Hatrack River
Home   |   About Orson Scott Card   |   News & Reviews   |   OSC Library   |   Forums   |   Contact   |   Links
Research Area   |   Writing Lessons   |   Writers Workshops   |   OSC at SVU   |   Calendar   |   Store
E-mail this page
Hatrack River Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» Hatrack River Forum » Active Forums » Discussions About Orson Scott Card » On LGBT's boycott of the Ender's Game Movie. (Page 1)

  This topic comprises 3 pages: 1  2  3   
Author Topic: On LGBT's boycott of the Ender's Game Movie.
Fran
New Member
Member # 12984

 - posted      Profile for Fran           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Why can't gay and lesbian people just go be gay and get married and leave everyone alone? They want to boycott what is shaping up to possibly be a great movie and wonderful piece of art just because of Orson Scott Card's opinion on same sex marriage. The LGBT and other pro same sex groups fought for years for the right to have their own opinion and the right to get married, yet OSC isn't entitled to his own opinion? Gay and Lesbian groups need to wake up and realize that the whole world isn't gay and lesbian, and the whole world is not going to agree with them. For an example of someone who doesn't agree with it--see Catholics (1.1 BILLION strong who disagree with same sex marriage.) People are entitled to their own opinions, just like you are. Boycotting Ender's Game isn't going to change anything. It's still looking like it's going to be an amazing movie with an amazing cast and millions of people including myself are still going to go see it no matter how much your groups protest it. Do us all a favor and just go be gay and get married and do your thing. No one cares. Stop bothering everyone else who doesn't agree with you.
Posts: 1 | Registered: Apr 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
The LGBT and other pro same sex groups
I'm actually part of the board of directors at The LGBT. I'm sorry, but our official release is that our member position is to boycott the movie and that OSC is totally not allowed to have his own opinion (this is what boycotts mean). All LGBT members in good standing are obligated to commit to the boycott. We came to this decision after deliberation with shareholders and I do not expect it is going to change.

Look on the bright side, though: like you say, it's literally not going to change anything and no one cares. So there's literally absolutely nothing to worry about. It's amazing you're bringing this up to us at all; it's a tremendous waste of effort for the sake of something which you realize will absolutely not change anything.

Oh! Right. It's because it bothers you that The LGBT (a 512(f) international union LLC or something) has this position, and it's really important that we not even bother to have this position for the sake of your comfort. We're really sorry. We should have thought more about your feelings in this regard. We didn't realize. We will make sure in the future to check our privilege.

quote:
Gay and Lesbian groups need to wake up and realize that the whole world isn't gay and lesbian, and the whole world is not going to agree with them.
Man, I don't think they realized that. We better like, make a press conference and remind gay and lesbian people that not every human being on earth agrees with them. I am fairly sure that the lack of any systemic and cultural oppression throughout the entirety of history has caused them to completely forget this fact.

Thank you, Fran, on behalf of everyone at The LGBT. I do not hesitate to say that you have really opened our eyes to how insensitive we were all being. OSC's statements on homosexuals and gay marriage and his decision to become a director of an organization that doesn't actually want gays and lesbians to "go be gay and get married and do your thing" (actively insisting that to allow them to do so would put all households at risk of bad things, perhaps cause the end of civilization) really should not have carried any sort of negative social response to projects associated with him. How we could have possibly been so unkind with our official position, I do not know. We deserve entirely to have it rubbed in our faces that our actions are literally completely meaningless. We'll be good and make sure not to do anything that displeases you anymore.

Posts: 12972 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Synesthesia
Member
Member # 4774

 - posted      Profile for Synesthesia   Email Synesthesia         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
[ROFL]
Posts: 9879 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 124

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Why can't gay and lesbian people just go be gay and get married and leave everyone alone?
Because people like OSC are actively trying to prevent this, actually.
Posts: 36742 | Registered: May 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Thesifer
Member
Member # 12890

 - posted      Profile for Thesifer           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Fran:
Why can't gay and lesbian people just go be gay and get married and leave everyone alone? They want to boycott what is shaping up to possibly be a great movie and wonderful piece of art just because of Orson Scott Card's opinion on same sex marriage. The LGBT and other pro same sex groups fought for years for the right to have their own opinion and the right to get married, yet OSC isn't entitled to his own opinion? Gay and Lesbian groups need to wake up and realize that the whole world isn't gay and lesbian, and the whole world is not going to agree with them. For an example of someone who doesn't agree with it--see Catholics (1.1 BILLION strong who disagree with same sex marriage.) People are entitled to their own opinions, just like you are. Boycotting Ender's Game isn't going to change anything. It's still looking like it's going to be an amazing movie with an amazing cast and millions of people including myself are still going to go see it no matter how much your groups protest it. Do us all a favor and just go be gay and get married and do your thing. No one cares. Stop bothering everyone else who doesn't agree with you.

Is this like Stephen Colbert Satire? I'm being 100% serious here, because if not, I'm really confused.

Gays can't legally get married in most states, and can't be federal recognized as married. And OSC actively tries to make sure that always stays true.

It's not about opinions. People can have their OPINION that they think LGBT shouldn't have the same civil rights as they themselves have, but that doesn't mean they should automatically get to keep people from those civil rights.

