Do you have adblock enabled?
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  
•       •       •

6744 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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | » | Last | Show all
 
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.
 
Displayed 50 of 587 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report