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 283
    More: Dumbass, boycotts, marriages  
•       •       •

6741 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»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

2013-07-09 09:51:33 AM
17 votes:
efforts to boycott "Ender's Game"

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

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


"We disagreed" is an utterly disingenuous characterization of the "debate." He actively worked for decades to demonize homosexuals through his proselytizing and his National Organization for Marriage fought tirelessly to deny them equal rights. So, no, this isn't a situation where you "agree to disagree" and shake your opposition's hand after a good-faith debate. He wants to "move on" because paying any attention to his past now is going to reveal him to a much broader audience as a hateful bigot.
2013-07-09 09:50:10 AM
11 votes:
Orson Scott Card is not an "outspoken oppo[nent] to gay marriage", he is an outspoken opponent of gay people.
2013-07-09 11:19:27 AM
10 votes:
So wait, for decades he's been the most outspoken bigot in sci-fi, and now he wants me to shut up and give him my money? And if I don't put dollars in his pocket, I'm being unreasonable to a political opponent who happens to disagree with me?

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

In any case, I don't want anything to do with the movie adaptation of his boring story that celebrates eugenics, child soldiers and xenophobia, with a side slice of Reagan-style foreign policy fantasy.  The book lacks literary merit, and unlike many politicized cultural works in the American style, it doesn't even have any element of awesome kitsch to make up for it.  (Ender's Game's contemporary Red Dawn, on the other hand?  A+)  This was my opinion well before I knew he was a bigot.
2013-07-09 10:11:08 AM
9 votes:

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


By "tolerance," he means "never bring up our decades of past bigotry and our ongoing bigotry."
2013-07-09 11:26:21 AM
7 votes:

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

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


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

I don't isolate myself from people I don't agree with, I don't patronize and fund bigotry and hate.
2013-07-09 11:13:11 AM
7 votes:

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

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

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


As master of unlockingsaid there are limits. There are lots of writers I disagree with. There are lots of writers whose personal beliefs I don't know. Card doesn't just have bigoted beliefs he's a board member of NOM. He is an active, public figurehead in the fight against civil rights. That is too much to ignore. If Jerry Falwell wrote a novel, even if it was a pretty good novel, I wouldn't be able to bring myself to buy it because he's such a terrible person.
2013-07-09 10:53:46 AM
7 votes:
Here's the way I read it:

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

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

I'm glad we can be civilized about this."
2013-07-09 10:35:17 AM
6 votes:
"How dare you be intolerant of my intolerance! WAH!"

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

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

*He actually had the balls to re-write one of the greatest works of literary fiction, and change it so that Hamlet's dad was a pedophile who made most of the male cast gay by molesting them (because that's how OSC thinks it works) and tries to trick Hamlet into killing his uncle so he goes to Hell and daddy dearest can molest his son for eternity. Billy S. is spinning in his grave so hard, he drilled a tunnel to the Earth's core.
2013-07-09 09:42:34 AM
6 votes:
This is mostly why I won't see Ender's Game and why I stopped reading his books after I found out what type of person he was. Even if he weren't a homophobe, Orson Scott Card is a raging asshole. That's not to say I haven't enjoyed plenty of books and movies written by raging assholes, but his books are also incredibly overrated. Meh.
2013-07-09 09:40:27 AM
6 votes:
Seems to me that short version is "we disagreed, you guys won.  let's move on."

Unlike some of the gay marriage opponents who are still up their eyeballs in a fight they've already lost.
2013-07-09 11:44:26 AM
5 votes:

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


Yes, and it went far beyond just opposing marriage equality.  He advocated for sodomy laws to "send a clear message that those who flagrantly violate society's regulation of sexual behavior cannot be permitted to remain as acceptable, equal citizens within that society."  To my knowledge, while he has (sort of) walked back his position on criminalizing sodomy, he has never disavowed the broader point that gays should not be "equal citizens."
2013-07-09 11:32:56 AM
5 votes:
When Card declares that the fight is over, resigns from the board of NOM, and keeps his politics to himself, he can ask for some tolerance.

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

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

I didn't buy his Xbox game, I'm not going to see his movie.
2013-07-09 11:23:59 AM
5 votes:
It's not easy for me to pass judgement on this. 18 years of Christian indoctrination has its permanent scars, and I've enjoyed reading quite a few of Card's books.

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


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

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

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


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

So no, Mr. Card. No tolerance for slavers - I mean, opponents of gay marriage. We the People are still attempting to ensure that all people are treated equally in the eyes of the law. Odd how 150 years changes things - R's used to be proponents of that equality!
2013-07-09 11:14:49 AM
5 votes:
Egoy3k:
Lots of classical authors were racist homophobic dicks as a product of the times they lived in, their works are still considered great works.  OSC's crappy (or good) books are crappy (or good) without any knowledge of his bigotry.

Yea, but they're all dead, and not actively trying to oppress people.
2013-07-09 10:57:47 AM
5 votes:
I think you should do your best to separate the artist from the art, but everybody has their limits. Card has reached mine. He doesn't just hold bigoted views,he's incredibly vocal and active about it. That makes me super uncomfortable.

And correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't all the post ender's game books about how religious intolerance causes all sorts of conflicts between the colonists and natives? It's been a while, but I sort of remember that being the point.
2013-07-09 10:41:06 AM
5 votes:
These guys are always such assholes until it stands to cost then money. Then you're the intolerant one for not looking past their intolerance and giving them money.
2013-07-09 10:32:47 AM
5 votes:
Sir, you have made yourself a public face for bigotry and hate.  It is a little late and perhaps a bit disingenuous to ask for tolerance from people that oppose you.  Spend a decade working for tolerance and atoning for your past sins.  Then we'll talk.
vpb [TotalFark]
2013-07-09 10:22:51 AM
5 votes:

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

But Card can EABOD.


He probably does on a regular basis.  Heterosexual men are not normally that obsessed with what gays do.
2013-07-09 07:09:54 PM
4 votes:

BojanglesPaladin: 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.


But it's not that OSC is THINKING differently, he's actively attempting to oppress gays. I have family members who hate gay people. You know what they don't do? They don't become chairmen of organizations that exist solely to oppress gays. Orson Scott Card can think whatever he wants and I'll turn a blind eye to it, the same way I turn a blind eye to the fact that my sister-in-law thinks gay people are all going to hell. But the second he acts to oppress others we have every right to attempt to stop him. And if that means shaming him until he no longer dares voice his opinions in public, that's fine. Because I have no problem living in a society where bigots don't feel comfortable speaking their mind on a soapbox made of my money (meaning, OSC wouldn't have the bullhorn he has if people hadn't bought a bunch of books from him and made him wealthy before he informed all of us he was a bigot).

So again, we're not shaming him because of what he thinks, we're shaming him because of what he does.
2013-07-09 04:24:26 PM
4 votes:
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 03:51:22 PM
4 votes:

No Such Agency: bdub77:
This is mostly why I won't see Ender's Game and why I stopped reading his books after I found out what type of person he was. Even if he weren't a homophobe, Orson Scott Card is a raging asshole.

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

eg., from recent rock music alone:

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

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


I'm ok with someone being an asshole like Lennon or Dylan.  In fact, all your examples are people who were assholes and it had nothing to do with the art.  Then again, it also had nothing to do with me, and the same can't be said of Card.  While I'm not gay, I believe that the people who fight with all their financial resources and time to create second class citizens in my country damages my country in a way that is unforgivable.  You didn't see Dylan or John Lennon or Metallica doing that.

And here is something that people CONTINUE to misunderstand.


The right to free speech does not insulate you from the consequences of what you say, it only guarantees your right to say it.


Card, outside of his writing on Ender's Game - a novel, by the way, which was the only published novel in which I even noticed the lack of editing - has said some truly awful stuff about gay folks and dragged that in a big way into politics, public policy and affected people's lives.  Yeah, I don't think I'm going to see Ender's Game in the theaters.  I'll wait until It's on TV.
2013-07-09 01:00:44 PM
4 votes:

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

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


news.bbcimg.co.uk

This is Alan Turing. He is widely known as one of the fathers of the reprogrammable computer. He broke the Enigma cipher that allowed the Allies to hack into the Nazis' communcations and helped win World War II. He was chemically castrated because he was gay, and he later committed suicide, likely because of extreme intimidation. If you want to boycott anything even remotely pro-gay, you must sever yourself from modern society and join a neo-Nazi group. Period.
2013-07-09 11:45:05 AM
4 votes:
Expecting others to hold themselves to a higher moral standard than you hold yourself, is to admit that your own morality is inherently flawed.
2013-07-09 11:13:12 AM
4 votes:

Spad31: This is a non-issue.


No, it will be a non-issue when the gay community doesn't have to deal with hurdles like OSC and NOM.
2013-07-09 10:44:05 AM
4 votes:

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

But Card can EABOD.

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

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

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


He's referring to the people who obsess over the details of gay sex.  It reflects a mentality that very likely incorporates (unhealthily) homosexual urges.  Listen for the religious folks who describe homosexuality as a "temptation".
2013-07-09 10:41:43 AM
4 votes:

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

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


Ender's Game is written about and for smart kids. If you read it when you were an overachieving junior high student a lot of it resonates. All of the people I know who really like it were nerds who read it around that time in their life. If you pick it up when you're older it just doesn't work.
2013-07-09 10:41:28 AM
4 votes:

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


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

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


This.  The ongoing attitude of these backwards farksticks is amazing - "It's intolerant for you to call me out for being intolerant!  Let's just agree that you'll keep fighting for equal rights, while I keep fighting against it.  See, we're ethically equal, we just disagree!"
2013-07-09 10:32:18 AM
4 votes:

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

As is:

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

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

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


I read Ender's game when it was a novella, and never really read the novel or its sequels, but when I had XM radio and a long commute a few years back I listened to parts of the two sequels while driving, and I came away with a very strong feeling that there was something very wrong wtih OSC (and that was back when I was even unaware of his LDS beliefs)  there is something about how he writes children, how he insists on   making them minature adults to the point where barely adolescent kids are nonetheless great military leader or poltical thinkers that just REALLY gives off a pedophile vibe to me, as many pedos justify thier actions by claiming their victims were "very mature for thier age"
2013-07-09 10:26:17 AM
4 votes:

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

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


Wouldn't not going to see his movie because you disagree with his views be a perfect example of the free market?  Why do you hate the free market, Mr Card?
2013-07-09 09:53:02 AM
4 votes:
I enjoyed Ender's Game.

But Card can EABOD.
2013-07-09 10:27:39 PM
3 votes:

Jean Genetic: This from the man who wrote "Songmaster"? That was a seriously creepy book. There's something off about a man who writes about the degradation of children so much. And don't get me started on "Lost Boys." Ugh, he's a repulsive human being who writes repulsive books. No thanks. I like "Ender's Game" but after the two aforementioned books, that was it. No more.


That was the singularly most farked-up book I ever read.

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.
2013-07-09 08:54:02 PM
3 votes:

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?
2013-07-09 05:55:05 PM
3 votes:

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 05:41:50 PM
3 votes:

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 05:26:31 PM
3 votes:

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 04:53:49 PM
3 votes:

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 04:21:30 PM
3 votes:

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 03:52:59 PM
3 votes:

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


Some viewpoints should be quashed, not through violence or law but through social pressure and growth as a society. If we never pressure Orson Scott Card and other people who feel the same he does, then we'll never progress as a culture. If we just tolerated Jim Crow in the South rather than working to overcome it, it never would have been corrected. (shiat, it still HASN'T been corrected in some places, but that's not my point.) You are literally telling us to just let Orson Scott Card do his thing without taking any opposing action. fark that.
2013-07-09 02:41:49 PM
3 votes:

BojanglesPaladin: Sigh. No need to be abusive. Try to follow me here: That is how YOU see it. And that is a valid and legitimate viewpoint.

Not everyone sees opposition to homosexuality as "abusing people", and they have a valid and legitimate viewpoint as well. You and I may not agree, but this does not mean they are evil bigots. Obviously, some may be, but as Americans, we must acknowledge that they are entitled to their viewpoint as well, no matter how strongly we disagree. They have a valid and legitimate right to advocate legally for their position as we have a right to oppose and advocate for ours. Welcome to America. Stop calling for fatwah.


