Okay...did anyone else know about this? This is the first I've heard of it. I'd have thought OSC would post something regarding it, but I guess not.
Here's a quote from the source, for those too lazy to click the link:
quote:Since last year, DC Comics has been publishing a weekly continuity-free series of Batman tales via the DC Comics app, called Batman: Legends of the Dark Knight. Featuring A-list comic book creators, the goal is to create an anthology-style collection of Batman stories that are accessible to anyone. With the release of Man of Steel impending, DC is finally giving Superman the same treatment.
Debuting on April 29, the first digital chapter of Adventures of Superman will feature a story by Orson Scott Card and Aaron Johnston with art by the wonderful Chris Sprouse and Karl Story on inks -- a team that will continue onto the second chapter a week later. The third chapter will be by Jeff Parker and Chris Samnee; this one tells the tale of Superman's first encounter with the menace of arch enemy Lex Luthor.
Adventures of Superman will be getting print collections similar to DC's other digital-first series, collecting the digital chapters in groups of three. The first print issue will feature a regular cover by Bryan Hitch and an utterly gorgeous variant by Chris Samnee and colorist Matthew Wilson, which you can see below.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Thanks for posting this (especially the quote, as I -am- too lazy to click)...I had no idea!
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
I will probably check that out, I think Mr. Card has a good grasp of what makes Superman work.
Posted by AchillesHeel (Member # 11736) on :
His take on Iron Man was certainly refreshing, maybe he can find a new angle to play the boy scout.
From the moment he crashlanded in his little pod, baby Kal-El was analyzing everything. When the two aliens approached, he quickly ascertained that their biologies were compatible, but that he'd need to demonstrate his usefulness in order to be accepted among them. So an accident was arranged. Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
I love well written continuity free comics. I will be looking forward to it.
Posted by AchillesHeel (Member # 11736) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stephan: I love well written continuity free comics. I will be looking forward to it.
Have you read Brian Azzarello's Joker?
The art is lusciously gruesome and defined, the story is very far out of the norm for Batman books. Of my self-contained graphic novels collection it falls just behind The Dark Knight Returns.
The same team made a book called Luthor but I have some polarizing opinions about the artists... choices in detailing. The story is top notch though, lets you get inside of Lex Luthor's head and possibly why he needs (not wants) to destroy Supes.
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: From the moment he crashlanded in his little pod, baby Kal-El was analyzing everything. When the two aliens approached, he quickly ascertained that their biologies were compatible, but that he'd need to demonstrate his usefulness in order to be accepted among them. So an accident was arranged.
LOL
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
So many authors are going in for "graphic novels" these days! (That's a classy way of saying comic books.)
Posted by AchillesHeel (Member # 11736) on :
I am a comic book nerd, in case you need some help with the average lingo here you go.
Comic: single issue. Arc: typically six issue story-line within an ongoing monthly title. Trade Paper Back: a collected arc printed in one bound book, without advertisements and perhaps some extras from the writer and or artists in the back. While uncommon some do warrant a hard cover. Graphic Novel: a longer self contained story typically printed in its complete form only, but some are released in three to four issues prior to the trade paper back version.
When I say graphic novel, I'm not trying to be fancy or lessen the shame some might think I should feel for reading what they never have but consider to be for children.
If you think "authors" are only recently writing classy comic books you don't seem to have payed attention to comics for a long long time. Why even famous author of real books, Niel Gaiman found much of his early success in writing for Batman and Sandman, he even created a classy comic book called Books of Magic that most of his fans believe to be the original Harry Potter.
Posted by kacard (Member # 200) on :
Thanks Jeff, for beating us to the punch It's on the home page now. I appreciate the nudge.
Posted by Foust (Member # 3043) on :
I wonder if this version of Superman will feature benevolant white people going out of their way to not kill brown people.
(Like his Iron Man story did)
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: So many authors are going in for "graphic novels" these days! (That's a classy way of saying comic books.)
Which we over in our corner over here simply like to call "quaint backwards manga".
A lot of people I talk to who are heavily into comics seem to regularly dislike OSC's Ironman though, any ideas as to why? As I haven't read it and make it a regular habit to buy OSC's works (Or get Tom to buy it for me ).
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
The OSC take on Ultimate Iron Man came at the character from a few angles that I think got away from the core appeal of the character. If you contrast OSC's Iron Man (in the Ultimate universe) with Matt Fraction's take on the non-Ultimate version (which I consider to be the definitive modern Iron Man), you'll see some enormous tonal differences.
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
Didn't OSC make comments in the past that sounded like he looks down on authors that write Star Trek and Star Wars type novels? I am curious how writing for Iron Man or Superman is different.
Posted by AchillesHeel (Member # 11736) on :
quote: A lot of people I talk to who are heavily into comics seem to regularly dislike OSC's Ironman though, any ideas as to why? As I haven't read it and make it a regular habit to buy OSC's works (Or get Tom to buy it for me [Wink] ).
-Tony and his core group are kids. -Tony has some kinda immune system deficiency and has a protective layer on him that while he really young is bright blue. It snowballs into the whole Iron Man suit stuff too, instead of Tony using the power core to protect his heart. -Tony's dad is alive and not a douche (as I remember it right now, it's been a while.) -Rhody is a pint-size brainiac as well, not a soldier. He even has quite a bit to do with the development of the original armor. -There were some attempts at humor that wouldn't fit well in casual Iron Man books but made sense in OSC's young cast, I understand why an Iron Man fan wouldn't care for it in comparison to what they usually read.
I bought and read both volumes and have since given them away along with a bunch of books. I liked them enough to suggest that any OSC or Iron Man fans might want to check it out but I think the whole thing suffered from the setting. Tony Stark as the character who has evolved several times over after all these years does not lend well to a precocious, blue, ten year old boy.
Posted by Ginol_Enam (Member # 7070) on :
It (Ultimate Iron Man) was also removed from continuity, from what I understand. OSC's story is now just a "fictional" TV show within the Ultimate universe, or something.
Anyway, I'm looking forward to this Superman series.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
I just hope OSC does not mess up the Superman mythos. You can have your psychopathic Batman, and all the other Super dupes. But leave Superman alone!
Posted by umberhulk (Member # 11788) on :
Batman isn't a psycopath, and he's actually the guy who shuts superman down when he becomes one.
Posted by Jeff C. (Member # 12496) on :
quote:Originally posted by kacard: Thanks Jeff, for beating us to the punch It's on the home page now. I appreciate the nudge.
Glad I could help
Anyway, this may be the first time I pick up a Superman book since I read Red Son, which is still my personal favorite. Here's hoping OSC can put an interesting spin on the character.
Speaking of new spins, I'm thrilled with the direction the new film is taking. Focusing on the reaction of the world to Superman's existence seems like an interesting approach for a reboot. Very exciting year for Superman.
Posted by T:man (Member # 11614) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jeff C.: Anyway, this may be the first time I pick up a Superman book since I read Red Son, which is still my personal favorite.
I hope you've read the other Supes-greats; All-Star, Kingdom Come, WHttMoT, Secret Identity.
OT: Apprehensive about this, I guess there's a possibility of this being good.
Posted by Jeff C. (Member # 12496) on :
I've read All-Star and WHttMoT, which were both great. Still, Red Son just resonated with me and made me think, which is something that very few comics have managed to do. Are the other two good? What are they about?
Posted by T:man (Member # 11614) on :
Kingdom Come is Alex Ross' backlash against the dark age of comics. A retired Superman comes back to a world where all the traditional heroes have left, and only their anti-hero grandchildren are around.
Secret Identity is an amazing take on a "real life" Superman. Clark Kent, a young boy from a small town in Kansas finds out he has super powers. (After being mercilessly teased all his life for having that famous name) It doesn't tackle any real tough ideas, like Red Son, All-Star, etc, all it does is give us a realistic portrayal of who could be Supes. Not to mention one of the sweetest love stories in the medium, and IMO the most well done.
Posted by Anthonie (Member # 884) on :
And here it comes: even with Superman we see the inevitable backlash OSC tends to stir up.
Posted by capaxinfiniti (Member # 12181) on :
quote:Originally posted by Anthonie: And here it comes: even with Superman we see the inevitable backlash OSC tends to stir up.
My favorite parts:
"It's a deeply disappointing and frankly weird choice." - Obscure web person.
"Card is an embarrassment to your company, DC." - Obscure and unsuccessful actor.
It's weird and embarrassing that DC chose a skilled, successful, and prominent writer to author their next comic book? If Mr. Card was an anti-Mormon instead of an active-Mormon this wouldn't even be news.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stephan: Didn't OSC make comments in the past that sounded like he looks down on authors that write Star Trek and Star Wars type novels? I am curious how writing for Iron Man or Superman is different.
Well, first I suppose there is the fact that comics and graphic novels are born into the world in that same form. They are devised as vehicles for multiple writers and artists, and are a franchise based on variation. Whereas ST and SW novels are, by and large and with some exceptions, trashy paperbacks that are breathlessly dashed off by mediocre, although rarely frankly bad, writers. I've heard SW books can be better, but ST books are usually not fine examples of literature (though I enjoyed them as a kid).
Then there is just the motivation behind it all. OSC has said that he sees frighting in a TV or movie universe as being boring and unimaginative. It banks hard on fan loyalty to the "real" product. Whereas comics are not "spin-off" creations of a more popular vehicle. They *are* the medium. There's a difference.
Plus, as OSC has gotten older, frankly, his standards (or perhaps pretentions) have dropped. Just my opinion, but he now does a number of things he probably would not have done a decade ago, including spin-off collaborations and licensing his name. He's not in Tom Clancy territory in terms of whoring his brand, but he's not on firmer ground than he was 15 years ago.
Posted by umberhulk (Member # 11788) on :
There's no meaningful difference. On a creative level you're still using someone else's work as a crutch and you take advantage of its popularity to get readers. I'm not trying to trash it, but thats the only likeness that matters.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by capaxinfiniti: ]My favorite parts:
"It's a deeply disappointing and frankly weird choice." - Obscure web person.
"Card is an embarrassment to your company, DC." - Obscure and unsuccessful actor.
- A post by an even more obscure and unnoteworthy person
see we can all do it
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Anthonie: And here it comes: even with Superman we see the inevitable backlash OSC tends to stir up.
OSC didn't stir them up.
They chose to stir themselves up because they don't like him. They are responsible for their actions.
Posted by Shanna (Member # 7900) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro:
quote:Originally posted by Stephan: Didn't OSC make comments in the past that sounded like he looks down on authors that write Star Trek and Star Wars type novels? I am curious how writing for Iron Man or Superman is different.
Well, first I suppose there is the fact that comics and graphic novels are born into the world in that same form. They are devised as vehicles for multiple writers and artists, and are a franchise based on variation. Whereas ST and SW novels are, by and large and with some exceptions, trashy paperbacks that are breathlessly dashed off by mediocre, although rarely frankly bad, writers. I've heard SW books can be better, but ST books are usually not fine examples of literature (though I enjoyed them as a kid).
Then there is just the motivation behind it all. OSC has said that he sees frighting in a TV or movie universe as being boring and unimaginative. It banks hard on fan loyalty to the "real" product. Whereas comics are not "spin-off" creations of a more popular vehicle. They *are* the medium. There's a difference.
Plus, as OSC has gotten older, frankly, his standards (or perhaps pretentions) have dropped. Just my opinion, but he now does a number of things he probably would not have done a decade ago, including spin-off collaborations and licensing his name. He's not in Tom Clancy territory in terms of whoring his brand, but he's not on firmer ground than he was 15 years ago.
I'm guessing that Stephan is actually referring to these comments that OSC made when he was asked about fanficiton.
"You will never do your best work in someone else's universe, because you're bound by their rules. Furthermore, most universes that people use for fan fiction are dreadfully dumb - one thinks of Star Trek and Star Wars - and most seventh-graders can come up with better ones."
Basically, its an angry rant about what some people choose to do in their free time as a non-profitable hobby.
He does point out that authors shouldn't "waste their time" writing in another author's universe without "specific invitation." And he seems to be trying to guard people away from trying to grow their careers through fanfiction (entirely missing the point of it being either a hobby or a writing exercise.) Obviously at this point in his life, Card has already established his career as a financially successful writer. He doesn't see his own actions as "piggy-backing" because obviously he doesn't NEED Superman to be considered successful.
I wonder what he would think of comic book authors who work in established universes before trying to create their own characters or series?
And personally, it kind of bugs me that he would view Superman as different from Ender because the former is owned by a corporation. I wonder if he thinks that he loves Ender more than Jerry Siegel loved Superman.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank:
quote:Originally posted by Anthonie: And here it comes: even with Superman we see the inevitable backlash OSC tends to stir up.
OSC didn't stir them up.
They chose to stir themselves up because they don't like him. They are responsible for their actions.
The funny thing about this post is, it's just oblique enough to be serious, but also just dry enough to be extremely witty. I can't tell which.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by umberhulk: There's no meaningful difference. On a creative level you're still using someone else's work as a crutch and you take advantage of its popularity to get readers. I'm not trying to trash it, but thats the only likeness that matters.
There is a meaningful difference. One is a novel, one isn't. Tell me that difference has no meaning. Go on, tell me that.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Didn't we have this discussion when OSC wrote a story for a Foundation anthology?
Posted by umberhulk (Member # 11788) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro:
quote:Originally posted by umberhulk: There's no meaningful difference. On a creative level you're still using someone else's work as a crutch and you take advantage of its popularity to get readers. I'm not trying to trash it, but thats the only likeness that matters.
There is a meaningful difference. One is a novel, one isn't. Tell me that difference has no meaning. Go on, tell me that.
That difference has no meaning. I'm telling you. The only good reason to criticize it (if it's good) is the base lack originality and inventiveness.
[ February 12, 2013, 11:48 AM: Message edited by: umberhulk ]
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
I think if toned down a notch it could be interpreted as "If you want to write, than write, and focus your time inventing your own story and universe. Fanfiction will most of the time likely be a tragic waste." So he's not entirely off base, and I'm someone who generally agrees with the notion that fanfiction is good practice.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Chris Bridges: Didn't we have this discussion when OSC wrote a story for a Foundation anthology?
Yeah.
OSC himself has also basically said, of that, "I always try to break my own writing rules sooner or later, because I don't think they're without exception. So, I came out vocally against fanfic, which meant sooner or later I had to try some fanfic."
That's a massive paraphrase but I think it captures the sentiment okay. It was, if I recall correctly, a comment in one of his short story anthologies.
Although I also agree with Orincoro that I get the impression OSC has also become even less pretentious than in his younger days. Which is saying something, I think.
Posted by T:man (Member # 11614) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro:
quote:Originally posted by umberhulk: There's no meaningful difference. On a creative level you're still using someone else's work as a crutch and you take advantage of its popularity to get readers. I'm not trying to trash it, but thats the only likeness that matters.
There is a meaningful difference. One is a novel, one isn't. Tell me that difference has no meaning. Go on, tell me that.
I'm not sure I understand the difference, can you explain?
Posted by umberhulk (Member # 11788) on :
I think fanfic spawns out of wanting more of a story. It's not evil. It's not inherently disrespectful, in any circumstance. It's not on par with having to go to the bottom of mount everest from starting from scratch either, and OSC can say that. Don't get me wrong.
But no type of fanfic is ever an exception to that rule.
Posted by Darth_Mauve (Member # 4709) on :
Fanfic is a person writing in another's universe, knowing full well that such view will never be that universe.
What OSC is doing is becoming the Superman universe.
Posted by umberhulk (Member # 11788) on :
(is this even going to be considered canon?)
Posted by Darth_Mauve (Member # 4709) on :
Wow, that's crazy. I may not agree with OSC's views on a few things, but it's not fair to make such an uproar about something they haven't even read yet.
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
quote:Originally posted by Darth_Mauve: Fanfic is a person writing in another's universe, knowing full well that such view will never be that universe.
What OSC is doing is becoming the Superman universe.
It is not canon. This and the Batman one are standalone stories outside of regular continuity.
In other words, fan fiction.
I have no problem with it. I will probably buy them. I much prefer standalone superhero tales, rather than ones where I feel like I have to buy a million other stories to understand what is going on. DC doesn't even open with a paragraph about what has been happening like in Marvel.
Posted by Parkour (Member # 12078) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jeff C.: Wow, that's crazy. I may not agree with OSC's views on a few things, but it's not fair to make such an uproar about something they haven't even read yet.
They are making an uproar that dc is hiring someone with views and involvement in political efforts at discrimination that they consider so offensive that they don't want dc to involve themselves with him.
Thus is totally understandable? He's a director at NOM, right?
Posted by capaxinfiniti (Member # 12181) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: A post by an even more obscure and unnoteworthy person
see we can all do it
No. Fail. Try again. I used what I said to illustrate a fair criticism of the news story. You just did it as a personal shot at me. That's your typical MO but it's even more bizarre in light of your recent behavior.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Originally posted by capaxinfiniti: ]My favorite parts:
"It's a deeply disappointing and frankly weird choice." - Obscure web person.
"Card is an embarrassment to your company, DC." - Obscure and unsuccessful actor.
- A post by an even more obscure and unnoteworthy person
see we can all do it
If capax had been quoted in a news article I'd agree with your characterization. Since he wasn't, it does fall a little flat.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
*L* Reminds me of our resident "if you approve gay marriage, the angels will stand down and allow meteors to strike the Earth" poster Posted by Victor Medina (Member # 12949) on :
I started an online petition supporting OSC. Please add your name and tell others about it! BleedingCool.com mentioned it, and criticized it, saying it asked for a PayPal donation. I don't know where that came from. There's no donation requirement, and I'm certainly not asking for any money, only your signature!
quote:Originally posted by capaxinfiniti: ]No. Fail. Try again. I used what I said to illustrate a fair criticism of the news story. You just did it as a personal shot at me. That's your typical MO but it's even more bizarre in light of your recent behavior.
If I want to take a personal shot at you, I got way better material. your judgment of their success and/or prominence re: comic book circles is off, and either way is a nice distraction from the meat of their criticisms or why they're talking about this in the first place.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Victor Medina: I started an online petition supporting OSC. Please add your name and tell others about it! BleedingCool.com mentioned it, and criticized it, saying it asked for a PayPal donation. I don't know where that came from. There's no donation requirement, and I'm certainly not asking for any money, only your signature!
It came from the service you're using, iPetitions. After submitting a signature it routes to a page that asks for a donation and has options starting at $2.
If someone didn't read it closely, it looks like you have to donate before finalizing your signature.
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
David Gerold's Facebook post on the subject. I like it.
quote: DC Comics has hired Orson Scott Card to write the first issue of a new Superman book.
Because Card is on the board of directors for the National Organization of Marriage (an organization that wants to keep gay people from marrying) and because he has written some very aggressive anti-gay screeds, many LGBT (and straight) fans of Superman are outraged. There is even an online petition asking DC to drop Card.
DC has replied:
“As content creators we steadfastly support freedom of expression, however the personal views of individuals associated with DC Comics are just that — personal views — and not those of the company itself.”
They are correct. As much as I disagree with Card's position on homosexual relationships, I do not feel he should be penalized for his political views. It would be as wrong as an anti-gay group petitioning a publisher not to publish a book of mine because I am gay. It would be censorship based on enmity. No one should be penalized for their political views, no matter how egregious any of us might judge those views.
It is our responsibility as rational people to engage in reasonable and rational discourse on difficult issues. It is only when people actively work to hurt others that we have a responsibility to halt or prevent that harm. But we are never justified in penalizing each other based on beliefs. If it's wrong in one direction, it's wrong in the other direction.
Let me say it in the clear. I despise Card's position on marriage equality -- but I do not despise Card. He is an intelligent man and a gifted storyteller. As an American citizen, protected by the US Constitution, he is entitled to freedom of expression, freedom of worship, freedom to publish, etc. That I disagree (aggressively) with what he has said does not give me license to demand that his rights be infringed or that his ability to find work be compromised. I expect the same respect in return.
I do not expect that Card's political beliefs will be part of his Superman story. That's not Superman and I think Card understands that. And the good folks at DC likely understand that too. I hope he writes a good story. I also hope that someday he will recognize that some of the things he has said, some of the things he has advocated, are simply not in keeping with Jesus' commandment that we love one another.
Posted by Jeff C. (Member # 12496) on :
quote:Originally posted by Parkour:
quote:Originally posted by Jeff C.: Wow, that's crazy. I may not agree with OSC's views on a few things, but it's not fair to make such an uproar about something they haven't even read yet.
They are making an uproar that dc is hiring someone with views and involvement in political efforts at discrimination that they consider so offensive that they don't want dc to involve themselves with him.
Thus is totally understandable? He's a director at NOM, right?
Yes, I suppose, but does any of that matter if the comic refrains from touching on those issues? If it's just Superman being Superman, who cares what the personal opinions of the writer happens to be?
Maybe I just don't see what the big deal is. I like OSC's books and I choose to read them because I enjoy them, but I don't agree with his opinions on homosexuality or politics. As long as he keeps his opinions out of his stories, I'll continue to read them.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Maybe I just don't see what the big deal is
There's a way I could demonstrate both the big deal and simultaneously how people can look at this and wonder why people are "making such a fuss" over it, but it would involve what would seem like callous hyperbole.
Posted by capaxinfiniti (Member # 12181) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Originally posted by capaxinfiniti: ]No. Fail. Try again. I used what I said to illustrate a fair criticism of the news story. You just did it as a personal shot at me. That's your typical MO but it's even more bizarre in light of your recent behavior.
If I want to take a personal shot at you, I got way better material. your judgment of their success and/or prominence re: comic book circles is off, and either way is a nice distraction from the meat of their criticisms or why they're talking about this in the first place.
Yeah, I'm sure you've got better material... Their prominence re: comic book circles is hardly even relevant to the broader discussion. Whatever limited power they may have to dissuade people from reading a comic book written by OSC is inconsequential.
"Why they're talking about this in the first place" is much less discussion-worthy than you (or The Guardian) are making it out to be. If Card had already written it, and had included material or themes you don't agree with, I could see a reason to start this circus. But trying to make hay over his mere selection is nonsensical. DC's response was spot-on.
Posted by umberhulk (Member # 11788) on :
Trying to twist DCs arm is stupid. Vote with your dollar. But we want to read this bullshit, so while I get the fuss is about, I still say go **** yourself if you demand that he's fired.
Posted by umberhulk (Member # 11788) on :
quote:Originally posted by Victor Medina: I started an online petition supporting OSC. Please add your name and tell others about it! BleedingCool.com mentioned it, and criticized it, saying it asked for a PayPal donation. I don't know where that came from. There's no donation requirement, and I'm certainly not asking for any money, only your signature!
Name: John Craig on Feb 12, 2013 Comments: I support his right to be an asshole. I will not be purchasing anything Orson Scott Card created. Flag
My hero.
(Granted, it would have been a great idea to disable comments anyway.)
[ February 13, 2013, 11:05 PM: Message edited by: umberhulk ]
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by capaxinfiniti: Why they're talking about this in the first place" is much less discussion-worthy than you (or The Guardian) are making it out to be. If Card had already written it, and had included material or themes you don't agree with, I could see a reason to start this circus.
Whether or not YOU see a reason to object to DC's decision to hire on OSC for this is what is actually irrelevant here, and is a function of, much as I hate to reference it, your privilege blindness. You are not an arbiter as to whether or not the objections of gay people and people against discrimination against gays are "discussion worthy" or if they have a reason to voice their objection and ask DC not to hire him, and you can certainly tell us how much you think the complaints are invalid, but that's about it.
The terminal weakness of your dismissal of concern is short-circuited by the fact that speech rights cut all ways. People are allowed to petition a company not to hire someone, and for all your judgment on high about how relevant individual complainers or the issue is, what they're doing is just as valid as dc's final decision whether or not to keep him on this project.
I do indeed. I, for instance, keep in mind when seeing you discussing your periodic forays into the issue of gays and gay rights that you were one of two people who signed up with Sa'eed with literal homophobia — like as in you are literally afraid of gays and you straight-up proved it — and that you desire segregating and discriminatory solutions that feed on this, like the one where you expressly desire gays flat out are forced to use different segregated public restrooms because you are scared of being ogled by scary gay men and think the solution is the enforcement of laws keeping them out of straights-only public restrooms. So, in earnest, we know how far down the rabbit hole goes with you and the issue of homosexuality.
Posted by capaxinfiniti (Member # 12181) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: The terminal weakness of your dismissal of concern is short-circuited by the fact that speech rights cut all ways.
You're drawing the wackiest conclusions from my simple comments. Free speech cuts all ways. Yeah, no kidding. I didn't say otherwise. I defend their right to not like OSC and actively seek to hinder his employment. I still think this is an over-reaction and that their view ignores other critical factors. Those two obscure web figures said DC's decision to hire Card was "weird" and "embarrassing." It's neither, unless your viewing it with their very myopic reference point. I'm not dismissing their dislike for OSC. I'm stating that the DC/Superman/Card situation is not defined by their disdain for the author.
And that's a completely dishonest portrayal of the discussion about restroom use. Your heaping dose of slanderous bias was more than evident. Way to provide all the context, chief. This isn't the first time I've seen that degree of manipulated reality from you.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:. I still think this is an over-reaction and that their view ignores other critical factors. Those two obscure web figures said DC's decision to hire Card was "weird" and "embarrassing." It's neither, unless your viewing it with their very myopic reference point.
