quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Fair enough, JB. The ToS does indeed apply here though not to his columns.
Thus far I've been loathe to get into this conversation because, frankly, I don't think my shower has enough hot water. I still love reading OSC, and I hold no ill will towards him for his articles or views. Even the ones where I vehemently disagree with him, and there are a lot of those.
Nevertheless, Rakeesh, I'm curious about one thing, and had to ask. I see two different kinds of insulting speech, or whatever you want to call it, here.
One is broad invective against a category of ideological opposition, embedded in an article designed for public consumption. Individuals reading the article have to decide for themselves what categories they belong to (though it may be pretty easy to do so.) For example: "Republicans are misogynistic," or "Democrats are power-hungry statists."
The other kind of insulting speech would be specifically insulting an individual in a setting designed for conversation. No self-selected categories, just straight-up "You are an idiot." or "Fred is insane."
I'm curious if you agree that there is a distinction. And if so, if you think the distinction actually matters, or makes a difference in terms of which might be more indefensible.
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Oh, I don't think he hates homosexuals, Odouls. But he has said more than a few things about, say, liberals that a reasonable reading would start to wonder if there was hatred.
I sincerely think that those comments and essays are coming from the fact that he likely views the actions of those "liberals" with the same shocked disbelief that is being expressed about his views here in this thread.
I don't feel hatred coming off those pages at all. I feel shocked, incredulous disappointment.
Posts: 2532 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I do think there is a difference, but that it's one of degree rather than kind. Example: "American Catholics are disloyal scum." Sean Catholicdude becomes understandably angry with me for saying that, even though at the time I said it I had no idea Sean was Catholic, or maybe even American in many possible contexts. Nevertheless, I apologize and try to explain (a fraught conversation, this!) that I didn't mean him, and that I apologize for saying something hurtful.
The other half of the example: "Sean Catholic is a disloyal scumbag!" I can't really weasel out of that one at all, as far as not having intended to be insulting to Sean. Pretty much my only hope is a complete, sincere apology accepting responsibility.
But...what is the real difference between these two? I have, in reality, said the same thing about Sean in both cases-almost word for word. In the former example, I might get a pass on intent-to-insult from lazy ignorance (not bothering to look into whether American Catholics are, in fact, disloyal scum) that won't exist for the second example. But I've still said the same thing, and I don't think it's up to me to decide how much Sean gets to be upset when I call him disloyal scum by name or association. It's kind of up to him.
Of course, if I were to say that about a group as varied as American Catholics, I would also perhaps claim many of them as my friends, and affirm I don't mean any kind of personal attacks, so on and so forth. It's just, that would all be BS.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:I sincerely think that those comments and essays are coming from the fact that he likely views the actions of those "liberals" with the same shocked disbelief that is being expressed about his views here in this thread.
I don't feel hatred coming off those pages at all. I feel shocked, incredulous disappointment.
Sure, I think that's a fair reading too. Speaking for myself I reached the shocked disappointment stage some years ago, but opinions vary. But do you think a reasonable person, whether or not they were targeted by his rhetoric, could start to wonder if he hated them?
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Sure, I think that's a fair reading too. Speaking for myself I reached the shocked disappointment stage some years ago, but opinions vary. But do you think a reasonable person, whether or not they were targeted by his rhetoric, could start to wonder if he hated them?
Each reader can, and will reach their own conclusions about the motives of an author. For me personally, I think that an unbiased person would likely find it a stretch to get to the "hatred" evaluation of his commentary.
However, people who are involved in, support, or have personal stake in the actions, ideologies, or organizations of which he openly disapproves might find it an easier gap to bridge.
Posts: 2532 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: I do think there is a difference, but that it's one of degree rather than kind. Example: "American Catholics are disloyal scum." Sean Catholicdude becomes understandably angry with me for saying that, even though at the time I said it I had no idea Sean was Catholic, or maybe even American in many possible contexts. Nevertheless, I apologize and try to explain (a fraught conversation, this!) that I didn't mean him, and that I apologize for saying something hurtful.
The other half of the example: "Sean Catholic is a disloyal scumbag!" I can't really weasel out of that one at all, as far as not having intended to be insulting to Sean. Pretty much my only hope is a complete, sincere apology accepting responsibility.
