Artist Quits Superman Book Over Orson Scott Card Furor

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT
 

LysanderNemoinis:
I for one, am not buying BioShock Infinite or SpecOps: The Line because I don't like what the games espouse. Pure and simple. The anti-Americanism there is as offensive to me as what Card says to some of you.

What anti-Americanism?

Windknight:

He publicly declares anti-gay sentiments, campaigns against gay marriage, and he supports and donates to organisations campaigning and lobbying to have being homosexual criminalised.

Yes, he has his right to express his views, and and support these groups.

We all have a right to look at him doing so, and decide to point out what he is doing is morally wrong, and decide not to spend money on his products, and explain to people why we're not buying their products, and why we would like them not too either.

I'm sorry but being anti-gay or campaigning against gay marriage does not make one morally wrong. To have this be morally wrong, it would mean that people who were gay / supported gay marriage and the like were morally right. However, the issue is that the government won't let two people be recognized as married. That doesn't mean that they can't be gay, the government won't start killing those groups off, and society won't change a damn bit.

In my belief, we're at a bit of an awkward place in history today where all of the "good fights" (i.e. no slavery, everybody can vote, etc.) are all a bit over and done with in Western society. Other countries still have a lot of these problems, but we kind of overlook that as we scramble to find something to be indignant about closer to home so we don't have to travel and can sound like "enlightened people".

Maybe he donates money to the group you mentioned. I don't know because there is no link and I just don't care enough to look for the evidence. He's not going around saying "Round them up and put them in prison". He's not attacking people, he's not advocating for others to attack people. Guy gets a pass from me.

You know what he also doesn't do? He doesn't hold a pride parade that gridlocks traffic in major cities.

bananafishtoday:

1) This is not a "mob punishment system." The artist didn't want to associate himself with Card because Card is a hateful dick. DC stood by the artist because lots of people thing Card is a hateful dick, so it's a good PR move.

2) We do not have an obligation to treat or react to speech equally. A boycott is acceptable for any reason. When he says things like, "Laws against homosexual behavior should remain on the books...to be used when necessary to send a clear message that those who flagrantly violate society's regulation of sexual behavior cannot be permitted to remain as acceptable, equal citizens," we have the right to say things like, "Fuuuuuuuck you." The First Amendment protects speech from government censure, not public backlash.

I'd have much more sympathy for an average person who lost their shitty job due to a blog post or something. But Card is rich and famous. He uses his publicity to create a soapbox to stand on and spout hateful rhetoric, and he donates money he gets from things like this comic (if it ever gets off the ground) to hateful groups.

3) A boycott is not comparable to being jailed for political dissidence what are you even saying.

4) Opposition to marriage equality is bigotry. All the arguments being trotted out now are the same ones the anti-miscegenation crowd loved so much half a century ago. And if you're upset about a traditional religious ritual, complain to your church. Last I checked, they're the ones in charge of deciding what is sacred. The government's duty is to provide equality for citizens under the law.

1) I apologize for not clarifying better. The mob mentality isn't the artist quiting (which I'm also okay with) but the "we're going to boycott the product because of the writer's beliefs". DC did bring Card on and is letting him write stories for them though, so it's not exactly like they're taking sides. I think it's a balanced approach and I approve of it.

2) You and I disagree on this point. I believe a boycott is acceptable in cases where a product is losing quality, the creator is intentionally providing a bad product / service, or a product promotes specific violence or retaliation of any person or group. A boycott of a product because you don't like one of their employees personal beliefs is ludicrous and barbaric.

3) Whether you're boycotting someone (attempting to harm them financially) or the government arrests them for their speech, either way we're attacking someone personally for their words or beliefs. That is the comparison and that is what is wrong. If it were the 1960s and people were trying to financially attack someone who was pro-civil rights movement, wouldn't you say that it was wrong as well? Can't have it both ways.

4) Opposition to "marriage equality" (you can say gay marriage) is not bigotry. For it to be bigoted, it would have to be based off of hatred / contempt of a group because they're gay. This is not the case. Again, marriage is something that people hold in spiritual or legal significance between a man and woman. They're trying to protect that sanctity and be left alone. They're not going out and rubbing it in the faces of those who are gay, who have the exact same rights as a straight person. I can't marry a guy either!

I can say that hatred or the negative treatment of someone because of their personal beliefs is bigoted. I'm sure that you will never accept that, but it is the case nonetheless.

Loki_The_Good:

Except for the part where that's wrong. The people don't have to respect someone's free speech to the extent that it interferes with their own. Why is Card allowed to speak out and act against homosexuals while I'm not allowed to speak out and act for homosexual rights. Why must I be forced to support someone who will donate money to groups I find abhorrent in the name of free speech? By giving him unfettered rights to free speech you deny everyone who disagrees and that isn't what freedom of speech was meant.

Even the founder of the term freedom of speech, John Stewart Mill, said that society had the right to act against, educate and influence others who disagree. Freedom of speech is only against institutionalizing laws that would prevent the free expression of thoughts ideas and beliefs. Outside the legal realm it's fair play because freedom of speech works both ways. It amazes me how many people latch on to this concept without understanding it. Society has a right to call someone an a - hole and have nothing to do with them they just can't jail them for it.

I'm afraid that you didn't understand my posting, good sir. I never said anywhere in my post that you shouldn't speak out for gay rights. Please review my initial post again! I never said that nobody should try to contradict, educate, or try to influence Mr. Card. I am against people trying to ruin a man's career because they don't agree with his personal viewpoints. Speak! I encourage it! Good arguments are the basis of a strong society. If you're just going to attack, vilify, and condemn the man I'm afraid that you've got free speech all wrong. We should be encouraging people to contemplate all ideas, especially the ones they disagree with. Else we might not fully interpret their position and go off them when their original ideas have nothing to do with what is perceived... kind of like you did with my posting!

What the hell do his his views on gay marriage have to do with his Superman? Unless he's adding that into his stories this seems pretty stupid.

ChristopherT:
There's a small part of all this that I do not understand. There are people who want Card fired? or not be allowed to work on Superman comics. There are people who want someone to not have a job because of his personal beliefs. I don't care how much of a dick head, asshole, bigot Card is, isn't that still discrimination against him or possible other -ations?

No, that's just a little logical loop hole bigots like to come out with so that they think they've got one over on you. It's perfectly fine to point out and shame bigots. He can say what he wants, obviously, but it's other people's right to call him out as a fucking idiot and not support him because of it.

LysanderNemoinis:
I for one, am not buying SpecOps: The Line because I don't like what the games espouse. Pure and simple. The anti-Americanism there is as offensive to me as what Card says to some of you.

Mute the voice acting and stick on the subtitles, then read them out in the accent of your choice for all the difference it makes.

OT: "The Ender's Game author is infamous for his criticism of homosexuality and virulent opposition to same-sex marriage"

Ah, so he's gay then.

IS he a good writer? Didn't he write those awful government conspiracy books?

I mean he hasn't written really amazing books since the 1980's where his attitudes might have been accepted.

piscian:
The guys who run Marvel are very very socially left. They're firmly on the gay side of the fence.

