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
 

"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.

Haha, how....interesting. The man has a point, now that those who advocated tolerance for the idea of gay marriage have had a supreme court ruling in their favor, will pro-gay marriage advocates be as open to the concept of tolerance when its becomes anti-gay marriage advocates asking for tolerance of anti-gay marriage views...or will humanity repeat itself by pro-gay marriage advocates treating anti-gay marriage advocates with the same hostility that they themselves faced during the legalization of DOMA?
My view is it will be mixed results. Some pro-gay marriage advocates will rise to the opportunity and practice true tolerance while others will succumb to their primal feelings of revenge/indignation and treat those who oppose gay marriage with the same hostility that they(the pro-gay marriage advocates) faced in the past.

Legion:

"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.

Uh... why should they? Tolerating bigotry isn't a good thing you know, and claiming people are bigots for not tolerating bigotry is just idiotic.

How is it "idotic" to say that a person should not be persecuted for having an unpopular opinion on a subject?

This video seems especially relevant give the subject of tolerating those who have views that are different from your own....

(relevant part of the video is at 3:56)

Legion:
It's akin to saying people who judge criminals are bigoted against criminals. You see, it's actually okay to be intolerant of people who do bad things.

I must have missed that day in class where it was a criminal offense to practice your right as an American citizen to vote for politicians and laws that match your views, regardless of whether or not your views were deemed "progressive". Perhaps you can help me out by providing a link where I can find these laws that make it illegal to vote based on conservative views.

2012 Wont Happen:
Outrage isn't all or nothing, but come now. If you aren't willing to put in the effort to fight objectively more egregious crimes against humanity than an ultimately powerless old homophobe getting money from a movie adaptation of his book then you're actions aren't guided by caring for humanity. If care for humanity was the source of your outrage you would be madder still at the more intense exploitation that produces your goods than a group not being allowed marriage rights. While bad, I'd rather not be allowed to get married than to be paid cents an hour and later left for dead when dangerous work conditions got the better of me. I'm sure the same would hold true for you. If you are not more outraged by death and physical exploitation than laws about who can sign what contracts then your outrage is valueless.

Furthermore, it is morally naive. It is naive to think you are a responsible consumer for not buying a ticket to Ender's Game when you continue to buy products that support slavery and death throughout the globe. It's something for people to sit around and pat themselves on the back for, thinking "look at me, aren't I such a considerate individual voting with my dollar", when at the end of the day what you're actually accomplishing is not seeing a movie that many on this forum would probably like and saving yourself a few bucks.

If you don't want to see the movie, that's fine, but don't act like you not seeing a movie does a damn thing if that's the extent of your efforts. If you want to help the gay community, this is about the most lazy way to go about that and it is laughable for almost anyone here to act like not seeing this movie gives them a moral high ground. If I see this film, you don't, and we're both wearing Nike, congratulations, neither of us can talk when it comes to supporting evil people with our money.

All of us posting on the internet are using electronic devices which require components that come primarily from the centre of many conflicts in Africa - Coltan. If you want to talk about such high ethical and moral standards than all of us here on the Escapist lose, all Gamers lose, all people who purchase complex electronics lose, regardless of any other actions we take. Taking that sort of an argument is doomed to failure for all parties.

The question isn't "Be entirely ethical or be quiet." The question is "What do we support with our money when we know what is going to happen with it and we have other choices for where we spend our money. We don't have other choices in buying our electronics, so while it may be repugnant to know that by purchasing that Xbox 360 or that iPhone 5 or than new Alienware Gaming Laptop, we're sending money to warlords in the Congo who are out there massacring people, the only other choice we have is to not purchase electronics at all. That's not much of a choice - all or nothing. With Ender's Game, there will be other movies out there to purchase tickets to. Or to purchase on PPV/On Demand/Netflix/Rentals (if they still exist in the area)/BluRay/etc. We have a dizzying array of choices on where to spend our money for a movie, and so we can choose to spend it somewhere that doesn't support someone who offends our ethics in this case.

Helmholtz Watson:

Legion:

Uh... why should they? Tolerating bigotry isn't a good thing you know, and claiming people are bigots for not tolerating bigotry is just idiotic.

