You managed to completely misread her post, interestingly enough.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
It's hard not to blame her. He's just so mean about this issue.
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
Also read this where she credits Valentine as being an inspiration for her becoming a writer. It'd be difficult to reduce her obviously complex feelings for the man as simple "hatred".
[ July 15, 2013, 04:16 PM: Message edited by: Xavier ]
Posted by Wingracer (Member # 12293) on :
I read absolutely ZERO hate in that article. In fact, it's probably the most cool-headed and logical article I have seen on the subject to date.
Posted by Sa'eed (Member # 12368) on :
She's been going on in that vain for months now and encouraging her readers to feel guilty about seeing "Ender's Game."
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Xavier: Also read this where she credits Valentine as being an inspiration for her becoming a writer. It'd be difficult to reduce her obviously complex feelings for the man as simple "hatred".
Really?
Seems pretty straightforward. Look at the headline of the article you linked.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
There are lots of awful people I don't hate.
Posted by millernumber1 (Member # 9894) on :
Who I am sure you like to write articles in which a main point is the pointing out of the awfulness of these people.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I would say, rather, that the main point of her article is not to argue why Card is awful but, given that Card is awful, present options for ethically engaging with his work as a consumer.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank:
quote:Originally posted by Xavier: Also read this where she credits Valentine as being an inspiration for her becoming a writer. It'd be difficult to reduce her obviously complex feelings for the man as simple "hatred".
Really?
Seems pretty straightforward. Look at the headline of the article you linked.
If that's so, then surely Card also hates liberals, Obama, and any advocates for SSM, yes?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
I'm really not comfortable with a thread where we link article after article and determine which ones are written by people who hate Mr. Card, and which ones just think he is an awful human being. I certainly wouldn't allow articles talking about why one of you is deserving of hatred on this board.
I'll leave the thread be for now, but I'd appreciate if this principle was adhered to in the future.
Ender's Game is coming out soon, there will be a flurry of articles discussing the film, the boycott, and I know y'all want to discuss them. But avoid articles trying to establish whether Mr. Card is a villain or anything else for that matter.
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
quote:I'm really not comfortable with a thread where we link article after article and determine which ones are written by people who hate Mr. Card, and which ones just think he is an awful human being.
That seems like a really odd way of describing what happened in this thread.
The original poster posted one article. I linked directly to an article that is by the same author (and linked in the original one). So its just one person we are talking about, not "which ones". And its not "article after article", just two of them.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
My wording didn't convey what I meant exactly. I said "a thread" I meant a hypothetical future version of this one. Frankly though I am not super comfortable with threads that link articles calling Mr. Card a homophobe or where the url lumps him in the awful people category. It would be irresponsible of me to give all links a pass.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
It's his house and you're the moderator. That said, as for your reasoning on its own grounds...well, Card says quite a lot worse about more people, more often, over the years. So as far as being squeamish about saying unkind things about him in the course of a current events discussion, well, on this cluster of topics Card did a cannonball into the swimming pool. He definitely wasn't pushed.
Posted by umberhulk (Member # 11788) on :
As long as you would moderate the Paula Deen thread the same way. I don't know anything about that person and I'm not comparing the two. And I don't love the thread either, but I think most of the links, short of wishing him harm, or perhaps lieing about him, should get a pass.
Posted by Jeff C. (Member # 12496) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: I'm really not comfortable with a thread where we link article after article and determine which ones are written by people who hate Mr. Card, and which ones just think he is an awful human being. I certainly wouldn't allow articles talking about why one of you is deserving of hatred on this board.
I'll leave the thread be for now, but I'd appreciate if this principle was adhered to in the future.
Ender's Game is coming out soon, there will be a flurry of articles discussing the film, the boycott, and I know y'all want to discuss them. But avoid articles trying to establish whether Mr. Card is a villain or anything else for that matter.
Unfortunately, Card is a celebrity, which means it is a different case than you or I. Card has willingly written plenty of articles where he has announced these views, so it is entirely natural to expect other articles to come up which argue against him.
We've allowed threads before that talk about the President and other high profile individuals, but because this particular thread is about the celebrity who owns this website, suddenly it's bad.
In my humble opinion, if OSC insists on publicly declaring his contraversial viewpoint on a topic like gay marriage, he should expect his fans to talk about it and to discuss the articles that counter that view.
Personally, I think OSC is an amazingly talented writer and a generally decent human being. I just think his views stem from his religious background, which frankly should never have been brought up in the first place, but that's on him. He has always seemed like a nice person, but he is also a celebrity and his words and opinions carry more weight and reach more minds than any of ours do. As a result of this, he has a responsibility to keep a check on what he says and what he doesn't. We also need people to counter those opinions, regardless of whether they may be right or not, because only hearing one side of the argument never gets you anywhere.
Posted by Jeff C. (Member # 12496) on :
As far as the articles goes, I don't agree with the list presented. This is a science fiction movie and I'm a science fiction fan. I have zero desire to watch any of those films, so why would I see them? I'm going to watch EG regardless of what anyone tells me, but even if I wasn't, I'd need something that was at least in the same genre to sway me.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Yes, if you aren't interested in changing your consumer patterns out of a sense of social justice, that article will mean nothing to you.
Posted by Elison R. Salazar (Member # 8565) on :
I'm watching the movie because damnit I've been waiting years for it.
Posted by umberhulk (Member # 11788) on :
The part where she starts listing films is cringe worthy. I'll probably level with her and watch one of them anyway. Or I could just buy the Milk Blueray. IDK. Fruitvale Station looks good.