Not everyone sees opposition to homosexuality as "abusing people" -

Yes.  That's a true statement

and they have a valid and legitimate viewpoint as well. - No.  What they are opposing is people (who they are not claiming are insane or unfit to sign other legal documents) being treated equally in what is essentially a property contract between two parties.  They are opposed to this because the parties involved are unholy in their eyes.  In a society governed by reason, this viewpoint is NOT valid and legitimate.  It might be in a theocracy, but that is not what we are, and there is no legally acceptable framework to make us one no matter how fervent belief is.  These things fly in some areas because religious beliefs are entrenched, but that does not change the fact that they have no place in our codified legal framework and laws like DOMA only exist because it was popular with very vocal/very terrible people.

You and I may not agree, but this does not mean they are evil bigots - No.  See above.
Obviously, some may be - Yes

but as Americans, we must acknowledge that they are entitled to their viewpoint as well, no matter how strongly we disagree - No.  These people advocate theocratic control of my society.  They are entitled to believe what they want, but they are not entitled to pursue a legislative agenda without opposition.

They have a valid and legitimate right to advocate legally for their position as we have a right to oppose and advocate for ours. Welcome to America. Stop calling for fatwah. - Two decades ago they were using financial weapons in an organized way against Disney.  Why wouldn't I do the same to keep them from forcing my friends and neighbors to live like they're impaired?  You're a shiatty American, and really self congratulatory about how above the fray your ass is.
2013-07-09 02:39:07 PM
3 votes:

BojanglesPaladin: Mike Chewbacca: No. Because people like OSC are actively oppressing other Americans. They need to know that's not acceptable. They need to know their behavior is wrong. Yes, he should be punished, not for being a bigot, but for actively working to oppress people.

Try to follow me here: That is how YOU see it. And that is a valid and legitimate viewpoint.

Not everyone sees opposition to homosexuality as "oppressing people", and they have a valid and legitimate viewpoint as well. You and I may not agree, but this does not mean they are evil bigots. Obviously, some may be, but as Americans, we must acknowledge that they are entitled to their viewpoint as well, no matter how strongly we disagree. They have a valid and legitimate right to advocate legally for their position as we have a right to oppose and advocate for ours. Welcome to America. Stop calling for financial fatwah.


And frankly, if he was lobbying to disenfranchise blacks, or oultaw marriage between Christians and non-Christians or blacks and whites or Asians and blacks, you wouldn't be making this argument. You'd be just as outraged as the rest of us. So the fact that you are arguing in favor of OSC says something about you.
2013-07-09 02:36:37 PM
3 votes:

BojanglesPaladin: Mike Chewbacca: No. Because people like OSC are actively oppressing other Americans. They need to know that's not acceptable. They need to know their behavior is wrong. Yes, he should be punished, not for being a bigot, but for actively working to oppress people.

Try to follow me here: That is how YOU see it. And that is a valid and legitimate viewpoint.

Not everyone sees opposition to homosexuality as "oppressing people", and they have a valid and legitimate viewpoint as well. You and I may not agree, but this does not mean they are evil bigots. Obviously, some may be, but as Americans, we must acknowledge that they are entitled to their viewpoint as well, no matter how strongly we disagree. They have a valid and legitimate right to advocate legally for their position as we have a right to oppose and advocate for ours. Welcome to America. Stop calling for financial fatwah.


He thinks gay sex should be illegal, and that if the government "redefines" marriage then our government is the enemy of the people and must be overthrown at all cost. He said HE would act to bring down that government. That's a little different than just thinking gays are gross. That's a little different than having a difference of opinion. He can hate gays all he wants, but the second he works to keep them unequal citizens, he loses the right for me to just turn a blind eye to his bigotry.
2013-07-09 02:20:29 PM
3 votes:

BojanglesPaladin: Bashar and Asma's Infinite Playlist: You're so purposefully obtuse that it's laughable. Would you shop at a store owned by a guy, who in his off time, spent it marching up and down the street calling for the deaths of all Jews?

Nope. Unless they were REALLY, REALLY good scones.

No seriously, for about 20 years I have refused to fill up at a Shell Station because I have issues with their policy in Africa. I don't shop at Wal-Mart. I'm all about not giving my money to people I do not approve of.

That is a different animal than all this calling for a fatwah boycott against political opponents. It is a subtle distinction perhaps, but a distinction with a difference.

I am not saying that OSC has not earned the ire directed at him, or that everyone is not perfectly entitled to give or not give money to the film or his books based on your individual conscience.

I am saying "Can we stop with the call for a boycott of anyone we disagree with politically? Everyone? Moratorium on punitive boycotts for dissenting political views please"?

That's it.


No. Because people like OSC are actively oppressing other Americans. They need to know that's not acceptable. They need to know their behavior is wrong. Yes, he should be punished, not for being a bigot, but for actively working to oppress people.
2013-07-09 01:28:28 PM
3 votes:

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


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

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

Nobody is boycotting OSC because he's a bigot, we're boycotting him because he uses his fame and money as a bullhorn to oppress gays. He serves on the board for the National Organization for Marriage, an anti-gay group created specifically to pass Prop 8 in California. Please note: Orson Scott Card lives in North Carolina, not California. He's able to do all this because he earns enough money as a writer that he has a lot of free time.
2013-07-09 12:06:57 PM
3 votes:
Saying you can appreciate the work and can somehow separate the art from the creator is akin to appreciating a lamp made out of human skin.

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

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

So, no. I feel like I've bitten into a chocolate that had the illusion of awesome, and was filled with pus.
2013-07-09 11:33:04 AM
3 votes:

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


but if you buy the book, he takes your money and spends it on his political projects. If he just held the beliefs, that would be one thing, but he spends a lot of money lobbying for them- money he makes through selling his books.
2013-07-09 11:31:51 AM
3 votes:

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

Well...before The Last Battle, anyway.


Well, yeah.

That wasn't just heavy handed.  That was "fashion Revelations into a giant sledgehammer and beat you over the head with it".
2013-07-09 11:28:49 AM
3 votes:

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


But Orson Scott Card is the product of  our times.

And you'd be surprised.  A lot of classical authors were not racist homophobic dicks.  Artists and writers throughout history have frequently taken the lead in challenging unjust social conditions.  The ability to see the common thread of humanity in people different from yourself - which is impossible for racists and homophobes - actually produces better and more interesting art (although nothing will ever sell me on Dickens.)
2013-07-09 11:27:51 AM
3 votes:
It's hilarious when the "wrong side of history" people start playing their victim cards as that's usually the time when they lose the hand and tap out.
2013-07-09 11:24:49 AM
3 votes:

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

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

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


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

What a bizarre statement coming from a bizarre little man.
2013-07-09 11:19:57 AM
3 votes:

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


Well, those people chose to work with somebody who is this openly bigoted. They are not innocent little snowflakes in this scenario.
2013-07-09 11:13:30 AM
3 votes:
Now it will be interesting to see whether the victorious proponents of gay marriage will show tolerance toward those who disagreed with them when the issue was still in dispute.

Right, because a judicial decision about gay marriage is going to stop homophobes from being raging, loud-mouthed assholes.  Go fark yourself.
2013-07-09 10:56:35 AM
3 votes:

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

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

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


Funny thing about John Norman..I met him once, and he was a tweedy, mousy little guy who was absolutely his wife's biatch, and was actually sort of horrified that people existed who used his books a blueprint for real-life relationships (yes they do exist....they're one step below furries on the "Who get to point an Laugh at Who" chart of geeky kinks)
2013-07-09 10:54:49 AM
3 votes:
Meh, he didn't shove his anti-gay stuff in the book that I recall, did he?

Now if you really want to fark with the anti-gay people, they should turn The Forever War into a movie =)
2013-07-09 10:51:36 AM
3 votes:

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

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


Art is a reflection of its creator.  The art is informed and shaped by the views, opinions, and thoughts of the artist.  Yes, you should know something about an artist before patronizing their work.
2013-07-09 10:49:49 AM
3 votes:
Also, let's review a summary of his Wikipedia page:

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

His only redeeming factor seems to be that he wrote one really good young adult sci-fi book.
2013-07-09 10:43:53 AM
3 votes:
The tolerance he seeks is green in color.
2013-07-09 10:32:25 AM
3 votes:

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

But Card can EABOD.

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


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

Move on with your argument to something more meaningful and relevant.
2013-07-09 09:33:41 PM
2 votes:

Girion47: Khellendros: bukijin: I loved the book when I was a kid. Didn't try and re-read it since then.

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

Art is a reflection of its creator.  The art is informed and shaped by the views, opinions, and thoughts of the artist.  Yes, you should know something about an artist before patronizing their work.

complete and utter bullshiat.


So glad you could add something informative and intelligent to the discussion.  Care to add to that?  Maybe question my sexuality or imply you have had congress with a member of my family?

Separating art from the artist is insane on its face.  I don't care how great it looks, I'm not interested in Hitler's painting, or poetic writings of Charles Manson.  Ayn Rand can't be separated from her work.  Understanding an artist is key to understanding and appreciating their work - how they grew up, how they were educated, how they viewed the world, the time they lived in, etc.

And if you're PAYING to absorb or patronize an artist that is living and pocketing the money you spend, and they're politically/socially active and contributing money and time to causes, you're supporting it with your money.  If you give money to Card, you're giving to the orgs he supports.  That can't be separated from his work.
2013-07-09 07:58:10 PM
2 votes:

Mike Chewbacca: BojanglesPaladin: Mike, I'm sorry. You cannot or will not get this. As I have said before, I'm not explaining it in a way that you understand or something. A few here get the fine distinction, but I am failing to articulate it effectively in a way that "clicks" with you. I swear you almost had a time or two.

Yeah, I'm not the only one, dude. In fact, the only other person who seems to support what you're saying is a threadshiatting troll. 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.


You just don't understand. When he boycotts something it is all fine and dandy. But when you boycott something it is bad because you are doing it with malice in your heart. If you do not give money to people you disagree with, you are punishing them and attempting to silence them. Worse yet, if you dare to so much as mention you are boycotting something and especially if you are so brazen to encourage others to do the same, you are bad and should be ashamed of yourself for inflicting the awful punishment of choosing not to purchase things from people who actively support causes you disagree with.
2013-07-09 07:35:23 PM
2 votes:

BojanglesPaladin: A) You aren't just shaming him, though are you? You aren't just using your free speech to criticize and ridicule and embarrass him. You are lobbying your peers to "punish" him and teach him a lesson, and get him to stop and all of that. You are arguing that it is acceptable to try to silence him through economic intimidation because he holds THIS unpopular viewpoint, espouses it, and advocates for it is simply unacceptable. As determined by you.


Yes, I'm also using my free speech to get other people to boycott him. Just like One Million Moms does. Because money is power, and the more money he has, the more powerful he is, and because every dime he gets is another dime he can spend on his hate machine organization. You have a very funny concept of the Constitution if you think there's something wrong with using free speech in this way.

BojanglesPaladin: B) What he DOES, it advocate vigorously for his viewpoint within the legal framework of our system. No different from what you or I or any other person who opposes him do.


Well, it IS different from what you and I do because as far as I know, neither one of us is a chairman for an Anti-OSC organization.

BojanglesPaladin: 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.


Bullshiat. Societies exist to control individuals. One of the ways we control individuals is through shame. If Christians can slut-shame, then we can bigot-shame.

BojanglesPaladin: I'm really not sure why you continue to have such a hard time understanding this important distinction, but I guess I should thank you for so many opportunities to refine and clarify it :)


Because it's farking retarded? What we are attempting to do to OSC is no different than people showing up to counter-protest the Westboro Baptist Church.
2013-07-09 07:00:46 PM
2 votes:

BojanglesPaladin: No. Why? Why would I be? Are you?


Well, because you said it should stop, and right now they've got a list of 150+ companies that they're punishing in the way you so obviously oppose.

Maybe you should go over there and have a word with them, that's all.
2013-07-09 06:43:06 PM
2 votes:

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 06:40:04 PM
2 votes:

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 06:05:10 PM
2 votes:

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 05:55:16 PM
2 votes:

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 05:53:17 PM
2 votes:
I'll make sure to buy a ticket to a different movie then go into the EG theater.
2013-07-09 05:52:48 PM
2 votes:

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 05:46:47 PM
2 votes:

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 05:27:56 PM
2 votes:

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 05:05:17 PM
2 votes:
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 05:00:45 PM
2 votes:

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 04:54:03 PM
2 votes:

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 04:50:46 PM
2 votes:

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 04:26:13 PM
2 votes:

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 04:24:03 PM
2 votes:

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 03:45:24 PM
2 votes:
Just, basically, you are saying gay people should buy stuff from Chick-fil-A in order not to quash their "viewpoint".

