quote:Originally posted by Wingracer: "Now it will be interesting to see whether the victorious proponents of gay marriage will show tolerance toward those who disagreed with them when the issue was still in dispute."
Come on dude, you're bigger than that. Begging for tolerance from a group that has NEVER tried to deny ANY freedoms from you yet you routinely spoke out against. Get over it and grow up already.
I have yet to see anything that suggests that he is, in fact, bigger than what he just presented to us.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
Personally I don't like everything my favorite artists and authors do, and I've yet to proactively boycott one, nor will I start now.
But I think people are well within their rights to do so if they want to without getting a lecture on it.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
as in he will stick to the idea he just presented there, and would not, upon review, say, add anything like an apology to gays to it
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't think he thinks he has anything to apologize for.
I think he thinks of himself like the Confederacy. Losing didn't discredit the idea, it just meant they lost.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
Personally I don't like everything my favorite artists and authors do, and I've yet to proactively boycott one, nor will I start now.
But I think people are well within their rights to do so if they want to without getting a lecture on it.
Of course people are well within their rights. You have every right to be an inconsistent prat, there's no law against it. You have every right to jump on the bandwagon and let others tell you what to think about somebody. Or how the debate ought to be defined. No laws against it.
Not saying you fit that description at all Lyrhawn.
Look, I don't think the statement is magnanimous enough, but for God's sake (no pun intended) the man belongs to a religion that believes homosexuality is a sin. As in it leads people ultimately to unhappiness, contributes to societal ruin, and estranges them from their creator who loves them.
He points out Ender's Game doesn't deal with the issue he is being castigated over, much like we would tell somebody who said, "I won't watch that movie, it was written by a gay man with an anti-marriage agenda" that they need to judge the movie on its merits and message." And further acknowledges that he has lost the public debate, so could everybody just stop hounding the movie.
But nobody sees the irony behind "I don't tolerate intolerance." Nobody sees just how ugly mocking is. Because it's being directed at somebody we don't sympathize with. It's easy to feel for the terrified boy in the locker room being called a "fag" by a bunch of school bullies. But it's awful hard to summon any sympathy for the old man with some unpopular opinions who earnestly believes he is doing what is right, even if it means being disfellowshipped by a huge segment of society.
No, it's much better we send a message that those who believe gay marriage is bad for society that they don't belong in that society, and their opinions should get them fired from their jobs and they should be boycotted. All while telling ourselves "What did gay people ever do to them?!" and, "I know my Bible, and it tells them to judge not." Look in the freaking mirror.
Meanwhile let's also ensure people use the correct terminology to address gay people, but for those who aren't in line, just call them all homophobes and haters, because clearly if you think something is bad for society you must also hate those who support it. That's why Democrats are also called Republican Haters regularly.
I'm angry, it's late. I just resent that those who support same-sex marriage, such as myself are supposed to embody love. Just as I believe the Mormons who oppose it must also do so with the same motivation. Yet I see both sides using the same disgusting principles to try to win the debate. I don't want to belong to either.
posted
There's some fairness to that, BlackBlade, but I would point out that Card seriously publicized his opposition and his alignment with one of the most well known opposition groups on SSM in the country. So potential media customers don't need to apply much scrutiny at all, as a consequence of his past efforts.
All of that said, though, as the wall continues to be weakened and to crumble, I'm increasingly willing to be less adversarial on the issue, however fair it might be (and frankly, in Card's case, it seems to me his complaint is remarkably petty, hypocritical, and simply funny).
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
one. is someone who is not going to go see ender's game because osc is a homophobe being an 'inconsistent prat'
two,
quote: for God's sake (no pun intended) the man belongs to a religion that believes homosexuality is a sin. As in it leads people ultimately to unhappiness, contributes to societal ruin, and estranges them from their creator who loves them.
is there any degree to which this is supposed to be accepted as an excuse rather than an explanation for his behavior, any non-zero degree to which it makes his actions better to those that are harmed by them? what would you say to someone who is of the opinion that this offers no indemnification to his actions, but instead only extends like condemnation of the religion?
and three,
quote:But it's awful hard to summon any sympathy for the old man with some unpopular opinions who earnestly believes he is doing what is right, even if it means being disfellowshipped by a huge segment of society.
yes it is easier to summon sympathy for a victim of homophobia who is suffering harm than it is to summon sympathy for someone who is actively perpetuating homophobic discrimination that causes harm — quelle surprise, honestly.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I guess such a hypothetical person would only be inconsistent if they went to see another movie or concert or something by an artists who is also on the board of the National Association of Marriage, etc. That's a pretty narrow band, because OSC isn't directly comparable to EVERY artist who does something objectionable. It's all on a huge sliding scale, and it cuts across multiple issues with multiple degrees of severity, and we all have our own criteria for how we measure those criteria and what not. It's not simple.