Posts: 129 | Registered: Sep 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Synesthesia
Member
Member # 4774

 - posted      Profile for Synesthesia   Email Synesthesia         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Well yeah. You should not use your beliefs to make other people miserable just because you believe being gay is wrong. Fine, do that all day long, but stop trying to crush other people's happiness, please. Thank you. http://www.advocate.com/politics/2013/04/13/watch-hospitalized-missouri-mans-arrested-husband-straight-brother-speak-out Why actual gay marriage is needed.

Plus are gays saying you can't marry someone of the opposite sex anymore because they will take over and make everyone gay and send children to reeducation camps to be campy?

Posts: 9879 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
scifibum
Member
Member # 7625

 - posted      Profile for scifibum   Email scifibum         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I disagree with OSC pretty strongly and nothing is going to keep me from seeing that movie. I hope OSC doesn't spend my movie money on NOM, but it's a chance I am planning to take.
Posts: 3714 | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Stone_Wolf_
Member
Member # 8299

 - posted      Profile for Stone_Wolf_   Email Stone_Wolf_         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by scifibum:
I disagree with OSC pretty strongly and nothing is going to keep me from seeing that movie. I hope OSC doesn't spend my movie money on NOM, but it's a chance I am planning to take.

Me too also.
Posts: 4969 | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
C3PO the Dragon Slayer
Member
Member # 10416

 - posted      Profile for C3PO the Dragon Slayer           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Synesthesia:
Plus are gays saying you can't marry someone of the opposite sex anymore because they will take over and make everyone gay and send children to reeducation camps to be campy?

I, for one, would not mind campy camps, if only for the lame pun it allows me to use.
Posts: 1005 | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Kelly1101
Member
Member # 12562

 - posted      Profile for Kelly1101           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by scifibum:
I disagree with OSC pretty strongly and nothing is going to keep me from seeing that movie. I hope OSC doesn't spend my movie money on NOM, but it's a chance I am planning to take.

Yeah, this.

The movie is coming out on my birthday, too.

Best. Birthday present. EVAH.


I mean, I feel ya, LGBT. You are in the right, I am not even eating Chick-fil-a, I voted for Obama, put gay marriage on the ballot in my state and I will vote for it, but in this case--

You're only hurting yourself because this movie is going to be epic.

Posts: 106 | Registered: May 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
MrSquicky
Member
Member # 1802

 - posted      Profile for MrSquicky   Email MrSquicky         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I think, for the more strategic members of pro-gay groups, the end goal is yes, obviously to cut into the people going to see the movie but more to 1) to raise awareness of OSC's bigotry, hopefully diminishing his earning power (and thus money he can funnel into/time he can spend with NOM) and 2) force the movie studio to donate to pro-gay causes to offset the negative publicity of having OSC as the writer.
Posts: 10106 | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Kelly1101
Member
Member # 12562

 - posted      Profile for Kelly1101           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
They're still going to miss out on an awesome movie. Sucks for them.

I don't think I've ever supporting boycotting art because of the views of the artist. Just goes against my principles.

Posts: 106 | Registered: May 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
C3PO the Dragon Slayer
Member
Member # 10416

 - posted      Profile for C3PO the Dragon Slayer           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly1101:
They're still going to miss out on an awesome movie. Sucks for them.

I don't think I've ever supporting boycotting art because of the views of the artist. Just goes against my principles.

Yeah, I've come to the conclusion that the only good reason to boycott a business is if you don't like how they do business. It is immature and impractical to boycott something because you disagree with the politics of someone associated with it.

If the product/service the business offers is not as good as it should be, by all means boycott them.

If the company uses unethical hiring or labor practices, by all means boycott them.

If the service has rules that discriminate against certain customers on basis of race or whatnot, by all means boycott them.

Orson Scott Card's politics have nothing to do with how the business of the Ender's Game movie is conducted. Meanwhile, actors, directors, and numerous artists and employees of many professions worked hard on the movie, and it would be unfair to deprive them of your support because the author of the book on which the movie is based holds certain views about homosexuality. Maybe the movie will turn out to be crap, but then you'll have a REAL reason to boycott it. I'm holding out hope that we'll get at least a decent adaptation.

Discriminating where you spend your money based on whether someone associated with the product/service has espoused something you disagree with doesn't practically work for multiple reasons. The money you spend could end up anywhere after a couple of transactions. That's how the economy works. You have no right to earmark the cash you use to pay a plumber and say "you can't spend it on toys or games!" Once you spend your money, you have washed your hands of it and have absolved responsibility of where it gets spent after further transactions. It could be spent on drugs or prostitutes or donations to the Ku Klux Klan and it is not your fault, because all you paid for was the service rendered.

Furthermore, it's a gargantuan undertaking to avoid buying from businesses or individuals who have views you disagree with. Think about how many opinions you have that are non-negotiable. How many ways could someone say something that you find offensive? Some of your opinions WILL be contradicted by someone else's opinions somewhere. And that someone else probably works for a living. Maybe that someone even runs a business. You have no way of knowing the family-owned burger joint in town is secretly a seething anti-Semite or the driver of the bus you take to work is a wannabe Obama-assassin. And you don't know if the director of your favorite movie agrees with you about the Vietnam War. Chances are, you give your hard-earned money to tons of people who you would find repugnant if you listened to them talk candidly about politics.