There isn't a fence. Political leanings are purely an illusion from where you happen to be standing.

My stance is a bit out there as seeing marriage as pointless in a society with no consequence for having sex outside of marriage, living together outside of marriage, having and raising children outside of marriage. Marriage is only ever relevant with divorce, and THAT undermines marriage more than gays saying it should be about reciprocal love, not tradition.

LysanderNemoinis:
I for one, am not buying BioShock Infinite or SpecOps: The Line because I don't like what the games espouse. Pure and simple. The anti-Americanism there is as offensive to me as what Card says to some of you.

Criticizing certain aspects of American culture does not equal anti-Americanism.

[Woodsey POST EDITED BY ME]

No, that's just a little logical loop hole gays like to come out with so that they think they've got one over on you. It's perfectly fine to point out and shame gays. He can say what he wants, obviously, but it's other people's right to call him out as a fucking idiot and not support him because of it.

Okay, so that's being an asshole, but it was fun.

I think it is okay to personally not buy his work because of his beliefs and actions. But I don't think it's okay to be laying insults against him, to be forming internet 'mobs', and the few people (on other websites) who are posting he shouldn't be able to work on Superman comics or for DC at all is not okay by me, that is discrimination, that is being bigoted, it's wrong. Weren't you ever told two wrongs don't make a right?

tautologico:

Apparently, most people are not familiar with his more recent work. I also loved the Ender books when I read them. A few years ago I discovered he was anti-gay when I read about his remake of Hamlet. It's quite interesting:

And then there's the startling reveal at the end of the novella, in which we discover - spoiler alert - that Hamlet's father was gay, and that this made him a terrible king. And his ghost was actually a demonic liar that misled Hamlet as to his cause of death. Claudius didn't kill Hamlet's dad after all - instead, it was Horatio, who was taking revenge on Hamlet's dad for molesting him as a little boy. Hamlet's dad also molested Laertes, and Rosencrantz, and Guildenstern, and turned all four of them gay in the process. (Oh, and in the end, Hamlet goes to Hell for all the harm he's caused, where his gay dad will molest him for the rest of eternity.)

From this review on io9.

Oh, wow. That's...pretty impressive.

I still remember his tie-in novel for Shadow Complex, "Empire." Early in the book, when discussing the possibility of a second American civil war, one "wise" character suggests that the war will not be between the Left and the Right, but between "those who want war and those who don't" (paraphrasing). The former group, it turns out, IS the Left, though it turns out that it was actually manipulated by the Center to bring down the Right. Which is, according to OSC, the noble (but humble!) ideological master race that encapsulates all decent and normal people. Or something. The political agenda was quite entertainingly transparent. Though apparently not as much as Hamlet's Father. Now that sounds like a real piece of work.

Rogue 09:

Loki_The_Good:

Except for the part where that's wrong. The people don't have to respect someone's free speech to the extent that it interferes with their own. Why is Card allowed to speak out and act against homosexuals while I'm not allowed to speak out and act for homosexual rights. Why must I be forced to support someone who will donate money to groups I find abhorrent in the name of free speech? By giving him unfettered rights to free speech you deny everyone who disagrees and that isn't what freedom of speech was meant.

Even the founder of the term freedom of speech, John Stewart Mill, said that society had the right to act against, educate and influence others who disagree. Freedom of speech is only against institutionalizing laws that would prevent the free expression of thoughts ideas and beliefs. Outside the legal realm it's fair play because freedom of speech works both ways. It amazes me how many people latch on to this concept without understanding it. Society has a right to call someone an a - hole and have nothing to do with them they just can't jail them for it.

I'm afraid that you didn't understand my posting, good sir. I never said anywhere in my post that you shouldn't speak out for gay rights. Please review my initial post again! I never said that nobody should try to contradict, educate, or try to influence Mr. Card. I am against people trying to ruin a man's career because they don't agree with his personal viewpoints. Speak! I encourage it! Good arguments are the basis of a strong society. If you're just going to attack, vilify, and condemn the man I'm afraid that you've got free speech all wrong. We should be encouraging people to contemplate all ideas, especially the ones they disagree with. Else we might not fully interpret their position and go off them when their original ideas have nothing to do with what is perceived... kind of like you did with my posting!

No I did and it's still wrong. If Orsen Scott Card is free to say he doesn't want gays married in his church then the flip side is that I should be able to say I don't think Card should write for one of my favorite super heroes. He has his reasons and I have mine which is I don't want to have to chose between supporting anti gay groups and supporting Superman.I can't ask the government to arrest him I can inform the company he works for I will have nothing to do with anything he produces and their are plenty of others who agree just as he has the right to do the same with priests and others who disagree.

You say I'm vilifying him but he's vilifying a whole group of people; saying that their relationships will destroy society. So by your argument he should have the right to say what he said in the first place. He shouldn't have the right to support those groups because they vilify others for their beliefs that love should be free to be chosen between two people regardless of gender. This is the fallacy of this fence sitting attitude to free speech which is what you are defending is equivalent to what you are defending it against.

So I'm afraid it's you who doesn't understand freedom of speech. Their are plenty of beliefs that society finds abhorrent that people must be able to decry. Freedom of speech doesn't prohibit morality or ones ability to act in that morality. It is in itself a statement of morality one that would deny the government the ability to legislate against acts of speech. Slavery, segregation (of which this is a form), third world labor, women's rights society has formed opinions of them and those who disagree are ostracized socially in many cases. They are shifts in our society that defines who they are. You say we should be able to contemplate all ideas, and we should, but we already have in this case.

This is another fault in your thinking. If all we can do is debate because freedom of speech prevents us from acting on the conclusions of our debate we will never be able to progress as a people. Society is allowed to say something is wrong. Freedom of speech insures that someone has the right to reopen the argument to make a new possibly stronger case but if that argument fails then they are not immune to the repercussions. If I was to make repeated blog posts on the moral duty of developers to give up their wares to piracy, they have every right not to hire me if they are not persuaded because my beliefs puts them at risk. Likewise, if someone takes a morally reprehensible (to me and others) stand and I have the right to say I will not purchase that product. I will not contribute to it and I find it offensive that a character who's central core is a morality of equality would be represented by such a person and should not be.

Freedom of speech means the government cannot silence anyone. It applies only to the government. If you think I am wrong try getting a left wing show put on Fox news. It's their station and they are allowed to hire who they want and if I am not in keeping with their message. Am I being silenced? Yes, to some extent as I cannot communicate my beliefs to the viewership of Fox news, but they are not obligated to do so. Hell if "attack, vilify, and condemn" are things that are against freedom of speech you would have to shut down most of the entertainment news industry. So no not misrepresenting you at all. I understand what you are saying. It sounds enlightened but it's not. What you propose leads not to the promotion of freedom of speech but to it's repression. The reason freedom of speech is legislative is that attempts to apply it outside of the law inevitably stifles one persons freedom of speech in favor for another.