Posted by Elison R. Salazar (Member # 8565) on :
If I really wanted to avoid watching something for ethical reasons and instead watched something similar there would be some sort of anime instead. But "training geniuses to be generals" isn't really the premise for anything, training kids to be pilots is there, that's a genre in of itself, training kids/girls to fight Lovecraftian abominations is also its own genre; there's a couple of shows where kid geniuses are generals but they're a character archetype and not the central conflict of the work.
Ender's Game is a deconstruction (and like most great works of fiction is also a reconstruction and the trope creator) of that sort of trope and centers itself on exploring what would it mean to do that to kids. There really kinda isn't anything else to my mind that fills or visits that.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Yes, if you aren't interested in changing your consumer patterns out of a sense of social justice, that article will mean nothing to you.
And if you are that type of person, you're way too savvy and morally superior to have missed the "OSC is an awful abhorrent hateful nasty bigot" train at this late date.
Which does sorta make me wonder why she bothered writing the article. Well, no, I guess not. Moral superiority gets old quick if you don't frequently and loudly remind everyone how superior you are, and how they could also be superior if only they followed you.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:And if you are that type of person, you're way too savvy and morally superior to have missed the "OSC is an awful abhorrent hateful nasty bigot" train at this late date.
Which does sorta make me wonder why she bothered writing the article.
I think you do her an injustice here, Dan. For one thing, she's not necessarily promoting a boycott: she's promoting alternatives. Her article is not "here's why you should avoid Orson Scott Card's work," but rather, "if you feel guilty about consuming Orson Scott Card's work, try consuming this work instead or in addition to it." Her list isn't "here are films you might prefer;" it's a list of films that function -- to her mind, at least; I don't happen to agree, but I respect her attempt -- like carbon credits.
Posted by Jeff C. (Member # 12496) on :
We are all so quick to point out other people's flaws that we never stop to look at our own. Everyone does it, but we should really be a little more mindful of it.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Which does sorta make me wonder why she bothered writing the article. Well, no, I guess not. Moral superiority gets old quick if you don't frequently and loudly remind everyone how superior you are, and how they could also be superior if only they followed you.
So I guess the trick is, don't disapprove of someone and then tell anyone about it, else risk tiresome moral superiority?
Posted by umberhulk (Member # 11788) on :
When the headline reads "An ethical guide", it's hard to tell if she isn't presuming that you already feel guilty. She feels like she's stepping up to podium. It's relatively tame, though.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:We are all so quick to point out other people's flaws that we never stop to look at our own.
Hm. Here you do me a disservice. I'm a born cynic, and spend at least as much time examining my own flaws as I do everyone else's. Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: It's his house and you're the moderator. That said, as for your reasoning on its own grounds...well, Card says quite a lot worse about more people, more often, over the years. So as far as being squeamish about saying unkind things about him in the course of a current events discussion, well, on this cluster of topics Card did a cannonball into the swimming pool. He definitely wasn't pushed.
This doesn't have anything to do with this topic or that topic being off limits in some generic place on the internet. As far as this place goes you can talk about just about anything other than Mr Card or another poster in a disparaging manner. If Mr. Card was writing about one of you in one of the essays it would be a completely different situation.
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:We are all so quick to point out other people's flaws that we never stop to look at our own.
Hm. Here you do me a disservice. I'm a born cynic, and spend at least as much time examining my own flaws as I do everyone else's.
Been thinking about this a lot lately, and I've basically come to the conclusion that tireless self-examination is just the flipside of pride, that is, thinking you can fix everything about yourself and make yourself perfect if you look hard enough and find/understand every single flaw.
Just saying this because I think there are a lot of very proud people on this forum who are also very self-aware and self-conscious. Including myself.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
quote:Originally posted by Elison R. Salazar: If I really wanted to avoid watching something for ethical reasons and instead watched something similar there would be some sort of anime instead. But "training geniuses to be generals" isn't really the premise for anything, training kids to be pilots is there, that's a genre in of itself, training kids/girls to fight Lovecraftian abominations is also its own genre; there's a couple of shows where kid geniuses are generals but they're a character archetype and not the central conflict of the work.
Ender's Game is a deconstruction (and like most great works of fiction is also a reconstruction and the trope creator) of that sort of trope and centers itself on exploring what would it mean to do that to kids. There really kinda isn't anything else to my mind that fills or visits that.
One word: Evangelion. But I haven't seen the new version, just the old one. It's awesome. Way better than Ender's Game, to be honest with the amount of crazy awesome symbolism and general weirdness.
Posted by Wingracer (Member # 12293) on :
quote:Originally posted by Synesthesia:
quote:Originally posted by Elison R. Salazar: If I really wanted to avoid watching something for ethical reasons and instead watched something similar there would be some sort of anime instead. But "training geniuses to be generals" isn't really the premise for anything, training kids to be pilots is there, that's a genre in of itself, training kids/girls to fight Lovecraftian abominations is also its own genre; there's a couple of shows where kid geniuses are generals but they're a character archetype and not the central conflict of the work.
Ender's Game is a deconstruction (and like most great works of fiction is also a reconstruction and the trope creator) of that sort of trope and centers itself on exploring what would it mean to do that to kids. There really kinda isn't anything else to my mind that fills or visits that.
One word: Evangelion. But I haven't seen the new version, just the old one. It's awesome. Way better than Ender's Game, to be honest with the amount of crazy awesome symbolism and general weirdness.
I love Evangelion but I would say it fits more into the kids as pilots trope he mentioned. They receive very little training and aren't selected for their leadership abilities. I think to find kids as generals in training you have to go back to tales of the Spartans.
Posted by Obama (Member # 13004) on :
Have you been told to censor people talking about Card's abhorent views, Blackblade, or is this your own moderation?