But that's all right. Because when you conduct a business transaction, whether it's paying for a movie ticket or tipping a waiter, the only thing that matters is if the product or service rendered is worth the money you are paying. The market economy is based on the simple contract between the business and the consumer: that the business offers something of value and the consumer decides whether that value is worth his money.

Obviously, if an author has repugnant political views and that tarnishes a book he publishes, then you can say that the views with which you disagreed have undermined the nature of the business by producing an inferior product. That would be grounds for a boycott. So I understand those who refuse to read the Empire books. But the Ender's Game movie doesn't look like it will have anything to do with the specific political views of Orson Scott Card that have caused so much public ire, so there's no excuse to boycott.

(Note: Boycott != not buying a product. You have to have multiple people rallying around a cause to have a real boycott, whether that cause is demands for more ethical hiring practices or better products or lower prices. Also, the boycotter has to have made an active decision against the default option of giving a company his business, which implies that were it not for the grievance he is boycotting for, he would have given the company his business.)

Posts: 1005 | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
But that's all right. Because when you conduct a business transaction, whether it's paying for a movie ticket or tipping a waiter, the only thing that matters is if the product or service rendered is worth the money you are paying. The market economy is based on the simple contract between the business and the consumer: that the business offers something of value and the consumer decides whether that value is worth his money.
Even at my snarkiest I cannot for a minute entertain the notion that what is written here is even remotely true. Heck, it doesn't even agree with the rest of your post.

It is a really ruefully rotten set of ethics, for anyone who actually believes it.


The rest of your post is also pretty shaky in terms of deciding on behalf of other people whether their principles in exercising a boycott are "valid."

Posts: 12972 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Aris Katsaris
Member
Member # 4596

 - posted      Profile for Aris Katsaris   Email Aris Katsaris         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I have to say that I thoroughly agree with C3PO.

If a particular piece of work is good, then you reward said work. If a particular political idea is bad, you penalize said political idea.

If we treat Orson Scott Card as NOT a monolithic entity but rather a combination of different modules (only one of which is "anti-SSM") , what does Ender's Game have *anything* to do with the "anti-SSM" module? The book doesn't seem to utilize it, and I doubt the movie will.

Now I e.g. boycotted The Last Airbender movie, because of its racial whitewashing of the characters -- because it utilized a particular module I found offensive, the module of said racial whitewashing.

But if you boycott Orson Scott Card' work in his entirety because of his anti-SSM module (even if that work doesn't utilize it), then I might get boycotted for my pro-eugenics module even though my work as a programmer has nothing to do with it.

Posts: 668 | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
MrSquicky
Member
Member # 1802

 - posted      Profile for MrSquicky   Email MrSquicky         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
what does Ender's Game have *anything* to do with the "anti-SSM" module?
OSC will use the money he earns from the Ender's Game movie to further both his personal and NOM's campaign of spreading bigotry, falsehoods, and fear about gay people (which has included the sort of boycotts we're talking about here).
Posts: 10106 | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Synesthesia
Member
Member # 4774

 - posted      Profile for Synesthesia   Email Synesthesia         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by MrSquicky:
quote:
what does Ender's Game have *anything* to do with the "anti-SSM" module?
OSC will use the money he earns from the Ender's Game movie to further both his personal and NOM's campaign of spreading bigotry, falsehoods, and fear about gay people (which has included the sort of boycotts we're talking about here).
Yes, I have a problem with this. Also I am queer.
Posts: 9879 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
C3PO the Dragon Slayer
Member
Member # 10416

 - posted      Profile for C3PO the Dragon Slayer           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by MrSquicky:
quote:
what does Ender's Game have *anything* to do with the "anti-SSM" module?
OSC will use the money he earns from the Ender's Game movie to further both his personal and NOM's campaign of spreading bigotry, falsehoods, and fear about gay people (which has included the sort of boycotts we're talking about here).
Last I heard, OSC is not being paid a cut of the profits from the Ender's Game film. He has already been paid; whether you go see the movie has no bearing on how much money he'll give to NOM.
Posts: 1005 | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I'm not even boycotting the movie and it's profoundly obvious that this is all bogus when you are saying "THIS kind of boycott is valid. THIS kind of boycott is invalid."

here's the general counterpoints so far.

quote:
when you conduct a business transaction, whether it's paying for a movie ticket or tipping a waiter, the only thing that matters is if the product or service rendered is worth the money you are paying. The market economy is based on the simple contract between the business and the consumer: that the business offers something of value and the consumer decides whether that value is worth his money.
Here's a way of describing the straightforwardly banal amorality of this one: were I to buy a kidney, I would be able to use this logic to say that it literally does not matter at all, morally, if the kidney was harvested from trafficked children and sold to me by the mob, or by a willing donor. One way or another, it's just a business transaction. That it is invalid to care about anything other than the quality provided to me and if it is worth the price tag.

