quote:

---

I think he's obfuscating. No one's that interested in figuring out why people hit people unless they've gotten hit a lot themselves.

---

quote:

---

I bite back a sarcastic retort. Card's brother was basically OK because he wasn't as bad as the Nazis?

---

quote:

---

But I change my tack again, still convinced we'll come to common ground.

---

quote:

---

Or perhaps more accurately, I ask the very same question, but in a covert form so that Card will have no idea I'm really making reference to him and his homophobia.

...

What an asshole. I'm trying to praise Christianity; in fact I'm trying to be Christian as he would understand the term, and all he can see is an attack.

---

quote:

---

I am trying so valiantly to be bigger and better than Card.

---

So busy trying to do that that she's being at least as hateful as she accuses him of being.
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
It's so weird to see this pop up again, five years after the fact. *laugh*
 

---

Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
 
I didn't realize it was five years old, but I did recognize the references (without following the link) as "oh, that charming article! Isn't it from a while ago?"
 

---

Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
 
I assume that there were people out there who read that article and didn't think to themselves, "Jeez, this woman's got some real issues." but I'll be danged if I know any of them. I was amazed by, as Roger said, how blatantly obvious the contradictions between her stated beliefs and her actions were. I don't get how an editor who was concerned with the quality of his publication lets this one through, but there you go.
 

---

Posted by jeniwren (Member # 2002) on :
 
Seemed to me that the article proved out the adage that criticism says more about the critic than the one criticized.
 

---

Posted by CRash (Member # 7754) on :
 
This article smacked of unprofessionalism. It seemed to me rather like the scribbles on the stalls of a high school bathroom, complete with profanity.

Is it bad to say it made me laugh? It's the worst attempt at a Card-bashing I've ever seen. At least the folks at Ornery.org use an intelligent approach. This was just sad.
 

---

Posted by mimsies (Member # 7418) on :
 
I laughed too.
 

---

Posted by Exploding Monkey (Member # 7612) on :
 
I am really surprised at all of you. To defend a man who calls Vietnam and Korea "good" acts by the US because we were protecting freedom then goes on to show he agrees with communism just smacks of fanboys and the delusional dreams they carry of their heroes.

I've been reading a lot of his rants in his little column here on the Hattrack River web page and while I can both agree with some and disagree with others, it is very clear through those columns and articles like this that he has a very defined set of personal beliefs and values.

I respect anyone that can take a side and express their views, but only if they can do it in a sensible manner and with SOME scruples. I find a lot of what Card says to be expressed in a VERY elitist and snobbish manner. They way he attacks so many topics and people as being "stupid" amazes me.

He recently posted an article in the LA Times I belive where he shoots down Star Trek and basically calls all it's fans idiots just becuase it's not his brand of sci-fi. He did the same thing with the iPod article he just posted here, and now I am reading that he thinks employers should have the right to fire gays for no reason other than they don't deserve the same rights anyone else does?

I'm a heterosexual man that owns an iPod and does not give a crap about Star Trek or Macs, but I am still finding myself offended. The man that wrote such compassionate and entertaining novels as Speaker for the Dead turns out to be an elitist, homophobic, communistic asshole that could give two cents what anyone else in the world is about if they don't fall into his pathetic, narrow, vision of things.

Very, very sad.

Shame on you for not being more honest with yourselves and seeing this man for what he really is.
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
"Shame on you for not being more honest with yourselves and seeing this man for what he really is."

You're joking, right?
 

---

Posted by Exploding Monkey (Member # 7612) on :
 
Then you are aligned with his values?
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
No, I'm most definitely not. On the other hand -- and Scott himself might disagree with this; he tends to throw the cold shoulder my way -- I'm not a jerk about it, either.
 

---

Posted by Exploding Monkey (Member # 7612) on :
 
I'm not sure I understand. You have a personal relationship with him?

I'm not prying, just asking.
 

---

Posted by Exploding Monkey (Member # 7612) on :
 
Aw, common. You respond to my post then back off? That's no way to hold a conversation.
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
On a web forum, actually, that's usually the way conversations are held. Despite what you might infer from my post count, I'm not here every second of the day. *grin*

I don't have a personal relationship with OSC, no. But he's aware of me, although he seems to go to genuinely extraordinary lengths to avoid addressing me personally, lately. We have conversed (and argued), albeit recently in a first-person-to-third-person-omniscient sort of way. *grin*

He's a good guy with strong opinions that get stronger, less diplomatic, and less careful when he wants to rile people up. I don't condone this, mind you, but over the years I've grown to understand where he's coming from on his opinions -- even if I disagree with those premises and therefore his conclusions. In general -- although not always -- his conclusions do logically spring from his premises, which is more than you can say for most people.
 

---

Posted by Alistair (Member # 7858) on :
 
I regards to his 'support' of the Korean and Vietnam wars I think it comes down to the question of does an evil act with good intentions make the actor evil and does a good act with evil intentions make the actor good? In both cases I would say no, and I think that was the point that OSC was making. He said that the intention was alltruistic and that was a point in America's favor. I don't see anywhere that he says that the wars were right.

Another good example of this question is looking at FDR. An oft praised president yet he signed the Japanese Interment Act to have the Japanese population of the west coast relocated to interment camps during WWII. This act marks a dark spot in our history where we imprisoned a portion of the population because of their race. But does this mean that FDR was a bad president or an evil man? Of course not, his intentions were honorable, he signed the act in the belief that he was protecting and helping the Japanese population of the US. The overall point here is that you should judge a person's , or a country's, character by their intentions and not their actions.

I think that was the point Card was trying to get at in the interview.
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 

quote:

---

Shame on you for not being more honest with yourselves and seeing this man for what he really is.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dagonee:

quote:

---

Shame on you for not being more honest with yourselves and seeing this man for what he really is.

---

A good author with views you disagree with?

---

quote:

---

I cannot stand intolerance nor the people that refuse to admit to it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by TomDavidson:

quote:

---

I cannot stand intolerance nor the people that refuse to admit to it.

---

*polite cough*
There's, um, something in your eye...

---

quote:

---

I am just bothered that a man so seemingly understanding in his writing could be so close minded in his views of people and the world.

---

Well, that's the thing. Card isn't actually close-minded. He's just stubborn and reactionary and firmly convinced that the morals and ethical constructs he believes to be grounded in his faith are in fact the best for society. And he's rather unapologetic about that.

This ticks people off, and dealing with ticked-off people (some of them quite unreasonable themselves) has made him edgy over the years, to the point that I think he's now shooting first and asking questions later; he starts out by being offensive, which I think is actually a sort of defense mechanism compounded by ennui and frustration (and which, of course, gets people all riled up and talking about him.)

I like him better when he's being reasonable and moderate and diplomatic, and he's certainly capable of doing that, too. But the simple fact is that more people show up here when he isn't.

He and I disagree on almost everything; I'm practically a libertarian (socially left and economically right), and he's an authoritarian (socially right and economically left). But I can understand why he believes the things he does. You can even get inklings of that from his essays, even the really bad ones, if you take the time and squint to avoid looking at the worst excesses of his demagoguery.
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
First, you restate Card's opinion. Then you say people's defense of him "just smacks of fanboys and the delusional dreams they carry of their heroes."

Yes. You come across as very, very close-minded. First, you cannot conceive that someone with his opinions can actually be understanding. Why? Because anyone understanding would agree with you on these issues? Second, if people don't agree with your condemnation, they're likely fanboys with delusional dreams?

Close-minded seems to fit, based on your posts so far.
 

---

Posted by Will B (Member # 7931) on :
 
There is a class of statements that involve contradictory self-reference. They can be amusing, but they can also be deceptive.

The classic Epiminides paradox: "All Cretans are liars." This was said by Epiminides, who was from Crete. Was he lying?

"There are no absolute truths." If so, this statement is not absolutely true, so there must be some exceptions.