I pretty much agree with Rakeesh.
But I also think that article was just as petty as OSC. He's lost the culture war, he's part of an aging generation who see their childhood idyllic version of America slipping away, and despite his politics, I personally believe him to be an earnestly nice guy. Pointing a finger at him and laughing over this strikes me as poor sportsmanship. I can muster up some sympathy for that...but not as much as I'd have for someone who honestly had a change of heart regarding the harm he and his organization (the NOM, not Mormons) have done to so many people.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:is someone who is not going to go see ender's game because osc is a homophobe being an 'inconsistent prat'
I do not believe Mr. Card is a homophobe. We've covered that ground before. As to your question, no not going to see the movie because you believe Mr. Card is a homophobe does not in of itself make you an inconsistent prat.
When you see your next movie or refrain from doing so the question is begged anew.
quote:is there any degree to which this is supposed to be accepted as an excuse rather than an explanation for his behavior, any non-zero degree to which it makes his actions better to those that are harmed by them? what would you say to someone who is of the opinion that this offers no indemnification to his actions, but instead only extends like condemnation of the religion?
Yes. It's called understanding. If you can't understand somebody's motivations, you can't pass fair judgement as to what their actions say about them as a person. Would you judge Mr. Card the same way as somebody who says honestly, "I can't stand the thought of somebody actually wanting something up their anus, it's disgusting, all gays should be locked up for being insane and disgusting."?
As to your other question, I've heard that argument posed many times. It would depend on the person, and their opinions regarding religion in of itself.
quote:yes it is easier to summon sympathy for a victim of homophobia who is suffering harm than it is to summon sympathy for someone who is actively perpetuating homophobic discrimination that causes harm — quelle surprise, honestly.
Hey thanks for phrasing things so patently one-sidedly it makes any other conclusions other than yours absurd!
Can you honestly not see any vitriol or schadenfreude on our side of the same-sex marriage debate? No animosity, hatred, apathy? I know you don't want it to be part of the discourse, but it's there.
We do no favors by acting like as long as it goes towards a greater good, these indiscretions will matter not at all. Or that the oppressors have had it their way for centuries, a few years of turnabout seems fair.
I have faith, and I mean that literally in that I believe it to be true but cannot prove it, that Mr. Card could see reason on this subject. But it would only be through patience, forgiveness, and love. I firmly believe that if you were to try to shame him, or anything along those lines, it would not change his opinions one bit, only reinforce them.
I've seen him wall up against Mormons who thought he was a liberal apostate, and against same-sex advocates who think he should be hated by everybody.
If your objective is to change his mind, insulting him will not accomplish that. So you have to decide what your motivations are in criticizing him. If it's to persuade others to get off the fence, or shore up support, maybe. But I doubt that is an affective strategy. People will often laugh at other's discomfiture without any incentive or call to do so. I don't believe in righteous mockery.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
Obama
unregistered
posted
Is Card getting a cut of the profits from the movie, or did he get paid a flat fee? If it's a flat fee, I don't see why he should care that much about whether the movie is boycotted. A (hopefully) good film will have been made from his book, something he's been wanting for almost three decades now.
I'll admit that if he's getting a cut I'll either buy a ticket to another movie to see it, or use bittorrent to watch it.
IP: Logged |
Obama
unregistered
posted
Card's an old man basing his opinions off of religious beliefs. I think the chances of him changing his beliefs are near non-existant.
I'm not inclined to try to change his mind anymore then I am to try and change the mind of a 70 year old Southern racist. His generation will die off soon enough, and when it does, most of the anti homosexual rhetoric (or, at least, most of the people who believe it) will be gone.
Until then, forcefully and repeatedly showing how silly his opinions are, combined with righteous mockery, will help make sure as few as possible of the next generation takes up his noxious beliefs.
IP: Logged |
Obama
unregistered
posted
Actually, depending on what the actions are, I think it's completely fair to judge someone for them, no matter what their intent was. I don't really care if Card think's he's saving souls. I care about what he's actually doing.
Someone's opinion on why a boycott is a good thing, which I mostly agree with. A couple minor curse words in it.
quote:Originally posted by Obama: I'll admit that if he's getting a cut I'll either buy a ticket to another movie to see it, or use bittorrent to watch it.
Bah.
This attitude bugs me. If you honestly believe in boycotting, then don't watch it. But don't STEAL it because you want to not contribute but still watch it. There's nothing ethical about that.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Obama: Actually, depending on what the actions are, I think it's completely fair to judge someone for them, no matter what their intent was. I don't really care if Card think's he's saving souls. I care about what he's actually doing.