But, like I said, it's obvious from the rest of your post that you don't even agree with what this part of your post said. The "That's just the market economy, you see" is quickly excised as a case for under what bounds a boycott is 'valid.' The other half is easily dealt with:

quote:
Yeah, I've come to the conclusion that the only good reason to boycott a business is if you don't like how they do business.
Great! So anyone boycotting this movie could say "I don't like the way this movie studio is doing business. I will boycott studios that choose to enter into participation with people like OSC, which I think they should not do and which I consider a bad business practice." They can object to the business practice of associating with people of specific political views and acts and association with groups like NOM.

That's what I mean by shaky ground. It tries to establish a clear prescriptive delineation of which boycotts are valid, then it walks all over itself.

Posts: 12972 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Aris Katsaris
Member
Member # 4596

 - posted      Profile for Aris Katsaris   Email Aris Katsaris         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
OSC will use the money he earns from the Ender's Game movie to further both his personal and NOM's campaign of spreading bigotry, falsehoods, and fear about gay people (which has included the sort of boycotts we're talking about here).
Are you saying that you would never employ, hire, or buy from people who oppose your political views, lest they use the money formerly yours to donate to wrong causes?
Posts: 668 | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Aris Katsaris
Member
Member # 4596

 - posted      Profile for Aris Katsaris   Email Aris Katsaris         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Samprimary, try steelmanning C3P0's argument instead of strawmanning it.
Posts: 668 | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Stone_Wolf_
Member
Member # 8299

 - posted      Profile for Stone_Wolf_   Email Stone_Wolf_         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
(Shocking as it is) I disagree. I think 3CPO made a good case and the arguments that Samp is trying to make against are already addressed.


3CPO specifically mentions bad bussiness practices, and I am fairly confident that stealing organs might qualify.

As to trying to lump distant assosiations and business practices, he specifically excludes them, and provides reasons.

Samp's counter arguments only work if you utterly ignore 3CPO's explanation, take what he says entirely out of context or argue in bad faith.

Posts: 4969 | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Amka
Member
Member # 690

 - posted      Profile for Amka   Email Amka         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Yeah, actually. I wonder how many LGBT worked on the film? OSC has already been paid. So, it really can't be about the money.

It's about the principle.

In this case, I think the principle is "I don't agree with you, so I will censor you from my life."

That's okay, for a personal decision. For a group decision, the larger that group gets, the closer it is to becoming full on censorship.

When people call for someone else to FIRE him because of his views, wow. That really is full on censorship and asking for someone to be discriminated against because of their religion.

That is saying:

I can have my opinion, because I know I must be right. But you can't have your opinion or make a living doing art, because I'M the one that's right. NOT you. So, I will crush you until no one with your opinion dares to speak up.

Hmmmm....

Oh, and BTW - Card doesn't do this himself. He really has supported persons who are LGBT. I suspect if you were to go to his class and "come out" you would find your experience as great as anyone else in the class - unless you were being obnoxious yourself.

And I don't think most of the people here at Hatrack are like that. But my opinion of the LGBT rights movement has been moved down several notches by their reaction to people like OSC.

Posts: 3487 | Registered: Feb 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_:
(Shocking as it is) I disagree. I think 3CPO made a good case and the arguments that Samp is trying to make against are already addressed.


3CPO specifically mentions bad bussiness practices, and I am fairly confident that stealing organs might qualify.

As to trying to lump distant assosiations and business practices, he specifically excludes them, and provides reasons.

Samp's counter arguments only work if you utterly ignore 3CPO's explanation, take what he says entirely out of context or argue in bad faith.

You did not understand my post and/or did not pay attention to the qualifications in it. Try reading it again. If you still need help with it, ask for clarifications specific to claims (you think) I am making.
Posts: 12972 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Synesthesia
Member
Member # 4774

 - posted      Profile for Synesthesia   Email Synesthesia         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
But how do you think we're supposed to react? Imagine you are a part of a hated minority and you have famous people going on about how if you're allowed freedom you'll destroy society and the fabric of everything. Are we just supposed to take this nonsense? Just be quiet and put up with it?

quote:
Originally posted by Amka:


And I don't think most of the people here at Hatrack are like that. But my opinion of the LGBT rights movement has been moved down several notches by their reaction to people like OSC.


Posts: 9879 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Polixenes
New Member
Member # 11993

 - posted      Profile for Polixenes           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
C3PO may well have a point in arguing about the financial aspects and impact of this boycott. I don't disagree with his or her conclusions.

But I want to make a challenge to the premise (that the purpose of the boycott is to "(d)iscriminate where you spend your money...")

Since the chief aim of the boycott is to raise public awareness of the underlying issue, rather than merely to deprive OSC and his business partners of revenue, then the arguments while interesting are not necessarily appropriate in this particular case.

Moving on to the second part of the argument, that you have a monumental task if you seek to boycott everything associated with those of repugnant opinions. That's no doubt true, but most people who feel strongly enough to speak out or rally against any particular burning issue often only have the time and energy to focus on one thing at a time. I would fully expect that if the LGBT community do achieve all of their most urgent goals then those of them harbouring unrelated political grievances will move on to deal with those next. It's a question of priorities.

Posts: 2 | Registered: Mar 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Stone_Wolf_
Member
Member # 8299

 - posted      Profile for Stone_Wolf_   Email Stone_Wolf_         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
You did not understand my post and/or did not pay attention to the qualifications in it. Try reading it again. If you still need help with it, ask for clarifications specific to claims (you think) I am making.
This is the laziest "rebuttal" I've ever seen.

