

As I pointed out above it was equally dumb and wrong for Evangelicals to boycott Disney for giving same sex benefits as it was for Pro-Gay people to boycott Chik-Fil-A for being anti-gay or whatever.


/***(If you say the new one without the professor, imma gonna boycott your posts!)
 
2013-07-09 02:01:48 PM  
Card's statement indicates he doesn't agree with the court's decision, but he's not going to actively campaign against gay marriage anymore. Did his views on it change? Not likely.
 
2013-07-09 02:01:59 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: Yes. NONE of those boycotts were about punishing people who opposed gay marriage. Of course not. All perfectly justified. After all, these were bad people. You can tell because they had a different viewpoint and actually advocated that viewpoint in public and opposed the things they were opposed to. Only bad people would advocate in opposition to homosexuality, so it is perfectly reasonable for all of us to try to punish them.

I think you are missing the point. Here's a hint. I felt exactly the same way about the evangelicals calling for a boycott of Disney way back when they decided to offer healthcare benefits to same sex partners.


People who are going to boycott this movie are doing it because its based on source material created by a person who spends his time and money working to target and harm a minority group.  They might very well enjoy this film if they saw it, but they aren't interested in contributing to the commercial success of a person who has indicated that he will spend at least some of that largess attempting to hurt other Americans because he believes its right.  They're not interested in HURTING him.  They're interested in not helping him.

In your Disney case, people are targeting a company that refuses to target and harm American citizens.  All that other stuff about not being interested in their money going to "X" is still true.

From certain viewpoints, these things can appear the same.  They only look that way if you're a dogmatic shiathead though.  In one situation you're not spending money on a product created by someone who supports abusing people.  In the other you're not spending money on a product because you want people to be abused.
 
2013-07-09 02:03:00 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: Are you saying that not only what they think is wrong, but that their religious convictions make those opinions invalid?


Believe whatever the hell silliness strikes your fancy, but when you start trying to use the law as a cudgel to impose your narrow minded morality then, yes, you are completely and utterly wrong. "Because Jesus" is not a valid reason to deny citizens equal protection, and never will be, and such positions are not deserving of respect or acknowledgement as a serious political stance, it's just assholes being assholes because their God tells them they're right.
 
2013-07-09 02:03:50 PM  

caddisfly: Diogenes: kronicfeld: "We disagreed" is an utterly disingenuous characterization of the "debate."

That's like saying there was no racism during the slavery era.

If anything I get an icky feeling with his obsession over militarized little boys.

So much this.  The amazing irony of the OSC saga is that Ender's Game is totally homoerotic.  Ender expresses deep love for his fellow boys, but the young girls are almost uniformly antagonists.  SPOILER: one of the pivotal events of the book is a naked wrestling match.

I fear OSC's internet cache is smoother than a baby dolphin.


Petra was one of Ender's first allies at battle school.  She remained a friend throughout (if I remember correctly).

Bonzo attacked Ender in the shower because that was a time when he was vulnerable.  I never saw it as being homoerotic.  It was a time when a group could isolate Ender and beat the shiat out of him.  He was naked because he was in the shower.
 
2013-07-09 02:05:11 PM  

dragonchild: Ender's Game is the opposite, no? Never read the book but I don't know anyone who'd describe it as political. It's generally regarded as teen nerd wish fulfillment with a dash of gay.


art.penny-arcade.com
 
2013-07-09 02:06:55 PM  

Super_pope: zomega: Susan's not dead. She's still alive as of book's end.

I thought she got killed too and just went to hell because she liked boys and parties and wore stockings or something.


Nope. Aslan specifically says "once a king or queen of Narnia, always a king or queen of Narnia."  Susan can always return to believing in Aslan whenever she's ready to, and isn't shunned from entering Narnia again. If that'd been the case, you'd think Edmund wouldn't be there - but he was accepted back.

Aslan = just and forgiving God, with a mane and claws and fangs.

Gotten into way too many debates over that one over the years.
 
2013-07-09 02:07:42 PM  

Bashar and Asma's Infinite Playlist: You're so purposefully obtuse that it's laughable. Would you shop at a store owned by a guy, who in his off time, spent it marching up and down the street calling for the deaths of all Jews?


Nope. Unless they were REALLY, REALLY good scones.

No seriously, for about 20 years I have refused to fill up at a Shell Station because I have issues with their policy in Africa. I don't shop at Wal-Mart. I'm all about not giving my money to people I do not approve of.

That is a different animal than all this calling for a fatwah boycott against political opponents. It is a subtle distinction perhaps, but a distinction with a difference.

I am not saying that OSC has not earned the ire directed at him, or that everyone is not perfectly entitled to give or not give money to the film or his books based on your individual conscience.

I am saying "Can we stop with the call for a boycott of anyone we disagree with politically? Everyone? Moratorium on punitive boycotts for dissenting political views please"?

That's it.
 
2013-07-09 02:09:19 PM  

Gunny Highway: caddisfly: Diogenes: kronicfeld: "We disagreed" is an utterly disingenuous characterization of the "debate."

That's like saying there was no racism during the slavery era.

If anything I get an icky feeling with his obsession over militarized little boys.

So much this.  The amazing irony of the OSC saga is that Ender's Game is totally homoerotic.  Ender expresses deep love for his fellow boys, but the young girls are almost uniformly antagonists.  SPOILER: one of the pivotal events of the book is a naked wrestling match.

I fear OSC's internet cache is smoother than a baby dolphin.

Petra was one of Ender's first allies at battle school.  She remained a friend throughout (if I remember correctly).


Yeah, she was one of the most trusted members of his jeesh until she burned out and fell asleep during a battle.

Bonzo attacked Ender in the shower because that was a time when he was vulnerable.  I never saw it as being homoerotic.  It was a time when a group could isolate Ender and beat the shiat out of him.  He was naked because he was in the shower.

Same here.
 
2013-07-09 02:11:15 PM  

Serious Black: Gunny Highway: caddisfly: Diogenes: kronicfeld: "We disagreed" is an utterly disingenuous characterization of the "debate."

That's like saying there was no racism during the slavery era.

If anything I get an icky feeling with his obsession over militarized little boys.

So much this.  The amazing irony of the OSC saga is that Ender's Game is totally homoerotic.  Ender expresses deep love for his fellow boys, but the young girls are almost uniformly antagonists.  SPOILER: one of the pivotal events of the book is a naked wrestling match.

I fear OSC's internet cache is smoother than a baby dolphin.

Petra was one of Ender's first allies at battle school.  She remained a friend throughout (if I remember correctly).

Yeah, she was one of the most trusted members of his jeesh until she burned out and fell asleep during a battle.

Bonzo attacked Ender in the shower because that was a time when he was vulnerable.  I never saw it as being homoerotic.  It was a time when a group could isolate Ender and beat the shiat out of him.  He was naked because he was in the shower.

Same here.


It's the 'no, you are!' mentality that makes people see it. OF COURSE someone must be the thing they dislike or make fun of, etc.
 
2013-07-09 02:12:34 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: Bashar and Asma's Infinite Playlist: You're so purposefully obtuse that it's laughable. Would you shop at a store owned by a guy, who in his off time, spent it marching up and down the street calling for the deaths of all Jews?

Nope. Unless they were REALLY, REALLY good scones.

No seriously, for about 20 years I have refused to fill up at a Shell Station because I have issues with their policy in Africa. I don't shop at Wal-Mart. I'm all about not giving my money to people I do not approve of.

That is a different animal than all this calling for a fatwah boycott against political opponents. It is a subtle distinction perhaps, but a distinction with a difference.

I am not saying that OSC has not earned the ire directed at him, or that everyone is not perfectly entitled to give or not give money to the film or his books based on your individual conscience.

I am saying "Can we stop with the call for a boycott of anyone we disagree with politically? Everyone? Moratorium on punitive boycotts for dissenting political views please"?

That's it.


I'm going to personally boycott your posts starting now.
 
2013-07-09 02:13:00 PM  

Super_pope: In one situation you're not spending money on a product created by someone who supports abusing people. In the other you're not spending money on a product because you want people to be abused.


Sigh. No need to be abusive. Try to follow me here: That is how YOU see it. And that is a valid and legitimate viewpoint.

Not everyone sees opposition to homosexuality as "abusing people", and they have a valid and legitimate viewpoint as well. You and I may not agree, but this does not mean they are evil bigots. Obviously, some may be, but as Americans, we must acknowledge that they are entitled to their viewpoint as well, no matter how strongly we disagree. They have a valid and legitimate right to advocate legally for their position as we have a right to oppose and advocate for ours. Welcome to America. Stop calling for fatwah.
 
2013-07-09 02:13:19 PM  

Bashar and Asma's Infinite Playlist: ThrobblefootSpectre: Bashar and Asma's Infinite Playlist: ThrobblefootSpectre: bukijin: I loved the book when I was a kid. Didn't try and re-read it since then.

So I have to first politically vet every author, filmmaker, actor, artist and entertainer before I know if I can enjoy their art ??

Nah. I still watch Sean Penn movies even though he is a socialist fascist nutjob who would gladly sell your constitutional rights for a photo op.

If you boycott every good or service that somewhere along the line involved one person with whom you have an
ideological disagreement, you would probably be a hermit in a mud hut somewhere foraging for tubers.

Card is "one person" who happened to be a part of Ender's Game?

One part of the movie, yes. Hint: he didn't actually make the movie.

Ok, feel free to be guilted into a movie you don't want to see from a property created by a bigot because the best boy already got paid for his work he already did. Congratulations?


Sigh. I'll watch the movie or not based on whether I want to see the movie, but not based on a bitter political agenda. That's just me. See my example above about Sean Penn.

I read the books and enjoyed them, so i will probably watch the movie by the time it is in a redbox. I expect to be very disappointed in the movie. Using, for example, the utterly horrible Dune screen interpretation to set my expectations.
 
2013-07-09 02:14:13 PM  

NeverDrunk23: hinten: "Now it will be interesting to see whether the victorious proponents of gay marriage will show tolerance toward those who disagreed with them when the issue was still in dispute."

What exactly kind of a tolerance is he looking for here? That statement/threat doesn't even make any sense.

'I can be a hateful asshole all I want, but I DEMAND you take the high road.'


Conservative thinking at it's finest, holding other people to a moral standard that they, the Conservatives don't hold themselves to.
 
2013-07-09 02:14:29 PM  

Bashar and Asma's Infinite Playlist: I'm going to personally boycott your posts starting now.


Understood :)

/While I actually encourage people who feel inclined to use the ignore function at will, I actually find many of your posts entertaining (in a good way)
 
2013-07-09 02:17:19 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: Bashar and Asma's Infinite Playlist: You're so purposefully obtuse that it's laughable. Would you shop at a store owned by a guy, who in his off time, spent it marching up and down the street calling for the deaths of all Jews?

Nope. Unless they were REALLY, REALLY good scones.

No seriously, for about 20 years I have refused to fill up at a Shell Station because I have issues with their policy in Africa. I don't shop at Wal-Mart. I'm all about not giving my money to people I do not approve of.

That is a different animal than all this calling for a fatwah boycott against political opponents. It is a subtle distinction perhaps, but a distinction with a difference.

I am not saying that OSC has not earned the ire directed at him, or that everyone is not perfectly entitled to give or not give money to the film or his books based on your individual conscience.

I am saying "Can we stop with the call for a boycott of anyone we disagree with politically? Everyone? Moratorium on punitive boycotts for dissenting political views please"?

That's it.


1.) Not buying things because they support something you find amoral: Good
2.) Telling other people who you believe will sympathize with your stance but may not be aware of the situation so that they too will consider joining you and possibly enact change: Bad

Your position is that we should be willful but ultimately impotent because mobilizing more than just yourself makes you a jerk and pollutes our societal discourse?
 
2013-07-09 02:18:24 PM  

robohobo: Serious Black: Gunny Highway: caddisfly: Diogenes: kronicfeld: "We disagreed" is an utterly disingenuous characterization of the "debate."

That's like saying there was no racism during the slavery era.

If anything I get an icky feeling with his obsession over militarized little boys.

So much this.  The amazing irony of the OSC saga is that Ender's Game is totally homoerotic.  Ender expresses deep love for his fellow boys, but the young girls are almost uniformly antagonists.  SPOILER: one of the pivotal events of the book is a naked wrestling match.

I fear OSC's internet cache is smoother than a baby dolphin.

Petra was one of Ender's first allies at battle school.  She remained a friend throughout (if I remember correctly).

Yeah, she was one of the most trusted members of his jeesh until she burned out and fell asleep during a battle.

Bonzo attacked Ender in the shower because that was a time when he was vulnerable.  I never saw it as being homoerotic.  It was a time when a group could isolate Ender and beat the shiat out of him.  He was naked because he was in the shower.

Same here.

It's the 'no, you are!' mentality that makes people see it. OF COURSE someone must be the thing they dislike or make fun of, etc.


It certainly can and does happen. Witness any of the many Republicans who have voted for legislation stripping gay people of their rights and then subsequently have been caught in a "wide stance." But sometimes, a cigar is just a cigar.
 
2013-07-09 02:20:29 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: Bashar and Asma's Infinite Playlist: You're so purposefully obtuse that it's laughable. Would you shop at a store owned by a guy, who in his off time, spent it marching up and down the street calling for the deaths of all Jews?

Nope. Unless they were REALLY, REALLY good scones.

No seriously, for about 20 years I have refused to fill up at a Shell Station because I have issues with their policy in Africa. I don't shop at Wal-Mart. I'm all about not giving my money to people I do not approve of.

That is a different animal than all this calling for a fatwah boycott against political opponents. It is a subtle distinction perhaps, but a distinction with a difference.

I am not saying that OSC has not earned the ire directed at him, or that everyone is not perfectly entitled to give or not give money to the film or his books based on your individual conscience.

I am saying "Can we stop with the call for a boycott of anyone we disagree with politically? Everyone? Moratorium on punitive boycotts for dissenting political views please"?

That's it.


No. Because people like OSC are actively oppressing other Americans. They need to know that's not acceptable. They need to know their behavior is wrong. Yes, he should be punished, not for being a bigot, but for actively working to oppress people.
 
2013-07-09 02:22:02 PM  

Serious Black: robohobo: Serious Black: Gunny Highway: caddisfly: Diogenes: kronicfeld: "We disagreed" is an utterly disingenuous characterization of the "debate."

That's like saying there was no racism during the slavery era.

If anything I get an icky feeling with his obsession over militarized little boys.

So much this.  The amazing irony of the OSC saga is that Ender's Game is totally homoerotic.  Ender expresses deep love for his fellow boys, but the young girls are almost uniformly antagonists.  SPOILER: one of the pivotal events of the book is a naked wrestling match.

I fear OSC's internet cache is smoother than a baby dolphin.

Petra was one of Ender's first allies at battle school.  She remained a friend throughout (if I remember correctly).

Yeah, she was one of the most trusted members of his jeesh until she burned out and fell asleep during a battle.

Bonzo attacked Ender in the shower because that was a time when he was vulnerable.  I never saw it as being homoerotic.  It was a time when a group could isolate Ender and beat the shiat out of him.  He was naked because he was in the shower.

Same here.

It's the 'no, you are!' mentality that makes people see it. OF COURSE someone must be the thing they dislike or make fun of, etc.

It certainly can and does happen. Witness any of the many Republicans who have voted for legislation stripping gay people of their rights and then subsequently have been caught in a "wide stance." But sometimes, a cigar is just a cigar.


That's all I'm saying. But all too often the argument seems to be the former, and just because. It's schoolyard.
 
2013-07-09 02:22:44 PM  

Khellendros: bukijin: I loved the book when I was a kid. Didn't try and re-read it since then.

So I have to first politically vet every author, filmmaker, actor, artist and entertainer before I know if I can enjoy their art ??

Art is a reflection of its creator.  The art is informed and shaped by the views, opinions, and thoughts of the artist.  Yes, you should know something about an artist before patronizing their work.


complete and utter bullshiat.
 
2013-07-09 02:23:11 PM  
OSC piece of crap who sued to write good books that he has already gotten rich off of.  Better to boycott his recent efforts because they are awful.
 
2013-07-09 02:26:31 PM  

zomega: The My Little Pony Killer: PizzaJedi81: meat0918: At least C.S. Lewis is readable and enjoyable.