Someone's opinion on why a boycott is a good thing, which I mostly agree with. A couple minor curse words in it.
quote:Originally posted by Obama: Actually, depending on what the actions are, I think it's completely fair to judge someone for them, no matter what their intent was. I don't really care if Card think's he's saving souls. I care about what he's actually doing.
Someone's opinion on why a boycott is a good thing, which I mostly agree with. A couple minor curse words in it.
Just about every element in that URL makes me not want to read it.
2013/07/09 is probably the only neutral part.
I object to the European style of date formatting! Neutral indeed!
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
Obama
unregistered
posted
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
quote:Originally posted by Obama: I'll admit that if he's getting a cut I'll either buy a ticket to another movie to see it, or use bittorrent to watch it.
Bah.
This attitude bugs me. If you honestly believe in boycotting, then don't watch it. But don't STEAL it because you want to not contribute but still watch it. There's nothing ethical about that.
I'm not always the most ethical person in the world when it comes to media piracy, true. I do buy almost everything that I download and actually keep, at least. But, you know, if I get to the end of my life and copying IP is worst thing I've done, I'll be pretty content.
I've wanted to see an Ender's Game movie almost as long as Card has. I'm going to see it. I'm also not going to voluntarily give Orson Scott Card money to help fund NOM and it's efforts. So if he's set to make money off of the ticket sales, I will indeed be buying a ticket to another movie and walking in to see Ender's Game.
IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not sure I can put words to it, but to me, that lacks an important moral dimension.
You aren't sacrificing anything. A true boycott, a piece of civil disobedience, a contribution to how the system is supposed to work in this particular case requires some sacrifice on your part.
But having your cake and eating it too, in this instance, is lacking for me. Just cough up the $6 bucks and see it. Or don't, and don't see it. Of the half penny that will see its way back to Card, you can rest assure the five percent of that half penny he might hypothetically give to NOM will have the purchasing power of a clipped toe nail.
This strikes me more as false moral justification for getting out of paying for a ticket than it does a moral blow in favor of gay marriage.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Obama: Well, you can read it or not read it, Blackblade. It doesn't make what the author says any less true.
Talk about compelling reasoning! But I'm curious: how much do you have to disapprove of someone before you tell yourself 'I get to steal from him'?
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
Obama
unregistered
posted
I can see your point, but to me participating in a boycott doesn't have to require I, myself, make some sort of sacrifice. It just has to deprive the person under boycott of something.
IP: Logged |
posted
So if you were boycotting Apple, it would be okay to use an iPhone, so long as you didn't buy it?
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
Obama
unregistered
posted
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:Originally posted by Obama: Well, you can read it or not read it, Blackblade. It doesn't make what the author says any less true.
Talk about compelling reasoning! But I'm curious: how much do you have to disapprove of someone before you tell yourself 'I get to steal from him'?
I wasn't trying to compel or argue for anything there, Rakeesh. Blackblade said he's not inclined to read the post due to the URL. I said that's fine, but it doesn't really have much bearing on the truth of the author's words.
That depends on the type of theft, really. Stealing actual physical property? That would have to go far beyond mere disapproval. "Stealing" IP? Well, I'd say the basement level for that would be right around where Card's standing right now.
IP: Logged |
Obama
unregistered
posted
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: So if you were boycotting Apple, it would be okay to use an iPhone, so long as you didn't buy it?
That depends. Would I go out and steal an Iphone? No. Might I buy one used from someone? Sure. My money's not going to Apple, then. Maybe the person I buy it from then uses that money to buy another Apple product, but maybe he doesn't. That's up to him, not me.
IP: Logged |
posted
I suppose we just disagree on that aspect of boycotting.
But to me, using a product from a company you're boycotting is right up there on the mountaintop of hypocrisy. Likewise, stealing a movie to watch that you've boycotted also comes across as hypocritical.
posted
See, I don't understand why it's hypocrisy. I totally understand the viewpoint that what I plan to do is stealing. But why is it neccesary for the boycotter to make a sacrifice, or else it's hypocritical? If someone were to say "Hey, I disagree with your theft of IP, I'm going to boycott you," and I said that was wrong, that would be hypocrisy. The purpose of a boycott is to put pressure on or punish a person or group for something.
The Civil Rights boycotts weren't done because the people boycotting felt that by making a personal sacrifice that they would change things. They were done to punish and make a point to the people supporting and participating in segregation and racism.
