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
    More: Dumbass, boycotts, marriages  
•       •       •

6746 clicks; posted to Geek » on 09 Jul 2013 at 10:23 AM (3 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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


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

 
2013-07-10 07:17:54 AM  
SpiderQueenDemon:
And no, I don't intend to see the film. I actually intend to actively encourage others not to see it. All it'll take is a hastily-crafted email forward sent to a few key mommybloggers containing a wink-wink, nudge-nudge, say-no-more rundown of Card's 'beliefs,' some handpicked quotes from his various works (especially 'Songmaster,') and enough parents will keep their kids from seeing it to sink the picture.

The best part? All Snopes can possibly do is give said email-forward a 'mixed veracity' tag with "yeah, that's really stuff Card said and wrote, no, that doesn't mean 'Ender's Game' is the most pedo-tastic thing since Sting in a codpiece," and that, alas, is usually more than enough to keep a derp-rage meme going well past the point of its' usefulness.

/Do you seriously think I'd explain my master-stroke if there remained the slightest chance of you affecting its outcome? I did it 35 minutes ago.


Sooooo looking forward to seeing the results of that coming into play.  You just got farkied orange1 as "Evil.  In the good way."
 
2013-07-10 07:19:55 AM  

silvervial: murray208: cameroncrazy1984: BojanglesPaladin: But we should not be trying to punish them or silence them for thinking differently, or for advocating something we find morally repugnant.

Wait, why not? Why are economic boycotts morally wrong? Are you aware that the Montgomery bus boycott was exactly that? What do you think about that?

Personally I don't think they are morally wrong in general, but when there are better options available it's just cheap populism. I don't think that boycotting Ender's game quite rises to the level of the civil rights movement -- it's more like boycotting the Dixie Chicks, or Denmark, or France.

What the fark do you think this whole gay thing is about? Let me give you a huge hint: CIVIL RIGHTS!

Mind blown, huh?

Or do you think that the right to work, live, and marry as you please isn't really that important for gay people, because gay people can pretend to be straight, but black people can't pretend to be white? Is that the distinction?

Doesn't matter if you see a distinction at all, frankly, BECAUSE THERE IS NONE! Gay people, and the people who support them, are fighting to keep gays from remaining second class citizens who pay taxes but are still discriminated against. It's EVERY BIT as much a civil rights fight as the one conducted by black people (and their supporters) in the sixties and beyond.


That's is all nice rhetoric, I don't think it's quite literally true, but fine. All I'm saying is that there is no need to continue a cycle of discrimination. Do you think it would be a good idea that all black people from the sixties boycott white businesses?

We're talking about boycotts here, not about the issue.
 
2013-07-10 08:28:06 AM  
This just in...

...kooks, douchebags, and bigots sometimes write worthy books.
 
2013-07-10 08:38:49 AM  

barneyfifesbullet: What a bunch of crazy.

I will be happy to see a movie I wasn't going to see anyway, just to say fark you to the pro-censorship, fascist wannabe crowd.


Thank you for proving my point that this is not economic terrorism, because it's non-coercive and voluntary.  You are choosing not to participate in the boycott, and in fact to work against the boycott.  Rather than economic terrorism, you've shown that it is instead economic democracy.
 
2013-07-10 10:00:17 AM  

TheMysteriousStranger: This just in...

...kooks, douchebags, and bigots sometimes write worthy books.


...but not in this case.
 
2013-07-10 10:59:40 AM  

murray208: That's is all nice rhetoric, I don't think it's quite literally true, but fine. All I'm saying is that there is no need to continue a cycle of discrimination. Do you think it would be a good idea that all black people from the sixties boycott white businesses?

We're talking about boycotts here, not about the issue.


So you think black people shouldn't boycott businesses owned by a member of the KKK?
 
2013-07-10 12:38:58 PM  

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

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

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



This.
 
2013-07-10 01:35:15 PM  

Mike Chewbacca: So you're just going to have to be comfortable with the fact that you are advocating something that nobody else supports. Keep on keeping on though. Maybe in 30 years we'll catch up with you, Lone Dissenter of Reason.