Edited to remove unnecessary antagonism.

[ April 18, 2013, 02:29 PM: Message edited by: Stone_Wolf_ ]

Posts: 4969 | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Amka
Member
Member # 690

 - posted      Profile for Amka   Email Amka         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
First, I AM part of a minority that has been hated. I've been yelled at by women who thought I was too young to be pregnant (I looked like a teenager in my 20s), I've been demeaned by both liberals and Christians for my religion.

My ancestors were mobbed and killed, and an extermination order put on them by the US president!

How I deal with it is to understand what can be changed, and what can't. To be firm and never wavering, but to be patient and loving and forgiving, to try to understand where the differences are and come to an agreement. To have integrity, always state the facts and search for what I may have wrong.

The fact is, Synth - LGBT and their supporters are being hateful and dishonest and biased in their reporting on this matter. Cherry picking and putting past quotes in front of present quotes which explain the context.

Because the other way, it leads to more discrimination and blacklisting, and we are seeing it happen now with calls for firing and boycotting based on someone's religious belief. The idea that "I am right, so I have the right to push down others who disagree with me" is so very wrong. It's what leads to theocracies and dictatorships.

Disagree with them! Do it vocally and loud! But never with hate, always try to understand them, and do it with integrity. Don't try to strip other people's ability to work or live.

Posts: 3487 | Registered: Feb 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 124

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
LGBT and their supporters are being hateful and dishonest and biased in their reporting on this matter. Cherry picking and putting past quotes in front of present quotes which explain the context.
You know, I largely agree with you on some of these issues, but I fail to see what "context" you can provide for OSC's comments that would make them any less hateful.

(As a side note: saying you understand discrimination because you're a Mormon is pretty laughable. It's like my claiming to understand discrimination because I'm an obese atheist.)

Posts: 36742 | Registered: May 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Synesthesia
Member
Member # 4774

 - posted      Profile for Synesthesia   Email Synesthesia         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Context? Dude, have you read what he says about gays? Replace gay and lesbian or homosexual with black. And don't even get me started about what your church has said historically about brown people such as myself. If you don't want it to be taken out of context, then don't say it that way! I don't want OSC to be fired, but I'm not going to support him and give him more money. Religion is not a good excuse. There's many people who are conservative christians who don't think the way OSC does. It's not a matter of pushing them down. It's just they're OK with tormenting people over being gay, so why should gay people have to just accept that? Just roll over and wait for the older generation to kick the bucket? (Though some of these older folks do actually support gays.)

No. If black folks had thought like that I'd still be riding on the back of the bus.

Posts: 9879 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_:
quote:
You did not understand my post and/or did not pay attention to the qualifications in it. Try reading it again. If you still need help with it, ask for clarifications specific to claims (you think) I am making.
This is the laziest "rebuttal" I've ever seen.
I don't think it's even possible to describe how hypocritical this is! Evidently, this describes the extent to what you were actually interested in, in terms of discussing the subject.

So, thanks.

Posts: 12972 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Stone_Wolf_
Member
Member # 8299

 - posted      Profile for Stone_Wolf_   Email Stone_Wolf_         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I actually articulate, while you simply disregard...so yes, I would agree that it very accurately denotes our individual interest levels in discussion. And let's make this clear...

Samp's #1 excuse to not bother responding:

Whatever Stone_Wolf_ just claimed I did, Stone_Wolf_ is doing.


Samp's #2 excuse to not bother responding:

In doing whatever it was Stone_Wolf_ is claiming I was doing, Stone_Wolf_ is a hypocrite.


Samp's #3 excuse to not bother responding:

Stone_Wolf_ didn't understand, and should reread what I have written.


You can derail, avoid, deflect and disregard all you like dude, if your tactics are fooling anyone, they are not fooling me. If you had the real faith in what your words that you fronted you would not need such devices to prevent discussion. But hey, as long as you get to be dismissive, aggressive and unpleasant to those whom you deem morally deficient, then Mission Accomplished™!

I'm afraid I find it all a bit boring in it's repetition.

Posts: 4969 | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
So, by the way, SW. When someone says "I don't think you understand what I wrote".


... they're usually right?

just an observation. whether its Sam or Rakeesh or Tom.

edit: looks like it was my turn. I was logged in as Sam but by now you can guess who I am.

Posts: 12972 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Stone_Wolf_
Member
Member # 8299

 - posted      Profile for Stone_Wolf_   Email Stone_Wolf_         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Simply stating, "You don't understand, and should reread." is lazy and evasive. If something one says is misunderstood, then they should further explain it.

As to your alt, I have no idea who it is you are, but I was under the impression that having more then one login is more then frowned upon, it is against the rules.

Posts: 4969 | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
1. I don't have an alt, but myself and parks usually share/swap computers (or in the case of our latest travels, laptops)

2. You really don't understand what I've written, and there's a point at which I have to stop and say "if I try to re-explain this to SW, I'm going to end up just rewriting what I have already written. No, I'm not the first person to have this complaint. You often require a lot of patience.

So, okay, I'll try to show that patience.