I kind of wish actors, authors and people in the entertainment industry would keep their opinions to themselves sometimes. I didn't know Orson Scott Card felt that way. I liked his book too..

Loki_The_Good:

Snipped for time. His arguments (mostly unedited) can be found below.

It appears that you are a strong supporter to add the "Freedom of Hearing whatever you want despite what was actually said" Amendment into the Constitution. Let me break down each of your arguments (and areas where you are speaking for me) to point out their errors since you cannot seem to come away from a sentence without interpreting it to fit the needs of your whims. Your grammar is suspect, so you may want to take some classes at a local learning annex so that you don't continue to read things incorrectly.

"If Orsen Scott Card is free to say he doesn't want gays married in his church then the flip side is that I should be able to say I don't think Card should write for one of my favorite super heroes. He has his reasons and I have mine which is I don't want to have to chose between supporting anti gay groups and supporting Superman." - Your reasons for not wanting him to write a Superman story have nothing to do with his ability to wright, but his personal beliefs. His reasons for not wanting gay marriage notwithstanding, you've failed to provide a single argument that his continuing to write will damage Superman, the gay community, or any other group. I would liken your attitude to those who would refuse to read books written by black people or women in our earlier history. Your own prejudices (whether you believe you are on the side of right or not) will have you judge a person, not on the content of their work, but by your preconceived notions of their being. I do not see how reading a comic written by this man will shift power to either side of this debate, and is therefore illogical to use as a basis of reasoning.

"I can't ask the government to arrest him I can inform the company he works for I will have nothing to do with anything he produces and their are plenty of others who agree just as he has the right to do the same with priests and others who disagree." - ??? I'm sure that somewhere in there is a point itching to get out, but I'm afraid its written in a manner that makes it incomprehensible to me. Rather than trying to interpret (something that I'm hoping you'll stop doing to mine), I'll just ask that you restate with punctuation.

"You say I'm vilifying him but he's vilifying a whole group of people; saying that their relationships will destroy society. So by your argument he should have the right to say what he said in the first place. He shouldn't have the right to support those groups because they vilify others for their beliefs that love should be free to be chosen between two people regardless of gender. This is the fallacy of this fence sitting attitude to free speech which is what you are defending is equivalent to what you are defending it against." - Seriously Guy? What is this supposed to mean? I'm sure that some passion in the moment contributed to this, but try reading it out loud to see if its going to work. Again, I'm not saying you can not disagree with him. Never said that. Ever. I said that a boycott of the comic is a mob mentality and should be discouraged. Feel free to argue with him until you're both blue in the face. Well... maybe not you. I'm sure your heart is in the right place, but your eloquence is not a factor in your favor. Basically: He should be able to say what he wants without repercussions (except for the specific instances mentioned in my previous posts) and you should be able to say what you want without repercussions. Very easy, very simple.

"So I'm afraid it's you who doesn't understand freedom of speech. Their are plenty of beliefs that society finds abhorrent that people must be able to decry... blah blah blah" - Again, never said that you couldn't speak out. In fact, I encouraged it. Please read what I wrote, not what you think I wrote.

"This is another fault in your thinking. If all we can do is debate because freedom of speech prevents us from acting on the conclusions of our debate we will never be able to progress as a people. Society is allowed to say something is wrong. Freedom of speech insures that someone has the right to reopen the argument to make a new possibly stronger case but if that argument fails then they are not immune to the repercussions. - Yeah, society is allowed to say something is wrong. Its called voting. Both sides plead their case and, depending on who had the most compelling argument, the people vote on what is to pass to law. This is not just sitting around and debating. That is just the prelude to the vote... the action which we take as responsible citizens. The problem that I'm having with your argument is the "if that argument fails then they are not immune to the repercussions" portion. Believe me, we do not want to become a society that begins to punish people because their ideas don't fit the current trend. That sets the stage to far to many tragedies in human history. Please... I'm practically begging you at this point... read what I wrote rather than just tell me what you think I believe.

"Freedom of speech means the government cannot silence anyone. It applies only to the government. -Comment that has nothing to do our debate - So no not misrepresenting you at all. I understand what you are saying. It sounds enlightened but it's not. What you propose leads not to the promotion of freedom of speech but to it's repression. The reason freedom of speech is legislative is that attempts to apply it outside of the law inevitably stifles one persons freedom of speech in favor for another." - The Constitution is a document that expressly defines the boundaries to which it can operate, but it is not expressly for the Government. The Constitution is a document for all of mankind to behold and extol. Its not just a document on who we should be treated by a Governing body, but how we should treat one another and how we would hope to be treated. I would take you back to Lincoln who said that our Government was of the people, by the people, for the people. If we do not live by the very principals that shaped our nation, how can we expect our politicians to do so? Our government is a democracy... it is the very extension of the citizens within its borders. More than anywhere else on the planet it is imperative that we honor each others opinions and not start throwing stones whenever someone with an opposing viewpoint comes into your vision.

You've continually implied that I'm saying we don't disagree because its their freedom of speech which is not at all what I said (and I've explained to you multiple times). Get into an argument. Tell them you think they're wrong and tell them why. That's what we're doing now and its why our country is great! Trying to hurt someone because you disagree with them is not alright though. It sparks the very embers of hate and bigotry that you oppose. Convince people of your points by articulating to them your views, and hope that they can do the same. You're not going to change everyone's minds, but that doesn't matter. What matters is that you listen, refute what points you can, and hope that you make an impression. Then its just up to the votes. Yes, you clearly misunderstood my points. Yes, you misrepresented my points by trying to turn them into something else. Hopefully you can now understand what I'm telling you and come away with something more out of this.

(Please note that the Spoiler areas are just brief 'Anger venting' towards the guy after doing some reading into some of his 'Opinions', and can just be overly ignored)

I'm entirely supportive of Homosexuality as having the same rights as anyone else. But that also creates a problem, since if we want to give equal rights to everyone, than we HAVE to tolerate assholes like this guy.

If he puts the words "Superman hates faggots!" on the front page, then I'd be grabbing my pitchfork and torch and joining the mob to go kill the monster. However if he keeps his arguably personal belief's to himself and doesn't let it impact his actual work, then YES he should fully be allowed to be a writer for the comic.

Because overall if we expect everyone to have freedom of speech and belief than YES that unfortunately means we have to tolerate the assholes too. But there is a line that should NOT be crossed, and if he tries to cross that line by pushing his own personal (and/or ignorant) beliefs onto someone else, THEN we should try and stop the guy.

Which overall is the double-edged sword that is Democracy and Human Rights, if you give freedom and privileges to one group, you kinda have to give those same rights to the rest. Which is unfortunate that we're still working on getting that part down.

Rogue 09:

I'm sorry but being anti-gay or campaigning against gay marriage does not make one morally wrong. To have this be morally wrong, it would mean that people who were gay / supported gay marriage and the like were morally right. However, the issue is that the government won't let two people be recognized as married. That doesn't mean that they can't be gay, the government won't start killing those groups off, and society won't change a damn bit.

Except he supports group who want being gay and having homosexual sex criminalised, and he's fully aware of these agendas and supports them.