That's completely false. Like, not even remotely. The decision is certainly controversial enough that you don't need their reference point at all to find the decision to be either weird or embarrassing. Like I said, not understanding this as anything other than an illegitimate silly hoopla is simply a function of your privilege blindness. It only boils down to that you pretty much disagree with the idea that the complaints they have against card are reasonable, and that goes to the second can of worms.
quote:And that's a completely dishonest portrayal of the discussion about restroom use. Your heaping dose of slanderous bias was more than evident. Way to provide all the context, chief.
hmm, ok!
quote:Originally posted by capaxinfiniti: disregarding the poster, i think this is an important issue to address as it has implications outside of the military. it goes beyond the debate of gays and alleged gay rights and involves privacy in general. western society permits the segregation of restrooms, locker rooms, etc based on both gender and sexuality. if its illegal for a male, straight or otherwise, to enter even a womens restroom -let alone a shower area of a womens locker room- why is it not illegal for a lesbian to do so? or perhaps why are current laws, if such exist, not enforced? many locker room and changing facilities, both private and public, dont have individual stalls etc. the best examples i can think of are high school and college locker rooms. i dont want to workout on campus then got ogled by a gay guy while im showering or be victim to anothers public exhibition. in a twisted crusade to remain politically correct and protect the rights of everything under the sun, our society is denying basic rights of privacy to a very large segment of the population. and its a poor legal precedent to permit "sexual predators masquerading as protected [homo]sexuals". this issue is ripe with lawsuits, litigation and legislation and should be addressed.
quote:Originally posted by capaxinfiniti:
quote:Originally posted by Parkour:
quote:Originally posted by Sa'eed: so too must we segregate homosexuals from straights, otherwise straight people will be made uncomfortable by the gays looking at them in the showers/dorms with longing eyes.
quote:Originally posted by capaxinfiniti: i dont want to workout on campus then got ogled by a gay guy while im showering or be victim to anothers public exhibition.
What is this, Homophobia on Parade?
What are the gays supposed to do? Wear something that identifies them as gay?
how does speaking out on privacy constitute homophobia? if your wife, daughter, sister or mother was made to feel uncomfortable or disgusted by a guy creeping around the shower area of a local gym what would you call that?
what are the gays supposed to do? that is what is being alluded to in the op. no one is asking for there to be some sort of patch with a phallic symbol for the gays so they can be identified before entering a restroom. but by law there should be separate facilities provided for gays and lesbians and those that are openly gay should be required to use the provided facilities. there will be dishonest people and sexual predators who disregard the laws but the current double standard shouldnt be sanctioned by the government.
quote:but by law there should be separate facilities provided for gays and lesbians and those that are openly gay should be required to use the provided facilities. there will be dishonest people and sexual predators who disregard the laws but the current double standard shouldnt be sanctioned by the government.
Yeah I sure willfully misrepresented you there, buckaroo, chum, tiger, pal, buddy, champ, etc
Posted by capaxinfiniti (Member # 12181) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: Yeah I sure willfully misrepresented you there
Yeah, you did. Because you said my position was this:
quote:you expressly desire gays flat out are forced to use different segregated public restrooms because you are scared of being ogled by scary gay men and think the solution is the enforcement of laws keeping them out of straights-only public restroom
When it is actually this:
quote: it goes beyond the debate of gays and alleged gay rights and involves privacy in general.
quote:how does speaking out on privacy constitute homophobia? if your wife, daughter, sister or mother was made to feel uncomfortable or disgusted by a guy creeping around the shower area of a local gym what would you call that?
You're probably not even conscious of the dishonest distortion that forms the foundation of your opinions. It comes from you playing the "This is what you really said!" game. It ends up with you trying to say 2+2=5 and the person responding to you pointing out the logical bridges just aren't there.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote: but by law there should be separate facilities provided for gays and lesbians and those that are openly gay should be required to use the provided facilities.
*LOL* That's pretty amusing.
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
I can't stand separate facilities at all. As a father who takes his 1 year old son and 3 1/2 year old daughter out a lot, I really rely on places like the mall that has the family bathrooms. I really get angry when a women's room has a changing table and the men's doesn't.
The thought that gay and lesbians should have separate facilities is just ignorant.
Posted by Darth_Mauve (Member # 4709) on :
Actually, that doesn't make much sense.
Straight men are attracted to women. Straight women are attracted to men. If they went to the same bathroom the feared results may be unwanted attention, lude thoughts, and possibly public sex or even rape. So for this reason we keep them segregated.
However, homosexuals are attracted to their own sign. So putting all the gay men in one room where they are dropping their pants, or all the gay women in one room would more likely be lude thoughts, unwanted attention, and possibly public sex or even rape.
Now, since we don't have many cases of gay people raping folks in bathrooms, or even having sex in bathrooms (some do, but so do some heterosexual couples) the present system works fine.
Actually what this boils down to is some hard facts for some people to realize.
1) Gay people don't want to be ogled by strangers any more that straight people. Nor do they ogle.
2) Your private business in a public restroom is not the center of attention of anyone else in that restroom. You don't have anything others have not already seen on friendlier people. You are not that important.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by capaxinfiniti: Yeah, you did. Because you said my position was this:
I said your position was this
quote:you expressly desire gays flat out are forced to use different segregated public restrooms because you are scared of being ogled by scary gay men and think the solution is the enforcement of laws keeping them out of straights-only public restroom
and you said this:
quote:what are the gays supposed to do? that is what is being alluded to in the op. no one is asking for there to be some sort of patch with a phallic symbol for the gays so they can be identified before entering a restroom. but by law there should be separate facilities provided for gays and lesbians and those that are openly gay should be required to use the provided facilities. there will be dishonest people and sexual predators who disregard the laws but the current double standard shouldnt be sanctioned by the government.
and this
quote:i dont want to workout on campus then got ogled by a gay guy while im showering or be victim to anothers public exhibition.
Basically you're saying exactly what I said you said. To protect straights such as yourself from certain privacy risks, like your fear of being ogled by those gays, your solution is that gays are forced to use segregated bathrooms.
Like, it's right there, clear as crystal, "by law there should be separate facilities provided for gays and lesbians and those that are openly gay should be required to use the provided facilities." a solution you want in part because you are afraid of being ogled by gay guys, and this drives the notion that a requirement for privacy mandates gays-only and straights-only restroom facilities.
I will remember this incident each and every time you bring up the tired canards about my "manipulated reality."
quote: It comes from you playing the "This is what you really said!" game.
Is that game
1. knowing what you actually said 2. describing what you actually said and 3. being able to point to what you actually said
a game?
Because if so, yeah, I'm playing that "game." Your usual go-to strategy here of claiming willful misrepresentation gets real tired when it becomes obvious that you legitimately did post this. That you are the kind of person whose heterosexism is so pronounced (for this and multiple other reasons) that you want homosexuals segregated to separate bathroom facilities.
Can't make that up for you. Don't need to.
Posted by Parkour (Member # 12078) on :
Wow, I remember that.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Will there be separate bathrooms for people who are more attracted to the opposite sex, but enjoy seeing naked people of the same sex anyway? What about bisexuals? Or asexuals, do they get a stall somewhere they can share and avoid everybody?
I don't understand people who believe sexuality is a binary thing. It's a spectrum. Most things having to do with human are.
Re: OSC on Superman. I respect the rights of people to boycott and to call for others to boycott. I do not respect the calls for DC not to hire him. That's discrimination, which is kinda what they were fighting against. Saw a quote earlier today and can't remember where now, but it was basically "We're the left, we don't blacklist."
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:I do not respect the calls for DC not to hire him. That's discrimination, which is kinda what they were fighting against
Calls to boycott a product made by a person because of their views and calls for a company to dismiss a person based on their views are both "discrimination," and I don't see where they become markedly different in terms of what freedom of speech actually provides you. While I don't really think that DC shouldn't hire OSC and I'm sure they understand the public relations risk with signing on a director of the national organization of marriage with his history of writings and statements on the subject of homosexuality, I cannot categorize either as illegitimate activism against someone.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
I think that everyone should have their own bathroom.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
While I don't agree with his conclusions, I do think that Capax is being intellectually consistent in a way that the status quo is not. If one thinks that gender segregated bathrooms are a good idea, then they also ought to think bathrooms segregated by sexuality are a good idea.
I mean, what's the argument for gender segregated bathrooms? I can't think of any valid argument that wouldn't also apply to sexuality-based-segregation, if such a thing was possible.
But, I think both of them are pointless and silly. The answer isn't more segregation, Capax, it's less.
Sam, I'm curious what you think about the status quo? Do you agree that unisex bathrooms make more sense and there's no good reason to have gender segregated bathrooms?
I'm not asking you to push for change, mind you, since it's sort of a minor irrelevant issue. Why crusade over bathrooms? I'm not pushing for change either. But, as a matter of intellectual consistency, gender segregation is, I think, a wrong approach. What do you think?
quote:Originally posted by Noemon: I think that everyone should have their own bathroom.
Agreed.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Chris Bridges: Saw a quote earlier today and can't remember where now, but it was basically "We're the left, we don't blacklist."
Hah, really?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank:
quote:Originally posted by Chris Bridges: Saw a quote earlier today and can't remember where now, but it was basically "We're the left, we don't blacklist."
Hah, really?
I wish I could say there was some side somewhere that doesn't black list.
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
Was there a similar backlash against Marvel? Is this just because of how huge Superman is in the media? Is it all a Disney conspiracy to reduce sales of a competitor?
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
I don't know if he should be removed from the project, but I really do think he will take over characters and lecture the reader about marriage and babies.
I'm not kidding. He has done this in pretty much every one of the latest books I've read by him. He'll have Superman flying around going "I must rescue these people, but remember, get married heterosexually and have babies because that is really the only way to raise children and have a stable family."
It rankles. So I simply do not read him anymore.
But I also think people are a bit gentler on homophobic people than racist people. It's not much different to me though.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
One correction:
quote: As an American citizen, protected by the US Constitution, he is entitled to freedom of expression, freedom of worship, freedom to publish, etc.
As a human being, he is entitled to these rights.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
Well yeah, but gay people are entitled to those things too, but his group NOM keeps trying to take those away.
I really think they should do something else.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
NOM is trying to take away "freedom of expression, freedom of worship, freedom to publish, etc."?
Link?
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:I do not respect the calls for DC not to hire him. That's discrimination, which is kinda what they were fighting against
Calls to boycott a product made by a person because of their views and calls for a company to dismiss a person based on their views are both "discrimination," and I don't see where they become markedly different in terms of what freedom of speech actually provides you. While I don't really think that DC shouldn't hire OSC and I'm sure they understand the public relations risk with signing on a director of the national organization of marriage with his history of writings and statements on the subject of homosexuality, I cannot categorize either as illegitimate activism against someone.
I'm not sure what "illegitimate activism" is, really. What I believe is that everyone is free to express their opinions, and no one should be hired or fired based on their opinions. Boycotting a writer's work is your opinion, expressed in dollars. Not hiring someone because of their opinions is workplace discrimination.
(Calling everything discrimination leads to splitting hairs. Just about everything we do is discrimination of one kind or another. I won't loan my car to a casual friend so therefore I'm discriminating against him.)
Calling for Card to remain unemployed is an attack on the person, in my view. Attacking someone's beliefs, I'm fine with. And the end result may be the same; if OSC's Superman doesn't sell because of this it's unlikely DC will hire him again.
Me, I'd like to read it, at least the first one. I'm here -- most of us are here -- because of my considerable admiration for OSC's writing, and I'm an optimist. The fact that much of his commentary (and some of his fiction) has, in my view, gone off the rails these past years doesn't necessarily mean he has nothing left to say that I want to hear.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Ah, an even better idea: David "Trouble with Tribbles" Gerrold is suggesting that rather than fire OSC, DC should then hire an openly gay writer (i.e. Gerrold) to write another Superman story.
"I'd like the opportunity to write for you the very best Superman story ever."
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
quote:Originally posted by Chris Bridges: Ah, an even better idea: David "Trouble with Tribbles" Gerrold is suggesting that rather than fire OSC, DC should then hire an openly gay writer (i.e. Gerrold) to write another Superman story.
"I'd like the opportunity to write for you the very best Superman story ever."
Superman goes back in time to have sex with himself.
They are stupid. Perhaps these folks protesting him have a point. Give him money and he'll give it to those nutwits. They are just not very convincing in their positions.
And for the record I am african American and totally in support of gay marriage. Not just because I'm 40% lesbian either.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Syn:
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: NOM is trying to take away "freedom of expression, freedom of worship, freedom to publish, etc."?
Link?
Did you find any evidence of NOM trying to curtail gays' rights to expression, worship, or being published?
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
They really are spreading a lot of lies and fear.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:Perhaps these folks protesting him have a point. Give him money and he'll give it to those nutwits. They are just not very convincing in their positions.
Same thing goes for this site, though. By supporting this site through posting, you invite others to respond and (implicitly) provide revenue for Orson Scott Card. Some of those folks may click on the advertisements, or buy OSC books...
It doesn't even matter, really, what you say here (in terms of arguing against OSC's position on marriage and gender)-- by accessing this site you contribute to the hits advertisers look at to gauge site profitability. You implicitly support OSC's operation here, and thus his career, and thus his viewpoint. Theoretically, you could try to be so toxic a presence as to drive folks away from the site (Stephen actually tried that) and decrease OSC's revenue that way; but there are a number of mitigative steps he could take to circumvent that strategy.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
The heartbreaking thing about that, Scott, is that you and I both know some really valuable posters who no longer post at Hatrack for precisely that reason. Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
You be heartbroken. I'm okay.
Unless you mean Ralphie.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: The heartbreaking thing about that, Scott, is that you and I both know some really valuable posters who no longer post at Hatrack for precisely that reason.
That's silly.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I think it's silly, sure. But I think it's more silly than refusing to buy any comic book OSC produces -- if you think he's really harmful -- and telling companies that hire him to produce work that you won't buy that work because he's the person they chose to produce it. I've never had any problems with boycotts (as distinct from blacklists, which are the exact opposite), if only because they're one of the few ways to actually provide meaningful feedback to the market.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: Sam, I'm curious what you think about the status quo? Do you agree that unisex bathrooms make more sense and there's no good reason to have gender segregated bathrooms?
I'm going to be very afraid of an "intellectual consistency" which results in "segregate gays to their own restrooms to protect the straights" and this is because said intellectual consistency was laid bare to have a fundamental underpinning that is not intellectual at all.
We will probably have unisex bathrooms at some point in the future, but given the distinct lack of social parity and existing social concerns for women and the fact that given current circumstances, that kind of concerted overhaul would not come to much of anyone's real benefit means that the priority of pressing for unisex bathrooms is low to the point of vanishing point on "things that deserve our energy and attention as prominent social concerns"
Whereas, on the other hand, a proposal that privacy concerns* dictate that the law needs to demand gays be segregated to separate gays-only bathroom facilities purely to protect straights from their "ogling" is all the way off on the far end of the scale for discriminatory terrible policy based in homophobic entitlement that bear the exact same fruit as policy attempting to keep teachers from teaching about, mentioning, or even saying the word 'gay' in schools or calling for anti-homosexuality laws to remain, to keep gays hidden from and less likely to corrupt moral society.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
As always, I'm interested in discussions of what is right, and what is true, and what is, as I said before, consistent. That interests me more than matters of what we need to do as society or whatever. I certainly don't think we need a big push for unisex bathrooms. The status quo is convenient, even if it's inconsistent and illogical.
So thanks for answering my question... I think? You agree that there's no argument for why gender segregated bathrooms make sense that wouldn't equally apply to segregating by sexuality, right?
The obvious ones that come to my mind... sexual harassment, intentionally exposing oneself, etc... all of those could be logically applied to gay/straight integrated bathrooms. Straights don't have a monopoly on sexual harassment.
They're all lousy reasons, though. Just to be clear. Are there any reasons that aren't lousy?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Chris Bridges: I'm not sure what "illegitimate activism" is, really. What I believe is that everyone is free to express their opinions, and no one should be hired or fired based on their opinions.
Basically, you've just described it in a nutshell. If you think that nobody should be hired or fired based on their opinions, then activism that calls for that to happen is illegitimate to you.
Of course, in regards to OSC, that's a bit of an irrelevant issue, because people who want OSC to be removed can say they want it for reasons that go beyond just having opinions.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: They're all lousy reasons, though. Just to be clear. Are there any reasons that aren't lousy?
Well, here's an incomplete introductory example which is a way of demonstrating "problems in practice not accounted for in the intellectual ideal." Pretend I own a bar downtown near the college and it's usually frequented by college-age kids. Imagine how absurdly difficult it would be to persuade me that voluntarily adopting a unisex bathroom facility would not be a hideous epic terrible disaster.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: ... by accessing this site you contribute to the hits advertisers look at to gauge site profitability.
I'm pretty fond of ad blockers and you've given me another reason why :-)
Posted by Emreecheek (Member # 12082) on :
I'm pretty sure I couldn't read if I stopped reading things that bigots happened to write.
Instead, I find that refusing to read works that have bigotry alive and well in them (to a point where its inherent in the work) has been working out well for me.
Anybody who wants to stop reading Card because he's a bigot, even if they don't think bigotry is intrinsic to his work (I, personally, don't think much of his work was horribly so prior to Empire), should stop reading misogynist authors and racist authors as well. And, I think that would lead to a significant emptying of bookshelves everywhere.
Thought experiment: If we vote with our dollars, And do so in such a way that somebody else - who is a bigot - doesn't even have the chance of making money because they disagree, and then that person goes broke - Have we just taken away, in a sense, their ability to vote?
Posted by Darth_Mauve (Member # 4709) on :
Yes, unless OSC has Superman beating up on Batman for hitting on Robin, I don't think this will make a big difference.
Unless Superman fights the villain Gary Gayman, who seeks to destroy Western Civ by having us all gay-sex our way into never creating the next generation, this will not make a difference.
Unless Superman is going to use his Super Manliness Power to save San Francisco from its reputation, it will not make a difference.
Unless Superman has a true team-up with Wonder Woman to defeat the Lesbos Influence on Amazon Isle, it will not make a difference.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
What I'm interested in seeing is whether Card can write a hero who doesn't think he's the smartest and noblest person in the room.
Posted by Jeff C. (Member # 12496) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: What I'm interested in seeing is whether Card can write a hero who doesn't think he's the smartest and noblest person in the room.
What's funny about that is that Superman actually is the smartest and noblest person in the room.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Not always. But, more importantly, it is vital that he never think so. Superman is so noble that he is humble; like Captain America, he's the ultimate Boy Scout. Leaving aside the questions of whether Superman is actually smarter than Batman, Lex Luthor, etc., and actually a better person than Wonder Woman or Jimmy Olson, it's unquestionable that he would never say or think so. More importantly, he's not manipulative and introspective in the way that almost all Card heroes are; he is not the sort of person to say something just to mislead someone else into behaving according to some other master plan.
I'm not saying that he's stupid, or incapable of setting up the occasional trap for the bad guys -- especially if it involves turning their own over-complicated machinations against them. But in the DC Universe, Batman is the scheming hero and Wonder Woman is the brutally realistic hero; Superman is both direct and (sometimes naively) idealistic, two things that Card's heroes almost never are.
I say this as an enormous fan of Alvin, far and away my favorite Card hero -- who IMO in the later books becomes increasingly less Superman-like (and more, say, Green-Arrow-like.)
Posted by AchillesHeel (Member # 11736) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jeff C.:
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: What I'm interested in seeing is whether Card can write a hero who doesn't think he's the smartest and noblest person in the room.
What's funny about that is that Superman actually is the smartest and noblest person in the room.
Smartest? sometimes, but not in the presence of JLA level people. Most noble? definitely.
Does Supes know this? No. And that is what ensures that he is the most pure moral compass possible.
My favorite examination of who and what Superman is.
quote: It is a remarkable dichotomy. In many ways, Clark is the most human of us all. Then...he shoots fire from the skies, and it is difficult not to think of him as a god. And how fortunate we all are that it does not occur to him.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
I loved the Superman of the 'Superman vs. the Elite' feature.
I did not love the All-Star Superman.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
My problem with "Superman vs. the Elite" is that the Superman who teaches them a lesson on the Moon -- the one who's willing to appear temporarily brutal and evil for a moment -- isn't actually a Superman I recognize. The Superman who plows through them like a vengeful god and demonstrates just how easy -- and repellent -- such a godhood is would, in my opinion, be far too repelled and horrified by the act to make the demonstration. If I had to pick one person in the JLA who would not do something like that, it'd be Supes.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: My problem with "Superman vs. the Elite" is that the Superman who teaches them a lesson on the Moon -- the one who's willing to appear temporarily brutal and evil for a moment -- isn't actually a Superman I recognize. The Superman who plows through them like a vengeful god and demonstrates just how easy -- and repellent -- such a godhood is would, in my opinion, be far too repelled and horrified by the act to make the demonstration. If I had to pick one person in the JLA who would not do something like that, it'd be Supes.
Those were my feelings as well. I feel like Superman not only would never stoop to being evil like The Elite, he would avoid the appearance of evil even if doing so would get him the upper-hand. I mean he spent the whole movie saying that there was always a way to morally win in any situation.
I feel like Superman and Captain America stand in a very similar place. And the fact they stand there, immovable, is a critical aspect of their characters. I didn't like Superman's solution to The Elite at all, but I did enjoy the rest of the movie.
Posted by Emreecheek (Member # 12082) on :
I actually think I would read a comic that played out as Dark_mauve described.
Posted by Jeff C. (Member # 12496) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Not always. But, more importantly, it is vital that he never think so. Superman is so noble that he is humble; like Captain America, he's the ultimate Boy Scout. Leaving aside the questions of whether Superman is actually smarter than Batman, Lex Luthor, etc., and actually a better person than Wonder Woman or Jimmy Olson, it's unquestionable that he would never say or think so. More importantly, he's not manipulative and introspective in the way that almost all Card heroes are; he is not the sort of person to say something just to mislead someone else into behaving according to some other master plan.
I'm not saying that he's stupid, or incapable of setting up the occasional trap for the bad guys -- especially if it involves turning their own over-complicated machinations against them. But in the DC Universe, Batman is the scheming hero and Wonder Woman is the brutally realistic hero; Superman is both direct and (sometimes naively) idealistic, two things that Card's heroes almost never are.
I say this as an enormous fan of Alvin, far and away my favorite Card hero -- who IMO in the later books becomes increasingly less Superman-like (and more, say, Green-Arrow-like.)
Interesting thoughts, Tom. I agree with them. On a side note, I really wanted to get into the Alvin series, but the narrator's accent was too distracting for me to get through it. I guess I'm not a fan of that style.
Posted by T:man (Member # 11614) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: I loved the Superman of the 'Superman vs. the Elite' feature.
I did not love the All-Star Superman.
I hope you are talking about the animated adaptations. Because then I totally agree, the ASSman adaptation was horrendous, and the SupesxElite was passable.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Yep. The animated features.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
My image of Superman is the nearly godlike hero written by Elliot S! Maggin who lives by the very simple rule that there's a right and a wrong in the universe and it's not very hard to tell the difference. From one of the books (written pre-reboot, when the Kents died of a disease and Superman had been Superboy):
"He knew that he was Kal-El of Krypton, the son of Jor-El, and possibly the finest specimen of humanity in the galaxy. He had broken the time barrier, he could speak every known language on Earth, living and dead. He had been born among the stars and could live among them now if he so chose. He had more knowledge in his mind and more diverse experience to his credit than any Earthman alive could ever aspire to."
Yet he stood at the deathbed of this elderly, generous man whose last Earthly concern was his adopted son's happiness. Superboy listened, because he believed Jonathan Kent to be wiser than he."
Superman is who he is not because he has powers, but because he cannot conceive of not helping others. He is the most powerful of all the heroes, but he treats everyone equally and honestly respects everyone he meets who isn't actually committing a crime. He's a good man.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Forgive me for posting in this thread without reading it all, but my friend posted this to facebook and I thought it might be interesting enough to share:
quote: We're retailers. We got into this business to sell more comics, not less. When we've donated to causes in the past -- animal shelters, Haiti disaster relief, etc. -- we've done so by selling comics and other items for a benefit. That's the first thing that occurs to us as retailers: What can we sell to do the most good? In this case, rather than decline to carry his comic, we wanted to sell Orson Scott Card's Superman comic and use the money to fund the Human Rights Campaign. That's just how we approached the problem of stocking a comic that stood to fund an organization, the National Organization for Marriage, with which we disagreed.
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: My problem with "Superman vs. the Elite" is that the Superman who teaches them a lesson on the Moon -- the one who's willing to appear temporarily brutal and evil for a moment -- isn't actually a Superman I recognize. The Superman who plows through them like a vengeful god and demonstrates just how easy -- and repellent -- such a godhood is would, in my opinion, be far too repelled and horrified by the act to make the demonstration. If I had to pick one person in the JLA who would not do something like that, it'd be Supes.
Those were my feelings as well. I feel like Superman not only would never stoop to being evil like The Elite, he would avoid the appearance of evil even if doing so would get him the upper-hand. I mean he spent the whole movie saying that there was always a way to morally win in any situation.
I feel like Superman and Captain America stand in a very similar place. And the fact they stand there, immovable, is a critical aspect of their characters. I didn't like Superman's solution to The Elite at all, but I did enjoy the rest of the movie.
In this sense maybe the better way of writing Superman vs The Elite would've been to have, somehow the Elite realize "Oh my god what have I done?" and redeem themselves through Superman's guideance.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Chris Sprouse (the artist for this story) has left the project because he felt the press was getting in the way of the story.
They are still looking for a replacement artist, but now Mr. Card's story won't be the first one in the collection.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
I don't care what you think of Card, but the capitulation of an artist to the demands of political pressure is never to be celebrated.
If he'd said when he found out the writer, "No, I object to his opinions on SSM," fine. No harm. Respect for sticking to his moral guns.
But "I'm stepping away because of media dislike of Orson Scott Card" is to invite more degradation of artistic voice through political fear-mongering.
This isn't something to celebrate. The shibboleth currently making the rounds in the spec-fic and artistic community- whereby contributors are evaluated on the acceptability of their political opinions RATHER than the potency of their work- is absolutely damaging to the genre and to all individuals who value the free exchange of ideas.
It is the grassroots facilitation of thought-police.
Posted by AchillesHeel (Member # 11736) on :
While I don't disagree Scott, I can't help but marvel at the role reversal. Who would have guessed that homophobia and assumed religious moral superiority could so negatively effected a project like this? Sean Connery defended his stance on hitting women a long time ago and no one cared, still don't. A writer who just ten years ago no one outside the literary knew existed has an opinion (albeit an unethical one) and he has his profession threatened by people who aren't even familiar with his work. And I assume in many instances his actual stance on the matter.
