Ender's Game Author Asks For Tolerance After Boycott Threat

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 NEXT
 

Living_Brain:
There was a boycott planned?
Oh c'mon people. There's a word for you which I can't remember right now, and it's not a compliment. Why would you care about what he said? There's simply no point.

EDIT: I now see hate coming my way. Oh well. Not gonna retract.

I actually agree with you, art is art! it does not matter what the person does if you enjoy there art enjoy it, all you do by not watching it is to deny yourself, does it really matter if a hate monger gets a bit more money? will it change anything? but for you on a personal level if you miss a great book or movie that changes you! Just imagine if Beethoven was treated the same way for what he did! But no people cared about his music not the man. At the time enjoy the art, let history ruin him.

Bruce:

You are in the fortunate position where your rights are not subject to debate, political will and the vagaries of whether the voting public likes where the economy is going right now. You are in the fortunate position where somebody saying they hate your face and are going to make it illegal for you to walk around with a paper bag over your face will never actually be able to conceivably make it so.

Gay people are not in that position. It is a relatively recent thing that gay marriage has become legal in the US. If you believe that gay marriage being legalised is the end of the battle in the US, may I point you to the nearest abortion clinic? Roe Vs Wade was a long time ago, yet you still see that battle is ongoing.

FYI
I happen to be black american, bisexual, and Mormon.

Trust me, I know what it is to be on the receiving end of intolerance, prejudice, and discrimination.
Thing is, I also recognize that people in this world won't always agree with me as I don't agree with THEM on a great many things. People will always form little groups against things they don't like. Peta doesnt like me eating animals. They will never stop trying to make me stop eating meat. Many people hate religion. They try to reduce religion and even eradicate it from areas of society, at least public ones. They feel it is their right.
But it's also the right of those people to believe what they believe and to act on them.

Is it moral? That's a matter of opinion.

Like I said before, it's really a simple thing. You either believe in true freedom for people to believe whatever they wish or you believe that only one opinion can ever be considered valid on a subject, and often that opinion will only be the one that you share.

I don't think I'm being hyperbolic when I say there are millions and millions of authors out there. Of all beliefs, religious, ignorances, agenda, you name it. They might be invited to the rallies, they might even organize them... But they won't be a headliner like a New York Times Best Seller like Orson Scott Card. They won't shape young minds like Best Selling Author and Professor in Southern Virginia University like Orson Scott Card. In short, unless you have a name and a devoted fan base, you can be any type of writer from Erotica to Children's books... But you're simply not going to have the weight of an Orson Scott Card.

His views matter more than mine because he does have a name. I'm not going to be ignorant enough to think that just because I believe I'm right in my beliefs and I can state them clearly and even eloquently from time to time that I'd be listen to more than some of the 'celebrities' here in the Escapist. Hell, I state a lot of things well and I barely get responded to. But if it was Jim Sterling's name at my heading, people would be chomping at the bit to respond. Any one of the editors of the Escapist. Yahtzee. No Right Answer. People that you 'know' by watching them or reading about them and you'd feel more of a connection to than me. Hell, you might not even want to respond, but you'd sure want to read it over to see what I thought if any one of those names were at my heading besides mine. I'm sure probably only the people who will read this post are those I quote.

That's why the only statement most people can make against Board member of the National Organization for Marriage Orson Scott Card is to affect him financially. I can say whatever to him on the internets, or against his beliefs on the internets and he'll probably never see it. And if he did, he'd laugh. He'd look at my standing, look at his, and wonder why he even bothered wasting his time to read it. And guess what? it worked. This article and his statements proved that he had to listen to some of us.

No one is out to hurt Card. Ok, let's be real. Some are. Some really are. I'm not, though. It doesn't not matter how much money Card would get directly from this movie. The exposure does. Everyone is a willing sheep to anyone who voices their ideals. And there are the impressionable who haven't formed their own beliefs yet but are very susceptible to being swayed by something cool and wanting to find out more about the ideas of the person who wrote it. And if they decide to go that route... Fine. I can't do anything about that. That's their journey, that's now their lives.

But I will not turn a blind eye to my role in my beliefs. I support free speech. I support anyone saying what they want to say. Even racists. Hate me if you want... but don't threaten me. Don't do something to limit my rights or even bring harm to me. I can't nor won't support that, for obvious reasons. How you feel about homosexuality aside, saying you cant' do the same as anyone else of the population is harmful. As harmful as free speech, because it IS limiting what they can do or express.

jetriot:

Fdzzaigl:
Honestly, I don't care what he said in regards to viewing the film or not. A few years back almost 30% of my country voted for an extremist party and today over 30% votes for a party that I really don't agree with.

