quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: My problem with "Superman vs. the Elite" is that the Superman who teaches them a lesson on the Moon -- the one who's willing to appear temporarily brutal and evil for a moment -- isn't actually a Superman I recognize. The Superman who plows through them like a vengeful god and demonstrates just how easy -- and repellent -- such a godhood is would, in my opinion, be far too repelled and horrified by the act to make the demonstration. If I had to pick one person in the JLA who would not do something like that, it'd be Supes.
Those were my feelings as well. I feel like Superman not only would never stoop to being evil like The Elite, he would avoid the appearance of evil even if doing so would get him the upper-hand. I mean he spent the whole movie saying that there was always a way to morally win in any situation.
I feel like Superman and Captain America stand in a very similar place. And the fact they stand there, immovable, is a critical aspect of their characters. I didn't like Superman's solution to The Elite at all, but I did enjoy the rest of the movie.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Not always. But, more importantly, it is vital that he never think so. Superman is so noble that he is humble; like Captain America, he's the ultimate Boy Scout. Leaving aside the questions of whether Superman is actually smarter than Batman, Lex Luthor, etc., and actually a better person than Wonder Woman or Jimmy Olson, it's unquestionable that he would never say or think so. More importantly, he's not manipulative and introspective in the way that almost all Card heroes are; he is not the sort of person to say something just to mislead someone else into behaving according to some other master plan.
I'm not saying that he's stupid, or incapable of setting up the occasional trap for the bad guys -- especially if it involves turning their own over-complicated machinations against them. But in the DC Universe, Batman is the scheming hero and Wonder Woman is the brutally realistic hero; Superman is both direct and (sometimes naively) idealistic, two things that Card's heroes almost never are.
I say this as an enormous fan of Alvin, far and away my favorite Card hero -- who IMO in the later books becomes increasingly less Superman-like (and more, say, Green-Arrow-like.)
Interesting thoughts, Tom. I agree with them. On a side note, I really wanted to get into the Alvin series, but the narrator's accent was too distracting for me to get through it. I guess I'm not a fan of that style.
Posts: 1324 | Registered: Feb 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: I loved the Superman of the 'Superman vs. the Elite' feature.
I did not love the All-Star Superman.
I hope you are talking about the animated adaptations. Because then I totally agree, the ASSman adaptation was horrendous, and the SupesxElite was passable.
Posts: 1574 | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
My image of Superman is the nearly godlike hero written by Elliot S! Maggin who lives by the very simple rule that there's a right and a wrong in the universe and it's not very hard to tell the difference. From one of the books (written pre-reboot, when the Kents died of a disease and Superman had been Superboy):
"He knew that he was Kal-El of Krypton, the son of Jor-El, and possibly the finest specimen of humanity in the galaxy. He had broken the time barrier, he could speak every known language on Earth, living and dead. He had been born among the stars and could live among them now if he so chose. He had more knowledge in his mind and more diverse experience to his credit than any Earthman alive could ever aspire to."
Yet he stood at the deathbed of this elderly, generous man whose last Earthly concern was his adopted son's happiness. Superboy listened, because he believed Jonathan Kent to be wiser than he."
Superman is who he is not because he has powers, but because he cannot conceive of not helping others. He is the most powerful of all the heroes, but he treats everyone equally and honestly respects everyone he meets who isn't actually committing a crime. He's a good man.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Forgive me for posting in this thread without reading it all, but my friend posted this to facebook and I thought it might be interesting enough to share:
quote: We're retailers. We got into this business to sell more comics, not less. When we've donated to causes in the past -- animal shelters, Haiti disaster relief, etc. -- we've done so by selling comics and other items for a benefit. That's the first thing that occurs to us as retailers: What can we sell to do the most good? In this case, rather than decline to carry his comic, we wanted to sell Orson Scott Card's Superman comic and use the money to fund the Human Rights Campaign. That's just how we approached the problem of stocking a comic that stood to fund an organization, the National Organization for Marriage, with which we disagreed.
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: My problem with "Superman vs. the Elite" is that the Superman who teaches them a lesson on the Moon -- the one who's willing to appear temporarily brutal and evil for a moment -- isn't actually a Superman I recognize. The Superman who plows through them like a vengeful god and demonstrates just how easy -- and repellent -- such a godhood is would, in my opinion, be far too repelled and horrified by the act to make the demonstration. If I had to pick one person in the JLA who would not do something like that, it'd be Supes.
