quote:And when someone says the kinds of things I am saying right now, their response is never reasoned argument. Instead they make personal attacks, call for boycotts, or seek to marginalize their opponents. I have seen it myself this week, as my attempts at a reasoned examination and defense of marriage has raised a firestorm among people who count themselves as intellectuals but give no evidence of any ratiocination beyond repeating the slogans of groupthink.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
I'm not calling him names or attacking his atoms, shaking my fist at the heaven's over his existence. In fact, I do respect him as a writer. He's got good points of view when it comes to family, some of them, but...
I don't agree with him about everything. If he's driving me crazy with some logical fallacy I'm not going to NOT say anything about it because it drives me insane and makes my left side ACHE a lot.
I'm not a group thinker by any stretch of the imagination, but I think many of his views on homosexuality are inaccurate, illogical and a bit disrespectful to gays. He's spouting these sort of things to folks who already view gay people in a negative light. He himself may not go around beating up gays, but there are folks who do on the basis to listening to so-called experts like OSC. The issue is bigger than the false concept that homosexuality if allowed will destroyed civilization when there are real things people can be focusing on that erode and hurt marriages and society that barely get any lip service. It's irratating. I wish folks would simply leave gay people alone and focus on other things. Am I boycotting him? Not really. But I don't think I should read any more of the political articles, though the reviews are interesting. (I disagree about Dark Knight, the movie is fine the way it is, and it wasn't just Harvey that was helping to fight against crime in the court of law. Rachel was Assistant DA so one could see why the Joker would want one or both of them gone, or one insane and corrupted because of all the mafia people they busted. I don't think there's anything wrong with choosing to save your love, then realizing that you saved your rival and the White Knight whose out in the forefront fighting crime) But I can't afford to buy any books right now (Especially since I bought the Host and Breaking Dawn, which was naughty, but htey were on sale and they were quite good.) because I have to get a job now and work on that right this second.
Posted by neo-dragon (Member # 7168) on :
Isn't this very thread an indirect personal attack? It doesn't seem to me like the title and initial post are conducive to addressing the issue in question (which there is already at least one thread dedicated to), but instead seem like rabble-rousing against the Card himself.
"What OSC thinks of us"? Who's "us" anyway? It seems to suggest that OSC clumps everyone who disagrees with him into one (negative) category. Thus it implies (by you, not Card) that he lacks respects for anyone who's ever publicly disagreed with him. Which in turn prompts the replies of "Hey, I don't see eye to eye with Card, but I don't fall into that category. How dare he say that about me!" ...Except, he didn't. And it goes down hill from there.
I'm just pointing this out because I've seen it happen before. It doesn't just end up ugly and personal, it usually starts that way.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
I'm not sure OSC is referring to the board here when he mentions a firestorm. He's complaining about the "intellectual elite" which since it's not locally defined otherwise means anyone who is behaving as OSC describes.
Seriously, since I disagree with OSC's reasoned examination (finding other reasoned arguments more convincing) but don't consider myself among the "intellectual elite" (and honestly lacking any personal in depth knowledge about the studies and science that might be relevant), I don't feel attacked by what OSC wrote. I do suspect that he might be missing some of the thoughtful responses to his arguments amid the groupthink noise he evidently perceives, though.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
If you do not do the things said below,
quote: "And when someone says the kinds of things I am saying right now, their response is never reasoned argument. Instead they make personal attacks, call for boycotts, or seek to marginalize their opponents. I have seen it myself this week, as my attempts at a reasoned examination and defense of marriage has raised a firestorm among people who count themselves as intellectuals but give no evidence of any ratiocination beyond repeating the slogans of groupthink."
then you can hardly complain how Mr. Card derides those who do.
I don't think anybody around here wants to be guilty of the things in the statement Tom quoted. If Tom is one of those people, then so far in this thread he is the only one who falls into the group of, "us." I don't think he fits the statement he is quoting btw.
As for Mr Card's mention of "firestorms," none of us can say for certain he was referring to this board. I'm sure Mr. Card gets alot of email through this forum and the other various mediums he sponsors on the internet, as well as newspaper readers who read his column, and those who the readers discuss his words with. I'm not sure what Tom is trying to get at, unless he's determined that Mr. Card hates his guts along with all those other elites described in his quote.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:you can hardly complain how Mr. Card derides those who do
Look carefully at the quote. Card is very explicit about this: the responses to his points are, he says, never reasoned arguments. Rather, he claims that the responses are personal attacks, calls for boycotts, marginalization, etc.
There is no "the people who do this bad thing are the sort of people who do X" here -- not that such a generalization is much of an improvement, but no matter. Rather, it is "the people who criticize me in response to this are the sort of people who do these bad things."
There is no acknowledgment here of rational, polite response to his arguments. In fact, there is the opposite: explicit denial that such responses exist and have ever existed.
It is a position that rejects the possibility of communication.
Posted by neo-dragon (Member # 7168) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:you can hardly complain how Mr. Card derides those who do
Look carefully at the quote. Card is very explicit about this: the responses to his points are, he says, never reasoned arguments. Rather, he claims that the responses are personal attacks, calls for boycotts, marginalization, etc.
There is no "the people who do this bad thing are the sort of people who do X" here -- not that such a generalization is much of an improvement, but no matter. Rather, it is "the people who criticize me in response to this are the sort of people who do these bad things."
Except that your quote is missing where Card defines the group being encompassed by the word "their". As far as I know, he's talking specifically about a certain type of respondent who does always resort to personal attacks and the like. Don't tell me that such people don't exist, or that Card has never been their target.
And I still don't see how this thread is anything but a less than subtle means of saying "Look, Look OSC's a jerk! Let's attack him now."
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:As far as I know, he's talking specifically about a certain type of respondent who does always resort to personal attacks and the like.
You are making excuses for him; there is no support for your theory in his text. If he were talking about a specific sort of respondent, he would -- as a very talented communicator -- say so. I'm completely confident that Card knows exactly what the word "never" means.
quote:And I still don't see how this thread is anything but a less than subtle means of saying "Look, Look OSC's a jerk! Let's attack him now."
You seem to have difficulty reading what people actually write. You've read all kind of potential meanings into things Card didn't actually say; trust me when I say you're doing the same here. That you can't think of another reason for this thread is unfortunate, but not actually my fault.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I'm completely confident that Card knows exactly what the word "never" means.
I'm completely confident that he knows what an antecedent to a pronoun is, too. In this case, it's "the elitists who want to be our overlords."
Posted by Aris Katsaris (Member # 4596) on :
OSC has many times labelled all of us who believe in same-sex marriage as the sworn enemies of his civilization.
And frankly I'm quite in agreement about that. The civilization he supports is not the civilization I support. He supports a civilization founded on Christianity, and I support a civilization founded on secular humanism.
After whole essays where he throws scorn, contempt and insults towards us, and argued for the violent overthrow of any government that legalizes same-sex marriage, he whines about supposed personal attacks. I'd urge him to take a good look at a bloody mirror next time.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
Who and what are the elitists anyway?
What does that MEAN?
I couldn't be less elite. I barely have dirt. I mostly have rabbit fur.
Also, I want a society build on compassion and true understanding.
But I don't know if that will happen for 10,000 years. Would be nice if people looked back and said, "See, back then folks used to judge people on the basis of race, sexuality, gender, religion. We don't do that anymore now."
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
I kinda want to be an overlord
Posted by docmagik (Member # 1131) on :
As long as we're getting hyper-specific about the meaning of Card's word's here, I want proof that Card was, in fact, reffering to Hatrack in his post, and not to the far more substantial posts that have actually happened elsewhere in the blogosphere after Andrew Sullivan linked to a quote from his mormon times article.
That much is plain to anybody who follows politics and realizes there is a world outside of Hatrack. That's the world Card's trying to have an effect on, and that's the world he's talking to.
Seriously, guys, I hate to put it this way, but you're not part of the conversation here. I know it feels like you should be, since you're on the man's forums, talking about what he said. But he's not having your conversation.
He's certainly doing you one better than listening to you--he's giving you a place where you can sound off about what he said unedited and unabridged, so you certainly can't argue he has anything less than total respect for your ideas since he's paying for the bandwith to have it stuck here in cyberspace.
But the conversation he's having, the people he's listening to and the people he's responding to--it just ain't us.
Again, you can argue against his tone, you can argue about his polemic style--that's all fine. But the attempt to associate this with Hatrack--either by expecting his essays to fit into the Hatrack terms of service, or by supposing the comments he makes are directly intended for the citizens of Hatrack--shows a very narrow view of what he's doing here.
As is pretending to be completely ignorant of the rhetorical style of hyperbole, pretending that by saying, "always" or "never" creates a real logical gap that somehow disqualifies what's being said instead of simply being a recognized means of saying something "seems like it's always" or "seems like it's never," or "is practically always" or "is practically never."
Don't get me wrong--I don't fault anybody for jumping to those conclusions. These are really, really emotionally charged topics, and it's completely understandable.
But I think it's okay to stop, take a deep breath, and try to get things back into perspective.
Everybody probably has got plenty to talk about simply regarding Card's views about the world in general without adding the weight of trying to assume he's saying things about any of us individually.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Actually, OSC is right. The majority of criticism of his article has been fairly repugnant, illogical, and of the shrieky variety.
The majority of criticism about his article has not been on Hatrack, mind you.
Tom, by "us," did you mean posters on Hatrack?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Everybody probably has got plenty to talk about simply regarding Card's views about the world in general without adding the weight of trying to assume he's saying things about any of us individually.
I think Card would benefit hugely when writing his polemics if he paused to remember that he's saying things about a number of us individually, even without meaning to. I've made this point to him once or twice.
As an example: I know someone (a non-Hatracker, but an avid fan) who emailed him about the Dark Knight thing just recently, attempting to helpfully correct him. Card's response in his recent column -- which implied that the people who emailed him largely didn't hear the exchange any better than he did, or used the web as their source in the first place, and criticized the filmmakers for (from his perspective) apparently expecting people to resort to "shmoozers on the web" to avoid misinterpreting their dialogue -- struck this person as unnecessarily snide and defensive.
But, see, I'm certain that Card didn't mean it that way; I defended Card to him, in fact. I'm absolutely sure that OSC never gave my acquaintance's feelings a second thought when lashing out against the movie for not saying what he thought it said.
But "he doesn't think of you as real people when broadly insulting your demographic or insisting that the only people who hold your positions are gullible idiots" is a very poor defense. It's a great way of whipping up controversy, but I can't believe -- even after all this time -- that he really wants to be Demosthenes. I'd like to think that Card really wants people, even the ones who don't agree with him, to listen to him and take him seriously. I'd like to think he's not just preaching to the choir, even in his Rhino articles. And to do that effectively, he has to stop "accidentally" impugning everyone who disagrees with him.
quote:Actually, OSC is right. The majority of criticism of his article has been fairly repugnant, illogical, and of the shrieky variety.
Not just the majority, mind you. OSC admits to no extant valid criticism of his articles or observations. Even The Dark Knight is at fault for not being the movie he thought he saw.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: Actually, OSC is right. The majority of criticism of his article has been fairly repugnant, illogical, and of the shrieky variety.
Yeah, but when you've telling a group of people they have a reproductive dysfunction, I can't really blame them for being angry. Reading that article just made me want to swear so much, but why bother?
Except for the fact that his words influence other people and it's not making these issues any better.
Posted by neo-dragon (Member # 7168) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:As far as I know, he's talking specifically about a certain type of respondent who does always resort to personal attacks and the like.
You are making excuses for him; there is no support for your theory in his text. If he were talking about a specific sort of respondent, he would -- as a very talented communicator -- say so. I'm completely confident that Card knows exactly what the word "never" means.
It's not an excuse, or a theory. It's a fact that the quotation you've chosen does not include a description of whom "they" or "their" are referring to. Presumably that came earlier in the text, hence at least some of the context is lost. It has nothing to do with Card's ability to communicate, but rather your ability to provide a quotation with a complete context. The fact that he says "their response..." rather than "the public's response..." or "people's responses..." makes all the the difference in the world. For all I know, he's talking about the type of responses he gets from little green Martians! You obviously copied this quote from somewhere, why can't you go back and find a few preceding lines that would prove you right?
quote:That you can't think of another reason for this thread is unfortunate, but not actually my fault.
Then why don't you excuse my lack of understanding and simply tell me what you were trying to prove or accomplish by making this thread. Don't bother saying that you shouldn't have to, because I really don't think that I'm the only one missing your point here. And even if I am, do it for my sake... please Posted by Flaming Toad on a Stick (Member # 9302) on :
Thank you. The missing antecedent is indeed the line which reads, "the elitists who want to be our overlords". I admit that it's a very vague description, but it's still rather presumptuous to assume he means "us", or even the majority of his detractors.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
As I said re: another article, in which the defense of OSC's comments at that time revolved around his criticism of "Darwinists who want to destroy our culture," this is a singularly poor defense. Arguing that OSC isn't speaking to any of us because none of us are elitist wanna-be overlords, or none of us happen to be the sort of Darwinists who want to destroy our culture (as opposed to all the other Darwinists out there), is more than a little ridiculous; it presumes that the other sort of individual actually exists in any numbers, rather than being just another way of casting aspersions on a larger demographic.
Let's look specifically at his "targets."
quote:Just as Americans who speak the truth to the elitists who want to be our overlords are dismissed as cranks, fanatics, madmen. Supposed defenders of liberty want to pass laws that would destroy their opponents on talk radio. Supposed defenders of tolerance seek to silence any who would express their religious views as part of our political conversation. Unsupported assertions are taken as facts by people who claim to be intellectuals. The edicts of judges, unfounded in law, are worshiped, while they treat democratically enacted laws with contempt. They want to have their way without a breath of dissent; they refuse to admit that anyone who disagrees with them might know something useful.