/terminally stupid
2013-07-09 03:34:10 PM
2 votes:

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

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

Yes. NONE of those boycotts were about punishing people who opposed gay marriage. Of course not. All perfectly justified. After all, these were bad people. You can tell because they had a different viewpoint and actually advocated that viewpoint in public and opposed the things they were opposed to. Only bad people would advocate in opposition to homosexuality, so it is perfectly reasonable for all of us to try to punish them.

I think you are missing the point. Here's a hint. I felt exactly the same way about the evangelicals calling for a boycott of Disney way back when they decided to offer healthcare benefits to same sex partners.


See the only problem with what I guess you fondly imagine to be your "logic" is that you are effectively arguing that we should in the name of tolerance allow intolerance to go unpunished. These people think LGBTs are second class citizens and devote massive national level resources to keep them from being equal to everyone else. If we allow that to go unchecked we are essentially saying its okay to behave that way and no matter how wanna spin it it isn't period. It never ceases to amaze me how many stupid farks will go to bat to preserve another stupid fark's right to be a dirtbag. So take pride in the fact that you fought on the side of bigots today well played.
2013-07-09 03:20:29 PM
2 votes:

BojanglesPaladin: Mike Chewbacca: WTF? You're not even doing what you're asking us to do.

Sigh. Try reading again from the top more slowly. But since you have indicated you can't be bothered to read ALL the words, I'll just re-post one of the numerous times I have explained this. It's only a few sentences so see if you can make it all the way through:

BojanglesPaladin: No seriously, for about 20 years I have refused to fill up at a Shell Station because I have issues with their policy in Africa. I don't shop at Wal-Mart. I'm all about not giving my money to people I do not approve of.
That is a different animal than all this calling for a financial fatwah boycott against political opponents. It is a subtle distinction perhaps, but a distinction with a difference.
I am not saying that OSC has not earned the ire directed at him, or that everyone is not perfectly entitled to give or not give money to the film or his books based on your individual conscience.
I am saying "Can we stop with the call for a boycott of anyone we disagree with politically? Everyone? Moratorium on punitive boycotts for dissenting political views please"?
That's it.

Capiche?


No, I don't capiche. You admit that you are boycotting OSC's works. Yet you are angry at the rest of us for doing the same thing. Or is that we're openly calling for a boycott rather than just engaging in an individual boycott in silence?
2013-07-09 03:16:04 PM
2 votes:
Fark_Guy_Rob:

I'm 100% pro-gay marriage.
I'm also 100% pro-incestuous marriage.
I'm also 100% pro-polygamy marriage.
I'm also 100% pro-interracial marriage.

Virtually every single argument made against any one of those applies to the rest.  The government has no business telling consenting adults who they can/can't sleep with marry.


I'm against all legal definition of marriage.
Marriage is a religious thing and an imaginary societal construct.
I have problems with incest but that has nothing to do with marriage.
I can already live with and have sex with any consenting adult(s) that I want to.
There is nothing logical about getting a tax deduction because of it.
2013-07-09 03:11:41 PM
2 votes:

BojanglesPaladin: I am outraged by his bigotry. I liked both the Ender Series and Alvin Maker and a few others, but I don't buy his stuff anymore. For much the same reason I don't financially support Woody Allen, Roman Polanski or Michael Jackson.



BojanglesPaladin: I am saying "Can we stop with the call for a boycott of anyone we disagree with politically? Everyone? Moratorium on punitive boycotts for dissenting political views please"?


WTF? You're not even doing what you're asking us to do. There's a word for that... I think it starts with an H and ends with "ypocrisy."
2013-07-09 03:10:41 PM
2 votes:
I know it's not a popular opinion but I really find the whole 'gay marriage' thing to be incredibly hypocritical.

Arguments about mental health, survival of the species, what occurs in nature, what is 'icky' - all have no business in our laws pertaining to sex and marriage.  Consenting adults should be free to marry/hook up/sleep with *whomever* they want.

Virtually every single proponent of gay marriage that I personally know - is still completely cool with the exact same style laws that made it illegal for gays to have sex and still stop many of them from getting married; so long as it is against other types of adults.  These are the same types of laws that once made it illegal for blacks and whites to marry.  Either they are all wrong, or they aren't.

I'm 100% pro-gay marriage.
I'm also 100% pro-incestuous marriage.
I'm also 100% pro-polygamy marriage.
I'm also 100% pro-interracial marriage.

Virtually every single argument made against any one of those applies to the rest.  The government has no business telling consenting adults who they can/can't sleep with marry.
2013-07-09 02:51:42 PM
2 votes:

BojanglesPaladin: I can honestly say that of all the people I know (many dozens personally) who participated in the Chik-Fil-A protests and boycotts and flooded Facebook and e-mails with calls to action, not once did anyone bring up the slaughter of homosexuals in Uganda.


I know of no one who has personally seen a duck engage in an act of homosexual necrophilia, but that doesn't mean it didn't happen.
2013-07-09 02:43:43 PM
2 votes:

BojanglesPaladin: Not everyone sees opposition to homosexuality as "oppressing people",


Of course the people who want to prevent gays from marrying don't see themselves as oppressing people. Of course the people who wanted homosexuality to remain illegal don't see themselves as oppressing people.

But that's exactly what they are doing. The actions of those who "oppose homosexuality" are to pass laws that relegate gays to the status of second-class citizen. Those who "oppose homosexuality" want to enact laws that hurt gays. Those who "oppose homosexuality" want to pass laws for the sole purpose of making the lives of gays harder.

Furthermore, those who "oppose homosexuality" will lose exactly nothing if gays get equality. They will not lose any rights, any privileges, anything at all if gays get treated equally before the law.

It's one thing to hold an opinion. I respect opinions and your right to express them, even if we disagree. However, when you try to enact your opinion, to force other people to live according to YOUR rules, then we have a problem. Your right to believe ends where someone else's life begins.
2013-07-09 02:39:08 PM
2 votes:

BojanglesPaladin: Not everyone sees opposition to homosexuality as "oppressing people", and they have a valid and legitimate viewpoint as well. You and I may not agree, but this does not mean they are evil bigots. Obviously, some may be, but as Americans, we must acknowledge that they are entitled to their viewpoint as well, no matter how strongly we disagree. They have a valid and legitimate right to advocate legally for their position as we have a right to oppose and advocate for ours. Welcome to America. Stop calling for financial fatwah


OSC is a member of of the board of directors of NOM. He actively gives his time and money to a cause that prevents other people from having equal rights. He has advocated imprisoning gay people for "committing sodomy" (because straight people NEVER do it in the butt!), and even wrote that if gay marriage becomes legal, the government should be overthrown.

That pretty much defines Card as "an evil bigot".

Refusing to understand this defines you as "a stupid idiot".
2013-07-09 02:37:46 PM
2 votes:
kronicfeld:

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

Needs to be re-posted since there are still people in this thread attempting the "you're boycotting him for expressing his personal opinion" excuse.  A couple of hundred posts after this and people are still attempting it.
2013-07-09 02:30:33 PM
2 votes:

BojanglesPaladin: As I pointed out above it was equally dumb and wrong for Evangelicals to boycott Disney for giving same sex benefits as it was for Pro-Gay people to boycott Chik-Fil-A for being anti-gay or whatever.


How is boycotting "wrong"? If Evangelicals wanted to boycott Disney for giving same-sex benefits, that's their right to do so.

When people boycotted CFA, it wasn't because CEO Dan Cathy doesn't agree with gay marriage - it was because part of their money went to causes that funded the slaughter of homosexuals in Uganda.

Damn, this thread really brought out a lot of purposely obtuse trolls.
2013-07-09 02:17:19 PM
2 votes:

BojanglesPaladin: Bashar and Asma's Infinite Playlist: You're so purposefully obtuse that it's laughable. Would you shop at a store owned by a guy, who in his off time, spent it marching up and down the street calling for the deaths of all Jews?

Nope. Unless they were REALLY, REALLY good scones.

No seriously, for about 20 years I have refused to fill up at a Shell Station because I have issues with their policy in Africa. I don't shop at Wal-Mart. I'm all about not giving my money to people I do not approve of.

That is a different animal than all this calling for a fatwah boycott against political opponents. It is a subtle distinction perhaps, but a distinction with a difference.

I am not saying that OSC has not earned the ire directed at him, or that everyone is not perfectly entitled to give or not give money to the film or his books based on your individual conscience.

I am saying "Can we stop with the call for a boycott of anyone we disagree with politically? Everyone? Moratorium on punitive boycotts for dissenting political views please"?

That's it.


1.) Not buying things because they support something you find amoral: Good
2.) Telling other people who you believe will sympathize with your stance but may not be aware of the situation so that they too will consider joining you and possibly enact change: Bad

Your position is that we should be willful but ultimately impotent because mobilizing more than just yourself makes you a jerk and pollutes our societal discourse?
2013-07-09 02:03:00 PM
2 votes:

BojanglesPaladin: Are you saying that not only what they think is wrong, but that their religious convictions make those opinions invalid?


Believe whatever the hell silliness strikes your fancy, but when you start trying to use the law as a cudgel to impose your narrow minded morality then, yes, you are completely and utterly wrong. "Because Jesus" is not a valid reason to deny citizens equal protection, and never will be, and such positions are not deserving of respect or acknowledgement as a serious political stance, it's just assholes being assholes because their God tells them they're right.
2013-07-09 02:01:59 PM
2 votes:

BojanglesPaladin: Yes. NONE of those boycotts were about punishing people who opposed gay marriage. Of course not. All perfectly justified. After all, these were bad people. You can tell because they had a different viewpoint and actually advocated that viewpoint in public and opposed the things they were opposed to. Only bad people would advocate in opposition to homosexuality, so it is perfectly reasonable for all of us to try to punish them.

I think you are missing the point. Here's a hint. I felt exactly the same way about the evangelicals calling for a boycott of Disney way back when they decided to offer healthcare benefits to same sex partners.


People who are going to boycott this movie are doing it because its based on source material created by a person who spends his time and money working to target and harm a minority group.  They might very well enjoy this film if they saw it, but they aren't interested in contributing to the commercial success of a person who has indicated that he will spend at least some of that largess attempting to hurt other Americans because he believes its right.  They're not interested in HURTING him.  They're interested in not helping him.

In your Disney case, people are targeting a company that refuses to target and harm American citizens.  All that other stuff about not being interested in their money going to "X" is still true.

From certain viewpoints, these things can appear the same.  They only look that way if you're a dogmatic shiathead though.  In one situation you're not spending money on a product created by someone who supports abusing people.  In the other you're not spending money on a product because you want people to be abused.
2013-07-09 01:38:21 PM
2 votes:

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

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

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

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

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

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

And we should stop trying to shut down dissenting opinions.


Oh Jesus, FARK is full of really dense people.

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

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

Card has a legal right to say what he wants, and we have also have a legal right to spend our money elsewhere.
2013-07-09 01:30:19 PM
2 votes:

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

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

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

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

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

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

And we should stop trying to shut down dissenting opinions.


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

I vehemently disagree with these groups and what they aim to accomplish, so I go out of my way to not patronize businesses or support people that give money and support to them. Oddly, to some, this is the wrong thing to do because they might perceive it as being mean or disrespectful and would just encourage the braindead troglodytes who agree with them to go out and give them more business. At least to me, it's not about trying to put them out of business, it's about making damn sure none of MY money goes to support these vile groups. I could give two shiats if my behavior encourages Bubba-Joe-Billy-Bob and Auntie-Sister-Cousin-Mom Becky-Sue-Bob to stuff their faces with Chik-Fil-A before they watch Ender's Game, I absolutely WILL NOT give these people one damn cent of my money.
2013-07-09 01:11:58 PM
2 votes:
OSC is a classic example of a successful creative who peaked early.