How is it "idotic" to say that a person should not be persecuted for having an unpopular opinion on a subject?

This video seems especially relevant give the subject of tolerating those who have views that are different from your own....

(relevant part of the video is at 3:56)

[quote="Legion" post="7.821396.19845136"]It's akin to saying people who judge criminals are bigoted against criminals. You see, it's actually okay to be intolerant of people who do bad things.

I must have missed that day in class where it was a criminal offense to practice your right as an American citizen to vote for politicians and laws that match your views, regardless of whether or not your views were deemed "progressive". Perhaps you can help me out by providing a link where I can find these laws that make it illegal to vote based on conservative views.

It's confusing how you (and others) are trying to bring free speech into this. Seriously--no one's trying to keep you from being allowed to be a bigot. Nor is anyone trying to do the same to Card. Free speech has never entered any part of this equation. Just like you're free to be a bigot, the rest of us are free to call you a bigot and were never under any obligation to give you our money, bigot or not.

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.

Why should there be hate coming your way? If the whole reason they hate someone is for being intolerant then they should respect your beliefs and decisions. Anything less would be hypocritical.

As for myself I really enjoyed reading Ender's Game and if there's a movie coming out I'll go and watch it. The Author's - or any body else's - personal beliefs will not and should not sway me otherwise.

Honestly, hate the man, not the book. Guess what?

1) John Lennon was a wife beater. He was possessive and cruel, and was paranoid his wife would cheat on him, even as he cheated on her. He also admitted to beating his former girlfriends as a younger man. People still listen to the Beatles (though I admittedly don't).

2) Benjamin Franklin also cheated on his wife, and when she was dying her last request was to see him one last time. He denied her. Seriously, the guy was a douche. People still read Poor Richards Almanac, and his advice is still fantastic.

3) Eric Clapton is a racist. People still listen to him. So was Dr. Seuss and...Abraham Lincoln. http://markii.wordpress.com/2007/02/19/racist-quote-by-abe-lincoln-happy-black-history-month/

4) HP Lovecraft. Oh boy, a racist, a sexist, an anti-semite, where does it end?

5) Martin Luther King had an affair.

6) Thomas Jefferson owned slaves. He had children with one of them, and then sold all the slaves (including his children) in order to pay off his debts. His political ideas concerning liberty are still true, even if he was a hypocrite himself.

7) Everyone know JFK cheated. Not everyone knows he had several women deported out of the country in order to keep it secret.

The point is, Orson Scott Card is a homophobe, Ender Wiggin isn't. Ender's game is a fantastic book, and absolutely nothing in it so much as hints at homophobia. The people I mentioned achieved great things, helped people, or produced great works of art, despite doing or believing terrible things. I still love MLK, despite what he did to his wife and family. Card is a product of his generation and upbringing, and while I'll continue to disagree with him on, well, pretty much everything, I'll continue to enjoy his works because their great pieces of fiction completely independent of their writer. I'll probably see the film too, assuming it gets good reviews.

I've had to stop caring about the political and religious views from authors, directors, actors, ect.

Otherwise, I'd scarcely be able to enjoy anything produced in the media.

Helmholtz Watson:

"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.

Haha, how....interesting. The man has a point, now that those who advocated tolerance for the idea of gay marriage have had a supreme court ruling in their favor, will pro-gay marriage advocates be as open to the concept of tolerance when its becomes anti-gay marriage advocates asking for tolerance of anti-gay marriage views...or will humanity repeat itself by pro-gay marriage advocates treating anti-gay marriage advocates with the same hostility that they themselves faced during the legalization of DOMA?
My view is it will be mixed results. Some pro-gay marriage advocates will rise to the opportunity and practice true tolerance while others will succumb to their primal feelings of revenge/indignation and treat those who oppose gay marriage with the same hostility that they(the pro-gay marriage advocates) faced in the past.

Legion:

"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.

Uh... why should they? Tolerating bigotry isn't a good thing you know, and claiming people are bigots for not tolerating bigotry is just idiotic.

How is it "idotic" to say that a person should not be persecuted for having an unpopular opinion on a subject?