However, when I go to the baker and grocer or when some other tradesman comes around to fix stuff in the house, I don't question or regard their political or ideological thinking either (even though the chance that some of them voted for said extremists is high). It's the work they do or the product they sell that's important.

I think the same way about the book and game: judge those things on their own merits.

You can judge the person of the author outside of that.

THIS! People sit on their high and mighty horses seeking to destroy others for their political/social/religious opinions when it is they who are seeking to destroy free speech with boycotts. They make people afraid to dissent or speak their mind because it is politically incorrect. In the past I fell for the same traps until I realized that my boycotts were simply a tool of political correctness and speech policing. His opinion is VALID. We disagree with his opinion but we don't want to make other people afraid to have the same opinion and voice it.

I always find it amazing that those lobbying for other people's rights to free speech seems to be hellbent on limiting others' ability to do the same. No one said Orson could not say what he wanted. They just said they don't have to support him financially. It's not about being politically correct, as a lot of people want to fall on... What if people just don't like what he's saying? Just because he wrote something, doesn't mean he's owed my money. I wrote a few things, why isn't anyone kicking things my way? He is owed our money if we find it worth it to give it to him.

If a racist might really enjoy my book, but saw my face on the cover and decided not to read it, would you go to his or her doorstep and demand that they keep an open mind over how good my work is? That they are just being close minded? If an atheist found out that I worship the Norse Gods, would you call him up and say how dare you be close minded because I advocate worship to Thor on Thursday?

His opinion is damn valid. But is it more valid than my own that his opinion happens to be against? Because he said the opinion first, should I sit here and go 'Damn, I wish I could have got my opinion out before his', so I could express myself in a matter that no one feels I was trying to limit his?

Free Speech isn't about everyone sitting in a circle singing kumbaya. It's about FIGHTING for what you believe in. If Card feels so battered because not everyone embraced his opinion with open arms, then fucking Hurrah. Free Speech worked. He voiced his opinion... then we voiced ours. It's not a one way street. Once you get it out there, THEN you have to deal with what's incoming. If a person can't handle that, then free speech isn't for them.

Mumorpuger:
Unless a person incorporates their particular brand of prejudice into their works, I separate the creator from the creation. It seems like most people can't do that though.

From what i have heard Card does, i have read any of his stuff aside from enders game but i have been told and have read people comments that card does. He is a Mormon and in many of his book how he treats and reacts to gays reflects this; they are either pedophiles praying on young boys or they suppress their gay thoughts for the good of the human race. So id say people are totally okay taking his politics into his work. Authors always incorporate their thoughts and opinion in their work, that is part of writing and to say its not is incorrect, sure you could divide the author and their work but that would miss out on much of the greater indeapth analysis of their work. Arthur Miller suffered from persecution and was taking into court because it was suspected he was a communist; and this relates to the crucible and is why when is school pupils are tough about Miller and what America was like at the time of writing. For something more on the nose, Robert Heinlein was a massive support of the military and this can be seen in starship trooper.

The author is part of his or hers book, the writer matter because their world view is reflect in their work what part they choice to show is up to them.

EDIT; reread this it make it look like im saying all mormons think gays are pedophiles, which is not true. but i am aware that it is not uncommen for mormans who are gay to either become selibet or marry a women, this was the main i was trying to make but there it is still in those book and in card other essay state he believe all gays are pedophiles.

jetriot:

Fdzzaigl:
Honestly, I don't care what he said in regards to viewing the film or not. A few years back almost 30% of my country voted for an extremist party and today over 30% votes for a party that I really don't agree with.

However, when I go to the baker and grocer or when some other tradesman comes around to fix stuff in the house, I don't question or regard their political or ideological thinking either (even though the chance that some of them voted for said extremists is high). It's the work they do or the product they sell that's important.

I think the same way about the book and game: judge those things on their own merits.

You can judge the person of the author outside of that.

THIS! People sit on their high and mighty horses seeking to destroy others for their political/social/religious opinions when it is they who are seeking to destroy free speech with boycotts. They make people afraid to dissent or speak their mind because it is politically incorrect. In the past I fell for the same traps until I realized that my boycotts were simply a tool of political correctness and speech policing. His opinion is VALID. We disagree with his opinion but we don't want to make other people afraid to have the same opinion and voice it.

While true... his money directly attempts to keep homosexuals as second-class citizens. Boycotting him, and making sure he gets no money is a message that while you can say whatever you want, and the government cannot punish you for it, the free economy certainly can.

I think he's a huge prick, but if I want to see the film, I'll go and see it. I personally believe in rewarding quality, so if the film is well made and a good bit of work, I'll happily go see it regardless of his stupid views.

