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

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






Report