This video seems especially relevant give the subject of tolerating those who have views that are different from your own....

(relevant part of the video is at 3:56)

Legion:
It's akin to saying people who judge criminals are bigoted against criminals. You see, it's actually okay to be intolerant of people who do bad things.

I must have missed that day in class where it was a criminal offense to practice your right as an American citizen to vote for politicians and laws that match your views, regardless of whether or not your views were deemed "progressive". Perhaps you can help me out by providing a link where I can find these laws that make it illegal to vote based on conservative views.

Haha, I like some Hitchens. Peoples love for liberty is tested when someone disagrees with them. I despise Nazis, but if an individual wants to express Nazi ideas, and they don't infringe on another persons rights, they're allowed. People don't seem to understand that, when they limit the speech rights of opponents, they inadvertently limit their own freedom. At one point supporters of gay marriage were the minority, but they were allowed to speak their unpopular opinion, and over time they won support. I don't agree with Card, but I tolerate his opinion because I understand that doing so protects my own right to potentially unpopular opinions.

Am I the only one who is 100% in favor of gay marriage, and simultaneously doesn't give a shit about Card's opinion on the matter?

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.

there was the stuff he said

then there was the money he paid to groups actively seeking to promote dangerous legal decisions based on the stuff he said

people basically thought "if he's using his money for that i'm not going to give him any more money"

i don't think it's an illogical sequence of events

bravetoaster:

It's confusing how you (and others) are trying to bring free speech into this. Seriously--no one's trying to keep you from being allowed to be a bigot have an unpopular opinion. Nor is anyone trying to do the same to Card. Free speech has never entered any part of this equation.

You'll have to forgive me for fixing that "typo" for you, I rather not respond to a post that starts off poisoning the well. That said, you need to look at the person I quoted because they were not saying how their going to boycott Card's books and movie(something I have no problem with them doing), but in fact they were comparing the notion of tolerating(which isn't a code word for accepting)an unpopular opinion with tolerating criminal behavior/acts. So when you equate having a unpopular opinion with criminal acts, the subject of freedom of speech does come into question.

bravetoaster:
Just like you're free to be a bigot, the rest of us are free to call you a bigot and were never under any obligation to give you our money, bigot or not.

Like I said, I'm not opposed to people choosing how they spend their own money on entertainment. That said, your right about calling bigots out on their bigotry, because I am also free to call out you or anybody else on your bigotry and intolerance towards those who's religious views don't conform to your values. Case in point, Judaism is well known for Leviticus and I would be well within my right to call you an intolerant bigot if you started telling Jews how horrible their religion was because it didn't conform to your values.

Helmholtz Watson:

"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.

Haha, how....interesting. The man has a point, now that those who advocated tolerance for the idea of gay marriage have had a supreme court ruling in their favor, will pro-gay marriage advocates be as open to the concept of tolerance when its becomes anti-gay marriage advocates asking for tolerance of anti-gay marriage views...or will humanity repeat itself by pro-gay marriage advocates treating anti-gay marriage advocates with the same hostility that they themselves faced during the legalization of DOMA?
My view is it will be mixed results. Some pro-gay marriage advocates will rise to the opportunity and practice true tolerance while others will succumb to their primal feelings of revenge/indignation and treat those who oppose gay marriage with the same hostility that they(the pro-gay marriage advocates) faced in the past.

It's not really the same thing. The anti-gay advocates were for denying the other party legal rights. The pro-gay advocates were for providing that party legal rights.

The pro-gay advocates, to be comparable, would have to want to deny the anti-gay advocates a right that was enjoyed by everyone else.

There are differing levels and effects of bigotry here. Not liking someone's anti-gay stance and therefore not purchasing their products is an entirely personal thing. Not liking someone's gay stance and trying to deny that group legal rights is a completely different kettle of fish. People are not legally required to buy from this author and this author is not being legally denied the ability to make money.

Disrespecting someone for their political views is completely acceptable... trying to deny someone a legal right because of their political views is not.

DVS BSTrD:
You can fuck whoever you want, just don't fuck me!

That certainly frees up a lot of my plans this week.