That said, I think his argument here is pitiful. Being intolerant of homosexuals is a very bad thing, being intolerant of bigotry is a good thing. I understand that people might be uncomfortable with homosexuality, but all we're asking for is tolerance, you don't have to like it.

I don't particularly care about a person's view on this or that. I will judge a literary, artistic or entertaining work on its own merits. I also don't begurdge a person's right to have a view different from my own. I don't agree with him, but IMO he absolutely has the right to have his own views. I think boycotting, death threats, slander, hate-mongering and propaganda are counter productive and don't have a place in a civilised society. We have discourse, discussion, debate and the ballot box.

Pickapok:
The sociopolitical views of the author have no bearing on the quality of his work unless the work is centered on those views.

Ender's Game is decidedly NOT about gay marriage and is held as a classic work of science fiction, rightfully heavy with praise.

You are not promoting or supporting bigotry by seeing this movie or reading this book. You are promoting damn good storytelling and science fiction.

Besides, for all we know Card already got his check when he sold the rights to the studio/producers making the film. The rest may be going entirely towards recovering the budget and lining the pockets of those who made it.

For once I wish people could separate the views of a dickish author from the books and, worse still, it appears on a case by case basis. J.R.R. Tolkien was a devout Catholic and therefore opposed to homosexuality. You don't see people boycotting Lord of the Rings or The Hobbit to keep money from going to his family. What makes Card so different and special?

What makes Card different is, as far as I know, none of the modern day profits that end up in that hands of the Tolkien Estate go to funding things like 'The Defense of Marriage Act' while Card was an active supporter of such things while they were in place.

I would be crazy to try and deny that Card has made AMAZING contributions to the realm of Sci-Fi, The guy is tremendously talented, but that does not change the fact that some of the money he earned from his talent went to support acts and bills meant to deny people basic rights. It's one thing to try and boycott a creator who's just a dick, H.P. Lovecraft from all accounts was a massive asshole, and extremely Anti-Semitic, it is a completely different thing to try and boycott a creator who actively supports Hate groups.

On top of that it's just spineless, and kinda hypocritical to turn around and play the "Can't we all just be tolerant" card, when he has dedicated considerable time and resources supporting laws and acts that are the very picture of intolerance towards the people he's asking to tolerate him. Would you not agree that's kinda BS?

Do you understand what I'm saying? Cause if not I will gladly elaborate until you do.

Like I said before, it's really a simple thing. You either believe in true freedom for people to believe whatever they wish or you believe that only one opinion can ever be considered valid on a subject, and often that opinion will only be the one that you share.

I believe in freedom for myself. I don't owe Card my money, and if I don't want to give it to him, then that's my right. Card has every right to state his views, the rest of us have every right to respond by not giving him money.

And we have every right to argue against him and those who share his views. Tolerance doesn't come into it. Are any of us advocating he get thrown in jail? No, we just aren't going to pay to see his movie. We may try talking other people into not seeing his movie - that's freedom.

Card isn't being denied his rights by having his stated advocacy result in consequences.

If a shopkeeper's every second word is slamming black people as savages, I don't expect that you would frequent that shop. Nor would you be wrong for telling people about your experiences, and they wouldn't be wrong for then not shopping there and making it known why they aren't shopping there.

That is freedom. Card is free to say whatever he likes, and the rest of us are free to not like it. Recent revelations regarding Paula Deen - she has the right to be racist, and every single company that has dropped her for that has the right to drop her. They don't owe her a cooking show.

And yes, this is all deeply intolerant. But tolerance isn't the important thing in any of this, what is important is that you do not owe one red cent to any of these people, and you are free to choose not to financially support things you deeply disagree with.

If you choose to support it, that's your choice too. Me? I won't, because I believe it is injustice to support bans on gay marriage. I believe that a marriage should be between consenting adults and is otherwise nobody else's business.

I think the prospect of an Ender's game movie had been sitting somewhere in the "few fucks to be given" department of my memory for awhile now; since I've never read the books. Now that I hear people are going to boycott it, well now I think I might have to put it high up on my list of holiday films this year; if for no other reason than that I find the idea funny that someone would be mad over me seeing a particular movie.

Mumorpuger:
Unless a person incorporates their particular brand of prejudice into their works, I separate the creator from the creation. It seems like most people can't do that though.

Dude, he actively donates part of his royalties to anti-gay organisations. Every time you give him money, some of your money is going to bigoted idiots. I'm all for separation of art and artist, and I've read the Ender books (my dad bought them before he found out what Card was really like) and I love them, but I cannot give my money to this piece of homophobic, idiotic, smug fundie scum.

1337mokro:

It's funny how both my failure and success states end up benefiting more people with less suffering overall than yours :D
EMOTIONS!