But...what is the real difference between these two? I have, in reality, said the same thing about Sean in both cases-almost word for word. In the former example, I might get a pass on intent-to-insult from lazy ignorance (not bothering to look into whether American Catholics are, in fact, disloyal scum) that won't exist for the second example. But I've still said the same thing, and I don't think it's up to me to decide how much Sean gets to be upset when I call him disloyal scum by name or association. It's kind of up to him.
Of course, if I were to say that about a group as varied as American Catholics, I would also perhaps claim many of them as my friends, and affirm I don't mean any kind of personal attacks, so on and so forth. It's just, that would all be BS.
To a great extent, I think I agree, Rakeesh.
A couple questions I can think of: Do you object to any instance of generalizing a group with attitudes you think are systemic to that group? Even if you know that not everyone in that group has the bad attitude you're criticizing? How much generalization is okay?
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: A couple questions I can think of: Do you object to any instance of generalizing a group with attitudes you think are systemic to that group? Even if you know that not everyone in that group has the bad attitude you're criticizing? How much generalization is okay?
Doesn't this tread closely to stereotype territory?
Posts: 2532 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think that in broad terms "generalization" and "stereotype" are synonymous, yeah.
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro:
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: [QUOTE]Originally posted by SnuggleSmacks: [qb]
I've also personally not noticed his political or social views per se in his fiction, some in Ender in Exile but I was in a mental stance to have been actively looking for them and likely would not have noticed otherwise. And absolutely nothing in Shadows in Flight.
That is frankly surprising to me. I saw all the same messages in SiF that were in EiE. Even more, given that the book devotes considerable attention to the incest taboo, and argues passionately in favor of nuclear family building taking precedence over worries of incestuous love and inbreeding.
All the uncomfortable references to incest didn't strike you in any way? Or did you see that as being distinct from the social contract speechifying in EiE? Just curious.
I'm used to it I guess from manga? It seemed like a reasonable position for their situation, they are a new species and at some point they'll need to procreate with each other.
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: [QUOTE]Originally posted by SnuggleSmacks: [qb]
I've also personally not noticed his political or social views per se in his fiction, some in Ender in Exile but I was in a mental stance to have been actively looking for them and likely would not have noticed otherwise. And absolutely nothing in Shadows in Flight.
That is frankly surprising to me. I saw all the same messages in SiF that were in EiE. Even more, given that the book devotes considerable attention to the incest taboo, and argues passionately in favor of nuclear family building taking precedence over worries of incestuous love and inbreeding.
All the uncomfortable references to incest didn't strike you in any way? Or did you see that as being distinct from the social contract speechifying in EiE? Just curious.
I'm used to it I guess from manga? It seemed like a reasonable position for their situation, they are a new species and at some point they'll need to procreate with each other.
I'm not one to judge.
Ugh? Really?! No wonder I could not finish SiF. Ew. It drove me up a dang tree.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:To a great extent, I think I agree, Rakeesh.
A couple questions I can think of: Do you object to any instance of generalizing a group with attitudes you think are systemic to that group? Even if you know that not everyone in that group has the bad attitude you're criticizing? How much generalization is okay?
Do I object? Well, that's a different discussion, ain't it? Generalization is usually a risky proposition about large groups when it comes to people-stuff, becoming a bit more reliable the more unified and active that large group is. 'Priests don't respect the secular rule of law' would be a bit of a hazardous claim to make, whereas to say high-ranking members of the RCC don't respect the secular rule of law would have some problems, but be less problematic.
Anyway, for this discussion though it wasn't so much about objecting or not when someone generalizes, but objecting to the notion that, to continue with the examples I used before, 'American Catholics are disloyal scum' isn't actually a personal attack on Sean Catholic.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Not to mention, the breaking-point work for me was Empire...
Same here. Up to Empire, I'd read every novel he'd ever written and a majority of the short fiction. Since then, I have managed to finish one additional book and have skimmed another two.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote: Same here. Up to Empire, I'd read every novel he'd ever written and a majority of the short fiction. Since then, I have managed to finish one additional book and have skimmed another two.