Who are these people? They're caricatures; they're slanders and misrepresentations of actual positions. Are we seriously going to claim that no individual person should be offended by OSC's remarks because they're aimed at such cartoonish targets? That the insult is broad and inaccurate does not mean that insult is unintended.
(It's worth noting, by the way, that the antecedent of "their" in that snippet is not the overlords, but rather an unnamed, generalized third party that passively dismisses the critics of the overlords. You need merely dismiss OSC's assertion that there are a significant number of elitist would-be overlords to be the "their" he's talking about.)
--------
Let me give you a specific example of why this is a poor defense of OSC's remarks based upon a conversation I overheard just this morning. A student outside our office was pontificating about how weird it was working at the college over the summer, and how he hated having to associate with all the "lazy lard-a**ses who're so old and out of shape that they have to lean one hand on the wall when they pee at the urinal." My co-worker, who overheard this comment, is 185 pounds and in decent shape, although he's been trying hard to shed another ten pounds or so and is sensitive about his "love handles." He's also 31 years old. But, as he observed to me, he does lean one hand against the wall when he urinates. Does that mean he's old and out of shape? Does it mean he's lazy? The kid was, after all, implying causation: that leaning against the wall while peeing is caused by age and ill health and laziness. But if he confronted the kid about it, the student would almost certainly say something like, "Oh, no, I didn't mean you."
If you find yourself having to defend a comment with "Oh, I didn't mean for that to apply to you," it was probably an indefensible comment in the first place.
[ August 25, 2008, 11:52 PM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
Posted by neo-dragon (Member # 7168) on :
Still missing how this isn't about generating negative sentiment against the man rather than refuting his arguments...
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Yeah, I know. I'm hoping you'll figure it out on your own, once you get past your own biases. To be perfectly frank with you, I have difficulty believing that you actually care. Posted by neo-dragon (Member # 7168) on :
quote:Yeah, I know. I'm hoping you'll figure it out on your own,
In other words, the old, "I shouldn't have to tell you" defense that I predicted a few posts ago. Seriously though, I wouldn't keep asking if I didn't care. And now I'm also curious as to what you think my biases are.
Posted by docmagik (Member # 1131) on :
Tom, to be perfectly frank with you, I have a hard time believing you're totally ignorant of the swath being cut through the political blogosphere over the last few weeks involving Orson Scott Card's name attached to phrases like "raving lunatic" and "incapable of rational thought."
Isn't pretending to be ignorant of the group he's actually targeting roughly equivalent to what you're accusing him of doing--pretending to be ignorant of the people who are discussing his arguements rationally?
After reading some of the stuff being written about Card recently, I'm suprised his essay is as restrained as it is. It would be a lot harder for me to show that much restraint if people were devoting that much space to ripping apart my character, having never met me, or to lumping me in with anyone else who dissagreed with them on an issue, the viler the analogy the better.
Seriously, have at the flaws you find in his arguements, but don't pretend that he's created imagined "cartoony" opponents so as to avoid a plethora of rational, reasoned ones. Most of the stuff out there is just laundry lists of labels like "hateful," "homophobe," and "fanatic."
And really don't worry about taking the fall for anything he's saying to those folks.
Again, we are not the people who he's talking to. Card isn't coming here. He's not reading this stuff.
To use your analogy, a Hatracker taking that paragraph personally would be like somebody taking the "resting an arm in the bathroom" criticism personally who's never even entered a public restroom.
Maybe some Hatrackers are guilty of what's described in that paragraph, maybe they're not. But there is absolutely zero reason to believe Card would classify anybody who spent time with his website as people who refuse to believe he "might know something useful."
Believe me, the people who don't think he does know anything useful are real.
But I honestly don't believe you have to take my word for that.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Who are these people? They're caricatures; they're slanders and misrepresentations of actual positions. Are we seriously going to claim that no individual person should be offended by OSC's remarks because they're aimed at such cartoonish targets? That the insult is broad and inaccurate does not mean that insult is unintended.
But Tom, I think those various positions DO exist in individuals, and not just a few. Of course nobody has them ALL, in fact I don't think anybody would actually admit to believing those things, but in reality folks do.
Take the judges in California Mr. Card has taken issue with. Now I don't know these judges personally, so I can't say what their motivations are. But striking down a law sustained by the majority of voters in a state can make a strong case for being undemocratic. Now assuming the judges simply viewed the legislation as unethical, immoral, and therefore unconstitutional one could, with propriety, accuse them of being enemies of democracy.
Though the judges themselves may not believe they are destroying our democracy, in one way, they are.
I personally am of the opinion those judges overstepped their bounds, but I don't KNOW that. I'm just trying to illustrate that those guilty of being intellectual elitist, like many human beings, would fail to identify that characteristic in themselves. Many would vehemently deny believing such things.
I've read no less than four journalists from publications like the NYTs and The New Yorker, all mention that when Alexandr Solzhenitsyn spoke at Harvard, he came with fanfare and accolades, but he left with cold derision. On this point, these journalists agreed with Mr. Card's assessment of Mr. Solzhenitsyn's effect on the American intellectual community.
Tom, of course I agree with you that not everyone who disagrees with things Mr. Card says are intellectual snobs, who refuse correction, and look at everyone else with disdain. I know enough about you to know you're a perfectly warm person. But I don't think Mr. Card feels that way either. It's in the nature of most political rhetoric to address the extreme opposite of one's views. It's boring to read about the evils of moderate thought, except when it's dealing with backing a definite course of action on a pressing issue I suppose.
Well I'm close to rambling if I have not started already, so I better call it a night. I know The Elite vs True American Values is a topic Mr. Card seems to never leave, but then again from his perspective I doubt the problem is being resolved as we speak. I can see how from his perspective the problem seems only to be getting worse.
I think he's got Obama wrong, but I'm willing to let Obama demonstrate that, and hope Mr. Card notices. I think he is smart enough to see it.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Tom, to be perfectly frank with you, I have a hard time believing you're totally ignorant of the swath being cut through the political blogosphere over the last few weeks involving Orson Scott Card's name attached to phrases like "raving lunatic" and "incapable of rational thought."
I don't actually read any political blogs. I've seen links show up on Digg to various OSC articles, of course, with the usual "gee, I used to like the guy, but..." in the comments, but I don't generally follow 'em because I've already read the articles linked.
That said, I'm sure there's lots of raving idiocy out there. Heck, it's not possible to endorse a brand of computer without somebody crawling out of the woodwork to accuse you of being a pedophile; accusing biologists and homosexuals in long-term relationships of conspiring separately to destroy society is probably going to get some reaction. (In fact, all things considered, that I haven't seen more reaction is a little surprising.)
quote:Again, we are not the people who he's talking to. Card isn't coming here. He's not reading this stuff.
Then that's a shame. Because there are real, substantive arguments Card should encounter someday, and he probably won't run into them if he's reading the unmoderated comments section of a random blog to size up his "opposition." It's important to keep this in mind. Just because Dvorak probably gets a lot of hate mail every time he reviews a new device, that doesn't mean he's justified in concluding that no one else has an informed opinion on devices. It means that he shouldn't expect to encounter informed opinions on the open Internet -- but, put like that, it's so self-evident as to be almost tautological.
quote:...assuming the judges simply viewed the legislation as unethical, immoral, and therefore unconstitutional one could, with propriety, accuse them of being enemies of democracy. Though the judges themselves may not believe they are destroying our democracy, in one way, they are.
And that's precisely why it's insulting. (After all, OSC gets understandably upset when someone calls him a homophobe; he does not like it when people guess at his internal motivations.) There are assumptions being made about these judges and their motivations -- without specifically identifying these judges, mind you -- that are meant to imply all sorts of things. Were they only concerned about morality? Maybe they really do hate democracy...?
Of course not. These judges had their own motives, but OSC is content to assume the ones that are least flattering. When applied to a larger group -- like, say, those people who would dare defend those judges -- the problem is only magnified.
quote:But I don't think Mr. Card feels that way either. It's in the nature of most political rhetoric to address the extreme opposite of one's views.
This is a failure of rhetoric. I'll repeat that: this is a failure of rhetoric. It's massively unhealthy to democracy, IMO, and far worse to democracy than "activist judges." It's a form of Unmaking.
OSC wrote a whole book about the dangers of only addressing the political extremes. It had giant mechanical spiders in it.
Posted by docmagik (Member # 1131) on :
Tom, we both know I'm not talking about random kids' LiveJournal pages, don't we?
quote:Because there are real, substantive arguments Card should encounter someday
Are you implying that Card is actively avoiding such, or just that he won't find them outside of Hatrack?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I had to laugh at two or three things in OSC's article. I decided not to get angry at this one, because I just don't see the point in it, and I've found that in the absence of frustrating anger, I'm greatly amused. One, his backhanded swipe at Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert is hysterical. He should be more angry at the MSM, that people have no other option available to them as far as coverage goes, other than to go to shows like theirs for halfway decent coverage. I wanted to rip my hair out watching CNN all night. The had a dozen people that just WOULD NOT SHUT UP! And they kept saying the same things over, and over and over. It was like a brainwashing seminar, or a sleep study since they were so boring, I'm not sure which. Don't be mad at the guy trying to fix things, be mad at the guys who broke it.
Second of all, who the hell are the intellectual elite? I've heard him use that phrase before several times. Who actually calls themselves that? Generally I'd say it's a couple thousand people that the general American public has never seen and couldn't care less about, so why is he giving them more power and influence than they really have? Name names or something. He's just talking about some amorphous blob of people and assigning them positions and for that matter, psychology, and I don't even know who they are except that he uses the exact same language about the entire American Left, so are they all intellectual elitists? Am I to assume based on association, or is there a more refined answer?
Third, I think his sadness over the "miseducation" of America's youth should be more directed at the president a lot of us grew up with than with the intellectual elite that most of us have never seen nor heard of. I grew up with Clinton, but formed most of my modern political views in reaction to Bush. We're not idiots being led around by a comedian.
quote:Take the judges in California Mr. Card has taken issue with. Now I don't know these judges personally, so I can't say what their motivations are. But striking down a law sustained by the majority of voters in a state can make a strong case for being undemocratic. Now assuming the judges simply viewed the legislation as unethical, immoral, and therefore unconstitutional one could, with propriety, accuse them of being enemies of democracy.
Though the judges themselves may not believe they are destroying our democracy, in one way, they are.
I personally am of the opinion those judges overstepped their bounds, but I don't KNOW that. I'm just trying to illustrate that those guilty of being intellectual elitist, like many human beings, would fail to identify that characteristic in themselves. Many would vehemently deny believing such things.
The problem I have with this whole argument is that to argue that the judges are striking down democracy stems from a basic lack of understanding of American (and in this case Californian) government. If tomorrow the people passed a ballot initiative that said Christianity would be the new national religion, and the Supreme Court struck it down, in clear opposition to the majority of the people, would that be the end of Democracy as we know it?
The CA SC struck down that law, as passed by the people, because they viewed it as a violation of the state Constitution, which was created like 120 years ago. If the people get a law passed changing the state constitution to remove the passage that struck down their law, then they can do that, and there won't be a problem. That's how American democracy and American government works.
I'll add at the end here that I DO see how someone could know all that and still think that the wrong decision was made, but, to go from there to the end of democracy as we know it is an outlandish leap.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Tom, we both know I'm not talking about random kids' LiveJournal pages, don't we?
Um....No. *shrug* Like I said, I'm apparently not reading the same sources you are (which doesn't surprise me, since my online reading is confined to just a handful of sites and aggregators.) What, is Neil Gaiman out there ripping OSC a new one or something? And using a silly, illogical argument to do it?
quote:Are you implying that Card is actively avoiding such, or just that he won't find them outside of Hatrack?
I'm saying that he would benefit by encountering sound arguments against his positions, and betrays no sign of having done so; he has, in fact, frequently complained about not being presented with any. I have no idea why he has not encountered them, or recognized them if he has.
Posted by happymann (Member # 9559) on :
Lyrhawn,
Here is an article that OSC wrote about who and what the intellectual elite are. And this article talks about it in a political sense.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Thanks happymann -
On his first article:
quote:"In this class, there will be no content. You will not have to understand anything about the real world. You just have to have all the correct opinions -- which you already know -- and then learn to speak Theoretics fluently and parrot back to the teacher the same empty language that you see here in this course description. Anyone who thinks for himself or disagrees with the teacher will be abused and ridiculed. When you have achieved complete incomprehensibility, with the right attitude, you will pass the course."
Funny, because that sounds a lot like religion, in practice if not in theory.
And I guess I still don't really know who the intellectual elite are. He doesn't seem to have a problem with intellectuals in general, he sort of props them up a bit, but the intellectual elite are the bad ones, and seemingly, they're group of academics in the liberal arts fields. From that, and from the second article, all I can really surmise is that Card hates University professors, but I know it's not that cut and dry. But I'll echo what I said earlier and say: Why is he giving them more power than they really have?
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
Lyrhawn, I have very little university experience and therefore no real opinion on the subject, but OSC is concerned with the effect those professors have on all the people who attend universities. He argues that they quash critical thinking while pretending to teach it, and that this has a significant affect on political thought in the country at large (since so many people attend college, and a college education is often conflated with credibility on various topics including politics).
In his view the "elite" basically dictate the opinions of a much larger segment of society.
Posted by DDDaysh (Member # 9499) on :
Well, he only thinks that of you if that is what you are doing. Who are you defining here as "us"? I certainly didn't see anything in that quote that made me think I was being attacked, though I certainly disagree with him on many issues.