He wants people who love others of the same gender to be treated and punished as criminals. I think that's pretty horrible however you look at it

Typical liberal intolerance of dissent. I mean, who could ever agree with OSC's opinion on this, the monsters. What's that? Bill Clinton? Check. The majority of California? Check. Obama? Check only when he is RUNNING for office, he doesn't need to lie about it anymore after. The majority of US citizens? Check if you have to courage to poll it. But you know, lib's don't let anything like facts get in the way of their opinions.

wait Orson Scott Card is a person? i always thought that was some sort of massive conglomerate greeting card company.

Friv:
[

Your position is not a middle ground, it is one side of a binary choice: Do you think that gays are people? Y/N?

You have chosen No. The suggestion that gays should be registered is, in fact, wildly more right-wind and abhorrent than what the vast majority of people opposed to gay marriage are willing to commit to. Don't delude yourself by placing yourself in the middle of the scale.

For centuries, people argued that black people were less deserving of rights than whites. They said blacks committed more crimes, that they couldn't be trusted to run their own lives.

For centuries, people said that Jews were not deserving of rights, that they shouldn't be allowed to settle in non-Jewish parts of town or own property, that they needed to be registered by the government.

This is no different from that.

I'm not going to de-rail the thread by getting into a serious arguement here. But everything your saying is your own opinion and projection, based on a lot of bad information, and of course other opinions. Your basic logic is "I believe this, so thus I also believe this, and it becomes a fact" that's not correct.

Without addressing the issue directly understand that almost everything you mention is still an issue today. One of the biggest issues throughout society right now is that of profiling, which can include a lot of things, with race being something you can add into a profile. We live in a world where socilogy and the abillity to predict the behavior of people as groups is an accepted science. It's exploited regularly by advertising and marketing who directly target groups of people based on things like race/subculture/etc... and make millions of dollars by exploiting them sociologically through their behaviors. It's gotten to the point where it works so well that there are entire movements of people (a minority prescence so far) that want to see it more tightly regulated because it basically amounts to being able to use the abillity to predict people as groups to tell them a lie their are going to believe in order to sell a product.

This leads to questions of course about whether the goverment should be able to use the same, basic, routinely proven knowlege, in taking action against criminals, criminal behaviors, and simply just starting a chain of evidence when looking into something (ie, why we decide to investigate this person as opposed to the other people involved). Perhaps the biggest "practical" issue here has to do with profiling Muslims. After all it's Muslims who are the ones involved in a terrorism crusade against the western world, trying to blow up planes, attacking embassies over movie trailers, and similar things. When it comes to Airline security at least for the moment that's what we're concerned about, yet rather than being able to pick out the more likely security risks, an entire game has to be played of harassing everyone despite common sense to make a symbolic point and not be seen selectively picking out a group of people.

The point here being that it's pretty obvious what side your on, what you believe, and how TO YOU it's a binary equasion. That's not how it is though, and it's why your pretty much lumped in with the left wingers/liberals and of course this kind of fanatical committment to "I am right in an absolutist sense" is why the country remains divided. Take this away from one issue, and apply it to well... dozens of things, and you see why things are so totally F@cked up. To be blunt with you when it comes to gay rights, on the right wing side of things it's not even a question of "are they human" turning it into a binary equasion. It's a matter of traditional morality as it's been practiced until very recently defining this as wrong... period. There isn't even a binary question to add onto this.

You also incidently illustrate my point by spelling out the logic that makes you one of the extremist poles, and pretty much arrive at exactly where I mentioned. The true middle ground is lumped into "the other side" by either pole. You argue that I'm a right winger bigot by not beleiving in complete acceptance (whatever my reasons might be), the right wing considers me an extremist liberal hippy because I'm not after a complete and unconditional ban.

Really you said very little that wasn't inflammatory rhetoric, which is based on the alleged resolution of issues that were never actually resolved and also continue along parallel discussions. I mean even when it comes to property ownership there are issues about ethnic monopolies, that get heavily involved whenever discussions of say "Chinatown districts" and other ethic areas occur. The basic idea that someone who is say Chinese will only sell or long-term lease to someone who is Chinese as opposed to putting a property on the market as hey are supposd to. Some white/black/hispanic/whatever guy not being able to get it, even if they are there first, or with the best offer. A behavior which incidently happens to be illegal, but generally isn't enforced on minorities due to liberal pressures. If some white guy refuses to sell to an American minority that's an issue, a minority refuses to sell outside of their minority and that's not viewed the same way, and becomes a major issue. Jews still come up in these discussions but they are not alone, and yes, there are a lot of efforts to bust up ethnic property monopolies. The problem actually becomes more touchy when you wind up with religion and unadapted "closed cultures". Jews for example do very much operate under a doctine of superiority as "god's chosen people", as do a lot of other groups. They of course aren't alone here, and the justifications for this kind of doctrine aren't always religious either. There have been other issues about wanting to break that up as well, and prohibit religions, even minority ones, that include any kind of doctrine which can be taken as promoting superiority or inferiority... which needless to say hadn't gone too far, but again it's another
issue that's out there. The point being that a lot of the things you believe, and consider to have been "resolved" have not been, and continue on within society.

Lazy:

LysanderNemoinis:
I for one, am not buying BioShock Infinite or SpecOps: The Line because I don't like what the games espouse. Pure and simple. The anti-Americanism there is as offensive to me as what Card says to some of you.

Criticizing certain aspects of American culture does not equal anti-Americanism.

Patriotism is a blindfold used by the Elite to protect their own interest.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7nyH_7afSM8

Rogue 09:

snip

Cherry picking quotes out of context and then accusing me of misrepresenting what you are saying is kind of low.

Rogue 09:

"So I'm afraid it's you who doesn't understand freedom of speech. Their are plenty of beliefs that society finds abhorrent that people must be able to decry... blah blah blah" - Again, never said that you couldn't speak out. In fact, I encouraged it. Please read what I wrote, not what you think I wrote.

I'm not talking about speaking out I'm talking about acting out. It's curious you blah blah blahed over examples that point not to debate but to action which clarifies this point. These practices were stopped, the arguments had been made, society made a judgement and moved on. Speech doesn't end with words but with action otherwise nothing gets done so no simply "speaking out" is not enough. Also see right to protest.

Rogue 09:

Your reasons for not wanting him to write a Superman story have nothing to do with his ability to wright, but his personal beliefs. His reasons for not wanting gay marriage notwithstanding, you've failed to provide a single argument that his continuing to write will damage Superman, the gay community, or any other group. I would liken your attitude to those who would refuse to read books written by black people or women in our earlier history. Your own prejudices (whether you believe you are on the side of right or not) will have you judge a person, not on the content of their work, but by your preconceived notions of their being. I do not see how reading a comic written by this man will shift power to either side of this debate, and is therefore illogical to use as a basis of reasoning.

