posted
And he has turned me off from any of his future books with his disgustingly moronic political views. The guy is brilliant, mind you, but his preachy, condescending, illogical articles in these past years are embarrassingly bad and utterly worthless. Mind you, I frequently read other conservative columnists--Charles Krauthammer, for instance--and even when they're arguing the same points Card's essays still manage to be as distasteful as possible. I've also come to hate Card's tactic of defending many of his opinions by seeming to anticipate the arguments of the opposition--as in, he spends a very long essay decrying gay marriage and insulting homosexuals, and then he says, "oh, and they'll respond by saying that what I'm saying is hate speech." Of course, it IS hate speech, and the fact that he anticipates that suggestion does nothing to lessen its validity.
Additionally, his blind support of the Israel is, like with many other of his political views, simplistic and dumb. You would think somebody who professes to know a lot about history would learn to appreciate the fact that not everything is so black and white.
I had friends who responded by promising never to read another book by Card when I informed then of the disgusting stuff Card says.
Producing quality fiction does not give anybody the right to make a fool of himself in any other area. Card should leave political commentary to those who are less acerbic than him and more appreciative of the fact that if you're trying to win people over to your views, it is best not to use an approach that confirms their fears about you.
Thank you for listening.
(if you are wondering, I forget the computer generated password to my other account by the same name, and consequently had to register to make this thread...)
posted
Oh well then. You'll just it make it that much easier for me to find an extra copy of his new releases.
Posts: 2689 | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Good thing you posted a thoughtful, well-reasoned opinion piece as an example of what he should be doing. You know, one that offers rebuttal and discourse instead of name-calling and scorn.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Good thing you posted a thoughtful, well-reasoned opinion piece as an example of what he should be doing. You know, one that offers rebuttal and discourse instead of name-calling and scorn.
I agree. Two wrongs don't make a right.
Posts: 1170 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: Producing quality fiction does not give anybody the right to make a fool of himself in any other area.
Everybody always has the right to make a fool of themselves. Personally, I don't find Card's remarks foolish. However, even if he proclaimed that the world was flat, what is it to you? If you like reading his columns, read them. If you like reading his books, read them. If you want to make a fool of yourself by whining, go for it. You, like everybody else, have that right.
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Somalian, I think you may have lost a bit of your already scant fanbase with that rant, yourself.
Posts: 270 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Has anyone ever seen Dagonee and Chris Bridges in the same room together? 'Cause I'm not saying anything, or nothing ... but I think one of them wears stretchy underwear in primary colors.
Boxers, muted blues and browns.
Except for the pair with red devils and hearts I got for Valentine's day.
posted
Your one brief post contains rather more condescension, name-calling, and general nastiness than all of OSC's articles taken together.
You have failed to make your point.
Also, it is rather rude to use a person's web forum to attack that person. I say "attack" because that is what your post is. It is not "criticism" (see IanO's post on the other side for an example of what criticism is). It's an attack.
[ July 13, 2004, 08:43 PM: Message edited by: Yozhik ]
Posts: 1512 | Registered: A Long Time Ago!
| IP: Logged |
Card is foolishly alienating a large percent of his fanbase with his idiotic articles You're friends with a large percent of his fanbase? Wow.
And he has turned me off from any of his future books with his disgustingly moronic political views.. Ah, well. That's your right, of course.
The guy is brilliant, mind you, but his preachy, condescending, illogical articles in these past years are embarrassingly bad and utterly worthless. In your opinion.
Mind you, I frequently read other conservative columnists--Charles Krauthammer, for instance--and even when they're arguing the same points Card's essays still manage to be as distasteful as possible. Oh, he could be a great deal more distasteful than that.
I've also come to hate Card's tactic of defending many of his opinions by seeming to anticipate the arguments of the opposition--as in, he spends a very long essay decrying gay marriage and insulting homosexuals, and then he says, "oh, and they'll respond by saying that what I'm saying is hate speech." To be honest this is a tactic that bothers me as well, except that if I recall correctly he used a fictional dialogue and a straw man technique to illustrate how legalizing gay marriage was essentially the same as letting people marry their dogs.
Of course, it IS hate speech, and the fact that he anticipates that suggestion does nothing to lessen its validity. No, it's not. Card has never suggested that gays be treated in any negative manner, nor has he called for violence, abuse, or any discrimination that isn't currently legal.
Additionally, his blind support of the Israel is, like with many other of his political views, simplistic and dumb. You would think somebody who professes to know a lot about history would learn to appreciate the fact that not everything is so black and white. And the correct view would be...? Not that you might not have a good point, but you've failed to offer it, making your argument even more useless than a wrong one. At least I can argue with the wrong one.
I had friends who responded by promising never to read another book by Card when I informed then of the disgusting stuff Card says. If all they had to go on was your version of his articles, I don't blame them.