"Gentlemen, you intrigue me. I believe I'm going to have to give [Empire] a try!" -Professor Harold Hill The Music ManPosts: 2532 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dude, you are absolutely its intended audience. If you seriously haven't read it and aren't just joking, you absolutely need to. No kidding.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
You skew more politically conservative than Rakeesh & Tom. If your posts here are an indication, at any rate.
The main hero of Empire is politically conservative, and the apparent biggest villain is politically leftist.
By the point of Hidden Empire, the sequel, the alternate timeline has diverged far enough from our political landscape that these distinctions aren't as relevant, and it's more like a typical OSC book.
Of course, in all of OSC's books, people with philosophies OSC disapproves of tend to be villains, and philosophies he supports tend to be heroes. This is also not terribly unique to OSC as a writer. People just seem to notice it more when it's defined down the lines of political ideologies.
Anyway, I assume Tom's idea is that you'd like reading a book where conservatives are the good guys and leftists are the bad guys. Despite the way it gets characterized, Empire isn't quite that book, but it's close enough that it enrages most leftists, and they assume it will consequently be amazing to conservatives.
Personally, I liked Empire just fine, but it's not his strongest book. The sequel is better, but is also one of the most tragic books of OSC's that I've ever read. At least by my moral philosophy, it ends on a ridiculously depressing note. I cried. Actually I cried before the end, and by the end I was just sort of numb and shell-shocked.
But even so, neither of the Empire books quite compare to the greats like Pastwatch or Speaker for the Dead.
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
No, that's not true, Dan, that in all of Card's books, the villains were of opposing political views. It has been lately (but to be fair, I haven't read a book of his in about four years, so I should say 'was'), but throughout the 80s and early 90s, I would've said his best stories were those which you would be hard pressed to label even the worst characters as straight-up 'villains', and sometimes the 'best' characters did truly awful, hateful things.
It seemed to me (though of course I'm biased) that it was trending away from that by the time the Shadow series rolled around. More than a few characters got 'preachy' in earlier works, but something seemed to change. Perhaps it was that the lecturing was more overt, or perhaps it was because-for me this was a big part-that the lecturing had some very clear parallels to contemporary political issues-it began to feel distinctly like the reader was being lectured, rather than characters within the story.
Furthermore, villains grew gradually more totally bankrupt, while the heroes seemed to grow both more preachy and more contemporary. It stopped being the case in the best sci-fi where the stories and people can help inform us about what our lives mean, but rather began to smell distinctly of efforts to directly inform us about our lives. I still remember the feelings of irritation and regret I had reading, I forget which of the Shadow books exactly it was now, but the one in which a certain geneticist holds forth on what it means to procreate. His thoughts were, in many cases, things I thought had a lot of truth to them, but layered throughout it was that notion that the only 'real' members of the human community, the most worthwhile contributors, fit the 'traditional' nuclear family role-and that other examples of humanity as expressed in family and sexuality were shoddy, paltry imitations to be rejected or pitied.
The lecturing was bad enough. It felt out of place and stupid for a character that would surely have known that there are many ways to be real members of a community, to have a great impact, etc. But when that lecture in that story came alongside knowledge that it was Card's views being expressed-his actual, real-world thoughts on contemporary families and sexuality-then I think I just gave up the ghost on giving his current stuff a shot.
Anyway, I would've said that the hallmark of Card's best work was in finding the humanity-even when it was awful-in pretty much every single character that was examined at any length. He was able to evoke pity and even respect alongside horror and revulsion for a character who in many ways was defined by his knowing rape of a child, for example.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: No, that's not true, Dan, that in all of Card's books, the villains were of opposing political views.
I agree! I assume you're disagreeing what I said here:
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: Of course, in all of OSC's books, people with philosophies OSC disapproves of tend to be villains, and philosophies he supports tend to be heroes. This is also not terribly unique to OSC as a writer. People just seem to notice it more when it's defined down the lines of political ideologies.
But note, I said philosophical, not political. I guess in the last sentence I said political, but I was specifically referring to Empire there. Sorry if that was confusing!
An example of an older book of his that exemplifies what I'm broadly speaking of here is the collection of stories that make up the Worthing Saga. I love that book to pieces! But I find several of the core philosophical tenets within it to be totally horrible.
This is common. As I said, most authors can't help but include bits of their philosophy in their work, even if it's unintentional.
Empire was unique in Card's work in that it was very explicit about this, and moreover, it was political rather than broadly philosophical.