Read this:

quote:
when you conduct a business transaction, whether it's paying for a movie ticket or tipping a waiter, the only thing that matters is if the product or service rendered is worth the money you are paying. The market economy is based on the simple contract between the business and the consumer: that the business offers something of value and the consumer decides whether that value is worth his money.
Now read this response to that:

quote:
were I to buy a kidney, I would be able to use this logic to say that it literally does not matter at all, morally, if the kidney was harvested from trafficked children and sold to me by the mob, or by a willing donor. One way or another, it's just a business transaction. That it is invalid to care about anything other than the quality provided to me and if it is worth the price tag.

But, like I said, it's obvious from the rest of your post that you don't even agree with what this part of your post said. The "That's just the market economy, you see" is quickly excised as a case for under what bounds a boycott is 'valid.'

Now re-read this specific part:

quote:
like I said, it's obvious from the rest of your post that you don't even agree with what this part of your post said.
It's very straightforward: I found a bit of logic used as a continuation of the previous primary assertion about "valid" boycotts, and I pointed out what this logic actually claims, and why it's incompatible with the rest of the argument telling us what kinds of boycotts are "valid."

And yes, when you read quote no. 1, it is making a case which is faulty in exactly the way I described. It's obviously never just about 'a business transaction,' unless someone's totally amoral about it.

Posts: 12972 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Stone_Wolf_
Member
Member # 8299

 - posted      Profile for Stone_Wolf_   Email Stone_Wolf_         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I find it funny that you disregard nearly everything in a page long post of C3PO's and get hung up on one word..."only" so much so that you entirely miss his point...and then miss the mark so hard that you lecture me when I point this out as if -I- missed something.

Sure, if you pull that one little thing out of his entire post and take it out of context, it means what you want it to. And I said as much.

You even go so far as to say the rest of his post disagrees...and yet, you are so very stuck on that one little phrase that you are committed to a comic exaggeration even to the point that you feel anyone who disagrees, simply does not understand.

Pathetic.

Posts: 4969 | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
T:man
Member
Member # 11614

 - posted      Profile for T:man   Email T:man         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by C3PO the Dragon Slayer:
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly1101:
They're still going to miss out on an awesome movie. Sucks for them.

I don't think I've ever supporting boycotting art because of the views of the artist. Just goes against my principles.

Yeah, I've come to the conclusion that the only good reason to boycott a business is if you don't like how they do business. It is immature and impractical to boycott something because you disagree with the politics of someone associated with it.
When the money you pay someone to render you a service goes directly or indirectly into the active oppression of a class of people you are just as bad as those who directly support said oppression.
Posts: 1559 | Registered: May 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
I find it funny that you disregard nearly everything in a page long post of C3PO's and get hung up on one word
quote:
I found a bit of logic used as a continuation of the previous primary assertion about "valid" boycotts, and I pointed out what this logic actually claims, and why it's incompatible with the rest of the argument telling us what kinds of boycotts are "valid."
1. Read this. This is not disregarding nearly everything in a page long post. It's pointing out that one part of the post, when taken to its logical extremes, isn't compatible with the rest of the post.

quote:
Sure, if you pull that one little thing out of his entire post and take it out of context,
quote:
I found a bit of logic used as a continuation of the previous primary assertion about "valid" boycotts, and I pointed out what this logic actually claims, and why it's incompatible with the rest of the argument telling us what kinds of boycotts are "valid."
2. Reeeead this again. This is not, again, me disregarding the rest of the post. It is actually referenced specifically with regards to the rest of the post. The context is literally the fact that that incompatible argument is buried in a larger argument. It pretty much says so straightforwardly. I'm sorry you didn't understand that, but .. that's it. You aren't really understanding my post at all.
Posts: 12972 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Stone_Wolf_
Member
Member # 8299

 - posted      Profile for Stone_Wolf_   Email Stone_Wolf_         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by T:man:
When the money you pay someone to render you a service goes directly or indirectly into the active oppression of a class of people you are just as bad as those who directly support said oppression.

I...um...well...no.

Let's say Ross is a white supremacist, and uses all the money he makes to buy crosses, gasoline and bedsheets. Ross runs a mom and pop gas station, and you go and fill your car there. You have no idea how Ross uses what used to be your money. You, the consumer have zero accountability for the racial oppression Ross unleashes later that week, using what used to be your money.

Even if we are talking about eating at Chick-a-filet, one as a consumer does not have as much culpability if a small portion of the costs of their delicious chicken sandwich, waffle fries and Polynesian sauce are used to support anti gay rights activity as the people who are doing the deed. Sure, an argument could be made that they have some culpability as their diner choice was made knowing what they were helping to support indirectly. But just as much? No way!

Posts: 4969 | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Stone_Wolf_
Member
Member # 8299

 - posted      Profile for Stone_Wolf_   Email Stone_Wolf_         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
I'm sorry you didn't understand that, but .. that's it. You aren't really understanding my post at all.
Bored now. I disagree, not misunderstand. It's a real shame that your ginormous ego will not allow you to accept this, but it is the truth never the less.
Posts: 4969 | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_:
quote:
I'm sorry you didn't understand that, but .. that's it. You aren't really understanding my post at all.
Bored now.
quote:
I don't think it's even possible to describe how hypocritical this is! Evidently, this describes the extent to what you were actually interested in, in terms of discussing the subject.