"Don't take advice from anyone." Since this is advice, you shouldn't take it.

"Everyone who advocates violence ought to be shot."

And, now, "I cannot stand intolerance."

--

The interviewer does something I find unusual, and fresh. She shows her reaction to everything Card says. If the article were about Card, it would be superfluous -- but it's about her. We get to see the conclusions she jumps to (after each answer).

Her article is vicious ("He yaps" rather than "He replies") and (probably unconsciously) dishonest -- using the same term "homophobe" to mean "anti-gay bigot" and "someone who does not believe in gay marriage" is not really honest -- but it sure does reveal something. Maybe what she learned in her recovery helped her be honest about her emotions. She blames others for them, but she recognizes they're hers.

Card's answers are interesting, too, because they didn't constitute a rant, like those by Bradbury, Heinlein, or deCamp. Asimov was too smooth to sound like a ranter, but was. LeGuin was too funny. But Card just didn't seem to have the hubris to rant. He just answered the questions.

[ May 19, 2005, 10:43 PM: Message edited by: Will B ]
 

---

Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
 
EM,

quote:

---

You cannot call wars against communism good then side with communist beliefs. It's hypocrisy.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by MrSquicky:
EM,

quote:

---

You cannot call wars against communism good then side with communist beliefs. It's hypocrisy.

---

That's a very odd way of looking at things. We fight wars against concrete people and nations, in those examples against totalitarian regimes who were using military force to conquer others. One can easily think that opposing them is a good thing and yet hold some of what they at least claim to believe in as good ideas without being a hypocrite. Besides which, OSC's "communism" comes not from Karl Marx, but in large part from Christian doctrine.

---

quote:

---

I'm not interested in a flame war, as you seem to be baiting me into.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by TomDavidson:

quote:

---

I am just bothered that a man so seemingly understanding in his writing could be so close minded in his views of people and the world.

---

Well, that's the thing. Card isn't actually close-minded. He's just stubborn and reactionary and firmly convinced that the morals and ethical constructs he believes to be grounded in his faith are in fact the best for society. And he's rather unapologetic about that.

This ticks people off, and dealing with ticked-off people (some of them quite unreasonable themselves) has made him edgy over the years, to the point that I think he's now shooting first and asking questions later; he starts out by being offensive, which I think is actually a sort of defense mechanism compounded by ennui and frustration (and which, of course, gets people all riled up and talking about him.)

I like him better when he's being reasonable and moderate and diplomatic, and he's certainly capable of doing that, too. But the simple fact is that more people show up here when he isn't.

---

Hmm, an angle I did not concider. Since you have spoken with him on occasion I'm inclined to take your word for this. More to sleep on.
 

---

Posted by Exploding Monkey (Member # 7612) on :
 
Thanks for your thoughts everyone! It's always good to see things from other perspectives.

Blesssings, g'nite.
 

---

Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
 
EM,
If Dag has held off on getting into a flame war with me, I'm reasonably sure he can handle you. You needn't worry or throw sanctimonious statements at him on that account.

To make it clear, many of us here have been vocal in criticizing the content and style of many of OSC's essays. However, just because we may disagree with the way he expresses himself and what he expresses doesn't mean that we're on the side of anyone who gives a negative opinion of him. This article was pretty bad. Your posts haven't been all that great either.

It's a common experience for OSC fans to have this reaction to his opinion writing. However, it would likely benefit you if you tried to develop a more complex understanding of it, instead of throwing insults around. I actually have a more negative impression than Tom does - I think he is intentionally demogougic to enflame and mobilize his readers against all those connected with the group he sees as being determined to destroy the family - but I think I also have a much greater understanding than you do.
 

---

Posted by Exploding Monkey (Member # 7612) on :
 
I'm not worried about a flame war. I skip'em, they're a waist. Been in a couple and they serve no purpose.

I did come off harsh though and if I offended anyone I am sorry. But for now I'm still Jaded over all of this. I had a deep respect for him. But much of what you all have brought up gives me some things to think about.

Thnaks again; nite.
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
Squick, I get the impression that he's just Fed Up. Every single one of the views or arguments that I've seen him assign to "the left" or the "liberal elite" has been presented as a serious argument by at least one commentator on some occasion. When I was in college, I saw such things every day. If I read the college paper more often during law school, I'd see it every day now, too. As an example, I've argued with people who have said something very similar to the cultural equality argument OSC mocked in the thread about the boy who was skinned.

So it's not that he's making stuff up (which I know you didn't accuse him of). It's that he's selecting the most extreme justifications for policies he opposes to refute and presenting it as a complete refutation of the policy itself. Where I think he really oversteps is in assigning those views to all his opponents. It's actually something you know I can't stand, and that I often call people on when they do it here. I probably do it more when I'm part of the group being targeted, but I've done it often enough going the other way (Jay, CStroman, and Bean Counter come quickly to mind).

But I suspect this overstepping comes from frustration, not careful planning. Remember, OSC has been the personal target of such attacks. As someone who has also been there, although on a MUCH smallers stage, I can sympathize. It took a constant effort of willpower not to respond in kind.

I tend to think it's also counterproductive if your intent is to change the minds of people who disagree with you. But it can be very, very satisfying.
 

---

Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
 
Dag,
It's difficult for me, knwoing what I know about persuasive writing, and knowing that OSC knows it too to believe that he is unaware of what he is doing.

From what I can see (and this is obviously very provisional) OSC really believs that there's this Snidley Whiplash moustache wearing group of people bent on destroying the family and he's set himself up to oppose them in any way he can.

I get that he's frustrated and seeing him interact on Hatrack, he comes off a kind of insecure too, and that no doubt feeds into a lot of this, but he's a smart guy and he's knows a lot about this stuff. I have real problems seeing him as not knowing what he's doing. He's acting like Grego, but he wrote Grego. I think that he knows that he's playing Grego.

Then again, I tend to have a less charitable view of his writing than you do, possibly because of our different communication styles, possibly because of our personal biases, and likely because he seems to enjoy throwing false and venemous attacks my way.

---

I wonder what happened to Chad. He actually turned himself around, but then he disappeared. In my darker moments, I fear he might have returned to Hatrack and to trolling under another name.
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 

quote:

---

It's difficult for me, knwoing what I know about persuasive writing, and knowing that OSC knows it too to believe that he is unaware of what he is doing.

---

quote:

---

I am really surprised at all of you. To defend a man who calls Vietnam and Korea "good" acts by the US because we were protecting freedom then goes on to show he agrees with communism just smacks of fanboys and the delusional dreams they carry of their heroes.

---

I know. Heaven forbid we should defend him for any reason whatsoever just because he has different beliefs on some issues. Or that any of us could possibly agree with him of our own accord.

Don't leap to the immediate conclusion that we all are cow-eyed fanatics. We may enjoy Card's writings, but that doesn't make us his disciples.

..Although statements like the ones in your above post will raise the hackles of many of the posters here. Perhaps you could word your posts slightly less offensively? Then these things don't turn into firefights as easily. I think you have some interesting ideas, and hope to see you around here more often.
 

---

Posted by Exploding Monkey (Member # 7612) on :
 
Crash,

I was jumping the gun a bit. I came in here half cocked with a legit rant that I expressed in an unfair manner.

I expected a fanboy attack. That's the normal reaction to any criticism on most forums, so I was too aggressive in stating my initial opinions. In short, I just typed, I didn't plan my thoughts out in advance like I should have.

I don't think of Card as an A-hole or any of you (in this thread at least) as being fanboys.

I can say at this time though that I strongly disagree with what he believes based upon the way he expresses it. I agree with the above statement that he knows the art of writing too well to know what he is doing when he’s writing his views out for the whole world to see.

