posted
well, just coz someone is bad at their job don't mean that they're opinions are wrong. After reading the whole interview I liked her less and less, I think the best point she made was:
"Or by withdrawing, which is what they do, from the mainline of human life. The separation is there and is, in fact, celebrated within the homosexual community."
"When you talk about separating oneself from the mainstream, don't some people feel that way about Mormons?"
but yeah, she's a really really bad journalist
Posts: 95 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
That journalist was an idiot. The interview was pure BS. I myself had to chop it up into individual questions and answers and ignore her opinions. It was Card's answers to many of the individual questions that shocked me.
She was not impartial like a good journalist should be. I don't care how much hero worship I had for someone, once the greetings were over I would have asked fair, tough, and impartial questions. I would not escalate a series of moral and ethical questions in an attempt to trap someone into a bad answer.
Posts: 339 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: It’s not hard to see he is pretty stubborn in his views, and that’s okay. However, I’m a bird of a different feather in that I always try to open my mind to new possibilities no matter how out of line they may be with my beliefs. There are limits to that of course, but I am generally an open person.
And why don't you think that Card is an open person? It seems to be that it is because he doesn't agree with you.
It is possible, you know, for someone to look at other possibilites that other people believe in passionately and yet reject them. Card is consistent and logical in his views, and it doesn't make him less openminded that you and he do not agree. You see?
This just seems to me to be just like the professors at my university who define "freethinkers" as "anyone who has the exact same beliefs that they do", ignoring the possibilty that a truly free thinking person might actually disagree with them. It's just a form of arrogance, the idea that if everyone just was smart enough and knew enough, they'd think just like you.
I'm really thinking, however, that this should have gone on that joke thread about offended OSC fans...
Posts: 561 | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by seespot: People will always disappoint you. I don't think that means you shouldn't hold people in high regard, you just shouldn't be suprised when they screw up in some way. They are merely human. I'm sure there is something you can still find to respect in them.
I do believe I hold people to a much higher standard than I should. I guess when it all boils down to it, we're all screw-ups in one way or the other no matter how well we posture ourselves for the outside world to see. This is something that is proving to be a difficult lesson for me. Posts: 339 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by tern: This just seems to me to be just like the professors at my university who define "freethinkers" as "anyone who has the exact same beliefs that they do", ignoring the possibilty that a truly free thinking person might actually disagree with them. It's just a form of arrogance, the idea that if everyone just was smart enough and knew enough, they'd think just like you.
That's not what I am saying as it has been implied and stated on this thread already. I have also pointed out that I am fine with his views, but not the way he expresses them. Leftists (as I happen to be one) who claim free thinkers are those that agree with their views are open minded people have tricked themselves into believing that's what free thinking is all about. I disagree. What I am saying is that OSC's views come off as so rash and laid in stone that he seems to have closed his mind to other possibilities. As a sci-fi writer of such talent, I did not expect that out of him. By definition, you have to have a very open mind to design pretend worlds in your head. I was amazed he appears so close-minded in his real world views. See what I am saying now?
Posts: 339 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
"By definition, you have to have a very open mind to design pretend worlds in your head. I was amazed he appears so close-minded in his views."
Leaving aside the issue of the validity of your first statement -- I've known lots of people with "pretend worlds" who aren't open-minded -- perhaps you could take this as a learning opportunity. If you like Card's writing and respect him as an intelligent, open-minded person, perhaps you could look more closely at his views to see if they merit more attention than you have given them?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
How can you have an imagination and be a closed-minded person? I guess I'm just not getting how that is possible. To me, such a person would--, no could only have the capacity to write about things within their own narrow vision of the world. That's not imagination, that's self-serving tripe. I can't see OSC as that given his works that I have read.
Posts: 339 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
All I have to say is that I truly, truly, truly hope that he was just baiting her OR she was misquoting him with the idea that the solution to rape is chaperoning, and otherwise there's nothing left to be done.
Truly.
That scares me.
I took it more as an op/ed piece based on an interview than a real exercise in journalism. It was more his responses that disturbed me -- even though I'm familiar with his writings on his view points -- than persuaded to an opinion by the author herself. Although, I do have sympathy for the disillusionment she apparently went through.