Those were my feelings as well. I feel like Superman not only would never stoop to being evil like The Elite, he would avoid the appearance of evil even if doing so would get him the upper-hand. I mean he spent the whole movie saying that there was always a way to morally win in any situation.
I feel like Superman and Captain America stand in a very similar place. And the fact they stand there, immovable, is a critical aspect of their characters. I didn't like Superman's solution to The Elite at all, but I did enjoy the rest of the movie.
In this sense maybe the better way of writing Superman vs The Elite would've been to have, somehow the Elite realize "Oh my god what have I done?" and redeem themselves through Superman's guideance.
IP: Logged |
posted
Chris Sprouse (the artist for this story) has left the project because he felt the press was getting in the way of the story.
They are still looking for a replacement artist, but now Mr. Card's story won't be the first one in the collection.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't care what you think of Card, but the capitulation of an artist to the demands of political pressure is never to be celebrated.
If he'd said when he found out the writer, "No, I object to his opinions on SSM," fine. No harm. Respect for sticking to his moral guns.
But "I'm stepping away because of media dislike of Orson Scott Card" is to invite more degradation of artistic voice through political fear-mongering.
This isn't something to celebrate. The shibboleth currently making the rounds in the spec-fic and artistic community- whereby contributors are evaluated on the acceptability of their political opinions RATHER than the potency of their work- is absolutely damaging to the genre and to all individuals who value the free exchange of ideas.
It is the grassroots facilitation of thought-police.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
While I don't disagree Scott, I can't help but marvel at the role reversal. Who would have guessed that homophobia and assumed religious moral superiority could so negatively effected a project like this? Sean Connery defended his stance on hitting women a long time ago and no one cared, still don't. A writer who just ten years ago no one outside the literary knew existed has an opinion (albeit an unethical one) and he has his profession threatened by people who aren't even familiar with his work. And I assume in many instances his actual stance on the matter.
Thought-policing is bad, but I'm slightly in awe of what I wasn't sure was possible.
Posts: 2302 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't disagree with your basic attitude and preferences about this, but it's not. They're policing their own money and the impact it has on the world around them.
They might be douchebags if they're telling me to do the same thing, or getting him fired before you get to vote with your money, but they aren't for micro-managing their dollar and the ideas they want to support.
posted
What is the difference between this and NOM pushing for a boycott of businesses that support gay rights, like Starbucks? Is it because the one is a company and the other is an individual?
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: They might be douchebags if they're telling me to do the same thing, or getting him fired before you get to vote with your money,
I wouldn't see that as a 'douchebag' offense. I don't see the point nor the harm in the online content project, but I would certainly chafe if an artist that I knew to actively work against human rights were made a principle on one my favorite books. The kind I actually buy at a privately owned store rather than any digital media. I would make my discontent heard and try to be productive about it. Art is how so many of us relax, it is what we look forward to and study down to it's littlest bit. If you put someone who campaigns against the civil rights of innocent people, or say a friend of Kim Jung Eun, in charge of Batman or Justice League Dark I would feel no shame in complaining and seeing them removed from the title before getting any work done.
In the age of the internet voting with your upvote's can be just as if not more prophetic than voting with your wallet.
Posts: 2302 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not sure how many times this needs to be said before people will acknowledge it, but OSC is not just some guy who doesn't think gay people should marry. He is one of the heads of NOM, an organization that is actively opposing gay rights through fear mongering, bigotry, and lies as well as a person who has actively spread malicious and false ideas about gay people.
He is being judged in large part for his actions, not just his beliefs.
---
I very much doubt that we'd be having this conversation if people were objecting to a leader of the KKK writing Superman and I don't see much difference between this and that. Maybe I'm wrong about that, though.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: I'm not sure how many times this needs to be said before people will acknowledge it, but OSC is not just some guy who doesn't think gay people should marry. He is one of the heads of NOM, an organization that is actively opposing gay rights through fear mongering, bigotry, and lies as well as a person who has actively spread malicious and false ideas about gay people.
He is being judged in large part for his actions, not just his beliefs.
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: I'm not sure how many times this needs to be said before people will acknowledge it, but OSC is not just some guy who doesn't think gay people should marry. He is one of the heads of NOM, an organization that is actively opposing gay rights through fear mongering, bigotry, and lies as well as a person who has actively spread malicious and false ideas about gay people.
He is being judged in large part for his actions, not just his beliefs.
Worth repeating.
Irrelevant, actually.
I don't care if Elton John is gay. His music sucks.