I'm disappointed that he literally looks like someone who would say what he has said. I hate that because I don't like judging books by their cover. So when covers are so spot on to the book its frustrating.

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.

Yeah, it really sucks when people are intolerant towards you, doesn't it OSC?

A lesson learned? Probably not.

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.

It really is strange to see such vitriol towards people for choosing where they will spend their money.

If he's taken enough notice to make this statement, by the way, there clearly is a point. Since, you know, that was the point.

Abomination:

The pro-gay advocates, to be comparable, would have to want to deny the anti-gay advocates a right that was enjoyed by everyone else.

For example, banning straight marriage while allowing gay marriage. A stance nobody takes. Except maybe Dan Savage. >.>

But yeah. The other part of this is that Card was looking to legally persecute a body of people for who they were, while the folks he's calling for tolerance from are objecting to purchasing from him for beliefs he still seems to hold.

That's the fun thing about being a consumer. If you are an asshat, I don't have to give you my money. I don't plan to see Ender's Game. I bought a secondhand copy of the book, and I'll content myself to that. You don't get to ask for tolerance when you show none. That, and what Card's asking for isn't tolerance. He's asking us to overlook his close-minded, backwards way of thinking so that his wallet can be stuffed a little more.

Zachary Amaranth:

Abomination:

The pro-gay advocates, to be comparable, would have to want to deny the anti-gay advocates a right that was enjoyed by everyone else.

For example, banning straight marriage while allowing gay marriage. A stance nobody takes. Except maybe Dan Savage. >.>

But yeah. The other part of this is that Card was looking to legally persecute a body of people for who they were, while the folks he's calling for tolerance from are objecting to purchasing from him for beliefs he still seems to hold.

It almost looks like "Stop being intolerant - give me money."

It's a really absurd stance to take. It'd be like a politician demanding votes from people whom his political views would harm should he be elected. We're talking about an AUTHOR, the more money he has the more people he is going to be able to put his thoughts in front of... and those thoughts - as he has so clearly made public - may have homophobic messages and people who are pro-gay do not want to fund such literature being distributed to others.

Sure, he might not ever write a single homophobic word in his commercial works... but he's got a higher chance than someone who isn't homophobic.

Lovely Mixture:

Amir Kondori:
Lot of self righteous people in this thread. I for one loved the books and I am atheist who thinks gay people should have all the same rights I do. But maybe some of you should practice a little forgiveness and humility.

If he wants to be forgiven, he should show humility, apologize for his bigotry, and ask to be forgiven.
He has no regretted anything he has done, he has not done ANYTHING yet that indicates he should be forgiven.

Would you forgive a racist if he said "race isn't an issue to me anymore so I won't support killing minorities, but I still hate all you kikes and negros." ?

To be 100% clear I don't think he has to apologize. These are his religious beliefs. He never, ever advocated for the killing of anyone. If you read his actual words he said that gay marriage should not be sanctioned by the state. I know some people want to equate that to racists "killing minorities" but it's not the same thing. He never said he hated gay people. He was measured, in my opinion, with his words and in his views.

But if it makes you feel like you are fighting the good fight go ahead and demonize the man and equate his position against gay marriage with racists advocating hate and murder. I'm sure you feel really superior.

Helmholtz Watson:

bravetoaster:

It's confusing how you (and others) are trying to bring free speech into this. Seriously--no one's trying to keep you from being allowed to be a bigot have an unpopular opinion. Nor is anyone trying to do the same to Card. Free speech has never entered any part of this equation.

You'll have to forgive me for fixing that "typo" for you, I rather not respond to a post that starts off poisoning the well. That said, you need to look at the person I quoted because they were not saying how their going to boycott Card's books and movie(something I have no problem with them doing), but in fact they were comparing the notion of tolerating(which isn't a code word for accepting)an unpopular opinion with tolerating criminal behavior/acts. So when you equate having a unpopular opinion with criminal acts, the subject of freedom of speech does come into question.

bravetoaster:
Just like you're free to be a bigot, the rest of us are free to call you a bigot and were never under any obligation to give you our money, bigot or not.

