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  
•       •       •

6745 clicks; posted to Geek » on 09 Jul 2013 at 10:23 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



587 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-07-09 05:08:09 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: Serious Black: Measuring intent is very difficult, if not impossible. It's a big reason why I largely do not support hate crime laws.

I agree with every word of that which makes me a little nervous.


Valium's a hell of a drug.
 
2013-07-09 05:09:36 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: Mike Chewbacca: That is silencing a viewpoint, and there's nothing wrong with it if the viewpoint itself is foul.

Awww. crap man. You did that. Don't you see? In 1950, the viewpoint that homosexuality is acceptable was considered "foul".


Exactly! So long as it's the "right" view (in their eyes, right now, unchanging), then it's cool. I mean..surely you guys on the other end see what BoJanglesPaladin is talking about? I mean, it's not that much of a stretch.
 
2013-07-09 05:10:41 PM  
I love the "I engage in the same thing you guys are but I'm doing it for the right* reasons so therefore I'm above it all and get to wag my finger and tsk tsk you for doing your thing for the wrong reasons." argument.

*The right reasons are whatever I care to define them as at any given time.
 
2013-07-09 05:11:21 PM  

RevRaven: And it's been stated above that some people want to see this be a cause of ruin for the potential for future stuff from the author, to effectively terrorize other companies into not doing business with him. "This could happen to you!" That's...kinda frightening.


Indeed, because not making a few million more dollars is kinda frightening.

If you're a coward.
 
2013-07-09 05:13:37 PM  

Mike Chewbacca: 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?


So, by your logic, you would have supported a boycott against an anti-racist movie or book in the 50s, because it supported a view that was considered "foul".
 
2013-07-09 05:14:45 PM  
how about you guys just forget his personal views and enjoy his stories for what they are? seems everyone else is more interested in his views on gay people than he actually is, move the hell on.
 
2013-07-09 05:15:04 PM  

RevRaven: So, by your logic, you would have supported a boycott against an anti-racist movie or book in the 50s, because it supported a view that was considered "foul".


Or rather, would have supported a boycott against a movie that was written by someone with anti-racist views (even though that wasn't in the subject matter of the book the movie's based on), because the author supported a view that was considered "foul".
 
2013-07-09 05:16:37 PM  

RevRaven: 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?


Terrorism:
publicsafety.ohio.govtribwpix.files.wordpress.com

Not terrorism:
www.rantingnewyorker.com boycottpapajohns.org
 
2013-07-09 05:19:45 PM  

RevRaven: Mike Chewbacca: 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?

So, by your logic, you would have supported a boycott against an anti-racist movie or book in the 50s, because it supported a view that was considered "foul".


No, by YOUR logic I would have supported a boycott against an anti-racist movie or book in the 50s, because it supported a view that was considered "foul". Because your logic is bad.
 
2013-07-09 05:21:05 PM  

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

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


Nah, but when you find out an artist is a mega-douchenozzle, you'll probably find that their art seems to lose its attraction.
 
2013-07-09 05:22:54 PM  

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

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

Nah, but when you find out an artist is a mega-douchenozzle, you'll probably find that their art seems to lose its attraction.


Exhibit A:

static.oprah.com
 
2013-07-09 05:23:35 PM  

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

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


After having been a sci-fi addict as a kid, I took about a 15 year hiatus from the genre. Some years ago when I had the urge to read some decent sci-fi again I checked a few top x books like like yourself and Ender's Game was the top choice. I enjoyed the book, but I could not understand all the praise it got. I saw the twist coming a mile away. It was some good pulp sci-fi but nothing that special.

Of course when I wonder how could a pleasant mediocrity like Ender's Game win so many awards, I remember that most sci-fi is just plain bad. On a literary scale, pleasant mediocrity is a pretty high mark for sci-fi to hit. Though I do admit if I had read it when I was twelve I probably would have thought it was amazing, and that is the book's target audience.

I actually enjoyed the second book, Speaker for the Dead, quite a bit more. Then I tried to read Xenocide and dropped it about 1/3 of the way through. It was a mess. I just didn't care about the story or the characters anymore. It made me wonder if Card has lost his marbles around the time of writing that.
 
2013-07-09 05:25:04 PM  

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

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

Nah, but when you find out an artist is a mega-douchenozzle, you'll probably find that their art seems to lose its attraction.