IP: Logged |
posted
With boycotting, I think it's important to look over what you're actually accomplishing with that boycott. Some criteria I would use for myself:
1. If I were to spend money on the thing I am now boycotting, what impact would that money have? I.e, I think OSC was payed a fixed amount for the rights to the film (I may be wrong about that), but if he was getting a cut of my money, would he use it to hurt people? AFAIK, he spends most of his money ordering flavored water over the internet and buying gourmet vinegars and obscure household appliances and stuff like that. I don't know how much money he gives to anti-gay groups, as opposed to how much he gives to charity or otherwise uses for philanthropic efforts, but I would guess the amount actually going towards propagating hatred is none, or so negligible as to not make a difference.
The movie contains no ideas I find objectionable, and as far as I know the proceeds will go to nothing I find objectionable.
2. Is depriving myself of the opportunity to watch the movie (assuming I would see it except for the boycott), or stealing the movie and depriving everyone else who worked on the movie payment for their work, going to cause any good? By which I mean, if the movie is a financial flop instead of a success because of the boycott, will people suddenly stop agreeing with OSC? Will it change OSC's mind? Will it have any non-vindictive impact whatsoever?
3. Is the boycott going to have any impact other than on how people around me view me? For a while I boycotting clothing stores entirely (because of child labor) and chose to purchase all my clothes at Good Will (a US thrift store where all profits are given to charity). One thing that really annoyed me was when people with similar opinions who could afford to buy very expensive fair trade clothing would criticize me for wearing an Old Navy shirt I had bought second hand. It became apparent to me that for many of them, it was less about a personal conviction and more a desire to conform to certain standard. I wonder, of all the people boycotting Ender's Game, how many will:
1) Be doing so out of the (IMO mistaken) belief it will do some good. 2) Do it out of spite. (in order to hurt OSC in some small way) 3) Do it so they can claim they did it. (see above)
While I vehemently disagree with OSC on this subject (and even moreso his religion - his stance is pretty loving and understanding in comparison), I find all the calls for boycott to be misguided at best and downright stupid at worst. If you want to see the movie, then go see it. If you don't want to - or if you personally find the author's viewpoint too reprehensible to stomach - then by all means don't see it. But calling for a boycott or trying to pressure or shame other people into not seeing it is completely pointless. Stealing - or advocating the theft of - the movie is worse than pointless.
Posts: 2222 | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged |
Obama
unregistered
posted
Well, of course me not paying to see the movie isn't really going to hurt Card. But in a case like this, one person is never going to do much of anything. It's about the collective effort and the message being sent out that his actions and words are vile. So, yeah, it's at least as much out of spite over Card hurting people, and I'm not ashamed to admit that. Actions have consequences, and one of the consequences of Card's actions is that people are going to call for boycotts. I think we all know that the boycott on Card is going to have about as much affect as the boycott on Israel - nothing.
But that doesn't mean it's pointless. It's not pointless to publically and loudly say "Screw you, Card, what you do and say is wrong." It doesn't have to effect great change, and it's certainly only going to make Card feel like a martyr. But at least the message is put out there, at least the message is heard, (lots of reporting on the attempts at boycott, and why) and maybe third parties will have their own views changed or find out things that they didn't know before. How many times have we all heard someone say "Wow, Card has been one of my favorite authors since I was a child, but I never realized he believed and spread such horrible stuff."
IP: Logged |
quote:But calling for a boycott or trying to pressure or shame other people into not seeing it is completely pointless.
Even though I could care less about a boycott in this case, this is as untrue as always.
anyway.
quote:Yes. It's called understanding. If you can't understand somebody's motivations, you can't pass fair judgement as to what their actions say about them as a person.
so then anyone with a prejudiced and bigoted position of advocacy for discrimination that causes harm can then hide behind how unfair it is that people pass judgment on them because of their actions.
quote:Hey thanks for phrasing things so patently one-sidedly it makes any other conclusions other than yours absurd!
Sometimes it is best to directly point out the absurdity of absurd things. I could do it without a hint of sarcasm if desired, but the point would remain the exact same.
quote:I have faith, and I mean that literally in that I believe it to be true but cannot prove it, that Mr. Card could see reason on this subject. But it would only be through patience, forgiveness, and love. I firmly believe that if you were to try to shame him, or anything along those lines, it would not change his opinions one bit, only reinforce them.
So we have to be nice to him or else he'll be less likely to not hold terribly discriminatory beliefs that persecute and further greater persecution of a maligned and vulnerable class of people.
I am not compelled by the dilemma. It's not even tactically advisable in a utilitarian sense to play nice. The odds of someone like OSC changing their mind are slim, and you don't really help things much by making it a lot more comfortable to espouse their views without reprisal. You actually tend to make it a hell of a lot easier to keep those views, and transmit those ideals to new generations.