Thought-policing is bad, but I'm slightly in awe of what I wasn't sure was possible.
Posted by umberhulk (Member # 11788) on :
I don't disagree with your basic attitude and preferences about this, but it's not. They're policing their own money and the impact it has on the world around them.
They might be douchebags if they're telling me to do the same thing, or getting him fired before you get to vote with your money, but they aren't for micro-managing their dollar and the ideas they want to support.
(this post was a response to scott)
[ March 05, 2013, 04:34 PM: Message edited by: umberhulk ]
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
What is the difference between this and NOM pushing for a boycott of businesses that support gay rights, like Starbucks? Is it because the one is a company and the other is an individual?
Posted by AchillesHeel (Member # 11736) on :
quote: They might be douchebags if they're telling me to do the same thing, or getting him fired before you get to vote with your money,
I wouldn't see that as a 'douchebag' offense. I don't see the point nor the harm in the online content project, but I would certainly chafe if an artist that I knew to actively work against human rights were made a principle on one my favorite books. The kind I actually buy at a privately owned store rather than any digital media. I would make my discontent heard and try to be productive about it. Art is how so many of us relax, it is what we look forward to and study down to it's littlest bit. If you put someone who campaigns against the civil rights of innocent people, or say a friend of Kim Jung Eun, in charge of Batman or Justice League Dark I would feel no shame in complaining and seeing them removed from the title before getting any work done.
In the age of the internet voting with your upvote's can be just as if not more prophetic than voting with your wallet.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
I'm not sure how many times this needs to be said before people will acknowledge it, but OSC is not just some guy who doesn't think gay people should marry. He is one of the heads of NOM, an organization that is actively opposing gay rights through fear mongering, bigotry, and lies as well as a person who has actively spread malicious and false ideas about gay people.
He is being judged in large part for his actions, not just his beliefs.
---
I very much doubt that we'd be having this conversation if people were objecting to a leader of the KKK writing Superman and I don't see much difference between this and that. Maybe I'm wrong about that, though.
Posted by umberhulk (Member # 11788) on :
quote:Originally posted by AchillesHeel:
quote: They might be douchebags if they're telling me to do the same thing, or getting him fired before you get to vote with your money,
I wouldn't see that as a 'douchebag' offense.
I do because I want the opportunity to buy five copies and telling anyone whose mad to blow me!
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
And if they're male, you can then ask them to marry you.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: I'm not sure how many times this needs to be said before people will acknowledge it, but OSC is not just some guy who doesn't think gay people should marry. He is one of the heads of NOM, an organization that is actively opposing gay rights through fear mongering, bigotry, and lies as well as a person who has actively spread malicious and false ideas about gay people.
He is being judged in large part for his actions, not just his beliefs.
Worth repeating.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_:
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: I'm not sure how many times this needs to be said before people will acknowledge it, but OSC is not just some guy who doesn't think gay people should marry. He is one of the heads of NOM, an organization that is actively opposing gay rights through fear mongering, bigotry, and lies as well as a person who has actively spread malicious and false ideas about gay people.
He is being judged in large part for his actions, not just his beliefs.
Worth repeating.
Irrelevant, actually.
I don't care if Elton John is gay. His music sucks.
I don't care if Ellen Degeneres is gay. She's hilarious.
I believe in opposing art where the message is objectionable within the context of the work, NOT for political stances, actions, or associations that have nothing to do with the artist's work.
I don't begrudge anyone their boycott. I vehemently oppose capitulation, though.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
I know it's a tired analogy, but I enjoy Wagner, and he was an outspoken anti-semite.
I think NOM is wrong for advising people to boycott businesses for political reasons. I don't know a whole lot about NOM specifically, and from what I can find, it's all negative. Which leads me to think I'm not looking hard enough.
But what frustrates me are people's insistence that if Mr. Card just had his opinions, but did not believe in them strongly enough to actually act on them, then things would be fine. If you believe same-sex marriage is wrong, then supporting an organization that uses the political machine to accomplish that objective may be wrong (in that you're supporting the wrong efforts) but it's not wrong (in that you are sinning against your conscience).
I refuse to believe most people place this same standard of scrutiny for the dollars they spend in other places. NOM isn't the KKK, if they were, I doubt Mr. Card would count himself as one of them.
But I have to agree in part with Scott, if the main thrust of trying to deny somebody work is that you don't like that they have beliefs that they put money behind, you are part of the thought police. Boycott an artist because their work is offensive.
It's why I boycott Jon McNaughton.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
UGH! It's that painter with his SICKENINGLY DIPPY PAINTINGS! UGH! UNBEARABLE!
But this is tricky because if my 35-45% lesbionic self finds a woman who is not like my mother and marries her, this doesn't mean that I will be destroying the American family and its structure because I care enough about families to speak out against abuse which actually hurts families. It's just not accurate to paint gays and those who support them as the Bad Guys trying to destroy everything good and American just because they want marriage rights.
What if they didn't call it marriage except among themselves, eh? But, yeah. Still boycotting OSC. I need to give away these books I already have because I reread them and got very frustrated.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Well, Hitler was a painter...his paintings were not offensive at all...still lives and such. Maybe if you like them enough, you can hang them in your living room, and not worry about who painted them at all.
Personally I can not separate the art from the artist to that extent.
OSC is still one of my favorite writers, and not at all Hitler by any stretch of the imagination, but I have not read a single new book of his since I became aware of his active prosecution of gays. In fairness my reading habits have disintegrated under the weight of two small children. But I tell you I'm less and less interested the more I know about his participation in NOM.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
I don't know why they did not just accept him. Then he would have been an artist instead of a horrible, evil dictator.
Or he might have failed at art and become a dictator anyway.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Synesthesia: I don't know why they did not just accept him. Then he would have been an artist instead of a horrible, evil dictator.
Yeah. There's that.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R:
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_:
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: I'm not sure how many times this needs to be said before people will acknowledge it, but OSC is not just some guy who doesn't think gay people should marry. He is one of the heads of NOM, an organization that is actively opposing gay rights through fear mongering, bigotry, and lies as well as a person who has actively spread malicious and false ideas about gay people.
He is being judged in large part for his actions, not just his beliefs.
Worth repeating.
Irrelevant, actually.
I don't care if Elton John is gay. His music sucks.
I don't care if Ellen Degeneres is gay. She's hilarious.
I believe in opposing art where the message is objectionable within the context of the work, NOT for political stances, actions, or associations that have nothing to do with the artist's work.
I don't begrudge anyone their boycott. I vehemently oppose capitulation, though.
It's not irrelevant in the slightest, actually. You just seem to willfully be ignoring the relevancy.
I don't give a crap what anyone believes, but I absolutely feel a moral obligation not to financially support people who take action against things I believe are unassailable rights of all human beings.
If Chik-fil-A just put a bunch of anti-gay rhetoric on their website, I'd think it was distasteful but it wouldn't affect my decision whether to eat there. But that isn't what they do. They actually give a giant pile of money to organizations that support killing gay people rather than living with them. I have decided, for me, that I can't in good conscience give my money to a company that might do that with any part of it.
By the same token, if OSC was just spouting off his screeds about gays ruining the world I would shake my head sadly and continue to enjoy his works. After all, as you said, that has no relevancy on him as an artist. He doesn't leave it at that, though. Not nearly. So I have to make the unfortunate decision to not financially contribute to him, because I can't be an accessory to what he's doing with even a tiny portion of my money.
This isn't a subtle distinction, and it honestly befuddles me that you are ok with this amount of rationalization.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: Well, Hitler was a painter...his paintings were not offensive at all...still lives and such. Maybe if you like them enough, you can hang them in your living room, and not worry about who painted them at all.
Personally I can not separate the art from the artist to that extent.
OSC is still one of my favorite writers, and not at all Hitler by any stretch of the imagination, but I have not read a single new book of his since I became aware of his active prosecution of gays. In fairness my reading habits have disintegrated under the weight of two small children. But I tell you I'm less and less interested the more I know about his participation in NOM.
Amateur artist that I am, I think his art was actually decent.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: Theoretically, you could try to be so toxic a presence as to drive folks away from the site (Stephen actually tried that) and decrease OSC's revenue that way; but there are a number of mitigative steps he could take to circumvent that strategy.
Yes, I did try. Lisa and KoM (and some persistent out-and-out trolls) succeeded where I did not. I've forgotten, from time to time, my original goal here, and posted substantively, or at least sincerely. I suck at sticking to goals sometimes. Sue me.
Let's not forget why I came here, though...his political screeds, specifically on the 2000 presidential election. He brings this on himself by writing for an audience that is, on average, pretty gay-friendly and liberal-ish, while LOUDLY proclaiming opinions that are the very opposite. It bewilders me that he would write for an audience that is the polar opposite of him on a hot-button issue, then loudly proclaim his opinion on that issue many times over a period of years, and be anything other than completely unsurprised by what has happened.
The irritating part is that he kept all those non-PC opinions to himself until after the Clinton/Lewinsky thing (which I believe was a big part of the cause, though I might be wrong), when he already had developed a pretty huge fanbase. It's bait and switch. I'm sure he had no master plan to do such, but it's still pretty confusing. Scott, surely you understand this point, whether or not you can admit that you do.
That's not to say other writers/artists haven't gone off the rails (to whatever degree) at some point, and annoyed their core fanbase. Whatever, these things do happen. Compassion is in order, on all sides, perhaps. I'm not perfect, so it's probably not fair for me to expect OSC to be.
I used to wonder if he was being controversial for reasons other than the obvious one, but now I'm betting that he, as a result of the fairly isolated life he lives , truly believes what he says.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:This isn't a subtle distinction, and it honestly befuddles me that you are ok with this amount of rationalization.
It isn't rationalization.
It is the proper mindset when approaching the evaluation of art.
Politics doesn't matter. GENERALLY, the only thing that matters is the strength of the art and the message it presents in context. Allowing politics to determine whose art is acceptable approaches Mccarthyism (albeit from a consumer perspective rather than a governmental one in this case).
It ain't the songwriter, it's the song.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
I agree that the government should not* use those standards. But I in no way agree that individuals should be held to that standard at all.
I am an NFL fan, and I actively root against Brett Farve, Michal Vick, Ben Rothlessburger and Michael Turner on the field for their off field behaviors. Do I feel the NFL should ban them from play for past misdeeds that have been paid for? No. Do I judge them on the field for their misdeeds off the field, you bet I do.
The evaluation of art is one which is deeply individual and if a person chooses to reject someone's work because of their unrelated faults it is a fully legitimate choice.
If Pol Pot made brilliant music, I would not listen to it.
On the other hand, if someone reforms, and chooses to reject their negative behavior and grows individually, that's another matter.
I would go out and buy every single OSC book I don't own if he renounced NOM, if he admitted his error and asked for forgiveness. But I will not support him while he is a champion of bigotry.
*Edited to add missing word by mistake.
[ March 06, 2013, 06:32 AM: Message edited by: Stone_Wolf_ ]
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
That doesn't make sense, McCarthyism is about the whole witchhunt thing for suspected ties to an 'enemy' ideology as scare mongering for political gain. What the current GOP is doing, primarying out Moderates to put in Tea Party insane asylum drop outs is analogous to McCarthyism, as was holding up Hagel's nomination for ties to a non existent Islamic Fundamrntalist Youth group. Boycotting Mr. Card's work because of his real and proven and harmful ties to a hate group is not McCarthyism.
edit: I disagree with the asking for forgiveness part, for as wrong as Mr Card is for being a part of NOM its something he believed very strongly in as a matter of moral and ethical principle; as objectively wrong as he is I'm not entirely sure its something you would need to ask forgiveness for if you change you mind and evolve on the issue later.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:McCarthyism is about the whole witchhunt thing for suspected ties to an 'enemy' ideology as scare mongering for political gain.
That's why it applies in this specific case.
quote:The evaluation of art is one which is deeply individual and if a person chooses to reject someone's work because of their unrelated faults it is a fully legitimate choice.
There ISN'T individual consideration of art going on with this boycott: this is a widespread panning of an artist because of his political affiliations and beliefs. Indeed, to effect a boycott requires exactly the OPPOSITE of "individual evaluation."
It is, as I noted, grassroots implementation of the thought police.
An artist, to retain his artistic integrity, must NEVER give in to this sort of bullying. I object strongly to the rationale Sprouse provided for his leaving the project; it's unprofessional, unartistic, and a little bit cowardly.
[ March 06, 2013, 06:26 AM: Message edited by: Scott R ]
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
Bullying? This isn't bullying. He's free to have whatever religion he wants, but gays should be free to get married and have all the benefits of marriage. No one is telling him to renounce being a Mormon or marry a man. He's the one who would want to just force gays to marry people of the opposite sex and lie about himself.
I am sorry, but he's not the victim here. The weird thing is if he was being racist and going on racist screeds about how black folks such as myself will destroy society he'd get a lot worse than he's getting. But, if someone like me marries a woman instead of a man, oh, we will bring down all of society.
Which is really, really ridiculous. I've lived in MA for 11 years and the sky isn't falling.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Check the context, Syn. I'm not arguing what you think I'm arguing.
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
quote:Originally posted by Synesthesia: Bullying? This isn't bullying. He's free to have whatever religion he wants, but gays should be free to get married and have all the benefits of marriage. No one is telling him to renounce being a Mormon or marry a man. He's the one who would want to just force gays to marry people of the opposite sex and lie about himself.
I am sorry, but he's not the victim here. The weird thing is if he was being racist and going on racist screeds about how black folks such as myself will destroy society he'd get a lot worse than he's getting. But, if someone like me marries a woman instead of a man, oh, we will bring down all of society.
Which is really, really ridiculous. I've lived in MA for 11 years and the sky isn't falling.
Mel Gibson got off pretty easy with his anti-Jewish rants. Did not work out so well for Don Imus though or Michael Richards.
But I am starting to agree with you.
Why isn't this more of an issue for the movie though? Maybe it will be when we get closer to the premier of EG?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:It ain't the songwriter, it's the song.
I think what JT and Mr Squicky are pointing out is that it has been the songwriter with respect to how OSC has decided to deal with SSM, and to question just how unfair it is, really, to evaluate him on the level he has evaluated others on himself.
And really, I hadn't thought of that. I guess it just slipped my mind, making the connection between NOM, Card's membership, and NOM's advocacy and political activity. Card has supported the boycotting of businesses on the basis of their political beliefs on SSM.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
I haven't seen an answer on the KKK thing, which seems to me to be the most direct comparison to what is happening here.
How about if an artist said "All the proceeds for this work are going to go towards supporting the effort to kill gays in Uganda." If I understand you correctly Scott, people should not consider that when choosing whether or not buy that piece of art. Is that accurate?
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Also, I've got to wonder at the idea that "Yeah, the organization that OSC is a head of, that is waging campaigns (like Prop 8) of fear mongering, bigotry, and lies in order to deny a long persecuted minority their rights has no problem using this tactic, but the long oppressed minority shouldn't."
I've said in one of the other threads on this, the gay rights movement has often said and done things that are not fully justified, but the people they fighting against are, besides being wrong, orders of magnitude worse than in terms of injustice. In addition, these tactics are working. The gay rights movement has made incredible strides in the past few decades, which I'm pretty sure would not have happened if they were all nice and polite while confronting the hate filled, lying bigots who opposed and were oppressing them.
Posted by Aris Katsaris (Member # 4596) on :
MrSquicky, I think a clear distinguishing line can be placed between people and organizations that advocate or perform violence and people and organizations who don't. NOM, I think, is among the latter.
That's also the distinguishing point I'd place between my desire to have membership in organizations like KKK, Neonazis, Al Qaeda be illegal; and my desire to have organizations like NOM be legal.
As for boycotting or firing OSC from his gig at Superman, I think the best position is to clearly state to DC that we will not allow the slightest shred of homophobia to be present in the Superman comic itself. If such appears, *then* you can boycott the comic or ask for the writer to be fired; to boycott the work when the work is affected.
quote:The weird thing is if he was being racist and going on racist screeds about how black folks such as myself will destroy society he'd get a lot worse than he's getting
Indeed, but frankly I think that'd be wrong too. It's absolutely shameful what happened to Harvard Law student Stephanie Grace for just saying in a private email that she simply "doesn't rule out" a genetical predisposition towards lower average IQ among black people.
That mere belief of hers (which wasn't even *political*, as it doesn't advocate policy one way or another), and indeed her mere stated uncertainty on the issue (since it was just mentioned as a possibility, not a held position) sufficed to make lots and lots of people ask that she lose her clerkship.
I find such calls to be much more shameful than the position that instigated such.
Posted by Corwin (Member # 5705) on :
quote:Originally posted by Aris Katsaris: MrSquicky, I think a clear distinguishing line can be placed between people and organizations that advocate or perform violence and people and organizations who don't. NOM, I think, is among the latter.
I think that's minimizing the amount and importance of non-physical harm organizations like NOM cause.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R:
quote:This isn't a subtle distinction, and it honestly befuddles me that you are ok with this amount of rationalization.
It isn't rationalization.
It is the proper mindset when approaching the evaluation of art.
Politics doesn't matter. GENERALLY, the only thing that matters is the strength of the art and the message it presents in context. Allowing politics to determine whose art is acceptable approaches Mccarthyism (albeit from a consumer perspective rather than a governmental one in this case).
It ain't the songwriter, it's the song.
Now there's a baldly misapplied overgeneralization. Again, you willfully ignore the difference between what a person believes and what they support (financially). If you give your money to someone that you know uses it to buy tools to torture animals, you are an accessory to animal abuse, morally speaking.
Posted by Aris Katsaris (Member # 4596) on :
quote:I think that's minimizing the amount and importance of non-physical harm organizations like NOM cause.
A prohibition on promoting or perpetating physical violence serves as a Schelling Point.
But causing non-physical harm isn't a useful Schelling Point, because frankly every political position that *anyone* opposes is so opposed because of the belief that it causes harm -- they wouldn't be opposing it otherwise.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
quote:Originally posted by El JT de Spang:
quote:Originally posted by Scott R:
quote:This isn't a subtle distinction, and it honestly befuddles me that you are ok with this amount of rationalization.
It isn't rationalization.
It is the proper mindset when approaching the evaluation of art.
Politics doesn't matter. GENERALLY, the only thing that matters is the strength of the art and the message it presents in context. Allowing politics to determine whose art is acceptable approaches Mccarthyism (albeit from a consumer perspective rather than a governmental one in this case).
It ain't the songwriter, it's the song.
Now there's a baldly misapplied overgeneralization. Again, you willfully ignore the difference between what a person believes and what they support (financially). If you give your money to someone that you know uses it to buy tools to torture animals, you are an accessory to animal abuse, morally speaking.
That's a harsh and nearly puritanical rule, I think, when applied to ordinary transactions. If you donate money to puppiesmustsuffer.org, that's one thing, but I'm not sure I'd attach the same moral weight to buying a chair that the CEO of PMS listed on craigslist.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Nope. If I spend money to buy art, I'm supporting an artist. It's not my business what he uses the money for, generally speaking. Nor is it my responsibility.
This is a tough thing for the busy-bodies of the world to understand. And I do maintain that's what those who make this argument are: busy-bodies. You're not doing anything glorious or special; you're not really making the world a better place. Given this specific instance, the boycott is accomplishing NOTHING but making an inroad for artistic dishonesty and political elitism at the sacrifice of freedom of expression.
Ironic that this is coming from LGBT groups and supporters. Without freedom of artistic expression, there likely wouldn't BE a gay-rights movement.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Scott, So I read you right in that you do believe that it would be wrong to boycott works of art created by a leader of the KKK or someone who specifically says that they are going to send it all to support the killing of gays?
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
And NOM is making the world a better place how?
Posted by jebus202 (Member # 2524) on :
Scott, would you have any problem buying a book, which was unrelated to Mormonism, from someone like this man?
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Squick:
I find the comparison you're trying to make farcical.
quote:Scott, would you have any problem buying a book, which was unrelated to Mormonism, from someone like this man?
Possibly; depends on what he's selling.
I support artists all the time whose opinions about Mormonism aren't charitable. Heck, I even help get those artists PUBLISH from time to time. I'm proud of my position as assistant editor for a publication that puts story first, and does not concern itself with the politics (or personal lives, or political affiliations) of its authors.
Trying to expose my personal hypocrisies or personality quirks isn't going to convince me that the attitude of artistic enfranchisement only for those who toe the line is beneficial to anyone. Nor will hyperbole-filled analogies or appeals to emotion.
Try reason instead.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Here's reason: NOM, of which Card is a member, has attempted boycotts of businesses due to their support of SSM. 'Picking sides in the culture wars' was one colorful phrase.
In what way is attempting to pressure DC not to hire Card different from this? Would it not also be attemptint to apply financial pressure on a business because of how it associates itself with the SSM issue? Or is it different because it's an individual in one case and a business in the other? Or...what IS the difference? Is it that one is 'artistic enfranchisement' should be involioate, but 'selling coffee' shouldn't?
I'm not saying it's right. Frankly it was shameful when NOM did it in the first place. Is this your view also, then?
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Yes.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Yes to the last? And/or yes to the similarities between the two?
Posted by Aris Katsaris (Member # 4596) on :
quote:"NOM, of which Card is a member, has attempted boycotts of businesses due to their support of SSM."
I wasn't aware of this but I just googled it up and you're right (http://www.christianpost.com/news/nom-launches-boycott-of-starbucks-over-same-sex-marriage-stance-72006/).
Boycotting OSC just became significantly more proper, as reciprocity (tit-for-tat) is another obvious Schelling point. Argument in response to argument, boycott in response to boycott, violence in response to violence.
Posted by Parkour (Member # 12078) on :
So Orson Scott Card supports boycotts of businesses which don't tow the line, but to boycott him for that is bullying.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
This seems to be a can dish it out but can't take it situation. It's just, he's saying gay folks are destroying society and marriage and practically wiping their behinds on American apple pie and we're just supposed to do nothing? Dude, people like me would still be on the back of the bus if folks didn't go, wait a minute, this whole segregation thing is kind of wrong. I'm sorry, but what else can we do? He's saying that I'd be a terrible marriage destroying person for marrying a dame and I kind of think he's wrong about that. This doesn't mean I think he should be forced to renounce Mormonism or marry a man even though I dislike various aspects of Mormonism and the history of it but there's a thing called freedom of religion and a concept called, I'm sorry, but someone is going to RESPOND to you pushing them and it will keep going on and on.
Posted by stilesbn (Member # 11809) on :
quote:Originally posted by Parkour: So Orson Scott Card supports boycotts of businesses which don't tow the line, but to boycott him for that is bullying.
You'd have a point if he didn't think that it was wrong for Orson Scott Card to support boycotts of businesses which don't tow the line.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Yes, it is wrong to boycott businesses for their political stance, where the stance is not part of their business. So, it's okay to boycott Walmart because of their unfair business practices; it is okay to boycott a bookstore that carries mainly LGBT literature; it is okay to boycott Christian bookstores.
It is NOT okay to boycott Starbucks for supporting SSM. It is not okay to boycott a business because it is owned by, or hires, people whose opinion you disagree with. (GENERALLY-- I'm sure someone is going to come out and say something farcical like, "YEAH? WHAT IF IT'S OWNED BY HITLER?")
I'm honestly less invested in the question of businesses, though, because it doesn't hit my freedom of expression buttons.
:shrug:
quote:So Orson Scott Card supports boycotts of businesses which don't tow the line, but to boycott him for that is bullying.
You ascribe to the middle-school model of communication? "He called me a dweeb, so I called him a twerp?" "She pulled my hair, so I poked her in the eye?"
Tell me where the adult table is. Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
quote:It is NOT okay to boycott Starbucks for supporting SSM
This surprises me, since before this you said you don't begrudge anyone their boycott, and seemed more worried about taking it beyond boycott and trying specifically to get someone fired.
A boycott is about trying to coerce a business to stop doing something harmful, or maybe sometimes start doing something desirable. It's not normally about getting someone fired, or "disenfranchising" an artist. If you think the business is causing harm, then trying to influence it to do something else must be okay if you aren't causing as much harm. (Of course these things are very subjective.)
Getting someone fired from a business because of their political views takes the issue beyond the ordinary, justifiable kind of boycott. The extra layer between the entity being coerced and the behavior at issue is crucial.
Edited to clarify what I expressed very poorly the first time around.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:I'm honestly less invested in the question of businesses, though, because it doesn't hit my freedom of expression buttons.
Well I mean the two matters *are* related, and on the same grounds if not scale. If one boycotts a business because as you say of their political stance of supporting SSM, then that is their political stance that is being opposed-it's just that the pressure being applied is on their business. They're not fighting the idea with ideas, they're fighting to defund the idea.
Likewise on Card's level. He has been a not inconsiderable voice in opposition to SSM. Attempting to see to it that his prestige and name recognition, not to mention his earnings, are inhibited to dwindle the support for the idea of opposition to SSM...well, it seems like if one is a violation of freedom of expression, so to is the other. So I suppose the question is, why does one trigger your freedom of expression button more than the other?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by scifibum: Getting someone fired from a business because of their political views takes the issue beyond the ordinary, justifiable kind of boycott.
So, do you think this is categorically true? 'cause if so my answer is kind of "yeah right"
Like, this is tricky and requires clarification. If I boycott the Superman comic — like, I say I am not purchasing the comic and want nobody else to purchase the Superman comic and we start a boycott, is this an ordinary, justifiable kind of boycott? Or does it already categorically cross into the territory of an "unjustifiable" boycott somehow.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
The way that article was written really pisses me off.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
In what way?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:story written by noted homophobe — sorry, “gay marriage opponent” — Orson Scott Card
Ah ha ah ha ha. See it's funny because he pretended like when we write articles we can have Freudian slips too! Also, lets make the word homophobe meaningless except as a word to describe anybody who isn't ok with same-sex marriage. Yep, they are all doing it out of an irrational fear of homosexuality.
quote:The now non-homophobic Adventures of Superman no. 1 will be launched digitally on April 29
Couldn't end the article without dropping the word one last time, just so we *know* the article writer is definitely standing up for gay rights in his article. He's got your back, unless you happen to disagree with him on this, in which case you are one of those homophobes.
edit: Also, as others noted in the comments. The article is not controversial, the author is apparently. But hey, I'm sure the comic was going to be all about Superman breaking up a secret Mormon general authority gay-sex ring.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: [QB] Yes, it is wrong to boycott businesses for their political stance, where the stance is not part of their business. So, it's okay to boycott Walmart because of their unfair business practices; it is okay to boycott a bookstore that carries mainly LGBT literature; it is okay to boycott Christian bookstores.