Well...before The Last Battle, anyway.

That one was worth it though, because C.S. Lewis is still the only author I know of who would end his series by killing off all of his main characters at once.

Susan's not dead. She's still alive as of book's end.


Right.

Susan is separated from all her family for all eternity because she stopped believing.

Nice ending.
 
2013-07-09 02:29:53 PM  

Super_pope: 1.) Not buying things because they support something you find amoral: Good


read my posts.
"for about 20 years I have refused to fill up at a Shell Station because I have issues with their policy in Africa. I don't shop at Wal-Mart. I'm all about not giving my money to people I do not approve of."
"You are free to keep your money in your pocket."
"Which is perfectly fine... Give your trade to whomever you choose."
"Nah. If it's a good movie, see it. If it sucks, don't."


So no. You got point 1 wrong.

Super_pope: 2.) Telling other people who you believe will sympathize with your stance but may not be aware of the situation so that they too will consider joining you and possibly enact change: Bad


Insomuch as doing so is intended to punish people who think the "wrong" way, yes.

Super_pope: Your position is that we should be willful but ultimately impotent because mobilizing more than just yourself makes you a jerk and pollutes our societal discourse?


I am saying that we should stop calling for financial fatwah. I am saying "Can we stop with the call for a boycott of anyone we disagree with politically? Everyone? Moratorium on punitive boycotts for dissenting political views please"? I am saying that It's the increasingly reflexive use of the boycott as a punishment for people with whom we politically disagree that is the problem.

And I am saying that this is not exclusive to either side. As I pointed out above it was equally dumb and wrong for Evangelicals to boycott Disney for giving same sex benefits as it was for Pro-Gay people to boycott Chik-Fil-A for being anti-gay or whatever.
 
2013-07-09 02:30:33 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: As I pointed out above it was equally dumb and wrong for Evangelicals to boycott Disney for giving same sex benefits as it was for Pro-Gay people to boycott Chik-Fil-A for being anti-gay or whatever.


How is boycotting "wrong"? If Evangelicals wanted to boycott Disney for giving same-sex benefits, that's their right to do so.

When people boycotted CFA, it wasn't because CEO Dan Cathy doesn't agree with gay marriage - it was because part of their money went to causes that funded the slaughter of homosexuals in Uganda.

Damn, this thread really brought out a lot of purposely obtuse trolls.
 
2013-07-09 02:30:58 PM  

Mike Chewbacca: No. Because people like OSC are actively oppressing other Americans. They need to know that's not acceptable. They need to know their behavior is wrong. Yes, he should be punished, not for being a bigot, but for actively working to oppress people.


Try to follow me here: That is how YOU see it. And that is a valid and legitimate viewpoint.

Not everyone sees opposition to homosexuality as "oppressing people", and they have a valid and legitimate viewpoint as well. You and I may not agree, but this does not mean they are evil bigots. Obviously, some may be, but as Americans, we must acknowledge that they are entitled to their viewpoint as well, no matter how strongly we disagree. They have a valid and legitimate right to advocate legally for their position as we have a right to oppose and advocate for ours. Welcome to America. Stop calling for financial fatwah.
 
2013-07-09 02:31:49 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: read my posts.
"for about 20 years I have refused to fill up at a Shell Station because I have issues with their policy in Africa. I don't shop at Wal-Mart. I'm all about not giving my money to people I do not approve of."
"You are free to keep your money in your pocket."
"Which is perfectly fine... Give your trade to whomever you choose."
"Nah. If it's a good movie, see it. If it sucks, don't."

So no. You got point 1 wrong.


No he didn't.  His post is right there, you even quoted the right part.
 
2013-07-09 02:34:48 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: Mike Chewbacca: No. Because people like OSC are actively oppressing other Americans. They need to know that's not acceptable. They need to know their behavior is wrong. Yes, he should be punished, not for being a bigot, but for actively working to oppress people.

Try to follow me here: That is how YOU see it. And that is a valid and legitimate viewpoint.

Not everyone sees opposition to homosexuality as "oppressing people", and they have a valid and legitimate viewpoint as well. You and I may not agree, but this does not mean they are evil bigots. Obviously, some may be, but as Americans, we must acknowledge that they are entitled to their viewpoint as well, no matter how strongly we disagree. They have a valid and legitimate right to advocate legally for their position as we have a right to oppose and advocate for ours. Welcome to America. Stop calling for financial fatwah.


He can call for financial fatwah that is a valid and legitimate point. You can also get a life and ignore what he chooses to do with his time.

Just like Orson Scott Card needs to regarding homosexuals.
 
2013-07-09 02:36:37 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: Mike Chewbacca: No. Because people like OSC are actively oppressing other Americans. They need to know that's not acceptable. They need to know their behavior is wrong. Yes, he should be punished, not for being a bigot, but for actively working to oppress people.

Try to follow me here: That is how YOU see it. And that is a valid and legitimate viewpoint.

Not everyone sees opposition to homosexuality as "oppressing people", and they have a valid and legitimate viewpoint as well. You and I may not agree, but this does not mean they are evil bigots. Obviously, some may be, but as Americans, we must acknowledge that they are entitled to their viewpoint as well, no matter how strongly we disagree. They have a valid and legitimate right to advocate legally for their position as we have a right to oppose and advocate for ours. Welcome to America. Stop calling for financial fatwah.


He thinks gay sex should be illegal, and that if the government "redefines" marriage then our government is the enemy of the people and must be overthrown at all cost. He said HE would act to bring down that government. That's a little different than just thinking gays are gross. That's a little different than having a difference of opinion. He can hate gays all he wants, but the second he works to keep them unequal citizens, he loses the right for me to just turn a blind eye to his bigotry.
 
2013-07-09 02:37:46 PM  
kronicfeld:

"We disagreed" is an utterly disingenuous characterization of the "debate." He actively worked for decades to demonize homosexuals through his proselytizing and his National Organization for Marriage fought tirelessly to deny them equal rights. So, no, this isn't a situation where you "agree to disagree" and shake your opposition's hand after a good-faith debate. He wants to "move on" because paying any attention to his past now is going to reveal him to a much broader audience as a hateful bigot.

Needs to be re-posted since there are still people in this thread attempting the "you're boycotting him for expressing his personal opinion" excuse.  A couple of hundred posts after this and people are still attempting it.
 
2013-07-09 02:39:07 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: Mike Chewbacca: No. Because people like OSC are actively oppressing other Americans. They need to know that's not acceptable. They need to know their behavior is wrong. Yes, he should be punished, not for being a bigot, but for actively working to oppress people.

Try to follow me here: That is how YOU see it. And that is a valid and legitimate viewpoint.

Not everyone sees opposition to homosexuality as "oppressing people", and they have a valid and legitimate viewpoint as well. You and I may not agree, but this does not mean they are evil bigots. Obviously, some may be, but as Americans, we must acknowledge that they are entitled to their viewpoint as well, no matter how strongly we disagree. They have a valid and legitimate right to advocate legally for their position as we have a right to oppose and advocate for ours. Welcome to America. Stop calling for financial fatwah.


And frankly, if he was lobbying to disenfranchise blacks, or oultaw marriage between Christians and non-Christians or blacks and whites or Asians and blacks, you wouldn't be making this argument. You'd be just as outraged as the rest of us. So the fact that you are arguing in favor of OSC says something about you.
 
2013-07-09 02:39:08 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: Not everyone sees opposition to homosexuality as "oppressing people", and they have a valid and legitimate viewpoint as well. You and I may not agree, but this does not mean they are evil bigots. Obviously, some may be, but as Americans, we must acknowledge that they are entitled to their viewpoint as well, no matter how strongly we disagree. They have a valid and legitimate right to advocate legally for their position as we have a right to oppose and advocate for ours. Welcome to America. Stop calling for financial fatwah


OSC is a member of of the board of directors of NOM. He actively gives his time and money to a cause that prevents other people from having equal rights. He has advocated imprisoning gay people for "committing sodomy" (because straight people NEVER do it in the butt!), and even wrote that if gay marriage becomes legal, the government should be overthrown.

That pretty much defines Card as "an evil bigot".

Refusing to understand this defines you as "a stupid idiot".
 
kab
2013-07-09 02:39:25 PM  

Znuh: Saying you can appreciate the work and can somehow separate the art from the creator is akin to appreciating a lamp made out of human skin.

"It's a nice lamp, very uh, radiant..uh...oh god."

You can't. Art is reflective of the individual, the two are forever emotionally linked. Hitler's paintings take on extra meaning when you learn about his other activities.

So, no. I feel like I've bitten into a chocolate that had the illusion of awesome, and was filled with pus.


Well no, because I can plainly see what the lampshade is made of.

Lots of folks judge art on its own merit, and willingly (or otherwise) either don't know, or don't care about the personality of the person that created it.

I'm 100% sure that some of my favorite musicians are raging assholes of the highest order as individuals.   That doesn't impact my appreciation of what they do in the slightest.... it just makes me uninterested in having them over for a beer.

If we're aspiring to do background checks on our entertainment prior to consuming it, you're going to be spending a lot of time playing checkers, or twiddling your thumbs.

/read Enders Game
//thought it was decent, but not amazing, and certainly not worthy of the accolades it's received.
///learning of the author's stance doesn't change my opinion.
 
2013-07-09 02:39:48 PM  

FuryOfFirestorm: BojanglesPaladin: Not everyone sees opposition to homosexuality as "oppressing people", and they have a valid and legitimate viewpoint as well. You and I may not agree, but this does not mean they are evil bigots. Obviously, some may be, but as Americans, we must acknowledge that they are entitled to their viewpoint as well, no matter how strongly we disagree. They have a valid and legitimate right to advocate legally for their position as we have a right to oppose and advocate for ours. Welcome to America. Stop calling for financial fatwah

OSC is a member of of the board of directors of NOM. He actively gives his time and money to a cause that prevents other people from having equal rights. He has advocated imprisoning gay people for "committing sodomy" (because straight people NEVER do it in the butt!), and even wrote that if gay marriage becomes legal, the government should be overthrown.

That pretty much defines Card as "an evil bigot".

Refusing to understand this defines you as "a stupid idiot".


Democracy?
 
2013-07-09 02:41:41 PM  

Mike Chewbacca: He thinks gay sex should be illegal, and that if the government "redefines" marriage then our government is the enemy of the people and must be overthrown at all cost. He said HE would act to bring down that government. That's a little different than just thinking gays are gross. That's a little different than having a difference of opinion. He can hate gays all he wants, but the second he works to keep them unequal citizens, he loses the right for me to just turn a blind eye to his bigotry.


Is OSC the infamous White Horse of Mormon legend and myth?
 
2013-07-09 02:41:49 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: Sigh. No need to be abusive. Try to follow me here: That is how YOU see it. And that is a valid and legitimate viewpoint.

Not everyone sees opposition to homosexuality as "abusing people", and they have a valid and legitimate viewpoint as well. You and I may not agree, but this does not mean they are evil bigots. Obviously, some may be, but as Americans, we must acknowledge that they are entitled to their viewpoint as well, no matter how strongly we disagree. They have a valid and legitimate right to advocate legally for their position as we have a right to oppose and advocate for ours. Welcome to America. Stop calling for fatwah.


Not everyone sees opposition to homosexuality as "abusing people" -

Yes.  That's a true statement

and they have a valid and legitimate viewpoint as well. - No.  What they are opposing is people (who they are not claiming are insane or unfit to sign other legal documents) being treated equally in what is essentially a property contract between two parties.  They are opposed to this because the parties involved are unholy in their eyes.  In a society governed by reason, this viewpoint is NOT valid and legitimate.  It might be in a theocracy, but that is not what we are, and there is no legally acceptable framework to make us one no matter how fervent belief is.  These things fly in some areas because religious beliefs are entrenched, but that does not change the fact that they have no place in our codified legal framework and laws like DOMA only exist because it was popular with very vocal/very terrible people.

You and I may not agree, but this does not mean they are evil bigots - No.  See above.
Obviously, some may be - Yes

but as Americans, we must acknowledge that they are entitled to their viewpoint as well, no matter how strongly we disagree - No.  These people advocate theocratic control of my society.  They are entitled to believe what they want, but they are not entitled to pursue a legislative agenda without opposition.

They have a valid and legitimate right to advocate legally for their position as we have a right to oppose and advocate for ours. Welcome to America. Stop calling for fatwah. - Two decades ago they were using financial weapons in an organized way against Disney.  Why wouldn't I do the same to keep them from forcing my friends and neighbors to live like they're impaired?  You're a shiatty American, and really self congratulatory about how above the fray your ass is.
 
2013-07-09 02:41:55 PM  
Isn't a boycott of this guys books as bad as someone who boycotts a business because the proprietor is gay?  I never understood this mentality, so his an opinion that is stupid if you like his books read them. I read some where that Picasso was an ass hat of a person but that doesn't mean he was not a great artist.
 
2013-07-09 02:43:43 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: Not everyone sees opposition to homosexuality as "oppressing people",


Of course the people who want to prevent gays from marrying don't see themselves as oppressing people. Of course the people who wanted homosexuality to remain illegal don't see themselves as oppressing people.

But that's exactly what they are doing. The actions of those who "oppose homosexuality" are to pass laws that relegate gays to the status of second-class citizen. Those who "oppose homosexuality" want to enact laws that hurt gays. Those who "oppose homosexuality" want to pass laws for the sole purpose of making the lives of gays harder.

Furthermore, those who "oppose homosexuality" will lose exactly nothing if gays get equality. They will not lose any rights, any privileges, anything at all if gays get treated equally before the law.

It's one thing to hold an opinion. I respect opinions and your right to express them, even if we disagree. However, when you try to enact your opinion, to force other people to live according to YOUR rules, then we have a problem. Your right to believe ends where someone else's life begins.
 
2013-07-09 02:45:02 PM  

FuryOfFirestorm: When people boycotted CFA, it wasn't because CEO Dan Cathy doesn't agree with gay marriage - it was because part of their money went to causes that funded the slaughter of homosexuals in Uganda.


I can honestly say that of all the people I know (many dozens personally) who participated in the Chik-Fil-A protests and boycotts and flooded Facebook and e-mails with calls to action, not once did anyone bring up the slaughter of homosexuals in Uganda.

So I just looked it up. What you mean to say is that Chik-Fil-A once gave $25K to a different group who may have spent some of that money lobbying the US Congress to change the specific wording of a bill that would have issued a non-binding condemnation of Uganda's anti-homosexuality bill, which called for a death penalty. At least according to Snopes and HuffPo. So Chik-Fil-A to FRC to Lobbying congress to Uganda's already existing law, which congress' bill would not have changed anyway.

That is so far away from "funding the slaughter of homosexuals in Uganda", it makes me sad that you would post that. Now if I missed something, or you are referring to something else, please feel free to correct me, but as it stands, you look like you intentionally or blindly regurgitated propaganda. And if so, you should be more careful and maybe a little ashamed.

And you didn't answer my other question :)
 
2013-07-09 02:45:11 PM  

praymantis: Isn't a boycott of this guys books as bad as someone who boycotts a business because the proprietor is gay?


No. If you can't see the difference between bigotry and not tolerating bigots, well, you need your head checked.
 
2013-07-09 02:46:11 PM  

soporific: . However, when you try to enact your opinion, to force other people to live according to YOUR rules, then we have a problem.


Isn't that politics in nutshell? Exactly that? Trying to enforce one's views on the masses?
 
2013-07-09 02:46:25 PM  

Super_pope: the fray your find it edifying to pretend your ass is


ftfm
 
2013-07-09 02:48:24 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: I can honestly say that of all the people I know (many dozens personally) who participated in the Chik-Fil-A protests and boycotts and flooded Facebook and e-mails with calls to action, not once did anyone bring up the slaughter of homosexuals in Uganda.


Well then clearly no one anywhere boycotted CFA because of that!
 
2013-07-09 02:51:42 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: I can honestly say that of all the people I know (many dozens personally) who participated in the Chik-Fil-A protests and boycotts and flooded Facebook and e-mails with calls to action, not once did anyone bring up the slaughter of homosexuals in Uganda.


I know of no one who has personally seen a duck engage in an act of homosexual necrophilia, but that doesn't mean it didn't happen.
 