Because it's really not the same thing, us launching personal attacks against each other, and us launching personal attacks against Card. For one thing, so long as I've been reading the forum at least, Card has never had the stones to actually come here and interact with the people who disagree with him.
For another, if a poster here said, for example, that blacks are subpar in almost every way to whites, but that's okay because they can still make a lot of money because they're better basketball players, I'd be perfectly content to have everyone here call them a racist and I'd be disgusted if we were censored from doing so
It's a little pathetic that Card can display the rampant bigotry that he does, and then the people on his boards (and these boards, let's face it, aren't really about Card or his books) should be silenced. You don't like the arguments being made? Counteract them, if you can, though I don't really think that's possible.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I hardly think it's a question of not having the guts. Say what you will about Card, I don't think there's a case to be made for him being ignorant of the long-term prospects of his anti-SSM case and knowing he would lose a lot of popularity for it.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:For another, if a poster here said, for example, that blacks are subpar in almost every way to whites, but that's okay because they can still make a lot of money because they're better basketball players, I'd be perfectly content to have everyone here call them a racist and I'd be disgusted if we were censored from doing so
Weirdly enough apparently according to the rules of the place (and established again and again with precedent) you can claim that this is a religious belief and absolutely nobody is allowed to disparage it.
Posted by millernumber1 (Member # 9894) on :
I think BlackBlade is merely asking for politeness, and the considering of those you disagree with raman rather than varelse. If it is part of your morality to judge those who disagree with you as worthy of no politeness, then I guess that is your prerogative.
Card has, if I recall correctly, engaged with people who disagree with him here - not at length - but he's certainly not cowering in fear on the forums.
I hardly see any kind of silencing of dissent here - merely requests to be civil about the person who kindly pays for the boards.
In terms of counteracting civil arguments - there are several people who do so. You do not accept those counterarguments. That is completely fair. Given the differing presuppositions you hold, it's hardly likely that either you or those who disagree with you would be convinced. I do not think that precludes politeness on anyone's part.
Posted by Jeff C. (Member # 12496) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:For another, if a poster here said, for example, that blacks are subpar in almost every way to whites, but that's okay because they can still make a lot of money because they're better basketball players, I'd be perfectly content to have everyone here call them a racist and I'd be disgusted if we were censored from doing so
Weirdly enough apparently according to the rules of the place (and established again and again with precedent) you can claim that this is a religious belief and absolutely nobody is allowed to disparage it.
That is both hilarious and depressing all at the same time.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:For another, if a poster here said, for example, that blacks are subpar in almost every way to whites, but that's okay because they can still make a lot of money because they're better basketball players, I'd be perfectly content to have everyone here call them a racist and I'd be disgusted if we were censored from doing so
Weirdly enough apparently according to the rules of the place (and established again and again with precedent) you can claim that this is a religious belief and absolutely nobody is allowed to disparage it.
Not even close to being true.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
When I asked a question point blank about it, I recall that your answer was straightforwardly that we are not allowed to disparage religious beliefs. Full stop. For instance, I can't call L. Ron Hubbard a "Con man" because his religion holds that he is not and thus to call him a con man disparages the religion and is not allowed.
Papa Janitor had established the exact same edict, and with absolutely unmistakable language; we can't commit "blasphemy" and we cannot disparage religious beliefs. Those are the official rules as has been described to us when the subject came to be at issue.
Posted by Elison R. Salazar (Member # 8565) on :
quote: One word: Evangelion. But I haven't seen the new version, just the old one. It's awesome. Way better than Ender's Game, to be honest with the amount of crazy awesome symbolism and general weirdness.
You take that back.
Now don't get me wrong, both are legitimate works and deconstructions and I love me a good deconstruction, but Ender's Game also reconstructs, it makes the thing it pulled apart back together again to make it better, both metaphorically in the structure and also literally in the character of Ender (and even lampshaded by Graff); it is not that I feel NGE to be a lesser work, but more that I feel Ender's Game to be complete; and one should be careful about praising symbolism.
You see where that leads you, and I got two words for you.
Studio. Shaft. Nuff' said. (and I like Studio Shaft a lot and that should say something)
Posted by Jeff C. (Member # 12496) on :
I personally didn't find Evangelion very interesting. I guess I missed the point of it? I watched it with a friend of mine who loves the show, but I just couldn't get into it. I think it was the main character (the annoying kid) and the sheer lack of explainations. I also didn't really get the ending.
If anyone wants to explain it to me, I would honestly love to hear it.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: When I asked a question point blank about it, I recall that your answer was straightforwardly that we are not allowed to disparage religious beliefs. Full stop. For instance, I can't call L. Ron Hubbard a "Con man" because his religion holds that he is not and thus to call him a con man disparages the religion and is not allowed.
Papa Janitor had established the exact same edict, and with absolutely unmistakable language; we can't commit "blasphemy" and we cannot disparage religious beliefs. Those are the official rules as has been described to us when the subject came to be at issue.
In your example though you are talking about a person expressing racist views, and shielding them with religion.
I would be completely comfortable telling such a person (and have) that such beliefs are not protected here. Not to mention posters here are not all white, so having a poster tell another their race makes them subpar at anything is pretty straightforwardly against the TOS.
As for calling Hubbard/Smith conmen, I said this,
quote:We have had many discussions about Joseph Smith, The Book of Mormon, etc. They have run the full gamut of what could be said about them. I don't have any special sympathies for criticisms about Mormonism. If you want to talk about how Polygamy caused familial problems fine. If you want to note that Joseph Smith believed he could fine treasure in the earth, and was hired to do so prior to finding the Book of Mormon, fine.
But you don't get to discuss those topics in such a manner that you are insulting and disparaging those who believe in those things.