Posts: 99 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's a question, not a statement. Most people try to answer questions rather than insult the person asking them.
And yes, it is attached. For example: I, like 99% of the world, loathe child molesters. Would I write a story about one being a hero that everyone adored? No, because to do such a thing is outside the scope of my beliefs. So my imagination would be limited in that respect because I would reject that possibility. If I were a closed-minded person, my ability to write using my imagination would be controlled by the hard-core views that I refused to budge on. Understand?
Posts: 339 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
Oh, I'm sorry, did you want an answer? I thought you were asking a question like, "How could anyone intelligent vote for Kerry?"
:shrug:
>> If I were a closed-minded person, my ability to write using my imagination would be controlled by the hard-core views that I refused to budge on. Understand?<<
Perfectly. If you were to write a story, you'd be unable to seperate your politics from your characters.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
I would be inclined to listen to your views if you were able to provide a decent argument, but it seems you like the trolling scene better so I'll just disregard your posts.
quote: What I am saying is that OSC's views come off as so rash and laid in stone that he seems to have closed his mind to other possibilities.
Be openminded - try to look at it from Scott's point of view, with Scott's perspective. Is it possible that your views come off rash and laid in stone, and that you might have closed your mind to other possibilities?
Speaking as someone who shares Scott's views on homosexuality, I can understand quite clearly the Left's views on homosexuality. After all, I'm on the tail end of the four years of indoctrination known as an undergraduate education. Understanding where the views come from and what they are based upon have no connection to agreeing with them.
quote: If I were a closed-minded person, my ability to write using my imagination would be controlled by the hard-core views that I refused to budge on.
Statement Two: Scott writes stories with characters who do not share his views, to the extent that many people are shocked when they find out what he actually believes.
THEREFORE, Scott is openminded.
quote: All I have to say is that I truly, truly, truly hope that he was just baiting her
Er, because it would be truly horrible if Scott actually had these beliefs? Why? Has he ever been anything less than direct and honest? Does he have the right to these beliefs? Is it possible that he is right?
Posts: 561 | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
An irony is, when I was reading Enders Game (before I knew that OSC was against gays, etc.) and I was reading about them in battle school, I distinctly remember thinking "Man, I bet there would be a lot of homosexuality going around in battle school... I wonder what the disciplinary policy would be..."
Posts: 95 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:If I were a closed-minded person, my ability to write using my imagination would be controlled by the hard-core views that I refused to budge on.
Do you believe that all stories are allegorical? Because that's the only way I see this statement as valid.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
And Dag happened to be the first spammer in here. Looks like you've got a buddy to reinforce your self-righteous [edit] garbage Dag.
Tern on the other hand offers an intelligent counterpoint to my statements rather than half [edit]-baked statements of disgust for the person they clearly resent.
posted
So far I've just been reading this thread, but I just don't understand why EM thinks he can talk to people like that. It just proves his own close mindedness when he is unwilling to continue conversations with someone merely because their argument "isn't good enough".
Posts: 137 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
In all fairness, OSC does not in fact write many stories in which his heroes do not share his views. In fact, they almost all share his ethics, but this is disguised by the fact that they do not necessarily share his religion.Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by socal_chic: So far I've just been reading this thread, but I just don't understand why EM thinks he can talk to people like that. It just proves his own close mindedness when he is unwilling to continue conversations with someone merely because their argument "isn't good enough".
Read deeper. Scot and Dag are the only two I refuse to converse with because of the rude manner in which they do it. If you look closer, many of the posters in here have actually changed my mind somewhat. That in essence is an "open mind."
Posts: 339 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: In all fairness, OSC does not in fact write many stories in which his heroes do not share his views. In fact, they almost all share his ethics, but this is disguised by the fact that they do not necessarily share his religion.
That was the point Tern made, and I stand corrected. He's right.
Posts: 339 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Scot and Dag are the only two I refuse to converse with because of the rude manner in which they do it. If you look closer, many of the posters in here have actually changed my mind somewhat. That in essence is an "open mind."
quote:And Dag happened to be the first spammer in here. Looks like you've got a buddy to reinforce your self-righteous bullshit Dag.