I hope this clarification makes more sense.
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Anyway, I would've said that the hallmark of Card's best work was in finding the humanity-even when it was awful-in pretty much every single character that was examined at any length. He was able to evoke pity and even respect alongside horror and revulsion for a character who in many ways was defined by his knowing rape of a child, for example.
I agree that this is one of Card's strengths. Present tense, for me, as I actually think it still is.
But then, Card is still hands down one of my all-time favorite writers. There are writers who I think have written better stories, but not many. And Card is unique in that I have enjoyed every single work of his I have ever read, without exception. Considering how prolific he is and how many of his books I've read, that's a really amazing feat.
PS: I'm drawing a blank as to the character you're referring to in the last sentence.
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Scott, do you actually believe there are no other laws which discriminate against homosexuals and you're just having fun with banter? Or are you suggesting Card's statement is right?
Does scott r not even comment on stuff this basic? Is this really the norm?
Posts: 805 | Registered: Jun 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
I can never decide whether that book is beautifully horrible or horribly beautiful. Either way, you should certainly read it.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Oh, I don't think he hates homosexuals, Odouls. But he has said more than a few things about, say, liberals that a reasonable reading would start to wonder if there was hatred.
I sincerely think that those comments and essays are coming from the fact that he likely views the actions of those "liberals" with the same shocked disbelief that is being expressed about his views here in this thread.
I don't feel hatred coming off those pages at all. I feel shocked, incredulous disappointment.
Yes, we'll we all know that shocked incredulous disappointment is the place that calling people "leftaliban" and making multiple pointed references to fascism comes from.
I'd buy this, maybe, if the fact didn't remain that OSC has mounted a consistent campaign of lies and incendiary language against *whatever* it is that bothers him so much. Im shocked and incredulous at the behavior of many politicians and groups and I'm not tempted to use such name-calling.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I assume Tom's idea is that you'd like reading a book where conservatives are the good guys and leftists are the bad guys.
Not quite. The book's main premise is: "it's a shame that we can't all get along and agree that the right wing knows what's best for the country -- possibly because it has the most manly men. But it might also be because all liberals are either hypocrites or delusional."
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Remember though, Malech's wife knows that he will *never* cheat, and *never* get drunk. We don't know why, but still.
It was very true to life: I went to a very liberal university where ROTC guys came to school in uniform, and of course my profs called them "soldier boy" and we all sneered. Cause that's *what you do* at liberal universities. And OSC is tapped into that. He knows the deal, even if you don't.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
No idea it was that bad, good thing I've never read it. I couldn't handle the level of disappointment I would likely acquire.
IP: Logged |
posted
Empire wasn't up my alley, but I got Hidden Empire as a gift.
It was liberal in a way that kmboots would appreciate, I think. Assuming I know anything about her. Which is dangerous.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Scott, do you actually believe there are no other laws which discriminate against homosexuals and you're just having fun with banter? Or are you suggesting Card's statement is right?
Does scott r not even comment on stuff this basic? Is this really the norm?
Scott R doesn't generally post after about 3pm.
Rakeesh, you need to read what I said again. There are laws that discriminate against same sex couples (assuming that non-inclusion is synonymous with discriminate).
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: It was very true to life: I went to a very liberal university where ROTC guys came to school in uniform, and of course my profs called them "soldier boy" and we all sneered. Cause that's *what you do* at liberal universities. And OSC is tapped into that. He knows the deal, even if you don't.
I remember when that book came out, and a bunch of my Princeton grad school friends read that free chapter with the seminar (which was supposed to take place at Princeton). My buddy Colin sent me an email that said something like, "To be accurate, there need to be fewer 'soldier boy' comments and more ones like 'Your anecdote about that gutshot Iraqi reminds me of my own dissertation, in which I discuss ancient Polynesian navigational methods in the context of...'"
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
That does sound more realistic. I'm not saying college students aren't self-involved (they are), but this stuff just wasn't what happens in real life. People are uncomfortable around soldiers because soldiers deal in a world so alien and so scary to most people, that they don't even want to think about it. If anything, their biggest complaint in my experience is being ignored.