I don't care if Ellen Degeneres is gay. She's hilarious.
I believe in opposing art where the message is objectionable within the context of the work, NOT for political stances, actions, or associations that have nothing to do with the artist's work.
I don't begrudge anyone their boycott. I vehemently oppose capitulation, though.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I know it's a tired analogy, but I enjoy Wagner, and he was an outspoken anti-semite.
I think NOM is wrong for advising people to boycott businesses for political reasons. I don't know a whole lot about NOM specifically, and from what I can find, it's all negative. Which leads me to think I'm not looking hard enough.
But what frustrates me are people's insistence that if Mr. Card just had his opinions, but did not believe in them strongly enough to actually act on them, then things would be fine. If you believe same-sex marriage is wrong, then supporting an organization that uses the political machine to accomplish that objective may be wrong (in that you're supporting the wrong efforts) but it's not wrong (in that you are sinning against your conscience).
I refuse to believe most people place this same standard of scrutiny for the dollars they spend in other places. NOM isn't the KKK, if they were, I doubt Mr. Card would count himself as one of them.
But I have to agree in part with Scott, if the main thrust of trying to deny somebody work is that you don't like that they have beliefs that they put money behind, you are part of the thought police. Boycott an artist because their work is offensive.
It's why I boycott Jon McNaughton.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
UGH! It's that painter with his SICKENINGLY DIPPY PAINTINGS! UGH! UNBEARABLE!
But this is tricky because if my 35-45% lesbionic self finds a woman who is not like my mother and marries her, this doesn't mean that I will be destroying the American family and its structure because I care enough about families to speak out against abuse which actually hurts families. It's just not accurate to paint gays and those who support them as the Bad Guys trying to destroy everything good and American just because they want marriage rights.
What if they didn't call it marriage except among themselves, eh? But, yeah. Still boycotting OSC. I need to give away these books I already have because I reread them and got very frustrated.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, Hitler was a painter...his paintings were not offensive at all...still lives and such. Maybe if you like them enough, you can hang them in your living room, and not worry about who painted them at all.
Personally I can not separate the art from the artist to that extent.
OSC is still one of my favorite writers, and not at all Hitler by any stretch of the imagination, but I have not read a single new book of his since I became aware of his active prosecution of gays. In fairness my reading habits have disintegrated under the weight of two small children. But I tell you I'm less and less interested the more I know about his participation in NOM.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Synesthesia: I don't know why they did not just accept him. Then he would have been an artist instead of a horrible, evil dictator.
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: I'm not sure how many times this needs to be said before people will acknowledge it, but OSC is not just some guy who doesn't think gay people should marry. He is one of the heads of NOM, an organization that is actively opposing gay rights through fear mongering, bigotry, and lies as well as a person who has actively spread malicious and false ideas about gay people.
He is being judged in large part for his actions, not just his beliefs.
Worth repeating.
Irrelevant, actually.
I don't care if Elton John is gay. His music sucks.
I don't care if Ellen Degeneres is gay. She's hilarious.
I believe in opposing art where the message is objectionable within the context of the work, NOT for political stances, actions, or associations that have nothing to do with the artist's work.
I don't begrudge anyone their boycott. I vehemently oppose capitulation, though.
It's not irrelevant in the slightest, actually. You just seem to willfully be ignoring the relevancy.
I don't give a crap what anyone believes, but I absolutely feel a moral obligation not to financially support people who take action against things I believe are unassailable rights of all human beings.
If Chik-fil-A just put a bunch of anti-gay rhetoric on their website, I'd think it was distasteful but it wouldn't affect my decision whether to eat there. But that isn't what they do. They actually give a giant pile of money to organizations that support killing gay people rather than living with them. I have decided, for me, that I can't in good conscience give my money to a company that might do that with any part of it.
By the same token, if OSC was just spouting off his screeds about gays ruining the world I would shake my head sadly and continue to enjoy his works. After all, as you said, that has no relevancy on him as an artist. He doesn't leave it at that, though. Not nearly. So I have to make the unfortunate decision to not financially contribute to him, because I can't be an accessory to what he's doing with even a tiny portion of my money.
This isn't a subtle distinction, and it honestly befuddles me that you are ok with this amount of rationalization.
Posts: 5462 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: Well, Hitler was a painter...his paintings were not offensive at all...still lives and such. Maybe if you like them enough, you can hang them in your living room, and not worry about who painted them at all.
Personally I can not separate the art from the artist to that extent.