This all started for me with that LA Times article. I found it as a link in the general discussion area of a wargame forum I frequent. Most of the people in that thread (it was about Trek’s failings and successes) got pretty pissed at how self-righteous it came off. No one seemed to care about his opinion on Trek, all they were mad at was how he said it. These are mostly pretty intelligent people mind you. It wasn’t like I was in the Doom forums debating with a bunch of rude kids. Even people who liked Card’s work seemed mad about it.

After that, I began to think back to the articles I read on Hatrack and began to realize this was not a one time deal for Card, but a pattern of behavior. This upset me because I held him in such high regard as an author. I read his books and essays on writing as well as his novels, and often find my style mimicking his I like it so much. But as I started to see what he had to say and how he had to say it I began to get upset that I was relating to what I perceived as such a bitter and closed-minded person.

It’s not hard to see he is pretty stubborn in his views, and that’s okay. However, I’m a bird of a different feather in that I always try to open my mind to new possibilities no matter how out of line they may be with my beliefs. There are limits to that of course, but I am generally an open person.

I think it just saddens me. In the past few years many of the people I held in high regard for this reason or that have shown themselves to be different people than I thought. Oh well, I can still sit on it a while.
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
"In the past few years many of the people I held in high regard for this reason or that have shown themselves to be different people than I thought."

This is why you should never hold people in high regard.
 

---

Posted by seespot (Member # 7388) on :
 
People will always disappoint you. I don't think that means you shouldn't hold people in high regard, you just shouldn't be suprised when they screw up in some way. They are merely human. I'm sure there is something you can still find to respect in them.

But then, I've always been a "cup is half full" kind of girl. Drives my husband crazy sometimes. But he really appreciates that I see him that way as well.
 

---

Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
 
I'm a fanboy.

#51, in fact. . .
 

---

Posted by Mobius (Member # 8067) on :
 
Hi I'm new.

Does Orson really live in Greensboro?? I don't even know if it is real.
 

---

Posted by Antony (Member # 7947) on :
 
she's a crap journalist but I agree with soem of her opinions
 

---

Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
 
^^^^^

How 'bout that; someone who writes crappy, but you agree with her opinions anyway.

Variation on a theme. . .
 

---

Posted by Antony (Member # 7947) on :
 
...eh... not many of them tho
 

---

Posted by Antony (Member # 7947) on :
 
well, just coz someone is bad at their job don't mean that they're opinions are wrong. After reading the whole interview I liked her less and less, I think the best point she made was:

"Or by withdrawing, which is what they do, from the mainline of human life. The separation is there and is, in fact, celebrated within the homosexual community."

"When you talk about separating oneself from the mainstream, don't some people feel that way about Mormons?"

but yeah, she's a really really bad journalist
 

---

Posted by Exploding Monkey (Member # 7612) on :
 
That journalist was an idiot. The interview was pure BS. I myself had to chop it up into individual questions and answers and ignore her opinions. It was Card's answers to many of the individual questions that shocked me.

She was not impartial like a good journalist should be. I don't care how much hero worship I had for someone, once the greetings were over I would have asked fair, tough, and impartial questions. I would not escalate a series of moral and ethical questions in an attempt to trap someone into a bad answer.
 

---

Posted by tern (Member # 7429) on :
 

quote:

---

It’s not hard to see he is pretty stubborn in his views, and that’s okay. However, I’m a bird of a different feather in that I always try to open my mind to new possibilities no matter how out of line they may be with my beliefs. There are limits to that of course, but I am generally an open person.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by seespot:
People will always disappoint you. I don't think that means you shouldn't hold people in high regard, you just shouldn't be suprised when they screw up in some way. They are merely human. I'm sure there is something you can still find to respect in them.

---

I do believe I hold people to a much higher standard than I should. I guess when it all boils down to it, we're all screw-ups in one way or the other no matter how well we posture ourselves for the outside world to see. This is something that is proving to be a difficult lesson for me.
 

---

Posted by Exploding Monkey (Member # 7612) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by tern:

This just seems to me to be just like the professors at my university who define "freethinkers" as "anyone who has the exact same beliefs that they do", ignoring the possibilty that a truly free thinking person might actually disagree with them. It's just a form of arrogance, the idea that if everyone just was smart enough and knew enough, they'd think just like you.

---

quote:

---

What I am saying is that OSC's views come off as so rash and laid in stone that he seems to have closed his mind to other possibilities.

---

quote:

---

If I were a closed-minded person, my ability to write using my imagination would be controlled by the hard-core views that I refused to budge on.

---

quote:

---

All I have to say is that I truly, truly, truly hope that he was just baiting her

---

quote:

---

If I were a closed-minded person, my ability to write using my imagination would be controlled by the hard-core views that I refused to budge on.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by socal_chic:
So far I've just been reading this thread, but I just don't understand why EM thinks he can talk to people like that. It just proves his own close mindedness when he is unwilling to continue conversations with someone merely because their argument "isn't good enough".

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by TomDavidson:
In all fairness, OSC does not in fact write many stories in which his heroes do not share his views. In fact, they almost all share his ethics, but this is disguised by the fact that they do not necessarily share his religion.

---

quote:

---

And Dag happened to be the first spammer in here. Looks like you've got a buddy to reinforce your self-righteous bullshit Dag.

---

quote:

---

Scot and Dag are the only two I refuse to converse with because of the rude manner in which they do it. If you look closer, many of the posters in here have actually changed my mind somewhat. That in essence is an "open mind."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Scott R:
Hey, EM-- read the Terms, and remove your vulgarity.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dagonee:
No, they're not. You apparantly feel it's OK to call people close-minded, but don't feel it's acceptable for others to do the same to you. I'm wondering why.

---

Okay, thank you for phrasing better. I have no wish to fight with anyone. I have to take the wife and kids out to lunch right now, so I'll respond when I get back.

Blessings.
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
Continued presence of the offending material after being reminded of the rules, even by an unofficial person, would be a willful violation. Prior to that it might have been inadvertent.

I said nothing of blatant.
 

---

Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
 
Fair enough.

You'll find, if you hang around, that the members here generally try to maintain a very un-Internet style of conversation. There are very few flamewars and very little language that would upset an afternoon television station, and as long as there wasn't a "I can do whatever I want until someone makes me stop" attitude, all is well.
 

---

Posted by Exploding Monkey (Member # 7612) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dagonee:

I said nothing of blatant.

---

I took it as implied based on the way you stated it. I'll post on your last question when I get back.
 

---

Posted by Antony (Member # 7947) on :
 
Children! Behave please!
I can't believe the most reasonable post made in ages was one I made about "homosexuality in battle school"
stop you're squabbling and focus on the issues
 

---

Posted by Papa Janitor (Member # 7795) on :
 
Hatrack is, in fact, generally a self-policing/moderating forum (it was this way before I was the moderator, so it isn't solely an issue of my laziness). Thank you for editing your post, EM.

--Pop
 

---

Posted by RoyHobbs (Member # 7594) on :
 
I will defend OSC to the death from exploding monkeys everywhere!


 

---

Posted by Pelegius (Member # 7868) on :
 
I have to say, despite the fact that she can't write, the author shared many of my frustrations with OSC. I was, and continue to be, annoyed at the differecne in philoshophy and style between his books, and their introductions, and his essays, esp. those on Ornery American. Mr. Card does seem to be a walking contradiction.
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
Hrm. I felt my post was pretty reasonable, Antony.
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 

quote:

---

Mr. Card does seem to be a walking contradiction.

---

quote:

---

Imagination is not connected to ethics in any way shape or form.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dagonee:
No, they're not. You apparantly feel it's OK to call people close-minded, but don't feel it's acceptable for others to do the same to you. I'm wondering why.