More so when they are members of and / or supporting groups that try to take rights away from other people. Then it goes pass just having a personal opinion.
 
2013-07-09 05:26:02 PM  
I find Mike Chewbacca so annoying I am going to go to Papa John's and buy a pizza.
 
2013-07-09 05:26:31 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?



Are you arguing that the fallout of the Xbox One announcement was economic terrorism? Because a large group of very angry people did indeed threaten Microsoft and keep them from pursuing their interests of always on DRM.

No one is preventing OSC from writing what he wants. No one is preventing studios from making movies based on OSC's books. But we, the general public, have NO OBLIGATION to spend our money on those products. Just like we aren't obligated to buy a video game console we don't like, or buy music or attend concerts of singers we don't like. We are free to spend or not spend for whatever reason. Producers are not guaranteed customers.

After all, audiences are the ones who determine whether a movie gets a sequel. The Lone Ranger, for example, will probably not get a sequel because audiences decided not to see it. A lot of people actively hate the movie and Depp in particular. They are boycotting because they don't like him. (See also Michael Cera.) Is that terrorism? Or is it an audience deciding for some reason to spend their money elsewhere as it their right?

No one is preventing Johnny Depp from putting on a weird costume and prancing around like a maniac. (Just as no one is preventing Michael Cera from being Michael Cera, but to be fair he was awesome in 'This is the End.) But we are not obligated to pay for it and subsidize it with our attendance. We can choose not to go for whatever reason, such as being tired of the same old routine. No one is preventing Depp from being Depp, but a lot of people aren't going to pay for it. If that means he is forced to change the way he expresses himself in movies, that's up to him.

Whether you agree with the reason for not spending money does not make the actions of an audience rejecting a product terrorism. It's the free market. Now, if the government or some outside source is preventing these ideas from making it to the market, then that's another issue. But rejection from an audience isn't terrorism. It's the way things work if people don't want to give you money.
 
2013-07-09 05:27:56 PM  

Craps the Gorilla: how about you guys just forget his personal views and enjoy his stories for what they are? seems everyone else is more interested in his views on gay people than he actually is, move the hell on.


They aren't his personal views, they're his professional views. He's on NOM's board of directors, he went way, waaaay beyond personal views and called for the destruction of any government that supported marriage equality, including his own.

For those of you here weighing in on the terroristic nature of boycotts, take a lesson. Calling on others to destroy the government sounds a lot more like terrorism than not going to see his lame movie.
 
2013-07-09 05:31:05 PM  
OSC is a hateful, small minded bigot, and the world would be a better place if he slipped and fell into a wood chipper

That said, I read Ender's Game (the original short) when i was young, and I loved it. I still find it reasonably enjoyable to read.

That being said, pretty much everything of his (fiction) I've ever read, when reread it as an adult, just screams "I was seriously abused as a child," and all of his non-fiction hate writings give off a serious vibe of "closeted homosexual and/or child abuser"

I'm not saying that any of these are true, they're just the feeling I get about him when i read his writings. But I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if some really horrific revelations came out about either his childhood, or his children. Or both
 
2013-07-09 05:33:59 PM  

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

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

Nah, but when you find out an artist is a mega-douchenozzle, you'll probably find that their art seems to lose its attraction.

More so when they are members of and / or supporting groups that try to take rights away from other people. Then it goes pass just having a personal opinion.


And this point is what certain people in this thread are...well I can only call it willfully ignoring because it's been stated and restated in big, bold letters over and over. Notice that none of them have addressed this point and instead have stuck to arguing with straw men that are dumping on OSC and whatever other people/businesses we're talking about because they have differing opinions.
 
2013-07-09 05:36:39 PM  

Super_pope: Roman Polanski fled the country after drugging a 13 year old girl to assrape her...


So, you think being opposed to gay marriage -- a legal  belief -- is equivalent to child rape -- an illegal  action?
 
2013-07-09 05:37:14 PM  
I would argue that the Xbone situation, and the Lone Ranger flop, was not economic terrorism, because it was, as you said, the market/audiences reacting to the product being presented before them.