You are more than welcome to note that you believe Hubbard is a con man if it comes up. You can't insult a person for disagreeing with you, nor can you attempt to try and persuade them to abandon their beliefs ala proselyting.
Posted by Elison R. Salazar (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jeff C.: I personally didn't find Evangelion very interesting. I guess I missed the point of it? I watched it with a friend of mine who loves the show, but I just couldn't get into it. I think it was the main character (the annoying kid) and the sheer lack of explainations. I also didn't really get the ending.
If anyone wants to explain it to me, I would honestly love to hear it.
I believe there's some remake's with a better animation budget and tighter plot/pacing out now that may fit the bill. "Rebuild of Evangelion" etc. The original series had the problem where they ran out of money for the last few episodes and thus the "symbolism".
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: As far as this place goes you can talk about just about anything other than Mr Card or another poster in a disparaging manner. If Mr. Card was writing about one of you in one of the essays it would be a completely different situation.
He does that ALL THE TIME. Which is why there's not a lot of sympathy when the request is not to call him what he plainly is. Playing by the rules he's established, after all.
Posted by millernumber1 (Member # 9894) on :
I think there's a difference between "A group of people that you consider yourself a part of that OSC talks about" and "You by name."
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:Originally posted by millernumber1: I think there's a difference between "A group of people that you consider yourself a part of that OSC talks about" and "You by name."
Similarly, it's OK to speak disparagingly about "scifi authors that are outspoken on SSM."
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Originally posted by millernumber1: I think there's a difference between "A group of people that you consider yourself a part of that OSC talks about" and "You by name."
Might be something of an academic difference if you're part of a group that loves many of his works (life changing isn't an uncommon remark) but then learns that they're destroying America, just playing house, destroying the fabric of human societies, something that will need to violently rebelled against, so on and so forth.
Card has loudly and often got nasty and personal on the subject. It's easy to consider those (numerous, and over a long period) attacks as just ordinary political disagreement when you aren't the one targeted. Tack onto all this that he's only made a vague head fake towards a less...aggressive...commentary now that the issue is finally beginning to be resolved, with him on the losing side.
Basically if he's not going to apologize for the many hateful and deceptive remarks he's made on this subject, he at least doesn't just get to wave his hands and demand people stop criticizing him for it at the instant he deems polite.
Well, here he does if he likes. But should he do so, he'll be rightly scorned.
Posted by millernumber1 (Member # 9894) on :
Well, it's good to know that the tone won't change.
Posted by Wingracer (Member # 12293) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: something that will need to violently rebelled against,
Not saying you're wrong, just genuinely asking where has he said this? I'm sure I haven't read everything he has written on the subject and much of what I have read hasn't stuck but I don't recall him ever advocating violence against gays. If you have a link, I would greatly appreciate it.
Posted by Obama (Member # 13004) on :
Wasn't against gays, he just implied that if the government were to commit the heinous sin of sanctioning gay marriage, that it should be overthrown, violently if necessary. It's in one of his world watch columns, I think.
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
quote:Because when government is the enemy of marriage, then the people who are actually creating successful marriages have no choice but to change governments, by whatever means is made possible or necessary.
quote:Regardless of law, marriage has only one definition, and any government that attempts to change it is my mortal enemy. I will act to destroy that government and bring it down..
I don't think he ever explicitly mentions violence, but one would assume that's covered by "whatever means". And by definition, you try to kill your "mortal enemies". One could argue that of course he doesn't mean that, but it seems to be an obvious subtext to me.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:And if you are that type of person, you're way too savvy and morally superior to have missed the "OSC is an awful abhorrent hateful nasty bigot" train at this late date.
Which does sorta make me wonder why she bothered writing the article.
I think you do her an injustice here, Dan. For one thing, she's not necessarily promoting a boycott: she's promoting alternatives. Her article is not "here's why you should avoid Orson Scott Card's work," but rather, "if you feel guilty about consuming Orson Scott Card's work, try consuming this work instead or in addition to it." Her list isn't "here are films you might prefer;" it's a list of films that function -- to her mind, at least; I don't happen to agree, but I respect her attempt -- like carbon credits.
I didn't respond to this earlier, but it's an interesting point. I think you're right, to the extent that you're correcting me.
Though I think the concept of carbon credits is pretty absurd and ridiculous, too. Indulgences of the modern age. Worthy of being mocked in their own right, but that's not what I was mocking her for.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Originally posted by millernumber1: Well, it's good to know that the tone won't change.
Well it's good to know that you'll shrug your shoulders at the contradiction in criticizing people for being rude to Card, but less when he is rude to them.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
I honestly don't see the point of this particular thread.
We all know what Card is and isn't. And if his bigotry outweighed his impact as a writer we would not be here.
BB is about to be plagued by a sudden on rush of new posters, many of whom I suspect who will be openly hostile to our esteemed host.
This is the calm before the storm. Prepare to kiss our Hatrack goodbye.
Posted by Obama (Member # 13004) on :
I can't speak for anyone else, but I'm here to talk about politics and stuff in general with people whose collective experiences and education are very broad and encompass perspectives beyond my own. Card has nothing to do with it.
I found Ornery in 2002 or so after looking around for Ender stuff. That's about as far as that connection goes.
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: This is the calm before the storm. Prepare to kiss our Hatrack goodbye.
I've "kissed our Hatrack goodbye" several times at this point. So much so that I have very rarely posted the last several years.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: When I asked a question point blank about it, I recall that your answer was straightforwardly that we are not allowed to disparage religious beliefs. Full stop. For instance, I can't call L. Ron Hubbard a "Con man" because his religion holds that he is not and thus to call him a con man disparages the religion and is not allowed.
Papa Janitor had established the exact same edict, and with absolutely unmistakable language; we can't commit "blasphemy" and we cannot disparage religious beliefs. Those are the official rules as has been described to us when the subject came to be at issue.
