He's acting like as if getting into politics is good. I mean, look at his comments against Clinton. He speaks about him over and over when it comes to his 'vile' sexual act! Idk if Clinton's good or bad, but I felt osc needs to realize how and why there's a war between sex and violence, probably leading to decency vs. indecency and parents vs. everyone else. Why should we get into politics that much?
I guess I'm going to quit as a Hatrack member.
Posted by Taalcon (Member # 839) on :
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Posted by Kabederlin (Member # 6304) on :
Card never asked you to believe any of the things he believes but since he is a US Citizen he desevres the right to have freedom of speech. I think you'd be wiser to stay. After all theres nothing better than getting to know those you oppose, so that one day if you were to debate Card you would be able to defeat him... Or at least put up a fight.
Posted by Anna (Member # 2582) on :
We are not OSC's fan club, you know ? Most of us here read his novels and find them good, which doesn't mean we agree with his political stands. At last I don't most of the time, as do a lot of Hatrackers. But I still love his work and respect the man, and, yes, I'm totally addict to this community
[ April 21, 2004, 05:09 AM: Message edited by: Anna ]
Posted by Frisco (Member # 3765) on :
Taal has made me reconsider my thought that all the new smilies are worthless.
Posted by Kama (Member # 3022) on :
Frisco
Posted by Frisco (Member # 3765) on :
You know, in my opinion, Polish girls are terrible in the sack.
[ April 21, 2004, 09:58 AM: Message edited by: Frisco ]
Posted by Kama (Member # 3022) on :
I will change your opinion in August, baby.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
Ooh, we're having potato sack races! I really hope I can make it.
Want2write, you've said you mostly read OSC's articles and not his books, so how is this coming as news?
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote: Why should we get into politics that much?
want2write is correct. We should let the *politicians* deal with politics. After all, that's what they are there for. We should just blindly trust them to do what is right, so we can spend all our time starting inflamitory threads on message boards.
Posted by Fishtail (Member # 3900) on :
I'm kinda squicked to admit that I really don't understand want2write's complaint? Huh?
Posted by Kamisaki (Member # 6309) on :
Yeah, I was confused too. I mean, OSC's been doing these articles for at least three years, so it's not like this is a new development. Don't like his columns? Don't read 'em! Of course, he could also quit the site in protest. Given the number of his posts, however, I don't think enough people would care for it to be very effective.
Posted by Kabederlin (Member # 6304) on :
My thoughts exactly.
Posted by fernando (Member # 6475) on :
I stay away from celeb talk shows, don't read famous people's articles, & never ever pick up a 'People' magazine. I hate to associate a real personality to an artists body of work. You find out that your favorite singer is a nazi, your favorite actor is shallow, and the rest are on drugs. It can really spoil it.
Of course everyone is entitled to their opinion. But why should the opinion of the guy who just won best supporting actor have any special meaning to me?
My advice, read the fiction. Read the articles if you agree with them, or pretend someone else wrote them if you don't.
Posted by fallow (Member # 6268) on :
The political viewpoint seems a little awkward.
Posted by Kamisaki (Member # 6309) on :
Huh? What do you mean by that?
Posted by pinkstripes (Member # 6566) on :
well to me his political opinions carry more weight/ ("I should really consider that point of view more seriously and possibly consider that I might not be right") because I've read his novels. No need to separate the two. No one is perfect, unless you want to sit back and be all peaceful (which is nice) and not do much.. but life is better when you have some views and the more extreme you get the greater danger there is that you could be wrong, but better to take that risk. I dont know if his views are "right", but it's an extension of his universe, the universe that created all those stories I love. Why should you pull away just because he *could* be wrong?
Posted by Alexa (Member # 6285) on :
welcome back want2write...in my best Smith voice, "We missed you."
Posted by Alexa (Member # 6285) on :
quote: He's acting like as if getting into politics is good. I mean, look at his comments against Clinton. He speaks about him over and over when it comes to his 'vile' sexual act! Idk if Clinton's good or bad, but I felt osc needs to realize how and why there's a war between sex and violence, probably leading to decency vs. indecency and parents vs. everyone else. Why should we get into politics that much?