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

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

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

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

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

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


Not exactly.  If a bunch of fundamentalists wanted to boycott an author because he was gay AND stated repeatedly in public that all heterosexual sex should be made illegal and prosecuted to the fullest extent to fhte law, AND that heterosexuals SHOULD be made to feel like second-class citizens because of society's moral disapproval of those actions, AND that author sate on the board of a well-funded poltical action committe that was devoted to making those views the law of the land?   Then you'd be in an equivalent situation, and not only would a boycott be justified, but I'd join them more than likely
2013-07-09 12:37:07 PM
2 votes:

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


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


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


www.nndb.com
2013-07-09 12:31:19 PM
2 votes:

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

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

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



He's still working to oppose civil rights for gays. So long as he continues to use his fame as a soapbox for his hate, I'll continue to boycott his works. His argument is literally, "yes, I'm a bigoted asshole who worked tirelessly to oppress other Americans and failed, but give me money anyway even though I still hate these people and will continue to oppress them to the best of my ability."
2013-07-09 12:23:32 PM
2 votes:

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


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

Books need to have cover versions like songs do.
2013-07-09 12:10:12 PM
2 votes:

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

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

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


Arent you almost always naked in the shower?
2013-07-09 12:06:42 PM
2 votes:

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


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

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

Look, I like some of Rush's early Rand-inspired songs (though that was only the lyrics - the music itself wasn't inspired by selfishness so far as we know), and Wagner wrote some pretty good music as well. Separate the art from the artist, sure, but recognize that an artist's views may make them...difficult to work with, or that working with them may result in the propulsion of themes and images which may be counter to your own beliefs.
2013-07-09 12:04:58 PM
2 votes:
Why is it 100% moral, perfect, and humane to boycott a product because someone involved in it has conservative views (Ender's Game) but stupid and intolerant to boycott a product because someone involved in it has liberal views (Dixie Chicks records)?

Let me guess, it's just another example of dogmatic hypocrisy.
2013-07-09 11:58:43 AM
2 votes:
Ender's Game is set more than a century in the future and has nothing to do with political issues that did not exist when the book was written in 1984.

They existed Orson, you just willfully ignored it.

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

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

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

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

Verdict: He's reached Mel Gibson levels of non-apology on this one. "I'm sorry you're so gay. I'm sorry you have mental problems."
2013-07-09 11:49:36 AM
2 votes:

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

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


I should point out that most people who work on a movie don't get a cut of the gross. They get paid because the studio or producer fronts the money to make the film which is what pays the crew working on it. So if Ender's Game bombs the crew doesn't lose money.
2013-07-09 11:46:04 AM
2 votes:

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

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

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

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

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

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


The sun will appear dark in my eyes until I see Tilda Swinton ripping an iron bar off of a lamppost in London.
2013-07-09 11:41:45 AM
2 votes:

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

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

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


In 2008, OSC wrote an essay calling for a revolution "at any means necessary" if gay marriage was legalized. Where's your "revolutionary" army now, Orson? Looks like he's just another loudmouthed homophobe that's all bark and no bite.
2013-07-09 11:35:38 AM
2 votes:

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


I'll have to disagree on this one.  I loathe Roman Polanski as an individual, his "you're persecuting me because u jelly" after raping a child is such a deplorable response that I don't even know where to start, but Chinatown at the very least has to be considered part of the modern movie canon.  If you haven't seen it, see it, and ponder that perhaps it takes a really repulsive person to make a movie about the most wretched depths to which humans can sink.
2013-07-09 11:30:25 AM
2 votes:

Wendy's Chili: Is he still Islamophobic?


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

I'm debating buying a ticket for another film and sneaking in.  Either that, or I'll wait for it on torrent.
2013-07-09 11:28:34 AM
2 votes:

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

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

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


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

/none of them could have hopped on wikipedia to get an idea of the project they were about to work on?
//none of them at all?
2013-07-09 11:25:31 AM
2 votes:

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


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

So screw you, Card. You aren't seeing another dime from me. I can bloody well wait until the movie reaches basic cable before I see it.
2013-07-09 11:23:37 AM
2 votes:

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

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

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

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


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

Then we started reading them with the kids.  It's heavy handed biblical literature, not even a little bit thinly veiled, and trying way to hard.  At least C.S. Lewis is readable and enjoyable.
2013-07-09 11:20:03 AM
2 votes:

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

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


I'm the same way with Roman Polanski movies. I don't care how good they are or what actors are in them, I just can't bring myself to support any of his projects considering what a repulsive person he is.
2013-07-09 10:56:40 AM
2 votes:
You know... if I boycotted any movie, show, or book because I disagree with something said by a writer, director, or actor... I wouldn't see or read much of anything.

/not defending LDS bigotry - just sayin'
2013-07-09 10:53:14 AM
2 votes:
What'll we have to wait -- 3 months -- for Orson Scott Card to become a right wing darling by playing the victim of the gay agenda to any asshat with a microphone?
2013-07-09 10:41:55 AM
2 votes:
This from the man who wrote "Songmaster"? That was a seriously creepy book. There's something off about a man who writes about the degradation of children so much. And don't get me started on "Lost Boys." Ugh, he's a repulsive human being who writes repulsive books. No thanks. I like "Ender's Game" but after the two aforementioned books, that was it. No more.
2013-07-09 10:25:57 AM
2 votes:
I don't particularly care whether he's a disgusting bigot--that's his business, not mine.

But I'll never forgive him for penning a sequel to Ender's Game. That was a standalone story if there ever was one.
2013-07-09 10:05:54 AM
2 votes:
"Now it will be interesting to see whether the victorious proponents of gay marriage will show tolerance toward those who disagreed with them when the issue was still in dispute."

What exactly kind of a tolerance is he looking for here? That statement/threat doesn't even make any sense.
2013-07-09 10:00:51 AM
2 votes:
Meh. Let the gay community marry, fight, lie, cheat, divorce and generally treat each other like shiat the way the rest of the world works. Gay ain't special. This is a non-issue.
2013-07-10 08:32:53 PM
1 votes:

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 05:49:04 PM
1 votes:

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 03:18:07 PM
1 votes:
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 01:35:15 PM
1 votes:

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 05:23:53 AM
1 votes:

The My Little Pony Killer: BojanglesPaladin: The My Little Pony Killer: OSC is free to say what he's going to say, he's free to believe what he's going to believe. The rest of us are under zero, ZERO obligation to turn around and fund him.

Yep. Completely agree.

 Oh wait. Did you think I suggested that anyone should give him a penny? You should review the discussion first. That should clear it up.

It is clear. 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. Nobody is preventing him from speaking or holding his own opinions. He does not have the right to force anybody to listen to him.


BP is basically using Sarah Palin's logic when it comes to this stuff. Which is very funny considering how logical and a great debater he considers himself to be.
2013-07-10 01:01:02 AM
1 votes:
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.
2013-07-09 11:31:16 PM
1 votes:

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.


He is now.   Empire is basically a book about how the political left and right can totally get along, as long as the left concedes that the right is better equipped for action, leadership, decision making, and the left does it's best to stay the hell out of the way.

Ender in Exile is even worse.  It features an entire section of the book that I understood to argue that in tough circumstances women shouldn't be allowed to make decisions about their own relationships (specifically, that their husbands have to be chosen for them) and that a enforced marriage of one man and one women is the only relationship that should exist.  Also, just to be clear about that, the women eventually agree that their arranged marriages are good for them and that they shouldn't act on their personal feelings.

I got Ender in Exile as an advance copy (I didn't have to pay for it) but it was the book that convinced me that I wouldn't be buying any more OSC books.  I wrote a weird review of it:   http://worldsandtime.blogspot.com/2008/10/refutation-of-ender-in-exil e -in-oscs.html.
2013-07-09 10:50:39 PM
1 votes:
Soooo, some 500 posts in, and there's no mention of what they called the Enemy in the book?

/a little bird told me I'd leave satisfied
//birdie was wrong
2013-07-09 10:20:52 PM
1 votes:

Marine1: Every artist has some views that you're not going to support. Their commitment to supporting these views will vary, but they will undoubtedly exist.

Right now, I'm wondering how many Farkers are in love with the Foo Fighters, even though they had a link to an AIDS denial website on their website for quite a while.


I accept that artists will have opinions that are different from mine, but if the person ACTIVELY campaigns against human rights?  They can feel free to munch on a tasty bowl of dicks.  I'm free to not give them my money.

Same for the Foo Fighters.  They ACTIVELY campaign to spread the idea of AIDS denialism.  That kind of BS gets people killed.  So they get none of my money or support.

-
And to the people whining that it's not the fault of everyone else who worked on the film?  Too bad.  If I don't support say, Donald Trump's assholery?  I'm not going to go out of my way to put money in his pocket because of the poor bastards who may be working for him.
2013-07-09 08:16:25 PM
1 votes:

The My Little Pony Killer: BojanglesPaladin: The My Little Pony Killer: OSC is free to say what he's going to say, he's free to believe what he's going to believe. The rest of us are under zero, ZERO obligation to turn around and fund him.

Yep. Completely agree.

 Oh wait. Did you think I suggested that anyone should give him a penny? You should review the discussion first. That should clear it up.

It is clear. 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. Nobody is preventing him from speaking or holding his own opinions. He does not have the right to force anybody to listen to him.


When you use your views to petition governing bodies to punish a group of people for simply existing, the rest of the population should stand up and smack you down.
2013-07-09 08:13:03 PM
1 votes:

BojanglesPaladin: The My Little Pony Killer: OSC is free to say what he's going to say, he's free to believe what he's going to believe. The rest of us are under zero, ZERO obligation to turn around and fund him.

Yep. Completely agree.

 Oh wait. Did you think I suggested that anyone should give him a penny? You should review the discussion first. That should clear it up.


It is clear. 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. Nobody is preventing him from speaking or holding his own opinions. He does not have the right to force anybody to listen to him.
2013-07-09 07:50:36 PM
1 votes:

BojanglesPaladin: Mike, I'm sorry. You cannot or will not get this. As I have said before, I'm not explaining it in a way that you understand or something. A few here get the fine distinction, but I am failing to articulate it effectively in a way that "clicks" with you. I swear you almost had a time or two.


Yeah, I'm not the only one, dude. In fact, the only other person who seems to support what you're saying is a threadshiatting troll. 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.
2013-07-09 07:45:24 PM
1 votes:

BojanglesPaladin: StewMcG: My daughter said she'd borrow it from the library and write an essay on why she doesn't support the writer's beliefs and dedicate the essay to her cousin who is bisexual and her grandfather who is gay. Hopefully her teacher "gets" her point.

What exactly *IS* that point? Just curious.

Ender's Game is mediocre but almost entirely devoid of sexuality and none of Card's rampant homophobia, which apparently afflicted him well after it was written. Would it just be "I hate the author because he's a homophobe"? Nothing wrong with taking that position, but if I were her teacher I would give her an "F" because the assignment was about the book, not the Author.

/CSB. I once wrote a brilliant essay on why I thought the "what did you do last summer" topic was a worn out and pointless exercise for hacks and offered nothing of value. My teacher also "got" the point. And I got her point with a "F".
//If you want the book taken off the list, have her write a letter to the Principal, the Teacher, and the school board explaining why. It's not as snotty, won't get a bad grade, and will probably have a better effect.


Her point would be "I read the book that was assigned as 'required reading' even though I don't support or believe the same things the author does" and provide reasons why she came to that point.  If her teacher chooses to give her a failing grade for this, then so be it.  I'm not going to punish her for standing up for her beliefs; however, I have made it clear that she needs to live with this possibility (as I refuse to intervene on her behalf with the teacher if her 1st marking period grade is lower than usual because of this essay.)

I will also encourage her to copy the school administration on her essay/letter of complaint.  Maybe they'll see that picking a book by a controversial author as "required reading" at a school with a very active "gay/straight alliance" club may not be a good idea.  I know she has friends who are flat-out refusing to read the book because of this issue.
2013-07-09 07:37:28 PM
1 votes:

Bashar and Asma's Infinite Playlist: 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.


No I can see Libertarians using the terrorism claim in this manner because profits are above everything else, even morals, so in their view, a boycott would be considered an act of terrorism.
2013-07-09 07:35:34 PM
1 votes:

StewMcG: My daughter said she'd borrow it from the library and write an essay on why she doesn't support the writer's beliefs and dedicate the essay to her cousin who is bisexual and her grandfather who is gay. Hopefully her teacher "gets" her point.


What exactly *IS* that point? Just curious.

Ender's Game is mediocre but almost entirely devoid of sexuality and none of Card's rampant homophobia, which apparently afflicted him well after it was written. Would it just be "I hate the author because he's a homophobe"? Nothing wrong with taking that position, but if I were her teacher I would give her an "F" because the assignment was about the book, not the Author.

/CSB. I once wrote a brilliant essay on why I thought the "what did you do last summer" topic was a worn out and pointless exercise for hacks and offered nothing of value. My teacher also "got" the point. And I got her point with a "F".
//If you want the book taken off the list, have her write a letter to the Principal, the Teacher, and the school board explaining why. It's not as snotty, won't get a bad grade, and will probably have a better effect.
2013-07-09 07:33:11 PM
1 votes:

that bosnian sniper: FuryOfFirestorm: OSC is on the board of directors for NOM.