Also, while I'm not sure where you got this, since he's not calling you out by name, then isn't it a case of "If the shoe fits..."?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Also, while I'm not sure where you got this, since he's not calling you out by name, isn't it a case of "If the shoe fits..."?
Part of my very point is that the "if the shoe fits..." defense is offensive on multiple levels.
Posted by stihl1 (Member # 1562) on :
I gotta say, I am always amazed and shocked at the content of this message board, considering that it is filled with Orson Scott Card fans. I am shocked because it's amazing to me that someone who reads Card's books, really reads his books, would come here and be suprised that OSC is who he is in real life, and holds the positions that he does.
While on the one hand I find it refreshing and encouraging that Card's books can draw such a diverse segment of the population who all come here with the variety of opinions and ideas and values. And it is a cool place to find such a variety of opinions and people. It is truly a representation of what the internet does, how it calls people together from all walks of life from around the world.
But what does amaze me is that people come here looking for the Card that they've created in their mind while reading his books, and then are suprised and disappointed when he's not really that person. I have to admit, I've done that as well, I'm fully guilty. It happens though, and I've made a point of not letting it affect my enjoyment and love of his books.
But what really puzzles me is how someone can read a book like "Speaker for the Dead" and be suprised that OSC is such a strong family man. That someone could read "Lost Boys" and be shocked by his family values. Could read the Capitol Stories or the Worthing Saga and not understand his contempt in those books for immoral behavior. Could read "Folk of the Fringe" and not understand his underlying foundation that Christian values play in his life, and his love for the LDS church and their love of the family. How do you read these books where time and time again he stresses the importance of a male figure, a husband, a father in the context of a family. How time and time again he shows how the strength of the family is key in our lives, and that he believes wholeheartedly in that strength. I mean, he almost converted me to the Mormon faith when I read "Lost Boys" alone. His depiction time and time again of the strong family of mother, father and children grounded in a strong faith life is unmistakeable. His continual theme across many books of a strong Christ like figure sacrificing himself for others. It is all these themes that I read in his books that drew me here, and in reading his books I learned quite clearly what kind of a man he was. And it is no suprise to me that he is someone with strong family values that are also grounded in his faith, and that he is a man that closely follows his faith and what it teaches.
But really, how do you read OSC's work and come here suprised that he opposes gay marriage? Or that he backs that up with opinions founded in his faith? Did you really read "Lost Boys", with all he wrote about family, and a mother's role, and a father's role, with the importance of faith in the family, and expect him to support gay marriage? Did you think that a faithful mormon that believes the road to salvation is to bring more souls into his family, would support a marriage betwen two people who can't have children? Did you think that someone who wrote the story of Aran Handully and his condemnation of the promiscuity and degredation and decay of Capitol would be a supporter of gay marriage?
How someone could read his books and not expect him to write things like what he did about marriage is beyond me. Actually, it's not, I can understand that people read into his books what they want and don't see him for the man he is. Or maybe they do and just want to come here to rail against that man, I don't know.
But to come here and be suprised when he writes things as he did in the marriage piece, and to argue against him, sometimes quite strongly and emotionally, does suprise me. And it does suprise me that someone who writes such strongly faithful and family based books draws people to him that often hold the exact opposite opinions and views.
And I don't find it suprising that he doesn't really come here that often to post considering how many people are ready and willing to tell him how he's wrong and rip into him for holding those views. Nor do I find it suprising he wrote what he did in the Ornery American piece.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
I respect him as a family man, the family is important, Heck, I would like to have one.
But I just don't see what gay people and thinking they will erode civilization has to do with upholding the family..
Especially presenting that point of view in a rather... well... not so polite way.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
quote:But the intellectual elite, which should have championed the liberation of Iraq from a genocidal dictator, still excoriates George W. Bush for having done what they keep calling for "someone" to do -- he put a stop to a vile dictatorship that slaughtered hundreds of thousands of innocents.
I do not and have not excoriated Bush for bringing down Saddam. I do blame him for taking on Saddam at the wrong time, without consideration of the consequences, and I said as much loudly and often on this very site for several years. I blame him and his administration for abandoning the battle in Afghanistan too soon, for sabre-rattling and bluster in the UN, for promoting information the intelligence community knew was wrong or unfounded, and worst of all for squandering the massive amount of goodwill we had after 9/11. We were pushed into an unnecessary war with nonexistent followthrough that, while it did bring down a dictator, also served as the best recruitment drive the terrorists could possibly have asked for.
I have to ask, where is this lack of support for the military? This isn't the 70s. American support for the military, even among OSC's hated elite class, has been positive ever since the first Gulf War. There are certainly those who disdain it and the very concept of American force, but from what I can tell the majority of Americans support the soldiers. They just don't support the soldiers' boss right now.
Something that is unclear in OSC's essay: is it possible for intelligent people to think the Iraq war was a dreadful mistake that cost us far more than we gained? Does OSC recognize legitimate disagreement that is not borne of knee-jerk Bush-hating? Or does possession of that belief instantly consign us to the intellectual elite?
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
And I don't find it suprising that he doesn't really come here that often to post considering how many people are ready and willing to tell him how he's wrong and rip into him for holding those views. Nor do I find it suprising he wrote what he did in the Ornery American piece.
I don't think it's his opinion that brings such a reaction, I really don't. It's the way he presents it, dripping with scorn and dismissal, assigning nefarious motivations to SSM proponents that range from selfish children to anti-American manipulators.
It is possible to speak out against gay marriage without insulting everyone who believes in it. There are reasons against it that don't assume the ultimate SSM goal is the destruction of marriage and society. We've heard many of them here, in many arguments. The fact that such a skilled writer and essayist as OSC does not do so, does not bother to do so, can be... painful, is the first word that comes to mind.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Synesthesia: Who and what are the elitists anyway?
What does that MEAN?
I couldn't be less elite. I barely have dirt. I mostly have rabbit fur.
Any attempt that I have seen to get OSC to elucidate on that point draws a vast heap of indiscriminate generalizations that cannot be defended against, because it is never (as far as I have seen), directed at anything resembling an actual person, group, entity, or school of thought or action. He supports his arguments with characterizations that eliminate the possibility that he is talking about real people.
I once confronted him on this problem in a thread about music, and his response, to my ears, came down to "how dare you challenge me, you're obviously one of THEM, who is just pretending not to be." I think what he actually said was, "academics are always full of loving kindness when you challenge their elitist group think." All of which left me with about zero room to answer... which seemed to be the point.
Amazingly, he describes most accurately his OWN behavior when he talks this way.
quote: After reading some of the stuff being written about Card recently, I'm suprised his essay is as restrained as it is. It would be a lot harder for me to show that much restraint if people were devoting that much space to ripping apart my character, having never met me, or to lumping me in with anyone else who dissagreed with them on an issue, the viler the analogy the better.
Seriously, have at the flaws you find in his arguements, but don't pretend that he's created imagined "cartoony" opponents so as to avoid a plethora of rational, reasoned ones. Most of the stuff out there is just laundry lists of labels like "hateful," "homophobe," and "fanatic."
That all doesn't strike you as a teensy bit ironic? HE'S SAYING EVERYONE WHO DISAGREES WITH HIM IS BRAINWASHED. That's way, way, way beyond the pale.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
I say that it's unfair to call Card a fanatic until he does something like, I don't know, advocate the destruction of the government if it allows gays to marry.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
:snort:
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:I once confronted him on this problem in a thread about music, and his response, to my ears, came down to "how dare you challenge me, you're obviously one of THEM, who is just pretending not to be." I think what he actually said was, "academics are always full of loving kindness when you challenge their elitist group think." All of which left me with about zero room to answer... which seemed to be the point.
Where was this thread?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:And that's precisely why it's insulting. (After all, OSC gets understandably upset when someone calls him a homophobe; he does not like it when people guess at his internal motivations.) There are assumptions being made about these judges and their motivations -- without specifically identifying these judges, mind you -- that are meant to imply all sorts of things. Were they only concerned about morality? Maybe they really do hate democracy...?
Of course not. These judges had their own motives, but OSC is content to assume the ones that are least flattering. When applied to a larger group -- like, say, those people who would dare defend those judges -- the problem is only magnified.
I agree with you on this point Tom. I have more to say but I just jumped on to peak at the forums, and I need to run to work.
Posted by Launchywiggin (Member # 9116) on :
Scott, the thread on "Academic music" was this thread, and coincidentally had my very first post, too.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Yes, that's where Orincoro engaged OSC in a debate on academic music.
I don't know that his impression of what happened in that thread is precisely correct, as related above.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
OSC's actual quote:
quote:Academic musicians sneer at the general public for their ignorance and for their devotion to the old stuff all the time. The only time they ever pretend otherwise is when someone writes a critical essay like mine. Then, suddenly, they're open to "all the forms" and they are full of lovingkindness, so how can an ignorant critic possibly accuse them of wanting to exclude the audience.
And then they go write back to sneering at the ignorant yokels who simply don't "get it."
Orincoro's recollection of the quote:
quote: academics are always full of loving kindness when you challenge their elitist group think
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
quote:But to come here and be suprised when he writes things as he did in the marriage piece, and to argue against him, sometimes quite strongly and emotionally, does suprise me. And it does suprise me that someone who writes such strongly faithful and family based books draws people to him that often hold the exact opposite opinions and views.
Keep some surprise in reserve for the revelation that many of the people who disagree with him are also people of faith, who have families, and detest the shamefully narrow definitions some use for "family values".
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
This thread seems to suggest that Tom sees himself as an intellectual elite. I find that rather humorous. Either that, or he his trying to foment opinion based on an out of context quote. I would find that despicable.
I didn't actually see The Dark Knight, but I think that a movie having multiple interpretations is roughly good. A lot of people, for instance, disagreed over what was meant by the last scene in Children of Men.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R:
quote:I once confronted him on this problem in a thread about music, and his response, to my ears, came down to "how dare you challenge me, you're obviously one of THEM, who is just pretending not to be." I think what he actually said was, "academics are always full of loving kindness when you challenge their elitist group think." All of which left me with about zero room to answer... which seemed to be the point.
Where was this thread?
It was alled something like "take another look at academic music." I know quite a lot more now than I did then, so I kind of want to disown my comments, but I thought his reaction was mean spirited. There was a follow-up in his next weekly review that *kind of* apologized for some ignorant comments he made about academic music being dominated by atonality (it isn't, and hasn't been for years and years).
Edit: All things considered Tom, I think my recollection of his message was relatively clear given that I hadn't looked at it since it was an active thread. I even got a little of the wording right. Was there something wrong with my paraphrase, do you think? I admit, the original answer doesn't include groupthink, but it is using the same concept, the same straw-man argument.
quote: quote:But I don't think Mr. Card feels that way either. It's in the nature of most political rhetoric to address the extreme opposite of one's views.
This is a failure of rhetoric. I'll repeat that: this is a failure of rhetoric. It's massively unhealthy to democracy, IMO, and far worse to democracy than "activist judges." It's a form of Unmaking.
OSC wrote a whole book about the dangers of only addressing the political extremes. It had giant mechanical spiders in it.
God, your right, the irony is just overwhelming my senses. It's like rich fudge; I feel fat just smelling it.
[ August 28, 2008, 03:22 AM: Message edited by: Orincoro ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:This thread seems to suggest that Tom sees himself as an intellectual elite.
People keep bringing up this same defense in a variety of different forms. It remains as insufficient and unconvincing as it was a couple posts ago. Posted by Qaz (Member # 10298) on :
If Card thinks that members of this board, in particular, use insults rather than argument (or whatever he said), then members of this board could prove him wrong by using argument rather than insult.
That would be the best possible outcome of this quote here, no matter what was meant by it.
You can claim someone else lacks virtue, or you can exhibit it. No points for figuring out which is most admirable.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:If Card thinks that members of this board, in particular, use insults rather than argument (or whatever he said), then members of this board could prove him wrong by using argument rather than insult.
I would argue that this has been proven repeatedly, using precisely this method. Which virtues do you believe have been lacking?
Posted by swbarnes2 (Member # 10225) on :
quote:Originally posted by pooka:
I didn't actually see The Dark Knight, but I think that a movie having multiple interpretations is roughly good. A lot of people, for instance, disagreed over what was meant by the last scene in Children of Men.
But this isn't the same. This is OSC saying "this movie is great, because the character did X, and not Y". Well, the character didn't do X. He did Y. It's not ambiguous at all. OSC was just wrong. He missed two places in the dialogue where this fact was laid out.
When OSC says "But no, the movie didn't actually say that, they just extrapolated it because of Batman's reaction when he realized he was at the wrong place, about to save the wrong person." he's wrong. There's no extrapolation. The script and dialogue prove everyone else's interpretaion, and disprove his. In two places.
And surely someone somewhere told him that the dialogue proved he was wrong. He's lying about the motivations and thinking of the people who disagree with him.
And that is the crux of the problem.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
swbarnes2, you're committing the same sin. OSC evidently assumed that people saying the addresses were switched had no proof and that they merely guessed/extrapolated this. If he doesn't understand in detail why they are making this claim, he can be wrong without lying (I know that when I was making a similar argument, I did *not* understand all the evidence that showed I was wrong. When I did, I quit making the argument that Batman was intentionally portrayed as trying to save Dent - but I didn't drop the argument that it'd have been better for him to do so).
Saying Card is "lying" is the same as OSC saying people have no proof that he is wrong. It's the least generous interpretation of what other people are saying, and why. OSC could easily be basing his claim on a single point: what people heard Batman say as he was rushing away from the police station. Different people heard different things. There's other relevant evidence but it's not evident that OSC is aware of it, so it's not clear that he is "lying."