2013-07-09 02:53:35 PM  

FuryOfFirestorm: OSC is on the board of directors for NOM.


And your point here is what, exactly? The man is entitled to his beliefs, and yes, even his political affiliations. No matter how repulsive they are. Judge the work on its own merits, not any given political belief of the author, especially when that belief has little if anything to do with the subject material. This wrongful idea that a work can have no merit if its creator hasn't amendable political and religious beliefs is anti-pluralist and has to go.
 
2013-07-09 02:58:33 PM  

Mike Chewbacca: And frankly, if he was lobbying to disenfranchise blacks, or oultaw marriage between Christians and non-Christians or blacks and whites or Asians and blacks, you wouldn't be making this argument. You'd be just as outraged as the rest of us.


I am outraged by his bigotry. I liked both the Ender Series and Alvin Maker and a few others, but I don't buy his stuff anymore. For much the same reason I don't financially support Woody Allen, Roman Polanski or Michael Jackson.

You are missing the point. Here's a clue: I agree with the ACLU when they defend the Klan's right to march, though I wouldn't piss on a Kluxxer if he was on fire, and I think they should all DIAF.

Super_pope: They are entitled to believe what they want, but they are not entitled to pursue a legislative agenda without opposition.


Of course not. Are you even reading my posts before responding? I've already addressed this exact point to you directly:

BojanglesPaladin: They have a valid and legitimate right to advocate legally for their position as we have a right to oppose and advocate for ours. Welcome to America. Stop calling for fatwah.



Super_pope: Two decades ago they were using financial weapons in an organized way against Disney. Why wouldn't I do the same to keep them from forcing my friends and neighbors to live like they're impaired?


You seem to have missed the numerous times I have pointed out that I thought it was wrong when the evangelicals did that. Just scroll up and read more slowly and I think we can save some time.
 
2013-07-09 02:59:18 PM  

Mike Chewbacca: BojanglesPaladin: I can honestly say that of all the people I know (many dozens personally) who participated in the Chik-Fil-A protests and boycotts and flooded Facebook and e-mails with calls to action, not once did anyone bring up the slaughter of homosexuals in Uganda.

Well then clearly no one anywhere boycotted CFA because of that!


I believe he was asking for people to be tolerant of one another. just because he does not believe in gay marriage he is a bigot? So what about people who believe in marrying many people? Are we all bigots now because we don't agree with that?
 
2013-07-09 02:59:31 PM  
So, serious question here: you think Card gets a cut of the boxoffice or do you think he's already been paid in full for the rights? Will boycotting Ender's Game actually hurt him? Will it hurt the hundreds of other people involved in production? Or will it just be dip in some executive producer's studio's wallet where they go, "oh, I guess people didn't like the movie."

What do you figure the actual breakdown is of a film boycott? Would you feel sort of shiatty if the outcome was say: him walking away with the same size check and some random firm going under?

/Not that DD should have traded margin
//for back-end in the first place, mind you
 
2013-07-09 03:01:30 PM  

robohobo: soporific: . However, when you try to enact your opinion, to force other people to live according to YOUR rules, then we have a problem.

Isn't that politics in nutshell? Exactly that? Trying to enforce one's views on the masses?


There's usually a demonstrable benefit to society or a reason behind most laws. The crop of anti-gay laws we've seen lately simply boil down to "Traditional marriage will be damaged but we can't prove it or tell you exactly how" and "Gays shouldn't be treated the same because Jesus says they're icky.". Sorry, that's not anywhere even close to a legitimate reason to treat people unequally.
 
2013-07-09 03:01:36 PM  

that bosnian sniper: FuryOfFirestorm: OSC is on the board of directors for NOM.

And your point here is what, exactly? The man is entitled to his beliefs, and yes, even his political affiliations. No matter how repulsive they are. Judge the work on its own merits, not any given political belief of the author, especially when that belief has little if anything to do with the subject material. This wrongful idea that a work can have no merit if its creator hasn't amendable political and religious beliefs is anti-pluralist and has to go.


I'm still getting a handle on the discussion, but something that may help would be to distinguish between whether a work has merit and whether one wishes to directly or indirectly support the guy financially or symbolically by paying for the work.
 
2013-07-09 03:02:21 PM  

Some Bass Playing Guy: I enjoyed Ender's Game.

But Card can EABOD.


That's pretty much where I am on this. Still haven't decided if I'm gonna go see Ender's Game when it comes out or not.
 
2013-07-09 03:02:57 PM  

Mike Chewbacca: Well then clearly no one anywhere boycotted CFA because of that!

Serious Black: I know of no one who has personally seen a duck engage in an act of homosexual necrophilia, but that doesn't mean it didn't happen.


Skipped the rest of that post without reading didncha? Because if they DID, then they were propaganda swallowing morons, since that didn't actually happen.

I was saying I had not heard that particular criticism before. Then I researched it. And it's bunk, which is probably why none of my intelligent, activist friends used it as a reason. Besides, they had plenty of others.

Next time, maybe read first and post less reflexively? Not every single thing has to be a slap fight.
 
2013-07-09 03:04:27 PM  
Ender's Game was a great book.

Those pushing the Gay agenda on the public are as annoying as the sight of two men making out.

Card +1
Corn holing  0
 
2013-07-09 03:07:31 PM  
All of this is reverse engineered marketing to get the Christians out to go see this movie.
 
2013-07-09 03:10:41 PM  
I know it's not a popular opinion but I really find the whole 'gay marriage' thing to be incredibly hypocritical.

Arguments about mental health, survival of the species, what occurs in nature, what is 'icky' - all have no business in our laws pertaining to sex and marriage.  Consenting adults should be free to marry/hook up/sleep with *whomever* they want.

Virtually every single proponent of gay marriage that I personally know - is still completely cool with the exact same style laws that made it illegal for gays to have sex and still stop many of them from getting married; so long as it is against other types of adults.  These are the same types of laws that once made it illegal for blacks and whites to marry.  Either they are all wrong, or they aren't.

I'm 100% pro-gay marriage.
I'm also 100% pro-incestuous marriage.
I'm also 100% pro-polygamy marriage.
I'm also 100% pro-interracial marriage.

Virtually every single argument made against any one of those applies to the rest.  The government has no business telling consenting adults who they can/can't sleep with marry.
 
2013-07-09 03:11:00 PM  
Personally I'm considering boycotting the Ender's Game movie because I believe, like many other books I've loved, the movie is going to fark up just about everything the book was about. The trailers have pretty clearly pointed it out.

The only reason I will give it a shot is there are plenty of these films that I've come to love as similar stories separate from the original book. 2 examples I can think of off the top of my head are Starship Troopers and the Crow.
 
2013-07-09 03:11:41 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: I am outraged by his bigotry. I liked both the Ender Series and Alvin Maker and a few others, but I don't buy his stuff anymore. For much the same reason I don't financially support Woody Allen, Roman Polanski or Michael Jackson.



BojanglesPaladin: I am saying "Can we stop with the call for a boycott of anyone we disagree with politically? Everyone? Moratorium on punitive boycotts for dissenting political views please"?


WTF? You're not even doing what you're asking us to do. There's a word for that... I think it starts with an H and ends with "ypocrisy."
 
2013-07-09 03:13:46 PM  
Now it will be interesting to see whether the victorious proponents of gay marriage will show tolerance toward those who disagreed with them when the issue was still in dispute.

Congratulations, you've confirmed to everyone you're an asshole.
 
2013-07-09 03:14:04 PM  

that bosnian sniper: Judge the work on its own merits, not any given political belief of the author, especially when that belief has little if anything to do with the subject material.


Roman Polanski fled the country after drugging a 13 year old girl to assrape her.  I don't patronize his movies either, regardless of whether or not they're good.  I don't want to contribute to the success of a good film that will, by its success provide future funds that support the posh lifestyle of a guy who farks drugged children.  If someone suggests we see or rent a movie like that I make it known.  Do you feel like that is a bad idea?  Ought I go out and try to enjoy his films because none of them are about him and how much he likes to rape near unconscious tween girls?

Some people are scum, regardless of whether or not they believe they're actually right, awesome, and totally doing the right thing.  I haven't seen any Polanski films but people tell me they're good.  I don't judge they're quality because I haven't seen them, but I have determined that they are not for me nonetheless.
 
2013-07-09 03:15:46 PM  

praymantis: just because he does not believe in gay marriage he is a bigot?


Yep. Because there's no good reason gay folks should be banned from marrying their love ones.

praymantis: So what about people who believe in marrying many people?


It depends on why. Because it's icky and I just don't think it's right isn't a valid reason. Because it opens a massive can of worms regarding marital rights, property rights, and inheritance rights, spousal rights, and child support? Well, that's a bit different. Because so often the women involved in it are brainwashed and taken advantage of by the men in their circles/families? That's different.
 
2013-07-09 03:16:04 PM  
Fark_Guy_Rob:

I'm 100% pro-gay marriage.
I'm also 100% pro-incestuous marriage.
I'm also 100% pro-polygamy marriage.
I'm also 100% pro-interracial marriage.

Virtually every single argument made against any one of those applies to the rest.  The government has no business telling consenting adults who they can/can't sleep with marry.


I'm against all legal definition of marriage.
Marriage is a religious thing and an imaginary societal construct.
I have problems with incest but that has nothing to do with marriage.
I can already live with and have sex with any consenting adult(s) that I want to.
There is nothing logical about getting a tax deduction because of it.
 
2013-07-09 03:16:07 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: Mike Chewbacca: And frankly, if he was lobbying to disenfranchise blacks, or oultaw marriage between Christians and non-Christians or blacks and whites or Asians and blacks, you wouldn't be making this argument. You'd be just as outraged as the rest of us.

I am outraged by his bigotry. I liked both the Ender Series and Alvin Maker and a few others, but I don't buy his stuff anymore. For much the same reason I don't financially support Woody Allen, Roman Polanski or Michael Jackson.

You are missing the point. Here's a clue: I agree with the ACLU when they defend the Klan's right to march, though I wouldn't piss on a Kluxxer if he was on fire, and I think they should all DIAF.



I think people were thrown off by this previous bit of yours:

BojanglesPaladin: Not everyone sees opposition to homosexuality as "abusing people", and they have a valid and legitimate viewpoint as well. You and I may not agree, but this does not mean they are evil bigots.


This could be interpreted as you giving approval to such views as you characterize them as 'valid', and in addition could be characterized as not being bigotry. Taking special care to use unambiguous language is worth the effort in these charged kinds of discussions, IMHO.
 
2013-07-09 03:16:28 PM  

that bosnian sniper: FuryOfFirestorm: OSC is on the board of directors for NOM.

And your point here is what, exactly? The man is entitled to his beliefs, and yes, even his political affiliations. No matter how repulsive they are. Judge the work on its own merits, not any given political belief of the author, especially when that belief has little if anything to do with the subject material. This wrongful idea that a work can have no merit if its creator hasn't amendable political and religious beliefs is anti-pluralist and has to go.


Or DO judge the author's work based on his assholishness, and read other stuff. Meanwhile you can get on with your life.
 
2013-07-09 03:17:18 PM  

Mike Chewbacca: WTF? You're not even doing what you're asking us to do.


Sigh. Try reading again from the top more slowly. But since you have indicated you can't be bothered to read ALL the words, I'll just re-post one of the numerous times I have explained this. It's only a few sentences so see if you can make it all the way through:

BojanglesPaladin: No seriously, for about 20 years I have refused to fill up at a Shell Station because I have issues with their policy in Africa. I don't shop at Wal-Mart. I'm all about not giving my money to people I do not approve of.
That is a different animal than all this calling for a financial fatwah boycott against political opponents. It is a subtle distinction perhaps, but a distinction with a difference.
I am not saying that OSC has not earned the ire directed at him, or that everyone is not perfectly entitled to give or not give money to the film or his books based on your individual conscience.
I am saying "Can we stop with the call for a boycott of anyone we disagree with politically? Everyone? Moratorium on punitive boycotts for dissenting political views please"?
That's it.



Capiche?
 
2013-07-09 03:17:52 PM  

Super_pope: that bosnian sniper: Judge the work on its own merits, not any given political belief of the author, especially when that belief has little if anything to do with the subject material.

Roman Polanski fled the country after drugging a 13 year old girl to assrape her.  I don't patronize his movies either, regardless of whether or not they're good.  I don't want to contribute to the success of a good film that will, by its success provide future funds that support the posh lifestyle of a guy who farks drugged children.  If someone suggests we see or rent a movie like that I make it known.  Do you feel like that is a bad idea?  Ought I go out and try to enjoy his films because none of them are about him and how much he likes to rape near unconscious tween girls?

Some people are scum, regardless of whether or not they believe they're actually right, awesome, and totally doing the right thing.  I haven't seen any Polanski films but people tell me they're good.  I don't judge they're quality because I haven't seen them, but I have determined that they are not for me nonetheless.


static4.businessinsider.com

Oh hai, guys, what's going on in this thread?
 
2013-07-09 03:18:23 PM  

Mike Chewbacca: praymantis: just because he does not believe in gay marriage he is a bigot?

Yep. Because there's no good reason gay folks should be banned from marrying their love ones.

praymantis: So what about people who believe in marrying many people?

It depends on why. Because it's icky and I just don't think it's right isn't a valid reason. Because it opens a massive can of worms regarding marital rights, property rights, and inheritance rights, spousal rights, and child support? Well, that's a bit different. Because so often the women involved in it are brainwashed and taken advantage of by the men in their circles/families? That's different.


People said the same thing about gay marriage.  'Two college buddies will just get married for tax purposes!'
 
2013-07-09 03:19:50 PM  

Super_pope: that bosnian sniper: Judge the work on its own merits, not any given political belief of the author, especially when that belief has little if anything to do with the subject material.

Roman Polanski fled the country after drugging a 13 year old girl to assrape her.  I don't patronize his movies either, regardless of whether or not they're good.  I don't want to contribute to the success of a good film that will, by its success provide future funds that support the posh lifestyle of a guy who farks drugged children.  If someone suggests we see or rent a movie like that I make it known.  Do you feel like that is a bad idea?  Ought I go out and try to enjoy his films because none of them are about him and how much he likes to rape near unconscious tween girls?

Some people are scum, regardless of whether or not they believe they're actually right, awesome, and totally doing the right thing.  I haven't seen any Polanski films but people tell me they're good.  I don't judge they're quality because I haven't seen them, but I have determined that they are not for me nonetheless.


Would you watch a Polanski film after he's dead and won't benefit from your dollar?

Obviously different, but I'm curious how far the mindset goes: Would you turn down a lifesaving surgery if the technique had been developed through involuntary human experimentation?
 
2013-07-09 03:20:05 PM  

ProfessorOhki: So, serious question here: you think Card gets a cut of the boxoffice or do you think he's already been paid in full for the rights? Will boycotting Ender's Game actually hurt him? Will it hurt the hundreds of other people involved in production? Or will it just be dip in some executive producer's studio's wallet where they go, "oh, I guess people didn't like the movie."

What do you figure the actual breakdown is of a film boycott? Would you feel sort of shiatty if the outcome was say: him walking away with the same size check and some random firm going under?

/Not that DD should have traded margin
//for back-end in the first place, mind you


Even if OSC got flat rate, a low box office still affects him, especially if it canbe attributed to a boycott against him personally -he has many other books to sell. If working with him is a hassle and loses money for the studio instead of earning money, they won't go back to that well, will they.

Wook: Those pushing the Gay agenda on the public are as annoying as the sight of two men making out.



The "Gay agenda" is live and let live.  What I do in my bedroom with my wife is none of your farking business.  Doesn't affect you.  Doesn't affect your kids.  Same thing for Ellen and Portia, or Sam and Dave, or any couple.  There is no gay agenda ecept LEAVE US THE FARK ALONE.
 
2013-07-09 03:20:09 PM  

Begoggle: Fark_Guy_Rob:

I'm 100% pro-gay marriage.
I'm also 100% pro-incestuous marriage.
I'm also 100% pro-polygamy marriage.
I'm also 100% pro-interracial marriage.

Virtually every single argument made against any one of those applies to the rest.  The government has no business telling consenting adults who they can/can't sleep with marry.

I'm against all legal definition of marriage.
Marriage is a religious thing and an imaginary societal construct.
I have problems with incest but that has nothing to do with marriage.
I can already live with and have sex with any consenting adult(s) that I want to.
There is nothing logical about getting a tax deduction because of it.