Actually it has nothing to do with what he writes but what he does with the revenue from writing. He is well documented in supporting anti gay groups. This is not hidden information. Although his writing itself may or may not contain homophobic messages the income gained from it does. Therefore supporting his work indirectly contributes to supporting those groups. The part where you liken me to people who refused to read books written by black people and women is not only one hell of a straw man but insulting to boot. I'm not judging him for belonging to a group by applying false stereotypes I am judging him on his personal character and history. This is literally the exact opposite of what you accuse me of, but nice sideways attempt to make it look on par with racism and sexism. Stay classy.

Rogue 09:

"I can't ask the government to arrest him I can inform the company he works for I will have nothing to do with anything he produces and their are plenty of others who agree just as he has the right to do the same with priests and others who disagree." - ??? I'm sure that somewhere in there is a point itching to get out, but I'm afraid its written in a manner that makes it incomprehensible to me. Rather than trying to interpret (something that I'm hoping you'll stop doing to mine), I'll just ask that you restate with punctuation.

You right I forgot "with him" at the end of the sentence. Oops mistype better discredit the whole argument. You may think stuff like this helps your argument but resorting to these kinds of tangential attacks just makes your position weaker. Let me spell this out for you. He and the groups he supports bullies churches into denying gay marriage. In other words the beliefs you would have me stand back and allow (or simply yap at an internet form or dismissed email) end in the same actions on his side. Speech doesn't end in speech but in action otherwise what is the point?

Rogue 09:

"Freedom of speech means the government cannot silence anyone. It applies only to the government. -Comment that has nothing to do our debate - So no not misrepresenting you at all. I understand what you are saying. It sounds enlightened but it's not. What you propose leads not to the promotion of freedom of speech but to it's repression. The reason freedom of speech is legislative is that attempts to apply it outside of the law inevitably stifles one persons freedom of speech in favor for another." - The Constitution is a document that expressly defines the boundaries to which it can operate, but it is not expressly for the Government. The Constitution is a document for all of mankind to behold and extol. Its not just a document on who we should be treated by a Governing body, but how we should treat one another and how we would hope to be treated. I would take you back to Lincoln who said that our Government was of the people, by the people, for the people. If we do not live by the very principals that shaped our nation, how can we expect our politicians to do so? Our government is a democracy... it is the very extension of the citizens within its borders. More than anywhere else on the planet it is imperative that we honor each others opinions and not start throwing stones whenever someone with an opposing viewpoint comes into your vision

While it's true the basic principals of the constitution embody a larger moral prerogative, that prerogative is multifaceted and the importance and interpretation of each moral obligation can very from person to person. It is only hard law in the realm of government. For it to be otherwise would end up infringing on peoples right to free speech. I gave numerous examples of places where people have every right to inhibit my free speech. This is because when it comes to personal interaction on a daily basis instances come up where it is impossible not to interfere with someone else's speech and maintain your own. It is not an either or situation but a scale. Either or applies to the law what the government, can and cannot prevent. Human interaction is far more nebulous. Card doesn't want gays married is his church. I don't want Card writing for Superman and then using the capital raised on a character that embodies equality and justice to fund anti gay organizations. If he wants to speak fine. He can say what he wants in whatever venue he can. However, I can choose to have nothing to do with it and convince others to do the same. I can ask DC not to inadvertently support this practice. This isn't some hypothetical world of arguments and logic. Beliefs have consequences when put into action and there are plenty of people hurt because of Card and his ilk. I would not ask for him to be fired because of his beliefs but because of the actions he takes because of those beliefs. That is not protected by freedom of speech or you eventually reach a point where anyone is justified in doing anything. No one acts out of accord with their beliefs. We are rational beings. Every action is supported by a belief but not every action should be allowed. This is the line between what definitively falls into something that should be protected by freedom of speech and what does not. If you can't understand this I really can't help you.

Therumancer:
The point being that a lot of the things you believe, and consider to have been "resolved" have not been, and continue on within society.

I don't think that they've been resolved. But just because an issue hasn't been resolved doesn't mean that it does not have a correct answer.

War hasn't been resolved either, but would you argue that one camp believes that war is a good thing? Hell, we haven't even resolved sexism, and it's had a hundred-year head start. I'm not saying that it's resolved. I'm saying that it bloody well should get resolved, and people like you are the ones standing in the way by hurting innocent people for literally no reason at all beyond inertia.

And let me be perfectly clear. When you argue that my friends and family should be forced to register their existence with the government for the crime of not liking the same person as you, it takes a pretty big pair of blinders to suggest that you are offering either a reasonable compromise OR a right-wing one. You want to give the government complete control over someone's personal choices - that is about as anti-right wing as it gets. And seeing as no state in your country requires that, and it's been ten years since any state in the United States has believed that homosexuality is illegal, you are in fact significantly far away from the "middle ground", which is currently hovering at "Live and Let Live, but don't give them full rights".

(And incidentally, my country has had legal gay marriage for eight years, and we have somehow avoided transforming into a den of pedophilia and broken marriages.)

Before I start my rebuttal, I would like to thank you and express my appreciation for the work you put into your post below. It is a lot easier to understand than your previous posts as it is in full sentences with understandable grammar.

Now to the show:

Loki_The_Good:

Cherry picking quotes out of context and then accusing me of misrepresenting what you are saying is kind of low.

You were not cherry picked. I directly quoted you each time and made an exact response to what you said. You inserted words into my mouth, changed my arguments to fit your needs, and ignored any points I made. I edited one quote from you (discussed further below) by just adding "blah blah blah" to represent a tangent in another direction that did not represent this debate. I also informed any viewers by making note that your comments were below and mostly unedited (except for said "blahs"). I'm afraid that you have no room to criticize me, sir. I've been nothing but honest and forthright in this conversation.

Loki_The_Good:

I'm not talking about speaking out I'm talking about acting out. It's curious you blah blah blahed over examples that point not to debate but to action which clarifies this point. These practices were stopped, the arguments had been made, society made a judgement and moved on. Speech doesn't end with words but with action otherwise nothing gets done so no simply "speaking out" is not enough. Also see right to protest.

You want a response to the "blahs" so badly? Fair enough. You said (in full) "So I'm afraid it's you who doesn't understand freedom of speech. Their are plenty of beliefs that society finds abhorrent that people must be able to decry. Freedom of speech doesn't prohibit morality or ones ability to act in that morality. It is in itself a statement of morality one that would deny the government the ability to legislate against acts of speech. Slavery, segregation (of which this is a form), third world labor, women's rights society has formed opinions of them and those who disagree are ostracized socially in many cases. They are shifts in our society that defines who they are. You say we should be able to contemplate all ideas, and we should, but we already have in this case."

A large reason that this was skipped over is it was more of you putting words in my mouth. Nowhere did I say that people must give up morality for the sake of the freedom of speech. Nowhere did I say that society has come to general conclusions about the various issues you named above. Nor did I say that we're not supposed to do anything about those issues. I'm saying that we make decisions in our society by voting. Every one of the issues that you described have laws against them. You referenced the "right to protest" above, and you say it like I'm against it. For the 100th time, I'm fine with protesting. I'm not fine with mob justice. There is a big difference in speaking out against and action or ideal and threatening the person. Make no mistake: Whether you are threatening his person, his property, or his career... you are threatening him. I'm not really sure how I need to say it in order for you to comprehend what I'm saying, but I have no shortage of time on my hands and my keyboard is ready to go.