And your point here is what, exactly? The man is entitled to his beliefs, and yes, even his political affiliations. No matter how repulsive they are. Judge the work on its own merits, not any given political belief of the author, especially when that belief has little if anything to do with the subject material. This wrongful idea that a work can have no merit if its creator hasn't amendable political and religious beliefs is anti-pluralist and has to go.


Hey look...there goes the point! You just missed it!

I never said that his writing was made worse or better by his beliefs or alternate vocations. I was saying that the reason people are boycotting OSC's books and upcoming movie is because he puts his time and money toward ensuring that gays remain second-class citizens.
2013-07-09 07:27:09 PM
1 votes:

Lutrasimilis: You came looking for soft-target hypocrisy and got owned by facts you weren't ready for.


The fark are you even talking about? What "Facts"? You just walked in and start talking about "owned" and you don't even understand the conversation. You haven't even yet figured out that you probably don't disagree with me. And I'm sure you think I support OSC, which I certainly do not.

Fly away Seagull.
2013-07-09 07:26:36 PM
1 votes:

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

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


People merely weren't boycotting The Dixie Chicks.  They were calling them traitors and terrorist sympathizers.  They were getting so many death threats that they required a 24-hour FBI protection detail for months.  The agent-in-charge said he had never seen such detailed threats of extreme violence, rape, and torture in his entire career.

/Both sides are bad, though.
2013-07-09 07:25:04 PM
1 votes:

Mike Chewbacca: StewMcG: Ender's Game is on my daughter's high school summer reading list (the school admits they picked it because they wanted to guarantee the kids will read at least one book on the list, as they're positive most of the kids are going to blow off "the classics" they also assigned.)  My daughter, though, has heard all the anti-LGBT rhetoric and really doesn't want to read the book.  Is it really that bad?  I don't remember reading it.

The book itself really doesn't have any sexuality in it, not that I can remember. If you can check out the book from a library, that'll probably make sure none of her/your money goes to OSC. On the other hand, she could blow off that book and read Brave New World or 1984, instead, and then explain to her English teacher in the fall why she did that.


She read Brave New World last year and 1984 is on this year's list.  lol  My daughter said she'd borrow it from the library and write an essay on why she doesn't support the writer's beliefs and dedicate the essay to her cousin who is bisexual and her grandfather who is gay.  Hopefully her teacher "gets" her point.  If not, oh well.  I support her decision either way and refuse to punish her for a negative grade on this assignment.
2013-07-09 07:24:34 PM
1 votes:

Mike Chewbacca: So again, we're not shaming him because of what he thinks, we're shaming him because of what he does.


A) You aren't just shaming him, though are you? You aren't just using your free speech to criticize and ridicule and embarrass him. You are lobbying your peers to "punish" him and teach him a lesson, and get him to stop and all of that. You are arguing that it is acceptable to try to silence him through economic intimidation because he holds THIS unpopular viewpoint, espouses it, and advocates for it is simply unacceptable. As determined by you.

B) What he DOES, it advocate vigorously for his viewpoint within the legal framework of our system. No different from what you or I or any other person who opposes him do. In YOUR viewpoint he is trying to "oppress gays". In HIS viewpoint, he is probably trying to preserve the moral fabric of society for degenerating. These viewpoints, regardless of whether or not we agree with them are equally valid and legitimate. (Though they obviously do not have the same merit). He is every bit as entitled to do all he can to legally advance his cause as the rest of us are entitled to advance ours.

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.

I'm really not sure why you continue to have such a hard time understanding this important distinction, but I guess I should thank you for so many opportunities to refine and clarify it :)
2013-07-09 07:19:55 PM
1 votes:

BojanglesPaladin: Lutrasimilis: Well, because you said it should stop, and right now they've got a list of 150+ companies that they're punishing in the way you so obviously oppose. Maybe you should go over there and have a word with them, that's all.

Tell you what, when an article gets Greenlit on Fark about THEIR Boycotts (and I notice it), I will just cut-n-paste from this thread to that one, ok?

Are we agreed that it's bad for the goose and the Gander then?


No, I don't think you will. You came looking for soft-target hypocrisy and got owned by facts you weren't ready for. Even in retreat, you're still groping for false equivalency and you're not going to find it.

Of course, you could head on over to NOM and prove me wrong...but I doubt you will. Perhaps I'll be pleasantly surprised!

Cheers.
2013-07-09 07:16:11 PM
1 votes:

StewMcG: Ender's Game is on my daughter's high school summer reading list (the school admits they picked it because they wanted to guarantee the kids will read at least one book on the list, as they're positive most of the kids are going to blow off "the classics" they also assigned.)  My daughter, though, has heard all the anti-LGBT rhetoric and really doesn't want to read the book.  Is it really that bad?  I don't remember reading it.


The book itself really doesn't have any sexuality in it, not that I can remember. If you can check out the book from a library, that'll probably make sure none of her/your money goes to OSC. On the other hand, she could blow off that book and read Brave New World or 1984, instead, and then explain to her English teacher in the fall why she did that.
2013-07-09 07:13:35 PM
1 votes:
Ender's Game is on my daughter's high school summer reading list (the school admits they picked it because they wanted to guarantee the kids will read at least one book on the list, as they're positive most of the kids are going to blow off "the classics" they also assigned.)  My daughter, though, has heard all the anti-LGBT rhetoric and really doesn't want to read the book.  Is it really that bad?  I don't remember reading it.
2013-07-09 06:55:11 PM
1 votes:

BojanglesPaladin: 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.


Are you on NOM's message boards doing this?
2013-07-09 06:38:12 PM
1 votes:

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 06:30:51 PM
1 votes:

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 06:13:58 PM
1 votes:
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 06:07:36 PM
1 votes:

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 06:02:23 PM
1 votes:

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 05:56:21 PM
1 votes:
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 05:43:00 PM
1 votes:

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 05:39:43 PM
1 votes:

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 05:19:45 PM
1 votes:

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 05:16:37 PM
1 votes:

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 05:11:21 PM
1 votes:

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 05:07:26 PM
1 votes:

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

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


Yes, and in 1950 the viewpoint that blacks should be segregated from whites was considered acceptable and normal in many parts of our country. Societies grow and change. We have free speech. People have the right to say what they want. And the rest of us have the right to pressure them to STFU. IT'S HOW SOCIETIES WORK. How do you not understand this?
2013-07-09 05:06:08 PM
1 votes:

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 05:06:05 PM
1 votes:
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 05:03:51 PM
1 votes:

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 05:00:48 PM
1 votes:

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 04:59:32 PM
1 votes:

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 04:58:31 PM
1 votes:

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 04:58:07 PM
1 votes:

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 04:54:11 PM
1 votes:

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 04:46:20 PM
1 votes:

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 04:45:37 PM
1 votes:

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 04:44:44 PM
1 votes:

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 04:39:27 PM
1 votes:
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 04:38:48 PM
1 votes:

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 04:32:41 PM
1 votes:

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 04:29:22 PM
1 votes:

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 04:27:00 PM
1 votes:

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 04:26:31 PM
1 votes:

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 04:25:23 PM
1 votes:

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 04:21:13 PM
1 votes:

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 04:18:15 PM
1 votes:
Can we all just breathe?

media.tumblr.com
2013-07-09 04:07:36 PM
1 votes:

BojanglesPaladin: How many times can I re-explain this? Don't want to give OSC your money? Don't. I don't.

Go back and re-read what I have already posted. If you still don't understand the distinction, then I'm afraid I'm not articulating it well enough, or not in a way you can understand it.


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


Your argument is that no viewpoint is foul enough to be quashed. Okay. I have to disagree with you on that because some viewpoints are just evil, but hey, it's America. We can agree to disagree. Meanwhile, my Facebook feed is full of my friends promising to not see Ender's Game. Or, at least not pay to see Ender's Game.
2013-07-09 04:01:23 PM
1 votes:
This is the same man who when "Lost Boys" was criticized because he drew a parallel between his own crippled son and losing a child, went kinda ballistic with his critics. He acted as though those who were offended by him were close-minded and offered the explanation that without being in his shoes, they could not be critical of his stance. He defended his cavalier idiocy with the righteous indignation that bordered on histrionics. Kinda lost respect for him at that point and ignore his work.

/find Card gets exponentially muddled on subsequent novels anyhow
2013-07-09 03:59:45 PM
1 votes:

BojanglesPaladin: Orr... surely you don't mean to imply that is acceptable to quash certain viewpoints when they are the "wrong" ones do you?


What's wrong with that? Shouldn't neo-Nazis be publicly shamed for being neo-Nazis? I'm not talking about arresting someone, I'm talking about shaming someone publicly for their awful view. Don't we all post about how awful Pat Buchanan is when he says the gays are responsible for Katrina? There's nothing wrong with calling someone out for being a bigot.
2013-07-09 03:56:47 PM
1 votes:

ScaryBottles: you are effectively arguing that we should in the name of tolerance allow intolerance to go unpunished.


See? Punishment. "They don't see things we way we see things, so they must be punished." Wrong. If you don't like them. don't give them your money. If they have broken the law, punish them. But here in America, we really need to avoid the mistake of "punishing" people with whom we disagree simply because we disagree. No matter how strongly.

Super_pope: So you uh... you think gays and blacks fighting for their civil rights probably didn't get widespread punitive treatment for those beliefs?


Yep. And it was wrong then. It's wrong now, right? Orr... surely you don't mean to imply that is acceptable to quash certain viewpoints when they are the "wrong" ones do you? Who decides which ones are OK and which ones are subject to "punishment" again?

Damnhippyfreak: I don't think you'll find too many people who will disagree with you.


First day on Fark? (I keed)

Damnhippyfreak: However, I do caution that the tolerance of opposing viewpoints has a limit, lest we inadvertently rely on relativism. We do rely on certain principles as absolutes, especially when it regards issues that we deem universal human rights. Given such a firm and basic foundation, I find it difficult to compare viewpoints that would give equal rights and take them away as if they were equal, or simply a matter of the certitude of those advocating for it.


Oh I think we can stay well clear of relativism, while still allowing the free expression of radically divergent viewpoints. There is a long road full of consensus that must be travelled before get to legislation, and even beyond that we have a nice Constitution and Bill of Rights there to sort of mark out the boundaries of moral governance. Here we are discussing the more base level, fellow man, market place of ideas level of interaction. The big mixing bowl of choice and perspective from which the good governance is distilled.

There is an excellent analogy about curds and whey and cream rising to the top that is escaping me, but we need a wide diversity of opinion in our public discourse, and demonizing or punishing contrary viewpoints is fascist thinking, not democratic.
2013-07-09 03:56:19 PM
1 votes:

BojanglesPaladin: t is not the mechanism of boycott, it is the intent to quash opposing viewpoints.


There is no intent to quash opposing viewpoints. OSC is free to say what he's going to say, he's free to believe what he's going to believe.

The rest of us are under zero, ZERO obligation to turn around and fund him.
2013-07-09 03:54:51 PM
1 votes:

Wook: "Live and let live" is hardly in the agenda. I'm not sure where you are from but your statement is totally naive. Before you yell at me, spend a few weeks out in SF.


Illuminate me. What is the agenda?  To recruit?  How can a group that says people are born that way recruit?
2013-07-09 03:48:15 PM
1 votes:

TechnoHead: Just, basically, you are saying gay people should buy stuff from Chick-fil-A in order not to quash their "viewpoint".

/terminally stupid


Or, if you choose not to buy stuff from CFA because they're run by bigoted dickholes, don't tell anybody why because then you'd be trying to punish them for their viewpoint, which is bad...for some reason.

/I don't get it either
2013-07-09 03:39:05 PM
1 votes:

BojanglesPaladin: If that mentality had been allowed in the 70s, don't you think that the very gay rights movement itself would have been impacted?


So you uh... you think gays and blacks fighting for their civil rights probably didn't get widespread punitive treatment for those beliefs?  You wanna maybe... try again with this one?  I don't even know where to start taking you apart.
2013-07-09 03:37:40 PM
1 votes:

Mike Chewbacca: Egoy3k: Fark_Guy_Rob: Begoggle: Fark_Guy_Rob:

I'm 100% pro-gay marriage.
I'm also 100% pro-incestuous marriage.
I'm also 100% pro-polygamy marriage.
I'm also 100% pro-interracial marriage.

Virtually every single argument made against any one of those applies to the rest.  The government has no business telling consenting adults who they can/can't sleep with marry.