Nobody supports the idea that it is wrong to try to quash and punish someone for holding, espousing, and advocating for a position that is highly unpopular? Really? That's sad that you think it will be 30 years before the rest of you figure that out.

So you must therefore think it was OK when the Southern Racists tried to quash and punish African -Americans for advocating an unpopular viewpoint? What about the early gay activists? OK to try to "shut them down" or "teach them a lesson"? Of course not.

Too many of you seem to think that it's OK in THIS case, because in this case it's a bad man, saying bad things. And I agree that he's a bad man, saying bad things. We all want him to shut up and stop trying to prevent gay marriage, right? Good. We have the same free speech, and there are plenty of high profile advocates on the opposite side, and we get to cast our votes and work diligently to not only oppose him, but to convince others that HIS message is the wrong one.

You don't have to give him your money, any more than you have to give your money to anyone. No one "punishes" Adam Sandler by not going to see his movies. No one is trying to "teach them a lesson" when they don't buy a Judy Picoult book they were never going to buy.

But the intent to "punish" him, to intimidate him, is wrong. It's wrong when done for a noble goal and wrong when done for a nefarious goal, because the INTENT is to discourage dissenting opinion.

The My Little Pony Killer: You are suggesting that by announcing that I will not buy his books or see his movie, that I am somehow stifling his right to free speech.


Nope. Boycott, don't boycott, he's still free to spew his nonsense. What many of you are advocating is trying to harm or bully him into being silent. If he was a gay rights activist instead, would you feel it was acceptable to do so? Probably not. I don't like Orson Scott Card, but that does not make it "OK" to do to him or others we strongly disagree with, what we would be outraged to see done to someone we agree with.

For me it's simple:
"I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it."

That means, we should not be trying to intimidate people to prevent them from holding, espousing, or advocating their viewpoints. Period. Neither those we agree with, nor those we disagree with. We can freely debate, challenge, argue, and advocate against them, but there is a line beyond which you are trying to cause them harm because they disagree with you.

It is unsurprising, but somewhat sad that so few people on this thread understand this simple principle, much less hold it.
 
2013-07-10 03:10:41 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: Mike Chewbacca: So you're just going to have to be comfortable with the fact that you are advocating something that nobody else supports. Keep on keeping on though. Maybe in 30 years we'll catch up with you, Lone Dissenter of Reason.

Nobody supports the idea that it is wrong to try to quash and punish someone for holding, espousing, and advocating for a position that is highly unpopular? Really? That's sad that you think it will be 30 years before the rest of you figure that out.

So you must therefore think it was OK when the Southern Racists tried to quash and punish African -Americans for advocating an unpopular viewpoint? What about the early gay activists? OK to try to "shut them down" or "teach them a lesson"? Of course not.

Too many of you seem to think that it's OK in THIS case, because in this case it's a bad man, saying bad things. And I agree that he's a bad man, saying bad things. We all want him to shut up and stop trying to prevent gay marriage, right? Good. We have the same free speech, and there are plenty of high profile advocates on the opposite side, and we get to cast our votes and work diligently to not only oppose him, but to convince others that HIS message is the wrong one.

You don't have to give him your money, any more than you have to give your money to anyone. No one "punishes" Adam Sandler by not going to see his movies. No one is trying to "teach them a lesson" when they don't buy a Judy Picoult book they were never going to buy.

But the intent to "punish" him, to intimidate him, is wrong. It's wrong when done for a noble goal and wrong when done for a nefarious goal, because the INTENT is to discourage dissenting opinion.

The My Little Pony Killer: You are suggesting that by announcing that I will not buy his books or see his movie, that I am somehow stifling his right to free speech.

Nope. Boycott, don't boycott, he's still free to spew his nonsense. What many of you are advocating is trying to harm or bully him into being silen ...


Hey, if you champion hatred and evil and bigotry, you deserve a good beating and a boot in the mouth. Sorry if you disagree with that.

Some things are not worth trying to protect. Obvious and outright evil such as discriminating against American citizens for the sole reason that they exist should not be protected in the interest of "fairness and equality".
 