Loki_The_Good:

Actually it has nothing to do with what he writes but what he does with the revenue from writing. He is well documented in supporting anti gay groups. This is not hidden information. Although his writing itself may or may not contain homophobic messages the income gained from it does. Therefore supporting his work indirectly contributes to supporting those groups. The part where you liken me to people who refused to read books written by black people and women is not only one hell of a straw man but insulting to boot. I'm not judging him for belonging to a group by applying false stereotypes I am judging him on his personal character and history. This is literally the exact opposite of what you accuse me of, but nice sideways attempt to make it look on par with racism and sexism. Stay classy.

This is not a straw man, this is a comparison (and a rather apt one at that). Step back for just a moment and look at the real comparisons. In both cases you are judging a writer and refusing to purchase their work because they belong to a group which you find distasteful. You hide behind your hate and malice by saying that you're not applying "false stereotypes", but "judging him on his personal character and history. Bigotry is bigotry, and it makes no difference if you're against a religion, race, sex, or personal ideal. The one thing that I would say that makes Card better than you is that he is contributing funds to finance a legal process. Whether it is going to go anywhere doesn't matter. The man is attempting to make change he believes in by going through the right channels to push his ideas, where as some on this posting board are trying to attack the man financially or make him lose his job. Whether you want to admit it or not, what you are doing is right on par with what Mr. Card is doing... as well as any sexism or racism. I would like to make the same request of you: Stay Classy.

Loki_The_Good:

Original Quote
"I can't ask the government to arrest him I can inform the company he works for I will have nothing to do with anything he produces and their are plenty of others who agree just as he has the right to do the same with priests and others who disagree."

You right I forgot "with him" at the end of the sentence. Oops mistype better discredit the whole argument. You may think stuff like this helps your argument but resorting to these kinds of tangential attacks just makes your position weaker. Let me spell this out for you. He and the groups he supports bullies churches into denying gay marriage. In other words the beliefs you would have me stand back and allow (or simply yap at an internet form or dismissed email) end in the same actions on his side. Speech doesn't end in speech but in action otherwise what is the point?

So... your full quote would be "I can't ask the government to arrest him I can inform the company he works for I will have nothing to do with anything he produces and their are plenty of others who agree just as he has the right to do the same with priests and others who disagree with him". Alright, we'll try this again. Re-read it and try adding punctuation so I can understand you. This is not a ploy or me being snarky. I have no idea what you are trying to say here. That cannot all be one sentence. He has the right to tell priests that he's not going to have anything to do with what they produce? Last time I checked, priests weren't handing out a lot of pro-gay literature. Also, why would you want to ask the Government to arrest him? Again, he's not committed any crime. If you think what he's saying should constitute a crime, that would be important information to include in your 100 word sentences. Cool out on the attitude, home-fry. What you said would not be considered a full sentence for an eight year old, so don't jump all over me because you are unable to communicate in the medium required for forums.

Loki_The_Good:

While it's true the basic principals of the constitution embody a larger moral prerogative, that prerogative is multifaceted and the importance and interpretation of each moral obligation can very from person to person. It is only hard law in the realm of government. For it to be otherwise would end up infringing on peoples right to free speech. I gave numerous examples of places where people have every right to inhibit my free speech. This is because when it comes to personal interaction on a daily basis instances come up where it is impossible not to interfere with someone else's speech and maintain your own. It is not an either or situation but a scale. Either or applies to the law what the government, can and cannot prevent. Human interaction is far more nebulous. Card doesn't want gays married is his church. I don't want Card writing for Superman and then using the capital raised on a character that embodies equality and justice to fund anti gay organizations. If he wants to speak fine. He can say what he wants in whatever venue he can. However, I can choose to have nothing to do with it and convince others to do the same. I can ask DC not to inadvertently support this practice. This isn't some hypothetical world of arguments and logic. Beliefs have consequences when put into action and there are plenty of people hurt because of Card and his ilk. I would not ask for him to be fired because of his beliefs but because of the actions he takes because of those beliefs. That is not protected by freedom of speech or you eventually reach a point where anyone is justified in doing anything. No one acts out of accord with their beliefs. We are rational beings. Every action is supported by a belief but not every action should be allowed. This is the line between what definitively falls into something that should be protected by freedom of speech and what does not. If you can't understand this I really can't help you.

This one took a long time for me to finally write because I had to choke out all the words that you shoved down my throat again. Your "example" was that you can't speak on Fox News. That has nothing to do with freedom of speech at all, and doesn't fit in anywhere with our argument. To be valid, DC would have to be denying Mr. Card the right to work on Superman because of his beliefs... which isn't the case. Freedom of speech doesn't mean that you get to interrupt businesses, and I never said that it was. Again, I'm talking about a fundamental distinction between speaking out against Mr. Cards ideas and an organized retaliation because of those ideas.

You're also confusing someone's ideals with their person. For all you know, the guy is adopting puppies to give them good homes, funding homeless shelters, and running a day care for underprivileged youth in his off hours. None of this would matter to you in the equation of "Good guy v. Bad guy" because you made up your mind about him because of one belief he has and he funds. He doesn't rape, murder, or burn people on the stake. He doesn't round up a posse and cut off their digit fingers to mark them for future abuse. You say that its not his beliefs, but his actions that upset you... but I've not seen any indication that he has ever committed any wrong action. He disagrees with legislation on the ballet and is using his money and voice to try to support his side of the argument. It's a noble, if misguided, end. He's also not alone. From every poll I've seem over half of Americans are against gay weddings, and that number would drastically rise if you were to poll the whole planet.

But "Beliefs have consequences when put into action..."? That sounds more like an excuse to justify a Holy War than someone simply championing the cause of gay rights. You continue to show a lack of understanding of what the words "Freedom of Speech" mean. It means that anyone can have any belief, no matter how ludicrous, and share that belief with the people without fear of reprisal. But it seems that when you don't like that person's belief, then you get mad. You decide that its your job to have your little revenge on Mr. Card... find someway to get even. To punish him for his beliefs.

That is horrifying to me. You start down this road with your little boycotts on goods and services, but if you had the power you would lock the man up and throw away the key. I've gone from thinking that you were a misguided youth on the fast track of "political correctness" to seeing that you represent a danger to the fundamental beliefs to which our society clings. And if you can't understand that, I'm not sure that there is any help for you.

Are Mr. Card's beliefs incorrect? I certainly think so. However, his actions put him on a higher pedestal that you've been able to reach thus far.

Rogue 09:

But "Beliefs have consequences when put into action..."? That sounds more like an excuse to justify a Holy War than someone simply championing the cause of gay rights. You continue to show a lack of understanding of what the words "Freedom of Speech" mean. It means that anyone can have any belief, no matter how ludicrous, and share that belief with the people without fear of reprisal. But it seems that when you don't like that person's belief, then you get mad. You decide that its your job to have your little revenge on Mr. Card... find someway to get even. To punish him for his beliefs.