In your example though you are talking about a person expressing racist views, and shielding them with religion.
I would be completely comfortable telling such a person (and have) that such beliefs are not protected here. Not to mention posters here are not all white, so having a poster tell another their race makes them subpar at anything is pretty straightforwardly against the TOS.
As for calling Hubbard/Smith conmen, I said this,
quote:We have had many discussions about Joseph Smith, The Book of Mormon, etc. They have run the full gamut of what could be said about them. I don't have any special sympathies for criticisms about Mormonism. If you want to talk about how Polygamy caused familial problems fine. If you want to note that Joseph Smith believed he could fine treasure in the earth, and was hired to do so prior to finding the Book of Mormon, fine.
But you don't get to discuss those topics in such a manner that you are insulting and disparaging those who believe in those things.
You are more than welcome to note that you believe Hubbard is a con man if it comes up. You can't insult a person for disagreeing with you, nor can you attempt to try and persuade them to abandon their beliefs ala proselyting.
Interesting. Can someone on this forum say Joseph Smith is a con man?
Posted by Obama (Member # 13004) on :
This should be interesting.
Posted by umberhulk (Member # 11788) on :
not rly
Posted by Wingracer (Member # 12293) on :
Well, I think it should be possible to do so in an acceptable manner (one that doesn't directly insult believers) but in practice would be difficult to do. What the heck, I'll give it a shot.
On second thought, never mind. I just deleted two beautifully written paragraphs that I think most people could agree with but there is always that one or two that would be grievously offended. If I could talk face to face with them, I think they would understand and respect my thoughts on the matter but through text, it would probably turn ugly real quick. So in the interest of peace, I'm going to shut up now Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Sam: Yes, but not if it is done in a disparaging manner, or if your intent is to proselyte.
Posted by C3PO the Dragon Slayer (Member # 10416) on :
quote:Originally posted by Xavier: Here is the article in question.
A couple of relevant quotes:
quote:Because when government is the enemy of marriage, then the people who are actually creating successful marriages have no choice but to change governments, by whatever means is made possible or necessary.
quote:Regardless of law, marriage has only one definition, and any government that attempts to change it is my mortal enemy. I will act to destroy that government and bring it down..
I don't think he ever explicitly mentions violence, but one would assume that's covered by "whatever means". And by definition, you try to kill your "mortal enemies". One could argue that of course he doesn't mean that, but it seems to be an obvious subtext to me.
I felt the need to post this because I have seen this quote taken out of context repeatedly, here and elsewhere.
Orson Scott Card NEVER advocated for violently overthrowing the government should it "redefine marriage." The "regardless of law" quote is not written in the first person – that is, he is predicting the words of the masses rather than projecting his own intentions. It's kind of like how Jesus said "I came to bring not peace, but the sword" (paraphrased from memory). Not advocating for violence, but predicting violence. See that in the original article, the statement is preceded by "How long before married people answer the dictators thus." The "I" in the quote is not referring to himself, but the hypothetical married people.
In another essay, published just a couple weeks after the one quoted, OSC wrote this on the subject of the people's response to the courts ruling in favor of gay marriage:
I've heard frustrated people talk about armed rebellion, about overthrowing the government. Those of you with itchy trigger fingers, put away your guns. We are committed to democracy, not to violence.
It's clear that OSC is basing these predictions on people he knows, which helps explain why he considers himself a moderate on the issue (he's acquainted with people far more extreme than himself). In a post on Hatrack a while back, OSC based predictions such as these on the fact that those opposed to gay marriage represented a "majority" of Americans, but this is no longer the case. He even allows for this:
quote:Given time, a majority might come to accept the idea of gay marriage.
Much of what OSC has written in recent years (especially in 2008, where his writing on the subject was at its peak) was really about "legislating from the bench," or the practice of courts ruling for the legality of gay marriage without going through a legislature or referendum. Since Proposition 8, many states have started passing gay marriage laws through the legislative branch or through popular vote. OSC has written precisely one essay on a case where gay marriage was being put to a referendum (in his state of residence), and there he does not at all use the civilization-ending rhetoric from previous essays, but instead focuses on how "religious freedom [is at stake]."
All of the points Card makes about judicial power, freedom of religion, and the long-term societal impact of gay marriage can and should be debated with rational, factual points and rhetoric, and it annoys me to see his critics take these cheap shots by quoting the same statements out of context. OSC has indeed made outrageous statements that can be disputed with facts and reason, and has used generalizing invective that is counter-productive to debate, but let's put away the idea that he ever called for a violent revolt.
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
So your stance is that he was predicting that masses of "married people" (a class that includes himself) are going to violently revolt over the gay marriage issue, but that he himself would not?
I'm not saying that you are wrong, but in that case, the belief that the "masses" are more extreme in their opposition of gay marriage than he himself is, has got to be one of the most ridiculous things I've ever heard.
Edit: Maybe being on the board of NOM makes for a huge selection bias. Even still, its downright delusional.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
I'm sorry 3CPO, but that is a bunch of bunk. OSC is a writer for heaven's sake! It's his job to make himself clear with the written word. And -if- he meant what you are giving him credit for then that is the worst writing he has ever written!
Because that's not what he said, pure and simple.