1337mokro:

Those people still get paid regardless.

1337mokro:

How are you destroying him? Are you actively hindering him in his work? He can write anything he wants, whenever he wants, I just won't buy it.

This is a stupid thing to say because if you consider that "destroying his life" then basically whenever you walk past anything and don't buy it because you didn't like the guy or the product you are "destroying the vendor's life".

The demand from the pro-gay side "Let us be ourselves and have equal rights!"

The demand from Card and the anti-gay side "Take away their rights from them and make homosexuality illegal!"

Guess which side wins based on simple ethics and morality?

Seriously I don't know why all these amateur philosophers come out of the closet each and every time with the same bullshit "you are a racist because you discriminate against racists" arguments. These are stupid arguments people, they are REALLY stupid.

When people's beliefs demand the mistreatment of others based on who they are, for an act that does not involve or harm them, for something they have no control over, for really any reason that does not involve this other party directly harming you, there is no justification for it.

These.

Opponents of equality and faux-'rationalists' (who oppose resistance against bigotry) inevitably expose a crippling lack of education in sociology, and to a lesser extent psychology and philosophy. Homophobia results in disproportionately high violence and discrimination, which is a measurable harm to security and welfare. As such, 'Intolerance' of anyone contributing to such bigotry, socially or financially, doesn't qualify in itself as 'intolerance'. It is merely self-preservation or preservation of a stable society.

In response to this, many pseudo-intellectuals will attempt to pass off discrimination as 'natural order', or 'preserving society'. Simply put, biological and social science gives them no leg to stand on. They are merely attempting to rationalize their fear and/or hate. The 'black people can be racist' type non-sense arguments fall into this kind of ignorant category, from people who don't understand the institutionalized concepts of racism, or are ignorant of their own unseen benefits and unacknowledged privileges, or both.

And then there are those who acknowledge that there may or may not be direct or indirect harm in supporting a creator or their work, but they simply don't care. They want self-gratification, and they live such an egocentric existence as to feel no sense of responsibility or compassion for anyone outside their own social bubble (assuming they have a social life at all).

Most of the time, it's the endless noise of tidal social forces in motion that many people either cannot understand, or are willfully ignorant of, even after finding themselves on the wrong side of history.

But you can't make everyone go to college, actually pay attention, develop true empathy without qualifiers, and let go of in-grouping.

bravetoaster:

KOMega:
snip

There isn't any anti-gay stuff in Ender's Game as far as I'm aware (although if you want bizarre anti-gay stuff in science fiction, Dune's kind of creepily loaded with it, at times... still love the series and Frank Herbert, but... yeah).

See wiki for an overview: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orson_Scott_Card#Homosexuality

He's on the board of directors for the "National Organization for Marriage" which, as you might guess, is an organization which ironically opposes having people to get legally married (and has done its best to oppress gay people because... who fucking knows).

Doesn't mean you have to not like is books or are a bad person for it, but I've found it hard to feel anything good toward the man or his work since finding out about that. Also, his anti-homosexuality essays are not just offensive in general, but seriously, deeply offensive to me as someone who absolutely loathes shitty attempts at argumentation. OSC is offensively, infuriatingly, absurdly, embarrassingly bad at forming a written argument.

Ah I see.
Well I can't blame anyone for forming a boycott then, if they truly feel strongly about this.
Still, I don't see myself actively participating in one myself if I like the product by itself.

If it's any consolation, it's been a while since I've bought any books outside of textbooks, and I doubt I'll change that habit anytime soon. Or the money to do so anyways :P

Karloff:
"Now it will be interesting to see whether the victorious proponents of gay marriage will show tolerance toward those who disagreed with them when the issue was still in dispute," Card concludes.

1960 America - 50 years ago - blacks and whites couldn't legally get married in the United States.

Now, in 2013 America, a celebrity chef can be fired from her job and basically lose every major contract she has for admitting to having uttered the "N" word, years in the past.

I say that the people who were against gay marriage deserve about as much "tolerance" as we would show to a person who was viciously against interracial marriage or who admitted to casually changing governments by "any means necessary" if government ever allowed "race mixing" - how about that? Let's show all bigots the same level of "tolerance" regardless of if their bigotry is towards a gender, a race, or a sexual orientation.

How about that?

HyenaThePirate:

1337mokro:

How are you destroying him? Are you actively hindering him in his work? He can write anything he wants, whenever he wants, I just won't buy it. The same way I will not buy anything off the guy in my example.

This is a stupid thing to say because if you consider that "destroying his life" then basically whenever you walk past anything and don't buy it because you didn't like the guy or the product you are "destroying the vendor's life".