2013-07-10 03:18:07 PM  
Waaaah, this author/director/producer/singer doesn't share my political views!!! Now I just have to convince everyone else that I'm right!!
 
2013-07-10 03:35:33 PM  

Keizer_Ghidorah: Hey, if you champion hatred and evil and bigotry, you deserve a good beating and a boot in the mouth. Sorry if you disagree with that.


I do. I vehemently disagree with the Klan, but I respect that they have a valid and legitimate viewpoint, even if I utterly, completely disagree with it. In a democracy and a free marketplace of ideas, I do not think we should be dispensing beatings and boots in the mouth to people we disagree with politically. We should be out-arguing, out-advocating, and out-convincing them. And how *IS* the Klan doing nowadays? Sure they are still around, but we let them have their say, let them proudly display their ignorance and stupidity, and let everyone see what their message actually was. It's not about protecting poor white people, it's not about preserving culture, or any of the nonsense they spouted, but straight up racism and hate. The American people got to hear what they have to say and everyone said. "No thanks, you guys are ignorant hatemongers". And now they are marginalized, and social pariahs.

Keizer_Ghidorah: Some things are not worth trying to protect.


I'm not advocating that he be protected. I am saying that we should be better than trying to quash dissenting opinions. even those we disagree with.
 
2013-07-10 04:04:21 PM  
I'll go see it


/If it's directed by John Waters
 
2013-07-10 04:06:54 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: Keizer_Ghidorah: Hey, if you champion hatred and evil and bigotry, you deserve a good beating and a boot in the mouth. Sorry if you disagree with that.

I do. I vehemently disagree with the Klan, but I respect that they have a valid and legitimate viewpoint, even if I utterly, completely disagree with it. In a democracy and a free marketplace of ideas, I do not think we should be dispensing beatings and boots in the mouth to people we disagree with politically. We should be out-arguing, out-advocating, and out-convincing them. And how *IS* the Klan doing nowadays? Sure they are still around, but we let them have their say, let them proudly display their ignorance and stupidity, and let everyone see what their message actually was. It's not about protecting poor white people, it's not about preserving culture, or any of the nonsense they spouted, but straight up racism and hate. The American people got to hear what they have to say and everyone said. "No thanks, you guys are ignorant hatemongers". And now they are marginalized, and social pariahs.

Keizer_Ghidorah: Some things are not worth trying to protect.

I'm not advocating that he be protected. I am saying that we should be better than trying to quash dissenting opinions. even those we disagree with.


No. The Klan don't have a "valid and legitimate viewpoint". They have an evil viewpoint that causes serious harm to others. They are perfectly free to hold and express that noxious viewpoint, but they are not free from experiencing the consequences of that expression, which include being denounced, boycotted, and so on.

Similarly, OSC's political activities have caused real and serious harm to me, to people I care about, and to hundreds of thousands of LGBT people. He is free to espouse those views and to engage in those activities, and I and others are free to denounce him and his views and to urge others to denounce him and to refrain from supporting projects with which he is associated. That is not "intimidation", that is natural consequences.
 
2013-07-10 04:16:20 PM  

angrycrank: No. The Klan don't have a "valid and legitimate viewpoint". They have an evil viewpoint that causes serious harm to others.


They do. It's valid, and legitimate, and utterly wrong.

Let me clarify a point though. ANY illegal action, and call for illegal action, and of that should be and was properly shut-down, prosecuted, and put in jail. I am speaking exclusively about the legal political speech, and not at all about their illegal and criminal activities for which they were and should be rightly and harshly punished.

angrycrank: Similarly, OSC's political activities have caused real and serious harm to me, to people I care about, and to hundreds of thousands of LGBT people.


Since we are comparing to the Klan, I think there is a distinction to be made here. To the best of my knowledge, OSC and NOM acted legally, and within the system's framework. As did their opponents. When I say that we should not be trying to punish or quash people with political opinions that we disagree with, I want to be perfectly clear that this applies only when those people are acting within the legal framework.
 