I'm happy to read that he is committed to democracy. I'm happy that he changed his mind. But lets not mince words here. He said what he said. And ifin he didn't mean it then it is on him to apologize and clarify.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
That's a good post, C3PO. I disagree about your reading of the first person in "I will act to destroy..." - I think that's a rather large stretch - but I think the clarification from the later essay is really useful. We don't have to worry that OSC is going to take up arms or encourage others to do so. It was sloppy of him to suggest otherwise, initially, but it's clear from his later statement that he didn't mean it that way. It seems he meant that he'd use democratic means to try to change the government.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
I like that his definition of 'moderate' is 'having persons more extreme than you are'.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_:
I'm happy to read that he is committed to democracy. I'm happy that he changed his mind. But lets not mince words here. He said what he said. And ifin he didn't mean it then it is on him to apologize and clarify.
C3P0 is not actually wrong about the context in which OSC wrote what he wrote. And I'll remind you, just in case you've not read that article in a while, he *did* couch what he said, as he usually does, in long strings of subordinate "if and when" clauses, and "barring this or that," qualifications. He did not plainly and simply issue a call to revolt. Single sentences from that article, taken alone, might sound like it, but it *was* all clouded in the specter of a certain set of circumstances.
That being said, I think he should apologize or at least retract those statements for what they still are: a condemnation of our democratic process, only because it does things he doesn't like. And I hasten to add here: the judiciary is a part of our democracy- judges are appointed, yes, but they follow a constitution that we have a power to change, and are appointed by officials we do elect. Anything the supreme court does (literally *anything*, because we can even abolish the court if we want to), the people have a mechanism to reverse. It's an onerous mechanism for a reason, but it's still there.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:The "I" in the quote is not referring to himself, but the hypothetical married people.
And even if we granted this, he's still advocating revolt against the government that lets gays marry whether or not he's saying directly that he would participate in it.
This on top of how, y'know, it's plainly ridiculously delusional if he's saying "all these people off on the right of me will destroy the constitution if we let gays marry! thank god i'm so moderate"
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
I would like to point out an essential flaw in the title and initial posts of this thread: Alyssa Rosenberg does not hate Orson Scott Card. Or, if she does, she never says so at any point.
Instead, what she is exceedingly careful to say is that she hates his views and his actions towards promoting those views. Nowhere, nowhere does she say she hates OSC. As noted, she credits Valentine for inspiring her to write.
If that's true, how troubling it must be to see that someone who has had such a profound impact on her life holds beliefs she finds utterly abhorent. More than a few people on this board, myself included, have that same conflict.
But, much like OSC when he talks about homosexuals, she is careful to separate the person from the opinions and actions.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I would say she's considerably more careful, though that can probably be explained by how much more Card has written about homosexuals and SSM supporters and my familiarity with it versus how little she has written and how new I am to it.
Anyway, you're absolutely right, she doesn't hate Card. It's been pointed out in this thread that she doesn't and frankly anyone who suggests she does has to then acknowledge that Card surely must hate homosexuals.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Orson Scott Card NEVER advocated for violently overthrowing the government should it "redefine marriage." The "regardless of law" quote is not written in the first person – that is, he is predicting the words of the masses rather than projecting his own intentions. It's kind of like how Jesus said "I came to bring not peace, but the sword" (paraphrased from memory). Not advocating for violence, but predicting violence. See that in the original article, the statement is preceded by "How long before married people answer the dictators thus." The "I" in the quote is not referring to himself, but the hypothetical married people.
Here's the thing: having read more than a few of Card's books, including some that take a pretty thoughtful look at history and how it works (not the best way to put it, but I think you know what I mean) I have a very difficult time crediting that Card ever believed an armed revolt against the US government over the issue of gay marriage was ever even a dimly remote possibility under any circumstances that have existed in the past, say, generation.
By that I mean that it's almost impossible for me to believe that Card ever thought, these past twenty years, that any combination of likely and even unlikely events would lead to an armed revolt even by a minority of Americans against the US government. To put it bluntly, that kind of chicken@#$t talk puts one in mind of 'second amendment remedies' because the speaker is almost certainly doing just one or two things: either preaching to the choir to cynically rouse support, or is so firmly ensconced in a bubble that they can't see just how extreme they are, or both. I don't believe Card is that far in the bubble.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Chris Bridges: But, much like OSC when he talks about homosexuals, she is careful to separate the person from the opinions and actions.
Perhaps your forgetting the (granted now very dated) article, I think from the Mormon TImes, in which he wrote a long explanation of why he felt homosexual lifestyles were flawed, he did denigrate the character of his, albiet shadowy, gay acquaintances and supposed friends. In a sort of general, unspecific way- basically through allusions to the idea that all homosexual sex is lurid, unloving, and detached from the essential human experience. A pile of drivel, to be sure, but the fundamental assumption he makes, that homosexual behavior *defines* the homosexual lifestyle (underlying assumption being that it's a choice), is there.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: To put it bluntly, that kind of chicken@#$t talk puts one in mind of 'second amendment remedies' because the speaker is almost certainly doing just one or two things: either preaching to the choir to cynically rouse support, or is so firmly ensconced in a bubble that they can't see just how extreme they are, or both. I don't believe Card is that far in the bubble.
I agree, and I never took his ranting or allusions to violence seriously. But as a study of, and indictment of, himself as a person, they are very strong words, and they are his own. I think it's perfectly valid to say that even though I don't take his allusions to violence seriously, he is clearly a person who makes allusion to violence on this issue, and that, post hoc, signifies.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Chris Bridges: I would like to point out an essential flaw in the title and initial posts of this thread: Alyssa Rosenberg does not hate Orson Scott Card. Or, if she does, she never says so at any point.
Instead, what she is exceedingly careful to say is that she hates his views and his actions towards promoting those views. Nowhere, nowhere does she say she hates OSC. As noted, she credits Valentine for inspiring her to write.
If that's true, how troubling it must be to see that someone who has had such a profound impact on her life holds beliefs she finds utterly abhorent. More than a few people on this board, myself included, have that same conflict.