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
And I still await an analysis of why Card is close-minded based on his quotations in that article and you aren't based on your initial post. I provided analysis of why you came across as more close-minded than Card. If you think Card is close-minded and you are not, then show why your definition of close-mindedness applies to Card an not you.
quote:Scot and Dag are the only two I refuse to converse with because of the rude manner in which they do it. If you look closer, many of the posters in here have actually changed my mind somewhat. That in essence is an "open mind."
Ah, I see. If you call OSC close-minded, you're just expressing an opinion. If I call you close-minded, or Scott calls one of your questions "arrogant," then we're being too personal and rude.
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: Hey, EM-- read the Terms, and remove your vulgarity.
Don't worry about it. You're not a forum moderator so your policing of it is both invalid and unnecessary. If you have a problem with my conduct then please report it to a moderator and I will discuss the situation with that person.
Posts: 339 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Wow, you really are willing to wilfully violate the rules of a forum - rules you explicitly agreed to follow when you signed up?
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
No, they're not. You apparantly feel it's OK to call people close-minded, but don't feel it's acceptable for others to do the same to you. I'm wondering why.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Exploding Monkey, why is it preferable to be forced to stick to the conditions you agreed to when you registered -- and conditions which are pretty clearly the accepted norm around here -- than to be reminded of them so you can fix it yourself without anyone having to bother the moderator?
posted
I'll alter it slightly then. I'm just a firm believer in not modifying my posts because it often makes the person doing it look like a deceptive weasel.
I'm not trying to blatantly violate the rules as Dag implies. I just do not accept Scott's policing of this thread; he has no authority in this area.
Posts: 339 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: No, they're not. You apparantly feel it's OK to call people close-minded, but don't feel it's acceptable for others to do the same to you. I'm wondering why.
Okay, thank you for phrasing better. I have no wish to fight with anyone. I have to take the wife and kids out to lunch right now, so I'll respond when I get back.
posted
Continued presence of the offending material after being reminded of the rules, even by an unofficial person, would be a willful violation. Prior to that it might have been inadvertent.
I said nothing of blatant.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
You'll find, if you hang around, that the members here generally try to maintain a very un-Internet style of conversation. There are very few flamewars and very little language that would upset an afternoon television station, and as long as there wasn't a "I can do whatever I want until someone makes me stop" attitude, all is well. Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Children! Behave please! I can't believe the most reasonable post made in ages was one I made about "homosexuality in battle school" stop you're squabbling and focus on the issues
Posts: 95 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hatrack is, in fact, generally a self-policing/moderating forum (it was this way before I was the moderator, so it isn't solely an issue of my laziness). Thank you for editing your post, EM.
posted
I have to say, despite the fact that she can't write, the author shared many of my frustrations with OSC. I was, and continue to be, annoyed at the differecne in philoshophy and style between his books, and their introductions, and his essays, esp. those on Ornery American. Mr. Card does seem to be a walking contradiction.
Posts: 1332 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Imagination is not connected to ethics in any way shape or form.
I think I disagree. Isn't ethics based on empathy for others? And doesn't that require a certain amount of imagination, in order to understand their situation and view?
I admit this doesn't apply to rules you follow because they were handed down from Mount Sinai on tablets of stone, but then, that's not actual ethics anyway, that's fear of punishment.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, not really. I shalt not murder or covet mostly because I think it's wrong.
Anyway. What does closed-minded mean? I have a perfect illustration. Discussing evolution with someone, I said, ok, now YOU argue for evolution and *I'LL* try to disprove it! He cut that off immediately. OK, it feels risky, but it's a great learning experience; he wouldn't consider it. That's what closed-minded means: refusing to ever consider something.
OSC hasn't shown evidence of this. His article on ornery.org shows that he HAS considered the question. He just didn't come to the exact conclusion some of us wanted him to. Because of this, he gets called a homophobe, despite a complete lack of evidence.
For him, I imagine, it's much like this:
LEFT (not OSC's brand, of course): Anyone who opposes state recognition hates gay people. OSC: I don't hate gay people. L: You hate gay people. It's obvious. C: I don't. I get along well with them. L: You hate gay people. C: I don't. Marriage isn't about that, it's about -- L: You hate gay people. Homophobe. C: I -- L: You hate gay people. Closed-minded homophobe.