2013-07-10 05:22:12 PM  
I see this thread is still alive and the same idiot is still advocating against boycotts.
 
2013-07-10 05:49:04 PM  

Latinwolf: see this thread is still alive and the same idiot is still advocating against boycotts.


And I see that you still haven't grasped that boycotts are fine, but boycotts to quash dissenting viewpoints are not.

I know that's hard to grasp, but it's really not that complex. For the umpteenth time.

It is not the mechanism of boycott, it is the INTENT to quash opposing political thought.

Try this:

Boycotting Purina because they put glass in dogfood: not intended to quash a dissenting political viewpoint - OK
Boycotting Disney for offering same sex benefits: intended to quash a dissenting political viewpoint - NOT OK
Boycotting Wal-Mart because they systematically ignore international labor laws - not intended to quash a dissenting political viewpoint - OK
Boycotting Chik-Fil-A because they give money to "anti-gay" causes - intended to quash a dissenting political viewpoint - NOT OK
Boycotting Cindi Lauper because she vigorously advocates for "pro-gay" causes - intended to quash a dissenting political viewpoint - NOT OK

See how that works? See how it's not about the particular person or group being boycotted, or the group doing the boycott, or the "rightness" of the boycott?

It's about the wrongness of using a boycott as a tool of economic intimidation INTENDED to punish or silence someone from holding, espousing, or advocating a viewpoint you don't agree with. It's wrong for the goose, and wrong for the gander.

Not only is it not that hard to understand, it's disturbing how many people are arguing that it is ACCEPTABLE, perhaps even desirable to do this.
 
2013-07-10 05:53:35 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: Not only is it not that hard to understand, it's disturbing how many people are arguing that it is ACCEPTABLE, perhaps even desirable to do this.


So... you're saying the only time it's okay to boycott is when the organization/person you are boycotting has done something illegal?  The only time to do it it when you actually have legal recourse to do something about it and don't really need the boycott?

It's quite clear then that you have missed the whole point of a boycott. MLK must be a very bad person to you.
 
2013-07-10 06:05:17 PM  

snarfyboy: It's quite clear then that you have missed the whole point of a boycott.


And quite clear that you are choosing to miss the point.

Tell me, when did MLK use a boycott as a tool of economic intimidation INTENDED to punish or silence someone from holding, espousing, or advocating a viewpoint he don't agree with?

I remember a boycott of a bus system that wouldn't provide acceptable seating and was having people arrested. Which boycotts are you thinking of?
 
2013-07-10 06:09:16 PM  

snarfyboy: BojanglesPaladin: Not only is it not that hard to understand, it's disturbing how many people are arguing that it is ACCEPTABLE, perhaps even desirable to do this.

So... you're saying the only time it's okay to boycott is when the organization/person you are boycotting has done something illegal?  The only time to do it it when you actually have legal recourse to do something about it and don't really need the boycott?

It's quite clear then that you have missed the whole point of a boycott. MLK must be a very bad person to you.


Boycotts are something that Libertarians (aka the descendents of the Confederacy) don't like.  It's the only time you'll see them pretend to be concerned for the welfare of the workers at the places affected by the boycott. Any other time the mentality is to hell with the workers, they can go find work somewhere else.  But let someone mention having a boycott for some kind of social injustice, and suddenly they pretend to be concerned for the workers jobs, referring to boycotts as a form of economic terrorism.
 
2013-07-10 06:33:12 PM  

Latinwolf: Boycotts are something that Libertarians (aka the descendents of the Confederacy) don't like. It's the only time you'll see them pretend to be concerned for the welfare of the workers at the places affected by the boycott. Any other time the mentality is to hell with the workers, they can go find work somewhere else. But let someone mention having a boycott for some kind of social injustice, and suddenly they pretend to be concerned for the workers jobs, referring to boycotts as a form of economic terrorism.


No idea what you are jabbering about now. Have you just decided to randomly post things in an effort to change the topic? Who the fark is talking about "worker's rights"?

And please note that I have never made the "economic terrorism" argument. That is dumb, and someone else said that.

So you are clearly talking about and different topic and something else someone else said, so you should take it up with them.
 