I guess I'm going to quit as a Hatrack member.
You had me at "He's." Words of wisdom need to be committed to memory. W2W needs to be quoted often to keep us on the right track. I am throwing in my towel. No more political thoughts for me. But about sex and violence....who is winning the war. Granted, it seems violence should win by brute force, but there is power in seduction, neh? If violence wins, does that mean decency or indecency wins?
But political action sex acting out when we are attacked at what? Obviously that leads to no celebrity op-ed. Is that how parents will declare war?
Posted by Nick (Member # 4311) on :
Taalcon Posted by suntranafs (Member # 3318) on :
"Am I the only one who's losing faith on OSC?"
You mean are you the only one who thought OSC was God? Well I sort of did once, but OSC is a human being, and he has the foibles thereof. His political essays are controversial and by fair acounts not always laid out with very careful logic- at the very lest I think most would agree that they are not set out like mathmatical proofs. He also writes really really really good books and has set up a internet forum, which he tends to take a lot of flack on, that is perhaps the best in the world. So lose faith on OSC, what do you mean? He is what he is, a great writer that happens to have far right wing views, and hatrack is what it is, a realy awesome forum made of awesome people that happen to like really good books, and other than that generally have little enough to do with OSC.
Posted by julian (Member # 6540) on :
It's curious.
The amazing thing is that I find OSC articles strongly consistent with the ideas he expose in his novels. I think that he is a very consecuent man.
Am I the only one that see it in that way? Perhaps. Novels mean different things to different people, according to their own experiences and points of view. Probably the reason of that consistence I have found is that most of the times (not always) I agree with him.
Posted by pinkstripes (Member # 6566) on :
He wrote about the homosexuality in "songmaster" very sympathetically and it's clear he cares about his characters (even if they are gay), but look what happens to them- (SPOILER!!) one gets castrated and kills himself, the other is doomed to the remainder of his life without love or music..
he expressed his view in his article that he thinks children should be brought up by a man and a woman (rather than by a gay couple or a single parent) and he has kya- kya (kyaren) marry the first guy who is commpatible and who will function as a parental unit with her after the father of her child died.
yeah his views are consistent with his novel(s).
Posted by Angelina (Member # 6573) on :
On one hand I want to say: You can't judge a person on their political beliefs. Yet on the other, politics can say a great deal about who a person really is. So I find myself left with this: Leave the judgement up to his mother. Political discussion should not be a personality quiz, but rather the opportunity to exchange ideas and possibly discover another perspective you never knew existed. There aren't enough deserted islands in the universe for everyone to separate themselves from that with which they don't agree.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Political views only reveal personality traits if you understand why they hold to those views. In other words, it only helps you understand them if you already understand them. Posted by suntranafs (Member # 3318) on :
hear, hear!
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
That one article was excruciatingly painful for me to read. It literally hurt that he could think that way...
Posted by Kabederlin (Member # 6304) on :
Why are people still replying here when want2write is obviously never going to respond...
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
We are not responding to w2w. We are responding to the responses to w2w.
Just like this post is my response to your response to the responses to w2w.
[ May 27, 2004, 11:05 AM: Message edited by: mr_porteiro_head ]
Posted by Kabederlin (Member # 6304) on :
Ah... Okay. That's cool I guess...
Posted by suntranafs (Member # 3318) on :
And thus the meaningless thread was born! Posted by the Somalian (Member # 6557) on :
It isn't only because he's right wing--it's the KIND of right winger he is that's annoying. Those fair minded liberals amongst us agree with his lambasting of the almost fascist PC environment around college campuses--but we read in disbelief when we see Card lambaste everything that doesn't conform to his morality and politics as "politically correct." Politically correct this, politically correct that...blah blah blah--it's the name he's chosen to attach to anything that liberals do which he finds disagreeable.
But I am attracted to his movie reviews and I find them coherent and intelligent and they often reflect my reaction to those films. I also admire and share in Card's disdain for pretentious movies and literature--if it weren't for his review column I wouldn't have discovered B.R. Meyer's article "A reader's Manifesto"--a very, very compelling read.
Card's movie/book reviews (though I could do without the "around town" stuff) are awesome.