Producing quality fiction does not give anybody the right to make a fool of himself in any other area. You're right. People have the right to make a fool of themselves even if they haven't produced quality fiction.
Card should leave political commentary to those who are less acerbic than him and more appreciative of the fact that if you're trying to win people over to your views, it is best not to use an approach that confirms their fears about you. You don't like him so he should be silenced? Now you're confirming his fears.
I have some pretty sharp disagreements with some of Card's views, and some of his articles have been, in my opinion, condescending. I prefer to argue his points, instead of his style.
CT: I go commando. And Dagonnee and I have also had some disagreements over issues. We just discuss them with respect, like most of the people here. Besides, Teresa never liked Lois Lane. Too pushy. Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dag, I was known as the Somalian, but have forgotten the password, and am now known as the_Somalian. I had a short stint here in which I tried as hard as I could to keep my mouth shut about Card's articles and the fact that he possesses an imagination and hunger for political discourse that are too rich for his writing skills.
Anyway, I'm sure his intention is to educate his readers in what he perceives to be "right", but he fails because his approach is so clumsy and laughable. That's my point. I love Card's indiscriminate love for movies and his essays on art though--I try to avoid the political columns, but a sickening fascination on my part keeps me coming back to them, and I literally laugh at much of the stuff he says. For instance, that gay marriage is unnecessary because gays can already get married--to straight people! I mean, that made me laugh--that's why I keep going back to the political essays.
Posts: 722 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think it is rather silly to stop reading an author because you don't believe in their views. I have seen many authors/movie stars that have views that are VERY different from my own. Just becuse I think Tim Robbins is a moron when he goes on about the war does not mean I don't think the Shawshank redemption is an amazing movie.
Just because you don't agree with one aspect of someone's life does not mean that you must hate everything they do. Besides, you don't have to read his articles. I did not even know that he wrote essays until I started posting here. I just liked his books. In all honesty I have only read one or two since then. I have generally agreed with them but I really don't read political editorials all that often. I mostly stick to news stories and such.
Posts: 1901 | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
On the plus side, sticking your head into someone's forum and screaming is a great, if obnoxious, way to get a lot of responses...
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:And Dagonee rather vigorously and extremely quickly denies wearing primary-colored underwear!
[Eek!]
Sounds like he has something to hide, if you ask me.
If you want to see my underpants, just ask.
I'll still say, "No," mind you. But it'd be great in the OOC thread.
On the more serious note, I've seen everyone but Taalcon who's defended in this thread OSC disagree with one of his articles on a serious policy issue. As CT said, this disagreement is happening on a site paid for by OSC. And it's not cheap.
The disagreement over on Ornery is even more vicious. He pays for that, too.
In short, when OSC says he's trying to facilitate political dialog in America, I believe him. Even if he does go over the top sometimes or do it less than perfectly.
quote:he possesses an imagination and hunger for political discourse that are too rich for his writing skills.
Actually, I think the problem with his articles is that his writing skill is so great. It's his advocacy skills that are not highly polished.
When someone sees an argument they dislike presented with all that passion and skill, it has a greater effect than when a hack does it.
quote:Yeah, I bet you do. Like a metronome, back and forth, perfectly timed and crafted rebuttals, almost as if you knew what the other guy would say next!
posted
(stands next to Dagonnee to disprove accusation, hopes fake mustache and beard stays on straight)
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yozhik, I removed that from my first post and added it later, so it should read "everyone who posted before I did on this thread." Sorry about that.
posted
I've found that the OSC opinions I disagree with the most are the ones that are the most conservative. I also find that his conservative viewpoints come from a different direction than most of the stuff I hear on conservative talk shows or from the people who tend to quote such stuff to me. So, I tend to give him points for originality and thoughtfulness, even when I do disagree with him.
In other words, I still respect the man even in disagreement.
There are lots of people about whom I cannot say that because their opinions are indeed ill-supported. I even find that in people with whom I generally agree.
I know I have a personal bias. I pretty much loathe the conservative viewpoint in America. I think that just about anything that begins with "market economy" or "family values" is code for something dark and sinister in our society.
And I have yet to find anything that convinces me that I'm inherently wrong on this.
The nice thing about Card's opinion pieces is that they don't just spout the usual stuff that I've heard before. I may still end up disagreeing with him (and I often do). But that doesn't mean I just tune him out, as I have learned to do with so many of the conservative people I know or hear.
Anyway, I repeat myself.
Here's the bottom line: I buy OSC's books because they are great. Among the best I've ever read, period.
I don't pay to read his opinions. If I had to pay, I probably wouldn't read them. But since they are "out there" for free, I sometimes go look at them and try to gain a little insight from someone who isn't just a knee-jerk conservative and who sometimes comes at it from a completely novel perspective (at least one I've not encountered before).