Posted by swbarnes2 (Member # 10225) on :
quote:Originally posted by scifibum: swbarnes2, you're committing the same sin. OSC evidently assumed that people saying the addresses were switched had no proof and that they merely guessed/extrapolated this.
Yes, he did. Surely lots of people told him that they did not guess/extrapolate anything, but only listened to what the plain dialogue told them, but he ignored that.
That doesn't count as honest in my book.
quote:If he doesn't understand in detail why they are making this claim,
He'd understand fine if he actually paid attention to someone who told him "the dialogue here and here proves you are wrong, and we are right".
But clearly, he didn't.
quote:he can be wrong without lying
Surely he got at least a dozen people telling him he was wrong, and certainly one of them said that the dialogue, not the reaction on the character's face, was the proof.
I think it's rather extraordinary to believe otherwise.
quote:I know that when I was making a similar argument, I did *not* understand all the evidence that showed I was wrong. When I did, I quit making the argument that Batman was intentionally portrayed as trying to save Dent
You pointing out how you did the honest thing does not help support the idea that OSC has done the same.
quote:Saying Card is "lying" is the same as OSC saying people have no proof that he is wrong.
Technically yes, I have no proof that anyone told him that the dialogue proves his opponants are right, but I think it would be a pretty extraordianry claim to make that not a soul told him so. Certainly, should he happen to read these boards, he would have seen plenty of people arguing just that. 9 out of 10 people would have told him that he misheard, not that the character's facial reaction was the giveaway.
But OSC saying that there's no proof that he's wrong...well, that's provably wrong. It's not even close to being arguable. There's lots of proof. The script, for one. It's not ambiguous in the slightest.
quote:It's the least generous interpretation of what other people are saying, and why.
Sadly, it's the most reasonable.
quote:OSC could easily be basing his claim on a single point: what people heard Batman say as he was rushing away from the police station.
But for his latest column, he had more than one data point to consult, yes? All those e-mails from other people saying "you misheard and misrememebred, the dialogue proves that the addresses were switched", right?
It's the same problem everyone has with most of his columns...for an author who made a big deal about how much empathy his heroes have for others, OSC can't even present honestly and accurately the arguments of people who disagree with him about what happened in a movie.
Posted by DDDaysh (Member # 9499) on :
OMG - are you seriously that bent out of shape about an argument over a movie?? Don't you people have lives? If he was rude about it, then he was rude about it, but it's not THAT big a deal. Besides, just because the argument is happening in print doesn't make it any less of a silly argument over a movie. How many times have you sat around with friends arguing about what a character did or said in a movie? Do you call them all liars when they defend their memories even if more people remember it a different way?
As for Tom - apparently he thinks the "I don't like that argument" statement makes the arguments any less true. I think that's B.S., but anyway... here's another point.
If someone calls me names, I don't go visit them anymore. If you really feel he's calling you names, why the heck are you still here?
Posted by Flaming Toad on a Stick (Member # 9302) on :
Maybe he doesn't come here to visit OSC. I know I don't.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:As for Tom - apparently he thinks the "I don't like that argument" statement makes the arguments any less true.
It's not that I don't like the argument. It's that the argument -- and all the other six hundred permutations of it that I can imagine -- is logically invalid for the reasons I've already explained on this thread.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:If he was rude about it, then he was rude about it, but it's not THAT big a deal.
You're right! It's not the big deal!
Posted by DDDaysh (Member # 9499) on :
You have not proven it logically wrong.
And you didn't respond to the more important part of my post... if you feel like he is insulting you, why do you come back for more?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
trick question much? I'm thinking many of the people here, like me, are not coming back 'for more' and my decision to be here doesn't hinge on Card's opinion of me at all. If it (or anyone else's) did that would be pretty weird because at this point according to his words we're The Enemy for advocating gay marriage.
Plus — quite unlike you, apparently? — the response to people insulting me isn't 'leave immediately regardless as to other ties.' Card isn't why I'm here.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:And you didn't respond to the more important part of my post... if you feel like he is insulting you, why do you come back for more?
That doesn't even make sense. Hatrack is not the source of the insult. OSC isn't a regular poster here. There's no "more" to come back to.
Posted by DDDaysh (Member # 9499) on :
Well, he did set up this website. Even if he isn't a regular poster, this is still his domain. It just seems incredibly stupid to me to constantly subject yourself to something or someone who insults you or makes you angry. I mean, it isn't as if you have to come to Hatrack to read his books. Even if you come to Hatrack, you don't have to read his opinion articles posted here or elsewhere. So why do it? Do you just like trying to feel smarter than him? Do you like trying to feel more righteous? Do you like trying to convince other people he's not a nice guy? I mean seriously, I don't get it. What was the point of the first post? Why come here and say, "Hey, look at what a jerk he is!"?
Posted by rollainm (Member # 8318) on :
quote:Originally posted by DDDaysh: Well, he did set up this website. Even if he isn't a regular poster, this is still his domain. It just seems incredibly stupid to me to constantly subject yourself to something or someone who insults you or makes you angry. I mean, it isn't as if you have to come to Hatrack to read his books. Even if you come to Hatrack, you don't have to read his opinion articles posted here or elsewhere. So why do it? Do you just like trying to feel smarter than him? Do you like trying to feel more righteous? Do you like trying to convince other people he's not a nice guy? I mean seriously, I don't get it. What was the point of the first post? Why come here and say, "Hey, look at what a jerk he is!"?
So...what exactly is motivating you to continue participating in this particular discussion?
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
My thought is this.
I'm going to go out on a limb here and suggest that the vast majority of Card's acclaim comes from his fiction. Most of his fiction writing is very good.
Because of that acclaim, he has something of a soapbox for expressing opinions. Unfortunately, while his fiction is largely very good, his editorials are, to put it politely, not. I think even many people who agree with the underlying sentiments behind some of them might agree with that. He uses a kind of pseudo-stringency to deny ideas he disagrees with, but accepts other editorials and hearsay as evidence for points he approves of. Some of his statements suggest a failure to do even the most basic kind of research that can be done on Google. And he creates straw men to represent points of view he disagrees with, then vilifies everyone under those points of view with a broad brush.
And yet... His fiction writing is generally very good.
If you came upon someone who made grand, sweeping statements you disagreed with, you might feel somewhat cowed to discover that that person had a hundred thousand fans, or a million fans, or ten million fans. You might worry that you would invite hostility by speaking in opposition to the perpetrator of those statements. You might even begin to say "Well, ten million people agree with him; maybe I'm the one who's in the wrong."
I like Ender's Game, Seventh Son, Lovelock, Enchantment, Lost Boys, and many of Card's other works.
But I think on many of the issues Card brings up in World Watch, he's wrong. Sometimes, destructively, hatefully wrong.
I don't want anyone to think I'm part of a mob behind Card's World Watch columns, just because I love his fiction. And I don't want anyone to think that's a requirement for coming here.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
I was unaware that being a fan of an author's works implied agreement with all his political positions.
I enjoy OSC's fiction; I read it. I don't enjoy his political columns; I don't read them. I really don't think I'm the only one.
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
quote:I was unaware that being a fan of an author's works implied agreement with all his political positions.
It doesn't, but if one's only exposure to OSC is his columns and one subsequently asks "Well, what qualifies him to write this-"
I want to be clear that I'm not part of that qualification.
I've stopped reading the columns, by and large, except in as much as looking in when someone else refers to them, because I can usually guess what my reaction will be from the title.
Posted by aragorn64 (Member # 4204) on :
Tom, you aren't still bitter, are you?
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sterling: if one's only exposure to OSC is his columns and one subsequently asks "Well, what qualifies him to write this-"
I have a very hard time believing in the existence of this mythical person.
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
I have a hard time believing that being a Hollywood actor qualifies one to govern California.
EDIT
What are you having difficulty believing: that people would feel a large writing fanbase is a qualification to writing other forms, that people would come upon Card's editorial work before his fiction, or that those who read Card's work might not recognize that his fanbase is strictly limited in the work it acclaims?
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
"I have a very hard time believing in the existence of this mythical person."
Actually, many of the longtime regulars on Ornery and AI Jane have never read his fiction. I think they are in the minority, but I do think that the gap in size between the two groups, those who read his fiction first, versus those who read his columns first, is closing.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Sterling, I'm with you 100% on your first point.
As for the rest, clearly people do think it is a qualification, at least in that it implies a built-in potential readership. "Come across", maybe; think that it is endorsed by his fans, why?
I don't think everyone who liked Battlefield Earth is a Scientologist (or v.v.); why should I (or anyone else) assume that everyone who liked Ender's Game agrees with OSC's politics? That's exceptionally sloppy thinking, and I just don't buy that when you attack OSC's politics or columns that you are really just defending yourself from this mythical mistake that someone might make.
You want to attack OSC's politics or column writing, and I obviously cannot stop you. (I could wish you'd take it elsewhere, but that's another conversation. Mind you, I said take it, not you, before someone jumps on me.) But don't pull this "I'm just making sure no one think I'm endorsing him!" nonsense. Because it just doesn't fly.
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
I wouldn't say it's the only reason, and I regret if it disturbs you. But to some extent (and I recognize, it's a tiny one), I do feel I have some responsibility for Card's work being recognized as popular, and Card himself as famous.
To site your example, no, it's probably not the case that everyone who liked Battlefield Earth is a Scientologist, nor that all Scientologists like BE. But I don't doubt that some people wouldn't have taken an interest in Hubbard's other work had they not been Scientologists, and some people become interested in Scientology because something like BE intrigued them and they decided to look at Dianetics.
I'm not sure I'm quite getting across here. It may well be that only the tiniest of fractions of people actually take readership of an author's work as endorsement of everything else an author says. But a much greater number of people just get that "Whoa, listen to this guy, he's famous!" vibe... That causes people to elect strange people to governorships. Or assume that football players know a lot about beer. Or musicians have profound insights into automobiles.
To make a really ridiculous analogy, one day the CEO of the company that makes the best shoes I've ever worn announces that when he's relaxing, there's nothing better than to put on a pair of his shoes and stomp on kittens. I can stop buying those shoes; either this will have no effect whatsoever, or a lot of people will follow my example, and then the best shoes I've ever worn will stop being made, and a lot of people will have to wear shoes that aren't as good. Or I can continue to wear those shoes but make it clear that the CEO is wrong to stomp on kittens and a lot of people who wear his shoes strongly disagree. But if I do nothing, I'm reasonably sure that somewhere, someone is going to say, "Hmm, I've never tried stomping on kittens before... And this famous guy who makes the great shoes says it's great!" And maybe it's ridiculous, or maybe I have a lower opinion of human nature than I should, but I do feel some responsibility for that.
(And to be clear, to the best of my knowledge, Mr. Card is perfectly kind to kittens.)
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
The only other scifi author whose political opinions I have a passing familiarity with is David Brin. And he holds that the Bush administration is an actively evil, conspiring, bribing, soulless monster of corruption. I think he shows at least as much enmity here as OSC does toward the "intellectual elite."
I don't, however, see a lot of disagreement with his opinions in responses to his blog posts. (I haven't looked all that carefully, actually, but it hasn't jumped out at me - unlike disagreement with OSC.) Nobody seems to bother to say "what? this isn't the Brin I respected."
What's the difference? I don't think it's that Brin has no conservative fans or anyone who disagrees with his view of the Bush administration.
Probably that Brin, as over the top as he is with regard to the Bush administration, has defined his target narrowly. A Republican party member or conservative has no reason to feel attacked, unless they happen to be a Bush crony. Whereas a bunch of people feel attacked by OSC.
(I guess OSC would probably take it as evidence that Brin aligns with the "intellectual elite" and the stranglehold they have on public discourse.)
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:What's the difference? I don't think it's that Brin has no conservative fans or anyone who disagrees with his view of the Bush administration.
Aside from brin narrowing his target, as you noted:
- Internet skews young and progressive - Internet skews liberal - Internet skews towards tolerance of gays - Internet communities, especially political ones, are greatly intolerant of anti-gay talk - Bush has curried large disfavor - The gay-rights agenda has curried favor
Posted by Szymon (Member # 7103) on :
I be a stupid Polish boy I dont speak english and all, but OSC once criticised me as well. I started a very short thread about dialogues in his books. I wrote theyre very unnatural. And he had a go for me. Somebody hug me...
Posted by DDDaysh (Member # 9499) on :
I don't think someone being famous gives their opinions more weight. Look to country music for an example... Willie Nelson is on record as having said 9-11 never happened. People just roll their eyes and say, "Well, that's Willie for ya" and move on with their lives. No one says, "Wow, he writes great music so 9-11 must have been a hoax". Similarly the Dixie Chicks actually lost almost their entire fan base because of their opinions on the world. No one said, "Wow, they think this, I'm going to think it too". Instead, people stopped supporting them (which makes very little sense if you like they're music, but still).
People do take their leads from certain things from what they see society as a whole doing. Sometimes famous people are more easily seen and have a bigger influence. However, few people will drastically change their own opinions just because a famous person says it.
As for why I read this thread... well. I usually don't. Most of the time I see titles about his articles and I just ignore them. Here, though, someone was claiming that I was being insulted. (At least, if he didn't qualify "us", then I have to assume that he intended "us" to mean anyone who would read his thread). I didn't feel insulted by OSC's quote, but I DO feel insulted that someone thinks I need to be included in the people he was talking about. I probably won't read any more of this thread though. It's getting nowhere.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Internet skews liberal
More correctly, the Internet skews libertarian. There's a difference.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sterling:
To site your example, no, it's probably not the case that everyone who liked Battlefield Earth is a Scientologist, nor that all Scientologists like BE. But I don't doubt that some people wouldn't have taken an interest in Hubbard's other work had they not been Scientologists, and some people become interested in Scientology because something like BE intrigued them and they decided to look at Dianetics.