But when the boycott is against a property or a franchise or whatever, based off their political reasons alone rather than the quality of the product, I see that as economic terrorism. When the Catholic League boycotted Dogma (even though it was pro God!), that was economic terrorism. It had to do with the message, and that was arguably more understandable of a boycott (due to the subject matter) than this one (which is due to the beliefs of the author). The examples you give of the market reacting are based off the perceived quality of the product. This boycott (and others) seem to be not based on the quality of the product but rather the opinions held by some of the people involved with it, of which those opinions aren't expressed in the subject matter in question. And that's why it seems like economic terrorism to me.
 
2013-07-09 05:39:43 PM  

RevRaven: I would argue that the Xbone situation, and the Lone Ranger flop, was not economic terrorism, because it was, as you said, the market/audiences reacting to the product being presented before them.

But when the boycott is against a property or a franchise or whatever, based off their political reasons alone rather than the quality of the product, I see that as economic terrorism. When the Catholic League boycotted Dogma (even though it was pro God!), that was economic terrorism. It had to do with the message, and that was arguably more understandable of a boycott (due to the subject matter) than this one (which is due to the beliefs of the author). The examples you give of the market reacting are based off the perceived quality of the product. This boycott (and others) seem to be not based on the quality of the product but rather the opinions held by some of the people involved with it, of which those opinions aren't expressed in the subject matter in question. And that's why it seems like economic terrorism to me.


There is no way you actually believe this.
 
2013-07-09 05:41:50 PM  

praymantis: I find Mike Chewbacca so annoying I am going to go to Papa John's and buy a pizza.


So you think eating shiatty pizza prepared by people without health insurance is going to hurt ME? Son, I don't think you thought your cunning plan through all the way.
 
2013-07-09 05:43:00 PM  

Mike Chewbacca: praymantis: I find Mike Chewbacca so annoying I am going to go to Papa John's and buy a pizza.

So you think eating shiatty pizza prepared by people without health insurance is going to hurt ME? Son, I don't think you thought your cunning plan through all the way.


That makes just as much sense as a boycott being an attack on freedom.
 
2013-07-09 05:44:14 PM  

xalres: I love the "I engage in the same thing you guys are but I'm doing it for the right* reasons so therefore I'm above it all and get to wag my finger and tsk tsk you for doing your thing for the wrong reasons." argument.


Miss. Try again. You are going all around it, but missing it.

Here's the key hint. I don't think Orson Card Scott's viewpoints are correct. But I accept that they are valid and legitimate, though I oppose them. Why, then, so I think it is wrong for groups to seek to "teach him a lesson" or "punish him" or "discourage others" like him from holding, espousing, and advocating for viewpoints I oppose?

Mike Chewbacca: 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.


Good. Good. You are getting closer to (re?) understanding what I am saying. Can you see why it is a bad idea to try and quash and punish those who have a differing opinion, even one that is overwhelmingly disapproved of?

Honestly, I think some of you are just confused because you think I'm somehow in OSC "corner", which I have made every effort to make clear I am not.

Try this. Take all of my posts and replace "OSC" with "Disney" and "Pro-Gay" with "Evangelicals".
 
2013-07-09 05:45:55 PM  

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

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

Nah, but when you find out an artist is a mega-douchenozzle, you'll probably find that their art seems to lose its attraction.

Exhibit A:

[static.oprah.com image 600x411]


I liked Oblivion.

The other stuff since that incident, not so much.
 
2013-07-09 05:46:47 PM  

xalres: And this point is what certain people in this thread are...well I can only call it willfully ignoring because it's been stated and restated in big, bold letters over and over. Notice that none of them have addressed this point and instead have stuck to arguing with straw men that are dumping on OSC and whatever other people/businesses we're talking about because they have differing opinions.


What if OSC's personal opinions were actually part of a  significant organization (NOM) that used his popularlity (and possibly money associated with his success) to inflict harm on you?

NOM is desperate for money right now. What if I just don't want them getting any of mine?
 
2013-07-09 05:52:48 PM  

Craps the Gorilla: how about you guys just forget his personal views and enjoy his stories for what they are? seems everyone else is more interested in his views on gay people than he actually is, move the hell on.


Now see, if he was just pounding his podium in his books or his web site, I could probably do that.  I do that with John Ringo, and I'd do that with Heinlein if he were still alive.  I find myself at times doing it with Spider Robinson and Harlan Ellison.  Everyone's got an opinion on something that I think is wrong.  I think Card's opinions on marriage equality are wrong.  So be it.