His political columns? They are tiring and preachy, which is why I've come to avoid them.
[ May 28, 2004, 08:02 PM: Message edited by: the Somalian ]
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
His political columns are what got me here in the first place.
Posted by AmmonRah (Member # 6583) on :
Good literature isn't mindless fantasy where you lose yourself for a few hours and then return to the "real world".
If you don't want to be influenced by OSC's, or any other author's, politics then you shouldn't be exposing yourself to their works.
Good people need to stand up for what is right. As the philosopher said, "All evil needs to triumph -Is for good people to stand by and do nothing".
e.g. Who do YOU think Calvin Maker is? I think he stands for all the people in the world who, having been told about what is right, and about the consequences their actions may have on others, continue down a path of evil and selfishness. Calvin learns over and over that his selfishness will result in ruin for those around him but he persists even when counseled by the wisest and most humble leaders in his world. Calvin even takes on attributes of Satan, offering his victims wealth, power and happiness before he destroys them.
Why shouldn't OSC speak out when he sees behavior in the world that he thinks will bring down misery on many innocent people? It is not only his right, but also our duty.
[ May 29, 2004, 10:43 PM: Message edited by: AmmonRah ]
Posted by suntranafs (Member # 3318) on :
quote: If you don't want to be influenced by OSC's, or any other author's, politics then you shouldn't be exposing yourself to their works.
Anybody that is afraid of influence through exposure is a coward. "If I go with a beggar, a carpenter, and a thief, I will have three teachers" -Confucious
quote: Why shouldn't OSC speak out when he sees behavior in the world that he thinks will bring down misery on many innocent people? It is not only his right, but also our duty.
Certainly he has his right to free speech, but I'd have to say I think he could probably use to be more careful with his language and less polarized, in some of his articles much more than others.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
Then I have a right to speak against him if I think he is being wrong. Such as his views about homosexuality. If I see that as hurtful and harmful, I'm going to speak against it. Though he does make good points in his review columns...
Posted by suntranafs (Member # 3318) on :
That's plenty fair enough Syn., but you're not going to quit hatrack over it or quit reading Scott's books, right? What's really the measure of a man, his heart and life and work or his politcal views?
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
No... I still have respect for him. He's a good author. Besides, opposition keeps my skills sharp. Keeps me thinking... That's what I like best about him. But will I back down? Never.
Posted by suntranafs (Member # 3318) on :
"opposition keeps my skills sharp. Keeps me thinking"
And there yah go.
Posted by Black Mage (Member # 5800) on :
You know, I thought OSC was God for a long time.
Is Hatrack heaven?
Posted by St. Yogi (Member # 5974) on :
Only if you accept that Ornery is Hell.
Posted by Anthro (Member # 6087) on :
Oh, that was unkind. Posted by St. Yogi (Member # 5974) on :
Posted by suntranafs (Member # 3318) on :
Yeah well it's true.
Posted by DocCoyote (Member # 5612) on :
Because I really, really, really enjoy reading OSC's books, I'm interested in what he has to say. I enjoy reading good writing no matter the topic, fiction or not.
I guess for the most part, my political and social views differ markedly with Mr. Card's. So?!? It's much easier for me to question my own views if they are written by someone who know his way around a pencil (word processor, whatever). I hope my mind's open enough to listen to what someone else writes and maybe come away with some new information.
On one of the more incendiary threads on the other forum, someone commented that we're guests here. OSC can write whatever he wants on HIS site. Apparently there are enough folks who like what he has to say, or appreciates that he offers us this opportunity to yak on it as well. If W2W feels like he needs to quit the forum because he doesn't like the political stuff, I wish him well. See ya!
I haven't lived in the Carolinas for 8 years, but by golly, I'd forgotten there was such a thing as the Fresh Market (read latest essay!). How much nostalgia can one man pack into a single essay? Best grocery in the whole world, except for the Fiji water thing...
'Nite all.
{I apologize in advance for any typo's involving the letter "v" or the "". My man apparently spilled a Coke in his laptop keyboard, and I cannot abide having to repeatedly backspace to type coherently.}
Posted by fallow (Member # 6268) on :
who is this mysterious W2W you speak of?