I never realized that Battlefield Earth was more than tangentially related to Scientology by way of the author. Would this be the same as saying that Ender's Game is more than tangentially related to Mormanism? I can see the obvious connections, but I'd be wary of claiming a direct "intent" of recruitment or the conveyance of specific ideology if I wasn't sure.
Art is still art no matter who makes it... although in the case of BE, crap is still crap.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote: think he shows at least as much enmity here as OSC does toward the "intellectual elite."
I don't, however, see a lot of disagreement with his opinions in responses to his blog posts.
That might have something to do with the Bush administration being pretty goldarn awful.
---
I can't think of any honest use of the term "intellectual elite" that doesn't include me. I'm pretty okay with that.
You may or may not like me or what I have to say, but I really doubt anyone here can honestly say that OSC's characterizations of the intellectual elite can be accurately applied to me.
Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
Yes, we're all very impressed with you.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:Internet skews liberal
More correctly, the Internet skews libertarian. There's a difference.
The libertarian percentage in the general population is so small that the tubes can without difficulty do both.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:Originally posted by Puppy: Yes, we're all very impressed with you.
I'm not sure you get what I'm saying.
My whole point is that you don't have to think well of me to realize that OSC's insults are off base when applied to me.
Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
When Card speaks in hyperbole like that, producing a single counterexample misses the point of his statement entirely. Of course he doesn't believe that there is an entire broad class of identical people that includes all liberal educated types, to whom every word of his diatribe can be applied equally well. Trying to prove otherwise by citing a single individual is just weirdly pointless.
So it's an unpersuasive argument that carries the unfortunate baggage of also being self-aggrandizing When the argument falls apart, all that's left is the self-aggrandizement, which feels weirdly out-of-place. Sort of Tyra Banks-y.
I don't post much these days, but I had trouble leaving that one alone I'll now return you to your regularly-scheduled Card-bashing.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
I'm not sure I get where you're seeing self-aggrandizing.
Also, I'm not sure you get my point. People have said "He's not talking about us. He's talking about the 'Intellectual Elite'." I'm pointing out that I am actually part of the 'Intellectual Elite', so he is talking about me.
I'm also pointing out that it's pretty obvious that the things he is saying about me are wrong.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Of course he doesn't believe that there is an entire broad class of identical people that includes all liberal educated types, to whom every word of his diatribe can be applied equally well.
Then he should not write as though he did.
Posted by C3PO the Dragon Slayer (Member # 10416) on :
Maybe if he wrote on a site called "Empathy.org" a different tone would be appropriate, but the column is on Ornery.org. It's his job to be ornery on that column.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote: I'm pointing out that I am actually part of the 'Intellectual Elite', so he is talking about me.
Yeah, I'm pretty sure Pup got that. It was, in fact, pretty central to his point.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
quote:Originally posted by Puppy:
I don't post much these days, but I had trouble leaving that one alone I'll now return you to your regularly-scheduled Card-bashing.
Sorry to diss your dad, but he's smart too, right? So maybe he's one of the elite as well? I don't FEEL elite. But I do dig opera and some occasional foreign movies but not Magnolia or Happiness because they are annoying movies about annoying miserable people who need to STOP being so miserable already.
In fact American Beauty is better than those movies, but one has to admit Lester is a bit immature, and what do they have to complain about? Not much really.
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
Four members of my immediate family are, or were, faculty of colleges or universities.
When Card demonizes "intellectual elites" (or other similar phrases), it's difficult for me to forget that, while he has never met my family, to many, his words would still include them.
Quite frankly, I don't care what his intent was in that regard. That's as kindly as I can put it, and a lot more kindly than some of his rhetoric deserves.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Puppy: When Card speaks in hyperbole like that, producing a single counterexample misses the point of his statement entirely. Of course he doesn't believe that there is an entire broad class of identical people that includes all liberal educated types, to whom every word of his diatribe can be applied equally well. Trying to prove otherwise by citing a single individual is just weirdly pointless.
Yes, it is pointless. Constructing an argument that cannot be answered reasonably is not necessarily a sign that one's argument is the epitome of reason. OSC steeps his diatribes in generalizations so that you get to say this. It changes nothing. "An entire broad class" of people can't answer for themselves (much less be defined intelligibly), and that's exactly why Card addresses them as he does. His arguments are, for this reason, blunt instruments with which he bludgeons people of different faiths, attitudes, and values.
Please don't think for a minute that simply explaining the fallacious quality of the argument somehow excuses it. I have seen you defend him against broad and generalized criticism by saying that his critics can't read his mind. Well, I fail to see why you find this situation so very different. In the OSC universe, apparently, there is only person who is above reproach.
As for "Card bashing," you're being obtuse and cheap, and that doesn't reflect well on either you or OSC. If he claims to invite challenges that are legitimate and well-intentioned, he will find many of those here. But you call it Card Bashing. Very cute, I'm sure.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:OSC steeps his diatribes in generalizations so that you get to say this.
I honestly don't think that Puppy's point here was legitimate. It boils down to "OSC doesn't really mean it when he says 'They never respond with reasoned arguments'." (emphasis is OSC's)
I did actually respond with reasoned arguments, as, if they cared, could a large majority of the "Intellectual Elite". OSC's insults don't fit me, as they don't fit a large majority of a group that I am in many ways a fair representation of.
If OSC is trying to describe a vocal minority of the "Intellectual Elite" with his statements, he's doing a terrible job.
Although, if Puppy regards what has been said as just "OSC bashing" maybe he agrees that there is never any reasoned argument being made. I think that might be more due to his errors in perception than this being absent, however.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:I did actually respond with reasoned arguments, as, if they cared, could a large majority of the "Intellectual Elite". OSC's insults don't fit me, as they don't fit a large majority of a group that I am in many ways a fair representation of.
I missed your arguments. Where are they located?
EDIT: Do you mean your arguments about OSC's points about homosexuals, or your arguments about the intellectual elite not being what OSC says they are?
I'm interested in hearing about the latter...
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
I didn't really make arguments about the latter, although you could tease them out of the APA 1973/74 change on homosexuality thing.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:When Card speaks in hyperbole like that, producing a single counterexample misses the point of his statement entirely...
I'm not sure I understand this defense, given that people are complaining about the hyperbole (and, more appropriately, that the hyperbole is being used to justify some of the later conclusions in the article.) If you concede that the statements are hyperbole, the article falls apart; where, then, does the point remain?
Posted by AchillesHeel (Member # 11736) on :
Why does this just seem to the same dailogue over and over?
"You get angry and confrontational too easy" "No I dont" "See, there it is" "Well your just a smarmy half educated hang on using his position to make himself feel better" "We havent truely dealt with your arguementitive problem, let me tell you whats wrong"
Isnt it a bit dizzying to see words on a screen stay in place and yet they go around and around?
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R:
I'm interested in hearing about the latter...
I've argued before that OSC's generalizations are so completely a part of his own willful misperception of the world around him, that his descriptions and accusations could never really be pinned on any particular human being.
Now to me, that is a sign that his arguments are flawed. It isn't that I can present a "single" example, but that I feel I could present single examples until the end of time. I know his argument is fallacious because this wouldn't matter, his generalizations would be immune to specific evidence, because that's how he seems to want them.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
I've pointed out before that OSC has a current and ongoing dialogue with academia through both experience and acquaintances. I don't think he's talking about things he doesn't know about.
'Willful misperception' is a tricky word to argue against, though. I've no interest in attempting it-- suffice it to say that I believe that OSC is speaking truthfully about things he's thought through carefully. I'm not willing to assign dishonesty to him based on what I've heard from his opponents. Neither am I willing to swallow his arguments whole.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: I've pointed out before that OSC has a current and ongoing dialogue with academia through both experience and acquaintances. I don't think he's talking about things he doesn't know about.
'Willful misperception' is a tricky word to argue against, though. I've no interest in attempting it-- suffice it to say that I believe that OSC is speaking truthfully about things he's thought through carefully. I'm not willing to assign dishonesty to him based on what I've heard from his opponents. Neither am I willing to swallow his arguments whole.
That's more or less my attitude as well. In nearly every view there is some merit. I don't doubt he's been treated badly by different people throughout his life. I myself have reasons to dislike aspects of academics- I've had a teacher sit me down and explain to me why I shouldn't be a composer, but I've had 5 teachers do the opposite, and more importantly, I've had constructive relationships with those people, and I've learned something.
Now, I feel like OSC would look to that one teacher, and say, "aHAH!" Well, if you're going to do that, and use your personal experiences as the basis for sweeping generalizations, then there's really no stopping you. This is why OSC maintains the double speak of "I've got friends who are gay," or "I have known enlightened people in academia, and they're the exception."
That all boils down to perception, and OSC doesn't seem to spend much time considering that his own bearing, his own ego, his ambition, his talent, has created social or professional difficulties for him. He doesn't ever seem to acknowledge that his experiences are his own, and not universal experience. I can relate to that kind of monomania, but I can also recognize it in another.
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
I also get the impression that Mr. Card has chosen to limit his acquaintance and exposure to those who will afirm and reinforce his representations of academia.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:I also get the impression that Mr. Card has chosen to limit his acquaintance and exposure to those who will afirm and reinforce his representations of academia.
Really? How did you come by this impression?
Posted by Amka (Member # 690) on :
As part of his career, I suspect Card deals with a lot of people in the publishing industry, in the movie industry, and the academic industry.
People in power, who make decisions that impact what the American public gets to hear. People who by and large have a liberal arts education.
I suspect he gets a lot more opportunity than most folks to observe how these people act.
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R:
quote:I also get the impression that Mr. Card has chosen to limit his acquaintance and exposure to those who will afirm and reinforce his representations of academia.
Really? How did you come by this impression?
His choosing to teach at SVU, specifically because he felt teaching writing elsewhere was giving power to those whose values he opposed.
And that most of his commentary on academia seems to come either second-hand from acquaintances who feel they've been done wrong by the culture of academia and a narrow range of articles that were written to expose alleged bias and politically correct thinking in academia, rather than first-hand experience with a broad range of sources.
My inference may or may not be correct, but I haven't seen a lot of evidence that would contradict it.
[ September 06, 2008, 05:07 PM: Message edited by: Sterling ]
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Amka: As part of his career, I suspect Card deals with a lot of people in the publishing industry, in the movie industry, and the academic industry.
People in power, who make decisions that impact what the American public gets to hear. People who by and large have a liberal arts education.
I suspect he gets a lot more opportunity than most folks to observe how these people act.
His work as a novelist does not qualify him as an expert on what goes on in the classroom. Furthermore, his experience in business is not the same as that of a teacher or a student, or an administrator. I'm also quite sure that his interactions with the academic world are, as I said, his own, and tuned to reflect the force of his personality.
Let me tell you something- judging only from the way that OSC talks about people in print, I would never want to be someone who disagreed with him in any way that affected my work, in any capacity. I can't know what he's like in all circumstances, but he's someone I would avoid doing business with.
Posted by TL (Member # 8124) on :
Goodness gracious, why?
That seems to me to be an utterly random addition to the conversation. Is it your hope to only ever do business with those in agreement with your social views and values?
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
No. It is my hope to do business with pleasant people. I find him unpleasant. Talented, but unpleasant. Why is that random? It has to do with the business he's in- I don't think he's the type who plays nice, that's all. As someone pointed out, he works in a field that is involved in academia, and he goes very far out of his way to let everyone know how much he hates the field. He's also posted all kinds of things about the publishing and writing industry that were unflattering. His prerogative, but I wouldn't, for that reason, work with him- this is to point out that I may not be the only person who might feel that way.
I work with all kinds of people, and personal beliefs very rarely have to do with working relationships, I find. What does have to do with working relationships is OSC's penchant for hateful, belittling criticisms, in print. It takes a certain kind of person to stake his name to so much public writing full of invective. A person like that would probably be tough to work for, or with.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:Let me tell you something- judging only from the way that OSC talks about people in print, I would never want to be someone who disagreed with him in any way that affected my work, in any capacity.
I've worked with OSC on a couple occasions. I've disagreed with him on a couple occasions in the course of working with him. He's been nothing but professional and generous to me.
So of all the charges that have been levelled here at Scott, this is the one that I can utterly refute.
I've also had the opportunity to observe him in a tense classroom atmosphere, with a class member who was approaching hostility. Scott handled him quite ably, and without belittling or making fun of him. He defused the situation, and managed to allow the disenchanted classmember to keep his dignity. Scott Card is probably one of the most talented teachers I've ever had the opportunity to learn from and work with-- and since my career is closely related to training technical professionals, that's saying something. He is engaging, entertaining, knowledgeable, and gracious.
You don't know what you're missing, Orincoro. I count the time I've spent with Scott Card as perhaps the most enlightening and enjoyable professional experience I've had, ever.
Furthermore, there are few current professional authors who have such a wide mentorship. Scott's Literary Boot Camp is perhaps as well regarded in the speculative fiction field as Odyssey or the Writers of the Future workshop. Not to mention his sponsorship of the Intergalactic Medicine Show which along with Baen's Universe and Writers of the Future takes seriously the field's dependence on developing new talent.
While I understand why you feel the way you do, Orincoro-- and to some extent, it's OSC's fault for being so hard-nosed about a few hot button topics-- you are absolutely wrong about what it's like to work with the man.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
I imagine that Scott does a lot better in situations where 1. he's in a position of authority, and/or 2. he is not being caught off guard. I've seen him challenged at signings, and he handles it fairly ably. OTOH, he wrote somewhere that everyone in a creative writing class in which he was enrolled as a student hated him, because of his harsh criticism of everyone else's work. I think that situation was probably the opposite of when he's at his best. He was not in authority, and he was probably taken aback by the terrible quality of the writing of his fellow students. Just my thoughts.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: While I understand why you feel the way you do, Orincoro-- and to some extent, it's OSC's fault for being so hard-nosed about a few hot button topics-- you are absolutely wrong about what it's like to work with the man.