I would expect anyone to get testy about this after a while.
Posts: 1877 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
...and here's his discussion of religion and SF. The mainstream of SF often assumes that everyone either agrees with the author on religion, or is evil, or is an idiot. OSC doesn't make this assumption: that is, he has an open mind. http://www.writing-world.com/sf/card.shtmlPosts: 1877 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: No, they're not. You apparantly feel it's OK to call people close-minded, but don't feel it's acceptable for others to do the same to you. I'm wondering why.
Okay, here goes…
I entered into this conversation after reading the poorly conducted ‘00 interview that was it’s main topic. Although the interviewer showed a very poor professional quality by admitting her bias, and using that bias in an attempt to trap Card in a bad statement for her own self indulgence, it was Card’s responses to the individual questions that really burned me up. This is not because I disagree with his views (which I do…strongly), but because they came off in such a manner-of-fact way that to me they implied he felt they were the “correct” answers for everyone.
Now, before anyone goes off on that statement, let me elaborate on how I came to that conclusion.
Those of you that read the earlier posts by me will remember how I compared both the Star Trek article in the LA Times and his rants here on his own web page. In every instance that he has put something or someone down he did so in such a harsh way as to basically thumb his nose up at anyone that might disagree with him. This to me is the definition of a closed-minded person. Answers.com lists is closed-minded as: Intolerant of the beliefs and opinions of others; stubbornly unreceptive to new ideas. When a person says stuff like: “As for your iPod, I just have to shake my head and laugh.” or “So when they saw "Star Trek," primitive as it was, it was their first glimpse of science fiction. It was grade school for those who had let the whole science fiction revolution pass them by,” you can’t help be feel insulted like Card is putting down individuals that he does not agree with. Now while I agree with the Trek statement and fully disagree with the iPod one, you just can’t talk down to people like that and not have them perceive you as an elitist, closed-minded jerk. So iPod owners are idiots then? Trek fans are intellectually trapped in the 6th grade? No, of course not, but when you make statements like this, what do you expect people to think? As others have said, Card knows way too much about the art of persuasive writing not to know that this is indeed what he means when he puts people down like this.
Now I pulled a kind-of OSC rant myself by channeling my frustration and anger over this by jumping in here and ripping into all of you. That wasn’t fair and I apologized for it, and do so again to those that missed that part. Fortunately, a few cool headed posters responded first and that’s when I chilled the heck out and started to debate with them. Many in this thread have pointed out their personal insights on OSC and I have considered their views. Some have even changed my mind on a few things.
To answer your question Dag, I didn’t feel you or Scott were calling me closed-minded. I felt you were simply attacking because I was criticizing OSC and his stubborn system of values. I understand my original post was showing the same thing in me that I was accusing Card of. That’s why I admitted that I came in here half-cocked without composing my thoughts first. And that’s what I mean when I say your questions are already answered. I admitted I came off wrong at first and said I was sorry for it. Many people have both offered counterpoints to my opinions as well as criticisms for how I expressed them, and I accept that whether I agree with their opinions or not. I tried to say ethics have a stranglehold on a writer’s style, Tern pointed out that Card writes of characters that do not express his views. Tern is right. Even though I still feel ethics does play a role in a writer’s thinking, I eased up a bit because Tern made a good point. So I don’t consider myself closed-minded because I am able to concede my opinions to others when I feel they are correct. And when I feel they are not, then it just boils down to a difference of opinion.
Yes, at first I came off like a closed-minded jerk. But I thought I rectified that earlier in the thread. I hope this clears things up.
Posts: 339 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
"you just can’t talk down to people like that and not have them perceive you as an elitist, closed-minded jerk"
True. Which is why I find his essays disappointing, myself. Because he's not an elitist, and he's really not particularly close-minded. But he does come off like a jerk, and I'm pretty sure it's deliberate.
"So I don’t consider myself closed-minded because I am able to concede my opinions to others when I feel they are correct."
I'm pretty sure this applies to Scott, too. The difficulty, as always, is in convincing him that your opinions are correct. Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