But as far as I know, Ringo's not telling everyone to overthrow the government if laws are passed that he doesn't like.  I can't recall Heinlein doing so, either.  In fact, there was a segment in Revolt in 2100 where some psychiatrist got verbally biatchslapped for coming up with a way to make people think correctly.

Card gets my tolerance.  He can write his tripe, and he can do whatever is needed to get his stories turned into movies, and I'm not going to stop him.  I'm not giving him one thin dime, and I haven't for about 10 years now.  I used to consider myself one of his biggest fans with all of his books, most of them in hardcover.  Now he gets nothing.

I'm not stopping you from buying his books.  I'm not stopping you from going to his movie.  Enjoy yourself.

I won't provide any support.
 
2013-07-09 05:53:17 PM  
I'll make sure to buy a ticket to a different movie then go into the EG theater.
 
2013-07-09 05:55:05 PM  

RevRaven: I would argue that the Xbone situation, and the Lone Ranger flop, was not economic terrorism, because it was, as you said, the market/audiences reacting to the product being presented before them.

But when the boycott is against a property or a franchise or whatever, based off their political reasons alone rather than the quality of the product, I see that as economic terrorism. When the Catholic League boycotted Dogma (even though it was pro God!), that was economic terrorism. It had to do with the message, and that was arguably more understandable of a boycott (due to the subject matter) than this one (which is due to the beliefs of the author). The examples you give of the market reacting are based off the perceived quality of the product. This boycott (and others) seem to be not based on the quality of the product but rather the opinions held by some of the people involved with it, of which those opinions aren't expressed in the subject matter in question. And that's why it seems like economic terrorism to me.


Did they PREVENT Dogma from being released? No, they did not. Dogma got a full release, and some people didn't want to see it. They have every right to not see it and tell others not to see it. As long as they didn't threaten to burn down any theater showing it or harass or blackmail theater owners or make threats against people who did see it, they were well within their rights to do as they did. It's not terrorism. It's free speech and a right to NOT spend money on certain entertainment.

Now, you could argue that the protests surrounding The Last Temptation of Christ was economic terrorism because some of the protests, IIRC, were actual threats, and the protestors actively prevented the movie from being shown. That could be terrorism. Trying to prevent free speech with threats is terrorism. Trying to prevent the release of something you don't agree with using threats or coersion is terrorism.

But making it clear that a large number of people won't purchase something WHEN it gets released, making a grand statement that such a product will not be profitable WHEN it gets released isn't terrorism. As long as the people boycotting Enders Game don't interfere in its release, as long as the only actions they take agaisnt it are constitutionally protected criticisms and actively NOT purchasing tickets or merchandise, for whatever reason, that isn't terrorism. If they phone in bomb threats to theaters showing the movie, that IS terrorism. If they threaten to beat up anyone who sees it, that is terrorism. If they try to sabotage movie theaters so that no one can see the movie, that is terrorism.

But complaining on the internet and picketing a movie isn't terrorism. Hell, it's probably good marketing. After all, I went to see Dogma specifically because of the protests. (Same reason I started reading the Harry Potter books.) In fact, while OSC is whining about people calling him out about his anti-gay activities (as he actively worked to pass legislation that harmed gays) there will be just as many vocal supporters who flock to see Enders Game BECAUSE of the protests.
 
2013-07-09 05:55:16 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: Can you see why it is a bad idea to try and quash and punish those who have a differing opinion, even one that is overwhelmingly disapproved of?


Nope. Because you can't use logic on people like OSC. Only punishing them (in their pocket book, usually) will make them stop working so hard to legislate their beliefs. They believe with all their hearts that they are right, and arguing against them using logic gets us nowhere. These people aren't trying to live their lives the way they want, they're trying to get US to live OUR lives the way they want. Think of this as the free market deciding not to financially support an organization because that organization does something distasteful. Nobody is saying we should outlaw that distasteful thing, we're just trying to spread the word that such-and-such company using a distasteful practice, and we're trying to get them to change their ways through peer pressure and financial incentives (ie, NOT losing money).