So, thanks.


Posts: 12972 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Stone_Wolf_
Member
Member # 8299

 - posted      Profile for Stone_Wolf_   Email Stone_Wolf_         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I like you less and less.
Posts: 4969 | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rakeesh
Member
Member # 2001

 - posted      Profile for Rakeesh   Email Rakeesh         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Fran,

First of all, I'm not clear if you're intending to be sarcastic or ironic or serious. I'll be replying as though it was the latter, but if I'm mistaken the joke's on me!

quote:
Why can't gay and lesbian people just go be gay and get married and leave everyone alone? They want to boycott what is shaping up to possibly be a great movie and wonderful piece of art just because of Orson Scott Card's opinion on same sex marriage.
First of all, this is not just about Card's opinion on SSM. You may not be familiar with it, but he has lent considerable media, political, and likely financial support to the cause of opposing SSM, notably in the form of NOM, an organization that can charitably be said to routinely tell shameful lies and attempt to enact religion into secular law.

Second, and I can't stress this enough, they frigging can't get married yet. Only in a few places and even then it's a toss up just what that marriage will actually mean. It would be surprising if it weren't so human that now, when the tide of public opinion shows signs of permanently and dramatically changing, *now* suddenly we hear about how mean spirited gays are being. Where were you ten years ago when the shoe was entirely on the other foot?

quote:
People are entitled to their own opinions, just like you are. Boycotting Ender's Game isn't going to change anything.
So, what, 'people are entitled to their opinions' but man, these particular people really ought to just shut up about theirs? But in any event, it's certainly getting you upset, that's a change.

------

C3P0,

quote:
Yeah, I've come to the conclusion that the only good reason to boycott a business is if you don't like how they do business. It is immature and impractical to boycott something because you disagree with the politics of someone associated with it.
First of all let me say that while I think you believe this, I don't think you mean it. Why? Because it would be quite simple to pose an example of a company whose causes you found repellent whom you wouldn't wish to support, even if you didn't make a media event out of it. Do you disagree?

As for 'immature', I don't know why you make it a point to deride and insult, rather than state your case. Impractical? Hardly. Boycotts are practiced with great effect far from rarely. Ask Target.

quote:
Orson Scott Card's politics have nothing to do with how the business of the Ender's Game movie is conducted. Meanwhile, actors, directors, and numerous artists and employees of many professions worked hard on the movie, and it would be unfair to deprive them of your support because the author of the book on which the movie is based holds certain views about homosexuality. Maybe the movie will turn out to be crap, but then you'll have a REAL reason to boycott it. I'm holding out hope that we'll get at least a decent adaptation.
This takes the peculiar position that all of those people have a right to my ticket money already, and that I'm somehow wronging them if I choose not to fork it over for the 'wrong' reasons. Isn't that choice up to me? Or does this opinion-entitlement business stop there?

quote:
Last I heard, OSC is not being paid a cut of the profits from the Ender's Game film. He has already been paid; whether you go see the movie has no bearing on how much money he'll give to NOM.
Even if this is true, it will also be true that the greater the success of the film, the greater prestige and earning potential Card will have, and if patterns hold both will be turned partially towards things such as NOM.

---------

Stone_Wolf,

quote:
As to trying to lump distant assosiations and business practices, he specifically excludes them, and provides reasons.

Samp's counter arguments only work if you utterly ignore 3CPO's explanation, take what he says entirely out of context or argue in bad.

Well, in this case it's hardly a 'distant association'. Card is a flag-bearer for NOM, and on the national political stage of the question of SSM, he's certainly a player. Substantial amounts of his time and influence are devoted to it. This isn't a matter of three or four transactions down the road.

Anyway, C3P0's broader point is that somehow, there is a single standard for what a 'valid' boycott is, because respecting rights to opinions and impracticality and all. In both cases, it's up to the boycotter and in one case it doesn't even pass the laugh test. It's your money and my money, Stone_Wolf, and if someone thinks we're spending or not spending it in a 'valid' way, alright, fine, but we should believe that belief carries any weight at all...why?

-------

Amka,

quote:
That's okay, for a personal decision. For a group decision, the larger that group gets, the closer it is to becoming full on censorship.
If this is true, surely we can expect to hear a sternly worded criticism of NOM, of which Card is a board member, in short order, yes? Are you unfamiliar with the sort of media campaigns and yes, boycotts NOM has been associated with and instigated, or do you just not see the glaring similarities?

-------

I would not normally be inclined to think this way, because I try and avoid-with not as much success as I would like-to avoid the whole 'a few steps further' thinking about a particular political or religious belief. But it's pretty difficult to not see a pretty glaring bit of hypocrisy here in this criticism of the criticism and boycotting of Card. All of this-the 'right to an opinion', the 'valid boycotts', the 'personal decisions' and censorship? These are a significant part of what NOM does. Which means much of this finger-wagging amounts, whether you know it or not, to, "Hey, LGBT media types, stop using the exact same sort of media campaigning as your opponents!"