Then what is the point of the boycott? If it is not to cause him harm, it has no other purpose then and is simply the act of being vindictive for vindictiveness's sake.

Choosing not to involve yourself with him or his work due to a personal disagreement with his beliefs is one thing. To do so ONLY because of his beliefs and because OTHERS are doing it as well makes it revenge.. a "punishment." When you punish, it means you are attempting to impose your authority onto someone else.
When you do that, you are no longer the oppressed but the oppressor.

I could be wrong though. Could you direct me to the school you went to when you obtained your "professional philosopher's" degree so that I can enter the program as well? I don't want to remain an amateur forever, you know.

The point is not to support him. Because the money he gets will go towards unethical purposes. Your money that you gave him for products in the past went to campaigns and initiatives to harm others. Your money indirectly funded anti-gay campaigns. It's kind of like being a vegetarian or vegan and donating money to the meat industry lobby.

Like I said earlier, not supporting someone is not actively destroying his life. If that is true every time you went window shopping you destroyed someone's life. Not buying a product because the person who profits from the product has harmful views of others and will use that money to further those views is not destroying that person's life.

"Choosing not to involve yourself with him or his work due to a personal disagreement with his beliefs is one thing. To do so ONLY because of his beliefs and because OTHERS are doing it as well makes it revenge.. a "punishment." When you punish, it means you are attempting to impose your authority onto someone else."

To not involve yourself with someone or his work due to a personal disagreement with his beliefs is one thing. But to do it as a group of people because you collectively disagree with his beliefs is revenge.

That is stupid and internally contradictory. If it's just one person it's fine, but when people collectively reject your bigoted segregation ideology and refuse to support you financially because their money will be used to fund that ideology and attempt to force it into law, now then they are just being mean and authoritarian.

These exact same things were said again and again and again. Throughout time whenever a bigot was on the receiving end of protest. Here is an example. "Oh they can't boycot casino's that don't allow Black musicians to play, that's just being mean and bullying the casino's."

The man can lead his life freely. Say all the crap he wants to say. He can fund campaigns for turning the moon into cheese and dropping it on Canada to go to the absolute absurd. However I am then also free to tell that person to go fuck themselves and say goodbye to my money.

After all the US supreme court did decide money is the same thing as free speech, so I am entitled to talk with my wallet and tell this LDS bigot to shove his books where the sun don't shine.

You can get a degree at any university. I don't really know why you didn't know that if you are such an avid amateur. Also that was the derogatory use of amateur, as in people who don't even recognize internally contradictory arguments.

Bruce:

I believe in freedom for myself. I don't owe Card my money, and if I don't want to give it to him, then that's my right. Card has every right to state his views, the rest of us have every right to respond by not giving him money.

This. A thousand times this. Of course you have the right to be as bigoted or as anti-gay or as racist or as misogynist or whatever floats your boat - I'll protect your right to publically say bigoted things, absolutely.

However - *I* also have the freedom to organize a boycott of your products if I think you're being a... jerk. Or a bigot. Or just plain evil and wrong.

I don't understand people who consider boycott's "bullying" at all. It's not.

It's freedom of expression to alert people that they may be supporting views or people they find abhorrant.

"the end of democracy"

"people... have no choice but to change governments, by whatever means is made possible or necessary"

I'm sorry, but its a bit too late to ask for tolerance when you're implying that there should be a revolution and potentially violent overthrow of the government over gay people being legally allowed to see each other when one partner gets in a serious accident and is in emergency care, or that kids will be able to stay with the other parent they've had for fifteen years if their biological parent ends up dying.

"Now it will be interesting to see whether the victorious proponents of gay marriage will show tolerance toward those who disagreed with them when the issue was still in dispute,"

Its not tolerance to incite a revolution over two people getting their freedoms granted by the government. Go fuck yourself.

Ahme, that being said, there are people who are against gay marriage who have somewhat reasonable reasons for it, even if they are wrong reasons, that I respect. A handful that are friends. They have an opinion, but are legitimately open-minded to the matter, rather than dead-set for the rest of their life, no matter what changes. Unfortunately, those people, in my experience, are by far in the minority of those against gay marriage. Those people, I do, and will show respect to them. Somebody who calls me a "disgusting faggot", on the other hand, like half of my "family", or somebody who accuses the supposed downfall of the nation on me, like this writer here - fuck them in the neck with a big purple Penetrator.

"Tolerate my intolerance! Don't oppress my efforts to oppress, you guys! What kind of bigots wouldn't defend my bigotry?"

...yeah, no.

thaluikhain:

I also like how he pretends that people in favour of equality have won.

...Didn't they?