Like I said, I'm not opposed to people choosing how they spend their own money on entertainment. That said, your right about calling bigots out on their bigotry, because I am also free to call out you or anybody else on your bigotry and intolerance towards those who's religious views don't conform to your values. Case in point, Judaism is well known for Leviticus and I would be well within my right to call you an intolerant bigot if you started telling Jews how horrible their religion was because it didn't conform to your values.

Quick question.

Would you consider me a racist if I gave a significant percentage of my earnings to the Ku Klux Klan, even if that work didn't attack the African-American community in any way?

To be 100% clear I don't think he has to apologize.

Yes, he just advocated an armed uprising against gays.
Nothing to apologize for, clearly.

Fun fact, if he had said the exact same things, but been pro gay marriage, you'd be here, screeching for his head.

I love you whiteknights, I really do. "Waaah! Consumers must buy his stuff, or they're intolerant, waah".
Free speech doesn't mean that you have to support bigots, sorry guys. Nor does it mean that we have to support someone that advocated physical violence against gays.

That you seriously think that not buying his stuff is the same as ADVOCATING VIOLENCE says everything about you and your bigotry. Congrats: You managed to make OSC and his side look even worse.

. Case in point, Judaism is well known for Leviticus and I would be well within my right to call you an intolerant bigot if you started telling Jews how horrible their religion was because it didn't conform to your values.

Except Leviticus also bans a lot of other things, including the clothes you're wearing right now (Polyester!). Anyone who is arguing leviticus against gays is a gargantuan hypocrit to begin with.

It's funny that you think that tolerance means that your massive intolerance has to be tolerated just because you hide behind religion. Religion doesn't mean your intolerance has to be state policy, sorry to say. Your religious rights end at your own doorstep. Your religion doesn't give you a right to dictate how others live.

Abomination:
It almost looks like "Stop being intolerant - give me money."

It's a really absurd stance to take.

Yes, but it's a very human stance to take. We tend to only be concerned with intolerance when it swings our way.

It'd be like a politician demanding votes from people whom his political views would harm should he be elected. We're talking about an AUTHOR, the more money he has the more people he is going to be able to put his thoughts in front of... and those thoughts - as he has so clearly made public - may have homophobic messages and people who are pro-gay do not want to fund such literature being distributed to others.

Sure, he might not ever write a single homophobic word in his commercial works... but he's got a higher chance than someone who isn't homophobic.

And really, the only reason anyone cares what Card has to say about homosexuality is because he's a renowned author. Making him a bigger success so more people will pay attention to some cranky dude's letters to the editor seems like it worsens the situation.

I mean, I'm not even sure I'd boycott his books. I've never been too interested in the Ender's Game deal. However, while I'm not sure I'd do it, I certainly don't think it's a bad thing.

Meh, whatever. I love Ender's Game. And there is nothing homophobic written on a single page of it, so his personal beliefs don't really affect the project. I'll go see it for sure.

Helmholtz Watson:

"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.

Haha, how....interesting. The man has a point, now that those who advocated tolerance for the idea of gay marriage have had a supreme court ruling in their favor, will pro-gay marriage advocates be as open to the concept of tolerance when its becomes anti-gay marriage advocates asking for tolerance of anti-gay marriage views...or will humanity repeat itself by pro-gay marriage advocates treating anti-gay marriage advocates with the same hostility that they themselves faced during the legalization of DOMA?
My view is it will be mixed results. Some pro-gay marriage advocates will rise to the opportunity and practice true tolerance while others will succumb to their primal feelings of revenge/indignation and treat those who oppose gay marriage with the same hostility that they(the pro-gay marriage advocates) faced in the past.

Legion:

"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.

Uh... why should they? Tolerating bigotry isn't a good thing you know, and claiming people are bigots for not tolerating bigotry is just idiotic.

How is it "idotic" to say that a person should not be persecuted for having an unpopular opinion on a subject?

This video seems especially relevant give the subject of tolerating those who have views that are different from your own....