I can completely agree with/support your stance - minus the incest part.  Any law that says who I can have sex with (provided the partner is able to consent) is wrong IMHO.

But sure - either remove the government from marriage or make it so everyone can take part.  Anything else is hypocritical.
 
2013-07-09 03:20:29 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: Mike Chewbacca: WTF? You're not even doing what you're asking us to do.

Sigh. Try reading again from the top more slowly. But since you have indicated you can't be bothered to read ALL the words, I'll just re-post one of the numerous times I have explained this. It's only a few sentences so see if you can make it all the way through:

BojanglesPaladin: No seriously, for about 20 years I have refused to fill up at a Shell Station because I have issues with their policy in Africa. I don't shop at Wal-Mart. I'm all about not giving my money to people I do not approve of.
That is a different animal than all this calling for a financial fatwah boycott against political opponents. It is a subtle distinction perhaps, but a distinction with a difference.
I am not saying that OSC has not earned the ire directed at him, or that everyone is not perfectly entitled to give or not give money to the film or his books based on your individual conscience.
I am saying "Can we stop with the call for a boycott of anyone we disagree with politically? Everyone? Moratorium on punitive boycotts for dissenting political views please"?
That's it.

Capiche?


No, I don't capiche. You admit that you are boycotting OSC's works. Yet you are angry at the rest of us for doing the same thing. Or is that we're openly calling for a boycott rather than just engaging in an individual boycott in silence?
 
2013-07-09 03:22:00 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: Mike Chewbacca: WTF? You're not even doing what you're asking us to do.

Sigh. Try reading again from the top more slowly. But since you have indicated you can't be bothered to read ALL the words, I'll just re-post one of the numerous times I have explained this. It's only a few sentences so see if you can make it all the way through:

BojanglesPaladin: No seriously, for about 20 years I have refused to fill up at a Shell Station because I have issues with their policy in Africa. I don't shop at Wal-Mart. I'm all about not giving my money to people I do not approve of.
That is a different animal than all this calling for a financial fatwah boycott against political opponents. It is a subtle distinction perhaps, but a distinction with a difference.
I am not saying that OSC has not earned the ire directed at him, or that everyone is not perfectly entitled to give or not give money to the film or his books based on your individual conscience.
I am saying "Can we stop with the call for a boycott of anyone we disagree with politically? Everyone? Moratorium on punitive boycotts for dissenting political views please"?
That's it.

Capiche?



Ah. So the difference you're talking about is not about the act of boycotting a product or service (which you're fine with), but whether one should call on others to do so?
 
2013-07-09 03:22:24 PM  
I read the first couple books of the "Ender's Game" series... I found the first book pretty good (not amazing, but not horrible). I found the second book boring, lame, and annoying. I stopped reading the series after finishing the second book. Later I learned about Card's bigotry and public efforts to spread his bigotry. I will not be watching "Ender's Game" in any way that Card could profit from it (I might watch a free showing of it sometime in the future when it's sure not to produce any kind of profitability for him). The reason I do not want to engage in any activity he could profit from is because I have to assume he will use that profit to promote his bigotry. I will not be a willing participant in funding his ability to spread his bigotry.
 
2013-07-09 03:22:48 PM  

Fark_Guy_Rob: Mike Chewbacca: praymantis: just because he does not believe in gay marriage he is a bigot?

Yep. Because there's no good reason gay folks should be banned from marrying their love ones.

praymantis: So what about people who believe in marrying many people?

It depends on why. Because it's icky and I just don't think it's right isn't a valid reason. Because it opens a massive can of worms regarding marital rights, property rights, and inheritance rights, spousal rights, and child support? Well, that's a bit different. Because so often the women involved in it are brainwashed and taken advantage of by the men in their circles/families? That's different.

People said the same thing about gay marriage.  'Two college buddies will just get married for tax purposes!'


That's not at all what I was saying. I'm saying that allowing more than two partners in a marriage would require reworking all of our laws at the local, county, state, and federal level regarding marriage because our laws aren't set up to handle more than two spouses. That's completely different than two people (of whatever gender) getting married to get tax benefits.
 
2013-07-09 03:27:04 PM  

Mike Chewbacca: Fark_Guy_Rob: Mike Chewbacca: praymantis: just because he does not believe in gay marriage he is a bigot?

Yep. Because there's no good reason gay folks should be banned from marrying their love ones.

praymantis: So what about people who believe in marrying many people?

It depends on why. Because it's icky and I just don't think it's right isn't a valid reason. Because it opens a massive can of worms regarding marital rights, property rights, and inheritance rights, spousal rights, and child support? Well, that's a bit different. Because so often the women involved in it are brainwashed and taken advantage of by the men in their circles/families? That's different.

People said the same thing about gay marriage.  'Two college buddies will just get married for tax purposes!'

That's not at all what I was saying. I'm saying that allowing more than two partners in a marriage would require reworking all of our laws at the local, county, state, and federal level regarding marriage because our laws aren't set up to handle more than two spouses. That's completely different than two people (of whatever gender) getting married to get tax benefits.


So discrimination is okay if changing it requires any sort of effort?

We manage to pull it off for soulless corporations....
 
2013-07-09 03:27:10 PM  

Fark_Guy_Rob: Mike Chewbacca: praymantis: just because he does not believe in gay marriage he is a bigot?

Yep. Because there's no good reason gay folks should be banned from marrying their love ones.

praymantis: So what about people who believe in marrying many people?

It depends on why. Because it's icky and I just don't think it's right isn't a valid reason. Because it opens a massive can of worms regarding marital rights, property rights, and inheritance rights, spousal rights, and child support? Well, that's a bit different. Because so often the women involved in it are brainwashed and taken advantage of by the men in their circles/families? That's different.

People said the same thing about gay marriage.  'Two college buddies will just get married for tax purposes!'


If the college buddies are male and female, that's already possible. There's a practical difference between extending legal pair-bonding to any pair of adults and between completely overhauling all related law to account for arbitrary numbers of people. It's a legislative challenge on a completely different scale.
 
2013-07-09 03:27:17 PM  

Fark_Guy_Rob: Begoggle: Fark_Guy_Rob:

I'm 100% pro-gay marriage.
I'm also 100% pro-incestuous marriage.
I'm also 100% pro-polygamy marriage.
I'm also 100% pro-interracial marriage.

Virtually every single argument made against any one of those applies to the rest.  The government has no business telling consenting adults who they can/can't sleep with marry.

I'm against all legal definition of marriage.
Marriage is a religious thing and an imaginary societal construct.
I have problems with incest but that has nothing to do with marriage.
I can already live with and have sex with any consenting adult(s) that I want to.
There is nothing logical about getting a tax deduction because of it.

I can completely agree with/support your stance - minus the incest part.  Any law that says who I can have sex with (provided the partner is able to consent) is wrong IMHO.

But sure - either remove the government from marriage or make it so everyone can take part.  Anything else is hypocritical.


To be honest if you can distance yourself from the immediate reaction of 'Ick' incest isn't really a problem unless you have children.  Just make them get sterilized.  Also if they are trying to get married it's not like they aren't already sleeping together.  Banning the marriage isn't going to fix the problem.  Thanks for making me think these thoughts Heinlein. You sick bastard.
 
2013-07-09 03:27:22 PM  
Sorry Jews for that Holocaust thing.

I hope that now that WW II is over, we can all get along.

-The Nazi Party

/goodwin!
 
2013-07-09 03:28:28 PM  

Fark_Guy_Rob: Mike Chewbacca: Fark_Guy_Rob: Mike Chewbacca: praymantis: just because he does not believe in gay marriage he is a bigot?

Yep. Because there's no good reason gay folks should be banned from marrying their love ones.

praymantis: So what about people who believe in marrying many people?

It depends on why. Because it's icky and I just don't think it's right isn't a valid reason. Because it opens a massive can of worms regarding marital rights, property rights, and inheritance rights, spousal rights, and child support? Well, that's a bit different. Because so often the women involved in it are brainwashed and taken advantage of by the men in their circles/families? That's different.

People said the same thing about gay marriage.  'Two college buddies will just get married for tax purposes!'

That's not at all what I was saying. I'm saying that allowing more than two partners in a marriage would require reworking all of our laws at the local, county, state, and federal level regarding marriage because our laws aren't set up to handle more than two spouses. That's completely different than two people (of whatever gender) getting married to get tax benefits.

So discrimination is okay if changing it requires any sort of effort?

We manage to pull it off for soulless corporations....


Step 1: Move goalposts
Step 2: Move goalposts
Step 3: Profit!
 
2013-07-09 03:31:18 PM  

Damnhippyfreak: This could be interpreted as you giving approval to such views as you characterize them as 'valid', and in addition could be characterized as not being bigotry. Taking special care to use unambiguous language is worth the effort in these charged kinds of discussions, IMHO.


I'm certain you are correct, especially considering this is Fark which tends to be context free and where not everyone even reads all the words.

That being said, I am comfortable with saying that I consider opposition to homosexuality and gay marriage to be a valid and legitimate viewpoint, while at no time considering that to be an endorsement. I consider the viewpoints of many gun-control advocates to be valid and legitimate, while at no time considering that to be an endorsement. I even consider the racism of the Klu Klux Klan to be a valid and legitimate viewpoint, though I completely disagree.

In my view, we must vigorously oppose a "groupthink" mentality, or the group effort to punish the "not we".

People are entitled by right to hold, espouse and advocate any viewpoint they choose, no matter how unpopular it may be. And, of course, those who disagree are equally entitled to hold, espouse, and advocate in opposition to those viewpoints. All within the legal framework of our democratic system and the marketplace of ideas.

What I object to here, in THIS context, is the increasing certitude that if the opposing viewpoint is deemed "bad enough", those people should be "taught a lesson" and punished in some way. Not because they broke a law, but because they held, espoused or advocated something considered to be "wrongthink". That viewpoint determined to be out of favor should be quashed and those who espouse them punished for advocating them.

If that mentality had been allowed in the 70s, don't you think that the very gay rights movement itself would have been impacted? Remember that there was a time not so very long ago that homosexuality was almost universally understood to be completely abhorrent, wrong, and unacceptable?
 
2013-07-09 03:31:49 PM  

Egoy3k: Fark_Guy_Rob: Begoggle: Fark_Guy_Rob:

I'm 100% pro-gay marriage.
I'm also 100% pro-incestuous marriage.
I'm also 100% pro-polygamy marriage.
I'm also 100% pro-interracial marriage.

Virtually every single argument made against any one of those applies to the rest.  The government has no business telling consenting adults who they can/can't sleep with marry.

I'm against all legal definition of marriage.
Marriage is a religious thing and an imaginary societal construct.
I have problems with incest but that has nothing to do with marriage.
I can already live with and have sex with any consenting adult(s) that I want to.
There is nothing logical about getting a tax deduction because of it.

I can completely agree with/support your stance - minus the incest part.  Any law that says who I can have sex with (provided the partner is able to consent) is wrong IMHO.

But sure - either remove the government from marriage or make it so everyone can take part.  Anything else is hypocritical.

To be honest if you can distance yourself from the immediate reaction of 'Ick' incest isn't really a problem unless you have children.  Just make them get sterilized.  Also if they are trying to get married it's not like they aren't already sleeping together.  Banning the marriage isn't going to fix the problem.  Thanks for making me think these thoughts Heinlein. You sick bastard.


Yes, there are actual biological reasons to prevent siblings from procreating. I read an article a couple years ago about a British couple that met as adults and then found out after they'd started dating that they were full siblings. They've now got 4 kids, all of them with serious medical problems. I don't care who you bone, but be responsible about it.
 
2013-07-09 03:33:01 PM  

ProfessorOhki: Fark_Guy_Rob: Mike Chewbacca: praymantis: just because he does not believe in gay marriage he is a bigot?

Yep. Because there's no good reason gay folks should be banned from marrying their love ones.

praymantis: So what about people who believe in marrying many people?

It depends on why. Because it's icky and I just don't think it's right isn't a valid reason. Because it opens a massive can of worms regarding marital rights, property rights, and inheritance rights, spousal rights, and child support? Well, that's a bit different. Because so often the women involved in it are brainwashed and taken advantage of by the men in their circles/families? That's different.

People said the same thing about gay marriage.  'Two college buddies will just get married for tax purposes!'

If the college buddies are male and female, that's already possible. There's a practical difference between extending legal pair-bonding to any pair of adults and between completely overhauling all related law to account for arbitrary numbers of people. It's a legislative challenge on a completely different scale.


Even if I accept your premise - that it's just 'too hard' to not discriminate against people who desire a different lifestyle....

there are STILL laws *against* it.  Not just marriage - but 'polygamous cohabitation'.  So - basically - we treat them just like we did gays, in the past.  It's not just that they can't get married - they can be ARRESTED for living the lifestyle they choose.  There is no justification for that.
 
2013-07-09 03:34:10 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: Mike Chewbacca: Nobody boycotted CFA for what the owner said, we boycotted CFA because they used corporate profits (to the tune of $5 million over several years) to fund ant-gay organizations, and they actively lobbied against gay rights. In fact, despite saying they've stopped donating to anti-gay groups, they still are.

Nobody boycotted CFA for what the owner said...
Nobody is boycotting Hobby Lobby because they're Christian...
Nobody is boycotting OSC because he's a bigot, ...

Yes. NONE of those boycotts were about punishing people who opposed gay marriage. Of course not. All perfectly justified. After all, these were bad people. You can tell because they had a different viewpoint and actually advocated that viewpoint in public and opposed the things they were opposed to. Only bad people would advocate in opposition to homosexuality, so it is perfectly reasonable for all of us to try to punish them.

I think you are missing the point. Here's a hint. I felt exactly the same way about the evangelicals calling for a boycott of Disney way back when they decided to offer healthcare benefits to same sex partners.


See the only problem with what I guess you fondly imagine to be your "logic" is that you are effectively arguing that we should in the name of tolerance allow intolerance to go unpunished. These people think LGBTs are second class citizens and devote massive national level resources to keep them from being equal to everyone else. If we allow that to go unchecked we are essentially saying its okay to behave that way and no matter how wanna spin it it isn't period. It never ceases to amaze me how many stupid farks will go to bat to preserve another stupid fark's right to be a dirtbag. So take pride in the fact that you fought on the side of bigots today well played.
 
2013-07-09 03:34:21 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: Capiche?


So you're ok with people choosing not to spend money to support people whose views they disagree with, as long as it's not a mass effort? As long as there's no information campaign to alert people to those views?

I had never, ever heard of Roman Polanski's crime until a couple years ago.  I'd heard of him, heard he was some fancy, schmancy director that made wonderful films, but never knew of his personal proclivities.  If someone hadn't made that public, in what appeared to a vocal campaign to let people know, I wouldn't be able to make the choice not to see his movies because he's a disgusting piece of trash.

Your position is really hard for me to fathom.  "Do choose not to spend money on people you disagree with, but don't tell anyone else about those positions so they get the same choice as you."
 
2013-07-09 03:34:26 PM  

ProfessorOhki: Would you watch a Polanski film after he's dead and won't benefit from your dollar?


Interesting question.  Maybe.  If I was sure i'd REALLY like one and I didn't think it would be getting back to him in the form of residuals I guess maybe.  The thing is, I don't feel like I'm missing out on anything by NOT seeing his movies.  There are a lot of movies I haven't seen.  There are a lot of really good movies I haven't seen.  I can stand to just not watch his stuff and not have to untangle whether or not his estate would benefit or whether or not it was important to me that it not.

ProfessorOhki: Obviously different, but I'm curious how far the mindset goes: Would you turn down a lifesaving surgery if the technique had been developed through involuntary human experimentation?

 Nope.  I might turn down a life saving procedure based on ONGOING involuntary human experiments... maybe.  I'm probably not hard enough for that.  I'm definitely hard enough not to see a movie.
 
2013-07-09 03:35:29 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: Mike Chewbacca: Well then clearly no one anywhere boycotted CFA because of that!
Serious Black: I know of no one who has personally seen a duck engage in an act of homosexual necrophilia, but that doesn't mean it didn't happen.

Skipped the rest of that post without reading didncha? Because if they DID, then they were propaganda swallowing morons, since that didn't actually happen.