OSC is still one of my favorite writers, and not at all Hitler by any stretch of the imagination, but I have not read a single new book of his since I became aware of his active prosecution of gays. In fairness my reading habits have disintegrated under the weight of two small children. But I tell you I'm less and less interested the more I know about his participation in NOM.
Amateur artist that I am, I think his art was actually decent.
IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: Theoretically, you could try to be so toxic a presence as to drive folks away from the site (Stephen actually tried that) and decrease OSC's revenue that way; but there are a number of mitigative steps he could take to circumvent that strategy.
Yes, I did try. Lisa and KoM (and some persistent out-and-out trolls) succeeded where I did not. I've forgotten, from time to time, my original goal here, and posted substantively, or at least sincerely. I suck at sticking to goals sometimes. Sue me.
Let's not forget why I came here, though...his political screeds, specifically on the 2000 presidential election. He brings this on himself by writing for an audience that is, on average, pretty gay-friendly and liberal-ish, while LOUDLY proclaiming opinions that are the very opposite. It bewilders me that he would write for an audience that is the polar opposite of him on a hot-button issue, then loudly proclaim his opinion on that issue many times over a period of years, and be anything other than completely unsurprised by what has happened.
The irritating part is that he kept all those non-PC opinions to himself until after the Clinton/Lewinsky thing (which I believe was a big part of the cause, though I might be wrong), when he already had developed a pretty huge fanbase. It's bait and switch. I'm sure he had no master plan to do such, but it's still pretty confusing. Scott, surely you understand this point, whether or not you can admit that you do.
That's not to say other writers/artists haven't gone off the rails (to whatever degree) at some point, and annoyed their core fanbase. Whatever, these things do happen. Compassion is in order, on all sides, perhaps. I'm not perfect, so it's probably not fair for me to expect OSC to be.
I used to wonder if he was being controversial for reasons other than the obvious one, but now I'm betting that he, as a result of the fairly isolated life he lives , truly believes what he says.
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:This isn't a subtle distinction, and it honestly befuddles me that you are ok with this amount of rationalization.
It isn't rationalization.
It is the proper mindset when approaching the evaluation of art.
Politics doesn't matter. GENERALLY, the only thing that matters is the strength of the art and the message it presents in context. Allowing politics to determine whose art is acceptable approaches Mccarthyism (albeit from a consumer perspective rather than a governmental one in this case).
It ain't the songwriter, it's the song.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I agree that the government should not* use those standards. But I in no way agree that individuals should be held to that standard at all.
I am an NFL fan, and I actively root against Brett Farve, Michal Vick, Ben Rothlessburger and Michael Turner on the field for their off field behaviors. Do I feel the NFL should ban them from play for past misdeeds that have been paid for? No. Do I judge them on the field for their misdeeds off the field, you bet I do.
The evaluation of art is one which is deeply individual and if a person chooses to reject someone's work because of their unrelated faults it is a fully legitimate choice.
If Pol Pot made brilliant music, I would not listen to it.
On the other hand, if someone reforms, and chooses to reject their negative behavior and grows individually, that's another matter.
I would go out and buy every single OSC book I don't own if he renounced NOM, if he admitted his error and asked for forgiveness. But I will not support him while he is a champion of bigotry.
posted
That doesn't make sense, McCarthyism is about the whole witchhunt thing for suspected ties to an 'enemy' ideology as scare mongering for political gain. What the current GOP is doing, primarying out Moderates to put in Tea Party insane asylum drop outs is analogous to McCarthyism, as was holding up Hagel's nomination for ties to a non existent Islamic Fundamrntalist Youth group. Boycotting Mr. Card's work because of his real and proven and harmful ties to a hate group is not McCarthyism.
edit: I disagree with the asking for forgiveness part, for as wrong as Mr Card is for being a part of NOM its something he believed very strongly in as a matter of moral and ethical principle; as objectively wrong as he is I'm not entirely sure its something you would need to ask forgiveness for if you change you mind and evolve on the issue later.
IP: Logged |
quote:McCarthyism is about the whole witchhunt thing for suspected ties to an 'enemy' ideology as scare mongering for political gain.
That's why it applies in this specific case.
quote:The evaluation of art is one which is deeply individual and if a person chooses to reject someone's work because of their unrelated faults it is a fully legitimate choice.
There ISN'T individual consideration of art going on with this boycott: this is a widespread panning of an artist because of his political affiliations and beliefs. Indeed, to effect a boycott requires exactly the OPPOSITE of "individual evaluation."