(relevant part of the video is at 3:56)

What persecution? He's not not entitled to our money?
And don't pretend like it's just a matter of him being wrong. What he did was caused actual harm by promoting hatred and bigotry. You know how the majority of people who commit hate crimes, or almost any evil act, do so because they actually believe they're doing the right thing? You know WHY they think they're doing the right thing? Because people like Card tell them it is.

Legion:
It's akin to saying people who judge criminals are bigoted against criminals. You see, it's actually okay to be intolerant of people who do bad things.

I must have missed that day in class where it was a criminal offense to practice your right as an American citizen to vote for politicians and laws that match your views, regardless of whether or not your views were deemed "progressive". Perhaps you can help me out by providing a link where I can find these laws that make it illegal to vote based on conservative views.[/quote] Apparently the same place where conservatives say it's okay for a person to be blown up just because they happen to be born in a country run by Islamic conservatives (see the entire Middle East) no matter who they voted for or if they were allowed to vote at all. But hey, that's the price of freedom/ "colateral damage".

theultimateend:

DVS BSTrD:
You can fuck whoever you want, just don't fuck me!

That certainly frees up a lot of my plans this week.

I'm disappointed that he literally looks like someone who would say what he has said. I hate that because I don't like judging books by their cover. So when covers are so spot on to the book its frustrating.

Well I hope you don't mind if I judge you by your cover, because your avatar is adorable ^_^

DVS BSTrD:
Well I hope you don't mind if I judge you by your cover, because your avatar is adorable ^_^

Why thank you! I don't know if or when I'll ever change it. That particular comic frame was too perfect to me.

Yours reminds me I should watch Futurama again...I wonder if my wife won't drop me. I've watched it perhaps...um...too much.

Amir Kondori:

To be 100% clear I don't think he has to apologize. These are his religious beliefs.

And yet you said that we should forgive him. Also, personal beliefs of any sort don't exempt you from making apologies.

Amir Kondori:

He never, ever advocated for the killing of anyone.

I never said that he did. It was an analogy.

Amir Kondori:

If you read his actual words he said that gay marriage should not be sanctioned by the state.

Yes and he said a lot of other things.

Amir Kondori:

I know some people want to equate that to racists "killing minorities" but it's not the same thing.

You're projecting.

Amir Kondori:

He never said he hated gay people. He was measured, in my opinion, with his words and in his views.

He just supports an organization that seeks to discriminate against them. He equates tolerating them to propaganda. He stated that open revolution is reasonable if gay marriage is allowed.

It's not hatred, it's just discrimination. You think that's better?

Amir Kondori:

But if it makes you feel like you are fighting the good fight go ahead and demonize the man and equate his position against gay marriage with racists advocating hate and murder. I'm sure you feel really superior.

And now you've stooped to insults.

No. I don't feel like I'm fighting a good fight, I feel like I'm arguing what I believe to be right.

I'm arguing against apologists like you who simply come in and say "you guys are self-righteous" without addressing any of the issues. You said we should forgive him and show humility, and I thought that was hilarious because he has done neither.

If I judged the works of entertainers based on their personalities & opinions, then I would have precious little to watch, read, play, or listen to.

bravetoaster:

KOMega:
I really liked Ender's Game, and a few of the sequel books (although I think the quality was on a slow decline for that series.)

Still, I didn't see any anti-gay stuff in his books. So whatever.

Although... I didn't really see what he actually said or did. Can someone show me what he did?

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).

Buuuulllshit.

Dune does not contain anything that's anti-gay.

theApoc:

Jarimir:
People weren't opposed to gay marriage until gay people started trying to get married. There was a rush in the 70's across the US to enact and reword anti-gay marriage laws specifically because the wording of the laws on the books at the time was not specific enough to exclude gay people from getting married.

We didn't start this fight, but we aim to finish it. If you think "gay rights advocates" are bullies then you are woefully ignorant of the severity of bullying we've had to endure just to get to this point. When anti-gay marriage advocates start getting beaten and/or killed and we send THEIR children to re-education camps (similar to current pray-the-gay-away camps), then you can start complaining about how intolerant we've become. I am sure we both hope it never comes to that point.