Ok, I have to stop you right there. The 1st Amendment, the one in which we have Freedom of Speech, is as follows: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Nowhere in there does it say that someone can hold or express any belief without fear of reprisals. It says that the GOVERNMENT cannot prohibit free expression. Of course there can be reprisals by the public at large, what you're saying is ridiculous. Everyone has to take responsibility for their words and actions, and while they can express those thoughts freely, there should be no surprise if someone disagrees. And expresses that disagreement. OSC is perfectly free to spend his money on whatever he wants, and if he spends it legally oppressing a section of the populace, then he can expect a reprisal. In this case, a boycott of his works so that less money goes towards his beliefs as well as informing DC that they will receive less money if they continue to employ Mr. Card. Now, does DC Comics have to listen? No, they can do what they want, but that does not make the request any less valid.

JaredXE:

Ok, I have to stop you right there. The 1st Amendment, the one in which we have Freedom of Speech, is as follows: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Nowhere in there does it say that someone can hold or express any belief without fear of reprisals. It says that the GOVERNMENT cannot prohibit free expression. Of course there can be reprisals by the public at large, what you're saying is ridiculous. Everyone has to take responsibility for their words and actions, and while they can express those thoughts freely, there should be no surprise if someone disagrees. And expresses that disagreement. OSC is perfectly free to spend his money on whatever he wants, and if he spends it legally oppressing a section of the populace, then he can expect a reprisal. In this case, a boycott of his works so that less money goes towards his beliefs as well as informing DC that they will receive less money if they continue to employ Mr. Card. Now, does DC Comics have to listen? No, they can do what they want, but that does not make the request any less valid.

You're correct... sort of. This is why I used the words "Freedom of speech" and not "The 1st Amendment". The first Amendment starts out with the protection of speech from the government, this is correct. However, its more basically what is to be considered a basic human right, as outlined in article 19 of Universal Declaration of Human Rights. I was trying not to limit the conversation so it just concerned those who were American citizens, but the inalienable rights of all people.

And again, I have no problem with people disagreeing. That is expected and appropriate, as I've stated many times in my discussion with Loki. My problem is with the fact that we begin to take steps to punish or hurt people for having a belief because its unpopular, we're no better than those who would arrest MLK JR or Rosa Parks. Hope I cleared up my point of view for you, I know I also discussed the 1st Amendment with Loki as well!

Rogue 09:

And again, I have no problem with people disagreeing. That is expected and appropriate, as I've stated many times in my discussion with Loki. My problem is with the fact that we begin to take steps to punish or hurt people for having a belief because its unpopular, we're no better than those who would arrest MLK JR or Rosa Parks. Hope I cleared up my point of view for you, I know I also discussed the 1st Amendment with Loki as well!

Ahh, but in the case of MLK or Mrs. Parks, that would be government infringing upon free speech. Besides, wasn't MLK's big thing boycotting in order to fight against ideas and beliefs that he found abhorrent? Now, in what way is this different than boycotting Orson Scott Card because of his beliefs and ideas that we disagree with?

How nice that retailers and artists have saved the consumers from having to decide on whether or not to buy Card's work. Clearly they couldn't be left with their own decision on whether or not to buy.

This is exactly what America need: More corporatism. Companies using their resources and bargaining power to vote with people's wallets for them is just so much more more convenient. Hell, they've even gone through the trouble of setting up Super PAC's, to ensure that the best candidates get all the exposure, so nobody need be bothered with the less wholesome choices.

Rock on, corporatist censorship!

Imperator_DK:
How nice that retailers and artists have saved the consumers from having to decide on whether or not to buy Card's work. Clearly they couldn't be left with their own decision on whether or not to buy.

This is exactly what America need: More corporatism. Companies using their resources and bargaining power to vote with people's wallets for them is just so much more more convenient. Hell, they've even gone through the trouble of setting up Super PAC's, to ensure that the best candidates get all the exposure, so nobody need be bothered with the less wholesome choices.

Rock on, corporatist censorship!

Ummm, retailers have done nothing of the sort. It was just the one artist choosing not to work with Card. DC hasn't unhired Card or anything, they even said they are finding a new artist to work with him.

Please read before ranting, thanks!

JaredXE:
...
Ummm, retailers have done nothing of the sort. It was just the one artist choosing not to work with Card. DC hasn't unhired Card or anything, they even said they are finding a new artist to work with him.

Please read before ranting, thanks!

Let's read then, shall we?

Original article:
DC's announcement of his participation last month went over about as well as you'd expect, as fans and retailers called for boycotts of the book...[my highlight]

In fact, let's read up some more on this whole scenario while we're at it.

Imperator_DK:

JaredXE:
...
Ummm, retailers have done nothing of the sort. It was just the one artist choosing not to work with Card. DC hasn't unhired Card or anything, they even said they are finding a new artist to work with him.

Please read before ranting, thanks!

Let's read then, shall we?

Original article:
DC's announcement of his participation last month went over about as well as you'd expect, as fans and retailers called for boycotts of the book...[my highlight]

In fact, let's read up some more on this whole scenario while we're at it.

So, a comic store, a Privately-owned Business, decides not to stock the comic, and you cry corporate censorship? DC never said they fired Card, or that his story wasn't going to be heard. If the comic gets made, it will still be distributed, just not at that guys' place of business. A person can always shop elsewhere or just order it online from DC.

As content creators we steadfastly support freedom of expression, however the personal views of individuals associated with DC Comics are just that - personal views - and not those of the company itself

Right now, DC isn't censoring anybody.

DVS BSTrD:
Keep Sprouse, and make OSC work on Green Lantern instead :P

Can we make him work on the movie series, instead?

Imperator_DK:
How nice that retailers and artists have saved the consumers from having to decide on whether or not to buy Card's work. Clearly they couldn't be left with their own decision on whether or not to buy.

Yes, instead, we should mandate individuals remain on staff an sell this stuff so that people can choose to buy his work.

In order to offer choice, we must remove choice. Wait....

JaredXE:
...
So, a comic store, a Privately-owned Business, decides not to stock the comic, and you cry corporate censorship? DC never said they fired Card, or that his story wasn't going to be heard. If the comic gets made, it will still be distributed, just not at that guys' place of business. A person can always shop elsewhere or just order it online from DC.

I must have missed the part where a privately owned business wasn't a commercial company.

You can't really say businesses influencing politics is okay in some instances, and not okay in others, depending on whether or not you happen to agree with the view they're promoting.

Zachary Amaranth:
...
Yes, instead, we should mandate individuals remain on staff an sell this stuff so that people can choose to buy his work.

In order to offer choice, we must remove choice. Wait....

No, we should respect his right to deny stocking it, while condemning him for not doing so. Just as one should respect the rights of a comic book store where the owner doesn't want to stock gay comics or hire gay employees due to it being against his ethical beliefs, and (far more strongly) condemn him for doing so.