To get to the root of the issue: would you be compelled by the logic of this statement -
"In a war of ideas, persuasion is the only victory and alienation the bitterest defeat."
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:The Civil Rights boycotts weren't done because the people boycotting felt that by making a personal sacrifice that they would change things. They were done to punish and make a point to the people supporting and participating in segregation and racism.
Actually, in many cases the civil rights boycotts were indeed a major personal sacrifice. Women had to walk for miles to get to their places of employment when they boycotted buses. They organized a massive alternative transportation system to circumvent the bus system that was a major physical and financial imposition in order to make a point. They didn't just ride another bus or sneak on to the bus. They took pride in walking instead of riding, because pounding the pavement was a part of the suffering they were willing to endure.
Likewise, boycotting white stores in areas that didn't have black ones meant simply going without. It wasn't like they could boycott Racist USA and then hop down to Wal-Mart.
But you could argue "well sure, they had to suffer because they didn't have the option to boycott and not suffer," but that misses a huge moral element of the CRM. Sacrifice was inherently bound up in the Movement. If there had been a product that was synonymous with racism (well there were many, but let's use Racist Widget for this exercise), and everyone really wanted one but they couldn't support them for financial reasons, you wouldn't have caught ANYONE in the Movement using one, no matter how he might have come across it. It was about MORAL authority, SOUL power, etc. It meant total self-sacrifice, really embodying satyagraha. Why do you think they marched into fire hoses and police batons? For fun? To force the Birmingham PD to bankrupt itself through extreme water use? No, it was about moral authority and suffering.
Because using it, whether you paid for it or not, means you endorse it, it means you support it, it means you approve of it, it means you give it credence and credibility in the public sphere. It's not just about the money. At least, it's not to me, and it certainly wasn't to the Civil Rights Movement.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
the point of a boycott is to harm the subject of the boycott in such a way that it either puts them under or forces a concession. it is not to impose personal sacrifice on the people participating in the boycott. Personal sacrifice on the part of boycotters can actually be considered to be wholly divorced from the intent and utility of a boycott — there is no part of the point of a boycott which causes it to categorically require personal sacrifice to avoid the loss of any sort of authenticity or genuine stature. There is no requirement for it to come at any measure or standard of personal sacrifice.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
Obama
unregistered
posted
Lyrhawn
Oh, no doubt civil rights era boycotters made many sacrifices. All I was trying to say is that their effects on the businesses so boycotted would not have been diminished if no sacrifices would have been necessary.
I may or may not see the movie (and to be honest, you've just about guilted me into just not seeing it, period), but participating in a boycott against it isn't about not seeing Ender's Game because it represents Card's anti-gay views. It's about spiting Card and sending a message that his anti-gay views and activism are not appreciated.
IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: the point of a boycott is to harm the subject of the boycott in such a way that it either puts them under or forces a concession. it is not to impose personal sacrifice on the people participating in the boycott. Personal sacrifice on the part of boycotters can actually be considered to be wholly divorced from the intent and utility of a boycott — there is no part of the point of a boycott which causes it to categorically require personal sacrifice to avoid the loss of any sort of authenticity or genuine stature. There is no requirement for it to come at any measure or standard of personal sacrifice.
I don't think self-sacrifice is automatically a component in all boycotts. If I choose to boycott Mobil Gas, I can't think of a situation that isn't horribly contrived where I'd really be put out, or where I could even force myself to be put out, by using a different gas station.
If I saw someone picketing an Apple store while talking on an iPhone or listening to an iPod, I would find them to be incredibly hypocritical, and they'd have to fight pretty hard to appear at all credible to me. It's very unlikely that I'd take them seriously.
Likewise, if someone told me they are boycotting the Ender's Game movie, but that they saw it and it's awesome, I would also find it difficult to take them seriously.
The most basic form of a boycott might be a refusal to purchase a good or service, but I think it also often involves refraining from using a product or consuming something as well. If the situation applies to both buying and using something without buying, and you choose to only do one while not inconveniencing yourself with the other, I won't take your commitment seriously.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
Oh, no doubt civil rights era boycotters made many sacrifices. All I was trying to say is that their effects on the businesses so boycotted would not have been diminished if no sacrifices would have been necessary.
I may or may not see the movie (and to be honest, you've just about guilted me into just not seeing it, period), but participating in a boycott against it isn't about not seeing Ender's Game because it represents Card's anti-gay views. It's about spiting Card and sending a message that his anti-gay views and activism are not appreciated.
I might agree with that. As I said above, there are many situations in which I think a sacrifice probably isn't necessary. It's not like I think a boycott requires you to go out of your way and contrive a situation where suffering is required.