I'm against all legal definition of marriage.
Marriage is a religious thing and an imaginary societal construct.
I have problems with incest but that has nothing to do with marriage.
I can already live with and have sex with any consenting adult(s) that I want to.
There is nothing logical about getting a tax deduction because of it.

I can completely agree with/support your stance - minus the incest part.  Any law that says who I can have sex with (provided the partner is able to consent) is wrong IMHO.

But sure - either remove the government from marriage or make it so everyone can take part.  Anything else is hypocritical.

To be honest if you can distance yourself from the immediate reaction of 'Ick' incest isn't really a problem unless you have children.  Just make them get sterilized.  Also if they are trying to get married it's not like they aren't already sleeping together.  Banning the marriage isn't going to fix the problem.  Thanks for making me think these thoughts Heinlein. You sick bastard.

Yes, there are actual biological reasons to prevent siblings from procreating. I read an article a couple years ago about a British couple that met as adults and then found out after they'd started dating that they were full siblings. They've now got 4 kids, all of them with serious medical problems. I don't care who you bone, but be responsible about it.


There are PLENTY of couples who we *know* are likely to have genetically defective children.  And we have no laws against it.  We don't require genetic testing.  And if a couple has a genetically defective child, we still let them have more children.

Beyond that - laws against incest apply to have sexual contact - regardless of whether it can lead to a child.  Regardless of whether or not they can have children.

I'd gladly support a law that makes it illegal to have a child in situations where there is a reason to believe there would be a genetic defect.  Cool.  But incest isn't about that.  Also - in many places, even half-siblings (unrelated by blood) are unable to sleep together - so there is no genetic risk at all.  And many relations are more or less likely to result in genetic defect and they all carry the same punishment.

People think incest is 'gross' - and that's fine.  But people said the same thing about gay marriage and about inter-racial marriage.  If someone finds any of those gross - they should be free not to participate in them.  But if someone wants to; more power to them.  That's freedom.  And the government is supposed to protect freedom, not criminalize personal choices.
2013-07-09 03:37:28 PM
1 votes:
Magorn:   I recall a series I once picked up a used book store that started entertainingly enough, but then every single gorram book devolved into a paen to libertarianism so extreme even Ron Paul would say "Whoa there big fella, ease back on the stick a bit yeah?".

If it was alternate universes, that was L Neil Smith's probability Broach series, If it was about a galactic revolution it was F Paul Wilson's Healer universe.  (I used to read a whole lot of that kind of crap).
2013-07-09 03:36:50 PM
1 votes:

rwhamann: BojanglesPaladin: Capiche?

So you're ok with people choosing not to spend money to support people whose views they disagree with, as long as it's not a mass effort? As long as there's no information campaign to alert people to those views?

I had never, ever heard of Roman Polanski's crime until a couple years ago.  I'd heard of him, heard he was some fancy, schmancy director that made wonderful films, but never knew of his personal proclivities.  If someone hadn't made that public, in what appeared to a vocal campaign to let people know, I wouldn't be able to make the choice not to see his movies because he's a disgusting piece of trash.

Your position is really hard for me to fathom.  "Do choose not to spend money on people you disagree with, but don't tell anyone else about those positions so they get the same choice as you."


I think that's his premise. And it really is ridiculous. He's okay with never going to an Eagles game because of Michael Vick, but don't ever try to convince other people to follow suit.
2013-07-09 03:34:21 PM
1 votes:

BojanglesPaladin: Capiche?


So you're ok with people choosing not to spend money to support people whose views they disagree with, as long as it's not a mass effort? As long as there's no information campaign to alert people to those views?

I had never, ever heard of Roman Polanski's crime until a couple years ago.  I'd heard of him, heard he was some fancy, schmancy director that made wonderful films, but never knew of his personal proclivities.  If someone hadn't made that public, in what appeared to a vocal campaign to let people know, I wouldn't be able to make the choice not to see his movies because he's a disgusting piece of trash.

Your position is really hard for me to fathom.  "Do choose not to spend money on people you disagree with, but don't tell anyone else about those positions so they get the same choice as you."
2013-07-09 03:31:18 PM
1 votes:

Damnhippyfreak: This could be interpreted as you giving approval to such views as you characterize them as 'valid', and in addition could be characterized as not being bigotry. Taking special care to use unambiguous language is worth the effort in these charged kinds of discussions, IMHO.


I'm certain you are correct, especially considering this is Fark which tends to be context free and where not everyone even reads all the words.

That being said, I am comfortable with saying that I consider opposition to homosexuality and gay marriage to be a valid and legitimate viewpoint, while at no time considering that to be an endorsement. I consider the viewpoints of many gun-control advocates to be valid and legitimate, while at no time considering that to be an endorsement. I even consider the racism of the Klu Klux Klan to be a valid and legitimate viewpoint, though I completely disagree.

In my view, we must vigorously oppose a "groupthink" mentality, or the group effort to punish the "not we".

People are entitled by right to hold, espouse and advocate any viewpoint they choose, no matter how unpopular it may be. And, of course, those who disagree are equally entitled to hold, espouse, and advocate in opposition to those viewpoints. All within the legal framework of our democratic system and the marketplace of ideas.

What I object to here, in THIS context, is the increasing certitude that if the opposing viewpoint is deemed "bad enough", those people should be "taught a lesson" and punished in some way. Not because they broke a law, but because they held, espoused or advocated something considered to be "wrongthink". That viewpoint determined to be out of favor should be quashed and those who espouse them punished for advocating them.

If that mentality had been allowed in the 70s, don't you think that the very gay rights movement itself would have been impacted? Remember that there was a time not so very long ago that homosexuality was almost universally understood to be completely abhorrent, wrong, and unacceptable?
2013-07-09 03:27:22 PM
1 votes:
Sorry Jews for that Holocaust thing.

I hope that now that WW II is over, we can all get along.

-The Nazi Party

/goodwin!
2013-07-09 03:27:10 PM
1 votes:

Fark_Guy_Rob: Mike Chewbacca: praymantis: just because he does not believe in gay marriage he is a bigot?

Yep. Because there's no good reason gay folks should be banned from marrying their love ones.

praymantis: So what about people who believe in marrying many people?

It depends on why. Because it's icky and I just don't think it's right isn't a valid reason. Because it opens a massive can of worms regarding marital rights, property rights, and inheritance rights, spousal rights, and child support? Well, that's a bit different. Because so often the women involved in it are brainwashed and taken advantage of by the men in their circles/families? That's different.

People said the same thing about gay marriage.  'Two college buddies will just get married for tax purposes!'


If the college buddies are male and female, that's already possible. There's a practical difference between extending legal pair-bonding to any pair of adults and between completely overhauling all related law to account for arbitrary numbers of people. It's a legislative challenge on a completely different scale.
2013-07-09 03:22:00 PM
1 votes:

BojanglesPaladin: Mike Chewbacca: WTF? You're not even doing what you're asking us to do.

Sigh. Try reading again from the top more slowly. But since you have indicated you can't be bothered to read ALL the words, I'll just re-post one of the numerous times I have explained this. It's only a few sentences so see if you can make it all the way through:

BojanglesPaladin: No seriously, for about 20 years I have refused to fill up at a Shell Station because I have issues with their policy in Africa. I don't shop at Wal-Mart. I'm all about not giving my money to people I do not approve of.
That is a different animal than all this calling for a financial fatwah boycott against political opponents. It is a subtle distinction perhaps, but a distinction with a difference.
I am not saying that OSC has not earned the ire directed at him, or that everyone is not perfectly entitled to give or not give money to the film or his books based on your individual conscience.
I am saying "Can we stop with the call for a boycott of anyone we disagree with politically? Everyone? Moratorium on punitive boycotts for dissenting political views please"?
That's it.

Capiche?



Ah. So the difference you're talking about is not about the act of boycotting a product or service (which you're fine with), but whether one should call on others to do so?
2013-07-09 03:20:05 PM
1 votes:

ProfessorOhki: So, serious question here: you think Card gets a cut of the boxoffice or do you think he's already been paid in full for the rights? Will boycotting Ender's Game actually hurt him? Will it hurt the hundreds of other people involved in production? Or will it just be dip in some executive producer's studio's wallet where they go, "oh, I guess people didn't like the movie."

What do you figure the actual breakdown is of a film boycott? Would you feel sort of shiatty if the outcome was say: him walking away with the same size check and some random firm going under?

/Not that DD should have traded margin
//for back-end in the first place, mind you


Even if OSC got flat rate, a low box office still affects him, especially if it canbe attributed to a boycott against him personally -he has many other books to sell. If working with him is a hassle and loses money for the studio instead of earning money, they won't go back to that well, will they.

Wook: Those pushing the Gay agenda on the public are as annoying as the sight of two men making out.



The "Gay agenda" is live and let live.  What I do in my bedroom with my wife is none of your farking business.  Doesn't affect you.  Doesn't affect your kids.  Same thing for Ellen and Portia, or Sam and Dave, or any couple.  There is no gay agenda ecept LEAVE US THE FARK ALONE.
2013-07-09 03:16:28 PM
1 votes:

that bosnian sniper: FuryOfFirestorm: OSC is on the board of directors for NOM.

And your point here is what, exactly? The man is entitled to his beliefs, and yes, even his political affiliations. No matter how repulsive they are. Judge the work on its own merits, not any given political belief of the author, especially when that belief has little if anything to do with the subject material. This wrongful idea that a work can have no merit if its creator hasn't amendable political and religious beliefs is anti-pluralist and has to go.


Or DO judge the author's work based on his assholishness, and read other stuff. Meanwhile you can get on with your life.
2013-07-09 03:15:46 PM
1 votes:

praymantis: just because he does not believe in gay marriage he is a bigot?


Yep. Because there's no good reason gay folks should be banned from marrying their love ones.

praymantis: So what about people who believe in marrying many people?


It depends on why. Because it's icky and I just don't think it's right isn't a valid reason. Because it opens a massive can of worms regarding marital rights, property rights, and inheritance rights, spousal rights, and child support? Well, that's a bit different. Because so often the women involved in it are brainwashed and taken advantage of by the men in their circles/families? That's different.
2013-07-09 02:48:24 PM
1 votes:

BojanglesPaladin: I can honestly say that of all the people I know (many dozens personally) who participated in the Chik-Fil-A protests and boycotts and flooded Facebook and e-mails with calls to action, not once did anyone bring up the slaughter of homosexuals in Uganda.


Well then clearly no one anywhere boycotted CFA because of that!
2013-07-09 02:45:11 PM
1 votes:

praymantis: Isn't a boycott of this guys books as bad as someone who boycotts a business because the proprietor is gay?


No. If you can't see the difference between bigotry and not tolerating bigots, well, you need your head checked.
2013-07-09 02:45:02 PM
1 votes:

FuryOfFirestorm: When people boycotted CFA, it wasn't because CEO Dan Cathy doesn't agree with gay marriage - it was because part of their money went to causes that funded the slaughter of homosexuals in Uganda.


I can honestly say that of all the people I know (many dozens personally) who participated in the Chik-Fil-A protests and boycotts and flooded Facebook and e-mails with calls to action, not once did anyone bring up the slaughter of homosexuals in Uganda.

So I just looked it up. What you mean to say is that Chik-Fil-A once gave $25K to a different group who may have spent some of that money lobbying the US Congress to change the specific wording of a bill that would have issued a non-binding condemnation of Uganda's anti-homosexuality bill, which called for a death penalty. At least according to Snopes and HuffPo. So Chik-Fil-A to FRC to Lobbying congress to Uganda's already existing law, which congress' bill would not have changed anyway.

That is so far away from "funding the slaughter of homosexuals in Uganda", it makes me sad that you would post that. Now if I missed something, or you are referring to something else, please feel free to correct me, but as it stands, you look like you intentionally or blindly regurgitated propaganda. And if so, you should be more careful and maybe a little ashamed.

And you didn't answer my other question :)
2013-07-09 02:31:49 PM
1 votes:

BojanglesPaladin: read my posts.
"for about 20 years I have refused to fill up at a Shell Station because I have issues with their policy in Africa. I don't shop at Wal-Mart. I'm all about not giving my money to people I do not approve of."
"You are free to keep your money in your pocket."
"Which is perfectly fine... Give your trade to whomever you choose."
"Nah. If it's a good movie, see it. If it sucks, don't."

So no. You got point 1 wrong.


No he didn't.  His post is right there, you even quoted the right part.
2013-07-09 02:22:44 PM
1 votes:

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

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

Art is a reflection of its creator.  The art is informed and shaped by the views, opinions, and thoughts of the artist.  Yes, you should know something about an artist before patronizing their work.


complete and utter bullshiat.
2013-07-09 02:03:50 PM
1 votes:

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

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

If anything I get an icky feeling with his obsession over militarized little boys.