Posts: 15959 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rakeesh
Member
Member # 2001

 - posted      Profile for Rakeesh   Email Rakeesh         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Even if we are talking about eating at Chick-a-filet, one as a consumer does not have as much culpability if a small portion of the costs of their delicious chicken sandwich, waffle fries and Polynesian sauce are used to support anti gay rights activity as the people who are doing the deed. Sure, an argument could be made that they have some culpability as their diner choice was made knowing what they were helping to support indirectly. But just as much? No way!
Just to make things easy, let's say the meal costs $10 and roughly $.50 of that price goes to supporting anti-SSM causes. You got a shake or something. It's not like the gas station, because you saw a protest last week so you know there's an issue. Should you then be considered morally culpable-whether it's good or bad-for giving $.50 to am anti-SSM cause? I mean, us humans are pretty eager to claim a sliver of moral credit for shared responsibility when it's good. Why doesn't this go both ways?
Posts: 15959 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Stone_Wolf_
Member
Member # 8299

 - posted      Profile for Stone_Wolf_   Email Stone_Wolf_         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
As I stated, you can make an argument for -some- culpability...but I strongly disagree that a simple patron carries -equal- guilt.
Posts: 4969 | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rakeesh
Member
Member # 2001

 - posted      Profile for Rakeesh   Email Rakeesh         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Ok, so that's what I'm asking. If a person knows a small portion of their purchase will be used to fund cause x, in what way is making that purchase different from simply giving the smaller amount directly to the cause?
Posts: 15959 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
T:man
Member
Member # 11614

 - posted      Profile for T:man   Email T:man         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_:
quote:
Originally posted by T:man:
When the money you pay someone to render you a service goes directly or indirectly into the active oppression of a class of people you are just as bad as those who directly support said oppression.

I...um...well...no.

Let's say Ross is a white supremacist, and uses all the money he makes to buy crosses, gasoline and bedsheets. Ross runs a mom and pop gas station, and you go and fill your car there. You have no idea how Ross uses what used to be your money. You, the consumer have zero accountability for the racial oppression Ross unleashes later that week, using what used to be your money.

Sounds like you need to put more thought into how your money is spent. Just because you write off the fact that (in this hypothetical) you never knew that you were funding white supremacy doesn't change the fact that you were funding white supremacy.
Posts: 1559 | Registered: May 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rakeesh
Member
Member # 2001

 - posted      Profile for Rakeesh   Email Rakeesh         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Sure, but in your world, I would be morally guilty of murder if I had someone over for dinner and server them shellfish neither they nor I knew they were allergic to, and they died. It's a very strange outlook where one's knowledge of doing something has no impact at all on the thing's moral impact on them.
Posts: 15959 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Aris Katsaris
Member
Member # 4596

 - posted      Profile for Aris Katsaris   Email Aris Katsaris         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
"If a person knows a small portion of their purchase will be used to fund cause x, in what way is making that purchase different from simply giving the smaller amount directly to the cause? "
If I e.g. buy a computer from Bill Gates, and I know that Bill Gates gives a lot of money to charity, does that mean that I can claim to have just given money to charity, even though Bill Gates' charity-giving didn't affect my purchasing choice at all? Or would this just be sophistry - I didn't give money to charity, I gave it to Bill Gates. It's Bill Gates who chose to give it to charity.

Likewise even if I tell the company employing me: "I plan to give some money to anti-malaria charities", I hope my company doesn't start claiming that *they* are donating to anti-malaria charities when they're just referring to my own personally-decided donations which come out of my paycheck by my own will.

quote:
Sounds like you need to put more thought into how your money is spent.
T;man, I wonder: are you really considering all those millions of people who buy gasoline and end up funding terrorism indirectly "just as bad" as those who deliberately donate money to Al Qaeda?

Frankly, I bloody well doubt it. You don't really consider them "just as bad", that's just nonsensical hyperbole.

Posts: 668 | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rakeesh
Member
Member # 2001

 - posted      Profile for Rakeesh   Email Rakeesh         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
If I e.g. buy a computer from Bill Gates, and I know that Bill Gates gives a lot of money to charity, does that mean that I can claim to have just given money to charity, even though Bill Gates' charity-giving didn't affect my purchasing choice at all? Or would this just be sophistry - I didn't give money to charity, I gave it to Bill Gates. It's Bill Gates who chose to give it to charity.
Gates is a tricky example since I don't know how much of what I buy goes to him, and how much of what he gets from me etc, but it's easiest to see in comparison, since the amounts of moral blame or credit are very small: if one company is known to use profits to support cancer research and another company is known to use profits to air the Jerry Springer show, and if their computers are more or less equal in price and performance which purchasing decision is more moral and less, if these things are known?

Generally I think the amounts are so small and the knowledge of how money will be spent is poor at best, so the conversation is different. But I don't think these things can be said about Card, who has made opposition to SSM shall we say a significant part of his public profile and NOM whose activities are contemptible. While the amounts of support given to NOM by watching EG-which I'll be doing, by the way, I don't plan to boycott either-Card has put this matter on the table himself by being such a dedicated spokesman. For a silly example, Tony the Tiger doesn't get to complain if people associate him with frosted corn flake cereal.

Posts: 15959 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 3 pages: 1  2  3   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Hatrack River Home Page

Copyright © 2008 Hatrack River Enterprises Inc. All rights reserved.
Reproduction in whole or in part without permission is prohibited.


Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.2