Hell even as a homosexual I don't really care about gay marriage. If heterosexuals hate us so much why should I want to emulate them, but I do resent being told specifically that I cant, that I hold some lessor status in society, because some words in a magic book say that what I do in the privacy of my bedroom with a consenting adult is wrong.

You should choose your words wisely when debating on the internet. As a true minority(and yes I mean that as it sounds), I am painfully aware of what discrimination is and the effect it has on a group of people and your assumption of prejudice/ignorance belies your own intolerance.

SOCIETY determines what it accepts. The far left/right extremists may have the loudest voices but they do NOT represent society as a whole, and your generalization of both sides of this debate is extremely misguided. You know what I resent? Being told how to think. I have no problem following rules I don't agree with, but don't tell me I have to think the way you do in order for us to have a discussion. That IS bullying and it is no better coming from you than it is from some religious nut bag.

Intolerance and hypocrisy are not exclusive to left or right, straight or gay. But YOU don't get to decide how a community should govern itself. Don't like a town where they are intolerant, don't move there. Don't like a company that doesn't agree with your lifestyle, don't buy their stuff. But don't presume to be so high and mighty that you get to dictate what people should or shouldn't believe.

Everyone has a right to think or say what they like. And IMO, as long as they are willing to accept the consequences, it is not for your or I to tell them otherwise.

Vote, rally, change the laws for protection and LEGAL equality. But don't assume your beliefs are any more valid that theirs, they are not, they should belong to you and you alone, just like everyone else.

If you are so keen about word choice, perhaps you can point out where I told you or any community how to think or what to believe.

If you are a "true minority" then you live with the windfall of the government interceding on your behalf and forcing local communities to grant you equal status despite how they would vote. If you are a "true minority" then there are still people that believe you don't deserve equal status. Notice how they still believe that, despite not being able to deprive you of that status.

As a member of the gay community that is all I want, equal status, with people still free to think that I don't deserve it. I would rather that they did. I feel I have a right to speak up and say I deserve equality. I am sorry if this disturbs you or makes you anxious or resentful. You have the right to speak up about that. People boycotting Ender's Game are exercising their right and giving their voice to the free market.

WhiteTigerShiro:
Am I the only one who is 100% in favor of gay marriage, and simultaneously doesn't give a shit about Card's opinion on the matter?

I am gay, for gay marriage and am still probably going to go see Ender's Game. I do care to some degree about Card's opinion. I do agree that he has a right to what he believes, but his rights end where other's begin.

Furthermore, I believe that people have the right and justification to boycott his movie.

I wont be buying any more of his books. But, I am curious to see how bad they actually get after Xenocide. Maybe I can find them used.

captcha - face the music

maybe I'm a bit confused and someone can clarify, but by the sound of this article he's not asking for peace just because he's scared it will hurt his sales. To me it just sounds like this guy's asking people to leave his political views away from a movie being created by many people (many of which probably don't agree with his opinion) about a book he wrote before any of this even existed. I get less of a "He's demanding tolerance because it will hurt his sales even though he didn't offer any before" vibe and more of "what's done is done, I lost the argument, you guys won, let's all be gentlemen about it and don't take your hatred for me out on everything related to my work."

I'm not defending what he's said regarding gay marriage. I'm just saying he doesn't seem to be selfishly covering his bases so much as humbly admitting defeat and wishing to move on.

(I realize he'll be getting royalties for the movie, but I don't think greed is what's behind this white flag)

CM156:
I've had to stop caring about the political and religious views from authors, directors, actors, ect.

Otherwise, I'd scarcely be able to enjoy anything produced in the media.

Yup. I'll sign this as is and would like to promote it to be taught in schools.

How to (best) enjoy movies, music and books... and all arts.

Many a good actor or amazing artist is a complete schmuck when it comes to politics, and a scary melonfarmer when it comes to religion, bloody veganism or opinions on aliens and other nonsense. It does not impede my ability to enjoy them doing what they are good at.

Politicians, however, should be more... rooted in knowledge, facts and generally being sane.

Stuff like this makes me cringe, and it makes me question people... and things:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2343983/Whitby-Councillor-Simon-Parkes-tells-ITVs-The-Morning-I-lost-virginity-alien-holographic-age-FIVE.html

Helmholtz Watson:

Legion:

"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.