It is, as I noted, grassroots implementation of the thought police.
An artist, to retain his artistic integrity, must NEVER give in to this sort of bullying. I object strongly to the rationale Sprouse provided for his leaving the project; it's unprofessional, unartistic, and a little bit cowardly.
[ March 06, 2013, 06:26 AM: Message edited by: Scott R ]
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Bullying? This isn't bullying. He's free to have whatever religion he wants, but gays should be free to get married and have all the benefits of marriage. No one is telling him to renounce being a Mormon or marry a man. He's the one who would want to just force gays to marry people of the opposite sex and lie about himself.
I am sorry, but he's not the victim here. The weird thing is if he was being racist and going on racist screeds about how black folks such as myself will destroy society he'd get a lot worse than he's getting. But, if someone like me marries a woman instead of a man, oh, we will bring down all of society.
Which is really, really ridiculous. I've lived in MA for 11 years and the sky isn't falling.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Synesthesia: Bullying? This isn't bullying. He's free to have whatever religion he wants, but gays should be free to get married and have all the benefits of marriage. No one is telling him to renounce being a Mormon or marry a man. He's the one who would want to just force gays to marry people of the opposite sex and lie about himself.
I am sorry, but he's not the victim here. The weird thing is if he was being racist and going on racist screeds about how black folks such as myself will destroy society he'd get a lot worse than he's getting. But, if someone like me marries a woman instead of a man, oh, we will bring down all of society.
Which is really, really ridiculous. I've lived in MA for 11 years and the sky isn't falling.
Mel Gibson got off pretty easy with his anti-Jewish rants. Did not work out so well for Don Imus though or Michael Richards.
But I am starting to agree with you.
Why isn't this more of an issue for the movie though? Maybe it will be when we get closer to the premier of EG?
Posts: 3134 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
I think what JT and Mr Squicky are pointing out is that it has been the songwriter with respect to how OSC has decided to deal with SSM, and to question just how unfair it is, really, to evaluate him on the level he has evaluated others on himself.
And really, I hadn't thought of that. I guess it just slipped my mind, making the connection between NOM, Card's membership, and NOM's advocacy and political activity. Card has supported the boycotting of businesses on the basis of their political beliefs on SSM.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I haven't seen an answer on the KKK thing, which seems to me to be the most direct comparison to what is happening here.
How about if an artist said "All the proceeds for this work are going to go towards supporting the effort to kill gays in Uganda." If I understand you correctly Scott, people should not consider that when choosing whether or not buy that piece of art. Is that accurate?
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Also, I've got to wonder at the idea that "Yeah, the organization that OSC is a head of, that is waging campaigns (like Prop 8) of fear mongering, bigotry, and lies in order to deny a long persecuted minority their rights has no problem using this tactic, but the long oppressed minority shouldn't."
I've said in one of the other threads on this, the gay rights movement has often said and done things that are not fully justified, but the people they fighting against are, besides being wrong, orders of magnitude worse than in terms of injustice. In addition, these tactics are working. The gay rights movement has made incredible strides in the past few decades, which I'm pretty sure would not have happened if they were all nice and polite while confronting the hate filled, lying bigots who opposed and were oppressing them.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
MrSquicky, I think a clear distinguishing line can be placed between people and organizations that advocate or perform violence and people and organizations who don't. NOM, I think, is among the latter.
That's also the distinguishing point I'd place between my desire to have membership in organizations like KKK, Neonazis, Al Qaeda be illegal; and my desire to have organizations like NOM be legal.
As for boycotting or firing OSC from his gig at Superman, I think the best position is to clearly state to DC that we will not allow the slightest shred of homophobia to be present in the Superman comic itself. If such appears, *then* you can boycott the comic or ask for the writer to be fired; to boycott the work when the work is affected.
quote:The weird thing is if he was being racist and going on racist screeds about how black folks such as myself will destroy society he'd get a lot worse than he's getting
Indeed, but frankly I think that'd be wrong too. It's absolutely shameful what happened to Harvard Law student Stephanie Grace for just saying in a private email that she simply "doesn't rule out" a genetical predisposition towards lower average IQ among black people.
That mere belief of hers (which wasn't even *political*, as it doesn't advocate policy one way or another), and indeed her mere stated uncertainty on the issue (since it was just mentioned as a possibility, not a held position) sufficed to make lots and lots of people ask that she lose her clerkship.
I find such calls to be much more shameful than the position that instigated such.