I'm inclined to believe that, of course. But were you always a student, and never an equal? That's a point of interest I think.
My perspective is of someone who has no intention of meeting him. I wouldn't put myself in that situation because my impression, only from what is in print, of his attitude towards other people. Of course, writing has little to do with one's actual interpersonal diplomacy. But when OSC characterizes not only his feelings towards others, but their supposed feelings towards him, and there are numerous instances in which he does so, they are *so* often negative, its hard to shake the impression.
It was Davis Sedaris who recently wrote that a certain very notable politician, someone whom he had personally castigated and denounced vociferously at dinner parties, came up to him after a book reading and offered to shake hands, praising his work. Sedaris took the hand, and thanked him. I thought that was pretty interesting. Sedaris intentionally left out who this person was, but I think the story touched on something important about institutional acts v. personal human behaviors- how the sum of the professional life of a person can overshadow the fact of that person, as he may be in a moment, or an hour, or in a certain situation.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:But were you always a student, and never an equal?
No.
I've been everyone's equal since I became an adult. There isn't the same power disparity between adult learners and their mentors as exists between younger learners and their teachers.
And the times we disagreed most were not in class; I was not his student; and I'd already had some success in the short fiction market.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
That's a bit disingenuous, you know what I meant, and you just didn't want to say you were only his student.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
I don't understand your complaint. Can you show a bit more clearly how I was disingenous?
Try to use things I've actually said here to construct your argument, rather than fabricating motives for me.
Posted by TL (Member # 8124) on :
I met OSC, and he was as warm and funny and bright as one might hope. He's not an unpleasant man, he's pretty awesome. I don't fully understand why he uses some of the rhetoric he does at times in his columns, and like a lot of hatrackers, that's where I tend to fall into disagreement with him... But I think you're way off-base if you suppose that he's some kind of one-dimensional creature, some kind of unpleasant hag....
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: I don't understand your complaint. Can you show a bit more clearly how I was disingenous?
Saying "I've worked with him," and leaving it at that, when I am talking about working with him in business, not as a student. I get to say I've "worked with" the Kronos Quartet, for example, but I was in a chorus of 100 people in one of their performances, and I spoke to them one time, they don't even know me- as an extreme example of "I've worked with." I understand your affiliation was more extensive than that, but you have shrouded it in a sense of mystery and confidence, and I would love to know why that is. If you don't want me to assign you motivations, perhaps you shouldn't talk as if you want me to believe you know more than you are letting on.
Now, I do think that OSC as a teacher could be an entirely different person from OSC sitting across from you at a desk, and so on. Have you "worked with" him as in work for payment? Have you been a superior, a subordinate, a partner, what? Your answer is disingenuous: saying that you're no one's inferior avoids the point of my question, which I didn't intend to contain such a value judgment. Now I hope you know what I'm asking, and I'd like to know the answer.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by TL: But I think you're way off-base if you suppose that he's some kind of one-dimensional creature, some kind of unpleasant hag....
I can assure you that no, I don't think that. What I said was that I find him unpleasant. He is far from one-dimensional. What I said has to do with his overall character, not his social skills. I would not want to be on the business end of his shotgun barrel, metaphorically speaking, for any reason, most especially if it involved my professional life. That's it. I'd probably like him if I met him, but I've worked with plenty of likable people whom I would rather not work with again. As I've said, and as you've ignored twice, there can be a difference in a person's institutional or professional self, and their personal, social self. The power of anecdote maintains many people's superficial reputations, and destroys the reputations of others undeservedly.
Also, all the people you've disliked in your life probably had their share of friends. We have to know something about the kind of people we ought to avoid, if only for our own sanity.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
"I would not want to be on the business end of his shotgun barrel, metaphorically speaking, for any reason, most especially if it involved my professional life."
I think his choice of moderator says it all. he chose Papa Moose, a pretty conservative Christian, but he's also a non-Mormon. And yes, I do think that their agreement on religious/social issues was a large part of why he chose him. To be fair, Papa was probably the longest-running active participant in the online Hatrack Universe, and was pretty widely-liked. However, I think it goes almost without saying that someone with clearly much more different religious/social views, all other things being equal, would have had a much lesser chance at being selected as Hatrack mod. Make what you will of all that.
Posted by Amka (Member # 690) on :
steven,
Papa Moose is also responsible and has integrity. He is likeable because he was so even handed. They wanted someone they could trust to keep things in balance when they couldn't be there to watch it. I think it has worked out well.
I've worked with Card as a student in a small class. I've worked with his people in organizing parts of an event. I also communicated with him while I was setting up Philoticweb.
The man is generous. He genuinely cares about people. He has integrity.
The things he fights against are things he feels will incrementally make things worse for the individual. Whether you agree with him or not, understand that he is fighting for a better world.
Really guys. This is his personal website. How would you FEEL if you came on your personal site and read this kind of stuff about you. Just think about it for a while.
If anyone is getting personal, it is us.
[ September 08, 2008, 01:42 AM: Message edited by: Amka ]
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
Whatever.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
I agree. Whatever.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
Well, I don't know I want a better world too, but talking about gay people that way just doesn't sit well with me. It isn't right. I don't see the point of talking unkindly about a whole group of people because these things are complex. Plus they ignore the real problems that need to be addressed too.
Plus I haven't called him any names. I just feel angry and hurt reading articles like that so I should stop and memorize Japanese instead.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:Have you "worked with" him as in work for payment?
I'm not sure whether to be offended that you thought I was lying, or offended that you apparently never noticed all my self-promotion.
quote: I would not want to be on the business end of his shotgun barrel, metaphorically speaking, for any reason, most especially if it involved my professional life.
The reality is that OSC is good for people in the speculative fiction business. I pointed this out above, when I said:
quote:there are few current professional authors who have such a wide mentorship. Scott's Literary Boot Camp is perhaps as well regarded in the speculative fiction field as Odyssey or the Writers of the Future workshop. Not to mention his sponsorship of the Intergalactic Medicine Show which along with Baen's Universe and Writers of the Future takes seriously the field's dependence on developing new talent.
OSC does business with people in his field all the time, and the field, and those who are his peers are better for it.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Plus they ignore the real problems that need to be addressed too.
How, exactly, do you know this? Are you privy to their charitable giving? To how they spend their volunteer time?
The most pressing needs in stopping spousal abuse, for example, are not in the public advocacy arena but in the individual giving/helping arena. There's not a big movement to reduce penalties for domestic assault right now. There are a lot of individual people who need individual help because of domestic assault.
Posted by Yozhik (Member # 89) on :
[Orincoro wrote:
quote:Let me tell you something- judging only from the way that OSC talks about people in print, I would never want to be someone who disagreed with him in any way that affected my work, in any capacity.
You asked Scott R, not me, but I'll answer too. I worked for Orson Scott Card a few years ago. My job consisted of reading through a novel manuscript and finding places where OSC had made mistakes in a field of study in which I have expertise. In other words, my job was to be critical of his work and disagree with choices he had made.
It was one of my most enjoyable work experiences ever. I wrote him numerous long e-mails with comments. His responses were gracious, complimentary, and funny. All of my corrections got incorporated in the finished book.
Also, OSC paid me twice as much as we had agreed. Plus I got a very nice acknowledgement in the book.
So that's what it was like to work for OSC.
(As for this thread in general, I really wonder what it was intended to accomplish. Perhaps the thread creator thinks he's Abner Doon or something.) Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee:
quote:Plus they ignore the real problems that need to be addressed too.
How, exactly, do you know this? Are you privy to their charitable giving? To how they spend their volunteer time?
The most pressing needs in stopping spousal abuse, for example, are not in the public advocacy arena but in the individual giving/helping arena. There's not a big movement to reduce penalties for domestic assault right now. There are a lot of individual people who need individual help because of domestic assault.
The other day I was reading an article about domestic abuse. They stated that it is a huge problem. What's worse is family members, friends, sometimes even the church seem to condone it. There is a lot about it that isn't understood, a lot of subtle abusive things that folks don't always see. Especially when it comes to emotional abuse. It doesn't help when there is a lot of support for wife only submission, which just makes things worse. Abuse whether it's an abusive husband, wife, whether children are being abused in the name of discipline is WAY MORE UNHEALTHY to the family and society than gay marriage is. To my knowledge Dobson and people like that don't even talk about abuse as much as they do homosexuality. Worse, extreme folks like Pearl seem to condone it and recommend that a woman totally submit to it. It's disturbing.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:(As for this thread in general, I really wonder what it was intended to accomplish. Perhaps the thread creator thinks he's Abner Doon or something.)
Interesting. What was that comment meant to accomplish?
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Well, I thought it was insightful. And amusing.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
But were you meant to, is the question. Clearly, that some people find a given piece of text interesting or amusing or insightful is not in itself enough motivation for saying things. Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
I don't understand this argument people make, on a lot of topics, that goes like this: "This issue we're discussing isn't as important as this OTHER issue we're not discussing. The fact that YOU'RE not talking about this other issue shows that you have terrible priorities, and are probably secretly in favor of the other issue continuing or getting worse."
We're capable, as a society, of discussing many different problems, on many different levels, and trying to solve them all simultaneously. The fact that there are people being killed in Darfur doesn't mean my wife and I can't have a discussion about what color to paint the children's room. Similarly, the fact that you consider X to be a more serious issue doesn't invalidate an entire discussion about Y.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
But homosexuality IS trivial compared to the larger problems. Homosexuality isn't even a real problem unless people make it out to be. Most gay people work and contribute to society and their gayness doesn't get in the way of their lives unless they are being tormented about it. Besides, homosexuality is just yet another one of those hot topics designed to distract people from things that are much more important and things that are much worse.
Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
quote:Besides, homosexuality is just yet another one of those hot topics designed to distract people from things that are much more important and things that are much worse.
Some politicians might use it that way, but the strategy wouldn't work unless there were a lot of people who were genuinely worried about the issue, who did consider it very important. It's more helpful, in the long run, to address their concerns, rather than dismissing them as a distraction.
Posted by Yozhik (Member # 89) on :
quote:Interesting. What was that comment meant to accomplish?
I'll tell you if you tell me first. Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
quote:Originally posted by Puppy:
quote:Besides, homosexuality is just yet another one of those hot topics designed to distract people from things that are much more important and things that are much worse.
Some politicians might use it that way, but the strategy wouldn't work unless there were a lot of people who were genuinely worried about the issue, who did consider it very important. It's more helpful, in the long run, to address their concerns, rather than dismissing them as a distraction.
I feel like all they are doing in that case is using fear to get people on their side. It has a terrible affect on gay people and how they are treated. If people perceive homosexuals as a threat, there's more likely to be violence and hate, and who needs that anymore? All it's doing is replacing understanding and compassion with fearmongering and the stirrings of unnecessary hate. It just can't happen anymore. The politicians for the most part seem to want to avoid real issues by claiming that homosexuality erodes American families, but that just ignores the stuff that really does hurt families!
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:This issue we're discussing isn't as important as this OTHER issue we're not discussing. The fact that YOU'RE not talking about this other issue shows that you have terrible priorities, and are probably secretly in favor of the other issue continuing or getting worse.
I agree with you, by and large. The only time I think this takes us into uncomfortable territory is when we start talking about partisan politics, where often you do -- as a practical matter -- have to pick and choose your priority. Do you want universal health care, or do you want to ban second-trimester abortion? You can't get both in an American political party. Is it more important to protect the spotted owl or keep same-sex marriage out of our courthouses?
(This isn't a new complaint, by the way. George Washington made this observation.)
--------
quote:Some politicians might use it that way, but the strategy wouldn't work unless there were a lot of people who were genuinely worried about the issue, who did consider it very important.
I'm not sure this is true at all. All this strategy requires is that you have the ability to make people think they care deeply for about four months every four years.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
As a matter of tactics, OSC might wish to consider that he is fighting a lost cause. Acceptance of gay marriage is huge outside of rural areas and, more importantly, among young people. All that needs to be done here is to wait twenty years, and the opposition will be dead, marginalised, or too old for politics. So just what does OSC accomplish by preaching to his equally-elderly, equally-religious choir? When a battle is well and truly lost, you are better off turning your resources to winning a different one.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:Acceptance of gay marriage is huge outside of rural areas
I'd like to see the data on this. Specifically the qualifier "huge."
ETA: Also, a definition of what is meant by "rural."
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Rural: Anywhere that doesn't have huge acceptance of gay marriage. And 'huge' is, of course, the level of acceptance that exists outside of rural areas.
No, seriously. I'm actually going to have to eat my words on this, the data don't support them. I guess I'm an out-of-touch liberal elitist. It would appear that more than half of the American population believes that same-sex sexual relations are wrong. (I assume that, this being so, they would not support gay marriage.) And while the percentage is higher in rural than urban areas, it's not that much higher. I confess I find this result amazing, but there it is. I do note, however, that the percentage does drop considerably, from 80% to ~50%, as the birthdates increase from ~1930 to ~1990. That drop seems pretty significant to me, although perhaps not irreversible, so I'll have to take back my impression of the battle: OSC's cause is not lost. It's just evil.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:It would appear that more than half of the American population believes that same-sex sexual relations are wrong. (I assume that, this being so, they would not support gay marriage.)
Bad assumption, at least if by "support gay marriage" you mean "support civil recognition of marriage for same sex couples with the exact same rights and benefits as male-female couples receive."