So much this.  The amazing irony of the OSC saga is that Ender's Game is totally homoerotic.  Ender expresses deep love for his fellow boys, but the young girls are almost uniformly antagonists.  SPOILER: one of the pivotal events of the book is a naked wrestling match.

I fear OSC's internet cache is smoother than a baby dolphin.


Petra was one of Ender's first allies at battle school.  She remained a friend throughout (if I remember correctly).

Bonzo attacked Ender in the shower because that was a time when he was vulnerable.  I never saw it as being homoerotic.  It was a time when a group could isolate Ender and beat the shiat out of him.  He was naked because he was in the shower.
2013-07-09 01:59:52 PM
1 votes:

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

Of course not, nor did I suggest that.

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

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

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

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

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

Just stop this "boycott the wrongthinkers!!!!" nonsense.


So, what, we should just accept his actively campaigning for stripping gay people of their dignity, if not their life? If he wants to hate gay people and homosexuality, he is more than welcome to do so. If others want to love gay people and homosexuality, they are more than welcome to do so as well. If they just want to be indifferent about it, the same applies. But the buck stops at using those beliefs to throw gay people into a lower caste or to outright murder them. Let's not mince words: that is exactly what many people are trying to do. Look up the funding history of the Ugandan death penalty bill for homosexuality and you will see a number of Americans are still pushing for gay people to be murdered.
2013-07-09 01:59:38 PM
1 votes:

BojanglesPaladin: Just stop this "boycott the wrongthinkers!!!!" nonsense.


What do you think actually happens when someone decides to boycott something?  Do you actually believe that there is some magical phone directory of left leaning boycotters that actually has a significant impact on the economic prospects of multimillion dollar movies, nation wide retail outlets or chicken restaurants?

There isn't. Each boycott has to stand on it's own legs.  Basically all a boycott does is educate people about the issue and ask them to make a choice.  I had no idea that OSC was anything but a mediocre novelist before today. I am also sure that I'm not the only one to just learn this now.
2013-07-09 01:57:58 PM
1 votes:

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

Unlike some of the gay marriage opponents who are still up their eyeballs in a fight they've already lost.


He didn't "disagree." He devoted himself to actively working against equality for years. He was one of those hateful people who pressed the gay=pedo slander, too, which is one of the ugliest, least forgivable things that the anti-gay crowd did. I'm sure you "disagree" with people all the time without suggesting that they are child molestors.. Fark Orson Scott Card and his overrated Ender's Game.
2013-07-09 01:54:53 PM
1 votes:

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

Of course not, nor did I suggest that.

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

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

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

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

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

Just stop this "boycott the wrongthinkers!!!!" nonsense.


You're so purposefully obtuse that it's laughable. Would you shop at a store owned by a guy, who in his off time, spent it marching up and down the street calling for the deaths of all Jews? Like maybe he sells really awesome scones, so you're willing to overlook the overwhelming amount of vitriolic hate that he otherwise champions. Because it would be childish to let something like the constant drumbeat for the genocide of all Jews to affect your desire for scones, right?
2013-07-09 01:51:11 PM
1 votes:

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

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


I'll bite.

I don't recall OSC getting death threats and vandalism against him for his points of view.

The same people who railed against the Dixie Chicks for (respectfully) disagreeing with a sitting President have said and done much worse in regard to their response to his successor.  To the point where it becomes a textbook example of "dogmatic hypocrisy".

As has been pointed out, he does not just have   conservative views , but actively uses his finances and position to work against the interests of people that he now claims should have no problem giving him more money to continue with that agenda.  The hypocrisy is OSC's to display,  warning people to be careful of buying into a product that may be against their own interests is simply the Free Market and normal Political Discourse in action.

I have no problem with (and served to promote the freedom of) the KKK and American Nazi Parties in the exercise of their right to make themselves known as idiots in my eyes.   But I also don't go out of my way to donate to their causes.
2013-07-09 01:50:47 PM
1 votes:

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

Of course not, nor did I suggest that.

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

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

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

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

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

Just stop this "boycott the wrongthinkers!!!!" nonsense.


Why are you trying to get people to boycott the boycott?
2013-07-09 01:44:01 PM
1 votes:

BojanglesPaladin: everyone burn their Hurt Locker


They should, but for other reasons. It's an overrated suckfest.
2013-07-09 01:40:55 PM
1 votes:

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

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


neil gaiman has a really good short story about her. I think it's called "The Problem with Susan".
2013-07-09 01:32:54 PM
1 votes:

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

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


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

If you boycott every good or service that somewhere along the line involved one person with whom you have an
ideological disagreement, you would probably be a hermit in a mud hut somewhere foraging for tubers.
2013-07-09 01:29:31 PM
1 votes:

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

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

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

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

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


It's a condition brillaintly decsribed by the They Might be Giants song "There's only two songs in me (and I just wrote the third)"
2013-07-09 01:17:21 PM
1 votes:

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


encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com
2013-07-09 01:16:33 PM
1 votes:

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

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

/what color would you like your Farkie?


Jim Butcher is a close friend of  a relative of mine.  thus, I may be able to find out where he lives.  If he ever goes Full George Martin and kills off certain characters, I may consider exercising that ability just so I can punch him in the nose.
2013-07-09 01:12:46 PM
1 votes:

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


This, unfortunately. It's going to take some time for such atavisms to die out - it's been well over a century since slavery was abolished in the United States, but we've still fools waving Confederate flags, burning crosses, and hanging up nooses on election day. He's just another fool.
2013-07-09 01:11:52 PM
1 votes:
I don't care if Orson Scott Card is a complete asshole douchebag, which by many accounts, he actually is. I don't particularly care how stringently and vigorously he has advocated against homosexuality and gay marriage.

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

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

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

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

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

And we should stop trying to shut down dissenting opinions.
2013-07-09 01:11:37 PM
1 votes:
I didn't know anything about him beyond his shiatty books until now. At first I was thinking we should give him a pass because he's an old man, but he's only 61. Still, the quote from the Mormon Times article suggests severe dementia of some sort: "Marriage has only one definition, and any government that attempts to change it is my mortal enemy. I will act to destroy that government and bring it down."


I've always hated his writing, so I wasn't planning to see the movie anyway.
2013-07-09 01:07:42 PM
1 votes:

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

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

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

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


Wow.  I have some reading to do.
2013-07-09 01:06:18 PM
1 votes:

CheetahOlivetti: His only real power is mob management skills.


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

/what color would you like your Farkie?
2013-07-09 12:52:05 PM
1 votes:

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


The culture is changing.  In 20 years Card will be as much of an anachronism as someone arguing for school segregation.  The LGBT community is appealing to youth and the middle and letting societal pressure do the rest.  They don't really need to change guys like Card, just make sure that the next generation has fewer of him.
2013-07-09 12:47:20 PM
1 votes:

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


Seriously.  A lot of great artists were real douchebags.  It's a bummer finding that out, but I'm not going to pretend their work suddenly sucks as a result.
2013-07-09 12:46:57 PM
1 votes:
If we start boycotting movies because of the political leanings of the actors writers directors etc.... no movie will ever make a profit because half of the people will be boycotting every single movie.

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

I will be there opening night at the very first showing.
2013-07-09 12:45:24 PM
1 votes:

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


There are two kinds of boycotts. There is the "march around carrying signs" boycott and there's the "simply refuse to use the boycotted service" boycott. Someone mentioned Chik-Fil-A earlier and I'm curious to know what their profit margin is like these days. People making additional purchases to show their solidarity can only last so long, while it is simple and easy to stop frequenting a business or simply never to start. I've never been in a Chik-Fil-A and, while I wouldn't skip a meal if there were nowhere else to eat, given the choice between Chik-Fil-A and almost anyplace else, I'll take anyplace else. Similarly, I'll never buy another Card novel again, or pay to see this movie (although I might watch it someday on TV, which is more than I'll say for any Mel Gibson movie). Card can hardly complain when conservatives are boycotting businesses that withdrew their advertising from the Limbaugh show, although I wonder how they're doing on the whole "boycott Microsoft" thing. In any case the market has spoken and pointing out to conservatives how hypocritical their attitudes are on this kind of issue is a notably useless activity.
2013-07-09 12:38:33 PM
1 votes:
I'll just wait for the parody : Rear Ender's Game
2013-07-09 12:37:09 PM
1 votes:

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

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


I agree.  If they were really so protective about the institution of marriage you'd think they'd be fighting against divorce or working to reduce the rate of marriages that end that way.
2013-07-09 12:33:45 PM
1 votes:
That's not at ALL what the statement says, subliar.

All right. Card gets to have opinions. You get to either share them or not share them. If you boycott his work because of his opinions, you are exactly the same as those who would boycott a work because the author was gay. Exactly the same. No difference. Now farking forget about the manxe's political stance, enjoy his stories, and go on with your lives. And dudes, don't be a dick.
2013-07-09 12:27:28 PM
1 votes:
Most of my favorite artists, authors, actors, directors, musicians, brands, companies, etc. have personal politics I partially disagree with, but I'll consume their work. Alternately, there are some whose politics I do like, but I'm not a fan of their work.

Unless someone is materially supporting a cause I find especially egregious, I'm not going to boycott someone or something every time I hear something I don't like. I'd literally have to avoid everything I consume.
2013-07-09 12:25:44 PM
1 votes:

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


He writes what he knows.
2013-07-09 12:24:18 PM
1 votes:

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

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


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

/would have made the rest of the trip very uncomfortable
//my boss probably wouldn't have been pleased either.
2013-07-09 12:24:13 PM
1 votes:

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

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

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

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

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


Important to remeber that in greek and Roman societies Homosexuality was very frowned upon and usually very illegal.   However, farking another man was NOT considered homosexual behavoir so long as the person you were farking wasn't of equal station and rank as you, and you weren't the bottom in such an equal pairing, (OK if the man was higher rank/older/ your mentor, etc) AND even that was at least tolerated if you also gave your wife/the Republic a couple kids first
2013-07-09 12:21:16 PM
1 votes:
Card's PR folks need to tell him that he can't win this fight.  For one thing, the "boycott" won't make even a tiny dent in whatever the final box-office figures are for this film; for another, you can't argue against a boycott without CHANGING something.  If he's not going to change his views and actions (which have been virulently aggressively against gay people, not just gay marriage, up until now) then he should just ignore it.  You can't tell people who you are harming that it's not a problem.
2013-07-09 12:19:39 PM
1 votes:
Ah, yes, the age-old question of whether people who preach tolerance must tolerate intolerance. The answer, IMO, is no. If we tolerated intolerance, intolerance would win and would quickly extinguish tolerance. His views on gay people absolutely fit the extreme picture of intolerance. He called gays delusional and deviant, and he said he would "act to destroy" any government that tried to recognize marriages involving same-sex couples. These actions and verbal outbursts must be decried.
2013-07-09 12:17:46 PM
1 votes:
Now it will be interesting to see whether the victorious proponents of gay marriage will show tolerance toward those who disagreed with them when the issue was still in dispute.

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

He can say and believe what he likes.  And I can ignore the movie and not put money in his pocket.
2013-07-09 12:17:11 PM
1 votes:

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

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

^This.

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

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

No, other than what OSC call his bed.


I think what he's saying is shouting 'boycott' is a waste of time. If you want to boycott, fine, do it. You needn't shout it to the sky. Cause one you do, there'll be throngs of people partaking of what you're boycotting, both people who oppose your views, and those who would partake just to be contrarian cause boycotters are loudmouts..Also boycotts are largely worthless and really only serve to make those doing the boycotting feel superior in some fashion.
2013-07-09 12:14:35 PM
1 votes:

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

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


'I can be a hateful asshole all I want, but I DEMAND you take the high road.'
2013-07-09 12:12:13 PM
1 votes:

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

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

^This.

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


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

No, other than what OSC call his bed.
2013-07-09 12:10:40 PM
1 votes:

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


Eh, that could piss off people on both sides.  Seems to me that one of the assumptions is that sexuality is a choice and dependent on social reinforcement.
2013-07-09 12:09:21 PM
1 votes:
bdub77:
This is mostly why I won't see Ender's Game and why I stopped reading his books after I found out what type of person he was. Even if he weren't a homophobe, Orson Scott Card is a raging asshole.