I was saying I had not heard that particular criticism before. Then I researched it. And it's bunk, which is probably why none of my intelligent, activist friends used it as a reason. Besides, they had plenty of others.

Next time, maybe read first and post less reflexively? Not every single thing has to be a slap fight.


Nah, I did read it. I just thought the dead duck rape story was amusing.

I know a few people who had done research into where CFA's lobbying money goes, but I didn't talk with anyone who actually participated in the Chik-fil-A boycott. The nearest restaurant outside of KU's cafeteria is something like 45 minutes from my house, so pretty much every one of my local friends by default "boycotted" them, if you can call not eating at a restaurant you never eat at because driving an hour to get there is impractical a boycott. I'd wager you're right about what most people were boycotting against. I suspect a lot of them just boycotted because that's what the cool kids were doing.
 
2013-07-09 03:36:50 PM  

rwhamann: BojanglesPaladin: Capiche?

So you're ok with people choosing not to spend money to support people whose views they disagree with, as long as it's not a mass effort? As long as there's no information campaign to alert people to those views?

I had never, ever heard of Roman Polanski's crime until a couple years ago.  I'd heard of him, heard he was some fancy, schmancy director that made wonderful films, but never knew of his personal proclivities.  If someone hadn't made that public, in what appeared to a vocal campaign to let people know, I wouldn't be able to make the choice not to see his movies because he's a disgusting piece of trash.

Your position is really hard for me to fathom.  "Do choose not to spend money on people you disagree with, but don't tell anyone else about those positions so they get the same choice as you."


I think that's his premise. And it really is ridiculous. He's okay with never going to an Eagles game because of Michael Vick, but don't ever try to convince other people to follow suit.
 
2013-07-09 03:37:28 PM  
Magorn:   I recall a series I once picked up a used book store that started entertainingly enough, but then every single gorram book devolved into a paen to libertarianism so extreme even Ron Paul would say "Whoa there big fella, ease back on the stick a bit yeah?".

If it was alternate universes, that was L Neil Smith's probability Broach series, If it was about a galactic revolution it was F Paul Wilson's Healer universe.  (I used to read a whole lot of that kind of crap).
 
2013-07-09 03:37:40 PM  

Mike Chewbacca: Egoy3k: Fark_Guy_Rob: Begoggle: Fark_Guy_Rob:

I'm 100% pro-gay marriage.
I'm also 100% pro-incestuous marriage.
I'm also 100% pro-polygamy marriage.
I'm also 100% pro-interracial marriage.

Virtually every single argument made against any one of those applies to the rest.  The government has no business telling consenting adults who they can/can't sleep with marry.

I'm against all legal definition of marriage.
Marriage is a religious thing and an imaginary societal construct.
I have problems with incest but that has nothing to do with marriage.
I can already live with and have sex with any consenting adult(s) that I want to.
There is nothing logical about getting a tax deduction because of it.

I can completely agree with/support your stance - minus the incest part.  Any law that says who I can have sex with (provided the partner is able to consent) is wrong IMHO.

But sure - either remove the government from marriage or make it so everyone can take part.  Anything else is hypocritical.

To be honest if you can distance yourself from the immediate reaction of 'Ick' incest isn't really a problem unless you have children.  Just make them get sterilized.  Also if they are trying to get married it's not like they aren't already sleeping together.  Banning the marriage isn't going to fix the problem.  Thanks for making me think these thoughts Heinlein. You sick bastard.

Yes, there are actual biological reasons to prevent siblings from procreating. I read an article a couple years ago about a British couple that met as adults and then found out after they'd started dating that they were full siblings. They've now got 4 kids, all of them with serious medical problems. I don't care who you bone, but be responsible about it.


There are PLENTY of couples who we *know* are likely to have genetically defective children.  And we have no laws against it.  We don't require genetic testing.  And if a couple has a genetically defective child, we still let them have more children.

Beyond that - laws against incest apply to have sexual contact - regardless of whether it can lead to a child.  Regardless of whether or not they can have children.

I'd gladly support a law that makes it illegal to have a child in situations where there is a reason to believe there would be a genetic defect.  Cool.  But incest isn't about that.  Also - in many places, even half-siblings (unrelated by blood) are unable to sleep together - so there is no genetic risk at all.  And many relations are more or less likely to result in genetic defect and they all carry the same punishment.

People think incest is 'gross' - and that's fine.  But people said the same thing about gay marriage and about inter-racial marriage.  If someone finds any of those gross - they should be free not to participate in them.  But if someone wants to; more power to them.  That's freedom.  And the government is supposed to protect freedom, not criminalize personal choices.
 
2013-07-09 03:39:05 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: If that mentality had been allowed in the 70s, don't you think that the very gay rights movement itself would have been impacted?


So you uh... you think gays and blacks fighting for their civil rights probably didn't get widespread punitive treatment for those beliefs?  You wanna maybe... try again with this one?  I don't even know where to start taking you apart.
 
2013-07-09 03:41:30 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: Damnhippyfreak: This could be interpreted as you giving approval to such views as you characterize them as 'valid', and in addition could be characterized as not being bigotry. Taking special care to use unambiguous language is worth the effort in these charged kinds of discussions, IMHO.

I'm certain you are correct, especially considering this is Fark which tends to be context free and where not everyone even reads all the words.

That being said, I am comfortable with saying that I consider opposition to homosexuality and gay marriage to be a valid and legitimate viewpoint, while at no time considering that to be an endorsement. I consider the viewpoints of many gun-control advocates to be valid and legitimate, while at no time considering that to be an endorsement. I even consider the racism of the Klu Klux Klan to be a valid and legitimate viewpoint, though I completely disagree.

In my view, we must vigorously oppose a "groupthink" mentality, or the group effort to punish the "not we".

People are entitled by right to hold, espouse and advocate any viewpoint they choose, no matter how unpopular it may be. And, of course, those who disagree are equally entitled to hold, espouse, and advocate in opposition to those viewpoints. All within the legal framework of our democratic system and the marketplace of ideas.

What I object to here, in THIS context, is the increasing certitude that if the opposing viewpoint is deemed "bad enough", those people should be "taught a lesson" and punished in some way. Not because they broke a law, but because they held, espoused or advocated something considered to be "wrongthink". That viewpoint determined to be out of favor should be quashed and those who espouse them punished for advocating them.

If that mentality had been allowed in the 70s, don't you think that the very gay rights movement itself would have been impacted? Remember that there was a time not so very long ago that homosexuality was almost universally understood ...



Thanks for taking the time to write that out. It was clear and well-written. I don't think you'll find too many people who will disagree with you.

However, I do caution that the tolerance of opposing viewpoints has a limit, lest we inadvertently rely on relativism. We do rely on certain principles as absolutes, especially when it regards issues that we deem universal human rights. Given such a firm and basic foundation, I find it difficult to compare viewpoints that would give equal rights and take them away as if they were equal, or simply a matter of the certitude of those advocating for it.
 
2013-07-09 03:42:31 PM  

Mike Chewbacca: No, I don't capiche. You admit that you are boycotting OSC's works. Yet you are angry at the rest of us for doing the same thing. Or is that we're openly calling for a boycott rather than just engaging in an individual boycott in silence?


Seriously. Just read my posts. They are right there. This is not that complicated. I don't care if it's pro-gay or anti-gay, or Christians boycotting Harry Potter because Witchcraft, or what.

It is not the mechanism of boycott, it is the intent to quash opposing political thought.

BojanglesPaladin: Whether it is Chik-Fil-A, Hobby Lobby, or Ender's Game, I think we are going down the wrong path with all of this "They don't think the way we think, so they are bad people and must be punished!" mindset. Boycotts are fine and all, but not when they are predicated on a personal attack against someone's deeply held convictions or political views.

BojanglesPaladin: It is the "They don't think like we think they should think, so they should be punished" mindset that is so alarming here regardless of the effectiveness of the boycott. It is the intent, less than the action itself.

BojanglesPaladin: Give your trade to whomever you choose. Again, it is the "punish the wrongthinkers!" mentality that is the problem, not whether THIS particular issue is appropriate. Understand?

BojanglesPaladin: It's the increasingly reflexive use of the boycott as a punishment for people with whom we politically disagree.

BojanglesPaladin: Insomuch as doing so is intended to punish people who think the "wrong" way, yes.

BojanglesPaladin: I am saying that we should stop calling for financial fatwah. I am saying "Can we stop with the call for a boycott of anyone we disagree with politically? Everyone? Moratorium on punitive boycotts for dissenting political views please"? I am saying that It's the increasingly reflexive use of the boycott as a punishment for people with whom we politically disagree that is the problem.

BojanglesPaladin: They have a valid and legitimate right to advocate legally for their position as we have a right to oppose and advocate for ours. Welcome to America. Stop calling for financial fatwah.

BojanglesPaladin: In my view, we must vigorously oppose a "groupthink" mentality, or the group effort to punish the "not we".

BojanglesPaladin: I'm all about not giving my money to people I do not approve of. That is a different animal than all this calling for a fatwah boycott against political opponents. It is a subtle distinction perhaps, but a distinction with a difference.



It is not the mechanism of boycott, it is the intent to quash opposing viewpoints.
 
2013-07-09 03:45:07 PM  

rwhamann: ProfessorOhki: So, serious question here: you think Card gets a cut of the boxoffice or do you think he's already been paid in full for the rights? Will boycotting Ender's Game actually hurt him? Will it hurt the hundreds of other people involved in production? Or will it just be dip in some executive producer's studio's wallet where they go, "oh, I guess people didn't like the movie."

What do you figure the actual breakdown is of a film boycott? Would you feel sort of shiatty if the outcome was say: him walking away with the same size check and some random firm going under?

/Not that DD should have traded margin
//for back-end in the first place, mind you

Even if OSC got flat rate, a low box office still affects him, especially if it canbe attributed to a boycott against him personally -he has many other books to sell. If working with him is a hassle and loses money for the studio instead of earning money, they won't go back to that well, will they.

Wook: Those pushing the Gay agenda on the public are as annoying as the sight of two men making out.


The "Gay agenda" is live and let live.  What I do in my bedroom with my wife is none of your farking business.  Doesn't affect you.  Doesn't affect your kids.  Same thing for Ellen and Portia, or Sam and Dave, or any couple.  There is no gay agenda ecept LEAVE US THE FARK ALONE.



"Live and let live" is hardly in the agenda.  I'm not sure where you are from but your statement is totally naive.  Before you yell at me, spend a few weeks out in SF.
 
2013-07-09 03:45:24 PM  
Just, basically, you are saying gay people should buy stuff from Chick-fil-A in order not to quash their "viewpoint".

/terminally stupid
 
2013-07-09 03:47:59 PM  

Fark_Guy_Rob: Mike Chewbacca: Egoy3k: Fark_Guy_Rob: Begoggle: Fark_Guy_Rob:

I'm 100% pro-gay marriage.
I'm also 100% pro-incestuous marriage.
I'm also 100% pro-polygamy marriage.
I'm also 100% pro-interracial marriage.

Virtually every single argument made against any one of those applies to the rest.  The government has no business telling consenting adults who they can/can't sleep with marry.

I'm against all legal definition of marriage.
Marriage is a religious thing and an imaginary societal construct.
I have problems with incest but that has nothing to do with marriage.
I can already live with and have sex with any consenting adult(s) that I want to.
There is nothing logical about getting a tax deduction because of it.

I can completely agree with/support your stance - minus the incest part.  Any law that says who I can have sex with (provided the partner is able to consent) is wrong IMHO.

But sure - either remove the government from marriage or make it so everyone can take part.  Anything else is hypocritical.

To be honest if you can distance yourself from the immediate reaction of 'Ick' incest isn't really a problem unless you have children.  Just make them get sterilized.  Also if they are trying to get married it's not like they aren't already sleeping together.  Banning the marriage isn't going to fix the problem.  Thanks for making me think these thoughts Heinlein. You sick bastard.

Yes, there are actual biological reasons to prevent siblings from procreating. I read an article a couple years ago about a British couple that met as adults and then found out after they'd started dating that they were full siblings. They've now got 4 kids, all of them with serious medical problems. I don't care who you bone, but be responsible about it.

There are PLENTY of couples who we *know* are likely to have genetically defective children.  And we have no laws against it.  We don't require genetic testing.  And if a couple has a genetically defective child, we still let them hav ...


You're free to disagree with me. But don't say that my argument isn't valid, or worth debating.
 
2013-07-09 03:48:15 PM  

TechnoHead: Just, basically, you are saying gay people should buy stuff from Chick-fil-A in order not to quash their "viewpoint".

/terminally stupid


Or, if you choose not to buy stuff from CFA because they're run by bigoted dickholes, don't tell anybody why because then you'd be trying to punish them for their viewpoint, which is bad...for some reason.

/I don't get it either
 
2013-07-09 03:51:22 PM  

No Such Agency: bdub77:
This is mostly why I won't see Ender's Game and why I stopped reading his books after I found out what type of person he was. Even if he weren't a homophobe, Orson Scott Card is a raging asshole.

I want to be like this, but I can't help listening to Wagner once in a while, and let me tell you, that guy was a real asshole.

eg., from recent rock music alone:

John Lennon?  Asshole.
Dylan?  Asshole.
Jello Biafra?  Kind of an asshole.
Metallica?  Assholes.
Phil Spector?  He killed someone.  Super asshole!

So if you avoid the assholes, you end up with a couple of Cyndi Lauper CD's, some Henry Winkler shows (the ones that somehow didn't also star assholes), and the complete works of Sir Terry Pratchett on your shelf.  Not too shabby but it'll get boring eventually.


I'm ok with someone being an asshole like Lennon or Dylan.  In fact, all your examples are people who were assholes and it had nothing to do with the art.  Then again, it also had nothing to do with me, and the same can't be said of Card.  While I'm not gay, I believe that the people who fight with all their financial resources and time to create second class citizens in my country damages my country in a way that is unforgivable.  You didn't see Dylan or John Lennon or Metallica doing that.

And here is something that people CONTINUE to misunderstand.


The right to free speech does not insulate you from the consequences of what you say, it only guarantees your right to say it.


Card, outside of his writing on Ender's Game - a novel, by the way, which was the only published novel in which I even noticed the lack of editing - has said some truly awful stuff about gay folks and dragged that in a big way into politics, public policy and affected people's lives.  Yeah, I don't think I'm going to see Ender's Game in the theaters.  I'll wait until It's on TV.
 
2013-07-09 03:52:59 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: It is not the mechanism of boycott, it is the intent to quash opposing viewpoints.


Some viewpoints should be quashed, not through violence or law but through social pressure and growth as a society. If we never pressure Orson Scott Card and other people who feel the same he does, then we'll never progress as a culture. If we just tolerated Jim Crow in the South rather than working to overcome it, it never would have been corrected. (shiat, it still HASN'T been corrected in some places, but that's not my point.) You are literally telling us to just let Orson Scott Card do his thing without taking any opposing action. fark that.
 
2013-07-09 03:54:21 PM  

Fark_Guy_Rob: ProfessorOhki: Fark_Guy_Rob: Mike Chewbacca: praymantis: just because he does not believe in gay marriage he is a bigot?

Yep. Because there's no good reason gay folks should be banned from marrying their love ones.

praymantis: So what about people who believe in marrying many people?

It depends on why. Because it's icky and I just don't think it's right isn't a valid reason. Because it opens a massive can of worms regarding marital rights, property rights, and inheritance rights, spousal rights, and child support? Well, that's a bit different. Because so often the women involved in it are brainwashed and taken advantage of by the men in their circles/families? That's different.

People said the same thing about gay marriage.  'Two college buddies will just get married for tax purposes!'

If the college buddies are male and female, that's already possible. There's a practical difference between extending legal pair-bonding to any pair of adults and between completely overhauling all related law to account for arbitrary numbers of people. It's a legislative challenge on a completely different scale.

Even if I accept your premise - that it's just 'too hard' to not discriminate against people who desire a different lifestyle....

there are STILL laws *against* it.  Not just marriage - but 'polygamous cohabitation'.  So - basically - we treat them just like we did gays, in the past.  It's not just that they can't get married - they can be ARRESTED for living the lifestyle they choose.  There is no justification for that.