Posts: 676 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Aris Katsaris: MrSquicky, I think a clear distinguishing line can be placed between people and organizations that advocate or perform violence and people and organizations who don't. NOM, I think, is among the latter.
I think that's minimizing the amount and importance of non-physical harm organizations like NOM cause.
Posts: 4519 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:This isn't a subtle distinction, and it honestly befuddles me that you are ok with this amount of rationalization.
It isn't rationalization.
It is the proper mindset when approaching the evaluation of art.
Politics doesn't matter. GENERALLY, the only thing that matters is the strength of the art and the message it presents in context. Allowing politics to determine whose art is acceptable approaches Mccarthyism (albeit from a consumer perspective rather than a governmental one in this case).
It ain't the songwriter, it's the song.
Now there's a baldly misapplied overgeneralization. Again, you willfully ignore the difference between what a person believes and what they support (financially). If you give your money to someone that you know uses it to buy tools to torture animals, you are an accessory to animal abuse, morally speaking.
Posts: 5462 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I think that's minimizing the amount and importance of non-physical harm organizations like NOM cause.
A prohibition on promoting or perpetating physical violence serves as a Schelling Point.
But causing non-physical harm isn't a useful Schelling Point, because frankly every political position that *anyone* opposes is so opposed because of the belief that it causes harm -- they wouldn't be opposing it otherwise.
Posts: 676 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:This isn't a subtle distinction, and it honestly befuddles me that you are ok with this amount of rationalization.
It isn't rationalization.
It is the proper mindset when approaching the evaluation of art.
Politics doesn't matter. GENERALLY, the only thing that matters is the strength of the art and the message it presents in context. Allowing politics to determine whose art is acceptable approaches Mccarthyism (albeit from a consumer perspective rather than a governmental one in this case).
It ain't the songwriter, it's the song.
Now there's a baldly misapplied overgeneralization. Again, you willfully ignore the difference between what a person believes and what they support (financially). If you give your money to someone that you know uses it to buy tools to torture animals, you are an accessory to animal abuse, morally speaking.
That's a harsh and nearly puritanical rule, I think, when applied to ordinary transactions. If you donate money to puppiesmustsuffer.org, that's one thing, but I'm not sure I'd attach the same moral weight to buying a chair that the CEO of PMS listed on craigslist.
Posts: 4287 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Nope. If I spend money to buy art, I'm supporting an artist. It's not my business what he uses the money for, generally speaking. Nor is it my responsibility.
This is a tough thing for the busy-bodies of the world to understand. And I do maintain that's what those who make this argument are: busy-bodies. You're not doing anything glorious or special; you're not really making the world a better place. Given this specific instance, the boycott is accomplishing NOTHING but making an inroad for artistic dishonesty and political elitism at the sacrifice of freedom of expression.
Ironic that this is coming from LGBT groups and supporters. Without freedom of artistic expression, there likely wouldn't BE a gay-rights movement.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Scott, So I read you right in that you do believe that it would be wrong to boycott works of art created by a leader of the KKK or someone who specifically says that they are going to send it all to support the killing of gays?
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Scott, would you have any problem buying a book, which was unrelated to Mormonism, from someone like this man?
Posts: 3564 | Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged |
I find the comparison you're trying to make farcical.
quote:Scott, would you have any problem buying a book, which was unrelated to Mormonism, from someone like this man?
Possibly; depends on what he's selling.
I support artists all the time whose opinions about Mormonism aren't charitable. Heck, I even help get those artists PUBLISH from time to time. I'm proud of my position as assistant editor for a publication that puts story first, and does not concern itself with the politics (or personal lives, or political affiliations) of its authors.
Trying to expose my personal hypocrisies or personality quirks isn't going to convince me that the attitude of artistic enfranchisement only for those who toe the line is beneficial to anyone. Nor will hyperbole-filled analogies or appeals to emotion.
posted
Here's reason: NOM, of which Card is a member, has attempted boycotts of businesses due to their support of SSM. 'Picking sides in the culture wars' was one colorful phrase.
In what way is attempting to pressure DC not to hire Card different from this? Would it not also be attemptint to apply financial pressure on a business because of how it associates itself with the SSM issue? Or is it different because it's an individual in one case and a business in the other? Or...what IS the difference? Is it that one is 'artistic enfranchisement' should be involioate, but 'selling coffee' shouldn't?
I'm not saying it's right. Frankly it was shameful when NOM did it in the first place. Is this your view also, then?
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