2013-07-10 06:35:49 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: angrycrank: No. The Klan don't have a "valid and legitimate viewpoint". They have an evil viewpoint that causes serious harm to others.

They do. It's valid, and legitimate, and utterly wrong.

Let me clarify a point though. ANY illegal action, and call for illegal action, and of that should be and was properly shut-down, prosecuted, and put in jail. I am speaking exclusively about the legal political speech, and not at all about their illegal and criminal activities for which they were and should be rightly and harshly punished.

angrycrank: Similarly, OSC's political activities have caused real and serious harm to me, to people I care about, and to hundreds of thousands of LGBT people.

Since we are comparing to the Klan, I think there is a distinction to be made here. To the best of my knowledge, OSC and NOM acted legally, and within the system's framework. As did their opponents. When I say that we should not be trying to punish or quash people with political opinions that we disagree with, I want to be perfectly clear that this applies only when those people are acting within the legal framework.


We understand the distinction. It's just an idiotic one. And your own examples show inconsistent thinking. For example, I'd say most people who boycott Walmart aren't doing so because Walmart is breaking the law. Sadly, most of their union-busting, worker-abusing policies are legal - in part because of lobbying by Walmart and their ilk (there is in fact a piece of anti-worker legislation passed in Ontario during a conservative administration popularly termed the "Walmart Act".) What is the distinction between boycotting Walmart because the abuse their workers and boycotting Walmart because they have lobbied for legislation allowing them and others to abuse their workers? If I want to avoid giving my money to OSC and to encourage others to do so because it will impair his ability to work for my oppression and deter others from doing so in the future, that's not malice, it's a natural response. Freedom of expression doesn't mean freedom from the natural consequences of that expression.

Your extreme relativism treats boycotting a company because it extends benefits to a group of workers the same as boycotting a company because it oppresses and abuses its workers. The Disney boycott was wrong (but perfectly legal and not terrorism) because it supported discrimination and harm to others. The OSC boycott is justified because it is an effort to stop discrimination and harm to others. The fact that the method is the same is entirely irrelevant.
 
2013-07-10 06:53:05 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: Tell me, when did MLK use a boycott as a tool of economic intimidation INTENDED to punish or silence someone from holding, espousing, or advocating a viewpoint he don't agree with?


Pretty much anytime he used it to oppose the very LEGAL practice of segregation.  That was simply people espousing their LEGAL beliefs to segregate the races.

It seems to me that you are attempting to adjudicate what is "free speech" and what is "actions against".

And as has been pointed out to you umpteen times, you keep ignoring that OSC supports and gives money to organizations that take actions against the interests gay people.

Give me one good reason that I should give money to a person that thinks I am less of a citizen then him.
 
2013-07-10 07:20:12 PM  

snarfyboy: And as has been pointed out to you umpteen times, you keep ignoring that OSC supports and gives money to organizations that take actions against the interests gay people.


What leads you to believe that I don't understand that? I'm not ignoring it, and if you had read any number of my posts you could clearly see that I think they are assholes. But they are also entitled to work within the system to advocate for and work for their objectives within the legal framework we all operate under. I don't agree with them, but I accept that we see things differently, and they have as much legitimate and valid right to pursue THEIR objectives as we have to pursue OURS. Their view that homosexuality is a moral wrong is no less valid, than say opposition to NAMBLA's efforts, or opposition to the Anti-Abortion groups.

They are advocating for a viewpoint that we find offensive, repulsive, and wrong. And we should vigorously oppose them. But I do not think it is acceptable to use a boycott to seek to quash, punish, silence, or "teach them a lesson" as so many here have argued we should. We should not be trying to circumvent the democratic process by trying to harm them or intimidate them into silence. That's fascist groupthink to say "those who do not think as we think must be punished for their wrongthink". No matter how wrong there thinking may, in fact, be.