---

Okay, here goes…

I entered into this conversation after reading the poorly conducted ‘00 interview that was it’s main topic. Although the interviewer showed a very poor professional quality by admitting her bias, and using that bias in an attempt to trap Card in a bad statement for her own self indulgence, it was Card’s responses to the individual questions that really burned me up. This is not because I disagree with his views (which I do…strongly), but because they came off in such a manner-of-fact way that to me they implied he felt they were the “correct” answers for everyone.

Now, before anyone goes off on that statement, let me elaborate on how I came to that conclusion.

Those of you that read the earlier posts by me will remember how I compared both the Star Trek article in the LA Times and his rants here on his own web page. In every instance that he has put something or someone down he did so in such a harsh way as to basically thumb his nose up at anyone that might disagree with him. This to me is the definition of a closed-minded person. Answers.com lists is closed-minded as: Intolerant of the beliefs and opinions of others; stubbornly unreceptive to new ideas. When a person says stuff like: “As for your iPod, I just have to shake my head and laugh.” or “So when they saw "Star Trek," primitive as it was, it was their first glimpse of science fiction. It was grade school for those who had let the whole science fiction revolution pass them by,” you can’t help be feel insulted like Card is putting down individuals that he does not agree with. Now while I agree with the Trek statement and fully disagree with the iPod one, you just can’t talk down to people like that and not have them perceive you as an elitist, closed-minded jerk. So iPod owners are idiots then? Trek fans are intellectually trapped in the 6th grade? No, of course not, but when you make statements like this, what do you expect people to think? As others have said, Card knows way too much about the art of persuasive writing not to know that this is indeed what he means when he puts people down like this.

Now I pulled a kind-of OSC rant myself by channeling my frustration and anger over this by jumping in here and ripping into all of you. That wasn’t fair and I apologized for it, and do so again to those that missed that part. Fortunately, a few cool headed posters responded first and that’s when I chilled the heck out and started to debate with them. Many in this thread have pointed out their personal insights on OSC and I have considered their views. Some have even changed my mind on a few things.

To answer your question Dag, I didn’t feel you or Scott were calling me closed-minded. I felt you were simply attacking because I was criticizing OSC and his stubborn system of values. I understand my original post was showing the same thing in me that I was accusing Card of. That’s why I admitted that I came in here half-cocked without composing my thoughts first. And that’s what I mean when I say your questions are already answered. I admitted I came off wrong at first and said I was sorry for it. Many people have both offered counterpoints to my opinions as well as criticisms for how I expressed them, and I accept that whether I agree with their opinions or not. I tried to say ethics have a stranglehold on a writer’s style, Tern pointed out that Card writes of characters that do not express his views. Tern is right. Even though I still feel ethics does play a role in a writer’s thinking, I eased up a bit because Tern made a good point. So I don’t consider myself closed-minded because I am able to concede my opinions to others when I feel they are correct. And when I feel they are not, then it just boils down to a difference of opinion.

Yes, at first I came off like a closed-minded jerk. But I thought I rectified that earlier in the thread. I hope this clears things up.
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
"you just can’t talk down to people like that and not have them perceive you as an elitist, closed-minded jerk"

True. Which is why I find his essays disappointing, myself. Because he's not an elitist, and he's really not particularly close-minded. But he does come off like a jerk, and I'm pretty sure it's deliberate.

"So I don’t consider myself closed-minded because I am able to concede my opinions to others when I feel they are correct."

I'm pretty sure this applies to Scott, too. The difficulty, as always, is in convincing him that your opinions are correct.
 

---

Posted by Exploding Monkey (Member # 7612) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by RoyHobbs:
I will defend OSC to the death from exploding monkeys everywhere!

---

 

---

Posted by Exploding Monkey (Member # 7612) on :
 
Tell me the secret Daivdson, tell me how to infiltrate his mind.
 

---

Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
 
EM goes wrong when he equates capability in fantastical, imaginitive storytelling (you know, sci-fi) with an entirely subjective, and wholly at-his-own-will definition of closed/open mindedness.

We get such statements as the following:

"OSC's views come off as so rash and laid in stone that he seems to have closed his mind to other possibilities. As a sci-fi writer of such talent, I did not expect that out of him. By definition, you have to have a very open mind to design pretend worlds in your head."

"If I were a closed-minded person, my ability to write using my imagination would be controlled by the hard-core views that I refused to budge on."

This is, of course, ludicrously arrogant. Belief in a certain set of ideals does not restrict or empower imagination. Rather, the natural powers of imagination will channel through the ethics of the possessor. CS Lewis believed similarly as OSC; so did Tolkien; on the other end of the spectrum, is Wagner, and Burroughs. All of them had vital, vibrant imaginations, despite their various ethical holdings.

quote:

---

Isn't ethics based on empathy for others? And doesn't that require a certain amount of imagination, in order to understand their situation and view?

---

quote:

---

I admit this doesn't apply to rules you follow because they were handed down from Mount Sinai on tablets of stone, but then, that's not actual ethics anyway, that's fear of punishment.

---

Deja vu, KoM. Haven't we burned out your misunderstanding of religious motivation yet?
 

---

Posted by Exploding Monkey (Member # 7612) on :
 
Sorry Scott, I disagree.

You go wrong when you state that "ideals do not restrict or empower the imagination." I feel that a human being's capacity to function is influenced subconsciously by the morals and ethics they live by as well as the rest of their personality, otherwise those morals and ethics are just a front that means nothing; all smoke and mirrors. Your statement of: "the natural powers of imagination will channel through the ethics of the possessor," states just that. Ethics has an effect on the writer. Unless you meant 'channel around the ethics of the possessor.'
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
I half-agree with Scott. I think ideals do empower the imagination, but I don't think that ideals restrict it - except in the sense that ideals won't empower certain imaginative paths that are contrary to them. But the possessor is certainly capable of going down those paths.

Remember, temptation by its nature involves thoughts of actions contrary to ones ethics and morals. People are innately capable of imagining things contrary to their ethics.
 

---

Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
 
Scott, I fear you are responding to a different argument than the one I was making. I am not talking about any complicated disputes about gay marriage or such, but rather the very most basic ethical conundrums, of the style "Should I share my blocks, or keep them all to myself to play with?" I don't know about you, but my mother, when she was civilising me, would always tell me "How would you feel if X did that to you?" That is the kind of empathy I'm referring to. And I do think that requires a certain amount of imagination.

Further, my remarks on tablets of stone were perhaps a bit unfortunately phrased. Continuing with what my mother told me, it did occasionally happen that she would get exasperated and just say "No! Don't do that!" If that had been the only thing she ever said, I wouldn't have ethics, just ingrained reflexes, which indeed do not require imagination.
 

---

Posted by Exploding Monkey (Member # 7612) on :
 
"I think ideals do empower the imagination, but I don't think that ideals restrict it - except in the sense that ideals won't empower certain imaginative paths that are contrary to them.

Remember, temptation by its nature involves thoughts of actions contrary to ones ethics and morals. People are innately capable of imagining things contrary to their ethics."

Well put.

I think my initial statement may have been too strong using the word "control" as if the possessor had no ability to create beyond their own ethical limitations.
 

---

Posted by Alistair (Member # 7858) on :
 
Whoa, I keep forgetting how much can happen if I don't log on for whole day here. Rather than read through everything here I am just responding to the direct responses to my post, way back on page one.

I see no reason to believe that my way of looking at things is dangerous. I never said I condone what a person does if their intentions are good. Quite the contrary, I would like to think that were I alive at the time I would have fought against the Japanese interment, but I would not have fought against it in the mindset that FDR was an evil man for it.

Rather if I see someone who disagrees with my opinion I figure out where they are coming from and try to convince them of my opinion from their point of view, something I would not be able to do if I did not first consider their intentions. For a quick example take the debate on abortion, if you are pro-abortion and are trying to debate with someone who is anti-abortion, how can you expect to convince them of anything if you simply label them as anti-feminist and repeat the same aurgument over and over (something I see almost anytime the debate arises). Conversely if you are anti-abortion trying to convince someone of your side you can't simply assume that they want to kill babies and then aurgue from that point of view (also something that seems to come up more often than not). Instead you should realize that both sides are coming from they believe to be the moral high-ground and are not in fact evil for disagreeing with you. Otherwise you can sit and repeat retoric back and forth for as long as you want, but you won't be convincing anyone.