And if people scoff at soldiers, it's out of nervousness, not malice, most of the time. I know some soldiers, as most of us do, and In my limited experience, the reason people sometimes have trouble speaking to them is because they're unsure of what, if anything, they can possibly say. There's some fear in that, but it's the fear of the unknown, not the fear of an enemy. Reading that, I felt like Card didnt even know any soldiers. I don't know any who would so aggressively shame others in that way. The soldiers I know are proud of what they do and who they are, and they don't seem to *need* to shame others.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
EMPIRE SPOILERS DO NOT READ, IT IS OBVIOUSLY UNFAIR AND I AM JUST BEING MEAN OR WHATEVER:
~~
a manly conservative hero barely fails to stop a liberal insurrectionist group from coldly assassinating the conservative president of the united states because they don't like who voters chose in an open democracy and such. so the manly conservative hero goes to save new york city. new york city needs to be saved from liberals who are openly revolting and assaulting the city as insurrectionists! they are using mechs and fancy other things which are gunning down anyone in uniform without pause. it turns out the liberals trying to take over the united states with assassination and armed revolt are being backed heavily by a liberal financier who strongly resembles George Soros! Manly conservative hero saves a bunch of new york city cops from the liberals which are gunning them down on sight, whose mechs are, again, firing on anyone in uniform. eventually the manly conservative hero gets coldly assassinated, shot in the head by his secretary who was secretly working for the liberals. so everyone else who has been fighting the liberals from the beginning go "this is an important lesson about setting aside our differences and replacing them with differences that happen to be against liberals" and then unite against liberals to the liberal lair and capture the liberal leader, stopping the campaign of the liberal army trying to kill and replace the U.S. government in an open insurrection saving the US from liberals. the moral of the story is obviously that it is totally not about partisanship. the book is definitely not trying to take sides! do not assume that at all. that would be wrong.
~~~
like I said the book and its ostensibly explained levels of impartiality were just so The End for me :/
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
At several points the female protagonist makes a couple sacrifices for the less fortunate that reminded me of things you've said about the Christian faith. I don't know that you'd appreciate the entire book, but a significant part of it deals with thing I seem to recall being high on your list of priorities.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:That does sound more realistic. I'm not saying college students aren't self-involved (they are), but this stuff just wasn't what happens in real life.
And the weirdest thing was, these were supposed to be grad students.
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Really, that was the kind of thing that, I think, made Empire more than a book I just disagree with, and actually made it pretty bad.
That is: it's the kind of book where its very, *very* clear that everybody is saying and doing things that are necessary for the author to be making his point, his very, very emphatic and insistent point.
I can relatively easily dismiss the vanity in Card's typical character building scenes: the ones where the protagonist jumps to highly specific conclusions about complex situations with minimal evidence and then reveals it to someone else through dialogue, and we find out that the other person reaches an equally specific conclusion. That is, Card likes to write characters who are incapable of making volitional mistakes: they never believe anything for the wrong reasons, and so they are never at fault for being wrong, even if they are ever wrong.
I can forgive that, because it's just vanity- just Card pumping up his characters and dazzling his readers with his own brilliance. But it's when you get these kinds of scenes, where people are really just doing things to make the author's point, not their own, that I get really sidetracked. Which is weird, because there are 50 better ways to convey Malech as a character than to present him with a room full of empty-headed people. Couldn't he have an actual, realistic interaction with a real anti-war type who doesn't just act like a complete fool? Doesn't that make him seem even *smarter*?
But no, the characterization suffers so that the decore can be mocked.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Not quite. The book's main premise is: "it's a shame that we can't all get along and agree that the right wing knows what's best for the country -- possibly because it has the most manly men. But it might also be because all liberals are either hypocrites or delusional."