Remember, I'm not talking about passing laws that forbid discussing certain subjects. I'm talking about society putting pressure on an individual in order to affect their behavior. I'd be happy if OSC stepped down off the board of NOM (again, an organization based in NJ that formed specifically to pass Prop 8 in CA). If he did that, I'd probably go see his movie. But his "nopology" plea for us to go watch his movie just shows me he hasn't changed, and he's just as much a dick now as he was in decades past.
 
2013-07-09 05:55:27 PM  

Lutrasimilis: xalres: And this point is what certain people in this thread are...well I can only call it willfully ignoring because it's been stated and restated in big, bold letters over and over. Notice that none of them have addressed this point and instead have stuck to arguing with straw men that are dumping on OSC and whatever other people/businesses we're talking about because they have differing opinions.

What if OSC's personal opinions were actually part of a  significant organization (NOM) that used his popularlity (and possibly money associated with his success) to inflict harm on you?

NOM is desperate for money right now. What if I just don't want them getting any of mine?


That's what I'm talking about. I'm not going to see this movie because I don't want my money going to those types of groups. Same reason I don't eat at Chik-Fil-A. The guys in this thread who're saying we're trying to punish them and squash their opinions are conveniently skipping over this point and instead attributing our refusal to give them our business to some sort of malice or politically motivated attempt to stamp out opinions we don't agree with.
 
2013-07-09 05:56:21 PM  
BojanglesPaladin: ....Honestly, I think some of you are just confused because you think I'm somehow in OSC "corner", which I have made every effort to make clear I am not....

Probably because anyone familiar with the history of your posts figures you agree with Card 100%. I mean, if you're going to DERPDERPDERP 99.99% of the time, people figure it's really 100%.
 
2013-07-09 05:58:36 PM  
I've recently bought most of the Ender's books in hardcover, as well as the shadow series.

I know there are tons of douchebags in the entertainment industry that don't believe the same things I do - that's why I don't generally care what they think when it comes to politics.
 
2013-07-09 05:59:08 PM  

Mike Chewbacca: Nope. Because you can't use logic on people like OSC. Only punishing them (in their pocket book, usually) will make them stop working so hard to legislate their beliefs. They believe with all their hearts that they are right, and arguing against them using logic gets us nowhere. These people aren't trying to live their lives the way they want, they're trying to get US to live OUR lives the way they want.


"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience."

- C. S. Lewis


There's no reasoning with people like this. They're right, in the most absolute way possible, and anybody who tells them otherwise wrong in equal measure. Good luck having a rational debate where that is the jumping off point.
 
2013-07-09 06:02:23 PM  

xalres: That's what I'm talking about. I'm not going to see this movie because I don't want my money going to those types of groups. Same reason I don't eat at Chik-Fil-A. The guys in this thread who're saying we're trying to punish them and squash their opinions are conveniently skipping over this point and instead attributing our refusal to give them our business to some sort of malice or politically motivated attempt to stamp out opinions we don't agree with.


Well yes, they can't make a case if those facts are present. This isn't about punishing anyone. We're not boycotting the book and trying to have it pulled from libraries like 'My Two Dads'.
 
2013-07-09 06:03:09 PM  
Why is it so hard to separate the artist from the work of art?  I think Ender's Game is a brilliant book, and looking forward to seeing the movie (although they probably will bollox it up).  Orson Scott Card is an asshole and I totally disagree with just about every political viewpoint he has ever uttered.  But so what?  I'm not his friend.  I don't have to eat dinner with him.  I enjoy what he writes.

I agree with him.  Boycotting a movie because you don't like the writer's personal opinions just make you the bigger asshole.
 
2013-07-09 06:03:51 PM  

xalres: Mike Chewbacca: Nope. Because you can't use logic on people like OSC. Only punishing them (in their pocket book, usually) will make them stop working so hard to legislate their beliefs. They believe with all their hearts that they are right, and arguing against them using logic gets us nowhere. These people aren't trying to live their lives the way they want, they're trying to get US to live OUR lives the way they want.

"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience."

- C. S. Lewis

There's no reasoning with people like this. They're right, in the most absolute way possible, and anybody who tells them otherwise wrong in equal measure. Good luck having a rational debate where that is the jumping off point.


Tell me about it. I have family who are rabidly anti-abortion, but don't even THINK about providing free birth control to females, and how dare I suggest we increase our taxes so single moms with unwanted babies don't have to live in poverty without health insurance.
 