The point about Hitler was bound to be made. I don't think Hitler's intentions were at all good. He wanted power for himself and maybe even his people, but he didn't care at what expense. That seems a bit more self serving than altruistic to me.

Intentions do not condone actions, but they are what make a person who they are, you are right that in the long run intentions mean nothing, but at the same time in the long run your opinion about a person means nothing either so I would rather make that opinion based on who a person is and not what they do.
 

---

Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
 
KoM: Yes, my parents told me the same thing-- oddly enough, JESUS says the same thing. (eg, 'The Golden Rule') Maybe you're more religious than you've been lead to believe.

EM, I feel like you're changing your position-- in the bits I quoted, you state that in order to be able to be creative enough to create fantastic worlds, one must be "open-minded." Do you believe this or not?

Perhaps if you could define what you mean by open minded and closed minded? What ideals does an open minded person subscribe to that allow him to be more creative than his closed minded counterpart?

Dag, I can think of one particular, personal example that may run contrary to your opinion-- but it won't be published until mid-August.
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
Actually, I don't see how there can be a counterexample to my opinion - I leave the bases open for any imaginative output. So the existence of any particular story from a person with any particular set of ideals, ethics, and morals is totally possible.

But I still want a signed copy.
 

---

Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
 
Um, duh, Confucius says the same thing. 600 years or so before Jesus. So do all the humanist philosophers. Neither Christians nor theists have a monopoly on the golden rule. The point I'm trying to make is that you need a certain amount of imagination both to apply it, and to see why it is necessary. Not very much, admittedly, certainly not as much as you need to be a successful author, but more than zero, as you were asserting.
 

---

Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
 
I think we're talking past one another, KoM-- I wasn't saying that ethics required no imagination, just that creative imagination doesn't require ethics.

That's why so many artistes are irredeemable scum.

Dag-- you shall have it.
 

---

Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
 
Ah, now I'm with you. That makes much more sense.
 

---

Posted by Exploding Monkey (Member # 7612) on :
 
I'm not really changing my opinion, but some others here like you and Dag are helping me to make what I meant come out more clearly.

I do believe you have to have an open mind if you want to be able to fully open up your imagination. Our own personal beliefs can limit the ways in which we use our imaginations if we do not entertain possibilities beyond our own personal values. I'm arguing that a stubborn, closed-minded approach to any creative project a person might want to take on could have the potential of eliminating, or at least restricting creative possibilities that the person could have otherwise had.

Lucas is a good example of this on a conscious level. He is a proud Christian that makes no apologies for the way in which he presents the Star Wars universe. Cool, no problem. However, it is his strict adherence to his ethics that limits his creative potential. For example, because he is so conservative about sex, love, and marriage, his characters and story suffer for it. The romantic elements are weak and totally unbelievable. And before you say: “Yeah, but Han and Leia’s romance was okay,” know that Ford, Fisher and their directors did a lot of modifications to Lucas’ original concepts.

What I am saying is that our personalities (including our own personal ethics) affects what we are able to create too some degree whether we want it too or not.

So when I said I could not believe Card could seem so open to other possibilities in a fantasy world but was stubborn in his real world views I was not expressing well the fact that it is possible to suppress personal ethics to a great degree to write other worlds. I was just totally blown away that Card was like that. I assumed (my mistake, I know) that the writing I saw in his fiction and essays was a reflection of what kind of a person he was. Live and learn. Card is the first author I had ever held in such high regard.

I will admit my opinion on the ethics in creativity has been reshaped a little by all of you though. But I feel the same as I did before for the most part.

[ May 20, 2005, 10:40 PM: Message edited by: Exploding Monkey ]
 

---

Posted by Exploding Monkey (Member # 7612) on :
 
Oh, I missed the second part of your question. I feel it's like this. Tell me if you agree or not:

Open-minded: To entertain other concepts ideas that do not mesh with your own beliefs or values, and to be able to concede your values for diffrent ones if you feel the new concepts have enough merrit to do so.

Closed-minded: To hold on strictly to a certain set of values and beliefs no matter what anyone else may have to say to the contrary. To close yourself out from any concepts or ideas that you do not agree with.
 

---

Posted by Exploding Monkey (Member # 7612) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alistair:
I see no reason to believe that my way of looking at things is dangerous. I never said I condone what a person does if their intentions are good.

---

Okay, that's cool. I took it that you did think that way, which is a scary and dangerous way to view things.


 

---

Posted by Will B (Member # 7931) on :
 
I investigated the claim that Lucas is Christian. Here's Lucas's statement in an interview (http://www.adherents.com/movies/Film100.html#Lucas ):

Q: What religion are you?

A: I was raised Methodist. Now let's say I'm spiritual. It's Marin County. We're all Buddhists up here.
 

---

Posted by Exploding Monkey (Member # 7612) on :
 
LMAO!!

I just realized how irrelevant that was in my statement though. Him being Christian has nothing to do with his conservative values.
 

---

Posted by Orson Scott Card (Member # 209) on :
 
Isn't it odd that someone who disagrees with you can seem "closed minded" because he doesn't immediately change his mind after being exposed to your more enlightened opinion.

Actually, I change my mind quite frequently - when I get better information. One can search the complaints about me on this thread from beginning to end without detecting a single idea that would lead anyone to change their mind about anything.

Plus, I find it amusing that the primary attackers of my views on this thread find it necessary to grossly misrepresent my views in order to attack them. While I'm as capable as anyone of misstating something, as a general rule my statements come in a context that should govern the reading and interpretation of them. For instance, when I call myself a communist, I almost always remind people I'm speaking of the small-c communism that predated Marx; so it seems borderline deceptive for someone to pretend to find a contradiction between my being a small-c communist - or call me a communitarian, if you will - and ALSO thinking that it is a generous country that spends its wealth and sacrifices lives of its own soldiers to protect small countries far away from some of the most vicious dictators known to recent history.

Are you REALLY saying that you think KOREA was an unjustified, immoral war? Are you REALLY saying that we should have let South Korea fall to the North Korean invasion? Do you REALLY think it was not worth the sacrifice that led to the South Korea of today, compared to a peninsula-wide NORTH Korean style of government?

This is what I'm talking about. Someone capable of such a historically ignorant attitude should not really consider me closed-minded for not changing my mind to fit such hopelessly ignorant views. NOBODY who is serious about understanding history and the morality of international behavior would equate the Korean War with the Vietnam War in that way. I only equated them in the sense that the intentions of the U.S. PEOPLE were honorable as they supported both wars.

As for Tom Davidson, I am astonished at your remarks early in this thread. Dodging you? Why would I do that? I wish people wouldn't assume that there's something personal going on. Sometimes, you know, when I'm posting something and don't refer to someone by name it's because I DON'T REMEMBER WHO POSTED THE REMARK I'M ANSWERING! So shoot me for having a bad memory. (It helps that the new forum software leaves at least the most recent page of a thread visible while we write out replies.)

TomDavidson, I believe I have answered you fully and civilly whenever it seemed appropriate, and otherwise I've left you alone. Please don't interpret this as some complex relationship. There ARE people I dodge, but none of them are on any of these forums....

Folks, the fact is that my rhetoric is not extreme. The statements of Howard Dean about President Bush: THOSE are extreme. The statements of Pat Buchanan about illegal immigrants and free trade agreements - THOSE are extreme.