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

eg., from recent rock music alone:

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

So if you avoid the assholes, you end up with a couple of Cyndi Lauper CD's, some Henry Winkler shows (the ones that somehow didn't also star assholes), and the complete works of Sir Terry Pratchett on your shelf.  Not too shabby but it'll get boring eventually.
2013-07-09 12:09:20 PM
1 votes:
Anyone bring up the twin conspiracy theories about the Ender series yet?  To wit - first that Ender's Game may have been an attempt at Hitler apologia, based on several loose parallels between Ender and Adolf, and second that the first Ender books were ghost written, leading to the large shifts in tone and release delays in later novels.

I don't buy the theories entirely, but they're hugely entertaining.
2013-07-09 11:57:09 AM
1 votes:
I don't understand what exactly Card and people in this thread want us to do. Is Ender's Game entitled to our money? Do we not have the right to speak with our wallets for whatever reason we wish? What makes Card so special that refusing him money - that he was never entitled to in the first place - is an affront to his sense of decency. I'm seriously drawing a blank here. Do we as consumers have no right to determine where we spend our money?
2013-07-09 11:55:09 AM
1 votes:

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

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

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

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


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

Never read "Ender's Game". Never wanted to read it, controversy or not.
2013-07-09 11:51:37 AM
1 votes:

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


Considering the book was written in 1985 that is somewhat revolutionary.
2013-07-09 11:50:37 AM
1 votes:

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


You have to be lenient on that point.  Kids under ten tend to be lousy actors and because of child labor laws, there would be no way to complete the film before everyone was a teen anyway.  Game of Thrones had to age up all the kids and then hire actors a few years older anyway and still they struggle to get in 10 episodes per year.
2013-07-09 11:47:04 AM
1 votes:

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

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

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

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


Because holding someone as property is the same as not allowing Adam and Steve to get married?  That's where the gay rights people lose me.  That's not an apples to oranges comparison, it's freaking apples to squash.
2013-07-09 11:46:51 AM
1 votes:

JakeStone: The My Little Pony Killer:

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

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

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


They're worth it for her and her alone.
2013-07-09 11:45:51 AM
1 votes:
The My Little Pony Killer:

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

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

Also, my bad earlier for referencing her role as Snow Queen.  It's been a few years since I've reread the books.
2013-07-09 11:43:36 AM
1 votes:

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

No, I don't feel bad that they won't be getting as paid for this as they would have had they worked with somebody with even a shred of decency.
2013-07-09 11:42:44 AM
1 votes:

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

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

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


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

Horse and His Boy can suck rocks.
2013-07-09 11:41:33 AM
1 votes:

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

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

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


To me there is a significant difference between an actor and a writer, one is essentially a sock-puppet for another's words, so his personal views are less important.  Same with an author of technical manual or academic text in a non-subjective area like say Chemistry, as opposed to history or economics or psychology.   Now as to the CSN example,  I think it would be very strange to be a Republican and a Fan of say Bruce Springsteen or Pete Seeger,  less so of an equally liberal, but more apoltical singer like Johnny Cash (read the lyrics to Man in Black if you disacree with thtis characterization of Cash)
2013-07-09 11:40:53 AM
1 votes:

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

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

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


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

A film where she gets to wreak havok in the real world? Hell yes!
2013-07-09 11:40:30 AM
1 votes:

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

Well...before The Last Battle, anyway.

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


I was not the smartest kid in the worst (a trend that continued into adulthood) but I just read it as another chapter in my favorite book series.  I actually enjoyed reading it again when I was older and picking up on the obvious biblical parallels.
2013-07-09 11:37:48 AM
1 votes:

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


He started injecting some religion and politics into Shadow of the Hegemon.  I quit the series after that.
2013-07-09 11:37:44 AM
1 votes:

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

But Card can EABOD.

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

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

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


Is the homophobe obsessed with gays?  A guy that hates gays but doesn't give it a second thought unless he sees someone he perceives as gay, okay maybe not gay.  However a homophobe that's obsessed with it is a different story.
2013-07-09 11:36:28 AM
1 votes:

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


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

Know what I hate? When people read them starting with Magician's Nephew. Call me a pedant, but even though the world begins there, the STORY starts with Lion, The Witch and the Wardrobe.
2013-07-09 11:35:04 AM
1 votes:

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

Well...before The Last Battle, anyway.

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


Jim Butcher seems to be wanting to give it a go.
2013-07-09 11:34:37 AM
1 votes:

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

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


I felt the same way about The Forever War, which had similar levels of praise. I'll admit I enjoyed The Forever War more than Ender's Game, though, for sure.
2013-07-09 11:33:42 AM
1 votes:

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

Well...before The Last Battle, anyway.

Well, yeah.

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


I felt really dumb when I realized that The Last Battle was Revelations and then had to go back and find the Christianity in the previous books.  They were still a good read though, IMO.
2013-07-09 11:33:21 AM
1 votes:

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

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

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

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


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


It's called "Hamlet's Father. It was originally printed in a quarterly Anthology, then got a limited print run as a 104 page novella. Dude even had the nerve to claim that he "left [Shakespeare's version] in shreds all over the floor".
2013-07-09 11:33:04 AM
1 votes:
Well, Speaker for the Dead was kind of magical too, but I was able to suspend my disbelief with the pseudoscientific justifications.  Not so with conscious philotes.
2013-07-09 11:32:39 AM
1 votes:

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

Well...before The Last Battle, anyway.


That one was worth it though, because C.S. Lewis is still the only author I know of who would end his series by killing off all of his main characters at once.
2013-07-09 11:32:09 AM
1 votes:

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


First two-and-a-half books.  Then Xenocide had to get all magical.
2013-07-09 11:31:42 AM
1 votes:

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

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


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

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

Disclaimer: Again it's been a while so I may have a fact or two wrong.
2013-07-09 11:31:29 AM
1 votes:

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


I went to a nerdy magnet program.  Ender's Game was the only book banned from our reading groups in English, because everyone wanted to do a book report on it.
2013-07-09 11:30:34 AM
1 votes:

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


No, this is what the author thinks being the author as a child was like.
2013-07-09 11:30:07 AM
1 votes:
Magorn:
and to expand on your main point,  Heinlien had extremely strong, very right-wing poltical views, and he was not shy about sharing them in his essays,

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

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

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

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

I'm wondering.  I started getting that impression about most of John Ringo's stuff that I've read.  I still enjoy the hell out of them, and I'm doomed with the phrase "fiddly bits" from the Maple Syrup War books (can't remember the name), but while annoying at points, I still enjoy the hell out of them.
2013-07-09 11:29:36 AM
1 votes:

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


Well...before The Last Battle, anyway.
2013-07-09 11:28:36 AM
1 votes:
The first three Ender's books were pretty good.  The Worthing Saga was also pretty good.
2013-07-09 11:28:08 AM
1 votes:
I stopped liking Card after 9/11 when he wrote an editorial about what America should do next. It was basically: Bomb everyone who isn't Isreal in the Middle East, ignore any allies who complain and start kicking people out of the country now. It wasn't the content that upset me, it was the tone of the piece, he made it sound like every other option was childish and beneath contempt.
I still read the rest of the Shadow books after that and someof his American horror works(he writes creepy stuff pretty well).

Aside from the usual Hyper-Pro-America stuff (which can sometimes make reading some writers difficult or at least tedious)his politics never seem to drift into his stories that I have seen, although he did go off on Family Courts giving full custody to unfit mothers over the fathers objections in one. haunted house book(can't remember the name).
I don't like the guy but if I never read things by people I disagre with I'd never read anything challenging.
2013-07-09 11:24:41 AM
1 votes:
Magorn:

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

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


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


Ender's Game, check.  Xenocide, check.  Ender's Shadow, check.  Worthing Saga, check.  Songmaster, check.  A couple more short stories from Maps in a Mirror that I don't remember the names of, check.
2013-07-09 11:23:50 AM
1 votes:
I wrote a blog post about this earlier this morning.  Don't really want to repeat myself, so posting link here. Not sure if this is against Fark TOS (Couldn't find anything applicable), or would be considered AWing. Modmins, delete if so, and a mea culpa in advance.

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

/Yeah, my blog sucks.
//Not my blog, I just write something there every 6 months or so.
///Three slashies.  Five is right out.
////<praying>Please oh please don't Fark the server.</praying>
2013-07-09 11:13:49 AM
1 votes:

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

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

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


and to expand on your main point,  Heinlien had extremely strong, very right-wing poltical views, and he was not shy about sharing them in his essays, but in his novels and stories he was more circumspect,  yes he wrote Starship Troopers, a book many consider to be an endorsement of fascism, but he wrote what many consider to be one of seminal works of the hippie culture Stranger in Stange Land at the exact same time. A book that forces you to think or consider arguments you had not before, I have no objections to, but a book that is thinly veiled propaganda for the author's poltical or moral views I have ZERO patience for.  I recall a series I once picked up a used book store that started entertainingly enough, but then every single gorram book devolved into a paen to libertarianism so extreme even Ron Paul would say "Whoa there big fella, ease back on the stick a bit yeah?".  Or the most classic modern example, would be everything Terry Goodkind wrote after the first Sword Of Truth book, where a promising series devolved into nothing more than incompetent plotting overlaying  a mix of fan-fic level S&M fantasies and laughable poltical rantings.  That's unforgiveable to me.  And the Hamlet revision OSC apparently wrote sounds like it's in that company
2013-07-09 11:11:43 AM
1 votes:

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


No, he just openly and self-righteously fought against gay people in real life, which is much, much worse. I'm really torn on this because the actors are great. But I don't think I can bring myself to reward OSC.
2013-07-09 11:09:06 AM
1 votes:

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


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

I don't have any answers, but as far as the Ender's Game movie, I'll judge it on its artistic merits, and not the political views of the writer or some grip's assistant.
2013-07-09 11:07:25 AM
1 votes:
Many a times I've reached up for a copy of Ender's Game at a bookstore only to remember what sort of douchetard wrote it in the first place, and then I reach for something, anything, else.

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

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

Jesus thought owning slaves was OK as long as you were nice to them, that doesn't automatically invalidate everything the guy stood for.
2013-07-09 11:02:53 AM
1 votes:

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


This, right here.
2013-07-09 11:02:03 AM
1 votes:
Ender's Game

Sounds homoerotic
2013-07-09 11:01:24 AM
1 votes:

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

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

Heretics of Dune FTL....


Yes, my respect for Herbert dropped significanty with this book.  The specific Jump The Shark moment for me was the "sex battle" between Idaho and that Honored Matre.
2013-07-09 10:48:32 AM
1 votes:
I've been reading all this hubbub regarding boycotting the movie because the guy's a bigot.. and I get that. But aren't you also forcibly screwing over a bunch of other people who don't share the same views and are just trying to make a good/decent/okay movie?

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

/just a thought
2013-07-09 10:47:59 AM
1 votes:

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

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

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


Even then I disagree.  I was reading at a college sophmore level when I was in 4th grade according to the tests, and I read Enders (the original short story) right about then or a year or two later. And frankly my real take-away was "So this is what the author thinks being me is like (Yes I was a wildly arrogant shiat too)...way to miss it by a mile..."
2013-07-09 10:47:57 AM
1 votes:

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

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


Heretics of Dune FTL....
2013-07-09 10:46:20 AM
1 votes:
I really enjoyed Ender's Game and Speaker of the Dead.  I was pretty bummed to hear this guy was such a dick.
2013-07-09 10:37:29 AM
1 votes:

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



www.corbisimages.com
THIS!
2013-07-09 10:36:32 AM
1 votes:
 Orson Scott Card, after all, still wrote a version of Hamlet in which the eponymous character's father was a gay, as a way of explaining why he was a terrible king (Card also made Hamlet's father into a child molester).

Sounds like he's from the "gay = child molester" school of thought (Hi Dad!)
2013-07-09 10:31:29 AM
1 votes:

bdub77: but his books are also incredibly overrated.


I enjoyed the first three Alvin Maker books. Somewhere along the way, though, it turned from a nice alternate history fantasy series into...don't even know what.
2013-07-09 10:27:33 AM
1 votes:
How can you have a name like Orson Scott Card and NOT be gay?

It's not possible.
2013-07-09 09:54:59 AM
1 votes:

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


As is:

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

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

I may see it.  I'm trying to force my way through the book now.  Not impressed thus far.  If anything I get an icky feeling with his obsession over militarized little boys.  But whatevs.  I'll reserve judgement until I've finished it.
2013-07-09 09:46:46 AM
1 votes:

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.
 
Displayed 283 of 283 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report