quote: EMPIRE SPOILERS DO NOT READ, IT IS OBVIOUSLY UNFAIR AND I AM JUST BEING MEAN OR WHATEVER:
~~
a manly conservative hero barely fails to stop a liberal insurrectionist group from coldly assassinating the conservative president of the united states because they don't like who voters chose in an open democracy and such. so the manly conservative hero goes to save new york city. new york city needs to be saved from liberals who are openly revolting and assaulting the city as insurrectionists! they are using mechs and fancy other things which are gunning down anyone in uniform without pause. it turns out the liberals trying to take over the united states with assassination and armed revolt are being backed heavily by a liberal financier who strongly resembles George Soros! Manly conservative hero saves a bunch of new york city cops from the liberals which are gunning them down on sight, whose mechs are, again, firing on anyone in uniform. eventually the manly conservative hero gets coldly assassinated, shot in the head by his secretary who was secretly working for the liberals. so everyone else who has been fighting the liberals from the beginning go "this is an important lesson about setting aside our differences and replacing them with differences that happen to be against liberals" and then unite against liberals to the liberal lair and capture the liberal leader, stopping the campaign of the liberal army trying to kill and replace the U.S. government in an open insurrection saving the US from liberals. the moral of the story is obviously that it is totally not about partisanship. the book is definitely not trying to take sides! do not assume that at all. that would be wrong.
Well, why didn't you guys SAY so??
I'm totally in for THAT. Posts: 2532 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:I assume Tom's idea is that you'd like reading a book where conservatives are the good guys and leftists are the bad guys.
Not quite. The book's main premise is: "it's a shame that we can't all get along and agree that the right wing knows what's best for the country -- possibly because it has the most manly men. But it might also be because all liberals are either hypocrites or delusional."
Some of them are only a little delusional. Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
So, I've stepped away from this issue for a few days, and my feelings haven't changed. I think I'll pack up everything from Card and put it in my attic for a while. Some of the things I have are irreplaceable, or difficult to find, and half of it is personally autographed to me, so I hate to give it all up and regret it later.
Being in NC, near Greensboro, I have access to the Rhino Times, which often contains attitudes from Card which I don't agree with. What hit me hardest about this particular article was not only the stance that Card takes, but the completely ridiculous and patently false statements he makes to support his position. I'm used to Card's writing being lucid and sharp, even when I disagree with him.
The absolutely verifiable facts are these: In this state, many of the counties, as well as many large private employers, have been offering benefits for "domestic partners" for many years. I worked for such a company for 12 years. This included same- and opposite-sex partners and their dependents. This means if you were a man, and you moved your girlfriend and her child in with you, you'd be able to provide health insurance for all of you.
The day after the Amendment 1 vote, the County Commissioner in Mecklenburg County (about an hour away) sent a memo throughout the county board asking when he would receive the new benefits information excluding same-sex partner benefits, "to be in compliance" with the new amendment. He apparently didn't realize that straight couples would be equally effected.
The level of ignorance surrounding this Amendment was palpable. I use the word "ignorance" advisedly...exit polls proved that most people had no idea what they were voting for, and no idea what impact it would have on domestic partnerships of straight couples. Some people thought they were voting in favor of gay marriage. Most were unaware that gay marriage was already illegal through separate legislature, and that if the amendment failed, absolutely nothing would change. This amendment truly passed through sheer ignorance.
Fact: the rights of minorities should never be up for popular vote. There is a historical name for it: "Tyranny of the Majority."
Fact: I'm an Independent, with definite leanings toward the left, so I'm not sure if I truly qualify as a "liberal" but I had my tubes tied many years ago, Mr. Card. I don't want your children.
Fact: The population of the Earth is approaching 7 billion people. At the current US standard of living, the Earth's resources can only support 2 billion. Luckily for us (sarcasm) the majority of our population lives well below the poverty line. If we continue to enforce the idea of "traditional" marriage for the sake of procreation, our children won't have much of a planet left.
Fact: "Traditional" marriage was an exchange of property: herds, land, chattel (women) etc. and was largely polygamous. I don't see anyone campaigning for a return to those traditions.
Posts: 4 | Registered: May 2012
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah, I do agree with you SnuggleSnacks. I'm not sure if OSC's version of reality is... a healthy happy place. It would be worse if gays were forced into the closet into loveless marriages, unable to just be themselves and be honest. It's not healthy for folks to marry without love to have tons of children they might not even want "for the good of society." But, the world is changing. More people are waking up and realizing that being gay isn't evil, it's a variation. Like left handedness. He doesn't get that right in UT 2 men who were married in MA got into an accident and could one of the men visit his partner? No. His right to see his husband before he died was taken from him and it's just not right. Marriage as an institution is evolving, so is the way we view gay people. These folks must catch up.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't agree with George Takai on his political stances (I'm not even touching the SSM stuff with a 10 foot pole), but I still think he's one of the funniest people on my Facebook newsfeed.