Certainly, I'm not saying I'm typical in this regard. But I'm far from unique.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:To my knowledge Dobson and people like that don't even talk about abuse as much as they do homosexuality.
Again, though, there is not a public movement in support of abuse. Public advocacy is not as relevant to the abuse issue as other types of works are.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Puppy:
We're capable, as a society, of discussing many different problems, on many different levels, and trying to solve them all simultaneously. The fact that there are people being killed in Darfur doesn't mean my wife and I can't have a discussion about what color to paint the children's room. Similarly, the fact that you consider X to be a more serious issue doesn't invalidate an entire discussion about Y.
So you're kind of validating this thread then... ok.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
Maybe dragging it from behind close doors into out of the open would help when it comes to abuse of spouses and children. Public accountability would help, as well as not tolerating abuse.
In this article the woman didn't receive any help from family, friends or her church. They all just to her to suck it up and that she had a good man and to simply deal with it. It shouldn't be like that. There should be a lot more support involved and helping people who are abused get out of these situations.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Maybe dragging it from behind close doors into out of the open would help when it comes to abuse of spouses and children.
I don't see how domestic abuse can be said to be behind closed doors. It's out in the open. (Of course, it happens behind closed doors - that's why it's so difficult to fight. But the problem is out in the open.)
quote:In this article the woman didn't receive any help from family, friends or her church. They all just to her to suck it up and that she had a good man and to simply deal with it. It shouldn't be like that.
You're right. It shouldn't be like that. But unless you've got more data than this, you're not even close to supporting your contention.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:It would appear that more than half of the American population believes that same-sex sexual relations are wrong. (I assume that, this being so, they would not support gay marriage.)
As Dag notes, this assumption is not necessarily valid. I know a number of people who believe that same-sex sexual relationships are wrong, but who would still approve of civil recognition of those relationships.
Posted by Nick (Member # 4311) on :
I see no problem with civil recognition of homosexual relationships. The government wouldn't force churches to marry them(the only thing I'm worried about) since it would violate separation of church and state. It wouldn't be substandard to the rights that heterosexuals enjoy. What's the problem?
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: As Dag notes, this assumption is not necessarily valid. I know a number of people who believe that same-sex sexual relationships are wrong, but who would still approve of civil recognition of those relationships.
I suggest that they are not typical; certainly not sufficiently so to invalidate the point I was making about the statistics I found. I do understand that there is no necessary correlation between the two positions, but I think that in practice, they very often are correlated.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:I suggest that they are not typical; certainly not sufficiently so to invalidate the point I was making about the statistics I found.
Support for an amendment banning same-sex marriage polls considerably lower than opposition to same-sex relationships.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Nick: I see no problem with civil recognition of homosexual relationships. The government wouldn't force churches to marry them(the only thing I'm worried about) since it would violate separation of church and state. It wouldn't be substandard to the rights that heterosexuals enjoy. What's the problem?
I would like to know why people are so concerned over this non-possibility. Where in this argument is there even the suggestion that churches ever be forced to marry anyone? As far as I know, a church can refuse to marry anyone it wishes- for any reason. If I'm wrong about that, I'd like to know.
Isn't there a legal, state-recognized use of "marriage" that falls under state laws and regulation? Why would churches ever be forced to perform this civil function? Just because they *can* perform marriages doesn't mean they must perform them... right?
If this is the concern, I'm all for removing the church's involvement in state recognized marriage all together. If people want a church-recognized marriage, they can be married in a church, but isn't legal marriage something that can be done separately by a justice of the peace?
Why all the concern about the state forcing the churches to do anything? Is there really any indication that the state has the right to do so, or that it would even try? I am much more greatly concerned that the churches are attempting to meddle in civil affairs that are outside their realm- involving people who are not necessarily members of any church, like myself.
Posted by Nick (Member # 4311) on :
Whoa there, I wasn't saying I thought it was even a remote possibility that the state could force a church to marry anybody, I was just stating the fact that they can't. I was stating that because that's really the only argument that can be raised in terms of civil unions. I wasn't saying I think it would happen. Maybe I wasn't being clear, but I only brought it up to show how it can't be used as an argument against civil unions because of the separation of church and state.
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: I would like to know why people are so concerned over this non-possibility.
I would like to know why you assumed I was one of those people.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
I would like to know why you assumed that I assumed you were one of those people. And around and around we go.
I am aware that isn't your position, but not everything is about you.
Posted by Nick (Member # 4311) on :
quote: I would like to know why you assumed that I assumed you were one of those people. And around and around we go.
The fact that you asked me specifically where in the thread that "the suggestion that churches ever be forced to marry anyone?" suggests very strongly that you thought I was concerned about it.
quote: I am aware that isn't your position, but not everything is about you.
Please. It's worth noting that I wasn't rude when I responded to your post, and I expect the same courtesy. I hardly think everything is about me.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Nick: Whoa there
Nothing assuming about that... I suppose you weren't trying to be rude. I just didn't like it.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:If this is the concern, I'm all for removing the church's involvement in state recognized marriage all together. If people want a church-recognized marriage, they can be married in a church, but isn't legal marriage something that can be done separately by a justice of the peace?
And you wonder why people have concern about this issue?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Actually, Dag, I'm not sure why you would object to the replacement of state-sponsored marriages with state-sponsored unions. What would you consider problematic about that alternative?
Posted by Nick (Member # 4311) on :
"Whoa there" is hardly more rude than blatantly calling somebody self-centered.
I just didn't want to lumped in with a with a particular group. It was simply a response to your initial reply that had quite an aggressive tone IMO.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Actually, Dag, I'm not sure why you would object to the replacement of state-sponsored marriages with state-sponsored unions. What would you consider problematic about that alternative?
I don't object. In fact, I've advocated for it many times. It is, in fact, my preferred solution.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:I suggest that they are not typical; certainly not sufficiently so to invalidate the point I was making about the statistics I found.
Support for an amendment banning same-sex marriage polls considerably lower than opposition to same-sex relationships.
And how does support for an amendment permitting gay marriage poll?
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee:
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Actually, Dag, I'm not sure why you would object to the replacement of state-sponsored marriages with state-sponsored unions. What would you consider problematic about that alternative?
I don't object. In fact, I've advocated for it many times. It is, in fact, my preferred solution.
I feel rather weird that the idea actually makes me feel a little squeamish.
I don't feel, as Card appears to, that allowing gay people to marry somehow changes or degrades anything about my marriage. But retroactively saying "you're not married in the eyes of the state, you're civil-unioned" makes me uncomfortable. (And the first time someone corrected me when I said "We've been married for ten years" with "You mean, you've been in civil union for ten years, please," I'd probably want to hurt them. And yes, I know that marriage would continue to exist as a religious ceremony, and that scenario isn't likely, but people have a weird way of deciding they're being slighted by quirks of language.)
*Sigh* I guess if that's what it took to bring a resolution to the current, unfair situation, I'd accept it, but I'd have qualms.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
People will still call it married if they want to and people that argue with them will be treated the same way as someone that says "you're not black, your an African American".
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:I don't feel, as Card appears to, that allowing gay people to marry somehow changes or degrades anything about my marriage.
Hmmm... I didn't see this implied in his articles. Can you show where he said that homosexual marriage degrades his own marriage?
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R:
quote:I don't feel, as Card appears to, that allowing gay people to marry somehow changes or degrades anything about my marriage.
Hmmm... I didn't see this implied in his articles. Can you show where he said that homosexual marriage degrades his own marriage?
*blink*
He's said something like that in several articles. I don't even want to look for them, but that was the main idea of them.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:I don't even want to look for them, but that was the main idea of them.
The main idea was that homosexual marriage degraded his marriage to his wife?
Are you sure?
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
He's said pretty explicitly that he believes gay marriage is damaging to the institution of marriage (although I'm paraphrasing it much more nicely) -- it is your contention that he's actually speaking about a building somewhere where the Institute of Marriage is housed?
Posted by swbarnes2 (Member # 10225) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R:
quote:I don't even want to look for them, but that was the main idea of them.
The main idea was that homosexual marriage degraded his marriage to his wife?
Are you sure?
"So if my [gay] friends insist on calling what they do "marriage," they are not turning their relationship into what my wife and I have created, because no court has the power to change what their relationship actually is.
Instead they are attempting to strike a death blow against the well-earned protected status of our, and every other, real marriage.
Yeah, not to mention the line from that article about gays being like children playing dress up.
Urg. My burning stomach...
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
quote:"So if my [gay] friends insist on calling what they do "marriage," they are not turning their relationship into what my wife and I have created, because no court has the power to change what their relationship actually is.
Instead they are attempting to strike a death blow against the well-earned protected status of our, and every other, real marriage.
They steal from me what I treasure most..."
It's interesting, because OSC first says that the gay relationships have an identity that cannot be affected by the courts. But - OSC's marriage apparently has a status that can be stolen, or damaged.
At first glance it looked like OSC was claiming that his marriage could be affected in a way that a homosexual relationship could not be affected. However, he's actually talking about two different things: What the homosexual relationship is, and the status of his marriage. He's *not* talking about the relationship being damaged, but the status of the relationship in society.
It lends an interesting character to the argument - inviting comparison to the exclusive status whites had in society prior to the late 20th century, or the exclusive enfranchisement of men a few decades before that. (I'm pretty sure those traditions were touted by some to be central to the success/stability of American society at the time, and that changing them would be to risk disaster.)
I also was struck by his assertion that his right to have a "marriage" was well-earned. By whom? I'm not sure I understand how this right was earned exclusively by heterosexual couples. Surely he doesn't mean that he and his wife personally earned the right to have a marriage, in some way that people with a committed homosexual relationship can not. (?) The article also contains, in prior paragraphs, the assertion that it's easier for men to get along with other men than to get along with women, so I guess it's possible that OSC thinks homosexual partners have it easy compared to married people.
I also think it'd be nice to go ahead and take the state out of "marriage" altogether, and have the state perform civil unions between any two consenting adults. However, I think OSC and others would still perceive that as a loss of status: after all, they'd be losing the exclusive governmental sanction of THEIR form of marriage. So it's not going to be an easy solution.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Thanks for the explanation. I don't believe that is what Card is saying, but I understand why you do. I think it's closer to what scifibum says here:
quote: He's *not* talking about the relationship being damaged, but the status of the relationship in society.
I don't think that Card is explicitly stating that his marriage is damaged or weakened by SSM.
quote: I'm not sure I understand how this right was earned exclusively by heterosexual couples.
He explains his reasoning well enough in "Marriage is Hard to Do," and "Civilization is Rooted in Reproductive Society."
quote:The article also contains, in prior paragraphs, the assertion that it's easier for men to get along with other men than to get along with women, so I guess it's possible that OSC thinks homosexual partners have it easy compared to married people.
Does it? Where? I'm not seeing this assertion.
I see this:
quote:Men, after all, know what men like far better than women do; women know how women think and feel far better than men do
I don't think your assertion and his mean the same.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Nick: "Whoa there" is hardly more rude than blatantly calling somebody self-centered.
I just didn't want to lumped in with a with a particular group. It was simply a response to your initial reply that had quite an aggressive tone IMO.
See, if I was going to blatantly call you self centered I would blatantly say: "you are self-centered." So lets just dispense with it, ok? Since you're not one of those people, and we both know it, there's nothing to worry about.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee:
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Actually, Dag, I'm not sure why you would object to the replacement of state-sponsored marriages with state-sponsored unions. What would you consider problematic about that alternative?
I don't object. In fact, I've advocated for it many times. It is, in fact, my preferred solution.
I'm confused about your position Dag. What about my suggestion was likely to concern people... or are you simply pointing out that we share a position that is of concern to people? Was there something in my proposal that went to far to be acceptable?
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R:
quote:Men, after all, know what men like far better than women do; women know how women think and feel far better than men do
I don't think your assertion and his mean the same.
I think it does. Especially since... well. Every man and woman is different. Individuals. I think gay relationships are probably a LOT harder than straight relationships on some levels.
This is because sometimes family and society doesn't approve and is harsh.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R:
quote:The article also contains, in prior paragraphs, the assertion that it's easier for men to get along with other men than to get along with women, so I guess it's possible that OSC thinks homosexual partners have it easy compared to married people.
Does it? Where? I'm not seeing this assertion.
I see this:
quote:Men, after all, know what men like far better than women do; women know how women think and feel far better than men do
I don't think your assertion and his mean the same.
In the previous paragraph:
"Men and women, from childhood on, have very different biological and social imperatives. They are naturally disposed to different reproductive strategies; men are (on average) larger and stronger; the relative levels of various hormones, the difference in the rate of maturity, and many other factors make it far, far easier for women to get along with other women and men to get along with men."
I think it's fairly clear that he is claiming that it's easier for people of the same sex to get along than people of the opposite sex.
The extrapolation that this might mean homosexual couples have it easier (in the relationship department) than opposite sex couples was only my speculation on OSC's reasoning. I wasn't making the assertion but rather speculating that OSC might hold such a belief.
I'm in total agreement that marriage is hard to do, but I would say that the hard part is making another individual such a close and integral part of one's daily life, finances, and decision making process - and those challenges have little to do with gender, or sex*. I would have at least as hard a time setting up a marriage-like arrangement with a male buddy of mine as I have had being married to my wife.
*there's the major challenge of monogamy, but that is presumably a precondition of most same sex marriages.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Thank you for your explanation, scifibum.
Posted by Nick (Member # 4311) on :
Fair enough Orincoro, no hard feelings then.
Posted by Earendil18 (Member # 3180) on :
quote:Originally posted by scifibum:
quote:Originally posted by Scott R:
quote:The article also contains, in prior paragraphs, the assertion that it's easier for men to get along with other men than to get along with women, so I guess it's possible that OSC thinks homosexual partners have it easy compared to married people.