It is NOT okay to boycott Starbucks for supporting SSM. It is not okay to boycott a business because it is owned by, or hires, people whose opinion you disagree with. (GENERALLY-- I'm sure someone is going to come out and say something farcical like, "YEAH? WHAT IF IT'S OWNED BY HITLER?")
I'm honestly less invested in the question of businesses, though, because it doesn't hit my freedom of expression buttons.
:shrug:
Your position isn't making sense to me. OSC wrote about overthrowing the government if gay marriage is allowed. How do you expect people to respond to this?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Ah ha ah ha ha. See it's funny because he pretended like when we write articles we can have Freudian slips too! Also, lets make the word homophobe meaningless except as a word to describe anybody who isn't ok with same-sex marriage. Yep, they are all doing it out of an irrational fear of homosexuality.
This would be a good thing to charge the writer of the article with, except the writer of the article obviously wasn't just using OSC's opposition to gay marriage as the sole input with which to label OSC a homophobe. You are inferring that, sorry.
I mean seriously I would get the frustration, except you are levying a narrowing charge. We are talking about a person who has a harrowingly homophobic history in his political articles and acts, is literally a director of the national organization of marriage, said that we need to keep homosexual laws on the books because gays "cannot be permitted to remain as acceptable, equal citizens within that society" and then later said that good real-married folk have to rise up and take down a government that lets gays marry.
So one of the reasons you are pissed off about the article is because you are assuming that the writer's definition of homophobia is "a word to describe anybody who isn't ok with same-sex marriage"
when you can't say that's what they are doing, especially with card's long history of saying and doing a boatload of things that people are reasonably going to interpret as homophobic. Which are, in fact, referenced.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Synesthesia: Your position isn't making sense to me. OSC wrote about overthrowing the government if gay marriage is allowed. How do you expect people to respond to this?
well hey technically an anti-gay overthrow of the government isn't a boycott so there's no need to be as concerned about it, right
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
I reckon he has the freedom to overthrow the entire government if gays are allowed to marry legally on a federal level. It's just overthrowing the entire government.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Ah ha ah ha ha. See it's funny because he pretended like when we write articles we can have Freudian slips too! Also, lets make the word homophobe meaningless except as a word to describe anybody who isn't ok with same-sex marriage. Yep, they are all doing it out of an irrational fear of homosexuality.
This would be a good thing to charge the writer of the article with, except the writer of the article obviously wasn't just using OSC's opposition to gay marriage as the sole input with which to label OSC a homophobe. You are inferring that, sorry.
I mean seriously I would get the frustration, except you are levying a narrowing charge. We are talking about a person who has a harrowingly homophobic history in his political articles and acts, is literally a director of the national organization of marriage, said that we need to keep homosexual laws on the books because gays "cannot be permitted to remain as acceptable, equal citizens within that society" and then later said that good real-married folk have to rise up and take down a government that lets gays marry.
So one of the reasons you are pissed off about the article is because you are assuming that the writer's definition of homophobia is "a word to describe anybody who isn't ok with same-sex marriage"
when you can't say that's what they are doing, especially with card's long history of saying and doing a boatload of things that people are reasonably going to interpret as homophobic. Which are, in fact, referenced.
I cannot think of one thing (no exaggeration) one thing Mr. Card has done that I would accept as being indicative of homophobia.
We have to stop using the word phobia as a synonym for "against something".
I have heard people on this board laugh at Mormonism many times. Nobody has dropped the word "Momonophobes" to describe them. Were same-sex marriage advocates who gathered at the LA temple to protest Prop 8 afraid of Mormonism? Is the Edmunds Tucker act an example of institutionalized Mormonophobia?
Homophobia is being misused, you can hedge all you want that homosexuals are being abused more than the other way around, but time and time again I've refused to countenance that. I can't back any cause where my allies are acting in a shameful manner.
I managed to identify homophobia in myself, and I can clearly see it in others often times. But Mr. Card's very aggressive and passionate opposition against homosexuality cannot be conflated with homophobia. For heaven's sake, the man is one of the most introspective people in the history of the written word, and while it's easy to point out that he does not like homosexuality, or approves of it, the idea that he harbors an irrational fear of it, and it leads him to act in the way he does strains credulity.
Put another way, who is somebody who is an opponent of same-sex marriage you would *not* call a homophobe?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Given some of the things he's advocated to deter or inhibit public acceptance of homosexuality, speaking for myself I wouldn't so quickly set aside the term 'irrational fear.'
As for the Wired article itself, yeah, it was a tedious bit of choir preaching, and lived up entirely to the expectations it fostered within the first paragraph. Shoddy writing and shoddy argument. For both reasons and especially because of its attempt to oppose a political belief by basically calling it mean and stupid, I'm not a fan of the article.
All of that said, though, and without condoning it, I have a difficult time mustering up much sympathy for Card on this matter. It's not as though all of this outrage and insult and hysteria just abruptly got thrown at him. For a long, long time, years before gay rights was holding out much hope for equality other than 'wait for the young to get older', Card has been writing essays and columns very, very similar to that Wired article.
I'm not a fan of that style of attack, but Card's been rolling around in the dirt for decades now. My sympathy for him on this is pretty abstract.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Rakeesh: You may not realize it, but I see people who might otherwise feel different harden their stance again homosexuality precisely because they see that homosexuals are becoming a PC protected minority, while Mormonism is still laughed and scorned. Millions flood to see The Book of Mormon Musical, and laugh at the silly Mormons, make fun of them perpetually for being polygamists once upon a time, hate them for denying blacks the priesthood for so long, and rail against them for supporting measures designed to stop homosexuals from being married in identical terms as heterosexuals.
This, and then these Mormons come to church and hear, "The world will hate you because you love me." and "The people in the great and spacious building (a metaphor for the non-believers) pointed their fingers and mocked those who partook of the fruit (those in the church). The world is playing to the script in the scriptures (no pun intended) almost perfectly, so why shouldn't they hold fast, rather than release their grip? Nobody wants to approve of them anyway, they are just those stupid Mormons who believe in their phoney baloney Joe Smith and his imaginary gold plates. Oh, and EL OH EL they wear magic underwear.
I am intensely sorry for the mis-steps my church has made regarding homosexuality. I think it's a blot on our history, just like denying black's the priesthood. But I have no illusions that if those things had never happened, that somehow Mormonism would be respected or that it would suddenly stop being fashionable to make fun of them. We have been made fun of, and persecuted literally since the church was restored by Joseph Smith. There's a reason we ended up in Utah, and it wasn't because we liked eating sego lilies and living in mud huts.
I have a lot of respect for trying to use proper language including using phrases that adhere to what the people they are describing are comfortable with (You could call this PC). Yet it sickens me to see people use the term homophobe without any sort of respect for what that word implies. It's being used to shut down discourse, to shut down the meaningful exchange of ideas.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
I think part of the problem here is definitions. Here is what wiki has to say on the matter:
quote:Homophobia encompasses a range of negative attitudes and feelings toward homosexuality or people who are identified or perceived as being lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender (LGBT). It can be expressed as antipathy, contempt, prejudice, aversion, or hatred, and may be based on irrational fear.
Now, if this writer was trying to clinically diagnose OSC as suffering acute homophobia, I would agree with you BB. But unfortunately, the language has moved away from the scientific use of the word that you are defending.
That OSC does not have an actual fear of gays does not mean that by the common usage of the term he is not a homophobe. I'm afraid being a queer quashing crusader of Christianity (I would have said Mormonism, but it didn't flow) puts him head and shoulders into that category. And if he doesn't like it, he shouldn't call for the overthrow of the U.S. government, or declare that SSM is the end of democracy, or that gays need to be made an example of and not allowed to be a part of our society.
I know you have tremendous respect for the man, and are yourself a proponent of civil rights for gays, but unfortunately (for those who would love to hold him in high esteem and honor, like myself), the world sees his active campaign against SSM is...well, evil. And I am forced to agree.
The man was my personal hero for the middle third of my life. No longer. If he merely approached this topic with the benevolent heart of a true believer who wanted nothing more then to help those who's souls his beliefs put in danger of damnation and not actively pressuring society to create an prosecuted underclass, then I could not feel as I do.
But let's be honest here. He is trying to alienate gays, he puts real effort into it. And as such deserves the title bigot and homophobe.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Stone_Wolf:
quote:Homophobia encompasses a range of negative attitudes and feelings toward homosexuality or people who are identified or perceived as being lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender (LGBT). It can be expressed as antipathy, contempt, prejudice, aversion, or hatred, and may be based on irrational fear.
I cannot get behind that definition of homophobia. It makes homophobia something unique and apart from pretty much every other word that has the suffix -phobia.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
Phobia means discomfort and being freaked out by something too. Like gum freaks me out. Wads of it, the sound of it. UGH. Chiclephobia is the word for fear of gum. It doesn't make me run screaming, but it's SO GROSS.
But it's kind of pathological to think that more rights for gays will equal collapse, everyone becoming gay, no one ever, ever marrying heterosexually. Folks are not pushing to ban gay temples, or ban missionaries, or ban Mormons from marrying and practicing their religion, but folks like OSC do not even seem to want gays to have civil unions, at least NOM doesn't want them to and what is up with that?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
I'm not advocating for Mr. Card's views in this matter or for NOM Synesthesia.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
The point about humor is a little weird. There's only a very small PC subculture in which you can't make fun of gay people. Gay jokes are an entire industry of their own for comedians. And gay people, by and large, are very good-natured about being the butt of jokes.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote: while it's easy to point out that he does not like homosexuality, or approves of it, the idea that he harbors an irrational fear of it ...
yeah he's written hundreds of words detailing how gay marriage literally imperils civilization. That the government allowing gay marriage means you are to turn against the government, because of the peril to the Reproductive Order. I don't know what else I can tell you except "you have just described an idea which does not strain credulity."
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote: while it's easy to point out that he does not like homosexuality, or approves of it, the idea that he harbors an irrational fear of it ...
yeah he's written hundreds of words detailing how gay marriage literally imperils civilization. That the government allowing gay marriage means you are to turn against the government, because of the peril to the Reproductive Order. I don't know what else I can tell you except "you have just described an idea which does not strain credulity."
Then his conclusions are bad ones, not homophobic ones. I mean, I hate to use Hitler but he was an anti-semite, not a jewaphobe (yes I made that word up).
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: ... they see that homosexuals are becoming a PC protected minority, while Mormonism is still laughed and scorned.
Yeah, I remember the time that openly gay guy almost got elected President while the Mormon stood no chance at all. Oh wait, the other thing.
I know you're trying to relate the thoughts that other people in your Church are feeling, but this Christian persecution thing you've (as a a group) presumably inherited from other Christians is just terribly unconvincing, especially in America of all places.
Edit to add: The even weirder bit in my view is that the actual persecution of Mormons back in the past was largely done by a pre-dominantly conservative by our standards Christian country. The people that have the most solid grounds to mock and laugh at Mormonism today are not Christian and typically aren't conservative.
If you're right and Mormons are striking back at being oppressed, they're basically standing with the people that actually oppressed them against people that didn't even really have a place in America at the time.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Originally posted by scifibum: Getting someone fired from a business because of their political views takes the issue beyond the ordinary, justifiable kind of boycott.
So, do you think this is categorically true? 'cause if so my answer is kind of "yeah right"
Like, this is tricky and requires clarification. If I boycott the Superman comic — like, I say I am not purchasing the comic and want nobody else to purchase the Superman comic and we start a boycott, is this an ordinary, justifiable kind of boycott? Or does it already categorically cross into the territory of an "unjustifiable" boycott somehow.
What's the goal of your boycott? Is the economic pressure directed at that goal or not?
If I boycott Starbucks because of their political lobbying or donations, hopefully I *tell* them and my boycott may have the result I want.
If I boycott Starbucks because they employed someone I don't like, that's just silly, because employing someone I don't like isn't something that it makes sense for me to protest. What harm does that do? Allowing jerks to make a living? Yeah, I'm in favor of allowing jerks to make a living.
I do think that if you're going to use economic coercion tactics in response to harmful political positions, you need to direct them directly. Not at a secondary or tertiary level.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus:
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: ... they see that homosexuals are becoming a PC protected minority, while Mormonism is still laughed and scorned.
Yeah, I remember the time that openly gay guy almost got elected President while the Mormon stood no chance at all. Oh wait, the other thing.
Oh yeah, Mormons have a *long* rich history of being elected president. Let's not remember that four years ago it was precisely Romney's Mormoness that lost him the Republican nomination to McCain. And look at the field he won the nomination over this time around? Easily the worst crop of sordid crazy fools I've ever seen. Yay for him beating out the Idiot League. I'm sure after he was nominated nobody said anything about whether the country was ready for a Mormon president, or whether Romney would consult with church leadership during his administration. Nope.
Look I'm not trying (but I may be inadvertently doing this) to build a Mormons have it worse than homosexuals argument. I'm trying to point out that one form of bigotry is becoming (rightfully) increasingly frowned on. While the other has existed since the beginning and nobody stands up for them. Like seriously when a Jew wrote an editorial about how he found The Book of Mormon movie distasteful, and were it about Jews or Muslims people wouldn't be nearly so giddy about it, he got shouted down.
Nobody mentions that Matt Stone and Trey Parker already had a movie about Mormon missionaries starring in pornos years ago, or that one of their most talked about episodes of South Park is called "Meet the Mormons" and it eviscerates the Mormon church. Nobody is going to call them Mormonophobes.
Look, there are plenty of homophobes out there, and calling them out is fine. But there are people who don't support same-sex marriage who are not homophobic, and they don't deserve to have their livelihoods destroyed, or be disrespected. They need to be reasoned with and helped to change their minds. Mr. Card may not somebody who can be persuaded, but so what? There are atheists here who aren't going to become members of my faith, they might even donate money to groups that try to promote that belief system, I don't lose sleep over it, and I don't expend my outrage because of it. I don't support what NOM is doing, and frankly I'm kinda embarrassed that the president of the university I graduated from is the member who left and Mr. Card replaced. But I've never met the man, I don't know what goes into his decisions, his father is an apostle I have a lot of respect for.
I can't give this thread the attention it deserves, I'm already spending time I should spend elsewhere trying to write these posts. But I don't want to live in a society, where somebody like Mr. Card is exiled and cannot work in his field, not because he has no ability or his work itself lacks merit, but because he believes and is vocal about his beliefs, and supports organizations that attempt to make that belief reality. If it can happen to him in this way, with this justification, it can happen to others. We don't need that principle in our society.
Posted by Darth_Mauve (Member # 4709) on :
The big difference--Mormon's try to make homosexuals change their ways. Homosexuals as a whole, don't care what religion you are.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:Originally posted by Darth_Mauve: The big difference--Mormon's try to make homosexuals change their ways.
Let's be realistic-- Mormons want to change the whole world, not just gay people.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
BlackBlade,
This conversation reminds me again at how you're somewhat stuck in the middle in these sorts of conversations. I can appreciate somewhat what that's like, and wanted to take a moment to say that it was noticed in case it didn't seem that way.
Anyway, on to the argument;) I've never had any patience with the victimization claim made by Christians in the US, since it seems that 9/10 times what is actually being decried is a gradual shift in prestige and loss of default-respect as though this were some sort of attack. With respect to Mormons, I would be a little less impatient with such claims, because to those of us outside the Christianity club, Mormonism isn't really stranger just newer. Mucus seems to have the right of it to me-Mormons as a group, so far as they can be characterized as such, seem to have made common cause with the people (conservative Christians) who were the ones driving old persecution. But for those who do feel that homosexuals are more respected than Mormons, I'd just love to hear about the last time a Mormon was hitched to a truck and dragged to death, or when the last time a bunch of Mormon kids were denied the right to form a club in school, so on and so forth.
I will agree, though, that in terms of trends prejudice and mockery of homosexuals is becoming less acceptable more than the same against Mormons-but the thing is, it's radically different groups doing it. Most people don't have the foggiest idea about what Mormons actually *are*, really, except maybe 'Utah Christians' or something...unless they are active Christians themselves. Us secular types will complain and criticize about Prop 8 and blacks in the priesthood, that's certainly true, but we're deeply critical of Christians on a variety of things anyway. We're not the ones taking about cults and false Christians and secret ceremonies and so on. For the really virulent stuff (which is, thankfully, confined to speech), you have to look much closer to home.
Perhaps one of the reasons those of us on the outside of the whole faith camp don't appreciate as much as perhaps we should this prejudice and bigotry is, well, hey. We're insulted in quite a few of the same ways, and have been for generations.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:Yes, it is wrong to boycott businesses for their political stance, where the stance is not part of their business.
When a business takes a political stance, it is part of their business. Their ability to take the stance, support that stance tangibly, and advocate for that stance to others is directly influenced by their success as a business. It's entirely appropriate to decide to stop supporting that business as a customer and to advocate for others to do the same if you disagree with their stance and don't wish to support it.
Posted by Parkour (Member # 12078) on :
quote:Originally posted by scifibum:
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Originally posted by scifibum: Getting someone fired from a business because of their political views takes the issue beyond the ordinary, justifiable kind of boycott.
So, do you think this is categorically true? 'cause if so my answer is kind of "yeah right"
Like, this is tricky and requires clarification. If I boycott the Superman comic — like, I say I am not purchasing the comic and want nobody else to purchase the Superman comic and we start a boycott, is this an ordinary, justifiable kind of boycott? Or does it already categorically cross into the territory of an "unjustifiable" boycott somehow.
What's the goal of your boycott? Is the economic pressure directed at that goal or not?
Of course it is. That's the point of boycotts, after all. We wish to show our nonsupport, as consumers, for a specific thing. In this case, let's say the boycott is "show your nonsupport of dc hiring a director of the national organization of marriage" - is that justifiable, or categorically unjustifiable?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Rakeesh: I appreciate that. It does suck being in the middle a bit, where your own faith thinks your on the road to apostasy, and liberals think you're crazy.
quote:Mucus seems to have the right of it to me-Mormons as a group, so far as they can be characterized as such, seem to have made common cause with the people (conservative Christians) who were the ones driving old persecution.
There are a lot of reasons why it appears Mormons are conservative. But in reality, they are not. Most Mormons don't even live in the continental US, you could not describe them as conservatives. It's not a feature of the religion that lends itself to conservatism, rather people who are conservatives like liberals look at the religion, find intersections that fit their biases and beliefs, and go from there.
When I read my scriptures, I see confirmation for what I believe in regards to same-sex marriage and a great many topics all over the place. I'm just as guilty to a degree.
As for Mormon persecution look deeper, it's there. I've been persecuted for being a Mormon. A man in one of my wards from Afghanistan had men looking to kill him as part of a fatwa that had been declared against him. As a missionary I had anti-mormons interrupt us while we were talking to people on the street and try to start fights with us. A man assaulted me once (though he was mentally ill) because I was a Mormon. There were signs on the streets in Taiwan that warned people to stay away from Mormons. My father was denied a job because he was LDS. But no, I cannot claim that in the US a person was dragged by a truck until he was dead because he was LDS. But I wouldn't put it past some people, given the right circumstances, to do that sort of thing to a Mormon. How hard is it to shoot a man?
But it's human nature to want to get out from being bullied, and throw your weight around. It's a sad lesson, but often a fringe group that gains acceptance in the mainstream turns right around and finds other groups to persecute.
Homosexuals aren't trying to force their way into a Mormon temple. But who remembers Chic-Fil-A being told by a Chicago government official they couldn't open a location because of the beliefs of their CEO? Who remembers a Mormon trying to write a Superman comic and being told that because he is trying to stop same-sex marriage, he can't work for DC comics?
If the shoe was on the other foot, we wouldn't applaud that state of affairs because we agree with same-sex marriage. If comic book stores said they weren't holding Superman on shelves not because Mr. Card was a supporter of same-sex marriage, but because he supports GLAAD, and they lobby for political recognition of same-sex marriage, and hey sometimes they discuss which constituencies they could get a foothold in secret memos, we wouldn't get behind it. NOM isn't supporting Nigerian Christian extremists. They aren't violently attacking homosexuals either. So comparisons to groups like the KKK are ludicrous.
And I am clearly too angry at this topic, because here again I am posting.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
If OSC had the writing history of James Dobson (or perhaps Tim Lahaye...I can't think of a comparably famous conservative-Christian-fiction writer), this wouldn't be as big a deal with his core readership.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Homosexuals aren't trying to force their way into a Mormon temple. But who remembers Chic-Fil-A being told by a Chicago government official they couldn't open a location because of the beliefs of their CEO? Who remembers a Mormon trying to write a Superman comic and being told that because he is trying to stop same-sex marriage, he can't work for DC comics?
Just to point out, what I also remember is that in the case of CFA, some of the strongest critics of opponents of SSM were also loudest in opposition to such behavior by the government. In other words, it didn't go unchallenged. As for the would-be DC writer, well I will say to me that's a slightly different case. I still think it's wrong, but this particular writer has supported-in voice and otherwise-very, very similar methods. I can still disapprove of a particular method without feeling very bad if at all for one who is attacked with his own tactics.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Just to point out, what I also remember is that in the case of CFA, some of the strongest critics of opponents of SSM were also loudest in opposition to such behavior by the government
And in this Superman scenario some gay people who said they think this is a bad idea, but I haven't heard anybody prominent pull a John Adams and say, "No way, not on my watch." Honestly DCs handling of the situation thus far has impressed me. But I still think we may be inches from them letting Mr. Card go.
As for tit-for-tat, I've never subscribed to it.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote:I can still disapprove of a particular method without feeling very bad if at all for one who is attacked with his own tactics.
Yup.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote: while it's easy to point out that he does not like homosexuality, or approves of it, the idea that he harbors an irrational fear of it ...
yeah he's written hundreds of words detailing how gay marriage literally imperils civilization. That the government allowing gay marriage means you are to turn against the government, because of the peril to the Reproductive Order. I don't know what else I can tell you except "you have just described an idea which does not strain credulity."
Then his conclusions are bad ones, not homophobic ones. I mean, I hate to use Hitler but he was an anti-semite, not a jewaphobe (yes I made that word up).
Again, I don't know what to tell you. If hitler had said "...the personification of the devil as the symbol of all evil assumes the living shape of the Homosexual." and "the discovery of the Homosexual virus is one of the greatest revolutions that has taken place in the world. The battle in which we are engaged today is of the same sort as the battle waged, during the last century, by Pasteur and Koch. How many diseases have their origin in the Homosexual virus! ... We shall regain our health only be eliminating the Homosexual"
we sure as hell would be calling hitler a homophobe for it.
Posted by Jeff C. (Member # 12496) on :
Samp, are those quotes from OSC?
Posted by Anthonie (Member # 884) on :
The quotes are from Hitler, if we replace "homosexual" with "Jewish/Jew".
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote: while it's easy to point out that he does not like homosexuality, or approves of it, the idea that he harbors an irrational fear of it ...
yeah he's written hundreds of words detailing how gay marriage literally imperils civilization. That the government allowing gay marriage means you are to turn against the government, because of the peril to the Reproductive Order. I don't know what else I can tell you except "you have just described an idea which does not strain credulity."
Then his conclusions are bad ones, not homophobic ones. I mean, I hate to use Hitler but he was an anti-semite, not a jewaphobe (yes I made that word up).
Again, I don't know what to tell you. If hitler had said "...the personification of the devil as the symbol of all evil assumes the living shape of the Homosexual." and "the discovery of the Homosexual virus is one of the greatest revolutions that has taken place in the world. The battle in which we are engaged today is of the same sort as the battle waged, during the last century, by Pasteur and Koch. How many diseases have their origin in the Homosexual virus! ... We shall regain our health only be eliminating the Homosexual"
we sure as hell would be calling hitler a homophobe for it.
Then, again, that's a problem with the word homophobe. Why don't we say Hitler had a fear of Jews? Because he didn't. He knew exactly what he was doing with his abuse of the Jews. They were a stepping stone he could use. The idea that he was irrationally afraid of them, and so he put them all in ghettos and extermination camps is not something I've heard any historian argue.
Posted by jebus202 (Member # 2524) on :
LOL
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Is there a reason it would be all one or the other? Aren't human motives, even outside Godwins, rather more complicated than that?
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
Phobia doesn't just mean fear.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Oh, and WHY THE HOLOCAUST - Hitler's Darwinistic Messianic Genocide By Jan Horník does say that Hitler was a Judeophobe.
I could look more up...but I'd rather not. Ew.
Posted by Ginol_Enam (Member # 7070) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Who remembers a Mormon trying to write a Superman comic and being told that because he is trying to stop same-sex marriage, he can't work for DC comics? [/QB]
Except for this website, I really haven't seen OSC's Mormonism referenced regarding this Superman story. I'm not even sure how many people realize he is a Mormon. The anger about this story, from the OSC's opponents anyway, seems pretty focused on his "anti-homosexual" stance. Obviously, the LDS church is a large part of who OSC is and certainly an influence on his opinion here, but I don't see it being under attack at any point in connection to this Superman gig. Personally, I think your insistence to shoehorn his Mormonism is rings a little false, BB.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Synesthesia: Phobia doesn't just mean fear.
Yes it does. It's roots are literally grounded in fear. The fact people are trying to use it to mean not liking something is precisely what I am arguing against.
---------
quote:Except for this website, I really haven't seen OSC's Mormonism referenced regarding this Superman story.
Where did I make the accusation this was all being done because of Mr. Card's Mormonism?
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
Would "bigot" be better? We didn't call those who were opposed to rights for blacks "negrophobes" did we?