And when I use the word stupid, I use it with precision. There is such a thing as stupidity - the inability to form a coherent thought or comprehend a simple concept. There is a great deal of it in this world. I find it odd, though, that the people who criticize me for being so candid in my columns often couch their criticisms of me far more harshly than I would ever write about any individual person.

You know what conclusion I've finally reached about the kind of carping that this thread contains? That attacking me for being so "closed-minded" or "stubborn" or "harsh" is a substitute for having no answer to the points I make. And it's a pretty poor one, in my view. Ad hominem attacks are usually the last resort of the desperate rhetorician. May I suggest that before you dismiss my ideas as "reactionary" (a meaningless word, by the way, used merely as an empty pejorative - though useful for that purpose! <grin>), perhaps you should make some small effort to duplicate my research on the topic to make sure you know what you're talking about.

I mean this, of course, in the nicest possible way.
 

---

Posted by Avatar300 (Member # 5108) on :
 

quote:

---

Isn't ethics based on empathy for others? And doesn't that require a certain amount of imagination, in order to understand their situation and view?

---

I don't think it has to be. Ethics can be cold, too. You can say that it is wrong to lie because it would hurt the feelings of the person you are lying to. But you could also argue that it is wrong to lie simply because doing so impedes communication in general.
 

---

Posted by Exploding Monkey (Member # 7612) on :
 
I have to apologise to you Mr. Card since I only said I was sorry to the other forum members for the way in which I expressed myself in the beginning. I acted out of partial information and an emotionally charged reaction to something I perceived in a certain way. Others pointed this out to me and I shifted out of angry rant mode and into debate mode as I probably should have been in to begin with.

I don’t know you on a personal level and thus can only draw conclusions based on the partial and imperfect information that is at my disposal. When I say conclusions, I mean on a social/celeb level, as this is the only way in which I know you. The problem is that I used my experiences with your works as a basis for getting an idea of the type of person you might be. As I said earlier, this was a bad move on my part. While all authors probably translate some of themselves into their work, I operated on the false premise that there was more of you in your books.

I too, much like that unprofessional journalist in the ’00 interview, had a bad case of hero worship. Over the past several weeks though I had noticed how bitter and dismissive many of the articles in your column appeared to me (I had been reading several of the older ones as well) and I began to wonder if my high regard for you had been misplaced. In short, the image of my hero had become tainted which upset me.

So I hit on the ‘Trek’ article with several people going off on how they considered you an elitist snob for the way you expressed your opinions. As much as my inner fanboy wanted to defend you I found myself quietly agreeing with them because I noticed the same kinds of speech in your column.

When I came in here to discuss things I did so in an unacceptable manner by personally attacking you. However, I still feel my complaint as to how you express your views comes off as pretty harsh is still valid. Now that of course doesn’t mean OSC is supposed to jump just because a disappointed fan says he should. That’s just plain silly. You express your views the way you want to just like everyone else; but that does not mean I agree with it.

My problem was that it totally freaked me out that you seemed to be like that on a regular basis! Here I was preaching to my friends about how awesome your character driven stories are, and how I’d love to take a writing class from you, and blah, blah, blah, but then I start seeing this grumpy guy who seemingly thumbs his nose at people and their values if it does not fit his own.

As others talked with me in here I began to understand that I was disappointed more than anything that a person I held in such high regard was like that. This has been a problem for me over the past few years with people more directly connected to me showing themselves to be different that what they presented themselves as. I guess you could say a portion of my world has crumbled around me and shown itself to be something that it wasn’t. This is no responsibility of yours or even the others I held in high regard, it’s just been a learning experience for me that culminated up to this point.

I still think you come off in your articles as a harsh, grumpy guy though!

In regards to the communism remarks: I have no problem with your beliefs there. In fact, given time, I could find both the good and the bad in almost any form of government. I disagree with any major expansions of government though. It has the potential to violate many of the liberties that our nation was founded on. Things like the Patriot Act scare the [bleep] out of me, and no I am not a paranoid schizophrenic either. LOL I wasn’t trying to imply you were attached to Marxism though. I just found it really odd at first that someone could call Korea and Vietnam just wars but then elaborate on how they embrace certain aspects of communism. Again, this is me jumping the gun. I find Korea to be a very important war because it enabled us to maintain a presence in a region that was almost dominated by one form of government. It helped maintain the balance of power and it has allowed us to keep the North Koreans in check up until recently. I find Bush’s poor performance in this region to be totally unacceptable (but that’s a totally different thread).

But anyway, this is where I was coming from. I have to give you credit strongly in one area though no matter what: You can accept criticism no matter how much you disagree with it. I have been to many other forums where a disruption in the status quo equates to the ejection of the individual(s) that don’t buy into the values of the forum’s masters.

So my hero turned out to be a human being after all. I’ll get over it. LOL
 

---

Posted by tern (Member # 7429) on :
 
Many of my heroes are writers. Even though I may love their writings and even agree with some of them in most particulars regarding politics and religion, etc..., I don't agree with them in everything. Nor do I feel that this is necessary to see them as my heroes.

See Scott as a hero because of his fiction, if you can't agree with his beliefs. Regardless of his personal beliefs, it takes a tremendous amount of talent and empathy to write the way that he does.

I don't agree with Scott on some of his beliefs or even some of his writings, specifically Saints and Songmaster. I love C.S. Lewis, although his particular brand of Christianity is not mine (albeit similar), and on the extreme, many of my favorite writers have come out as hard core Leftists and militantly anti-Bush. That's their deal - regardless of these things, I still see things in their writing that I greatly admire.

I would suppose that I consider the individual reader's interpretation of a book to be the valid one. Looking at it in that way, the author really is how I imagine him to be, and that's what causes me to see them as heroes - regardless of how full of warts they are in real life.
 

---

Posted by Exploding Monkey (Member # 7612) on :
 
Tern, this wisdom that you continue hand down to me, of what tree do you pluck its sweet fruit?

Serious though, I was unaware that I had made Card a hero within my own mind until recently. I've had a bad habit of holding people to a much higher standard than is fair, all the while being just as much of a screw-up as everyone else is.

My wife has often pointed this out, but I am just now starting to see it. It's just too bad that it manifested in me the way it has. I am not proud of the way I treated those that did not live up to my expectations. But on the good side, I am learning from it.

Sheesh I'm tired. Off to bed.

Blessings to you my friend and thank you for your personal insite, it's helped me a lot.
 

---

Posted by Orson Scott Card (Member # 209) on :
 
In my columns, I try to be vivid, entertaining, clear, and, where possible, funny. For what it's worth, people who agree with me almost never find me grumpy or extreme. Is it not possible that you're simply not USED to hearing views that disagree with you as colorfully expressed as views that do agree with you?

The fact is that my views are carefully nuanced with plenty of allowance given for views other than my own. And, in fact, my columns are full of empathy. Maybe, though, I'm showing empathy for a group of people that you don't feel any need to feel empathy for - like, for instance, "closed-minded conservatives," and not feeling sufficient empathy (meaning: agreement) with groups that you feel MUST be shown great favor.

Also, it is possible to feel empathy and still disagree; to feel empathy and still believe that a certain group's positions or actions or whatever pose a threat and must be countered.

But what may be going on is something much simpler. The extremist Left in America has hijacked "empathy" and treated it as a private possession. Those who disagree with them on matters like gay "marriage" obviously lack "empathy," even though in fact the extremist Left utterly lacks empathy with the concerns of MOST Americans who find the idea of gay "marriage" both unnecessary and potentially dangerous to the institution of marriage. The views that are still the majority view and that until ten years ago were OVERWHELMINGLY the majority view even on the left (i.e., that gay marriage was ridiculous and unthinkable - read the press from the early nineties if you doubt me!) are treated today as if they were some weird form of madness and proof that the holders of that view are benighted bigots. But since that has been the view of almost all of humanity throughout almost all of history, one would think that the Left would pause to try for a tiny, tiny bit of empathy with people who don't understand why using the word "marriage" to have the same meaning it has had ever since the word was invented somehow makes them bigots and oppressors.