OT: Whatever. Who cares? I mean that in the most literal sense of the phrase. Someone disagrees with you and now you won't give them money? Your choice but last I checked its perfectly allowed to disagree with someone. Given that the book is based in my hometown and one of my old schools, I surely will check out the movie. Also because I loved the book.

He wrote a few good books, that doesn't make his opinion matter any more than anyone elses.
As far as I'm concerned, he's just another tiny piece in the hateful, screeching, amorphous mass that is the anti-gay marriage lobby. As for forgiving him for his comments.. no, I don't, and I never will, next.

Mumorpuger:
Unless a person incorporates their particular brand of prejudice into their works, I separate the creator from the creation. It seems like most people can't do that though.

Why would we? Using OSC as an example, there's no homophobia in Enders Game. So by your reasoning, buying a copy of Enders Game or going to see the movie doesn't support homophobia as it is separate from OSC.

But this isn't true. They aren't separate. OSC gets royalties from most of his creations - ie: money. He uses that money in whatever way he see's fit, and some of that goes to his homophobic actions and statements. Every time someone buys something that OSC creates it tells the seller that there is a demand for OSC creations, and so more are produced. Sometimes this means that they want new books of his. Sometimes this means they want him to write more editorials, or in the case of the movie Enders Game, they may want to make sequels. This all goes back to OSC financially and in terms of fame and name recognition.

Even if OSC doesn't get a single dime from Enders Game anymore, either in print or on the big screen, having his name up there still is a win for him - people will see the movie and like the movie (even if it sucks, there will always be some people who like the movie), and they will go out to find other things OSC has created. If 5 people walk into a book store and say "Do you have anything that the guy who wrote Enders Game also wrote?", or if there's a few dozen searches on Amazon.com for "Enders Game", those stores will start to stock other things by OSC. The only way this boycott doesn't hurt OSC is if he gets, literally, no financial benefit from any of his creations. If he gets any financial benefit from the consumption of his creations, then boycotting his most visible work is going to have a huge effect on his pocketbook, his reputation and the way his name is recognized.

That's why there's a potential boycott on the movie, and probably why OSC is so alarmed by it. If Enders Game tanks, there's not likely to be another OSC movie in the near future. That's going to take quite a bit of money, fame and name recognition out of his pockets (literally and metaphorically). To stop that from happening, he has to either appease the people who are calling for the boycott and at least stop publicly condemning same sex marriage and homosexuality in such insane terms (ideally stop condemning it entirely) or face financial ruin.

For a man who opposes gay rights, there sure is a lot of homo eroticism in his books. Don't get my wrong, I really enjoyed Ender's Game and it's related spin-offs... but I certainly didn't pay him money for it. I got it used from a second-hand book store.

If he truly intends to back off and never again donate money to anti-gay rights organizations and movements, then sure, I won't be joining the group of people in my town that plan to boycott the movie. He may be a bigoted asshole, but I'm willing to tolerate him and his film (which, to be fair, has nothing to do with the issue) if he chooses to no longer stand in the way of progress and love.

Then again, that's what tolerance actually means. Hating something, but putting up with it. I will admit though, I have a hard time tolerating intolerance. Guess I'll use this as sort of a tolerance litmus test.

"Bigotry, bigotry, bigotry!"

"Hey guys, be nice and buy my stuff! Come on now! Let's all be tolerant!"

What an asshole.

Face the music, Captcha? Damn right.

Pickapok:
The sociopolitical views of the author have no bearing on the quality of his work unless the work is centered on those views.

Ender's Game is decidedly NOT about gay marriage and is held as a classic work of science fiction, rightfully heavy with praise.

You are not promoting or supporting bigotry by seeing this movie or reading this book. You are promoting damn good storytelling and science fiction.

Besides, for all we know Card already got his check when he sold the rights to the studio/producers making the film. The rest may be going entirely towards recovering the budget and lining the pockets of those who made it.

For once I wish people could separate the views of a dickish author from the books and, worse still, it appears on a case by case basis. J.R.R. Tolkien was a devout Catholic and therefore opposed to homosexuality. You don't see people boycotting Lord of the Rings or The Hobbit to keep money from going to his family. What makes Card so different and special?

I agree with you on this. I'm reading Ender's Game for the first time right now (actually have the book in my hand; checking email and the Escapist is an addiction), and it is just freakin' fantastic.

I knew about Card's views before reading it, and while I feel less appreciative of the man himself, I think his fiction deserves the high praise it receives.

I think the reason that the hate seems to be on a case by case basis, is that Card is particularly vocal and extreme in his views. I don't remember Tolkien's anti-gay views being particularly expounded on in any of his writings. Card has done so multiple times, and publicly.

Sheo_Dagana:
For a man who opposes gay rights, there sure is a lot of homo eroticism in his books.