I agree, there shouldn't be any laws against it. I'm not arguing that it's right to discriminate against them. I'm just saying that implementing gay marriage is much more straight-forward in terms of making legislative changes than poly marriage would be. Gay marriage requires the lifting of one restriction; poly requires pretty massive legal restructuring. Not to say that's a reason not to do it, just acknowledging it's a much more difficult goal.
 
2013-07-09 03:54:51 PM  

Wook: "Live and let live" is hardly in the agenda. I'm not sure where you are from but your statement is totally naive. Before you yell at me, spend a few weeks out in SF.


Illuminate me. What is the agenda?  To recruit?  How can a group that says people are born that way recruit?
 
2013-07-09 03:56:19 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: t is not the mechanism of boycott, it is the intent to quash opposing viewpoints.


There is no intent to quash opposing viewpoints. OSC is free to say what he's going to say, he's free to believe what he's going to believe.

The rest of us are under zero, ZERO obligation to turn around and fund him.
 
2013-07-09 03:56:47 PM  

ScaryBottles: you are effectively arguing that we should in the name of tolerance allow intolerance to go unpunished.


See? Punishment. "They don't see things we way we see things, so they must be punished." Wrong. If you don't like them. don't give them your money. If they have broken the law, punish them. But here in America, we really need to avoid the mistake of "punishing" people with whom we disagree simply because we disagree. No matter how strongly.

Super_pope: So you uh... you think gays and blacks fighting for their civil rights probably didn't get widespread punitive treatment for those beliefs?


Yep. And it was wrong then. It's wrong now, right? Orr... surely you don't mean to imply that is acceptable to quash certain viewpoints when they are the "wrong" ones do you? Who decides which ones are OK and which ones are subject to "punishment" again?

Damnhippyfreak: I don't think you'll find too many people who will disagree with you.


First day on Fark? (I keed)

Damnhippyfreak: However, I do caution that the tolerance of opposing viewpoints has a limit, lest we inadvertently rely on relativism. We do rely on certain principles as absolutes, especially when it regards issues that we deem universal human rights. Given such a firm and basic foundation, I find it difficult to compare viewpoints that would give equal rights and take them away as if they were equal, or simply a matter of the certitude of those advocating for it.


Oh I think we can stay well clear of relativism, while still allowing the free expression of radically divergent viewpoints. There is a long road full of consensus that must be travelled before get to legislation, and even beyond that we have a nice Constitution and Bill of Rights there to sort of mark out the boundaries of moral governance. Here we are discussing the more base level, fellow man, market place of ideas level of interaction. The big mixing bowl of choice and perspective from which the good governance is distilled.

There is an excellent analogy about curds and whey and cream rising to the top that is escaping me, but we need a wide diversity of opinion in our public discourse, and demonizing or punishing contrary viewpoints is fascist thinking, not democratic.
 
2013-07-09 03:59:45 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: Orr... surely you don't mean to imply that is acceptable to quash certain viewpoints when they are the "wrong" ones do you?


What's wrong with that? Shouldn't neo-Nazis be publicly shamed for being neo-Nazis? I'm not talking about arresting someone, I'm talking about shaming someone publicly for their awful view. Don't we all post about how awful Pat Buchanan is when he says the gays are responsible for Katrina? There's nothing wrong with calling someone out for being a bigot.
 
2013-07-09 04:01:23 PM  
This is the same man who when "Lost Boys" was criticized because he drew a parallel between his own crippled son and losing a child, went kinda ballistic with his critics. He acted as though those who were offended by him were close-minded and offered the explanation that without being in his shoes, they could not be critical of his stance. He defended his cavalier idiocy with the righteous indignation that bordered on histrionics. Kinda lost respect for him at that point and ignore his work.

/find Card gets exponentially muddled on subsequent novels anyhow
 
2013-07-09 04:04:33 PM  

ProfessorOhki: Fark_Guy_Rob: ProfessorOhki: Fark_Guy_Rob: Mike Chewbacca: praymantis: just because he does not believe in gay marriage he is a bigot?

Yep. Because there's no good reason gay folks should be banned from marrying their love ones.

praymantis: So what about people who believe in marrying many people?

It depends on why. Because it's icky and I just don't think it's right isn't a valid reason. Because it opens a massive can of worms regarding marital rights, property rights, and inheritance rights, spousal rights, and child support? Well, that's a bit different. Because so often the women involved in it are brainwashed and taken advantage of by the men in their circles/families? That's different.

People said the same thing about gay marriage.  'Two college buddies will just get married for tax purposes!'

If the college buddies are male and female, that's already possible. There's a practical difference between extending legal pair-bonding to any pair of adults and between completely overhauling all related law to account for arbitrary numbers of people. It's a legislative challenge on a completely different scale.

Even if I accept your premise - that it's just 'too hard' to not discriminate against people who desire a different lifestyle....

there are STILL laws *against* it.  Not just marriage - but 'polygamous cohabitation'.  So - basically - we treat them just like we did gays, in the past.  It's not just that they can't get married - they can be ARRESTED for living the lifestyle they choose.  There is no justification for that.

I agree, there shouldn't be any laws against it. I'm not arguing that it's right to discriminate against them. I'm just saying that implementing gay marriage is much more straight-forward in terms of making legislative changes than poly marriage would be. Gay marriage requires the lifting of one restriction; poly requires pretty massive legal restructuring. Not to say that's a reason not to do it, just acknowledging it's a much mor ...


No kidding. Even beyond legal benefits like next-of-kin, you have to deal with an enormous number of relationship structures and issues like the death of an individual in the marriage that could vary from one relationship to the next.
 
2013-07-09 04:04:35 PM  

Mike Chewbacca: Some viewpoints should be quashed, not through violence or law but through social pressure and growth as a society. If we never pressure Orson Scott Card and other people who feel the same he does, then we'll never progress as a culture. If we just tolerated Jim Crow in the South rather than working to overcome it, it never would have been corrected. (shiat, it still HASN'T been corrected in some places, but that's not my point.)


Sigh. No. I am saying that just as it was wrong for the prevailing majority opinion in the South to systematically quash dissenting opinions, it is wrong-minded to do so now.

Mike Chewbacca: You are literally telling us to just let Orson Scott Card do his thing without taking any opposing action.


How many times can I re-explain this? Don't want to give OSC your money? Don't. I don't.

Go back and re-read what I have already posted. If you still don't understand the distinction, then I'm afraid I'm not articulating it well enough, or not in a way you can understand it.

The My Little Pony Killer: OSC is free to say what he's going to say, he's free to believe what he's going to believe. The rest of us are under zero, ZERO obligation to turn around and fund him.


Yep. Completely agree.

 Oh wait. Did you think I suggested that anyone should give him a penny? You should review the discussion first. That should clear it up.
 
2013-07-09 04:06:58 PM  

Mike Chewbacca: Fark_Guy_Rob: Mike Chewbacca: Egoy3k: Fark_Guy_Rob: Begoggle: Fark_Guy_Rob:

I'm 100% pro-gay marriage.
I'm also 100% pro-incestuous marriage.
I'm also 100% pro-polygamy marriage.
I'm also 100% pro-interracial marriage.

Virtually every single argument made against any one of those applies to the rest.  The government has no business telling consenting adults who they can/can't sleep with marry.

I'm against all legal definition of marriage.
Marriage is a religious thing and an imaginary societal construct.
I have problems with incest but that has nothing to do with marriage.
I can already live with and have sex with any consenting adult(s) that I want to.
There is nothing logical about getting a tax deduction because of it.

I can completely agree with/support your stance - minus the incest part.  Any law that says who I can have sex with (provided the partner is able to consent) is wrong IMHO.

But sure - either remove the government from marriage or make it so everyone can take part.  Anything else is hypocritical.

To be honest if you can distance yourself from the immediate reaction of 'Ick' incest isn't really a problem unless you have children.  Just make them get sterilized.  Also if they are trying to get married it's not like they aren't already sleeping together.  Banning the marriage isn't going to fix the problem.  Thanks for making me think these thoughts Heinlein. You sick bastard.

Yes, there are actual biological reasons to prevent siblings from procreating. I read an article a couple years ago about a British couple that met as adults and then found out after they'd started dating that they were full siblings. They've now got 4 kids, all of them with serious medical problems. I don't care who you bone, but be responsible about it.

There are PLENTY of couples who we *know* are likely to have genetically defective children.  And we have no laws against it.  We don't require genetic testing.  And if a couple has a genetically defective child, we stil ...


It's hypocritical...

If your problem with incest is a risk of genetic abnormalities in children; your problem isn't with incest.  Your problem is with genetic abnormalities.  If your stance is to make laws against procreation in relation to the likelihood of genetic abnormalities - sure, it's logically consistent.  Great.

As it stands, the laws are completely biased.  The same injustice homosexuals used to face, for having sex with whom they wanted; is now being perpetuated against other people who want to have sex with whom they want (where all parties of consenting).  Also, a lot of people (incorrectly) used to argue that mixed race children would be at a greater risk for disorders....as it turns out - they were completely wrong.

That means, incestuous children have a higher risk of genetic defects who have a higher risk of genetic defects than NON-mixed children.  It's all just a question of what level of risk.  I haven't heard of anyone passing laws that make it illegal for two whites to have a baby - when - clearly there *is* a higher risk of genetic defects.
 
2013-07-09 04:07:36 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: How many times can I re-explain this? Don't want to give OSC your money? Don't. I don't.

Go back and re-read what I have already posted. If you still don't understand the distinction, then I'm afraid I'm not articulating it well enough, or not in a way you can understand it.


BojanglesPaladin: It is not the mechanism of boycott, it is the intent to quash opposing viewpoints.


Your argument is that no viewpoint is foul enough to be quashed. Okay. I have to disagree with you on that because some viewpoints are just evil, but hey, it's America. We can agree to disagree. Meanwhile, my Facebook feed is full of my friends promising to not see Ender's Game. Or, at least not pay to see Ender's Game.
 
2013-07-09 04:07:42 PM  

Jean Genetic: This from the man who wrote "Songmaster"? That was a seriously creepy book. There's something off about a man who writes about the degradation of children so much. And don't get me started on "Lost Boys." Ugh, he's a repulsive human being who writes repulsive books. No thanks. I like "Ender's Game" but after the two aforementioned books, that was it. No more.


Lost Boys!  I've been wracking my brain scrolling this thread thinking about that one.  Wasn't that about a gay serial killer or something?  I remember that being the tipping point for me.  Everything he does is so steeped in Mormonism (working from home, family, kids will save the world, they are our hope an the only thing worthwhile in life) it's hard to get past.

Read all the Ender's books (both Shadow and Speaker series) because I'm a completionist.  Dude needs a better editor.
 
2013-07-09 04:08:11 PM  

Mike Chewbacca: Shouldn't neo-Nazis be publicly shamed for being neo-Nazis? I'm not talking about arresting someone, I'm talking about shaming someone publicly for their awful view. Don't we all post about how awful Pat Buchanan is when he says the gays are responsible for Katrina? There's nothing wrong with calling someone out for being a bigot.


Nope nothing at all with criticizing someone opinion or position. That's not what I have an issue with. You seem to be getting closer. Re-read again and I bet you can get there.

firsttiger: This is the same man who when "Lost Boys" was criticized because he drew a parallel between his own crippled son and losing a child, went kinda ballistic with his critics.


Man, I've always loved that movie. I didn't know OSC wrote the screenplay. Kinda weird when you consider how gay that sax player was, but whatevs. Which of the Coreys represented his crippled son?
 
2013-07-09 04:08:25 PM  

rwhamann: Wook: "Live and let live" is hardly in the agenda. I'm not sure where you are from but your statement is totally naive. Before you yell at me, spend a few weeks out in SF.

Illuminate me. What is the agenda?  To recruit?  How can a group that says people are born that way recruit?


I don't know what you're talking about son...  But I do know that this guy is a great author and those that wan't to vilify him based on his beliefs are nothing more than a bunch of mob mentality wussies.
 
2013-07-09 04:13:02 PM  

rwhamann: Wook: "Live and let live" is hardly in the agenda. I'm not sure where you are from but your statement is totally naive. Before you yell at me, spend a few weeks out in SF.

Illuminate me. What is the agenda?  To recruit?  How can a group that says people are born that way recruit?


Based on calling out SF (where he has probably never been) he is probably hugely offended by the fact that gay people might be out in public acting like heterosexual couples.
 
2013-07-09 04:14:20 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: Mike Chewbacca: Shouldn't neo-Nazis be publicly shamed for being neo-Nazis? I'm not talking about arresting someone, I'm talking about shaming someone publicly for their awful view. Don't we all post about how awful Pat Buchanan is when he says the gays are responsible for Katrina? There's nothing wrong with calling someone out for being a bigot.

Nope nothing at all with criticizing someone opinion or position. That's not what I have an issue with. You seem to be getting closer. Re-read again and I bet you can get there.

firsttiger: This is the same man who when "Lost Boys" was criticized because he drew a parallel between his own crippled son and losing a child, went kinda ballistic with his critics.

Man, I've always loved that movie. I didn't know OSC wrote the screenplay. Kinda weird when you consider how gay that sax player was, but whatevs. Which of the Coreys represented his crippled son?


How is talking about on Facebook what an ass OSC is any different than criticizing someone for an opinion or position?

Whatever you think your point is, you're not conveying it well. At all. Because I'm not the only one who is "misunderstanding" your point. In fact, I don't think anyone here understands your point except you.
 
2013-07-09 04:15:48 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: Man, I've always loved that movie. I didn't know OSC wrote the screenplay. Kinda weird when you consider how gay that sax player was, but whatevs. Which of the Coreys represented his crippled son?


The one that all the girls thought was cute and was in all of the teen magazines of the day.

/here are some other words that rhyme with Corey
 
2013-07-09 04:18:15 PM  
Can we all just breathe?

media.tumblr.com
 
2013-07-09 04:18:15 PM  

firsttiger: The one that all the girls thought was cute and was in all of the teen magazines of the day.


I never would have thought that Feldman would be the Corey to live longer. I guess that says something about how farked up Haim was.
 
2013-07-09 04:18:27 PM  

Mike Chewbacca: Okay. I have to disagree with you on that because some viewpoints are just evil, but hey, it's America. We can agree to disagree.


occurrenceofopinion.files.wordpress.com
Halleluja! NOW you got it!!!
 
2013-07-09 04:19:24 PM  

FuryOfFirestorm: "How dare you be intolerant of my intolerance! WAH!"

Here's a deal, Orson: you stop being a homophobic asshole, and then I'll go see your movie.

You can either continue to be a chairman for NOM and write horrible anti-gay crap like your remake of Hamlet*, or you can have gay people willingly give you money. You can't have both, Mr. Card.

*He actually had the balls to re-write one of the greatest works of literary fiction, and change it so that Hamlet's dad was a pedophile who made most of the male cast gay by molesting them (because that's how OSC thinks it works) and tries to trick Hamlet into killing his uncle so he goes to Hell and daddy dearest can molest his son for eternity. Billy S. is spinning in his grave so hard, he drilled a tunnel to the Earth's core Australia.


WTF are you reading?
 
2013-07-09 04:21:13 PM  

Mike Chewbacca: How is talking about on Facebook what an ass OSC is any different than criticizing someone for an opinion or position?


woops, you are drifting off again. No problem with criticism of contrary viewpoints. We SHOULD do that. Vigorous discussion in the marketplace of ideas.

The problem is with the intent and desire to act as a group to punish (financially or otherwise) those with whom we do not agree. That's Fascism groupthink and we should be vary wary of going near that.
 
2013-07-09 04:21:30 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: Mike Chewbacca: Okay. I have to disagree with you on that because some viewpoints are just evil, but hey, it's America. We can agree to disagree.

[occurrenceofopinion.files.wordpress.com image 320x269]
Halleluja! NOW you got it!!!


Now, when you start petitioning our government to make some aspect of my lifestyle illegal, that's another story. Then I have the right to defend myself using the same tactics you use. Get it? When someone actively tries to oppress someone, other people have the right to step up and try to stop them.
 
2013-07-09 04:24:03 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: Yep. And it was wrong then. It's wrong now, right? Orr... surely you don't mean to imply that is acceptable to quash certain viewpoints when they are the "wrong" ones do you? Who decides which ones are OK and which ones are subject to "punishment" again?