But, a boycott to me means refraining not just from purchasing an item, but from any form of consumption or endorsement of that item, even if you don't have to pay for it. There are higher forms of protest than money alone, and if you really mean it, I think you're compelled and honor bound to go all the way and adjust your behavior to match your stated goals.
And I see the distinction you're making. I might even agree with it in part, except for the part where you have to sneak in to see it or illegally download it. But that's a different issue, perhaps.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I would like to throw a hypothetical out there just to get everyone's opinion on it. Would it be ok to "steal" a piece of intellectual property (book, movie, etc.) from an author or whatever you are boycotting for research purposes? For example:
You may recall during the 08 election that there was a lot of criticism of Obama from conservatives for his connection with Saul Alinsky and lots of talk about Alinsky's book "Rules for Radicals". I had no idea who Alinsky was and knew nothing about the book so I went out and bought it. I quite liked the book, thought it contained a lot of good information and saw nothing worthy of criticism of Obama in it.
But what if I was different? Let's say I or you or whoever is a hard core disciple of Rush and absolutely refuses to financially support a "radical leftist" like Alinsky but needs to be knowledgeable enough about him and his work to effectively debate against his views. I personally don't like the idea of denouncing something I know little about and reading the Cliff Notes so to speak doesn't cut it. Would it be acceptable to download it for this research?
Actually now that I think about it, simply checking it out from the library would probably be a much more ethical way of going about it without violating the "boycott" spirit.
So what do you all think? How would you go about researching something or someone you despise without supporting them financially?
Posts: 891 | Registered: Feb 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
You can't have it both ways, Obama. Either Card is never going to change his mind and efforts such as a boycott are doomed to irrelevancy (neither, in fact, is necessarily true at all), or he isn't and they aren't.
If the former, well then there's nothing of morality in this-you just don't like the guy and get some satisfaction out of stealing some change out of his pocket. (No scare quotes, that's what it is.)
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Actually now that I think about it, simply checking it out from the library would probably be a much more ethical way of going about it without violating the "boycott" spirit.
Which will be true of this movie eventually, or it would eventually be up on Netflix or something where the money is spread over a lot of titles, or a friend might buy the DVD, etc. You see how quickly this highlights what is really at work here: 'I really wanna see this movie, but I don't like that guy'.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I am with Lyrhawn on the boycott thing. I don't intend to see it. I don't particularly want it to fail, but for my own moral sake, won't support it. I would also point out that the point of boycotts is not just to change the behavior of whoever is being boycotted; it is to make a public statement about that behavior. The Montgomery bus boycott wasn't just about Montgomery.
Of course, if the movie doesn't do well, Mr. Card has a ready-made martyrdom excuse.
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: I can't say I recall Card's stance on gay-friendly boycotts in particular or political boycotts in general, whether of businesses or media, so I can't say how stupid this actually is. It is amusing, though, after all these years to see him so neatly fold in pursuit of a bottom line. Or I wonder if this is pressured?
Card is, at the end of the day, a very avid consumer. I saw signs maybe 4-5 years ago that he had given up the artistic battle in general. Ender's Game getting made as a movie, his mostly abandoning his fight against the world everyone in it, etc. He's mostly just tired of it, I think, and now realizes he stands to make lots of money, maybe, if he falls in line. Who wouldn't, really?
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:so then anyone with a prejudiced and bigoted position of advocacy for discrimination that causes harm can then hide behind how unfair it is that people pass judgment on them because of their actions.
Come on dude. I say you have to understand somebody's motivations, and your response is I must also be arguing everybody has good motivations?
And yes, people pass poor judgement on people's actions all the time. "This PRISM thing stops brown people from blowing us up, it must be good!" "That Ender dude just committed genocide of an entire alien species, he's a criminal!"
quote:Sometimes it is best to directly point out the absurdity of absurd things. I could do it without a hint of sarcasm if desired, but the point would remain the exact same.
You completely ignored the point of my statement. Of course it's easier to feel sympathy for the boy being bullied, there's nothing complicated about the situation.
But we are supposed to show empathy for all people, doesn't mean we just wash our hands of what they do and walk away. You try to understand why they act in the manner they do. My grandmother decided yesterday that she wasn't going to try to help my grandfather get out of bed anymore and into the living room during the day. He's a multiple stroke victim, and cannot walk without heavy assistance. He weighs at least 150 lbs more than my grandmother. She just can't do it anymore, and told him as much. His response was to wig out, I would not be surprised if he is currently giving her the cold shoulder and guilting her into changing her mind.