Does it? Where? I'm not seeing this assertion.
I see this:
quote:Men, after all, know what men like far better than women do; women know how women think and feel far better than men do
I don't think your assertion and his mean the same.
In the previous paragraph:
"Men and women, from childhood on, have very different biological and social imperatives. They are naturally disposed to different reproductive strategies; men are (on average) larger and stronger; the relative levels of various hormones, the difference in the rate of maturity, and many other factors make it far, far easier for women to get along with other women and men to get along with men."
I think it's fairly clear that he is claiming that it's easier for people of the same sex to get along than people of the opposite sex.
Is Card asserting that gay men have the same social/biological imperatives as straight men?
Gay men and women "from childhood" on, usually (not always) exhibit childhood gender nonconforming behavior, not to mention the almost universal feeling of "being different from other boys/girls." This in turn relates to the studies showing gay men's brains are wired differently from straight men.
Some theories do suggest that since the onus of reproduction and childrearing doesn't exist, gay men and women have more time to focus their energies on learning, creating, and sharing ala Da Vinci, Walt Whitman, etc.
Whether it's easier or not has no bearing on the validity of the union other than "hmph, they have it easier."
Posted by Orson Scott Card (Member # 209) on :
Hatrack is a rational community. Since my characterization does not describe comments on Hatrack, I think it should be obvious I was not speaking of Hatrack. I wonder why Tom took it personally and made the specious claim that it referred to "us," meaning those on Hatrack who like to disagree with everything I say.
We have a thick file-folder of death threats, curses, the most vile and scurrilous condemnations - and all because I made accurate statements about the social foundations of marriage and what is known, scientifically, about homosexuality (which isn't much). On other forums the poison and hate and vitriol make it obvious that civilized discussion is simply not possible with these people.
But Hatrack is a community where we DO remain civil. So it's puzzling that Tom would assume I spoke about anything going on HERE.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Since my characterization does not describe comments on Hatrack, I think it should be obvious I was not speaking of Hatrack. I wonder why Tom took it personally and made the specious claim that it referred to "us," meaning those on Hatrack who like to disagree with everything I say.
See, that's exactly the problem. When you make generalizations like these, it's not always clear which group you're talking about. For example, your version of "us" includes only those people who like to disagree with everything you say. That would not be what I meant by "us," of course.
quote:So it's puzzling that Tom would assume I spoke about anything going on HERE.
For my part, I think it's puzzling that you don't speak about anything going on here, and prefer to address the weakest and most vile arguments of the weakest, vilest people who oppose your position as if those were the only opposition. You made the argument in Empire that it was only by recognizing the essential worthiness of the opposition's positions that reasonable compromises could be reached; the alternative is -- and I agree with this -- ultimately demonization, alienation and open hostility.
There is a whole community here of people who've disagreed with you in rational, sensible ways, and have made rational, sensible arguments against many of your points. You have never, in all the years I've been reading your articles, acknowledged that these arguments exist, or even that it's possible to hold opinions similar to the -- apparently quite small -- groups you choose to insult without sharing the traits of those groups.
And then you complain about how no one ever presents you with rational, sensible arguments.
In other words, too often it seems to me that you're shooting fish in a barrel while complaining that fish are just too easy to shoot. It's not only insulting to the fish; over the long run, you train yourself only to shoot at barrels.
This feels like Unmaking to me. Why not acknowledge the stronger arguments, instead of picking off the low-hanging fruit? Why not recognize that people are capable of having civil disagreements on this and other issues, instead of implying otherwise? It would make a persuasive case more difficult, sure, but it would also make that case stronger.
--------
I came back to this post to say something else. I don't doubt that people have often contacted you and your family to say vile things about and to you. I'm sorry that's happened. You don't deserve it. (In fact, you'll recall I have repeatedly defended you from charges of bigotry and homophobia both here and elsewhere.) But I don't think you do yourself any favors by saying that it's "all because <you> made accurate statements..."
I know you're not deaf to your tone, and that you know tone matters. It's possible to observe -- for example -- that black men are disproportionately arrested for violent crimes in ways that are inoffensive, offensive to black men, and offensive to the establishment; merely wording the same statement differently, or presenting different supporting examples, you can turn your argument into an insult to or defense of black youth. Leaving aside the question of whether everything you've said is accurate, then, it's difficult to ignore that you've frequently chosen to write your essays in a tone that's pitched to excite both extremes -- and, in particular, that implies the other side of the argument is both intellectually dishonest and ultimately selfishly vapid.
This makes people angry. I know at least two people who have refused to read anything you've written since you accused homosexual couples of "playing house." They never sent you any angry email or slandered you across the Internet, but they decided that they weren't interested in paying for your work until you someday apologized for an essay that, in their opinion, disrespected their long-term relationships. You've said in a recent article that you believe same-sex marriage threatens the foundations of something you find sacred; you, by implying that my friends' long-term, committed relationships were just toy marriages, insulted the bedrock of their lives in precisely the same way.
These friends of mine are people with whom civilized conversation is possible. But they won't read your stuff and won't come to Hatrack because they don't think civilized conversation is possible with you, based on how you've presented yourself.
Posted by mungagungadin (Member # 11746) on :
eeeep.
Well, TD, I observed that OSC is a bigot because his position is against Church's historical support for equal protection under the law, for separation of moral and civil law, and regardless of how often Alma had asked or if he had lived today, I think I have faith in this country that Mosiah will still rightly tell him No. OSC's position is bigotted and hypocritical in my opinion because he is capable of assessing those background facts better than the average bear and chooses to twist them according to the churches' and (The Church's) "Alma" position today, which = "Give unequal protection according to our moral law!"
Alma saw the right of it (after Mosiah told him No and God made it clear how to separate) Mosiah was correct, the early church leaders were correct, and OSC chooses otherwise.
I agree with Tom: OSC's entire post is based on the premise that gay marriage is an attack on heterosexual reproductive security. I do not see where this has been shown.
I also note that the experiment has been run in several European countries, where various civil-union-ish arrangements have existed for up to twenty years, without any immediately obvious bad effect.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Ack, munga, do you mind? It's rare enough that OSC descends to discussion with us mere mortals, without you giving him every excuse to go away again by calling him a bigot. As much as I dislike it, there really are reasons he stays away from this forum, and you're being a textbook example. And grounding your insults in your understanding of Mormon doctrine is not a help, I assure you.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:Originally posted by mungagungadin: eeeep.
Well, TD, I observed that OSC is a bigot because his position is against Church's historical support for equal protection under the law, for separation of moral and civil law, and regardless of how often Alma had asked or if he had lived today, I think I have faith in this country that Mosiah will still rightly tell him No. OSC's position is bigotted and hypocritical in my opinion because he is capable of assessing those background facts better than the average bear and chooses to twist them according to the churches' and (The Church's) "Alma" position today, which = "Give unequal protection according to our moral law!"
Alma saw the right of it (after Mosiah told him No and God made it clear how to separate) Mosiah was correct, the early church leaders were correct, and OSC chooses otherwise.
To clarify, I think, what Munga is talking about is a passage from the book of Mormon. The setup is that Alma, a prophet, and head of the newly organized church, is confronted with some wicked-doers. He's conflicted with what to do with them-- so he brings them to Mosiah, the king, whose position had previously been responsible for the religious life of his subjects.
Mosiah sends the prisoners back to Alma with little or no explanation-- basically saying, "I judge them not."
Alma does the whole praying and fasting thing, and God then reveals that the most the head of the Church can do with sinners who apparently haven't broken any laws is to disfellowship/excommunicate them from the religious community.
I think this is what Munga is basing his arguments on. Of course, this argument ignores the fact that the government of the Nephites was enormously impacted by their religious beliefs. (One of which was that the "law could have no power over a man for his beliefs" only his actions)
While the Nephite church and state were tentatively separate, the laws were unquestionably influenced to a high degree by the prophets.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:To clarify, I think, what Munga is talking about is a passage from the book of Mormon. The setup is that Alma, a prophet, and head of the newly organized church, is confronted with some wicked-doers. He's conflicted with what to do with them-- so he brings them to Mosiah, the king, whose position had previously been responsible for the religious life of his subjects.
Mosiah sends the prisoners back to Alma with little or no explanation-- basically saying, "I judge them not."
Gee, that sounds awfully familiar.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
I was hoping Munga would explain her version of what this means to Mormon doctrine. But if she doesn't want to, I guess that's okay.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote: This feels like Unmaking to me. Why not acknowledge the stronger arguments, instead of picking off the low-hanging fruit? Why not recognize that people are capable of having civil disagreements on this and other issues, instead of implying otherwise? It would make a persuasive case more difficult, sure, but it would also make that case stronger.
Maybe, like the GOP thinks it's doing, OSC thinks this style of rhetoric, using only the dialectic of total opposition, is somehow going to "save America." I mean, that's what I'd answer if I had to come up with an answer that didn't involve the words "lazy" or "dishonest." There might be other answers, but I'm not sure what they are.
Posted by foundling (Member # 6348) on :
You find yourself with an opportunity to talk to someone you obviously have some pretty passionate opinions about, and whom you obviously disagree with and don't understand... and that's the best you can do? Dont' squawk about a lack of respect shown to you if you can't show respect to others.
Toms post was, in my opinion, very respectful. Might not have been worshipful, but it was at least respectful. You could try learning from that.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
You could try knowing who you're talking to. I don't expect any respect from OSC, and I don't get any. If you think what I said was disrespectful, that's really ok with me.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Well, you did call him lazy and dishonest. That's not really a subjective thing on the disrespectful/respectful scale, Orincoro. So there's really no need to be coy like you're being.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
quote: I wonder why Tom took it personally and made the specious claim that it referred to "us," meaning those on Hatrack who like to disagree with everything I say.
That's kind of an example, sir.
You decided what Tom meant by "us" - apparently a class of people who enjoy gainsaying your every utterance for fun - and you dismissed him as being part of that class. I know you know what a straw man argument is, so I'm forced to assume that you believe anyone disagreeing with you on this subject is part of that class. Which, frankly, proves the point of the thread.
If anything, the bulk of the complaints about you in these threads has not necessarily been about your arguments - although there's certainly been plenty of that - but about the way you present them. I think it's safe to say that most Hatrackers enjoy and appreciate your work, but for some of us the condescension perceived in some of your essays is hugely disappointing (largely because we enjoy your fiction so much, in fact).
I'm curious: in your opinion, are there any rational arguments for homosexual marriage?
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Well, you did call him lazy and dishonest. That's not really a subjective thing on the disrespectful/respectful scale, Orincoro. So there's really no need to be coy like you're being.
I feel this is a frequent occurrence. If I wished to call OSC lazy and dishonest, I would do so. What I wrote was not that. It was not that for a reason. I wanted to make clear that these were the explanations that leapt to my mind, but they were not the only ones. I clearly said first that it may be that OSC had entirely different motivations for his words, which would mean he was not being lazy, and he was at least trying to be honest, in his way. I acknowledge that possibility- therefore I have not simply called him lazy and dishonest, only pointed out that these would be my explanations if I didn't know there were probably better ones.
Three posts, and what I said was my personal suspicion becomes my accusation. Lovely reading comprehension.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Oh, no, I got the nuance you were typing, Orincoro. I just didn't believe it was sincere.
In my experience, if someone says something repeatedly like, "Now I don't necessarily mean you, but when someone does something like x and y, I think z," eventually the meaning is clear.
But I'll play your game: what do you think of (by your description) the GOP style of rhetoric? You say they believe they're trying to save the country, but what do you think about it?
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Well, I do really believe that they believe that they are saving America. I'd be willing to assign that same motivation to OSC, as I do not know him to be lazy or dishonest in any very purposeful way. For instance, I don't think he lies to get what he wants, not directly.
It's a complicated question because I think the desires represented by the GOP are reactions to an image of "American Life" that is, in great part, a work of wishful fiction. Their wishes to maintain or restore some mode of government or lifestyle that they believe best represents the America that they love is admirable, except for the problem I see, which is that they pursue a goal which is illusory. So I find the rhetoric of the GOP to be rather full of wishful fiction. I see it as spoken from the mouths of people who *want* to be part of the world they describe as "their own," but I think that every person that bases his politics on the idea of that imagined world, the conservative world that works like clockwork, is ignoring some very basic facts about his own life. The need to be "conservative," represents an opposition to reality: the need to put things "the way they should be," when they have never been that way, and refusing at once to either come up with practical solutions for ongoing problems, or to accept the facts of a changing world in which people will be expected to adapt, and not be allowed to stagnate.
Now, I personally think the rhetoric of the democratic party is just a slight bit better. It still has all the same problems- it depends on convincing people, first and foremost, that they have every right and privilege to expect that they can continue always to live the way they do, when the facts suggest that this will never be the case. I would like to see a party that faced the fact of change, rather than simply embracing "change" as its motto, because the kind of "change" Obama is talking about isn't the kind of change that will be forced on people by circumstance, no matter what they do. We need a culture that is more willing to face changing circumstances, and not spending its time sustaining itself in the very short term (ie, by being dependent on foreign oil), while wasting a valuable opportunity to adapt to a new world. This is just how empires die- decadence. And both parties ultimately represent the same position on that.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Both parties ultimately represent the same in terms of bribing the people with their own money.
If I had to choose a major difference between them it's just that one has a better grasp of social and physical sciences.
:/
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
I'll take it!
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: See, that's exactly the problem...
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
When the argument falls apart, all that's left is the self-aggrandizement, which feels weirdly out-of-place. Sort of Tyra Banks-y.![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)