Posted by Ginol_Enam (Member # 7070) on :
You haven't directly, but you keep bringing OSC's Mormonism up and referencing Mormon persecution when both things are rather unrelated to the Superman story or the backlash surrounding it.
Maybe its not your intent, but it reads to me like you're trying to swap the issue from being OSC's anti-homosexual stance to OSC's Mormonism.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:Originally posted by Synesthesia: Phobia doesn't just mean fear.
Yes it does. It's roots are literally grounded in fear. The fact people are trying to use it to mean not liking something is precisely what I am arguing against.
She said it doesn't JUST mean fear.
Nevermind that "homophobia" is literally itself an example of the suffix having a meaning that extends beyond the categorical requirement of a fear, but there are multiple usages of the suffix -phobia that have nothing to do with fear.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Such as?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
hydrophobia
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
From wiki:
quote:The English suffixes -phobia, -phobic, -phobe (of Greek origin: φόβος/φοβία ) occur in technical usage in psychiatry to construct words that describe irrational, disabling fear as a mental disorder (e.g. agoraphobia), in chemistry to describe chemical aversions (e.g. hydrophobic), in biology to describe organisms that dislike certain conditions (e.g. acidophobia), and in medicine to describe hypersensitivity to a stimulus, usually sensory (e.g. photophobia). In common usage they also form words that describe dislike or hatred of a particular thing or subject. The suffix is antonymic to -phil-.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Look I'm not trying (but I may be inadvertently doing this) to build a Mormons have it worse than homosexuals argument.
That's precisely what it sounds like. You're describing Mormons that are jealous that gays are becoming a protected group in American culture, protected from things like discrimination.
Then you're going on to say how Romney (arguably an idiot himself, after we carve out the Mormon attributes from him) could only win against a field of idiots or whether he would have to consult with the church.
But how would an openly gay candidate do in a Republican nomination? It's not even a question. And we'd be seeing speculation about whether they'd check in with a UN conspiracy or a gay agenda (it's a thing!).
When things like Proposition 8 can be passed in arguably one of America's most progressive states and while there's not even a political question that Mormons can, say, marry each each other or say that they're Mormon without being kicked out of the military, it's not even remotely a fair comparison.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: ... when a Jew wrote an editorial about how he found The Book of Mormon movie distasteful, and were it about Jews or Muslims people wouldn't be nearly so giddy about it, he got shouted down.
This I think is a significantly different direction. What is the role of healthy humour in a pluralistic society?
I would argue that protected groups should be protected from things like discrimination in the law, how they're treated at work, how they're graded in school, etc. It does not mean that Russell Peters or Chris Rock should not be allowed to make fun of Chinese/brown/white/black people. It doesn't mean that we shouldn't have things like Jesus Christ Superstar or X-Files episodes where the best sign that something's gone awry is that Christians from a small town show up. It doesn't mean that we get rid of the Journey to the West movies or Shaolin Soccer.
The comparison to Muslims and Jews is telling. People don't shy away from making fun of Muslims because they respect them so much, it's because people are afraid of being killed. And nobody likes to be compared to Hitler.
But these aren't signs of a healthy society, we shouldn't be aiming at getting Mormonism a place next to those two and trying to do so is just ass-backwards in my opinion.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Mucus:
quote:That's precisely what it sounds like. You're describing Mormons that are jealous that gays are becoming a protected group in American culture, protected from things like discrimination.
Jealous? That's not what I was saying. I am saying they are used to be ridiculed and scorned for their beliefs, which is what their scriptures say will happen, but that the people doing it tell them, "We're intolerant of your intolerance towards homosexuals!" So your choices are double down on intolerance because, nobody is tolerating you, or you get out of the way, and nobody likes you any better.
quote:But how would an openly gay candidate do in a Republican nomination? It's not even a question. And we'd be seeing speculation about whether they'd check in with a UN conspiracy or a gay agenda (it's a thing!).
We have openly gay Democratic legislators, and a bunch of Republican law makers just lobbied SCOTUS to overturn Prop 8.
quote:When things like Proposition 8 can be passed in arguably one of America's most progressive states and while there's not even a political question that Mormons can, say, marry each each other or say that they're Mormon without being kicked out of the military, it's not even remotely a fair comparison.
You're overstating this last bit. Mormons *cannot* enter into polygamist relationships, and there isn't a single good reason for this law that would not also apply to same-sex marriage.
quote:But these aren't signs of a healthy society, we shouldn't be aiming at getting Mormonism a place next to those two and trying to do so is just ass-backwards in my opinion.
You are absolutely right! So why don't we boycott every single person who supports a ban on polygamy?
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Mormons *cannot* enter into polygamist relationships, and there isn't a single good reason for this law that would not also apply to same-sex marriage.
One of the primary legal purposes for marriage is the designation of next-of-kin for purposes of inheritance, medical decision making, etc. Allowing more than one person to be married to the same person eliminates the automatic nature of that designation.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
quote:Originally posted by dkw: One of the primary legal purposes for marriage is the designation of next-of-kin for purposes of inheritance, medical decision making, etc. Allowing more than one person to be married to the same person eliminates the automatic nature of that designation.
While true, there are ways around that, like making the eldest partner the automatic designated decision-maker. As far as inheritance goes, those laws vary widely from place to place, and allowing polygamy would only make the size of the giant messes surrounding people's estates slightly larger. The whole contesting of wills, dying intestate, etc., etc. set of problems is already big, and we already have the issue of multiple children from different marriages making it worse (through divorce, etc.). Polygamy, etc. wouldn't complicate things that much more.
It is pretty indefensible to allow same-sex marriage without allowing polygamous/polygynous marriage, IMHO. However, those who want those kinds of marriages (in this country) don't have the numbers, money, or public support that gays/lesbians do. That's the only real substantive difference, again, IMHO.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Personally I don't mind nearly any form of marriage...between people that is.
Posted by Jeff C. (Member # 12496) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: Personally I don't mind nearly any form of marriage...between people that is.
What about between my cats? It would he hilarious! Just think about it, Stone Wolf. We could dress them in a dress and a little suit, and Mittins could do that thing he does when he's embarrassed. You know the thing I mean! Oh, and little Roxanne (we named her that because she's SUCH a little tease) would rub up against Mittins and then fake interest when the reception was over (typical Roxanne, I swear). Oh, it would be SO funny! And Samp could come and take pictures. Heck, the whole Hatrack gang could show up and celebrate. Just think about it. Everyone loves cats!
Okay, I don't really have any cats...
But still! Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Hey, you wanna have a wedding ceremony for your pretend cats, make sure to send me an invite...what I mind is people legally marrying non people.
I'm fairly open minded but, the law really shouldn't recognize this guy. Poor dog!
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:But how would an openly gay candidate do in a Republican nomination? It's not even a question. And we'd be seeing speculation about whether they'd check in with a UN conspiracy or a gay agenda (it's a thing!).
We have openly gay Democratic legislators, and a bunch of Republican law makers just lobbied SCOTUS to overturn Prop 8.
There are three things to tease out here. Nominations for presidential candidate, presence as legislators, and laws that need overturning.
Mormons can stand as candidates for presidential candidate in both parties. Gays can probably do just the Democratic nomination without it being any kind of joke. Mormons are legislators in both parties. I'd like to think that gays are legislators in both parties.
Good thing that legislators are petitioning to have Prop 8 overturned, but the mere fact that there is a law to be overturned in one of America's most progressive states only underlines how far gays have to go to reach the levels of equality that Mormons currently enjoy.
quote:
quote:But these aren't signs of a healthy society, we shouldn't be aiming at getting Mormonism a place next to those two and trying to do so is just ass-backwards in my opinion.
You are absolutely right! So why don't we boycott every single person who supports a ban on polygamy?
I don't see how this comment relates to my discussion on the place of humour and ridicule in a proper society. Could you elaborate on the connection?
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by dkw:
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Mormons *cannot* enter into polygamist relationships, and there isn't a single good reason for this law that would not also apply to same-sex marriage.
One of the primary legal purposes for marriage is the designation of next-of-kin for purposes of inheritance, medical decision making, etc. Allowing more than one person to be married to the same person eliminates the automatic nature of that designation.
There's a good list of reasons at our justice department webpage that simply do not translate to same sex marriages.
Among them, polygamy violates our obligations under international law to ensure equality between women and men, a historical and current context of polygamy playing a role in being harmful to women, harms that arise when marriages are not exclusive between two parties, harms that arise from competition between wives, and studies that show harms to children from polygamous households, etc. http://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/dept-min/pub/poly/chap2.html
None of these easily map to a same sex marriage between two partners.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus:
quote:Originally posted by dkw:
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Mormons *cannot* enter into polygamist relationships, and there isn't a single good reason for this law that would not also apply to same-sex marriage.
One of the primary legal purposes for marriage is the designation of next-of-kin for purposes of inheritance, medical decision making, etc. Allowing more than one person to be married to the same person eliminates the automatic nature of that designation.
There's a good list of reasons at our justice department webpage that simply do not translate to same sex marriages.
Among them, polygamy violates our obligations under international law to ensure equality between women and men, a historical and current context of polygamy playing a role in being harmful to women, harms that arise when marriages are not exclusive between two parties, harms that arise from competition between wives, and studies that show harms to children from polygamous households, etc. http://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/dept-min/pub/poly/chap2.html
None of these easily map to a same sex marriage between two partners.
Not all polygamous cultures mistreat their women. In addition, using gender equality as a reason to ban polygamy/polyandry is conflating correlation and causation. Making sure women are equal under the law outside the home is far more essential in determining gender equality.
Educating women, giving them legal protections, making birth control cheap/reliable/convenient, and giving them economic opportunities are the best ways to help ensure their fair treatment in society. Banning polygamy is of practically zero usefulness compared to those other methods.
Educated, economically-independent women are MUCH less likely to tolerate being mistreated at home. That applies to women in both monogamous and polygamous relationships. How would it not?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Mucus:
quote:Good thing that legislators are petitioning to have Prop 8 overturned, but the mere fact that there is a law to be overturned in one of America's most progressive states only underlines how far gays have to go to reach the levels of equality that Mormons currently enjoy.
And I am saying there is an equivalent law banning polygamy that nobody is interested in removing. It has blocked Mormonism from practicing their religion almost its' entire existence.
quote:I don't see how this comment relates to my discussion on the place of humour and ridicule in a proper society. Could you elaborate on the connection?
OK so we agree it's a bad idea to try to silence opinions by using PC to protect minorities when they are discussed negatively, or made fun of.
Yet, that is exactly what is happening. One group is saying, "We expect to be treated fairly and equally" another group is saying, "We don't believe your relationships are inherently equal to ours, so they should not be recognized by the state."
Neither group should be trying to go after the other at the individual level. I don't like NOM's boycott of Starbucks, I don't like people telling DC comics not to hire Mr. Card. Look, if we permit this to happen to Mr. Card, at what point is an opinion or belief system important enough that we should cause opponents of it to suffer economical damage just for having it? Where do you draw the line? The Republican party supported a needless war in Iraq, hundred's of thousands are dead because of it. Should we pressure companies not to hire Republicans who supported that war? It's just way too inconsistent and messy to boycott this way.
quote:Among them, polygamy violates our obligations under international law to ensure equality between women and men, a historical and current context of polygamy playing a role in being harmful to women, harms that arise when marriages are not exclusive between two parties, harms that arise from competition between wives, and studies that show harms to children from polygamous households, etc.
None of those arguments were persuasive to me. It sounds just like people who say that homosexuals tend towards short-term relationships therefore it's inherently harmful to endorse that kind of relationship regardless of how stable the relationships could be potentially. Bear in mind, I am not saying only men can have multiple wives, I would be comfortable with women have multiple husbands. Further, you could just as easily argue that making polygamy illegal drives it underground which is what makes it prone to gender inequality and illegality.
I am certain that were we to look at polygamy historically, we could find many examples of it working reasonably well. More importantly, it involves consenting adults. Polygamists may not want children, they may work out a system that is agreeable to all those involved. Who are you to tell them no?
[ March 09, 2013, 02:48 PM: Message edited by: BlackBlade ]
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
Look at what the FLDS is going through and tell me that it is a healthy system for women and children to live in. It really isn't. Women and children and even men suffered in such a system.
But, there could be some cases where it can work, depending, but from what I've read about it really does seem unhealthy and i sure as heck wouldn't want to share a mate with several other people.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I confess that it's spiteful, but if someone else were making the comparisons you're making, BlackBlade, someone who had stood in opposition to SSM for religious reasons who was also a Mormon and made the point about plural marriage/polygamy, I would cheerfully utilize the varied religious arguments against it and be baffled and irritable when proponents didn't immediately cede that they were good and sound objections.
As a question of right and wrong, the justifications I can find for prohibiting polygamy aren't very compelling, not near to the level I personally would need to advocate restricting it. That said, again speaking for myself and realizing you're not entirely speaking your own viewpoint here-it's more than a little galling to hear complaints about equality and unfair treatment from an institution which has stood shoulder to shoulder with those who wished to deny just that, and on the same issue (marriage) no less.
I think that's part of why many people may have a difficult time speaking in defense or support of Mormonism on this issue. Without intending offense, it's easy to recall some striking recent past as well as present examples of a crappy record on the whole equality issue as well as the 'don't mistreat us because you don't like our beliefs' issue. Throw in a good dose of most people regarding polygamy as something strange and not connected to them, and it's easy to go no further than the initial eye-roll when Mormons might speak about these matters.
That's not a justification, mind, because as I said I would've advocate banning polygamy. It's just an explanation.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Rakeesh: I appreciate that. It does suck being in the middle a bit, where your own faith thinks your on the road to apostasy, and liberals think you're crazy.
And I am clearly too angry at this topic, because here again I am posting.
I think it's at this point I want to step back and make a statement about YOU in regards to this subject: I think you're kind of putting yourself in a rocky middle. I don't think you need to think yourself stranded there. I think you've conflated what you're defending to the extent that you feel marooned in your position, like mormonism is on trial, or you are, when what it really is is that 1) an individual is on trial in a comic book world that doesn't want their industry to provide a platform for people who commit to the same organizations, extremism, and efforts as he does, and 2) the definition of the word "homophobe" is on trial with you.
This would be insanely frustrating for anyone, because you're pouring so much effort and putting yourself at so much risk for discrimination and scrutiny from your own church only to feel like you've found the unwinningest place on earth, where you feel you don't get anything back for actually managing, through great personal conviction and (I would guess) ostracizing criticism and scrutiny from the faith, and even maybe derision and discrimination, to be a mormon gay ally. And, yes, an actual ally, not just someone who talks sweet about loving the sinner while keeping the same regressive views (and accordant voting) about what they are or are not supposed to do in the eyes of God.
and it's not right, because it's the product of you honestly going way out of your way to stand up for doing good. Where you're battling to defend mormonism and osc and homosexual rights all at once.
But honestly I think you're accidentally conflating the issues INTO anti-mormon sentiment defense territory and also making the bizarre issue of trying to point out how good and "pc protected" the gays have it.
OSC is on trial for what he has done, and what he still does, and what he has said about gays. he isn't on trial for being a mormon. mormonism has its own problematic issues, but if the boycott was to keep mormons from writing comics, you bet I would be laughing my ass off at the boycotters and standing against them. Most people here would.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Rakeesh: I get that, I really do. I personally have no desire to be in a polygamous relationship at present. But you also have to realize that when I was against SSM, and when I heard the arguments that persuaded me to change my mind, I immediately recognized trends and commonalities with polygamy. It was the same struggle my people engaged in, and lost in the 1800s. Families were torn apart, the church had its property confiscated, and only some of it was returned. A group of people formed a new religion (FLDS) based on the belief that it was better to obey God than to submit to men and their unjust laws. It drove it underground, and people have suffered because of that state of affairs.
Does that compare in quantity to the suffering homosexuals have suffered through the ages? No. Are there countries were polygamy is permitted? Yes. But does it compare in terms of the kind of struggle it is? People with a relationship model that is ancient yet paradoxically considered atypical, being told that their rights are predicated on popular support. With homosexuals thankfully that hump is being crested. But think of what might have happened if Mormons hadn't been forced into submission? There would probably be out and proud healthy polygamist relationships all over the United States. Mormons as a group might have recognized that same link with homosexuality that I do, and they wouldn't have been pulled into the conservative arguments that the Christian right has promulgated. Mormons as a group are starting to come around, but I bet it would have happened much sooner.
So I get that it's frustrating that I'm talking about Mormonism when it's the homosexuals that people are talking about, but I find it endlessly mind boggling that when we talk about polygamy, the very people who are enthusiastic about same-sex marriage happening get cold feet or start hemming and hawing about how it's not the same thing.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Samprimary:
quote:But honestly I think you're accidentally conflating the issues INTO anti-mormon sentiment defense territory and also making the bizarre issue of trying to point out how good and "pc protected" the gays have it.
OSC is on trial for what he has done, and what he still does, and what he has said about gays. he isn't on trial for being a mormon. mormonism has its own problematic issues, but if the boycott was to keep mormons from writing comics, you bet I would be laughing my ass off at the boycotters and standing against them. Most people here would.
I appreciate the kind words, I do. And you may be right to some extent. I'm with you insofar that I don't think this is primarily about Mr. Card's Mormonism. But I don't think you can completely divorce it. Mormonism in many minds is synonymous with Proposition 8, which is synonymous with the gay rights debate in this country because SCOTUS is considering it, and the church lawyers are trying to get it upheld. Mr. Card's opinions on homosexuality I feel are virtually certain to be in part tied inextricably from his being Mormon. I just find it unlikely that most people who are calling for him being boycott are completely unaware he is Mormon, and that the Mormon church is a major player on the side against same-sex marriage.
I have managed to create a martyr pissing contest between homosexuals and Mormons, and I shouldn't have. I wasn't careful enough with my words, and I let some of my raw feelings just come out, without shaping them properly. I don't know what it's like to be gay, I just don't. I do know what it's like to be a Mormon. I do know for example that in certain contexts being gay is less of a problem than being Mormon. My father's line of work for example. Politics is an area where Mormons have more general acceptance than homosexuals do.
Anyway, I guess part of what I want to get across, is even if you have arrived at supporting same-sex marriage, it's paradoxically a big deal, but it isn't. It is because we're breaking out of an incorrect tradition that runs deep. It isn't because there are thousands of other beliefs you are probably still holding onto that need to be dumped. And those bad beliefs are holding you and society back. And some of those beliefs are probably oppressing other people.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: OK so we agree it's a bad idea to try to silence opinions by using PC to protect minorities when they are discussed negatively, or made fun of.
Yet, that is exactly what is happening. One group is saying, "We expect to be treated fairly and equally" another group is saying, "We don't believe your relationships are inherently equal to ours, so they should not be recognized by the state."
Ah, I see how you're proceeding and I disagree. You brought up examples like the Book of Mormon musical and a porno starring Mormon missionaries, and I compared them to X-Files episodes with Christians, Shaolin Soccer, and stand-up comics making fun of ethnic groups.
I was defending the place of all of this fiction and humour to exist in a healthy society. In many cases, these aren't even making fun of minority groups, they're making fun of majority groups which makes me much more sympathetic.
However, you're describing OSC's opinions, which are neither humour nor fiction (heading off the obvious side comment, you know what I mean ). Rather, they are very clear political advocacy in favour of laws that target homosexuals. There's a clear power disparity here that makes me uncomfortable.
In other words, when Russell Peters makes fun of Chinese people, Chinese people laugh. When OSC advocated, things like Prop 8 got passed.
I think its supportable for people to react differently in the two situations as customers.
quote: Where do you draw the line? The Republican party supported a needless war in Iraq, hundred's of thousands are dead because of it. Should we pressure companies not to hire Republicans who supported that war? It's just way too inconsistent and messy to boycott this way.
It probably is messy. That doesn't necessarily mean it isn't worth doing. I would note that it is what Americans have asked us to do time and time again. Whether its Cuba, North Korea, or Iran there doesn't seem to be much hesitation to punch the sanctions button and affect broad swathes of a countries population.
Posted by Anthonie (Member # 884) on :
quote: Anyway, I guess part of what I want to get across, is even if you have arrived at supporting same-sex marriage, it's paradoxically a big deal, but it isn't. It is because we're breaking out of an incorrect tradition that runs deep. It isn't because there are thousands of other beliefs you are probably still holding onto that need to be dumped. And those bad beliefs are holding you and society back. And some of those beliefs are probably oppressing other people.
Maybe it's just me, but you lost me a bit with your last paragraph, BB. ...?
quote:I have managed to create a martyr pissing contest between homosexuals and Mormons, and I shouldn't have. I wasn't careful enough with my words, and I let some of my raw feelings just come out, without shaping them properly. I don't know what it's like to be gay, I just don't. I do know what it's like to be a Mormon. I do know for example that in certain contexts being gay is less of a problem than being Mormon. My father's line of work for example. Politics is an area where Mormons have more general acceptance than homosexuals do.
I know what it's like to be both: gay and Mormon. I suppose ultimately it is impossible to explain in words.
One phrase perhaps come closest: cognitive dissonance. Especially coming from a fundamentalist family. In some contexts being gay is worse than being Mormon, especially growing up in small-town Utah one's entire life.
*edited for clarity
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: None of those arguments were persuasive to me. It sounds just like people who say that homosexuals tend towards short-term relationships therefore it's inherently harmful to endorse that kind of relationship regardless of how stable the relationships could be potentially.
I think that you should probably take a look at the longer article. I'm not necessarily saying that you're thinking this way, but I think a strong case has to be made for each kind of relationship based on its merits.
I recall the commentators (not you) that were all like, "now that we've allowed same sex marriage, we should allow polygamy or marriage between people and animals." But there are fundamental differences in how consent is treated in each and how exclusivity is handled in each.
Feminism and the ideal that men and women are equal lead easily to a conclusion that gender doesn't matter when it comes to marriage between people. There's no equivalent road between feminism and the idea that the *numbers (or species)* of people in a relationship don't matter.
quote:Bear in mind, I am not saying only men can have multiple wives, I would be comfortable with women have multiple husbands.
And I would not. It sounds like trying to solve the phenomenon of white-people-only lunch counters in old America by creating an equal number of black-people-only lunch counters. Equality of opportunity for exploitation is not really the same thing as actual equality.
quote: Further, you could just as easily argue that making polygamy illegal drives it underground which is what makes it prone to gender inequality and illegality.
Except that it is/was far from underground in contemporary Muslim countries or China before the Communist Revolution. Rather, it was practised by the rich and openly, yet it is/was still horrible and a significant contributor to inequality.
quote:And I am saying there is an equivalent law banning polygamy that nobody is interested in removing. It has blocked Mormonism from practicing their religion almost its' entire existence.
There's a difference here, from the paper:
quote:Moreover, United States' jurisprudence on Mormon polygyny, most notably Reynolds v. United States,[290] has clearly recognized that although state law cannot interfere with religious belief, it may intervene where religious practices undermine the rights of others. ... As Deller Ross has noted, the important belief-practice distinction drawn by the United States Supreme Court has resonated in other domestic court decisions on polygyny.[292] In each of the two cases where the Bombay High Court in India upheld local statutes prohibiting Hindu polygyny (before national law prohibited it), for example, it cited the belief-practice distinction drawn by the U.S. Supreme Court.[293]
I can't see in any way that same-sex marriage undermines the rights of others. On the other hand, I can easily see how polygamy does/did.
I accept that maybe some day in the future when things like gender equality, religions that are hostile to women, and economic opportunity have evened/weakened out much more significantly than they have today, then the prospect of consenting adults entering a polygamous relationship might be more realistic. But in today's world, like repealing the your Voting Rights Act, there's only a superficial veneer of plausibility that would lead to massive abuse if actually done.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: This would be insanely frustrating for anyone, because you're pouring so much effort and putting yourself at so much risk for discrimination and scrutiny from your own church only to feel like you've found the unwinningest place on earth ...
I appreciate and second this thought, BlackBlade, by the way.
Posted by Tittles (Member # 12939) on :
There's also the fact that when one guy gets five wives, the other four guys end up frustrated and pissed off. Not good for peace and harmony in society.
Posted by umberhulk (Member # 11788) on :
speak for yourself
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tittles: There's also the fact that when one guy gets five wives, the other four guys end up frustrated and pissed off. Not good for peace and harmony in society.
Unless, of course, some women have multiple husbands, and gays are allowed to be openly gay, are free to adopt and/or pay willing women to bear their children, and therefore don't have to marry women in order to have children.
In that kind of world, it's less likely that there would be a shortage of available women.
You're right, though, that this problem can come up. It definitely does in the FLDS church. They are an extreme example, though.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
quote:Originally posted by Synesthesia: Look at what the FLDS is going through and tell me that it is a healthy system for women and children to live in. It really isn't. Women and children and even men suffered in such a system.
But, there could be some cases where it can work, depending, but from what I've read about it really does seem unhealthy and i sure as heck wouldn't want to share a mate with several other people.
Not all polygamists are FLDS, or even religious at all. I know a number of people who are polyamorous, and would be willing to marry an additional partner if the law ever allows.
I wonder why they don't go to a Muslim country and get married.
Come to think of it, I wonder what happens when a Muslim man with multiple wives moves to a non-polygamy-friendly country. Hmm.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote: As a result, the Orson Scott Card story (co-written with Aaron Johnston, Card’s writing partner on Marvel’s Ender’s Game comics) will not appear in either the digital or print editions of Adventures of Superman, the upcoming anthology series launching later this year; instead, it will be replaced by a story by respected creators Jeff Parker and Chris Samnee, with the print edition featuring the Parker/Samnee collaboration in addition to work by Justin Jordan and Riley Rossmo, as well as Jeff Lemire. Because of this last-minute substitution, the first print issue of Adventures of Superman will be made returnable to comic stores that have already ordered it.
The news has inspired speculation about whether or not this could mean that DC will quietly kill off the controversial Card story entirely, with some suggesting that the story remaining un-illustrated gives the publisher an “out” to avoid any potential breach-of-contract legal response. (As a freelancer, Card wouldn’t have the option of a wrongful termination suit.)