But, much like OSC when he talks about homosexuals, she is careful to separate the person from the opinions and actions.
She calls him an awful person, which is a step that, to my knowledge, Card hasn't taken in any of his articles.
I understand that you're more sympathetic to her because you, too, feel disillusioned by a favorite author not agreeing with your politics. But you're presenting an equivalency here that doesn't quite exist, as far as I can tell.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Really? You're suggesting Card hasn't said very similar, or even worse, things about homosexuals and SSM supporters, Dan? I just want to make sure before I go reread some of his greatest hits, which will be later when I'm at home but I suspect there are quite a few others who can find examples as well.
A qualifier: I don't see much difference if any in someone saying 'you're an awful person because of your views' and 'you're destroying America and human civilization with your awful politics'.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Or more to the point, and even worse...'you're destroying America and human civilization by wanting to marry the person you love'.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
Save your time finding quotes. You just established that you see equivalency between two very different statements.
You really don't see the difference between them? I mean, they literally mean different things!
I don't think Sam or Blayne are awful people, even though I think their political views are monstrous and they tacitly support policies that could (and sometimes already do) result in death, misery, and poverty. They haven't been persuaded to change their minds yet. Doesn't make them awful people. I generally reserve that label for people substantially worse.
Posted by C3PO the Dragon Slayer (Member # 10416) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: A qualifier: I don't see much difference if any in someone saying 'you're an awful person because of your views' and 'you're destroying America and human civilization with your awful politics'.
I'm not inclined to disagree with your main point, but I do think there's a difference between saying that one's views makes them an awful person and saying that one's views are dangerous and destructive. One is a judgement of character, the other is judgement of outcome.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: She calls him an awful person, which is a step that, to my knowledge, Card hasn't taken in any of his articles.
You mean he hasn't called anyone, specifically, an "awful person?" Because he has used plenty of other words to describe people- many of them far graver than "awful person." And no, his usual (although not universal) couching of this rhetoric in "a person who acts this way is a Nazi," instead of "so-and-so is a Nazi" doesn't make it not the same thing in all the ways that matter.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by C3PO the Dragon Slayer:
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: A qualifier: I don't see much difference if any in someone saying 'you're an awful person because of your views' and 'you're destroying America and human civilization with your awful politics'.
I'm not inclined to disagree with your main point, but I do think there's a difference between saying that one's views makes them an awful person and saying that one's views are dangerous and destructive. One is a judgement of character, the other is judgement of outcome.
Right.
Also, it's judging a person based on a single bad idea they have, or maybe a specific bad idea cluster. But they might have good ideas too!
It's useful not to dismiss them as an awful person, unless they've shown consistently awful ideas across a broad spectrum of issues.
Posted by lightpaths (Member # 1385) on :
Are we not tolerant people? Have we all forgotten what tolerance means?
Toleration means to disagree with an idea while still defending to the death that person's right to exist and state their view.
We have a man (not a god or a superman) who has some ideas we may not like.
Are we tolerant; fighting for a fellow American's rights (freedom of speech and thought, religion etc) so he can continue to say whatever he likes?
Or are we Intolerant, arguing to take his rights away, trying to force him to apologize, make him agree with something just because we don't like it?
I will even defend the right to be intolerant because I believe in toleration even if a good many on our country do not.
Posted by Obama (Member # 13004) on :
Card does indeed have the right to be wrong.
The rest of us are under no obligation, moral or otherwise, to coddle him in his wrong beliefs, let him believe that we think those beliefs are a moral positive, or to spend our money on his endeavors. We're not even obligated to refrain from telling people we know that his beliefs are wrong and that they, too, should consider not giving him their money. He has his free speech; we have ours.
Actions have consequences.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Originally posted by lightpaths: Are we not tolerant people? Have we all forgotten what tolerance means?
Toleration means to disagree with an idea while still defending to the death that person's right to exist and state their view.
We have a man (not a god or a superman) who has some ideas we may not like.
Are we tolerant; fighting for a fellow American's rights (freedom of speech and thought, religion etc) so he can continue to say whatever he likes?
Or are we Intolerant, arguing to take his rights away, trying to force him to apologize, make him agree with something just because we don't like it?
I will even defend the right to be intolerant because I believe in toleration even if a good many on our country do not.
---------
Something tedious: when people promoting intolerance insist upon 'tolerance' for their own views and actions, when 'tolerance' in that case means 'permission, lack of challenge, and even endorsement'.
Yes, everyone gets the whole (supposed) contradiction in discriminating against someone who discriminates. It's not a profound revelation. But a few questions.
One, which of Card's rights is being taken away? Two, by what means is anyone trying to force him to do anything? Three, who has challenged Card's 'right to exist' and express his views? Four, since when did death come on the table for this topic? Seems pretty dramatic. Well, you get the idea. All of those are questions you'll have to have an anwer for if you want your 'don't be intolerant' message to be taken seriously.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Are we tolerant; fighting for a fellow American's rights (freedom of speech and thought, religion etc) so he can continue to say whatever he likes?
Card can of course continue to say whatever he likes. And people can decide whether they want to continue to give him money.
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
quote:She calls him an awful person...
It is true that the headline of the article says that. It's seems pretty incongruent with the rest of the piece to me. I actually wonder if that may be some editorial influence. My understanding is that sometimes the journalist isn't the one that comes up with the headline.
But that's just speculation, of course.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Xavier:
quote:She calls him an awful person...
It is true that the headline of the article says that. It's seems pretty incongruent with the rest of the piece to me. I actually wonder if that may be some editorial influence. My understanding is that sometimes the journalist isn't the one that comes up with the headline.
But that's just speculation, of course.
That's a really good point.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
It felt a little brief, like they were just getting to some of the important questions, and then said, "Could be problematic."