2013-07-09 06:05:10 PM  

Close2TheEdge: Why is it so hard to separate the artist from the work of art?  I think Ender's Game is a brilliant book, and looking forward to seeing the movie (although they probably will bollox it up).  Orson Scott Card is an asshole and I totally disagree with just about every political viewpoint he has ever uttered.  But so what?  I'm not his friend.  I don't have to eat dinner with him.  I enjoy what he writes.

I agree with him.  Boycotting a movie because you don't like the writer's personal opinions just make you the bigger asshole.


It's not a personal opinion, it's a profession opinion. Orson Scott Card is a chairpersonman on the board of National Organization for Marriage, a group formed in NJ specifically to help pass Prop 8 in CA.
 
2013-07-09 06:07:36 PM  

Mike Chewbacca: It's not a personal opinion, it's a profession opinion. Orson Scott Card is a chairpersonman on the board of National Organization for Marriage, a group formed in NJ specifically to help pass Prop 8 in CA.


Actions, not words, is what I'm reading.  If so, I agree with you.
 
2013-07-09 06:13:33 PM  
We don't tolerate Nazis and anti-semitism and fascism just because we won WWII, why should we tolerate anti-gay sentiment just because we will win the same-sex marriage fight?

There are still states to THIS DAY where someone can be fired merely for being gay. The marriage fight may be close to being won, but the struggle for equal rights is ongoing.

I won't be seeing this movie and I don't eat at Chik-fil-A and I don't patronize any business or corporation that I find out supports anti-equal rights positions or groups.
 
2013-07-09 06:13:58 PM  
Holy hell, I'm glad I left this thread earlier when it was just moderately insane.

Economic terrorism?

For fark's sake, this thread has hit a level of trolling that I haven't seen in a while.
 
2013-07-09 06:15:02 PM  
OSC has contributed to campaigns and organizations against gay marriage and as been vocal about his beliefs, I disagree with him, but it's his right to do so.  People also have the right to be vocal against what he's said and organize a boycott against him for those same beliefs.  I've been a long supporter of gay rights, but I'm still interested in seeing the movie.  I'm sure a lot of authors, actors, etc I enjoy may share opposing views than I do and I'm okay with that.  If you aren't, give them hell.
 
2013-07-09 06:24:44 PM  
I have a property where the water table is very deep and I need to have a well dug. I would like to hire BojanglesPaladin for this task because I have never seen someone dig a hole so deep and so fast before.
 
2013-07-09 06:25:24 PM  

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

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

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

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


YUP, perzacly.
 
2013-07-09 06:30:51 PM  

Mike Chewbacca: Nope. Because you can't use logic on people like OSC. Only punishing them (in their pocket book, usually) will make them stop working so hard to legislate their beliefs.


And there you are again, trying to quash or punish, or prevent people from holding, espousing, or advocating viewpoints that you disagree with.

If you cannot see why that is wrong and dangerous, I'm afraid we have reached an impasse.

Mike Chewbacca: Remember, I'm not talking about passing laws that forbid discussing certain subjects. I'm talking about society putting pressure on an individual in order to affect their behavior.


I now you are not advocating for silence laws. But there is an awful lot of slippery at the top of that slope when you start wandering into " putting pressure on an individual in order to affect their behavior.".

As I think I have clarified well enough above, this is largely an issue of the intention of the action, rather than the methods used. A boycott in and of itself is not political bullying. But a look at any number of the posts here (including many of your own) shows a pronounced desire and intent to "punish", "shut up", "discourage" or otherwise cause unpopular opinions and advocating of those viewpoints to cease. To silence dissent through economic intimidation.

Now while I may personally feel it couldn't happen to a better person than OSC, I do not approve of that mindset, because what can be brought to bear against the wicked can be brought to bear against the righteous. It is ours to criticize, ridicule, lambast, debate, oppose, and in all ways legally available to us seek to counteract the effects of those whom we disagree with.

But we should not be trying to punish them or silence them for thinking differently, or for advocating something we find morally repugnant. And on a thread dealing with homosexuality, I would think it is obvious exactly why.
 
2013-07-09 06:38:12 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: Mike Chewbacca: Nope. Because you can't use logic on people like OSC. Only punishing them (in their pocket book, usually) will make them stop working so hard to legislate their beliefs.