Pretty rotten thing to do. But my grandfather has had a several strokes. He's not in his right mind, his body is a prison, but he's terrified of dying and leaving my grandmother. He can't reason the way he used to, his control is limited. And being an invalid is a terrible thing to have to endure, for somebody whose self-worth is tied up in being physically able to act and do.
I guess I could be pissed off at my grandfather for selfishly trying to stay out of bed, even if it means a premature grave for my very healthy and active grandmother. But this is a guy who wouldn't hesitate to die for me if I was in danger. Who worked a long work week, and still managed to be a religious leader over thousands of people in what spare time he had.
He's made some bad choices, including diet and exercise that were involved in his current state. He does some rotten things while in this state in part because he lacks control, but in part because he's stubborn. It would be easy to just write him off as a stupid old cook who can be safely ignored. But that does him a gross indignity, especially in light of the fact he has probably spent more time in the service of others than he has in taking care of himself.
Mr. Card is a complicated person. He's not somebody you can figure out in 2 minutes.
I've never advocated doing "nothing" in response to his stated views. Not one time.
quote:"In a war of ideas, persuasion is the only victory and alienation the bitterest defeat."
I agree with the first half, and I am not sure if the second is saying that to alienate another is to be defeated, or to be alienated is defeat.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: I'm pretty sure tolerance is allowing your enemies to say what they want and make whatever movies they want.
Tolerance doesn't compel you to see their movies and line their pockets.
Tolerance also isn't the same thing as acceptance, and I think he'd do well to look up both words.
Sure, and I sure hope all these people apply the same level of scrutiny to every single author, artist, and musician they give their money too.
But I'm not holding my breath.
I am not boycotting the movie because while I disagree with his views, it's not something I feel so strongly about that I need to go out protesting and boycotting things. Plus I'm a huge fan of the book, why else would I be here?
But if I did feel the need to boycott, what other artists would I need to consider avoiding? I'm sure there are others but I can't think of any on my radar that have made their views so public.
Well, I did find this quote:
"I think that gay marriage should be between a man and a woman."
Arnold Schwarzenegger
So I guess we are boycotting his movies too. No great loss there, though I did kinda like The Last Stand.
quote:Sure, and I sure hope all these people apply the same level of scrutiny to every single author, artist, and musician they give their money too.
I actually think that's a much lower bar than you might expect.
"I boycott artists who actively and publicly campaign against civil rights for a group of people."
I'd actually assume that the vast majority of folks planning to boycott OSC are not hypocrites in their selection of him as the target. It's pretty rare for an artist to be an active part of a controversial political campaign like that, even if you make the statement more general.
Are there any others that I'd need to include here? Many people (including myself) don't care much about the personal failings of the artists they support (arrests, infidelity, whatever). Tiger Woods' infidelity means nothing to me. It's the intentional intrusion into public politics that offends their sensibilities.
Not that I plan on boycotting the movie. I'll probably by my ticket in advance, in fact. I just don't know that any other artist I support is an active part of a campaign against something I care about. So for the sake of argument, let's pretend I am going to boycott. Which other artists do I need to also boycott?
I mean, Dan Simmons has some odd views on Islam that I don't really agree with. But is he actively campaigning for their deportation or something? Not that I know of. (And I haven't bought anything he's written in a while anyway.)
I can't think of any others that come close.
Edit: Jim Carrey perhaps, in his joining his patner's anti-vaccine hysterics. Though I think that's apples-to-oranges.
Posts: 5656 | Registered: Oct 1999
| IP: Logged |
Obama
unregistered
posted
Rakeesh - You make a good point. Although as I said, I personally don't see theft of IP to be much of a moral burden at all, and if it's the worst thing I do in my life I'll be content. Your netflix and borrowing the DVD ideas have merit though, and between Lyrhawn's and your arguments, I've decided to just not see it until I can be sure Card doesn't receive money.
Xavier - Carrey didn't end up causing harm, I don't think (although not for lack of trying) but the potential was certainly there. If the vaccine hysterics had led to an actual breakdown of herd immunity, or had given a particular disease the leeway needed to mutate and make the vaccine less efficient, then they would have been responsible for suffering and death. Anti-vaccine activists don't get nearly the amount of contempt and disdain that they deserve. They are outright trying to endanger the community, purely because of their own personal misunderstanding of what vaccines are, what they do and do not do, and how they work.
IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Of course people are well within their rights. You have every right to be an inconsistent prat, there's no law against it. You have every right to jump on the bandwagon and let others tell you what to think about somebody. Or how the debate ought to be defined. No laws against it.
Oh, I'm really sorry I try to live an ethical life. I've refused to buy anything from Card ever since I found out about his politics, which was maybe five years ago. I do the same for anything I know about. I try my hardest to make sure all of my purchases fit within my ethical framework.