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
in addition, osc's announcements on the front page are now I guess handpicked defenses of him on this issue, including this one:
and makes me wonder if Matthew Sanders of Deseret News even really carefully read through the article he's denouncing.
Anyone else spot why?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Well, I mean of course. Who would expect someone's own website's front page *not* to speak in defense of themselves? Hardly shocking.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: hydrophobia
If somebody is hydrophobic then most people would assume they are irrationally afraid of the water. We certainly don't use it to mean, "Hey, you just don't bond chemically with water!"
quote:I recall the commentators (not you) that were all like, "now that we've allowed same sex marriage, we should allow polygamy or marriage between people and animals." But there are fundamental differences in how consent is treated in each and how exclusivity is handled in each.
Yes I've heard that argument. The animals one is obviously flawed because as far as we know animals cannot give consent. Though just how sapient some species like dolphins are might blur that line one day, but I am not convinced it has been breached as yet. With polygamy, when you are dealing with consenting adults who are under no sort of psychological duress that you cannot say, "Well these studies show that polygamy just doesn't have the same societal value as other forms of relationships, sorry."
Maybe we approach same-sex marriage from different places, but I'm grounded in our Constitution guarantees equal treatment under the law. We currently subsidize and protect heterosexual marriage, so we should extend those rights to any relationship entered into by consenting adult parties. Or else the government must get out of the marriage business entirely. But this next part is probably the crux of our disagreement.
quote:I can't see in any way that same-sex marriage undermines the rights of others. On the other hand, I can easily see how polygamy does/did.
What is intrinsic to polygamy that undermines the rights of others?
Posted by Tittles (Member # 12939) on :
I'll ask again, what happens to the young men who get the short end of the stick?
It's not as easy as it used to be to gather them into raiding parties and have them die facing the next tribe over's young men.
I know its a big world and they could find someone else from outside society, but what happens in the Mormon Ideal World? Are females with multiple husbands okay in that world? Even if they are, do you think men are going to be as willing to enter into that type of relationship when they can't know the children are theirs? I haven't heard of that type of system working, historically.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I have no problem with polygamy in theory. In practice, however, it is quite often oppressive to women, either treating them as property or grooming girls to provide sex and children to old men once those girls have passed an almost laughable age of consent.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
How is it healthy for the children? One man having 50 children with 5 different wives. Where will he get the resources for all of them? The children definitely get the short edge of the stick in such an arrangement.
Posted by Tittles (Member # 12939) on :
He provides for them by being old and rich.
Posted by stilesbn (Member # 11809) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: I have no problem with polygamy in theory. In practice, however, it is quite often oppressive to women, either treating them as property or grooming girls to provide sex and children to old men once those girls have passed an almost laughable age of consent.
Marriage is quite often oppressive to women too, treating them as property and instantly available victims to rape and abuse.
People seem to be arguing from a point or moral repulsion, which puts you in the same bucket as many people you rail against who are against gay marriage.
You need to provide proof that if polygamous marriage were legal and multiple adults consented to enter into a polygamous marriage that the rights of those adults or their children would be infringed upon as a direct result of the fact that they are polygamously married.
Pointing out a case where the husband is abusive and oppressive has nothing to do with polygamy. One could just as easily be abusive and oppressive in a monogamous relationship.
Despite my personal aversion to the idea, I've learned time and time again that personal moral aversion to something isn't a legitimate basis to make something illegal.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I have no "moral repulsion" for polygamy. I do have "moral repulsion" for lack of true consent. As polygamy is usually practiced it generally there is a culture that limits the ability of women to freely consent or withhold that consent. If four or five adults met and decided to take up housekeeping and so forth, that wouldn't bother me in the least. When a culture grooms girls to be brides for whoever the alpha male is in that community, I have a problem. It isn't "as easy" to be oppressive or abusive in a monogamous relationship (though it is easy enough) because there isn't as a rule the same level of cultural conditioning in the general populace as is present in communities where polygamy is practiced.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: hydrophobia
If somebody is hydrophobic then most people would assume they are irrationally afraid of the water. We certainly don't use it to mean, "Hey, you just don't bond chemically with water!"
Psychological fear of water is "aquaphobia." Hydrophobia has literally nothing to do with fear. At all. A hydrophobic substance like vegetable oil is not afraid of water. There is no psychological component to it.
Posted by Tittles (Member # 12939) on :
I don't have a moral repulsion for polygamy. What I have is an aversion to living in a society full of undersexed and pissed off young men, for the benefit of a few older rich men.
I think such a society would be less stable and more dangerous.
The same can not be said of a society that allows same sex couples to consenually marry each other instead of the opposite sex.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tittles: I don't have a moral repulsion for polygamy. What I have is an aversion to living in a society full of undersexed and pissed off young men, for the benefit of a few older rich men.
Good point, but what about polyandry? That is practiced in a few cultures.
Certainly a culture that accepts both polyandry and polygamy wouldn't be likely to have a net shortage of available women.
For that matter, it's like I said before, protecting women's rights is about education, access to birth control, enforcing rape laws in a fair way, etc. etc.. Oppressive forms of polygamy are as much effects of oppression as they are causes.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: hydrophobia
If somebody is hydrophobic then most people would assume they are irrationally afraid of the water. We certainly don't use it to mean, "Hey, you just don't bond chemically with water!"
Psychological fear of water is "aquaphobia." Hydrophobia has literally nothing to do with fear. At all. A hydrophobic substance like vegetable oil is not afraid of water. There is no psychological component to it.
OK, but the original point was that -phobia is used to describe an irrational fear or revulsion to something. You have pointed out there are contexts where it isn't. So I'll conceded that, but I don't think there is a word with the suffix -phobia that when applied to human's does not invoke the clinical definition.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
It's an etymologically complicated matter. As an antonym to -phile, -phobe is useful to describe a condition of dislike and repellence and need not necessary mean a literal fear.
The semantically accurate word for someone who hates/dislikes something would incorporate the Greek "mis-" component, such as misogyny or misanthropy. In the case of homosexuality that term is "homosexualmisia", a word with only ~500 Google hits and which is flagged as a misspelling in my browser; It's extremely unlikely to enter into common usage.
Generally speaking, when we see the "-phobe" suffix used in reference to social issues, we are almost exclusively talking about a dislike or distrust, not a literal fear (though that is also sometimes a component). Islamophobe, xenophobe, etc.
At this point the definition of the word has moved beyond it's literal meaning and it would probably be best to just qualify it when necessary if you feel it needs to be clarified that you are applying a literal or clinical definition, which is usually not the case.
That said, I would suggest that Card's belief that the normalization of homosexual relationships and the legalization of gay marriage would destabilize society constitutes an irrational fear.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by steven:
quote:Originally posted by Tittles: I don't have a moral repulsion for polygamy. What I have is an aversion to living in a society full of undersexed and pissed off young men, for the benefit of a few older rich men.
Good point, but what about polyandry? That is practiced in a few cultures.
Certainly a culture that accepts both polyandry and polygamy wouldn't be likely to have a net shortage of available women.
It's not really that good a point. Tittles, you're making several big assumptions here, none of which really make sense. The first is "everyone will become polygamous if polygamy is legalized." This is akin to "straights will all gay marry if we legalize gay marriage."
It doesn't follow. Most of our culture prizes monogamy. Most people in our culture do too. If polygamy was legalized, we wouldn't suddenly see tons of monogamous people getting lots of wives.
Also, you're assuming that our society currently breaks down into sexual/relationship parity and everyone gets a mate. But that's ridiculous. Many people don't get spouses at all. Many people serially marry, and many people stop dating after a failed marriage. In some locations there are tangible gender disparities, and also sometimes lopsided numbers of gay men or lesbians.
There are a ton of people in our society. Only a tiny fraction of them would practice polygamy if it were legal. It's not going to cause any of the things you're afraid of.
quote:Originally posted by steven: For that matter, it's like I said before, protecting women's rights is about education, access to birth control, enforcing rape laws in a fair way, etc. etc.. Oppressive forms of polygamy are as much effects of oppression as they are causes.
Right.
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: I have no "moral repulsion" for polygamy. I do have "moral repulsion" for lack of true consent. As polygamy is usually practiced it generally there is a culture that limits the ability of women to freely consent or withhold that consent. If four or five adults met and decided to take up housekeeping and so forth, that wouldn't bother me in the least. When a culture grooms girls to be brides for whoever the alpha male is in that community, I have a problem. It isn't "as easy" to be oppressive or abusive in a monogamous relationship (though it is easy enough) because there isn't as a rule the same level of cultural conditioning in the general populace as is present in communities where polygamy is practiced.
Kate, it seems like you're basing "how polygamy is usually practiced" on one or two specific subcultures that you happen to be aware of. What's your basis for thinking that's "usual," other than confirmation bias?
Go somewhere like Portland, Seattle or San Francisco and you'll likely see there are other subcultures that would value polygamy too, that do not have the misogynistic flaws you're referring to.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: hydrophobia
If somebody is hydrophobic then most people would assume they are irrationally afraid of the water. We certainly don't use it to mean, "Hey, you just don't bond chemically with water!"
Psychological fear of water is "aquaphobia." Hydrophobia has literally nothing to do with fear. At all. A hydrophobic substance like vegetable oil is not afraid of water. There is no psychological component to it.
This is such a BS trap, Sam. There's no psychological component because it doesn't apply to things with psychology.
Do you have examples of -phobia being applied to humans where there is no connotation of fear? Because that's what BB was actually saying, and you know it.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by steven: For that matter, it's like I said before, protecting women's rights is about education, access to birth control, enforcing rape laws in a fair way, etc. etc.. Oppressive forms of polygamy are as much effects of oppression as they are causes.
Perhaps when we have done a better job at those things, we will be better equipped to do polygamy in a good way.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank:
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: I have no "moral repulsion" for polygamy. I do have "moral repulsion" for lack of true consent. As polygamy is usually practiced it generally there is a culture that limits the ability of women to freely consent or withhold that consent. If four or five adults met and decided to take up housekeeping and so forth, that wouldn't bother me in the least. When a culture grooms girls to be brides for whoever the alpha male is in that community, I have a problem. It isn't "as easy" to be oppressive or abusive in a monogamous relationship (though it is easy enough) because there isn't as a rule the same level of cultural conditioning in the general populace as is present in communities where polygamy is practiced.
Kate, it seems like you're basing "how polygamy is usually practiced" on one or two specific subcultures that you happen to be aware of. What's your basis for thinking that's "usual," other than confirmation bias?
Go somewhere like Portland, Seattle or San Francisco and you'll likely see there are other subcultures that would value polygamy too, that do not have the misogynistic flaws you're referring to.
Excellent. Got any examples of a contemporary culture where polygamy is practiced in a good way? I would honestly be delighted to see them.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
I don't think polyamorous setups such as you might find in those particular cities tend to come with any of the legal benefits or ramifications of legal marriage.
Posted by Tittles (Member # 12939) on :
I'm not too concerned about the marriage or women's rights side of it, Dan. Sex, for most people, and especially young people, is a driving need. You can't ignore that while discussing changes to how society channels and supplies for those needs.
If we have Mormon Paradise and every man aspires to have a few wives to pump out the next universe's spirit children, I think it's a valid question to ask what happens to the losers, and how we deal with their reactions.
In real world terms, young angry men are problems in areas of the world where access to women is inhibited by religious or social restrictions. (Think burkhavilles.) These set-ups worked in the past because different society's leaders just had their young men kill each other in tribal raids or wars. What's the solution today?
China is going to be/is going to be going through something similar soon, because for a while Chinese people had a hobby of killing their infant girls. It'll be interesting to see how that situation resolves itself, although any serious unrest is covered by the friendly local Chinese police.
And like Kate, I'm interested about hearing about successful contemporary polygamous societies.
Posted by stilesbn (Member # 11809) on :
quote:If we have Mormon Paradise and every man aspires to have a few wives to pump out the next universe's spirit children, I think it's a valid question to ask what happens to the losers, and how we deal with their reactions.
If we have homosexual paradise and every person only has sex with their own gender I think it's a valid question to ask what happens to the population and how to deal with its annihilation.
Posted by Tittles (Member # 12939) on :
Well, for one thing, in vitro fertilization would cover any population crisis. Any woman and man could have children, and they wouldn't have to be married or even physically touch each other.
You know, like today.
Dan saying "well not everyone would choose to be polygamous" is one thing. You saying it strikes me as different. If Mormon Way is the Best Way, then all Mormons in Mormon Paradise are actively working to convert others, yes? Do you just try half-heartedly once the single male population starts reaching high levels? Do you look aside from adultery that might happen between fourth wife and single mailman? Does your god come down from heaven and chemically castrate the males who lost out?
Should only a quarter or a half of the population convert to Mormonism? Do we allow only the very most honored men, like less then five percent, to marry multiple wives? How is this fair to the other Mormons?
What is the solution in Mormon Paradise?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by stilesbn:
quote:If we have Mormon Paradise and every man aspires to have a few wives to pump out the next universe's spirit children, I think it's a valid question to ask what happens to the losers, and how we deal with their reactions.
If we have homosexual paradise and every person only has sex with their own gender I think it's a valid question to ask what happens to the population and how to deal with its annihilation.
The difference is that "homosexual paradise" does not require everyone to be homosexual. That is not the goal of homosexuals.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by scifibum: I don't think polyamorous setups such as you might find in those particular cities tend to come with any of the legal benefits or ramifications of legal marriage.
Well, yeah, because that's denied to them! Some wouldn't marry even if they could, because marriage is sort of scorned in some parts of those subcultures... but the same was true of most gay subcultures in the 80s and 90s, too. When marriage excludes people, they tend to turn around and be derisive of marraige.
But not always.
I know a polyamorous foursome in Seattle in which only two members are US citizens. They married the two noncitizens. But it's awkward because US immigration services explicitly ask about whether or not you're in a polyamorous relationship, and if you admit you are, you're screwed.
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Excellent. Got any examples of a contemporary culture where polygamy is practiced in a good way? I would honestly be delighted to see them.
Look in any progressive, young (20s and 30s I expect) hipsterish subculture and, as Scifibum mentioned, key in on "polyamory" instead of "polygamy." You'll find a few. I know Sam has mentioned that he knows some.
I dunno how good they really are, per se, but they're no worse than most relationships. They certainly don't tend to be misogynistic or involve grooming girls to join an old man's harem or any of the other stuff you've been alluding to.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
If we had been discussing polyamory - which is already legal - that would be relevant. I wasn't talking about polyamory. They are not the same thing.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
I'm confused. Or maybe I'm not. Let me rephrase what you said:
Before we make gay marriage legal, we should see some examples of gay marrying cultures where it wasn't catastrophic. And don't point out happy gay couples who aren't married and would totally love to marry, because that's not the same thing! It's not illegal to be in a gay couple, it's just illegal to gay marry.
Is that about right?
Posted by stilesbn (Member # 11809) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tittles: Dan saying "well not everyone would choose to be polygamous" is one thing. You saying it strikes me as different.
Me saying what? And how is it different from what Dan is saying? If polygamy were legalized today not all Mormons would enter into a polygamous marriage. Even historically the number of Mormons who practiced it were in the minority. Heck I doubt the church would change its policy, at least not immediately if ever. What bearing does any of this have on those Hipster people in the NorthWest in polyamorous relationships who would like to get married?
quote:Originally posted by Tittles: If Mormon Way is the Best Way, then all Mormons in Mormon Paradise are actively working to convert others, yes? Do you just try half-heartedly once the single male population starts reaching high levels? Do you look aside from adultery that might happen between fourth wife and single mailman? Does your god come down from heaven and chemically castrate the males who lost out?
See above. Just because it's legal doesn't mean you or anyone else has to practice it.
quote:Originally posted by Tittles: Should only a quarter or a half of the population convert to Mormonism? Do we allow only the very most honored men, like less then five percent, to marry multiple wives? How is this fair to the other Mormons?
I think you lack knowledge of what polygamy was in the LDS Church historically.
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: The difference is that "homosexual paradise" does not require everyone to be homosexual. That is not the goal of homosexuals.
So your argument against legalizing polgamous/polyandrous marriages is that Mormons want to convert the world?
quote:]Originally posted by kmbboots: If we had been discussing polyamory - which is already legal - that would be relevant. I wasn't talking about polyamory. They are not the same thing.
It's legal to get married polyamorously?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: I'm confused. Or maybe I'm not. Let me rephrase what you said:
Before we make gay marriage legal, we should see some examples of gay marrying cultures where it wasn't catastrophic. And don't point out happy gay couples who aren't married and would totally love to marry, because that's not the same thing! It's not illegal to be in a gay couple, it's just illegal to gay marry.
Is that about right?
Not really. Though we do have examples of countries (including this one) where such examples are plentiful. There is no reason for the same consent issues to pertain. We live in a culture where, for most of history, wives have been property and taught to be subject to the will of husbands. (And not just in the past.) How does that translate to men and men? Or women and women?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by stilesbn:
quote:]Originally posted by kmbboots: If we had been discussing polyamory - which is already legal - that would be relevant. I wasn't talking about polyamory. They are not the same thing.
It's legal to get married polyamorously?
No. But it is legal to be in polyamorous relationships.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots:
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: I'm confused. Or maybe I'm not. Let me rephrase what you said:
Before we make gay marriage legal, we should see some examples of gay marrying cultures where it wasn't catastrophic. And don't point out happy gay couples who aren't married and would totally love to marry, because that's not the same thing! It's not illegal to be in a gay couple, it's just illegal to gay marry.
Is that about right?
Not really. Though we do have examples of countries (including this one) where such examples are plentiful. There is no reason for the same consent issues to pertain. We live in a culture where, for most of history, wives have been property and taught to be subject to the will of husbands. (And not just in the past.) How does that translate to men and men? Or women and women?
I don't understand what you're saying.
The stuff you've written up there could be used against monogamous heterosexual marriage. It's not exclusive to polygamy.
What argument works against three people marrying that doesn't also work against two people marrying?
I don't get it.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots:
quote:Originally posted by stilesbn:
quote:]Originally posted by kmbboots: If we had been discussing polyamory - which is already legal - that would be relevant. I wasn't talking about polyamory. They are not the same thing.
It's legal to get married polyamorously?
No. But it is legal to be in polyamorous relationships.
Yeah and it's legal to be in homosexual relationships. So, they don't need to marry, right?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Dan, seriously, try to follow instead of taking each statement out of context.
As I wrote, I have no problem with polygamy in theory. The types of cultures, judging by the evidence, that currently practice polygamy (or try) are cultures that also oppress women thus creating real problems when it comes to the matter of consent.
If there were a way to safeguard against those problems, I would not have a problem with polygamy.
The oppression of wives who can't consent doesn't really practically enter into SSM so I don't know why you are trying to shoehorn them together. All polygamy and SSM have in common is that they are non-traditional* forms of marriage.
*For some definitions of non-traditional. Polygamy is quite traditional in some ways.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: As I wrote, I have no problem with polygamy in theory. The types of cultures, judging by the evidence, that currently practice polygamy (or try) are cultures that also oppress women thus creating real problems when it comes to the matter of consent.
You say "the types of cultures that practice polygamy." You asked for counter-examples that are not oppressive or misogynistic. And examples were provided.
The only way you have, thus far, dismissed those counter-examples is by saying that those people aren't being polygamous, they are being polyamorous. Because they are not getting married. If I've misunderstood this part of your argument, tell me, please. And clarify what you meant.
Because the whole conversation is about how it is illegal for them to get married. So this seems like a totally inadequate dismissal to me.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Before we make gay marriage legal, we should see some examples of gay marrying cultures where it wasn't catastrophic.
I would put the burden of proof in the other direction: before we make it illegal, we should see some examples where it was catastrophic.
The only reason to assume that the default is "illegal" is to assume that tradition should be codified in law, which is a position that is inconsistent with your politics.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:Before we make gay marriage legal, we should see some examples of gay marrying cultures where it wasn't catastrophic.
I would put the burden of proof in the other direction: before we make it illegal, we should see some examples where it was catastrophic.
The only reason to assume that the default is "illegal" is to assume that tradition should be codified in law, which is a position that is inconsistent with your politics.
Erm... I can't tell if you're being serious here.
But... but I wasn't. Being serious, I mean. I was trying to indicate that this would be a silly onus to put on gay couples.
Or is your point that some examples of polygamy have been catastrophic, therefore it's okay to make it all illegal? I think either you totally misread me, or I've totally misread you. Or both, I guess. Both is probably an option too.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Been busy, conversation may have moved past this.
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: ... We currently subsidize and protect heterosexual marriage, so we should extend those rights to any relationship entered into by consenting adult parties.
I'm not entirely sure that the Canadian government does either of these two things. We 'regulate' marriages, but we don't 'subsidize' marriage or 'protect' it. In fact, I can think of more tax credits that benefit singles than couples due the assumption that it costs more to live as two independent singles rather than share a dwelling.
IIRC, one difference between our tax system and your tax system is that we usually tax as individuals (regardless of whether the individuals are in a relationship) while your system has income splitting for couples, which does subsidize marriages with significant income differences. I'll say outright, I prefer our system.
We do, however, give tax credits for children but those apply to children of singles, common-law, or married couples alike.
quote:
quote:I can't see in any way that same-sex marriage undermines the rights of others. On the other hand, I can easily see how polygamy does/did.
What is intrinsic to polygamy that undermines the rights of others?
Short answer: History and current events
Long answer:
quote:In its General Comment no. 28 on the Equality of Rights between Men and Women, the HRC (Human Rights Council) noted that because “polygamy violates the dignity of women” and is “an inadmissible discrimination against women… it should be definitely abolished wherever it continues to exist.”[529] Likewise, CEDAW (Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women) has argued that because polygyny violates gender equality and often has deleterious financial and emotional consequences for women and their dependents, “such marriages ought to be discouraged and prohibited.”[530]
These statements by treaty bodies reflect the patriarchal discrimination and harms to women and children associated with polygyny. While such harms often differ according to the religious, customary, cultural and socio-economic contexts in which polygyny is practised, the loss of marital exclusivity is common to all such unions. Some of the other deleterious impacts include harms arising from competitive co-wife relationships, mental health harms, sexual and reproductive health harms, economic harms, harms to the enjoyment of one's citizenship, and harms to children of polygynous unions.
Chapter two details how they arrived at each of those harms.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank:
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: As I wrote, I have no problem with polygamy in theory. The types of cultures, judging by the evidence, that currently practice polygamy (or try) are cultures that also oppress women thus creating real problems when it comes to the matter of consent.
You say "the types of cultures that practice polygamy." You asked for counter-examples that are not oppressive or misogynistic. And examples were provided.
Were they? As far as I can tell, you pointed at some cities in the US in the States and one anecdotal group from Seattle. The latter seems impossible to verify, the former simply didn't provide enough detail to proceed anywhere as a discussion.
On the whole, I feel like the idea parallels Communism. I can see how theoretically, it could work out and yes, it might "work" in some isolated groups of hippies. But we've also tried it on a large scale multiple times in the past (or now) in extremely different cultural contexts and the results have been (and are) disastrous every time. Reality trumps theory for me in this case.
(This can be contrasted with same-sex relationships which actually has a decent historical reputation in my view. I would recommend Behind the Red Door for example, but this may be going off topic)
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank:
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: [qb] hydrophobia
If somebody is hydrophobic then most people would assume they are irrationally afraid of the water. We certainly don't use it to mean, "Hey, you just don't bond chemically with water!"
Psychological fear of water is "aquaphobia." Hydrophobia has literally nothing to do with fear. At all. A hydrophobic substance like vegetable oil is not afraid of water. There is no psychological component to it.
This is such a BS trap, Sam. There's no psychological component because it doesn't apply to things with psychology.
that's stupid, dan. It's immature of you to put it as me making a "bullshit trap" .. and it makes it seem like you are ignorant of the statement I made which I am backing up in complete fairness:
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: Nevermind that "homophobia" is literally itself an example of the suffix having a meaning that extends beyond the categorical requirement of a fear, but there are multiple usages of the suffix -phobia that have nothing to do with fear.
The real bs trap here is adding or moving goalposts to the defense of my point.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Mucus: Chapter 2 says this at the very beginning.
quote:To this extent, this Part II does not mean to be exhaustive nor representative of all polygynous unions, but rather suggestive of some of the harms associated with the practice.
quote:While Kaganas and Murray are certainly correct in arguing that the sexual stereotyping of women is not limited to polygyny, they seem to underestimate the degree to which the inherent asymmetry of polygyny tends to perpetuate sex-stereotyping. Where polygyny exists, it often stereotypes women into reproductive and service roles. As a result of such stereotypes as well as its inherent structural inequality, women can never be truly equal in polygynous unions.
"They seem to" is already a weak assertion, and they don't even demonstrate why the counter-argument is wrong. And then they conclude that women can never be truly equal, for reasons they still haven't made clear. And really, all that would need to be done to throw out their whole argument is to find one polygamist relationship either now or in the past where all parties were equal, and happy with the arrangement. I'd be very surprised if this could not be done. Shocked even.
From the article,
quote:As Altman and Ginat have noted, the implicit stereotype within this revelation and other writings at the time of women as dependent and obedient beings whose proper place was in the domestic sphere raising children helped to reinforce polygyny. Likewise, the characterization of men in Smith's revelation as having strong and "“inexhaustible”" sexual needs further perpetuated the theology of plural marriages
I have no idea why 'inexhaustible' is in quotation marks. Smith does not once mention men's sexuality or use that word in the revelation, or any other. Further, they neglect to mention that in that revelation it specifically says that the first spouse must give her consent. In practice it is questionable that this happened, but it's in the same revelation. It's not simply a matter of a man feeling like he needs more than one woman sexually so he goes and gets one.
I think one of the biggest arguments for polygamy is that there isn't an example of a society where women and men were considered equals, so how could there be one where polygamy was practiced? As Dan has pointed out, there are many poly-amorous relationships in the US, and in fact when I was a press clipper, I read relationship columns where Dan Savage and other all recommended an open relationship if both partners would consent to it. This is in effect polygamy or polyandry.
quote:"“several… forms of threat or violence are used to ensure that women stay obedient within a marriage, for example the threat of the husband taking another wife…."