I don't think Mr. Card is hateful in that article I think he is adamant. He doesn't sugar coat things and he isn't politically correct. He offends on a regular basis. He's Graff. He's a Speaker. You don't have to agree with him, but he does what he thinks is right saying things the way he sees it.
To not agree with homosexuality does not make one homophobic. Not liking Obama doesn't make you racist. Teasing someone doesn't make you a bully (even if it isn't nice). He didn't say that that all homosexuals needed to be locked away because their disease is catching.
He stated that he didn't see the need for SSM because the main reasons same-sex couples want marriage have been addressed. If you disagree with that conclusion, fine. Don't read more hate into his words than he meant.
Posts: 1735 | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Speakers are supposed to tell the true stories of the lives of their subjects. Card routinely, when he discusses them, tells lies about homosexuals and liberals.
They're faking adult relationships, they want to ban teaching 'traditional relationships' or whatever his phrase was, they want to destroy the institution of marriage, there aren't laws discriminating against them...we could go on.
I don't know if he is actually hateful towards homosexuals, though it would explain a lot. I've got less uncertainty about his thoughts on liberals, but I still wouldn't say for sure he hated them. But when Card talks about liberals and homosexuals? No. He's not a Speaker. I don't know if you've read many of his columns on those subjects, but at this point he is eithe willfully ignorant or lying-unless you believe he's right when he says those sorts of things above.
You're welcome to, but Card deserves to be called on it. If he's going to say liberals and homosexuals want to wipe people will thankfully call him a damn liar for it.
quote:The left is at war with the family, and they want control of our children's education. That's what those signs on the lawns are about.
This is not what a Speaker would say. It is, in fact, a lie. I don't know why he tells that lie, but it's not somehow unfair to say so.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I just hope Dan Simmons isn't going to go the same way now. Maybe he got all the preaching out of his system with his latest novel Flashback (His "Empire") and goes back to telling stories again.
Posts: 273 | Registered: Jul 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Rakeesh that is your opinion, not a fact. There are many people who BELIEVE it is an attack on the traditional family. That doesn't make him a liar, it makes him opinionated and no more so than you. I am always so surprised at the people calling others close-minded when many times they are just as close-minded as the people they are accusing. Can't you see that you are not looking at something from a different perspective?
He speaks the truth as HE sees it. That doesn't make anyone a liar, though you may disagree. His opinion is more popular than many want admit and that really makes people angry and upset. That still doesn't make him a hate-filled fear monger. It makes him an opinionated man with an audience. I think the last statement is what pisses people off, too.
Addendum: I work in the public school system. I've seen the nature and content of material that was to be taught change over the past 10 years. It is sliding more liberal. Whether or not you believe that is a good thing or not can be debated, but Mr. Card is not wrong in his assertion. He just likes to swing the fact like a big bat that makes a big mark when it finds contact with something.
Posts: 1735 | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Rakeesh that is your opinion, not a fact. There are many people who BELIEVE it is an attack on the traditional family.
I would say the first sentence here is false, but the second is true. Card need not be a liar to say the things he says. He may only be factually mistaken about the motives of gay rights types.
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
He doesn't blame homosexuals. He blames the extreme left. There are instances when that is the same, but many times it is not.
How is the fisrt statement not true? Are opinions that a person agrees with fact and all others opinions? He even addresses that the left does not have evidence to support their assertions. He's trying to show that his opinion is more valid than another OPINION. Again, you can argue whether or not you agree with that, but it dosn't suddenly make one side fact and the other opinion.
Posts: 1735 | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
The way the distinction between "fact" and "opinion" is drawn in a lot of internet discussion isn't very illuminating. The way the words are actually defined, like in a dictionary, a fact is just an opinion (belief) that happens to actually be true. The things Rakeesh listed, that Card says about gays and gay-rights activists, are false. Therefore it's a fact that they're false.
Sometimes (on the internet) the word "fact" is used to mean something that's not just true, but that every reasonable person who's seen the evidence can agree is true. When students bring this definition into my classroom, it makes me sad. But even by this definition, it's a "fact" that there are laws that discriminate against gays.
ETA: and it's also a "fact" that gay rights advocates don't want to undermine the traditional family.
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