How are you using the word empathy? Do you really mean empathy or agreement or consent or submission?

Why doesn't it seem to occur to you that maybe I am EXACTLY the man you thought I was from my fiction, and that the positions I take are precisely the positions that a person of empathy, understanding, experience, and balance would take? In other words, why do you immediately assume that all the evidence about me that you have from my fiction must be wrong, because you automatically associate those views with "lack of empathy" and "bigotry"? Maybe it's your assumptions that are wrong; maybe instead of condemning me you should take the challenge of empathy and try, just a little, to understand what I'm actually saying instead of dismissing it as "grumpiness" instead of the well-reasoned arguments that I actually have written.

I know I'm wasting my breath, of course. But it's just a little frustrating to be accused of bigotry by people who automatically assume that because I believe X I must be Y and Z. To me, THAT'S what sounds like prejudice, lack of empathy, and intolerance ...

But of course, that's just what a grumpy person would say.
 

---

Posted by Exploding Monkey (Member # 7612) on :
 
You're not wasitng your breath on me at all. When I said I am open-minded, it means just that. I will concider other's remarks no matter how I initially feel about their beliefs (unless of course they're being totally unreasonalbe, i.e. flame fests).

I accept your challange (DRAW SWORDS! ) and will concider your position as well as your opinions on mine as well. Give me some time to think on it. Off the hip, I'd have to say I agree with this statement:

"But it's just a little frustrating to be accused of bigotry by people who automatically assume that because I believe X I must be Y and Z. To me, THAT'S what sounds like prejudice, lack of empathy, and intolerance ..."

I'm an insomniac so I stayed up longer than I should. I've got a long shift to pull tomorrow and am totally fried now. Time for bed.

Blessings, g'nite.
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 

quote:

---

That attacking me for being so "closed-minded" or "stubborn" or "harsh" is a substitute for having no answer to the points I make.

---

Speaking for myself, the reason I've called you both stubborn and harsh has nothing to do with the points themselves -- which, while I disagree with them, I believe are grounded in your personal morality -- but rather the fact that you do indeed come off as stubborn and harsh in everything but your fiction. You're kind of famous for it.

There are of course more diplomatic ways I could have put it. "Straightforward," perhaps, or "brutually honest." I could have said that you've reached your opinions through dint of long self-examination and are therefore highly unlikely to have them changed by criticism.

I did not put it this way, however. Perhaps you might say that my delivery was lacking in some way.

Which is kind of my point.

When you insult homosexuals who're interested in marriage by calling their long-term relationships just a form of "playing house," or say that all Star Trek fans don't do enough reading or fear change, or insinuate that Democrats are working hard to destroy America by undermining its institutions, I am forced to conclude that you are deliberately painting with a big and ugly brush.

Because I do not believe for a second that you would tell KarlEd, who just recently bought a home with his boyfriend, that you think he's "playing house." I don't believe you would contradict anyone who insisted that, no, although they like Star Trek, they'd actually prefer if the characters changed. And so forth. I suspect that you generalize about groups in a far more insulting and derogatory way than you would consider depicting the individuals who make up those groups.

And in this, I find nothing inconsistent with your fiction -- which is all about the individual, and very critical of groups whenever they appear.

If you honestly don't think you come off "stubborn" or "harsh," if you really believe that your critics here (and here I make a distinction between people here and people who've just read a few books, came to the conclusion that you were an atheist cannibal or something, and are shocked to find out otherwise) are concentrating on your issues and not your delivery, I'd be glad to refer you to a few quotes from your essays which have certainly created the opposite impression for many people. To be honest, I have always assumed that you have in your essays cultivated this tone -- but if not, if this is in fact something you're trying to avoid, maybe it's all just down to misunderstandings.

See, while I disagree with you on a number of issues, none of your positions really strike me as that extreme or ridiculous. When I'm taken aback by something you've written in an essay, it's one of those broad, nasty generalizations -- "all liberals hate America," or (as we've seen in this thread) "people who criticize me don't know how to address my points."

Trust me, Scott, I can address your points.

That said, I understand your frustration; if you recall, I was the first person to link to that ridiculous Salon article years ago -- in your defense. You DO get slandered by people with barely-focused, narrow minds who, upon learning that you do not share their opinions on "dogma," suddenly conclude that you're a loud-mouthed bigot. I don't know how you put up with it, actually; it seems like you spend a lot of time being accused of bias by people who are blinded by their own biases.

Now, that's not to say that you're neither stubborn nor harsh. But I think it's safe to say that you're not a close-minded bigot. There's a pretty huge grey area between those two positions, and I think you fit comfortably in there. (On the opposite side of the spectrum, we have shy, retiring, and diplomatic wafflers; you are clearly not of that ilk.)

I know what I'm writing is presumptuous. And so, since I've gone out on a limb already, perhaps I can presume even further by making two suggestions:

1) In your essays, perhaps people would find you less abrasive if you avoided attacks on the "cultural left" or, say, Mac users, and instead concentrated your criticism and your solutions on the problem you're addressing in your article. Frequently, I've found myself reading one of your pieces and thinking, "Hey, this isn't a bad idea," only to hit a line like "and this is exactly the problem with cultural leftists, who although the issue we're discussing here has nothing to do with culture or politics are self-evidently the single greatest threat to the planet." And speaking as a cultural leftist, it feels as if we're going along, hand-in-hand, and then you turn around and sucker-punch me. Whether you feel it's "justifiable" or not, and whether it's part of a larger goal to discredit cultural leftists at any opportunity, let's face it: it's going to make me considerably less charitable towards you. Heck, even prefacing a few of those comments with an "I believe" or "in my opinion" or two might help, if only to make it possible for me to believe that we manage to share the same reality without agreeing on anything.

2) I think you could do worse than to write an article explaining -- in diplomatic non-absolutes, if possible -- why it's possible to be both open-minded and reasonable and, say, believe homosexuality is immoral. I would avoid digressing into criticisms of moral relativism and warnings about the evils of the cultural left, since I'd like to think that your audience for this one, outside the Rhino Times demographic, would be the cultural left itself. Because -- and you're a living example of this -- it IS possible to be compassionate and fair and oppose homosexual marriage, sometimes for some very good reasons. You've written articles critical of homosexual marriage before, and you've written articles critical of advocates of homosexual marriage, but you've never really taken the time to explain to the people who'd most benefit from your example why you've reached the conclusions you have. (Oddly, I think you came the closest in that Salon interview, but her ridiculous framing device and leading questions didn't give you a chance to flesh out your reasons.) I don't for a moment believe that such an article would convince anyone that homosexual marriage is indeed a bad idea -- but, then, that wouldn't be the point of the article; the point would be (and here I think is a way for you to strike right at the heart of what you consider leftist dogma in a way that might be more effective) that someone can be critical of a culture or a behavior without being dogmatic. It would be tempting in such an article to bring up examples of leftist dogma and bias, like our aversion to cowboy hats and country music. But, again, I wouldn't.

These won't stop people from learning about your politics and recoiling as if bitten -- because, let's face it, some people are going to find those opinions odious no matter what you do, and they'll be temporarily disillusioned -- but I think it'll create a powerful example of how it's possible to be firmly opinionated without being hostile to the other side, something that I think leftists need to learn; as it stands, you just prove them "right" by taking the hostile tone you do.
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 

quote:

---

For what it's worth, people who agree with me almost never find me grumpy or extreme.

---

quote:

---

why it's possible to be both open-minded and reasonable and, say, believe homosexuality is immoral.

---

quote:

---

I can attest that no matter how reasonable one is, one will still be called a bigot, and one will still be told what ones "real" motivations are.