And even if we are on opposite sides of the fence on just about every social issue I can think of, I still think of him as gracious and honest and a man I could sit down and talk to over a bowl of lime jello casserole.
Whereas there are many people with whom I agree that I end up cringing at the very thought of sharing an elevator ride in silence!
So, go figure.
Besides, I know that secretly OSC and KACARD agree with everything I've ever said. They just like to alienate fans because they can!!! I have it in writing. It's around here somewhere. If my darn desk wasn't so messy I'd prove it.
I mean really, think of how boring all that adulation can get.
posted
Sfunny, when I presented my friends with some of the articles Mr. Card wrote, they resolved to read MORE of his novels. I guess its a matter of opinion. MY opinion is that if you disagree with the man, keep his works and his opinions seperate. Its only YOUR loss if you dont read him.
Posts: 1604 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I can state my political opinions fairly easily. It goes like this:
*Crouches under desk in fetal position, fingers in ears*
*rocks back and forth, muttering "NNnnnnuhh, nnnnuh..."*
I haven't bought the last few of his books because the last few before I stopped reading 'em just weren't as fun for me. *shrug* I'm sure it has nothing to do with his political views. I read books by people because I like the stories, not because they are conservative, liberal, alien pod people, etc.
*gets back under desk and sucks thumb*
Posts: 1664 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Replying only to the first post... I never really trusted Card until I started reading his review articles. And got help for my OCD.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
disclaimer: I haven't read many of Cards articles recently becuase I just haven't had the time. Back when I had time I often read them and disagreed, sometime vehemently. However, I think the_Somalian's post is off-base..
BUT
I'd like to make a comment on something Chris said:
quote:Of course, it IS hate speech, and the fact that he anticipates that suggestion does nothing to lessen its validity. No, it's not. Card has never suggested that gays be treated in any negative manner, nor has he called for violence, abuse, or any discrimination that isn't currently legal.
Although I sometimes think that Card borders a bit on what I would consider statements made out of some level of (for lack of a better word) bigotry, I wouldn't call what he says hate speach either. HOWEVER, I think Chris's argument that just because it's legal discrimination it isn't hate speach (which is how I read the above... apologies in advance to Chris if I'm misinterpretin) is pretty bad. In our history we've had lots of legalized hate and discrimination, and just because it was legal at the time that doesn't mean it wasn't hate and discrimination...
Posts: 409 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
His essays FEEL sort of... hateful to me... Perhaps because I am queer for the most part myself... So it hurts about 5 times as much. So I try to avoid them unless someone quotes them here... I tried so hard to avoid the homosexuality ones.. But people posted topics about it and, well... That sort of speech doesn't say, go out and beat up gays, but it sure doesn't help...
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Somalian, in the interest of objectivity, your are not the first person to post that particular opinion. You are not the only person on this forum who dislikes most of Orson's War Watch essays.
On the one hand, I think it's silly for people to expect those who critique his essays, given the way he writes them, to treat him more respectfully than he does those groups or ideas that he disagrees with. OSC doesn't respect them, why should others respect him?
I guess the answer really is that two wrongs don't make a right. Just because OSC is the way he is, doesn't mean you have to be as well. Personally, I agree that his essays push those away who don't already agree with his points of view. Just console yourself with the idea that every time an essay of his hits the stands, or the net, he alienates rather than builds coalitions, angers rather than persuades. He undermines the very ideas he strives to see realized.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
So here's the deal. I don't read many of OSC's essays/editorials/whatever you want to call them. I've disagreed with probably 97 per cent of the ones I have read.
However, I have this naive attachment to the First Amendment, part of which has to do with free speech and the right of everyone to say their piece. So my position is that he gets to tell the world what he thinks, and I can read it or not at my discretion. He'd probably disagree with a lot of my opinions, too, many of which I've articulated here. As far as I know, none of my posts have ever disappeared because he, as proprietor of this website, or the moderators in his employ, might disagree. Some places, the posts would disappear. I've seen websites like that.
Anyway, how many people here hold the same political and social opinions as every single one of their friends? Show of hands? Well, I have to say that most of my friends don't agree with my opinions on lots of issues, and I don't agree with them. We're still friends. We understand that people of good will sometimes disagree. Vehemently.
Posts: 2454 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
fallow, you asked for a definition of "friends", so you shall have it.
The people I am referring to here include people I have known for years and consider as close as, or closer than, family. They are people I would trust with my life or my money. We just happen to disagree on some things, some very fundamental things, I might add.
Posts: 2454 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
HOWEVER, I think Chris's argument that just because it's legal discrimination it isn't hate speach (which is how I read the above... apologies in advance to Chris if I'm misinterpretin) is pretty bad.
That's why I mentioned it last. Legality is not enough n its own, as you pointed out.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Taunt]](graemlins/taunt.gif)