Uh... why should they? Tolerating bigotry isn't a good thing you know, and claiming people are bigots for not tolerating bigotry is just idiotic.

How is it "idotic" to say that a person should not be persecuted for having an unpopular opinion on a subject?

That is the problem. I did not say anything about persecution. I was saying people shouldn't show tolerance for bigotry, just because attempts at getting bigotry upheld in law fell through. I am not saying it'd be okay for people to harass the guy, or that he should get in trouble for it, but the fact that gay marriage is now allowed doesn't mean people should treat it like a sports game and go "Oh well, you guys lost, better luck next time".

Helmholtz Watson:

Legion:
It's akin to saying people who judge criminals are bigoted against criminals. You see, it's actually okay to be intolerant of people who do bad things.

I must have missed that day in class where it was a criminal offense to practice your right as an American citizen to vote for politicians and laws that match your views, regardless of whether or not your views were deemed "progressive". Perhaps you can help me out by providing a link where I can find these laws that make it illegal to vote based on conservative views.

Again, I said nothing about criminal offences. I was not saying the police or law enforcement should get involved in any shape or form. The right to free speech works both ways. People can express their views that gay people shouldn't marry, and people can tell those who think that to fuck off.

Freedom of speech means you cannot be prosecuted by law, it doesn't make you exempt from consequences.

I can see why people say they separate the man from the belief, otherwise you'd have to deny a lot of services available to you now. I do consider him a bigot though.

For me it's as simple as buying it, but making sure the guy I disagree with doesn't get a cent for it. Buying used or acquiring online works fine. It's just like how if I ever buy a game cliffy b is involved with, it'll be used

KingsGambit:

Lieju:
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.

That's not boycotting, that's taking advice. I have no issue with forgoing a movie, book or whatever because it sucks. I've never bought one of thise man's books because they don't interest me. But boycotting because he disagrees with a political view is what I disagree with. I don't think politics belong in the fields of entertainment, literature, academia, sports, science or medicine.

Politics isn't some nebulous thing that exists apart of rest of the fields you mentioned.

It's not just that he disagrees with my political views, it's that he is politically active and vocal, and wants to deny equal rights to a group of people. Also some of his comments in the past had been pretty creepy and violent.

You might disagree with the reasons for boycotting something, but calling it 'uncivilized'? I'd say not giving my money to someone is a pretty civilized form of opposing them. They aren't entitled to my money.

I'm planning to see this movie, but I'm not going to pay for it.
(I'm talking about legal ways, I'll find someone to borrow it from, see it on tv or get it from a library)

Fox12:
Honestly, hate the man, not the book. Guess what?

1) John Lennon was a wife beater. He was possessive and cruel, and was paranoid his wife would cheat on him, even as he cheated on her. He also admitted to beating his former girlfriends as a younger man. People still listen to the Beatles (though I admittedly don't).

2) Benjamin Franklin also cheated on his wife, and when she was dying her last request was to see him one last time. He denied her. Seriously, the guy was a douche. People still read Poor Richards Almanac, and his advice is still fantastic.

3) Eric Clapton is a racist. People still listen to him. So was Dr. Seuss and...Abraham Lincoln. http://markii.wordpress.com/2007/02/19/racist-quote-by-abe-lincoln-happy-black-history-month/

4) HP Lovecraft. Oh boy, a racist, a sexist, an anti-semite, where does it end?

5) Martin Luther King had an affair.

6) Thomas Jefferson owned slaves. He had children with one of them, and then sold all the slaves (including his children) in order to pay off his debts. His political ideas concerning liberty are still true, even if he was a hypocrite himself.

7) Everyone know JFK cheated. Not everyone knows he had several women deported out of the country in order to keep it secret.

And all of those people (except maybe Clapton?) are dead. Buying a Beatles-album doesn't give any money to Lennon, or a political cause advocating wife-beating.

I'm a big fan of Lovecraft's work, but if he was still alive (And he isn't, unless you know something I don't), I wouldn't give him my money.

We all know that the homophobes are the ones who are secretly gay. Shower scene in Ender's Game...

 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