This happens in hetersexual marriage as well. "I'll divorce you, and find a younger more obedient wife!"
quote:To this end, it is essential that discriminatory family structures be eliminated.
They have only made the case that polygamy can potentially be used in a certain way, they have not made a case that it must or is always this way.
This post is getting long, but the main issue I have is they mention that this problem exists in polygamy, which virtually every time exists in other relationships as well. Adultery is de-facto polygamy yet somehow the state should stop polygamy from happening but not pass laws outlawing adultery?
quote:I'm not entirely sure that the Canadian government does either of these two things. We 'regulate' marriages, but we don't 'subsidize' marriage or 'protect' it. In fact, I can think of more tax credits that benefit singles than couples due the assumption that it costs more to live as two independent singles rather than share a dwelling.
IIRC, one difference between our tax system and your tax system is that we usually tax as individuals (regardless of whether the individuals are in a relationship) while your system has income splitting for couples, which does subsidize marriages with significant income differences. I'll say outright, I prefer our system.
We do, however, give tax credits for children but those apply to children of singles, common-law, or married couples alike.
I did not know this. In the United States there are tax breaks for being married, as well as child tax credits. You also have rights regarding your spouses medical care if they are in a coma or similar circumstance. Power of attorney if they die, etc.
If we are looking for historical relationships, polygamy is as ancient as homosexuality, full stop. As for the young being pulled into polygamist relationships, that is found in everything from heterosexual relationships (pre-arranged marriages), to homosexual relationships (Ancient Greece / Japan), to polygamy (A patriarch taking underage nieces into his fold). In Afghanistan there is a long tradition of young boys acting like girls and entertaining groups of men, who then gang rape them. There was a scandal recently where American contractors were procuring these young boys for diplomatic negotiation purposes.
Anyway there are countries that presently permit polygamy, especially in countries where Islam is the state religion. I'm certain (and I'd be happy to start doing this) were research conducted, you'd find communities where polygamy was not a problem.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank:
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: [qb] hydrophobia
If somebody is hydrophobic then most people would assume they are irrationally afraid of the water. We certainly don't use it to mean, "Hey, you just don't bond chemically with water!"
Psychological fear of water is "aquaphobia." Hydrophobia has literally nothing to do with fear. At all. A hydrophobic substance like vegetable oil is not afraid of water. There is no psychological component to it.
This is such a BS trap, Sam. There's no psychological component because it doesn't apply to things with psychology.
that's stupid, dan. It's immature of you to put it as me making a "bullshit trap" .. and it makes it seem like you are ignorant of the statement I made which I am backing up in complete fairness:
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: Nevermind that "homophobia" is literally itself an example of the suffix having a meaning that extends beyond the categorical requirement of a fear, but there are multiple usages of the suffix -phobia that have nothing to do with fear.
The real bs trap here is adding or moving goalposts to the defense of my point.
Not trying to move the goalposts, Sam. I know how annoying that can be. Let's back up a little.
The way it seemed to me, BB was objecting to "homophobia" changing in common use away from being about fear and into general dislike. He indicated this was what he was arguing against.
So, first of all, I'll address this:
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: Nevermind that "homophobia" is literally itself an example of the suffix having a meaning that extends beyond the categorical requirement of a fear, but there are multiple usages of the suffix -phobia that have nothing to do with fear.
Pointing out that homophobia itself is an example where the meaning has shifted away from just fear is a tautological argument. He's already aware of that, of course; that's the source of his disgruntlement.
... And since he's talking about labels that are applied to people, since people feel fear and inanimate objects don't, I do think it is also bogus to cite an example where scientists applied the -phobia suffix to a phenomenon of some inanimate matter. It still seems like a dodge, and I don't see how you've explained that it isn't.
I think an appropriate response would be to cite examples where the -phobia suffix is actually used on humans to indicate dislike or distaste instead of fear.
Personally, I'm pretty much okay with common usage changing words in a totally piecemeal and half-assed way. So the common usage of homophobia doesn't really bother me. But I don't think you've adequately refuted BB's main issue.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus:
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank:
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: As I wrote, I have no problem with polygamy in theory. The types of cultures, judging by the evidence, that currently practice polygamy (or try) are cultures that also oppress women thus creating real problems when it comes to the matter of consent.
You say "the types of cultures that practice polygamy." You asked for counter-examples that are not oppressive or misogynistic. And examples were provided.
Were they? As far as I can tell, you pointed at some cities in the US in the States and one anecdotal group from Seattle. The latter seems impossible to verify, the former simply didn't provide enough detail to proceed anywhere as a discussion.
On the whole, I feel like the idea parallels Communism. I can see how theoretically, it could work out and yes, it might "work" in some isolated groups of hippies. But we've also tried it on a large scale multiple times in the past (or now) in extremely different cultural contexts and the results have been (and are) disastrous every time. Reality trumps theory for me in this case.
Yuck. Communism leads to poverty, tyranny and death because those things follow logically from its premises. Misogyny doesn't follow from the basic axiom of "multiple people can marry together."
Plus, you're comparing a system of government (which inherently involves an entire culture, so it makes sense to examine other cultures that did it) to a system of personal relationships. It seems weird to keep looking at the macro level when you're thinking about a micro phenomena like that. Look at individual relationships.
It's totally true that most major cultures that practice polygamy today are regressive, horrible cultures. It's an old tradition that was stamped out by monogamy. It only really persists as a widespread system in those awful closed societies. So yeah, those are bad examples. Of course, monogamous marriages in those closed societies are also horrible, so... yeah.
Just about the only modern examples of poly that I know of, practiced in an open society by free people, are the "hippies." They don't have a distinct culture and nation, but they have google groups and meetups and stuff. You can take a look at them if you like. I guess because I'm inviting you and Kate to look them up, it doesn't count as an example? Shrug.
I'm hard pressed to understand why you think that legalizing polygamy in a free and open society like ours would lead to the regressive sort, instead of the progressive sort. Seems counter-intuitive.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
I think reducing polygamy to "multiple people can marry together" and stripping out the historical and current context is overly simplistic.
I'm also not sure how if we were reducing things in that way how poverty, tyranny, and death follow from Communism's axioms of working toward a classless society either.
The most important point in your post to address in your post though is buried at the end. I suspect we distinctly disagree as to how equal the position of women are in the US.
Let me clip a few relevant headlines from the last year: "North Dakota state senate approves strict new abortion legislation" "Arkansas' Abortion Ban Energizes Backers Of Fetal Heartbeat Laws" "'Legitimate rape' rarely leads to pregnancy, claims US Senate candidate" "Rush Limbaugh labels grad student a 'slut'" "Wis. GOP vows to enact bill that would force women to undergo invasive transvaginal ultrasound"
So do I think that the legalisation of polygamy in that context would lead to a healthy balanced result? I'm going to say no, that when, for example the very question as to who controls women's bodies is still an open political question. That would not be the time.
I also would say that the both of you focus on minor groups of "hippies" when the much larger and more prevelant substitute for polygamy is not these small groups, but the much larger groups of men who hold mistresses, the John Edward's and Mark Sanford's on down. That may be a language thing, it's a bit more obvious in Chinese because the equivalent word for this practice would be "ernai."
Here, the inherent abuses in polygamy become more obvious: For example, how much real consent is possible when a male with much more access to the levers of power and money decides to take on an additional partner? Even the Hiliary Clinton's of this world seem to have a tough time tackling this kind of issue.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Sure, society should protect people...like women...from lecherous, old, powerful men who would like nothing more then a top notch wife collection...but I'm more invested in preserving freedom. What consenting adults do is their own gosh darn business. Even if colossally stupid or ultimately negative.
As long as it was someone's free choice to enter into a polygamous relationship (and leave it) then we as a free country shouldn't butt in.
If abuses are perpetrated, then those abusers should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. The law shouldn't be used to inflict cultural morality, but only used to prevent parties from obviously harming other parties.
Having more then one spouse sounds horrible...and might be unwise, but it is hardly harmful in and of itself.
Posted by Jeff C. (Member # 12496) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: ...but I'm more invested in preserving freedom.
I pictured a giant wolf with a superman cape riding on the back of a bald eagle.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
LOL, I'm not American. So by comparison I'm going to be much more bullish on bringing down the regulation/taxation/ban hammers on cigarettes/alcohol/guns/etc. if its an overall improvement for society.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jeff C.:
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: ...but I'm more invested in preserving freedom.
If only we could avitar icons...
Posted by Tittles (Member # 12939) on :
Blackblade, I'm very interested in hearing about these peaceful polygamous communities. And what they do with their extra young men. Also, what the Mormon plan is to do with the extra men once Mormonism is accepted by the majority of the world.
I can't help but notice how so many of the Mormen men around here think polygamy is okay and it should and will be back some day. Do you see it happening in your lifetimes? Does all it require is that the federal government allows it? How do your wives feel about your hopes for banging other women in the future? Will they be screwing other men? I've been told that polyandy is the solution.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Pointing out that homophobia itself is an example where the meaning has shifted away from just fear is a tautological argument. He's already aware of that, of course; that's the source of his disgruntlement.
... And since he's talking about labels that are applied to people, since people feel fear and inanimate objects don't, I do think it is also bogus to cite an example where scientists applied the -phobia suffix to a phenomenon of some inanimate matter. It still seems like a dodge, and I don't see how you've explained that it isn't.
I think an appropriate response would be to cite examples where the -phobia suffix is actually used on humans to indicate dislike or distaste instead of fear.
This is an argument about the suffix -phobia and the extent of its use. It is not categorically limited to describing fear of something. That's what I am demonstrating.
I guess if I need to jump through additional hoops, I can remind again that a cited example of where the -phobia suffix is used on humans without the requirement for fear, I can again note - 'tautologically' - that homophobia already qualifies, as does xenophobia. Psychologically, Aphobia also counts.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Homophobia cannot qualify as an example of a -phobia that does not involve an irrational fear or disgust because that usage is what I am arguing against. Xenophobia typically is used to describe one having an irrational fear or revulsion towards outsiders.
Aphobia can't count for obvious reasons, because it's describing one not having a phobia.
The whole point is phobias especially when applied to humans by and large describe something I just described. To say we can use homophobic/phobia to describe anybody who opposes general acceptance of same-sex relationships or legalized marriage is to imagine that homophobia can stand alone as a word, while its phobia relations cut of all ties with it. It's an inconsistent use of language, this usage is certainly not current amongst the population which creates even more miscommunication on an important issue, and there's no reason the change needs to happen in the word. We already have words to describe people who disagree with homosexuality, but are not irrationally fearful of it.
Instead, it appears that the term homophobia/homophobe is being used as an indiscriminate bludgeon that cows people into getting out of the way. As if their opinions all stem from a clinical illness. Much like opponents of the war in Iraq were called Islamophiles, or Anti-Americans.
Homophobia is certainly out in force, but we do the movement (SSM) no favors when we use such a powerful word with all it entails and try to assign it to everybody on the other side of the fence.
Posted by Parkour (Member # 12078) on :
Reread.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
I just did, and I'm not sure what I'm missing. Feel free to enlighten me.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:We already have words to describe people who disagree with homosexuality, but are not irrationally fearful of it.
Which words are these?
Did you read my post on this subject from the previous page?
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
To echo an earlier poster, what makes OSC a homophobe isn't a softening of the definition, it's stuff like this:
quote:...giving legal recognition to "gay marriage," is that it marks the end of democracy in America.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: ... Much like opponents of the war in Iraq were called Islamophiles, or Anti-Americans.
I feel like, those terms aren't very good for cowing people Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Homophobia cannot qualify as an example of a -phobia that does not involve an irrational fear or disgust because that usage is what I am arguing against.
Homophobia can actually qualify as a word with the -suffix phobia which has no categorical requirement for involving fear, whether or not that usage is what you are arguing against. Case in point, that's what the word HAS become, whether you disagree with this from a prescriptivist standpoint or not.
you're missing what i am actually arguing, and what i am going to stick with: the definition of the word "homophobe" already has a definition beyond "person with a clinical phobia of gays" -- homophobes don't have to be afraid of gays (though they usually are in some way, despite pretty much never admitting it. no homophobe is really homophobic, it's always unfair to call them a homophobe, etc). The word "homophobe" pretty much is by now the analogue to "racist" for homosexuals. It describes someone who is prejudiced against gays.
quote:Homophobia is certainly out in force, but we do the movement (SSM) no favors when we use such a powerful word with all it entails and try to assign it to everybody on the other side of the fence.
To compare, if one of our parties suddenly came out in force against interracial marriage and an attempt to reinstate anti-miscegenation laws, I would have no problem calling the policy and all of its supporters racist. Racist is also a powerful word, with 'all it entails,' and yet.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Sam:
quote:Homophobia can actually qualify as a word with the -suffix phobia which has no categorical requirement for involving fear, whether or not that usage is what you are arguing against. Case in point, that's what the word HAS become, whether you disagree with this from a prescriptivist standpoint or not.
I don't believe it has made that far of a transition as you have described. But I don't one can persuade the other on this point.
quote:To compare, if one of our parties suddenly came out in force against interracial marriage and an attempt to reinstate anti-miscegenation laws, I would have no problem calling the policy and all of its supporters racist. Racist is also a powerful word, with 'all it entails,' and yet.
It's not a good comparison because racist in that context would more than likely be accurate. We are dealing with whether somebody is prejudiced against race, hence racist. -ist is used all over the place, statist, sexist, anarchist, biologist. The -ist in of itself does not tell us much.
That can't be said for -phobia/phobic. With just the phobia part we are already told a lot of things.
I'm not arguing that there aren't people who are homophobic who would vehemently deny it. And they would be wrong. Homophobia can be very hard to identify within one's self. It can also be hard to get rid of. But again, I don't think homophobia to most people's minds simply means an opponent. I think it still carries the mental association of "my ideas are problematic because I arrived at them from an unsound mental state".
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:I don't believe it has made that far of a transition as you have described.
That's the thing, though, is that this isn't a competing belief issue. It has, whether you believe it to have or not, and that's what creates the issue:
quote:Unfortunately, there is only one word, "homophobia" in general use. And it is rapidly becoming a "snarl" word like racism and sexism.
The precise meaning that a person assigns to "homophobia" is often not obvious. Sometimes a person will switch from one definition to another in the middle of an essay or speech. Many individual and groups fit two or more of the above definitions at the same time; others fit only one. In an ideal world, we would have a different word for each of the above definitions. But it is not easy to create new and acceptable words in English.
quote:That can't be said for -phobia/phobic. With just the phobia part we are already told a lot of things.
that's the post-prescriptive part of this. homophobe 'tells' me the person must have a literal phobia of gays the same way the word bathroom 'tells' me it must be a room with a bath in it.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:With just the phobia part we are already told a lot of things.
Except we're not. Thanks to the reinvention of the various -phobias that are referenced in poltiical discussion, the suffix -phobia when applied to a group of people has come to represent any opposition. Xenophobia, Islamophobia, Homophobia - these all regularly refer to actions and feelings in opposition to foreigners, Muslims, and gays and not necessarily (or even usually) literal fear.
Homophobic as a reference to people and actions that are merely opposed to homosexuals, regardless of motivations, appears to now be the predominant usage.
Wikipedia's article on the subject encapsulates well that the word has come to mean:
quote:Homophobia encompasses a range of negative attitudes and feelings toward homosexuality or people who are identified or perceived as being lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender (LGBT). It can be expressed as antipathy, contempt, prejudice, aversion, or hatred, and may be based on irrational fear.
It also includes a discussion about some alternate terms that have been suggested but have failed to gain much traction.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:that's the post-prescriptive part of this. homophobe 'tells' me the person must have a literal phobia of gays the same way the word bathroom 'tells' me it must be a room with a bath in it.
I have a pet peeve for people saying bathroom when they mean restroom too.
quote:That's the thing, though, is that this isn't a competing belief issue. It has, whether you believe it to have or not, and that's what creates the issue.
Right or wrong, I believe the word is very much still in a transformative state. I want to push it back into its clinical roots, since the word is still relatively new I think it can still be done.
I do admit I've never really heard a convenient word for describing opponents of same-sex marriage, that I've been happy with.
----------
Matt:
quote:Xenophobia, Islamophobia,
I have not heard these words to mean simply opposition to foreigners or Islam without the irrational fear or revulsion aspect.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:I have not heard these words to mean simply opposition to foreigners or Islam without the irrational fear or revulsion aspect.
Really? Particularly in the case of xenophobia, the term is used almost exclusively to mean "anti-foreigner" or even "anti-immigration". Few people are actually pathologically fearful of non-citizens.
Again Wikipedia indicates this softer definition:
quote:Xenophobia is a dislike or fear of people from other countries or of that which is perceived to be foreign or strange. Some definitions suggest xenophobia as arising from irrationality or unreason.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Matt:
quote:Really? Particularly in the case of xenophobia, the term is used almost exclusively to mean "anti-foreigner" or even "anti-immigration". Few people are actually pathologically fearful of non-citizens.
Still seems very married to the fear/anxiety element of phobia. And I would say most people are pathologically nervous or scared of foreign cultures.
If some country was invading us, and somebody said, "We need to kick these foreign invaders out of the country." I wouldn't assume they are xenophobic. If they said, "After we get these foreigners out, we need to get all the rest of them out too!" I would.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Fighting definition drift is like fighting thread drift or the tide coming in...fruitless.
But I do understand where you are coming from.
In previous discussions I had suggested that "anti-homosexuality" might fit the bill, but like the tide, the on rush of tons of momentum can not be stopped.
I simply can not imagine how difficult your job is about to become after the EG movie comes out and this site is literally flooded with new people, quite a few I imagine will be here solely for the purpose of bashing OSC.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Maybe. But people pushed the word into the usage it has today, it can be pushed in other directions too.
Posted by stilesbn (Member # 11809) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: In previous discussions I had suggested that "anti-homosexuality" might fit the bill, but like the tide, the on rush of tons of momentum can not be stopped.
I vaguely remember that thread. It seemed some posters didn't even like the fact that you were trying to find a different word. I thought that was interesting...
Posted by stilesbn (Member # 11809) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tittles: I can't help but notice how so many of the Mormen men around here think polygamy is okay and it should and will be back some day. Do you see it happening in your lifetimes? Does all it require is that the federal government allows it? How do your wives feel about your hopes for banging other women in the future? Will they be screwing other men? I've been told that polyandy is the solution.
I don't think any of the men on this board have said they would like to be in a polygamous relationship. In fact, I don't really know any Mormon men who would like to enter into one.
Since you support gay marriage (At least I'm pretty sure you do...) do you want to enter into one?
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Maybe. But people pushed the word into the usage it has today, it can be pushed in other directions too.
I don't think it was pushed so much as drifting on its own because it was the existing word which best worked and was most closely related to the concept it has come to describe and no better term has manifested. If the definition changes again it also won't be because of a deliberate push.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
I wouldn't at all object to a concerted push to move it to "heterosexist" or "heteroist" or another connotatively more appropriate word for being prejudiced or intent on discriminating against the homos but pretty much any applicable new word will be just as objected to by pretty much everyone who it described because, after all, it's always unfair namecalling, forever, always. So "use slightly nicer connotatively-structured language that prejudiced people will still whine and derail over" is really not high up on the importance list.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: I wouldn't at all object to a concerted push to move it to "heterosexist" or "heteroist" or another connotatively more appropriate word for being prejudiced or intent on discriminating against the homos but pretty much any applicable new word will be just as objected to by pretty much everyone who it described because, after all, it's always unfair namecalling, forever, always. So "use slightly nicer connotatively-structured language that prejudiced people will still whine and derail over" is really not high up on the importance list.
I don't think that is the case but we may never know.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
The AP style guide suggests "anti-gay".
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
I'm not sure. Are we arguing over whether OSC is an anti-gay bigot or whether he is an anti-gay bigot who could be said to have an irrational fear of gays?
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
I think the argument is over whether we should call him an anti-gay bigot or not on the chance that if we beat around the bush, he might give up his opposition to it.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
The argument as far as I can tell is that BB (and possibly others) feel that the word "homophobe" is a clinical word for someone with an irrational fear of homosexuality, and is fighting to keep the word from its more common use as a synonym for "anti-homosexuality".
Whether or not OSC has an irrational fear of homosexuality is a slightly different topic which has be suggested but not refuted.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
i would have that convo elsewhere. not here.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: i would have that convo elsewhere. not here.
Well done, deputy moderator Samprimary!
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Does Samp get a plastic badge? Because that would be cool.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
notice the power word "I"
as in "me"
as in i am saying what I will not do on this forum.
there is zero deputy moderatordom in that statement. it means literally what it says. that i would not have that conversation on this forum, but would have it elsewhere.
Posted by Jake (Member # 206) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: Does Samp get a plastic badge? Because that would be cool.
And a cap gun, IRRC.
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jake:
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: Does Samp get a plastic badge? Because that would be cool.
And a cap gun, IRRC.
Hopefully he looks something like Don Knotts as well.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: notice the power word "I"
as in "me"
as in i am saying what I will not do on this forum.
there is zero deputy moderatordom in that statement. it means literally what it says. that i would not have that conversation on this forum, but would have it elsewhere.
Exactly, you are codifying for yourself the essence of the TOS.
That is requirement #1 for deputy moderators. I think a plastic badge, cap gun, and Stetson hat are in order.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
it has literally nothing to do with the terms of service. or rather, because the TOS is not actually the rules of this forum at all, i'm not bypassing that conversation here because I don't think I would be allowed to have that conversation here. I don't want to, because the community at large here would make that conversation excruciatingly dumb, really fast.
BUT I will take the stetson anyway, thank you.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Quite a vote of confidence.
Quick, someone steal his hat!
Posted by Jeff C. (Member # 12496) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: because the community at large here would make that conversation excruciatingly dumb, really fast.
Your face is dumb!
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Not as dumb as it is ugly! Also foul-smelling.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
I love the direction this thread is taking!
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
You're referring to its death throes.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
we could for funsies go back to its nadpex where the most wrongo things ever said about the legitimacy of boycotts were being said, that sure sounds like fun
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Regarding the word "homophobia" there is always Morgan Freeman's (alleged) take on it.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
apply that to anyone we're talking about. does it fix anything that's being addressed here or just make the kvetching and blubbering about namecalling and blacklisting worse?
because it just means substituting "asshole" for homophobe.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
If it isn't fear is has to be something.
Posted by Jeff C. (Member # 12496) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: If it isn't fear is has to be something.
Tom Cruise would blame the aliens.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Well, yeah, but I don't think "because I'm an asshole" is the legit justification for any known people's opposition to gay rights, whereas phobic/fearful thoughts of homosexuals actually legitimately provide for explanations of a lot of people's clinging to discrimination, anger, and intolerance against gays.
Gays legitimately in some way scare or creep the heck out of a great majority of people who oppose "their lifestyle," no matter how much they coach the reasons why.
I mean there is definitely something to be said of maybe morgan freeman's presumed quote: the people we call homophobes? Assholes, maybe. Toxic and terrible, no matter how good intentioned they think they are, no matter how much they try to derail or play the "no i am the persecuted one here" card. The "defense of traditional marriage" crowd are prejudice troglodytes akin to racists in the way that they employ the same vapid sorts of internalized justifications and convoluted scripture or "Social Science" to say that they aren't actually prejudiced, no, it's about God's love/plan/the way He designed marriage, and protecting us against 'threats to an ideal reproductive environment' — bonus points if they also (a) cling to the notion that homosexuality is a mental disease that can be cured, and or (b) are possessed of the desire to keep any talk/exposures about The Gay away from our children, because we can't have them being told that gay is okay.
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
Though who knows how he actually feels about the issue.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
I have to admit I frankly never understood the question. Is OSC a homophobe? No. I've never gotten the sense that he fears them at all.
It's obvious from his writings that he does not believe homosexual relationships are "real" relationships, but that they are more akin to teenage crushes or, possibly, to children playing House without any sense of the real responsibilities required. And for some reason, people are blind enough to accept such frivolous, childish fantasies as equal to the real and important task of adult man-and-woman marriage, the backbone of a strong society. This bewilders him, I feel, and frightens him, and the more it is accepted the more strident he is against it.
(These are not his words and may not reflect his opinions; this is the impression I get reading what he's written on the subject.)
I don't think he fears homosexuals per se. What I believe he fears is the breakdown of society and the trivialization of family, and the failure of people to do what society needs them to do for the greater good. I believe he fears that a lot, possibly to an irrational degree. Is there a word for that? Anarchaphobia?
Arguments about human rights, about dedicated gay people in decades-long relationships, about the need for social structure for a significant portion of the population which may, in fact, strengthen the institution of marriage rather than weaken it, all those fall on deaf and disbelieving ears because to him, I think, we're arguing, over and over, that because Billy and Susie held hands once in a cardboard house in the backyard then they should receive all the legal benefits and protections of the law.
Irrational fear of homosexuals: no. Irrational fear of the breakdown of society: arguable.
[ March 23, 2013, 11:32 AM: Message edited by: Chris Bridges ]
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Irrational fear of the breakdown of civilization due to the threat posed by the acceptance of homosexuality as a valid relationship option? Definitely arguable, I'd say.
It's also why I'm not uncomfortable seeing the label homophobe applied to him.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
I don't have arachnophobia, because I'm not afraid of spiders, it's their bite I'm afraid of.
I don't have acrophobia, because I'm not afraid of being in high places, it's falling from a high place I'm afraid of.
I don't have homophobia, because I'm not afraid of gay people, it's civilization breaking down because of accepting gays that I'm afraid of.
Posted by Darth_Mauve (Member # 4709) on :
Stone--there is actually a difference. I have an irrational fear of heights--mild Acrophobia. I fly in a plane just fine, and looked over the edge of the Grand Canyon without a problem, but put me on a roller coaster only 200 feet of the ground and I get nervous. Climbing a ladder makes my pulse pound and nausea form. I can not walk across a 18" wide plank over an open pit. I've tried and couldn't.