Swing and a miss.  You said:

BojanglesPaladin: What I object to here, in THIS context, is the increasing certitude that if the opposing viewpoint is deemed "bad enough", those people should be "taught a lesson" and punished in some way. Not because they broke a law, but because they held, espoused or advocated something considered to be "wrongthink". That viewpoint determined to be out of favor should be quashed and those who espouse them punished for advocating them.

If that mentality had been allowed in the 70s, don't you think that the very gay rights movement itself would have been impacted? Remember that there was a time not so very long ago that homosexuality was almost universally understood to be completely abhorrent, wrong, and unacceptable?


Your closing paragraph is basically you going, "If people had been allowed to behave as badly about "wrongthink" as we do now, why think about where the gays and the black would be today!"

They used to quash those beliefs by KILLING PEOPLE AND BURNING THEIR HOMES AND CHURCHES DOWN.  I know you think you're dropping clever zingers or something here but you either need to type a LOT more carefully or just pack up your bags and leave cause you look really stupid trying to come back at me and some other posters are even pointing it out if you pay attention to the whole thread rather than telling me to read better.

You think its just meanness against OSC motivating a boycott.  He has X views so I hate him or whatever.  I wouldn't recognize him on the street and I don't care what the hell he thinks in private.  If he wants to actively pursue a societal agenda I think is repugnant, than I hope I get to see him broken and weeping in the street, and I'll do what I can to make it happen.  Not because I care about HIM persay, but because I want his ruin (which frankly is not what we're talking about, he'll be farking fine) to remind executives who buy the rights to books that biggoted authors are becoming less and less popular, and they need to carefully scrutinize IP they buy for supporting noxious causes.
 
2013-07-09 04:24:26 PM  
BojanglesPaladin:
The problem is with the intent and desire to act as a group to punish (financially or otherwise) those with whom we do not agree. That's Fascism groupthink and we should be vary wary of going near that.

No, it's not fascism.

Fascism would be to throw molotov cocktails through the window. Refraining yourself from buying products and encouraging others to do so is a very healthy, civilized, democratic way to behave.

/terminally stupid
 
2013-07-09 04:25:23 PM  

Wook: I don't know what you're talking about son...


You said I was naive to think the "gay agenda" was nothing more than live and let live, and to come out to SF sometime.  So, what is the gay agenda other than to be allowed to live their lives peacefully and with the same rights as heterosexuals?
 
2013-07-09 04:26:13 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: Damnhippyfreak: This could be interpreted as you giving approval to such views as you characterize them as 'valid', and in addition could be characterized as not being bigotry. Taking special care to use unambiguous language is worth the effort in these charged kinds of discussions, IMHO.

I'm certain you are correct, especially considering this is Fark which tends to be context free and where not everyone even reads all the words.

That being said, I am comfortable with saying that I consider opposition to homosexuality and gay marriage to be a valid and legitimate viewpoint, while at no time considering that to be an endorsement. I consider the viewpoints of many gun-control advocates to be valid and legitimate, while at no time considering that to be an endorsement. I even consider the racism of the Klu Klux Klan to be a valid and legitimate viewpoint, though I completely disagree.

In my view, we must vigorously oppose a "groupthink" mentality, or the group effort to punish the "not we".

People are entitled by right to hold, espouse and advocate any viewpoint they choose, no matter how unpopular it may be. And, of course, those who disagree are equally entitled to hold, espouse, and advocate in opposition to those viewpoints. All within the legal framework of our democratic system and the marketplace of ideas.

What I object to here, in THIS context, is the increasing certitude that if the opposing viewpoint is deemed "bad enough", those people should be "taught a lesson" and punished in some way. Not because they broke a law, but because they held, espoused or advocated something considered to be "wrongthink". That viewpoint determined to be out of favor should be quashed and those who espouse them punished for advocating them.

If that mentality had been allowed in the 70s, don't you think that the very gay rights movement itself would have been impacted? Remember that there was a time not so very long ago that homosexuality was almost universally understood ...



You are allowed to have the same opinion as I do IF you arrived at it with the same amount of effort, depth and rugged individualism as I have. If I deem your opinion in any way, shape or form a derivative of someone else's opinion without the completely fierce independent streak that I bring to the table then your opinion is null and void. Worse, if you dare to share your opinion with others that makes you a worthless agitator and me superior in my quiet knowledge of having the smarter thought process.

Those millions and millions of individuals that happen to share my opinion and dare to discuss them are filthy, filthy rubes and only I am the real snowflake.


Strange thing is that you probably are a smart person but so far of the track here that it can almost not be salvaged. Just so you understand, you sound awfully close to those that say that racism would go away if we just all stopped talking about it.
 
2013-07-09 04:26:31 PM  

rwhamann: ProfessorOhki: So, serious question here: you think Card gets a cut of the boxoffice or do you think he's already been paid in full for the rights? Will boycotting Ender's Game actually hurt him? Will it hurt the hundreds of other people involved in production? Or will it just be dip in some executive producer's studio's wallet where they go, "oh, I guess people didn't like the movie."

What do you figure the actual breakdown is of a film boycott? Would you feel sort of shiatty if the outcome was say: him walking away with the same size check and some random firm going under?

/Not that DD should have traded margin
//for back-end in the first place, mind you

Even if OSC got flat rate, a low box office still affects him, especially if it canbe attributed to a boycott against him personally -he has many other books to sell. If working with him is a hassle and loses money for the studio instead of earning money, they won't go back to that well, will they.

Wook: Those pushing the Gay agenda on the public are as annoying as the sight of two men making out.


The "Gay agenda" is live and let live.  What I do in my bedroom with my wife is none of your farking business.  Doesn't affect you.  Doesn't affect your kids.  Same thing for Ellen and Portia, or Sam and Dave, or any couple.  There is no gay agenda ecept LEAVE US THE FARK ALONE.


Complaining about gay agenda = wishing that gays didn't exist.  That's what it really comes down to with those folks.
 
2013-07-09 04:27:00 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: Mike Chewbacca: How is talking about on Facebook what an ass OSC is any different than criticizing someone for an opinion or position?

woops, you are drifting off again. No problem with criticism of contrary viewpoints. We SHOULD do that. Vigorous discussion in the marketplace of ideas.

The problem is with the intent and desire to act as a group to punish (financially or otherwise) those with whom we do not agree. That's Fascism groupthink and we should be vary wary of going near that.


Regardless of whether or not OSC deserves some sort of punishment for being a bigot, the only way I can reverse the harm he's done is by openly, vocally, and financially opposing him. I'm not boycotting him because he should be punished (although I'd throw out there that he needs a good cockpunch), I'm boycotting him because supporting him financially gives him more time to spew his hate. And frankly, if someone you know is an asshole, would give that someone any of your money? fark no.
 
2013-07-09 04:29:22 PM  

Super_pope: BojanglesPaladin: Yep. And it was wrong then. It's wrong now, right? Orr... surely you don't mean to imply that is acceptable to quash certain viewpoints when they are the "wrong" ones do you? Who decides which ones are OK and which ones are subject to "punishment" again?

Swing and a miss.  You said:

BojanglesPaladin: What I object to here, in THIS context, is the increasing certitude that if the opposing viewpoint is deemed "bad enough", those people should be "taught a lesson" and punished in some way. Not because they broke a law, but because they held, espoused or advocated something considered to be "wrongthink". That viewpoint determined to be out of favor should be quashed and those who espouse them punished for advocating them.

If that mentality had been allowed in the 70s, don't you think that the very gay rights movement itself would have been impacted? Remember that there was a time not so very long ago that homosexuality was almost universally understood to be completely abhorrent, wrong, and unacceptable?

Your closing paragraph is basically you going, "If people had been allowed to behave as badly about "wrongthink" as we do now, why think about where the gays and the black would be today!"

They used to quash those beliefs by KILLING PEOPLE AND BURNING THEIR HOMES AND CHURCHES DOWN.  I know you think you're dropping clever zingers or something here but you either need to type a LOT more carefully or just pack up your bags and leave cause you look really stupid trying to come back at me and some other posters are even pointing it out if you pay attention to the whole thread rather than telling me to read better.

You think its just meanness against OSC motivating a boycott.  He has X views so I hate him or whatever.  I wouldn't recognize him on the street and I don't care what the hell he thinks in private.  If he wants to actively pursue a societal agenda I think is repugnant, than I hope I get to see him broken and weeping in the street, and I'll ...


Man you guys are wasting your time he is just another apologist. Oh and by the way dude OSC isn't gonna come to your house and sleep with you. Or he might he apparently writes about naked little boys pretty often.
 
2013-07-09 04:30:44 PM  

Latinwolf: Complaining about gay agenda = wishing that gays didn't exist.  That's what it really comes down to with those folks.


Wishing that gays didn't exist = Hating gays (since they exist).

It's really very simple. Like their minds.
 
2013-07-09 04:30:59 PM  

hinten: Those millions and millions of individuals that happen to share my opinion and dare to discuss them are filthy, filthy rubes and only I am the real snowflake.


lol made you a favorite for the first part of that post
 
2013-07-09 04:31:32 PM  

ScaryBottles: Oh and by the way dude OSC isn't gonna come to your house and sleep with you. Or he might he apparently writes about naked little boys pretty often.


Hey now, don't conflate homosexuality with pedophilia. That's a tactic the Right uses, and it's wrong.
 
2013-07-09 04:32:41 PM  

Super_pope: You think its just meanness against OSC motivating a boycott.


Nope. Missed the point

Super_pope: If he wants to actively pursue a societal agenda I think is repugnant, than I hope I get to see him broken and weeping in the street, and I'll do what I can to make it happen.

Not because I care about HIM persay, but because I want his ruin.

Right. You want to see him punished for advocating something you don't agree with. Heck, maybe you even want to have him killed or burn down his house. Because people who advocate for the "wrong" things should be punished and prevented and discouraged from having opinions that differ from the accepted norms.

Super_pope: to remind executives who buy the rights to books that biggoted authors are becoming less and less popular, and they need to carefully scrutinize IP they buy for supporting noxious causes.


So you will be Boycotting the Hunger Games too? It's Lionsgate we are after now?

TechnoHead: No, it's not fascism.


It's not. It's fascist groupthink.

TechnoHead: Refraining yourself from buying products and encouraging others to do so is a very healthy, civilized, democratic way to behave.


Absolutely. Feel free. I do. Read up. Look for "a distinction with a difference" or "a different animal". This is not that.
 
2013-07-09 04:33:55 PM  
I like how, because someone disagrees with something else, they're automatically a _____phobe and a ____ist. That's an awesome way to remove any possible discussion and elevate one's own arguments to untouchable levels.

And yeah, it's a form of economic terrorism. So the writer has to agree with your political views, otherwise his works are of no value? So, unless someone follows lockstep with your agenda, as Super_pope put it: "I hope I get to see him broken and weeping in the street, and I'll do what I can to make it happen." Wow. Just, wow. That's jacked up.
 
2013-07-09 04:35:54 PM  

Mike Chewbacca: ScaryBottles: Oh and by the way dude OSC isn't gonna come to your house and sleep with you. Or he might he apparently writes about naked little boys pretty often.

Hey now, don't conflate homosexuality with pedophilia. That's a tactic the Right uses, and it's wrong.


Fair dues
 
2013-07-09 04:37:30 PM  

ScaryBottles: Man you guys are wasting your time he is just another apologist. Oh and by the way dude OSC isn't gonna come to your house and sleep with you.


Read up. I do not give OSC my money. I am perfectly happy to see him criticized. I think he's a bigot.

Man. I accept that I am making a fine distinction here, and I can see that some Farkers understand, and I am happy to clarify, but I can't keep re-posting the same asked and answered posts over and over again.

It is not the mechanism of boycott, it is the intent to quash opposing political thought.

BojanglesPaladin: Whether it is Chik-Fil-A, Hobby Lobby, or Ender's Game, I think we are going down the wrong path with all of this "They don't think the way we think, so they are bad people and must be punished!" mindset. Boycotts are fine and all, but not when they are predicated on a personal attack against someone's deeply held convictions or political views.
BojanglesPaladin: It is the "They don't think like we think they should think, so they should be punished" mindset that is so alarming here regardless of the effectiveness of the boycott. It is the intent, less than the action itself.
BojanglesPaladin: Give your trade to whomever you choose. Again, it is the "punish the wrongthinkers!" mentality that is the problem, not whether THIS particular issue is appropriate. Understand?
BojanglesPaladin: It's the increasingly reflexive use of the boycott as a punishment for people with whom we politically disagree.
BojanglesPaladin: Insomuch as doing so is intended to punish people who think the "wrong" way, yes.
BojanglesPaladin: I am saying that we should stop calling for financial fatwah. I am saying "Can we stop with the call for a boycott of anyone we disagree with politically? Everyone? Moratorium on punitive boycotts for dissenting political views please"? I am saying that It's the increasingly reflexive use of the boycott as a punishment for people with whom we politically disagree that is the problem.
BojanglesPaladin: They have a valid and legitimate right to advocate legally for their position as we have a right to oppose and advocate for ours. Welcome to America. Stop calling for financial fatwah.
BojanglesPaladin: In my view, we must vigorously oppose a "groupthink" mentality, or the group effort to punish the "not we".
BojanglesPaladin: I'm all about not giving my money to people I do not approve of. That is a different animal than all this calling for a fatwah boycott against political opponents. It is a subtle distinction perhaps, but a distinction with a difference.


It is not the mechanism of boycott, it is the intent to quash opposing viewpoints.
 
2013-07-09 04:38:48 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: It is not the mechanism of boycott, it is the intent to quash opposing viewpoints.


So how is my boycott of OSC attempting to quash OSC's opposing viewpoint, but your boycott of OSC is not?
 
2013-07-09 04:39:27 PM  
I've never read OSC, and aside from knowing he's anti-homo marriage, know little about him or his views.

That said, yeah, wow. You guys on the "Progressive"/Leftist/Statist side of things really are open about your ethos. "They think wrong, they deserve to be punished, nay, destroyed for disagreeing". I mean, it's naked, stark and brutal. It's almost totalitarian, really. And this isn't limited to one issue, it really is the mindset of you guys, isn't it? You know better, you're smarter, you're wiser, and those who disagree who are "below" you are just ignorant rubes, while those who are "above" you are to be broken and weeping in the street, and you'll do what you can to make it happen. I mean, wow. That's really jacked up. You guys are true believers, I'll grant you that.
 
2013-07-09 04:42:17 PM  

ProfessorOhki: So, serious question here: you think Card gets a cut of the boxoffice or do you think he's already been paid in full for the rights? Will boycotting Ender's Game actually hurt him? Will it hurt the hundreds of other people involved in production? Or will it just be dip in some executive producer's studio's wallet where they go, "oh, I guess people didn't like the movie."

What do you figure the actual breakdown is of a film boycott? Would you feel sort of shiatty if the outcome was say: him walking away with the same size check and some random firm going under?

/Not that DD should have traded margin
//for back-end in the first place, mind you


Even if he's already been paid in full for Ender's Game a sucessful boycott of the film would have a signficant negative impact on OSC, and it would then give all his works the reputation in Hollywood as being "box office poison" would would de-rail any other projects based on his works that might be in development and prevent future film rights sales, which WOULD hurt his bottom line.
 
2013-07-09 04:42:37 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: It is not the mechanism of boycott, it is the intent to quash opposing viewpoints.


You're exactly right. And it's kinda frightening really, I mean, at what point does it become economic terrorism?
 
2013-07-09 04:44:09 PM  
Everyone seems to be assuming that the movie bears some relation to the book of the same title--something Card had the opportunity to deny, but didn't.

(Virginia Heinlein did disown Starship Troopers, IIRC.)
 
2013-07-09 04:44:44 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: The problem is with the intent and desire to act as a group to punish (financially or otherwise) those with whom we do not agree. That's Fascism groupthink and we should be vary wary of going near that.


While the words "punish" has been used in this thread, I don't think it's accurate.  A group of people who disagree vehemently with OSC efforts to use he government enforce his views on others are trying to use non-coercive ecoomic pressure to influence him otherwise and lower his financial ability to keep doing it.  We live in a country where free association is revered - so the group is freely choosing not to associate, and encouraging others to do so.  They have no authority over OSC that's not given by the people that choose to agree with them.  And, because of their efforts, some who agree with OSC, but didn't know that he was on their side in the debate, may choose to freely associate as well.