That is true, though what I've seen of it seems to be written in a way that makes the reader uncomfortable. I've never found it to be "erotic" in any sense, but that may be because I'm straight, I don't know.

1337mokro:

Pickapok:

1337mokro:

That's right Pickapok is a being made out of lots of polygons! He has so much more emotions than you do toaster! A short joke to bring some levity to this discussion.

If Ender's Game does well and we don't get that movie. What then? You will have supported a person who most likely after the success of his movie will revert right back to his earlier ways in the vain hope of catching a carrot.

Why not just support Pacific Rim? Why bother also supporting Enders Game? If everyone who boycotts Enders Game goes out to see Pacific Rim instead you'd have the same effect. Doing something that gives money to a person who has the potential and the history of wanting to harm and oppress others is never justifiable just because there is a dangling carrot in the distance.

Why don't we just let Hollywood die and see what rises from the ashes? Maybe a less racist, misogynistic, stupid industry will take it's place.

I have all the polygons.

Pacific Rim and Ender's Game won't be in theatres at the same time. Aside from that, the same goes for the flip side of the coin. What if the boycott doesn't catch on and Ender's Game still makes a ton of money? What then? You may not have added your support to the film but in the end it didn't make that much of a difference at all. "But at least he didn't get any of MY money," you might say. "But at least I tried!"

And that would be my response to the possible outcome you presented. "At least I tried."

Your failure state:

At least you tried, you supported someone who campaigns for things you despise in the hope you would get a different movie. You didn't even really want to see Enders Game (just adding to the disappointment here) but it was all in the hope for that other movie that never appeared. A new anti-gay campaign is funded using the money that Card got for this movie. Your money is partially used to fund that campaign and a trip to the hooters bar.

My failure state:

At least you tried, you did not support someone who campaigns for things you despise. Sadly not enough people thought like you and the movie was still a financial success. You are now getting to see At the Mountains of Madness from an author who did not hold any such hateful views and/or is no longer alive to campaign in favour of them. A new anti-gay campaign is funded using the money that Card got for this movie. None of yours went towards it.

I like my failure state allot better. However let's look at the success states.

Yours:

You went to see Enders game, it was a great movie and instilled trust in weird sci-fi concepts. The film was a box office block buster hit and Card got rich of the movie. He immediately does a heal turn and funds more anti-gay campaigns. Continuing like he has done for decades now. Everything is alright though because now that movie you really wanted is being made.

Mine:

You didn't go to see Enders game, so did millions of others who would have gone to see it. The film tanked harder than the Lone Ranger and John Carter combined. Instead everyone went to see Pacific Rim, supporting Guillermo directly without having to lower themselves because of the shiny carrot dangling in-front of themselves. The studios green-light his next movie. Card is forced to reconcile himself with a changing environment, becoming either less vocal or a recluse who surrounds himself with people who think the same as he does in the LDS church. Of course anti-gay campaigns will still be run, but there is at least one less to be worried about.

It's funny how both my failure and success states end up benefiting more people with less suffering overall than yours :D

EMOTIONS!

But I do really want to see Ender's Game. I'm just stating some of the possible ramifications. And none of us have ANY idea how much Card is getting from this. It's a safe bet that he's already been paid the royalties and that's that. Your points are so hilariously one sided and balanced that they come off as mad.

KingsGambit:
I think boycotting, death threats, slander, hate-mongering and propaganda are counter productive and don't have a place in a civilised society. We have discourse, discussion, debate and the ballot box.

I agree with you on death-threats, slander, hate-mongering and propaganda, but boycott?

Boycotting is going 'I don't want to give you my money, and will tell other people not to give you money'.

That's what many critics do. "This is a bad movie, don't go see it."

How uncivilized.