Posts: 1574 | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Of course people are well within their rights. You have every right to be an inconsistent prat, there's no law against it. You have every right to jump on the bandwagon and let others tell you what to think about somebody. Or how the debate ought to be defined. No laws against it.
Oh, I'm really sorry I try to live an ethical life. I've refused to buy anything from Card ever since I found out about his politics, which was maybe five years ago. I do the same for anything I know about. I try my hardest to make sure all of my purchases fit within my ethical framework.
TMan: I have nothing for respect for people who once they learn something, immediately change their behaviors to be in line with their established ethical framework. It's why I won't watch Roman Polanski films, even though I would love to see The Pianist. Were he to submit to the court system and pay his debt to society, I would reconsider.
But where do we draw lines on this course of action? "I join boycotts of films made by pro-choice advocates they kill babies; gun rights advocates, they allow mass shootings; welfare state opponents, they condone poverty.
Boycott films because they push a damaging agenda.
edit: Or because the proceeds of that film can be demonstrably shown to harm other human beings.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Mr. Card is a complicated person. He's not somebody you can figure out in 2 minutes..
Everybody is a complicated person and nobody can fully understand everybody, even people they form opinions about. You've simplified the people. Who want to boycott Ender's Game to mindless sheep, but I'm sure many, if not all, are generally loving individuals who have forgiven plenty from ohers, or have donated time or mone to charity, or are wonderful spouses or parents, etc.
That doesn't mean you have to agree with them or even ignore. You're free to form anopinion based on one sentiment of theirs just as they are free to form an opinion based on OSC's stance towards SSM.
Itsnot right, maybe but I wouldn't say its wrong either.
Posts: 450 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Sure, and I sure hope all these people apply the same level of scrutiny to every single author, artist, and musician they give their money too.
I actually think that's a much lower bar than you might expect.
"I boycott artists who actively and publicly campaign against civil rights for a group of people."
I'd actually assume that the vast majority of folks planning to boycott OSC are not hypocrites in their selection of him as the target. It's pretty rare for an artist to be an active part of a controversial political campaign like that, even if you make the statement more general.
Are there any others that I'd need to include here? Many people (including myself) don't care much about the personal failings of the artists they support (arrests, infidelity, whatever). Tiger Woods' infidelity means nothing to me. It's the intentional intrusion into public politics that offends their sensibilities.
Not that I plan on boycotting the movie. I'll probably by my ticket in advance, in fact. I just don't know that any other artist I support is an active part of a campaign against something I care about. So for the sake of argument, let's pretend I am going to boycott. Which other artists do I need to also boycott?
I mean, Dan Simmons has some odd views on Islam that I don't really agree with. But is he actively campaigning for their deportation or something? Not that I know of. (And I haven't bought anything he's written in a while anyway.)
I can't think of any others that come close.
Edit: Jim Carrey perhaps, in his joining his patner's anti-vaccine hysterics. Though I think that's apples-to-oranges.
I don't have an immediate response Xavier. I'm mulling over what you said.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Mr. Card is a complicated person. He's not somebody you can figure out in 2 minutes..
Everybody is a complicated person and nobody can fully understand everybody, even people they form opinions about. You've simplified the people. Who want to boycott Ender's Game to mindless sheep, but I'm sure many, if not all, are generally loving individuals who have forgiven plenty from ohers, or have donated time or mone to charity, or are wonderful spouses or parents, etc.
That doesn't mean you have to agree with them or even ignore. You're free to form anopinion based on one sentiment of theirs just as they are free to form an opinion based on OSC's stance towards SSM.
Itsnot right, maybe but I wouldn't say its wrong either.
People are complicated, but their opinions on things are not necessarily very complex or deep. They can be, and I think this is the case with Mr. Card, though him and I don't agree on this issue.
You are right I have not attempted to provide a complex and flattering picture of those who are calling for this boycott. From what I have been exposed to their reasoning doesn't go very deep beyond, "Here's a quote where Mr. Card says horrible things about gay people and their role in society, and thankfully this homophone is getting is just desserts now." But again, you are right in that I was not careful in how I portrayed proponents.
If you have links to a well-reasoned and thoughtful call for a boycott of Ender's Game, I'd be very much obliged.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
There's the also the fact that Card has a megaphone for his ideas *because* of his success as an artist. He wouldn't be on the board of NOM and writing highly-circulated editorials if he wasn't a very well-known author. Enders game the novel was a necessary, if not sufficient, component of Card's public voice against SSM.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
Obama
unregistered
posted
What's wrong with a homophobe getting his just desserts, anyway?
IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