Want2? you out there?
fallow
Posted by julian (Member # 6540) on :
I've been reading posts from this forum and the Ornery one and it seems that the article about the gay marriage was particularly controversial. More than the WOT ones.
Seemingly the homosexuality subject wakes up more sensibilities than other subjects. Same with the antisemitism subject. The accusation of antisemitism against Mel Gibson's Passion didn't seem serious, but I understand that a long story of true antisemitism make people too sensible about that. Same with homophobia.
But... was OSC's article about gay marriage homophobic? Is not my favourite article, but it didn't seen it to me. The question was if a legalized union of a gay couple, with certain advantages of heritage, taxes, etc must be called "marriage" or must have another name in order to separate different concepts.
Well, you must agree or disagree with the ideas exposed in the article. (In this particular case I don't agree in some aspects) But that doesn't mean that the article is homophobic or "hateful" as some people said.
I don't want to open this Pandora's box that leads to an endless discussion, but is a state of opinions that amaze me each time I found it.
Posted by fallow (Member # 6268) on :
Julian
<speculation on>
I think what some readers of OSC's columns might find unsettling if not downright distressing are the departures from arm-chair philosophilizing tidy logical arguments to wholesale trotting's out of personal intimacies to emotionally (herkily-jerkily) reinforce the ... common-sensical nature of his viewpoints. at times.
<speculation off>
fallow
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Is it my imagination, or did fallow actually say nothing in that post?
Julian -- You ought to go over to
the other side. They never seem to get tired of the gay marriage debate.
[ June 07, 2004, 09:25 AM: Message edited by: mr_porteiro_head ]
Posted by Yank (Member # 2514) on :
If you can't express your own political views on your own web site, then where the hell *can* you express them?
Posted by Da_Goat (Member # 5529) on :
Definitely not near the square, on the corner of Montezuma and Gurley.
<glare>
Posted by julian (Member # 6540) on :
mr_porteiro_head
No, thanks. I came from the other side precisely because I was tired of this and other debates and I've find here some peace of mind.
Too much aggressiveness for my taste. And too much verbosity also.
I don't have much time to post but I read the posts of this forum (well, not all of them: there are many) and personally I prefer this style of conversation.
I'm not losing faith on OSC but I'm afraid I almost lose it in Ornery's forum.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
I never could get into Ornery's forum. It seems that you cannot discuss things there -- you can only debate them.
Posted by julian (Member # 6540) on :
Ooops.
The other side was the other branch of Hatrack, not Ornery.
BOING!
Sound I made when I fall fron the tree (cuban expression for a discovered mistake, I don't know if it means something elsewhere.
Posted by Theresa (Member # 6609) on :
Fascinating...Some of you feel dicussing politics should be done only by politicians. But if we as citizens do not openly dicuss our government, what it is doing, how it effects us directly (or indirectly), we become complacent and ignorant. We allow them to continue do ignore the will of the people. We lose our voice. Whether we agree with one anothers views, doesn't matter. What matters is openly discussing them in a public forum and being willing and open-minded to listen not matter how angry you get. Get Angry! Get offended. That's what we need more of in today's society. We need to question our government, our society, ourselves. We need to continue to be heard.
As for OSC's articles, I don't agree with a lot of his views. They are very right wing. But he is a good person, who knows the value of voicing his opinions, concerns and asking questions. And, while I can't speak for him, I'm sure he hopes that his articles prompt those reading to go to the forums and debate and discuss the topics. Like this one. Posted by julian (Member # 6540) on :
Theresa:
I agree with you. I don't mind to listen oppinions different from mine (is a way to learn something), but sometimes (too many times) political discussions are not about exposing reasons and arguments in a civilized way but about saying that somebody is "hateful", "stupid" a "moron", a "fascist", etc. (Not in this forum, God thanks). Or about writing five million words in order to expose a single idea.
I refuse to lose my time in that kind of useless discussions. Is better to use it re-reading Ender's game, for instance.
![[Wave]](graemlins/wave.gif)
![[Monkeys]](graemlins/monkeys.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Hail]](graemlins/hail.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Evil Laugh]](graemlins/evillaugh.gif)