---

Oh, absolutely. (I remember that thread.) You'll never reach everyone. But if you assume it's possible to reach anyone, at least that's a start. And you get used to it, I'd imagine; I mean, I know I still smart when someone tells me that I want to destroy America because I support same-sex marriage and the decriminalization of most drugs, but I haven't had as much practice.

[ May 21, 2005, 12:19 PM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
 

---

Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Orson Scott Card:

In my columns, I try to be vivid, entertaining, clear, and, where possible, funny. For what it's worth, people who agree with me almost never find me grumpy or extreme.

...

But of course, that's just what a grumpy person would say.

---

quote:

---

And I think people will no doubt agree that there's nothing wrong with saying that.

---

Some people, sure. Some people probably also believe that MrSquicky causes harm to others just by being MrSquicky. Doesn't mean it's a necessary or appropriate thing to say.

And Zal, just because he yawned, doesn't necessarily agree. Perhaps he finds it fruitless to discuss (again), or because you've expressed similar sentiments before he simply finds himself bored at a one-note symphony. But far be it from me to speak for Zal.

--Pop
 

---

Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
 
Moose,
What's wrong with saying it? Is it inappropriate to express negative opinions of Mormons?
 

---

Posted by Will B (Member # 7931) on :
 
Whoa! The worst thing a Mormon is likely to do to you, as a Mormon, is politely ask if you would have a conversation about God. Or you might see an ad on TV asking you to love your children. These actions hardly constitute harm. (And no, I'm not LDS.)
 

---

Posted by Papa Moose (Member # 1992) on :
 
I didn't say wrong. Seems to me that the reason for saying it is so someone will ask what you mean so you can get on your soapbox again, but that won't seem as bad since someone actually asked you. There are times you remind me a lot of Tom Bailey from Ornery, though his catalyst was the term "demopublican" (or, admittedly, OSC and his "extreme leftist" or "liberal elite"). All of you have deep and interesting thoughts about many things, but at times I tire of hearing the same thing over and over, regardless of whether or not I agree.

However, depending on context, I think it can be wrong. You want to express something negative about Mormonism, or a specific action related to a belief, or the LDS church as a whole, that's one thing. When you say "Mormons," you're then likely generalizing something that simply isn't true, because there isn't much of anything that all Mormons agree on.

--Pop
 

---

Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
 
We all agree babies are tasty. . .
 

---

Posted by Papa Moose (Member # 1992) on :
 
Well, ok, there's that. If that's what MrSquicky was referring to, I take it all back.
 

---

Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
 
I'd like to, perhaps randomly, point out that being Mormon is a choice.
 

---

Posted by Zalmoxis (Member # 2327) on :
 
I understand why Squicky would use the word 'harm.' And, yes, we've all had this discussion on this topic before so, yeah, I don't see it as being fruitful.

However, I was specifically yawning at the flagrantly silly attempt at Mormon baiting. At first I was amused by the Jew/Mormon thing, but then realized that as a cross-ethno-religious comparison, it really isn't as interesting as it appeared to be on the surface and decided not to engage it.
 

---

Posted by Zalmoxis (Member # 2327) on :
 
Or to frame it somewhat positively [and I'm sincere in this re-framing]:

I was a little surprised. I generally expect to find more 'there' there in your posts, Squicky, and was disappointed when I unpacked it.
 

---

Posted by Exploding Monkey (Member # 7612) on :
 
*sighs*

Do I need to school all your sorry @$$es in the art of EMPATHY?!!

Suddenly I'm an expert?

[ May 23, 2005, 03:15 PM: Message edited by: Exploding Monkey ]
 

---

Posted by 0range7Penguin (Member # 7337) on :
 
Exploding Monkey
Please stop swearing I have gone to many forums on the web but this is the only one I frequent due to its cleanliness, opiness, and intelligence. I swear a lot in my everyday life but find this forum to be a nice clean place where I can express my opinions and talk with other intelligent people your swearing, put downs, and attitude I find very frustrating. I am attempting to post this in the nice possible way so please take it too heart and stop sentances like the one above.
And if you won't why don't you find a Forum that finds you entertaining because I don't.
P.S. I am typing this at school and it gets out in five minutes. So I'm not DODGING you if you answer this and I don't respond till tomorrow.
Thanks
 

---

Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
 
What I said was and implied, in my opinion, awful. Were someone to make arguements here in that style, I'd be quick in opposing them. I think that positing that nearly any group of people are harmful by the very nature of belonging to the group speaks strongly of irrational prejudice. However, on the third page of the Salon interview, OSC says:

quote:

---

"I find the comparison between civil rights based on race and supposed new rights being granted for what amounts to deviant behavior to be really kind of ridiculous. There is no comparison. A black as a person does not by being black harm anyone.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by 0range7Penguin:
Exploding Monkey
Please stop swearing I have gone to many forums on the web but this is the only one I frequent due to its cleanliness, opiness, and intelligence.
And if you won't why don't you find a Forum that finds you entertaining because I don't.

---

Okay, you are the second person that's called me on this. I will discontinue it. However, I must point out a couple things:

1. I tried to phrase the few curses I used with dashes and alternate symbols so they were not so blatant. I thought this would be acceptable under certain conditions but apparently it is not. On most forums that frown on cursing, it is acceptable in the way I just explained as long as it is not done too often. So understand where I am coming from here. I was not trying to offend nor entertain just for the sake of doing so. I was trying to lighten the mood slightly which often makes people more receptive to each other.

2. I am a cursing wreck. It’s very natural to me. While even Stephen King calls cursing ‘the language of the uneducated,’ he himself concedes how useful it can be to drive home certain ideas because of it’s shock value. He also advocates that you be true to yourself when writing; be who you are and write from that. I live by this in both my fiction writing and my everyday life. So you have to understand that I don’t curse just for the sake of it. When I use it in places like this (that restrict it) it is often to drive home a point, but also it’s just because that’s who I am. So please, before you insult me try to see things from my perspective. I am not trying to be disrespectful, I’m just being me.

But since you are the second person to mention it, and because I respect your wishes on the matter, I will discontinue.
 

---

Posted by Zalmoxis (Member # 2327) on :
 
Squicky:

No worries. And I can understand and engage with your reasoned explanation much better than the rhetorical stunt.

And I agree with some of TomD's criticism of OSC on the previous page [esp. the bit about painting with a big brush].

But then that's just me and, I suppose that I may be wrong to let classical liberal ideas about reason and civility be the grounds on which I think debate and public discourse should occur. .

-----
In regard to Squicky's actual point. And since we're painting with large brushstrokes....

The difficulty I have with the left is its tendency to not be able to separate their arguments in terms of race, ethnicity, gender and sexuality. Each of those categories contains various issues and grounds for reasoning. The fight for civil rights is not the same as the fight for gay rights, and it is sloppy rhetoric to throw that in the faces of those who oppose sexual-preference-based rights. To suggest that someone who is a "homophobe" must needs be "racist" as well.

The problem I have with the right is that it tends to dismiss those categories, and it does seem to show any (positive) interest at all in those who see those categories as valid.

In terms of the actual "Mormons harm" thing -- the problem is that there is a segment of the left who is as hysterical about religion as the cultural right is about the GLBT community. Who are convinced that Evangelicals [whom I have my own issues with] are hell bent [pun intended?] on creating a theocracy. Of course, the absolutely most annoying thing is the right complaining about and trumpeting and going on and on about the hysterical left. Talk about yawn.
 

---

Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 

quote:

---

Obviously, I disagree. I figured, divorced from name and an acceptable group to hold prejudices about, most everyone else would too.

---

quote:

---

In our culture today, there are a lot of people who use the fundamental Christian doctrine -- to love your neighbor, to forgive all men -- only as a weapon to silence Christians! The effort to hold Christians to this particular standard is very unfair.

---

quote:

---

People tend to cry "Troll! Crucify!" when they aren't sure how to respond.

---