Sorry, I am not seeing anything worngwith voluntary boycotts, encouraged or not. Once force of law is used to coerce participation, then there's a problem.  Of course, using force of law to coerce behavior is EXACTLY what NOM wants to do.
 
2013-07-09 04:45:37 PM  

rwhamann: BojanglesPaladin: The problem is with the intent and desire to act as a group to punish (financially or otherwise) those with whom we do not agree. That's Fascism groupthink and we should be vary wary of going near that.

While the words "punish" has been used in this thread, I don't think it's accurate.  A group of people who disagree vehemently with OSC efforts to use he government enforce his views on others are trying to use non-coercive ecoomic pressure to influence him otherwise and lower his financial ability to keep doing it.  We live in a country where free association is revered - so the group is freely choosing not to associate, and encouraging others to do so.  They have no authority over OSC that's not given by the people that choose to agree with them.  And, because of their efforts, some who agree with OSC, but didn't know that he was on their side in the debate, may choose to freely associate as well.


Sorry, I am not seeing anything worngwith voluntary boycotts, encouraged or not. Once force of law is used to coerce participation, then there's a problem.  Of course, using force of law to coerce behavior is EXACTLY what NOM wants to do.


Just leave it. The guy has admitted that he, too is "punishing" OSC by boycotting his works. He's just trolling.
 
2013-07-09 04:46:20 PM  

Mike Chewbacca: So how is my boycott of OSC attempting to quash OSC's opposing viewpoint, but your boycott of OSC is not?


Ok. Good point that may help clarify here.

Largely it is a matter of intent. I have no interest in stopping or even discouraging Orson Scott Card from espousing his agenda. I just don't happen to agree with it, and have no interest in even tangentially supporting it. I accept that the Klan has every right to march, but I will not be buying any of their bumper stickers or their pamphlets. Heck, I won't even buy a really nice custom made knife or piece of furniture from someone I know to be a white supremacist. I may debate them, I may criticize them, I may call them names and insult their intelligence. But I won't try to "shut them up" either.

As opposed to those many, many people here who seek to cause him harm (however inconsequential) either in retribution for him advancing a position they vehemently oppose, or as a way to "send a message" to prevent him from continuing or discouraging others who might join. That is fascist type groupthink.

So again, It is not the mechanism of boycott, it is the intent to quash opposing viewpoints.
 
2013-07-09 04:47:56 PM  

Mike Chewbacca: The guy has admitted that he, too is "punishing" OSC by boycotting his works.


Argh. Man, you actually HAD it for a minute there.

The whole POINT is that as soon as you are motivated by a desire to "punish", you've gone down the wrong path.
 
2013-07-09 04:48:36 PM  
I realize I'm just kinda talking to the wall here..but I have some questions. When are people allowed to have opinions that differ from yours? Never? And if they do, you'll be hell bend on trying to ruin that person..until what? Until they see the light and repent? If they don't, they're just destroyed..forever? Or are people allowed to have viewpoints that differ from yours, so long as they're not famous/keep to themselves? What if someone thinks your viewpoint is wrong, can they do the same thing to you?

I'm just curious as to the rules.
 
2013-07-09 04:50:46 PM  

RevRaven: You're exactly right. And it's kinda frightening really, I mean, at what point does it become economic terrorism?


If people have no conviction, then of course they're going to sacrifice their stance to make money.

If people really do have conviction, why should they care if the people they don't like won't give them money?

Where is the terror?
 
2013-07-09 04:53:49 PM  

kronicfeld: efforts to boycott "Ender's Game"

Some website called Geeks Out, which I'm reasonably sure I've never heard of, and which is apparently targeted exclusively at homosexual "geeks," posts about boycotting the movie, and Card feels the need to play victim and send a press release to Entertainment Weekly. Okay then.

BizarreMan: Seems to me that short version is "we disagreed, you guys won. let's move on."

"We disagreed" is an utterly disingenuous characterization of the "debate." He actively worked for decades to demonize homosexuals through his proselytizing and his National Organization for Marriage fought tirelessly to deny them equal rights. So, no, this isn't a situation where you "agree to disagree" and shake your opposition's hand after a good-faith debate. He wants to "move on" because paying any attention to his past now is going to reveal him to a much broader audience as a hateful bigot.


Let me re-post this again since there are still some dumbasses in this thread who attempt to claim that this is nothing more than attempt to quash someone's personal opinion.
 
2013-07-09 04:54:03 PM  

RevRaven: You're exactly right. And it's kinda frightening really, I mean, at what point does it become economic terrorism?


When force is applied, which it's not.  You are free to ignore the boycott.  It's not terrorism until it unwillingly imposed.  Each person can freely decide to join the boycott or not join the boycott.  It's not economic terrorism.  Hacking into his bank account and the bank accounts of he movie studio may be economice terrorism.  Simply letting people know what OSC's views and political aims are and letting them decide for themselves is not.  Urging and persuading people histrionically is not.  Until force and coercion are applied, it's free association and nothing more.
 
2013-07-09 04:54:11 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: Mike Chewbacca: So how is my boycott of OSC attempting to quash OSC's opposing viewpoint, but your boycott of OSC is not?

Ok. Good point that may help clarify here.

Largely it is a matter of intent. I have no interest in stopping or even discouraging Orson Scott Card from espousing his agenda. I just don't happen to agree with it, and have no interest in even tangentially supporting it. I accept that the Klan has every right to march, but I will not be buying any of their bumper stickers or their pamphlets. Heck, I won't even buy a really nice custom made knife or piece of furniture from someone I know to be a white supremacist. I may debate them, I may criticize them, I may call them names and insult their intelligence. But I won't try to "shut them up" either.

As opposed to those many, many people here who seek to cause him harm (however inconsequential) either in retribution for him advancing a position they vehemently oppose, or as a way to "send a message" to prevent him from continuing or discouraging others who might join. That is fascist type groupthink.

So again, It is not the mechanism of boycott, it is the intent to quash opposing viewpoints.


No, it's not fascist groupthink. It's the way all societies work and have worked for the entire history of mankind. If you never speak up about something, it'll never go away. At some point the social stigma attached to being anti-gay will be so strong that no one would ever go on record as being anti-gay. That is silencing a viewpoint, and there's nothing wrong with it if the viewpoint itself is foul. After all, I'm sure there are numerous people in the US who think black people are subhuman. But if Michael Crichton was to chair a neo-Nazi organization fighting to repeal the 14th Amendment, you'd better believe it that author would shamed into silence and people would not only boycott his works but also hold bookburnings. Because that's how societies work. Peer pressure. It's not just about getting kids to try drugs.
 
2013-07-09 04:55:01 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: Which is perfectly fine. I myself haven't bought gasoline from Shell in almost two decades because of their policies in Africa, particularly Nigeria. Give your trade to whomever you choose. Again, it is the "punish the wrongthinkers!" mentality that is the problem, not whether THIS particular issue is appropriate. Understand?


Man, you are wasting your f'ing time trying to reason with the sub-morons who live and breathe Fark.  They persecute "the Other" on a daily basis.

The boycott they currently support of this Card farker is "the shiat slathered in awesome-sauce", but next week, a group with a viewpoint they oppose will propose a similar boycott of one of their heroes and that group will thereafter be slandered, denounced and insulted. Wash, rinse, repeat.  I've seen it  before, like when Nabiscowas pushing "gay marriage" (really same-sex marriage) to the public via their Oreo cookie promotions. People wanted to boycott Oreo and the cries of "boycotts are rah-tarded!!!!" swelled to a crescendo.  Because that boycott opposed their cause du jour.

The best boycott is the silent one - just don't give them your money.  Whatever the problem, product, service, etc., just vote with your dollar. When you publicly arm-flail and do "gay kiss-in's" at restaurants you just piss people off and give attention to what you claim should be ignored.  The religious fundies fall for that same trap over and over.
 
2013-07-09 04:55:56 PM  

Latinwolf: Let me re-post this again since there are still some dumbasses in this thread who attempt to claim that this is nothing more than attempt to quash someone's personal opinion.


Maybe you can point to someone arguing that OSC is NOT a vehement, aggressive and active opponent of gay rights and homosexuality in general? There may be some that I missed, but I think you will find them to be a radical minority on this thread.
 
2013-07-09 04:57:23 PM  

Lutrasimilis: Where is the terror?


Because someone/some company can't pursue their interests for fear of being targeted for destruction by one of these groups. How is that not economic terrorism?
 
2013-07-09 04:58:07 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: Mike Chewbacca: The guy has admitted that he, too is "punishing" OSC by boycotting his works.

Argh. Man, you actually HAD it for a minute there.

The whole POINT is that as soon as you are motivated by a desire to "punish", you've gone down the wrong path.


No. There's nothing wrong with "punishing" people for being bigots. Or do you think all those people who refuse to buy Chris Brown CDs are jerks for "punishing" him for beating women?
 
2013-07-09 04:58:31 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: So again, It is not the mechanism of boycott, it is the intent to quash opposing viewpoints.


This is like claiming that not going to church and putting money in the collection plate is an attempt to silence religious viewpoints. It...really isn't.
 
2013-07-09 04:59:32 PM  

RevRaven: Lutrasimilis: Where is the terror?

Because someone/some company can't pursue their interests for fear of being targeted for destruction by one of these groups. How is that not economic terrorism?


media.tumblr.com
 
2013-07-09 05:00:45 PM  

RevRaven: Lutrasimilis: Where is the terror?

Because someone/some company can't pursue their interests for fear of being targeted for destruction by one of these groups. How is that not economic terrorism?


I think you're mistaking 'can't pursue their interests' with 'won't make money off the people they hate and revile'.
 
2013-07-09 05:00:48 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: Mike Chewbacca: So how is my boycott of OSC attempting to quash OSC's opposing viewpoint, but your boycott of OSC is not?

Ok. Good point that may help clarify here.

Largely it is a matter of intent. I have no interest in stopping or even discouraging Orson Scott Card from espousing his agenda. I just don't happen to agree with it, and have no interest in even tangentially supporting it. I accept that the Klan has every right to march, but I will not be buying any of their bumper stickers or their pamphlets. Heck, I won't even buy a really nice custom made knife or piece of furniture from someone I know to be a white supremacist. I may debate them, I may criticize them, I may call them names and insult their intelligence. But I won't try to "shut them up" either.

As opposed to those many, many people here who seek to cause him harm (however inconsequential) either in retribution for him advancing a position they vehemently oppose, or as a way to "send a message" to prevent him from continuing or discouraging others who might join. That is fascist type groupthink.

So again, It is not the mechanism of boycott, it is the intent to quash opposing viewpoints.


Measuring intent is very difficult, if not impossible. It's a big reason why I largely do not support hate crime laws.
 
2013-07-09 05:03:51 PM  

Mike Chewbacca: If you never speak up about something, it'll never go away.


By all means, speak up! Argue, criticize, debate! Call him and anyone else for saying or advocating things you disagree with! Cast your votes! Lobby for your legislation! Oppose that which is wrong and valiantly defend that which is right!

But when you get to the point of "we must punish people who have differing views for having those views, and we intimidate or discourage or stop them from advocating those things we do not agree with!"... well then you have left the vigorous democratic discussion of the marketplace of ideas and headed toward fascist groupthink. Don't do that.

Mike Chewbacca: That is silencing a viewpoint, and there's nothing wrong with it if the viewpoint itself is foul.


Awww. crap man. You did that. Don't you see? In 1950, the viewpoint that homosexuality is acceptable was considered "foul".
 
2013-07-09 05:05:08 PM  

Serious Black: Measuring intent is very difficult, if not impossible. It's a big reason why I largely do not support hate crime laws.


I agree with every word of that which makes me a little nervous.
 
2013-07-09 05:05:12 PM  

meat0918: Heretics of Dune FTL....


Ah, Chapter house and Heretics of Dune. Four books in the series are about space sociology, and the last two books are about anime sex hypnotism.

Best plot twist was the the Theilaxu were secretly Sufis, not atheists.

Yes, that is actually a plot twist for an entire book.
 
2013-07-09 05:05:17 PM  
To Orson Scott Card:

I see you're all about tolerance now.

"Now it will be interesting to see whether the victorious proponents of gay marriage will show tolerance toward those who disagreed with them when the issue was still in dispute."

You want tolerance?  FIne. I'm tolerant of you.  I won't see your movie, and I'll tell my friends not to see it, but I will be tolerant of it.

If I was intolerant I'd say someting like you said.

"How long before married people answer the dictators thus: Regardless of law, marriage has only one definition, and any government that attempts to change it is my mortal enemy. I will act to destroy that government and bring it down, so it can be replaced with a government that will respect and support marriage, and help me raise my children in a society where they will expect to marry in their turn."

But unlike you, even though I don't want to watch your movie, I don't consider the government that allows it to be shown my "mortal enemy."  I won't act to destroy the government and bring it down for letting theaters show your movie and letting bookstores sell your books.

Furthermore, OSC.  I'm so tolerant that I won't seek to become a boardmember of a national organization that is attempting to make your movie illegal.

I won't watch your movie, but I'm of the opinion that if other people watch your movie, that really diminish the movies that I do watch.

I do belive in tolerance.  You should try it some time.
 
2013-07-09 05:06:05 PM  
Yep. The studio that's trying to release this movie is now under an economic terrorist threat for fear of ruin (for the picture) because a group of people disagree with the author's stance on something that isn't in the subject matter being made into a movie (I guess? I dunno, never read dude's stuff).

And it's been stated above that some people want to see this be a cause of ruin for the potential for future stuff from the author, to effectively terrorize other companies into not doing business with him. "This could happen to you!" That's...kinda frightening.

What other viewpoints are people no longer allowed to have? Is there a list somewhere, something that we can not face the potential wrath?
 
2013-07-09 05:06:08 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: Latinwolf: Let me re-post this again since there are still some dumbasses in this thread who attempt to claim that this is nothing more than attempt to quash someone's personal opinion.

Maybe you can point to someone arguing that OSC is NOT a vehement, aggressive and active opponent of gay rights and homosexuality in general? There may be some that I missed, but I think you will find them to be a radical minority on this thread.


Every person in this thread who keeps insisting that this is nothing more than disagreeing with someone's personal opinion what ignoring that piece is doing exactly that, like yourself.
 
2013-07-09 05:07:26 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: Mike Chewbacca: That is silencing a viewpoint, and there's nothing wrong with it if the viewpoint itself is foul.

Awww. crap man. You did that. Don't you see? In 1950, the viewpoint that homosexuality is acceptable was considered "foul".


Yes, and in 1950 the viewpoint that blacks should be segregated from whites was considered acceptable and normal in many parts of our country. Societies grow and change. We have free speech. People have the right to say what they want. And the rest of us have the right to pressure them to STFU. IT'S HOW SOCIETIES WORK. How do you not understand this?
 
2013-07-09 05:08:09 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: Serious Black: Measuring intent is very difficult, if not impossible. It's a big reason why I largely do not support hate crime laws.

I agree with every word of that which makes me a little nervous.


Valium's a hell of a drug.
 
2013-07-09 05:09:36 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: Mike Chewbacca: That is silencing a viewpoint, and there's nothing wrong with it if the viewpoint itself is foul.

Awww. crap man. You did that. Don't you see? In 1950, the viewpoint that homosexuality is acceptable was considered "foul".


Exactly! So long as it's the "right" view (in their eyes, right now, unchanging), then it's cool. I mean..surely you guys on the other end see what BoJanglesPaladin is talking about? I mean, it's not that much of a stretch.
 
2013-07-09 05:10:41 PM  
I love the "I engage in the same thing you guys are but I'm doing it for the right* reasons so therefore I'm above it all and get to wag my finger and tsk tsk you for doing your thing for the wrong reasons." argument.

*The right reasons are whatever I care to define them as at any given time.
 
2013-07-09 05:11:21 PM  

RevRaven: And it's been stated above that some people want to see this be a cause of ruin for the potential for future stuff from the author, to effectively terrorize other companies into not doing business with him. "This could happen to you!" That's...kinda frightening.


Indeed, because not making a few million more dollars is kinda frightening.

If you're a coward.
 
2013-07-09 05:13:37 PM