[ July 22, 2013, 02:28 PM: Message edited by: BlackBlade ]
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by lightpaths: Are we not tolerant people? Have we all forgotten what tolerance means?
Toleration means to disagree with an idea while still defending to the death that person's right to exist and state their view.
We have a man (not a god or a superman) who has some ideas we may not like.
Are we tolerant; fighting for a fellow American's rights (freedom of speech and thought, religion etc) so he can continue to say whatever he likes?
Or are we Intolerant, arguing to take his rights away, trying to force him to apologize, make him agree with something just because we don't like it?
I will even defend the right to be intolerant because I believe in toleration even if a good many on our country do not.
Tolerance does not mean he has any claim over a person's decision to give him money or not. Which means, when you look right at it, the issue isn't people are forgetting what tolerance means; you just didn't have a good understanding of the word to begin with.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Sam: Yes, but not if it is done in a disparaging manner, or if your intent is to proselyte.
Then this rule has pretty much changed.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
If you don't like it, I am open to suggestions.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
no, it's better this way than was previously established!
Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
Of all the articles I've seen, does anyone actually know what OSC's deal with the studios even is? Does he get additional money from ticket sales, cable showings** or a flat fee from delivering the script. Who is paid more? Him (through what has to be at least a decade of working on the script) or Harrison Ford? I've also been led to understand (can't find a link) that studios do really weird accounting, and declare movies a loss that should not be, based on ticket sales, depriving certain parties of profits all the time.
**I read Mara Wilson (Matilda)'s very excellent blog and she mentions that the money she receives from her films appearing on cable is about equivalent to her monthly electric bill.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Movie profit models are intentionally opaque and completely misleading. The creative accounting that is used to 'write off' movies as a loss at the box office is particularly egregious and arbitrary considering that practically every single movie made is a massive money-loser at the box office and studios expect to lose millions upon millions of dollars at the box office, no matter what. Yes, nearly all movies. Only rarely is a movie such a breakaway hit that it actually profits in theaters.
Secondly -
No, nobody has demonstrated real knowledge of what OSC's deal with Odd Lot, Lionsgate, Summit, etc, is. All we have are statements by OSC which suggest that he dropped off involvement in the screenplay very early on, and he says that the script is "100%" Gavin Hood's.
However long he has been working on various potential scripts for potential future Ender's Game movies, the end product nearly 100% certain isn't using a script written by OSC.
He may still be credited in some form as a writer or screenplay producer for the movie and even if he wasn't I would be completely surprised if, in actuality, OSC was not entitled to a share of the movie's profits indefinitely.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
as for the question of who wrote Ender's Game the movie, the answer so far is: Roberto Orci and Alex Kurtzman, credited as the Creative Producers and probably are the primary writers of the script that went into production.
(you may know Orci and Kurtzman as writers of movies such as Transformers, Transformers II: Revenge of the Fallen, Cowboys and Aliens, Star Trek: Into Darkness, Eagle Eye, 2005's The Legend of Zorro)
Posted by umberhulk (Member # 11788) on :
Well when Transformers is the best movie in your portfolio then there's a problem.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
going to stress 'probably' on that last one though. it's impossible to say who has most reworked card's ideas to the screen, but you can bet that anything card wrote has been heavily altered by many hands all the way up to screenplay.
Anyway, since I consider it so completely and incredibly unlikely that card is in no way set up to earn future profit off of this movie, I'd like to know where people are getting the idea that he isn't or where card himself is saying he won't.
Posted by Wingracer (Member # 12293) on :
quote:Originally posted by umberhulk: Well when Transformers is the best movie in your portfolio then there's a problem.
Of that list, I would probably take Eagle Eye as the best. Not that I liked it, just didn't hate it as much.
But then they also wrote on Fringe, Alias and MI3. Still no favorites of mine but I would put all of those ahead of the listed films.
Posted by umberhulk (Member # 11788) on :
Mission Impossible 3 is bad ****ing ass.
Posted by Wingracer (Member # 12293) on :
quote:Originally posted by umberhulk: Mission Impossible 3 is bad ****ing ass.
I liked it and would certainly list it as their best but apparently I didn't love it quite as much as you do.
I think I would like it more without Tom Cruise. I actually like Cruise on the rare occasions he is in something that is NOT one of his personal vehicles.
Posted by umberhulk (Member # 11788) on :
Hoffman kills it in that movie. If Achilles (ender's shadow) ever lived to be 30+ years old, you could totally have hoffman play him.
quote:Originally posted by umberhulk: Hoffman kills it in that movie. If Achilles (ender's shadow) ever lived to be 30+ years old, you could totally have hoffman play him.
I absolutely agree with you there. I have never thought of it before but now that you mention it, I could definitely see Hoffman as an older Achilles.
Posted by C3PO the Dragon Slayer (Member # 10416) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: as for the question of who wrote Ender's Game the movie, the answer so far is: Roberto Orci and Alex Kurtzman, credited as the Creative Producers and probably are the primary writers of the script that went into production.
(you may know Orci and Kurtzman as writers of movies such as Transformers, Transformers II: Revenge of the Fallen, Cowboys and Aliens, Star Trek: Into Darkness, Eagle Eye, 2005's The Legend of Zorro)
I don't know if you consider this PR weaseling, but at Comic-Con Orci said this when asked about the challenges of adapting a book to the screen:
[The biggest challenge is] [n]ormally find the writer, but I didn’t have to write it. Gavin actually had the terrible challenge of adapting this, which was great.
There are other sources that corroborate that Gavin Hood was the writer of the script with little involvement on the writing front by Kurtzman and Orci, but I don't have time to dig them up. Hope that clears this up, though.
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)