Again:
- It's about the wrongness of using a boycott as a tool of economic intimidation INTENDED to punish or silence someone from holding, espousing, or advocating a viewpoint you don't agree with.
- I am saying that we should be better than trying to quash dissenting opinions. even those we disagree with.
- We should not be trying to intimidate people to prevent them from holding, espousing, or advocating their viewpoints. Period. Neither those we agree with, nor those we disagree with. We can freely debate, challenge, argue, and advocate against them, but there is a line beyond which you are trying to cause them harm because they disagree with you.
- What we should not be motivated to do is intentionally seek to have him silenced or quashed simply because we strongly disagree with his viewpoint or his legal actions to advance his agenda.
-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.
-
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.
- 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.
- 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.

- 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.


angrycrank: The Disney boycott was wrong (but perfectly legal and not terrorism)


You are talking about boycotts as terrorism? You aren't talking to the right person. That was some dumb discussion I was not part of.
 
2013-07-10 07:27:00 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: - 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.


Why not? People are perfectly within in their rights when it comes to boycotting. Especially when it comes to someone's asshole opinions.

Honestly all you have done in this thread is rehash Sarah Palin's dumbass opinions.
 
2013-07-10 07:36:06 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: snarfyboy: And as has been pointed out to you umpteen times, you keep ignoring that OSC supports and gives money to organizations that take actions against the interests gay people.

What leads you to believe that I don't understand that? I'm not ignoring it, and if you had read any number of my posts you could clearly see that I think they are assholes. But they are also entitled to work within the system to advocate for and work for their objectives within the legal framework we all operate under. I don't agree with them, but I accept that we see things differently, and they have as much legitimate and valid right to pursue THEIR objectives as we have to pursue OURS. Their view that homosexuality is a moral wrong is no less valid, than say opposition to NAMBLA's efforts, or opposition to the Anti-Abortion groups.

They are advocating for a viewpoint that we find offensive, repulsive, and wrong. And we should vigorously oppose them. But I do not think it is acceptable to use a boycott to seek to quash, punish, silence, or "teach them a lesson" as so many here have argued we should. We should not be trying to circumvent the democratic process by trying to harm them or intimidate them into silence. That's fascist groupthink to say "those who do not think as we think must be punished for their wrongthink". No matter how wrong there thinking may, in fact, be.

Again:
- It's about the wrongness of using a boycott as a tool of economic intimidation INTENDED to punish or silence someone from holding, espousing, or advocating a viewpoint you don't agree with.
- I am saying that we should be better than trying to quash dissenting opinions. even those we disagree with.
- We should not be trying to intimidate people to prevent them from holding, espousing, or advocating their viewpoints. Period. Neither those we agree with, nor those we disagree with. We can freely debate, challenge, argue, and advocate against them, but there is a line beyond which you are trying to cause th ...


First, I would like to add that after all that deflection and equivocating that you didn't give me that one good reason I should give him money. Second, you skipped over the part about MLK boycotting a system that was perfectly legal at the time.  The people of Alabama believed it right to treat the blacks that way and it was the law.  Who was MLK to question their beliefs with a boycott?  Why should he try to "punish" them?

Would you pay money to someone that you know will use it against your interests or beliefs?  Please let me know.  It's a pretty simple question.

OSC is on the board of NOM.  NOM acts within the law, just as the bus drivers in Montgomery were acting within the law.  It was Rosa Parks who got arrested, not the bus driver or thesuperintendent of the Montgomery Publictransportation system.

Finally, if you read my Boobies in this thread, you would know that I said:

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


I am not saying he can't say or believe those things.  But somehow you feel that I must be compelled to support him in those beliefs.  Explain please.
 
2013-07-10 07:38:11 PM  

snarfyboy: Finally, if you read my Boobies in this thread, you would know that I said:


#%00000000*&# filter!
 
2013-07-10 07:39:07 PM  

snarfyboy: #%00000000*&# filter!


Sigh.  I just can't win against the FARK comment system today.
 
2013-07-10 07:50:04 PM  

snarfyboy: murray208: That's is all nice rhetoric, I don't think it's quite literally true, but fine. All I'm saying is that there is no need to continue a cycle of discrimination. Do you think it would be a good idea that all black people from the sixties boycott white businesses?

We're talking about boycotts here, not about the issue.