...except I'm not sure refusing to hire people based on ethical problems with their sexuality is allowed. So obviously the respect for the autonomous rights of a shopkeeper to run his shop however he like, in full accordance with whatever ethical beliefs he might hold, isn't absolute.

Imperator_DK:

JaredXE:
...
So, a comic store, a Privately-owned Business, decides not to stock the comic, and you cry corporate censorship? DC never said they fired Card, or that his story wasn't going to be heard. If the comic gets made, it will still be distributed, just not at that guys' place of business. A person can always shop elsewhere or just order it online from DC.

I must have missed the part where a privately owned business wasn't a commercial company.

You can't really say businesses influencing politics is okay in some instances, and not okay in others, depending on whether or not you happen to agree with the view they're promoting.

Zachary Amaranth:
...
Yes, instead, we should mandate individuals remain on staff an sell this stuff so that people can choose to buy his work.

In order to offer choice, we must remove choice. Wait....

No, we should respect his right to deny stocking it, while condemning him for not doing so. Just as one should respect the rights of a comic book store where the owner doesn't want to stock gay comics or hire gay employees due to it being against his ethical beliefs, and (far more strongly) condemn him for doing so.

...except I'm not sure refusing to hire people based on ethical problems with their sexuality is allowed. So obviously the respect for the autonomous rights of a shopkeeper to run his shop however he like, in full accordance with whatever ethical beliefs he might hold, isn't absolute.

So what you're saying is that nobody has any personal choice in whether or not they can do anything with their own place of business and must support all people and all ideas and beliefs. Because yes, if instead it was a store that was not hiring based on sexuality and discriminating against a group of people, of course there would be anger and boycotts. Just like this store is doing to Card.

EDIT: Also, not hiring someone based off of race or gender or sexuality is illegal, but their own ideas and choices are not. You're born gay, black, woman, whatever. You choose to be a douchebag.

You originally started by spouting off about corporate censorship, but once that got debunked you're now saying that a man can't run his business how he feels? It's called consequences for your actions. If people are pissed at this store owner for not stocking Card, then they can not shop there, just like he can not support Card financially.

This is more to everyone complaining about the boycotts than any one specific person: ACTIONS AND BELIEFS HAVE CONSEQUENCES. Businesses in the South in the 60's that segregated Blacks from White folk lost money due to their racism. THIS IS THE SAME THING. Yes, you are free to spout out that gays are freaks and abominations that harm us all and should never have the same rights as normal people, and I and others have the right to tell you to shut up and not support you in any way. It is only ILLEGAL (in the U.S.) if the Government discriminates and oppresses your free speech. The public is under no such compulsion.

JaredXE:
...
So what you're saying is that nobody has any personal choice in whether or not they can do anything with their own place of business and must support all people and all ideas and beliefs. Because yes, if instead it was a store that was not hiring based on sexuality and discriminating against a group of people, of course there would be anger and boycotts. Just like this store is doing to Card.

Most places, there'd be more than anger and boycotts, in the form of legal sanctions.

And yes, if they're ethical, businesses will stick to conducting business, rather than seeking to influence politics through their money and bargaining leverage. They have and should have the right to do so though, be they comic book store or Super PAC.

EDIT: Also, not hiring someone based off of race or gender or sexuality is illegal, but their own ideas and choices are not. You're born gay, black, woman, whatever. You choose to be a douchebag.

I'm pretty sure refusing to hire a gay person based on that person having also chosen to be in a gay relationship is illegal. For good reason, even if not being single is obviously a choice (...and I think bible thumpers actually only condemn people who choose to "act out" their homosexuality these days). Also, what religion one adheres to is obviously a continuous choice as well, yet it's a protected choice too. So there's hardly a clear cut distinction of relevance to be made.

You originally started by spouting off about corporate censorship, but once that got debunked you're now saying that a man can't run his business how he feels? It's called consequences for your actions. If people are pissed at this store owner for not stocking Card, then they can not shop there, just like he can not support Card financially.

And since I respect the shopkeepers right to not stock Card, that's what it comes down to: Me condemning the shopkeeper for his paternalistic attitude towards consumers/attempting to use his business influence to influence politics.

There are conservative comic book WRITERS that i know of, in fact a few iconic comic characters were invented by fucking nutjobs-- i mean Objectivists, but artists?

Well there is one guy who comes to mind as conservative and having drawn comics before, the problem is he's a complete and utter idiot. Frank Miller. But i'm also fairly certain he hates Superman, so i'll leave the speculation to people who, unlike me, care about comics.
I'll just be over here wanting Frank Miller to suffer for The Spirit and 300.

Imperator_DK:

No, we should respect his right to deny stocking it, while condemning him for not doing so.

Remind me why I'd condemn him for doing so?

Yes, I saw your comparison to refusing to stock gay-centric comics, I quoted this line only because it was the most pertinent. That still doesn't explain why I should give a damn. I mean, yes, I'd have a problem if a store banned gays from employment. That's a discrimination policy in the workplace. But not stocking gay literature? A resounding 'meh.' I don't care what products you stock. And if I did, I'd spend so much more time freaking out over Wal-Mart than any comic company.

Let him stock what he wants. I didn't lose it when I found out Wal-Mart only sports merchandise for certain political parties, or refused to stock certain music, or even age-gated certain books in a good chunk of the country.

And honestly, if you think (note the hypothetical set up here) that comparing sexuality and ideology doesn't count and false equivalence, I'm betting that isn't for any rational reason.

Finally, you're right. Store owners, business owners do not have complete autonomy, but nor do we have complete autonomy even within our own basic rights. I can neither preach for your death nor go out and buy a fully automatic weapon (asterisk), for example. Your right to swing your fist ends at the other guy's face and all that.

And I ask: so what?

Zachary Amaranth:
...
Remind me why I'd condemn him for doing so?

Yes, I saw your comparison to refusing to stock gay-centric comics, I quoted this line only because it was the most pertinent. That still doesn't explain why I should give a damn. I mean, yes, I'd have a problem if a store banned gays from employment. That's a discrimination policy in the workplace. But not stocking gay literature? A resounding 'meh.' I don't care what products you stock. And if I did, I'd spend so much more time freaking out over Wal-Mart than any comic company.

Let him stock what he wants. I didn't lose it when I found out Wal-Mart only sports merchandise for certain political parties, or refused to stock certain music, or even age-gated certain books in a good chunk of the country.

And honestly, if you think (note the hypothetical set up here) that comparing sexuality and ideology doesn't count and false equivalence, I'm betting that isn't for any rational reason.

Finally, you're right. Store owners, business owners do not have complete autonomy, but nor do we have complete autonomy even within our own basic rights. I can neither preach for your death nor go out and buy a fully automatic weapon (asterisk), for example. Your right to swing your fist ends at the other guy's face and all that.

And I ask: so what?

Well, if you don't care about Wal-Mart politicizing its selection, and spending money to influence politics in its favour, then there's no reason for you to condemn this guy.

While I don't want such things outlawed due to respecting their free speech rights, I do take issue with businesses taking on the role of political players though. And hence also takes issue with this guy, however otherwise sympathetic his agenda.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here