And there you are again, trying to quash or punish, or prevent people from holding, espousing, or advocating viewpoints that you disagree with.

Mike Chewbacca: Remember, I'm not talking about passing laws that forbid discussing certain subjects. I'm talking about society putting pressure on an individual in order to affect their behavior.

I now you are not advocating for silence laws. But there is an awful lot of slippery at the top of that slope when you start wandering into " putting pressure on an individual in order to affect their behavior.".

As I think I have clarified well enough above, this is largely an issue of the intention of the action, rather than the methods used. A boycott in and of itself is not political bullying. But a look at any number of the posts here (including many of your own) shows a pronounced desire and intent to "punish", "shut up", "discourage" or otherwise cause unpopular opinions and advocating of those viewpoints to cease. To silence dissent through economic intimidation.

Now while I may personally feel it couldn't happen to a better person than OSC, I do not approve of that mindset, because what can be brought to bear against the wicked can be brought to bear against the righteous. It is ours to criticize, ridicule, lambast, debate, oppose, and in all ways legally available to us seek to counteract the effects of those whom we disagree with.

But we should not be trying to punish them or silence them for thinking differently, or for advocating something we find morally repugnant. And on a thread dealing with homosexuality, I would think it is obvious exactly why.


Again, the entire history of mankind has used social pressure to change individuals' behaviors. It's not wrong or harmful, it's how societies works. Sometimes the end goal is evil or good, but the behavior itself is neither.
 
2013-07-09 06:40:04 PM  

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

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

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


Did you miss the part about his "Hamlet" version?
 
2013-07-09 06:43:06 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: As I think I have clarified well enough above, this is largely an issue of the intention of the action, rather than the methods used. A boycott in and of itself is not political bullying. But a look at any number of the posts here (including many of your own) shows a pronounced desire and intent to "punish", "shut up", "discourage" or otherwise cause unpopular opinions and advocating of those viewpoints to cease. To silence dissent through economic intimidation.


I think by now it should be pretty clear that this isn't about boycotting the man for his art. Most people here are well aware of Orson's connection to NOM, an organization that is working to "punish", "shut up", "discourage" and otherwise cause grief to the gay community. They admit this, and are currently running a massive boycott campaign of their own. J.C. Penny, General Mills, Microsoft, etc.

So OSC is complaining, in effect, about the exact same thing he and his organization are in the midst of encouraging.

Would you admit that much is the truth? That NOM (of whom Card is a chairperson) is actively involved in punishing other organizations for supporting gay rights?
 
2013-07-09 06:44:10 PM  

Mike Chewbacca: Again, the entire history of mankind has used social pressure to change individuals' behaviors. It's not wrong or harmful, it's how societies works.


Of course, As I said:
It is ours to criticize, ridicule, lambast, debate, oppose, and in all ways legally available to us seek to counteract the effects of those whom we disagree with. Put all the pressure you would like. Shame is a particularly effective one, even today.

But we should not be trying to punish them or silence them for thinking differently, or for advocating something we find morally repugnant. And on a thread dealing with homosexuality, I would think it is obvious exactly why.

Mike Chewbacca: Sometimes the end goal is evil or good, but the behavior itself is neither.


Again, as I have said many times:

BojanglesPaladin: It is not the mechanism of boycott, it is the intent to quash opposing political thought.


If you cannot see why that is wrong and dangerous, I'm afraid we have reached an impasse.
 
2013-07-09 06:49:23 PM  

Lutrasimilis: They admit this, and are currently running a massive boycott campaign of their own. J.C. Penny, General Mills, Microsoft, etc.


Isn't that wrong of them to do? To try to silence opposing political views through economic intimidation?

I think so. I think we should all stop that sort of thing.

BojanglesPaladin: My point is a generalized "Can we all act like grown-ups and stop calling for a fatwah boycott against every damn person that doesn't share our viewpoint?
It is the "They don't think like we think they should think, so they should be punished" mindset that is so alarming here regardless of the effectiveness of the boycott. It is the intent, less than the action itself.


As I said:

BojanglesPaladin: I do not approve of that mindset, because what can be brought to bear against the wicked can be brought to bear against the righteous.

 
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 archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
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