So you think black people shouldn't boycott businesses owned by a member of the KKK?


In that specific example, I would be supportive of it. But if the end goal is integration then obviously they would have to work that out with people who were in support of segregation.
 
2013-07-10 07:54:24 PM  

murray208: snarfyboy: murray208: That's is all nice rhetoric, I don't think it's quite literally true, but fine. All I'm saying is that there is no need to continue a cycle of discrimination. Do you think it would be a good idea that all black people from the sixties boycott white businesses?

We're talking about boycotts here, not about the issue.

So you think black people shouldn't boycott businesses owned by a member of the KKK?

In that specific example, I would be supportive of it. But if the end goal is integration then obviously they would have to work that out with people who were in support of segregation.


Not sure I understand. Black people have had integration for a while. Why would you support a boycott against a KKK business in today's age but that gay people and their supporters should not boycott OSC?
 
2013-07-10 08:06:32 PM  

angrycrank: Your extreme relativism treats boycotting a company because it extends benefits to a group of workers the same as boycotting a company because it oppresses and abuses its workers. The Disney boycott was wrong (but perfectly legal and not terrorism) because it supported discrimination and harm to others. The OSC boycott is justified because it is an effort to stop discrimination and harm to others. The fact that the method is the same is entirely irrelevant.


That, and what neither side ever considers is the fact that boycotting a thing for political reasons is pretty much creating a free ad campaign for a thing, just to the side that doesn't agree with you. When Roman Catholics were standing outside the theaters trying to persuade people to also boycott 'The Golden Compass,' that was enough to send several of my atheist, agnostic and just plain I-went-to-Catholic-school-and-anything-they-hate-is-golden friends racing for tickets.

Pro-gay people boycotting an OSC movie will almost certainly sent anti-gay people scurrying out to see it. That's kind of 'duh!' at this point.

However, given that OSC took the time to issue a statement essentially asking pro-gay people to not do that, well...it doesn't speak well as to his own perception of the anti-gay crowd's ability to make the film a success. It implies that he may fear, suspect or even know that his side is outnumbered.

Exxxxccelllent.
 
2013-07-10 08:08:38 PM  
No point in repeating myself.
 
2013-07-10 08:11:35 PM  

INeedAName: Are the majority of homophobes gay, not likely.



Why else would you be so concerned with what other people are doing, of their own free will?

I can sort of see why straight women might be upset by the existence of gay men.  But why would straight men be upset by the existence of gay men?

Because Jesus?

Jesus was probably gay.
 
2013-07-10 08:17:47 PM  

murray208: No point in repeating myself.


Repeating yourself would not address my post, so I must assume you are unable to answer.
 
2013-07-10 08:21:58 PM  

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


Because hating Nazi hunters is exactly the same as hating Nazis, right?

You know, there is such a thing as right and wrong.
 
2013-07-10 08:28:38 PM  

snarfyboy: murray208: No point in repeating myself.

Repeating yourself would not address my post, so I must assume you are unable to answer.


I guess you judge yourself the winner then? good for you.
 
2013-07-10 08:32:53 PM  

murray208: snarfyboy: murray208: No point in repeating myself.

Repeating yourself would not address my post, so I must assume you are unable to answer.

I guess you judge yourself the winner then? good for you.


Nope. Just that you are unable to answer my question. Take from that what you will.
 
2013-07-10 08:37:07 PM  

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

Because hating Nazi hunters is exactly the same as hating Nazis, right?

You know, there is such a thing as right and wrong.


There are 2 distinctions some people in this thread don't seem to be able to make: a) boycotting someone because he believes dumb things vs boycotting someone because he uses his time and money to take actions that oppress and harm other people, and b) taking action against someone because they're doing something bad and harmful vs taking action against someone who is not doing anyone any harm. Apparently shooting someone to stop them from murdering schoolchildren is EXACTLY THE SAME as shooting schoolchildren (dear NSA: I do not plan to shoot schoolchildren. No one should shoot schoolchildren). After all, they both use a gun.
 
Displayed 37 of 587 comments


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


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and 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