The issue I have is that everyone is entitled to their opinion, freedom of speech is freedom of speech. It doesn't go one way in the tolerance aspect. If you wish to be tolerated for your views, you must also tolerate views you don't agree with. Like him or not, boycotting him for disagreeing whether bigoted or just plain "I don't care for it" isn't being tolerant. Treat others as you want to be treated is a good standard to live by. Boycotting works by a man who doesn't agree with something thats a hot-button issue doesn't solve the problem, and it is detrimental to the cause they're trying to support. You may not like what he has to say, but he damn sure has the right to say it, just like you have the right to be contrary to the "accepted norm".
Catching more flies with honey and all.
Martin Luther King had it right. He didn't go all aggro on people who hated on him, he took the higher road and accepted that there would always be people who didn't see or agree with his point of view.
In my humble opinion, tolerating assholes and not lowering yourself to arguing and hating on them for having a contrary point of view doesn't solve anything and only causes more strife and drama.
We'll never get over racism, sexism, homophobia and the like because there will always be people who just can't take it. I feel Mr. Card is conceding defeat on this issue and asking people to just let it go, which is classy even if he is a homophobe. He has said inflammatory things, but I've also heard people on the gay rights side of the fence say equally incendiary things against "breeders". There are bigots on both sides, and until we learn as a species to take to heart the free speech ideal that everyone is entitled to their opinion, the hate and debate will perpetuate.
The best way, in my view is to accept that there will be detractors to your viewpoint, there will be haters (haters gonna hate) and lashing out at them isn't going to make it better. Taking the stance of "I respect your right to have an opinion but I don't agree" is the only way we can move on from these childish tantrums. I understand that people on the LGBT side feel oppressed when someone speaks out against their lifestyle, but if they want to be accepted they in turn have to accept that not everyone will feel comfortable with it. When it goes beyond the opinion into the realm of straight up oppression, then there is a problem. But it must be handled with grace and civility.
Personally I believe what goes on behind closed doors is nobody's business but the people involved. I may not always agree with it, but I accept it is a "thing" and move on with life. I may from time to time say how I feel about it, and I have that right to express my feelings. But I also feel I must do so in a way that doesn't trash those I don't agree with. I expect the same respect from the people I don't agree with.
"I may not agree with what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it" - Paraphrased from Voltaire.

Mumorpuger:
Unless a person incorporates their particular brand of prejudice into their works, I separate the creator from the creation. It seems like most people can't do that though.

He donates money to groups who campaign for, among other things, homosexuality being criminalized. When he wants people jailed for loving the 'wrong' person, and uses his money to help push that view forward, its a bit harder to want to give him my money.

Ah, the old "You're a bigot if you condemn bigots" switch-aroo.

Dude's got some balls.

I went through a phase a few months back where I was reading a lot of alternate history novels. I found a copy of Card's "Empire" at the used book store and bought it based on cover art and back cover blurb. The entire novel was about how Democrats were teaming up with terrorists to kill the president and blame it on the Republicans in order to start a new American Revolution. And the only credible news source in the entire novel was Fox News. And the only person that could stop it was a U.S. Army Major who didn't have a problem with the "dykes" so long as they minded their own business...

I'm not usually a proponent of burning books, but it combusted quite nicely.

TL;DR - F OSC N D A.

Pickapok:

Please don't insult me or my emotional capacity. I am very capable of feeling just as pissed off as everybody else and by all means, be pissed off at Card as much as you want. But by boycotting this film people are doing more damage to the state of Hollywood as a whole than they are to Card himself. Hollywood needs good stories and good storytelling. You always hear that consumers vote with their wallets and that is very much true. Right now the message that Hollywood is getting is that the people want mindless explosions and action in the style of Michael Bay and that's killing creativity in film. It's part of the reason why so many of the great directors and actors have fled to make amazing television series like Hannibal and Game of Thrones.

Forget about Card. If we help Ender's Game become a success, who knows what we could see next? If both this film and Pcific Rim do well then we could finally see that At the Mountains of Madness film Guillermo Del Toro has been wanting to make for ages now.

If we see Ender's Game become a success, we're going to see a glut of OSC movies. We're probably going to see some sort of new sequel to Ender's Game which isn't Speaker for the Dead but something entirely new - written by OSC.

Ya think he'll do it for free?

Even if they do make SFtD, do you think OSC will give the movie rights away for free?

And if the movie is a success, how many thousands of print copies of Ender's Game (both the original and one based on the upcoming movie, which isn't going to be the same as the book from all accounts I've read) will be sold - and do you think none of that will go back to OSC?

You might be perfectly willing to help finance homophobia and intolerance because you're doing it indirectly, but there's a large number of people who aren't willing to perform that kind of double-think.

Haha you know I realized nobody has pointed this out, at least not on the first page. He's not even changing his tune about gay marriage. His quote is

"Now it will be interesting to see whether the victorious proponents of gay marriage will show tolerance toward those who disagreed with them when the issue was still in dispute"

He's asking for gay people to tolerate HIM. He's admitting defeat and then saying "no hard feelings guys?" It doesn't seem like he's changing his tune, rather he's hoping if he shuts up people wont care.

I'll see the movie if it's good and I won't see it if it's shit. His views are irrelevant in the decision.

That being said, he's still an asshole and should shut the fuck up. I do believe in free speech, but you're certainly required to take consequence for said speech. And in this case that consequence is me thinking you're an asshole.

amaranth_dru

Martin Luther King had it right. He didn't go all aggro on people who hated on him, he took the higher road and accepted that there would always be people who didn't see or agree with his point of view.

Montgomery Bus Boycott?

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 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