Of course I rationalized it with fears of falling or landing or what have you--but it was this irrational fear that short circuited my brain that makes it acrophobia.
So too, would a fear of the touch, sound, or presence of a gay person be Homophobia.
Mr. Card seems to present more a case of Heteronormative. That means he believes that Heterosexuality is normal, and being normal, is better.
Which is sad, when you read some of his work. I forget which book has a wonderful passage about "The Other". He describes in detail the fear everyone has of "The Other", its irrationality, and the wrongness of despising others because they are "other."
His view of Homosexuality places 4-5% of all humanity in a tight box of "Otherness" that he will not tolerate.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Again, these are my words, not OSC's, but...
Imagine if someone suggested blind people should be permitted to be airline pilots. You have no terror of blind people, you admire many of them. You have no phobias about the blind. But otherwise sane people are voting for blind people to be able to pilot airplanes without any thought to the consequences, and the closer they get to achieving their goal the more desperate you get, trying to head off the disaster they somehow don't see coming.
Society is moving toward granting legal recognition of something, to OSC, simply isn't an option.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I get that to him, there is an actual threat to the fabric of civilization posed by the weakening of the family unit that would take place if homosexual marriage were to be popularly and legally considered a viable option. I even get that he feels there are very real risks involved to everyone if this were to come to pass, too.
But where the 'irrational fear' comes in is in a few places. One, his evidence is shall we say shoddy. Two, it's not like blind airline pilots for whom the direct physical safety of hundreds and thousands of other people is inextricably linked. It would be more as though he were to say public dancing poses a grave threat to the social fabric of society, and we are all at risk if people are allowed to do so, etc.
We wouldn't say he sat at home nights thinking about all the ways dancers were scary and how much he hated them, but we would certainly say that his fear of dancers was irrational, however rational it might seem to him. And we'd be right.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Well, that's it, isn't it. I do think he considers acceptance of gay marriage to be just as dire a threat as blind airline pilots.
Not saying he's right. But when I think of homophobe I think of someone with a shuddering, visceral hatred/fear of homosexuals and I just don't think that's the case. And I think that when you label OSC a homophobe it means you've stopped tried to see his view or reason with him.
Just as how I think when he starts talking about the Liberal Left he's plainly gives up on trying to see their view or reason with them.
Pasting someone with a label destroys discussion and eliminates any chance of compromise.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
what .. chance of compromise are we talking about here
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Open discussion is helpful and valued, but when have someone who is dead set in their beliefs, to the point that they threaten to overthrow the government or suggest that gay marriage is the death of democracy then discussion is not really going to be effective. I was curious about NOM, so I looked up their site. Wow...they basically are giving people short cuts to derail conversation with emotional rhetoric! There comes a point when one must recognize when a group or person is an enemy to liberty, and then publicly ostracizing them with such labels is nearly the only way to mitigate the damage they do.
Samp has been saying things like this, and I mostly disagree, but because I feel his aim is too wide, and he ends up polarizing opposition by including those whose opinions are not as ardent as OSC's seems to be. But I do agree with this tactic when it comes to the fringe. And OSC is fringe.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Phobia, as applied to groups of people such as in homophobia, islamaphobia, etc., connotes not only a fear of the specific type of person. For example, we don't expect an islamaphobe to react with the sort of unreasoning fear to an Islamic person that say an arachnophobe would to a spider. Rather, it describes a range of irrational anitpathy to the members of that group.
That is not to say that irrational fears don't play a part in this. OSC has said, for example, that allowing gay people to marry will make it so many people will stop marrying people of the opposite sex because a partner of the same sex is so much more comfortable and less scary than that of the opposite sex. That is a pretty clearly an irrational fear. To Chris's point, I think it is much closer to someone saying that we shouldn't let any Islamic people become airline pilots because they will obviously just crash them into buildings.
Yeah, if the irrational, malicious things that the bigots believe were true, than they would be justified in their fears. If, for example, gay people were largely that way because they are the victims of sexual abuse who find themselves trapped in their lifestyle that brings them nothing but shame, but who won't be recognized as such or treated by psychologist because of political reasons, and who don't really stand anything to gain from getting the right to marriage, but are instead pawns or members of a cabal determined to bring down the family, religion, and traditional values, as OSC has written, then yeah, we probably should rethink same sex marriage. But those beliefs are absurd. The rest on absurd boogeymen concocted from false information, dishonesty, and probably a big heap of irrational fear.
And I don't know, I think this has maybe gotten lost, but OSC doesn't just have a problem with same sex marriage. As he said:
quote:Laws against homosexual behavior should remain on the books, not to be indiscriminately enforced against anyone who happens to be caught violating them, but to be used when necessary to send a clear message that those whoflagrantly[sic] violate society's regulation of sexual behavior cannot be permitted to remain as acceptable, equal citizens within that society.
He is against homosexuals as being regarded as full members of society.
I'm going to follow up this post with another long one going into this, but I'm still not sure where the issue here lies. To me, it seems like several people are claiming that OSC's writings and actions don't justify thinking he has an irrational antipathy to gay people, but this is maybe tangled up in talking about whether homophobe is the right word for this.
If it's the latter, I mean, that ship has pretty much sailed, that's what the word means now, but I'm certainly not going to fight you if you say that construing it as equivalent to the psychologically defined specific phobias and we can talk about the word and it's ramifications, etc.
However, if it is the former, then this is a very different type of discussion.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
It's been difficult for me to follow the center of contention here, probably because I'm a sleep-deprived parent who does things like shows up for a dinner party a week after it took place. Here's my understanding (and keep in mind, nowhere near at my best right now).
From what I can see, we started out with people are boycotting OSC because of what he believes, coupled with it is, as a matter of principle, wrong to boycott artists for anything other than the quality of their art. The first part was addressed by pointing out that OSC, besides publicly spreading false and malicious information about gay people and advocating, again publicly, against their rights, also belongs and financially supports NOM, the organization that was largely behind the bigoted, dishonest, fear mongering campaign for Prop 8 as does things like calls for boycotts equivalent to the one we're talking about here. (Although, honestly, I'm not sure, BB do you now accept that people aren't just boycotting OSC for having beliefs they disagree with?)
The second bit, about the principle of not boycotting artists, didn't last long either. Neither actually said it, but I think it is fair to say that both Scott and BB don't believe this principle applies if we're talking about someone from the KKK*. So, it's more like it is wrong to boycott an artist, unless what that artist is doing is wrong enough to justify boycotting them.
So, yeah, pretty much a tautology, and it's kind of odd for Scott and BB to think that gay people and their supporters will accept what they think is wrong enough to justify a boycott. Scott, if I recall correctly, supports NOM both in their purpose and financially and BB (and I'm probably being too blunt here) seems to have them and OSC tied up in apologetics for the LDS leader and memberships' awful behavior in pursuing Prop 8.
But, even though this wasn't acknowledged, the conversation did move sort of to the question of how bad OSC's writings and behavior have been and whther he deserves to be called a homophobe or an anti-gay bigot or whether he holds rational, non-prejudicial opinions that people just disagree with. Is that a valid summation of where we are and how we got here?
* - On the KKK bit, I chose them in large part because they are the prototypical bigoted organization, but also I liked to symmetry. The KKK has officially stated they are no longer an "anti-gay" group, they are "pro-traditional marriage". Wait I mean that they are no longer "anti-black" and are instead "pro-white". They have also officially renounced violence, which coincided nicely to me with OSC's past advocacy (in the part of his Hypocrites of Homosexuality piece I quoted above) of using violence to keep gay people in their place.
[ March 24, 2013, 07:08 PM: Message edited by: MrSquicky ]
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
As to whether or not calling bigots bigots is a useful tactic, I'm surprised we even need to have that conversation, especially with LDS. Of course it is. I mean, forgot the vast strides made by both the racial civil rights movement and the gay civil rights movement in making bigotry aimed against them unacceptable to say in public, your church is in the process of changing their approach to gays specifically because of their bigoted and dishonest behavior in pursuing Prop 8 has hurt them.
edit: Yeah, it hard to point to a specific person who has had a genuine change of heart (organizations like the LDS church or the KKK changing their official face is a lot easier), it has a very real effect, especially when coupled with the gentler persuasive side that is also very important.
Plus, gay people deserve this defense. They deserve public support and to have the bigots and bullies that have been attacking them for centuries to be called such and to be shunned from decent society when they engage in bigotry against gays. I think gay people deserve a safe space a lot more than the bigots do.
edit 2:
As does the other groups that they are bigoted towards. Bigots, by and large, don't confine themselves to one group (I belong to at three groups OSC is bigoted against). That's definitely one of the distressing things about discussing this with Mormons. They'll go from "How dare you say that these people are anti-gay bigots?" and then turn around and say that the same exact people are anti-Mormon bigots because they won't vote for Mitt Romney. When you weaken anti-gay bigotry and groups that practice it, you also weaken anti-black bigotry and anti-islamic bigotry and anti-atheist bigotry and anti-woman bigotry and even anti-Mormon bigotry, etc. etc.
The gay rights fight has pretty much already been won. Right now, we are trying to speed it up as much as possible and to stamp the "BIGOT" mark hard enough into the (often religious) groups and people that practice it that it sticks around so that it stays with them as a large part of the concept that people have of them, reducing their power to hurt other groups and poison public discourse going forward.
[ March 24, 2013, 07:41 PM: Message edited by: MrSquicky ]
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
[quote]That's definitely one of the distressing things about discussing this with Mormons. They'll go from "How dare you say that these people are anti-gay bigots?" and then turn around and say that the same exact people are anti-Mormon bigots because they won't vote for Mitt Romney. [\quote]
Huh?
I think if you're discussing SSM with a Mormon who claims people who didn't vote for Romney are anti-Mormon, you're dealing with someone who would be a nutcase regardless of their religion. Saying that's an argument Mormons in general are inclined to make is a biiiiiig stretch, don't you think? Come up with something a little more believable to make your case.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
afr, Maybe what I intended with that statement didn't come across, but, yeah, that's come up multiple times on Hatrack. BB wrote about that on this very thread. OSC has written that very thing (Mormons have no chance in American politics, etc.)
I see it coming up a lot. And, to a large extent, I agree with it (although the "the only reason any person/Republican would not vote for Mitt Romney is because they are anti-Mormon takes it way too far). From what I've seen, a big section of the Republican base are bigoted against Mormons.
I'm not sure what you read in my comment that makes that a nutcase statement.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
I can't get into the nitty gritty of your posts yet MrSquicky, but I don't think I ever argued that anti-gay bigot should not be used to describe opponents of same-sex marriage, only argued against homophobe becoming synonymous with opposing it.
I've never argued that those who won't vote for Romney are even likely anti-mormons. I didn't vote for Romney. I certainly don't hate his Mormonism.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Samp has been saying things like this, and I mostly disagree, but because I feel his aim is too wide, and he ends up polarizing opposition by including those whose opinions are not as ardent as OSC's seems to be.
Do you think that I shouldn't shame people who have good intentions?
More importantly: do you think that the "polarizing opposition" is something that I should care about in any way, shape, or form? By being anti-racist, I certainly polarize opposition amongst racist groups, especially considering the extent to which I continue the process of socially ostracizing them for their revolting views. At what point am I supposed to consider "polarizing opposition" to be something I have to care about?
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
When discussion can convince them to change their views.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
"Whoa, maybe I was going to stop discriminating against black people. But then you called me a racist. My response is to remain a racist forever."
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
BB, For the first part, I wasn't trying to say that you did. Other LDS on this site however have (kat comes to mind). And OSC definitely has done both.
For the second part, here's what I was talking about:
quote:Let's not remember that four years ago it was precisely Romney's Mormoness that lost him the Republican nomination to McCain.
As I said, I agree that many Republicans didn't vote for Mitt Romney in part because they are bigoted against Mormons. It's that calling these same people bigoted against gay people (usually for much stronger reasons) is often strongly attacked by the LDS who claim the first.
The LDS church's problems with bigotry against them comes largely from conservative Christians, the very same people they ally with and defend in other matters, especially pushing bigotry against gays. Weaken the groups that push anti-gay bigotry and you'll also be weakening the groups that push anti-LDS bigotry. I may have been reading you incorrectly, but this seemed to me to be missing from your discussion of anti-LDS bigotry.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
I see what you are saying I think. But I don't think LDS bigotry is limited to the Christian Right. I have experienced a good deal of it from the Liberal Left who in the same breath clap themselves on the back for being tolerant of everybody.
But I do think LDS folks have taken too many of their queues from evangelicals on topics like evolution, homosexuality, secularism, etc. At the same time, it has started making broad steps towards becoming an international organization. So the insular culture of Utah and the regions around it, are clashing into Mormons from outside who don't take those same queues.
But within the US, LDS folks are still largely looked at as polygamists living in Utah.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Discussion and gentle persuasion versus bigot-shaming seems like a poor way to frame it. This is not a binary choice situation, even with the same person.
Again, the LDS church leaders and a large section of their membership engaged in a campaign of bigotry, dishonesty, and fear mongering in regards to Prop 8. How effective do you think discussion is going to be with an LDS bigot whose leadership was actively encouraging that bigotry?
Due to outside pressure, the leadership is changing their stance, although by no mean repudiating or acknowledging the immorality of their Prop 8 campaign. If outside pressure gets strong enough, perhaps they will admit to this, which then sets the stage for possible productive conversation.
With OSC, many of us (I believe I am probably the most prominent) have engaged his writings on a productive conversational level, pointing out where he's gotten things wrong. He's been a party to some of these conversations and has definitely read some of them (for example, the discussion of the 1972-73 APA's shift on homosexuality) but has never, that I've seen, either genuinely taken part in these conversations or considered what was said in them. Several times, he has responded with insults.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:I see what you are saying I think. But I don't think LDS bigotry is limited to the Christian Right. I have experienced a good deal of it from the Liberal Left who in the same breath clap themselves on the back for being tolerant of everybody.
Obviously I don't have your experiences, so I can't really say, but I don't know. The stuff you brought up before seemed to me to boil down to "People don't believe in the LDS religion."
Yeah, people (and the vast amount of the "Liberal Left" know next to nothing about LDS - although more do now after your not exactly great example Mitt Romney and Prop 8) think that your religion is silly, obviously false and was started by a con man or delusional cult leader. Because, if you don't believe in it, that's how it comes across. That doesn't sound like bigotry to me.
From my perspective, I'm sure there is some, but mostly people don't care or know much of anything about you. So yeah, they may vaguely believe that you are polygamists in sort of the same way they vaguely believe that Australian bushmen go around mostly naked with white paint markings.
Again, this is just my perspective as an east coast outsider, but from what I see, nearly all of the people who really hate you and think about you are conservative christians (and the gay rights people after you, you know, committed egregious acts of bigotry against them). During the Presidential campaigns, the anti-Mormon stuff came up a lot during the primary and was nearly completely absent during the general.
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
quote:I have experienced a good deal of it from the Liberal Left who in the same breath clap themselves on the back for being tolerant of everybody.
I am curious if you are attributing any of your experiences on sakeriver to this. I'd be fairly disappointed if you were.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Xavier:
quote:I have experienced a good deal of it from the Liberal Left who in the same breath clap themselves on the back for being tolerant of everybody.
I am curious if you are attributing any of your experiences on sakeriver to this. I'd be fairly disappointed if you were.
I'm afraid I will have to disappoint your anticipation of disappointment.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Mr Squicky:
quote:Yeah, people (and the vast amount of the "Liberal Left" know next to nothing about LDS - although more do now after your not exactly great example Mitt Romney and Prop 8) think that your religion is silly, obviously false and was started by a con man or delusional cult leader. Because, if you don't believe in it, that's how it comes across. That doesn't sound like bigotry to me.
Those beliefs certainly aren't bigotry in of themselves. So long as you can wrap your head around my believing the church was started by a prophet of God, and that I believe that after much time reflecting on it, and considering alternative explanations such as the one you posited. And that I hold those beliefs to be sacred.
Bigotry is when you can't tolerate me or my beliefs co-existing along with you and yours.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: "Whoa, maybe I was going to stop discriminating against black people. But then you called me a racist. My response is to remain a racist forever."
More like, "I'm -not- a racist, or hate monger, that guy is off his high horsed gourd and I don't have to listen to a thing he has to say or even slightly consider my own culpability for deep seated views inside myself which might have upon further introspection and open discussion lead me to change my mind."
But hey, as long as you can be a jerk for the "right reasons" then it isn't all that important if you are really helping or not.
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Mr Squicky:
quote:Yeah, people (and the vast amount of the "Liberal Left" know next to nothing about LDS - although more do now after your not exactly great example Mitt Romney and Prop 8) think that your religion is silly, obviously false and was started by a con man or delusional cult leader. Because, if you don't believe in it, that's how it comes across. That doesn't sound like bigotry to me.
Those beliefs certainly aren't bigotry in of themselves. So long as you can wrap your head around my believing the church was started by a prophet of God, and that I believe that after much time reflecting on it, and considering alternative explanations such as the one you posited. And that I hold those beliefs to be sacred.
Bigotry is when you can't tolerate me or my beliefs co-existing along with you and yours.
This.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Real progressive change only occurs when there is a radicalized polarized group of people willing to lead the charge for real change. Slavery was abolished thanks to Abolitionists and the Republican Radicals; nothing is ever accomplished from being Moderate.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:More like, "I'm -not- a racist, or hate monger, that guy is off his high horsed gourd and I don't have to listen to a thing he has to say or even slightly consider my own culpability for deep seated views inside myself which might have upon further introspection and open discussion lead me to change my mind."
But hey, as long as you can be a jerk for the "right reasons" then it isn't all that important if you are really helping or not.
No, no — the thing is is that we have had ample opportunity to test which way actually helps. It is important that we know and do what actually helps. Respecting people with repressive and discriminatory beliefs under the idea that it has utility in a battle for hearts and minds turns out not to work.
[ March 25, 2013, 03:30 PM: Message edited by: Samprimary ]
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: Real progressive change only occurs when there is a radicalized polarized group of people willing to lead the charge for real change. Slavery was abolished thanks to Abolitionists and the Republican Radicals; nothing is ever accomplished from being Moderate.
This sounds like nonsense to me, begging your pardon. You are confusing being a moderate with moderation. The United States occupied a moderate position during WWII. Some felt we should stave off Hitler, some felt he was Europe's problem. Everyone got involved when Pearl Harbor was bombed.
It's stupid radicals, who kill the moderates that create things like the USSR, Jacobin France, and the Great Leap Forward.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:Originally posted by advice for robots:
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Mr Squicky:
quote:Yeah, people (and the vast amount of the "Liberal Left" know next to nothing about LDS - although more do now after your not exactly great example Mitt Romney and Prop 8) think that your religion is silly, obviously false and was started by a con man or delusional cult leader. Because, if you don't believe in it, that's how it comes across. That doesn't sound like bigotry to me.
Those beliefs certainly aren't bigotry in of themselves. So long as you can wrap your head around my believing the church was started by a prophet of God, and that I believe that after much time reflecting on it, and considering alternative explanations such as the one you posited. And that I hold those beliefs to be sacred.
Bigotry is when you can't tolerate me or my beliefs co-existing along with you and yours.
This.
I'm not sure I agree with this. I might, but I don't know if I understand the intent.
There are religious people who believe that the Earth is around 5000 years old and the evolution is all lies. I think those people are obviously wrong and foolish.
There are people who believe in the literal truth of Scientology. I don't regard their thinking on this too highly either.
I think, by your formulation, that would make me bigoted against them, which I obviously disagree with. To me, bigotry must contain significant elements of irrational prejudice.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
This forum has made three turns recently in attempting to redefine "bigotry" in strange ways.
The last go-around was dustin dopps, I believe.
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky:
quote:Originally posted by advice for robots:
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Mr Squicky:
quote:Yeah, people (and the vast amount of the "Liberal Left" know next to nothing about LDS - although more do now after your not exactly great example Mitt Romney and Prop 8) think that your religion is silly, obviously false and was started by a con man or delusional cult leader. Because, if you don't believe in it, that's how it comes across. That doesn't sound like bigotry to me.
Those beliefs certainly aren't bigotry in of themselves. So long as you can wrap your head around my believing the church was started by a prophet of God, and that I believe that after much time reflecting on it, and considering alternative explanations such as the one you posited. And that I hold those beliefs to be sacred.
Bigotry is when you can't tolerate me or my beliefs co-existing along with you and yours.
This.
I'm not sure I agree with this. I might, but I don't know if I understand the intent.
There are religious people who believe that the Earth is around 5000 years old and the evolution is all lies. I think those people are obviously wrong and foolish.
There are people who believe in the literal truth of Scientology. I don't regard their thinking on this too highly either.
I think, by your formulation, that would make me bigoted against them, which I obviously disagree with. To me, bigotry must contain significant elements of irrational prejudice.
Bigot, from one print and two online dictionaries:
1: A person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices.
2: a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion.
3: a person who is intolerant of any ideas other than his or her own, esp on religion, politics, or race
You can strongly disagree with someone's beliefs, perspectives, or practices--even knowing they're flat-out wrong--without necessarily being bigoted against them.
"Bigot" is a strong label that IMO gets used a little too carelessly. When you call someone a bigot you essentially push them away from you whole cloth, refusing to listen or consider any aspect of their views or motivations anymore. When the word starts flying around, I have a hard time believing everyone using it is looking past their own nose--carefully considering the implications of that label. To me, it signifies a breakdown of meaningful discussion and thus a failure to find any common ground, compromise, or even grudging acknowledgement of wrongful thinking.
I'm not saying there aren't any bigots. On the contrary. There are plenty of people I personally think of as bigoted at least in some ways. If it takes a gut punch to get them to see the light, as appears to be the current m.o. on the Interwebs, so be it. But are you really bigoted against something if you don't agree with it--and even if you think it's harmful? And is everyone who sees you and what you're sympathetic toward in a similar light necessarily a bigot?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky:
quote:Originally posted by advice for robots:
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Mr Squicky:
quote:Yeah, people (and the vast amount of the "Liberal Left" know next to nothing about LDS - although more do now after your not exactly great example Mitt Romney and Prop 8) think that your religion is silly, obviously false and was started by a con man or delusional cult leader. Because, if you don't believe in it, that's how it comes across. That doesn't sound like bigotry to me.
Those beliefs certainly aren't bigotry in of themselves. So long as you can wrap your head around my believing the church was started by a prophet of God, and that I believe that after much time reflecting on it, and considering alternative explanations such as the one you posited. And that I hold those beliefs to be sacred.
Bigotry is when you can't tolerate me or my beliefs co-existing along with you and yours.
This.
I'm not sure I agree with this. I might, but I don't know if I understand the intent.
There are religious people who believe that the Earth is around 5000 years old and the evolution is all lies. I think those people are obviously wrong and foolish.
There are people who believe in the literal truth of Scientology. I don't regard their thinking on this too highly either.
I think, by your formulation, that would make me bigoted against them, which I obviously disagree with. To me, bigotry must contain significant elements of irrational prejudice.
Your attitude toward them, and your response to their belief would largely dictate whether you are a bigot.
Bigotry is largely looked at as negative because intolerance is often a negative response. But it's impossible to be tolerant of every single viewpoint. If some dude thinks I should die because of who I am, I certainly can't tolerate them living according to that belief. So technically I am a bigot, it's simply justified.
Unfortunately our language does not really account for that.
Posted by DustinDopps (Member # 12640) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: This forum has made three turns recently in attempting to redefine "bigotry" in strange ways.
The last go-around was dustin dopps, I believe.
You remember me! That's so sweet.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
yeah, and, uh, do you still attend to your previous definition of bigotry? Because it was really bad, and that relates to this conversation.
Posted by DustinDopps (Member # 12640) on :
I posted a different reply, then decided that I have no desire to get into another discussion about it. </placeholder message>
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
ok then i'll just reiterate the exact demonstration of your argument as-is
quote:Originally posted by Mucus:
quote:Originally posted by DustinDopps: ... I used the word bigot literally: "a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion."
I don't think you've applied the definition correctly. You demonstrated that the other poster is intolerant of "your" belief. You also have to demonstrate that they are intolerant of *any* differing beliefs.
i.e. Using your application, anyone that disagrees with even one single belief, say the KKK's doctrine of racial superiority would be a "bigot"
quote:Originally posted by Parkour:
quote:Originally posted by DustinDopps: Thinking that spanking is a poor choice for parenting is an opinion. Thinking that people who spank their kids are abusers is applying an opinion to a group and is thus bigotry.
"I think that the KKK is racist and hateful."
There. I applied an opinion to a group. According to your *very stupid* definition of bigotry, I am now a bigot.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: Real progressive change only occurs when there is a radicalized polarized group of people willing to lead the charge for real change. Slavery was abolished thanks to Abolitionists and the Republican Radicals; nothing is ever accomplished from being Moderate.
This sounds like nonsense to me, begging your pardon. You are confusing being a moderate with moderation. The United States occupied a moderate position during WWII. Some felt we should stave off Hitler, some felt he was Europe's problem. Everyone got involved when Pearl Harbor was bombed.
It's stupid radicals, who kill the moderates that create things like the USSR, Jacobin France, and the Great Leap Forward.
Its also radicals that allowed for the creation of the United States, virtually all independence movements are a result of an angry fed up minority dragging the more complacent majority along with them.
Also I'm speaking of "reforms movements", progressive social change. The United States history has a lot to do with a minority of vocal hard liner interest groups shifting policy through maintaining a solid and visible platform.
We have proof of this in that right now in the United States, socialism and left wing options can't even be voiced in public discourse, its center right to far right are the only choices; because the Dems keep trying to be "moderate" and having to shift to the right to catch up to the Republicans or else be seen as "too far left".
Posted by umberhulk (Member # 11788) on :
I think you guys are creating a false dilemma. Reform movements are accomplished by moralization, moderation, and everything in between.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
It's on the home page now. I appreciate the nudge. ![[Wink]](wink.gif)
).
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Their prominence re: comic book circles is hardly even relevant to the broader discussion. Whatever limited power they may have to dissuade people from reading a comic book written by OSC is inconsequential. ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)