Ender's Game Author Asks For Tolerance After Boycott Threat

[Lightknight]

It seems that he has accepted the fact that gay marriage is happening and has conceded his stance against it, basically saying that he had a different viewpoint but the courts have spoken and he wont stand in the way of your rights.

How magnanimous that a man with absolutely no power has decided he's not going to do anything with that power he doesn't have.

So if he has no power why boycott his works? Other than attempting to censor his views.

Exactly my line of thinking. The point of this boycott is to punish a person for holding unpopular views. This is a dangerous path to tread now that advances in technology have enabled society to censor individuals almost more harmfully than the government. It is right to boycott to enact change, it is potentially unethical to boycott to censor someone.

I am conflicted on the matter. On the one hand, they have every right to boycott and not give money to someone they don't like. I also believe that people who hold particularly antisocial views (e.g. KKK) do deserve some social repercussions. But on the other hand, this is quite a dangerous tool to be wielding against a guy who believes the same thing a non-trivial number of other Americans believe. And to use it merely to shut him up when he's not actually doing anything himself is or feels wrong.

In any event, this may just have the streizand effect like the boycott of chic fil a caused. I should read his essay though. Perhaps it includes components that I would equate as hate speech, something I'm generally fine with dashing underfoot. But from what I've read, he just believed that marriage is between a man and a woman. I don't think boycotting a movie about a book he wrote thirty years ago that includes no reference to the material is going to do anything about anything. Just an attempt to censor. Which is interesting.

Wonderful response, thank you for your insight.

Thank you, and thank you for your contribution as well.

 

[Something Amyss]

If that is what you did no it wouldn't be a strawman

Since it is, I'm glad you agree it's not a strawman. Apology accepted.

Now, the question stands. Is slavery okay? After all, if rights are abstract....

The whole "harming another" thing which you failed to quote...really?

Of course, "harm" is still a subjective terms. I'm depriving them of rights, but that's an abstract concept.

...Yeah, you might have walked into that one.

Honestly I don't personalize myself with issues so I don't have the blinding passion that most have on the issue, I was merely curious.

You jumped in

Saying I support him is a far far stretch so I don't know where that came from

I just Control_Fed that post and didn't see where I said that you supported him in any meaningful sense. I spoke of my right not to support him, which doesn't impact you. I spoke of his support for NOM. I spoke of his support and my support, but I don't remember and can't find mention of your support. As a result, I can't help but wonder if you are even reading what I write. This smacks of dishonesty. And there's more on that to come.

Ive never said you shouldn't boycott his works.

I turned the question around. I asked why I should support him, and why lack of support for him equated to the harsher things you're accusing people of when all they're doing is refusing to support someone. And by posing those statements as though they are germane to the issue at hand, you ARE equating them.

Perhaps he is a victim of his environment.

So what you're saying is that you can't prove your affirmative claim, but it's not false to equate his state with one where people actually are "born that way."

Gotcha.

Perhaps if he was shown tolerance for his actions his bigotry would die off and be replaced with true acceptance rather than whipping him and his friends into another anti-gay shitstorm.

Again, if you took a few minutes to know what you were talking about, you'd know he's been doing this without a shitstorm for most of my life, and statistically all of yours. It was only when he threatened to topple the government and so on that he really started to draw ire. Showing tolerance to Card worked so well.

I know you're not as "invested," but if you're going to argue, why not know what you're arguing about?

My over all question was when is the fighting back and forth going to stop and who is gonna be the bigger man?

Yes, and let's equate someone trying to treat people as second-class citizens and deprive them of that which as been determined to be a right to people not buying a dude's book for wanting to destroy them and any government that supports them. Perfectly logical.

 

[Carnagath]

...I really don't think any other book in the series, apart from Ender's Game, is actually filmable. Speaker for the Dead is great on paper, but on film it would probably be a ridiculous-looking disaster, and from then on the mindfuck becomes too great for anyone apart from perhaps Kubrick to be able to unfuck it enough for it to be comprehensible within a 2-hour time frame. So, basically, that's his one film. I don't think boycotting it would do that much damage to him.

Also, most of the writers that you admire are fucked up monsters in one way or another. Almost no great writer is a normal, pleasant person with "healthy" beliefs and attitude. Separating them from their work is a necessity, if you actually want to read anything good. Still, I do understand that when someone is very active and vocal about something important, and you disagree, you may find it hard to give them any more of your money. That doesn't surprise me. What does surprise me, is that he addressed the calls for a boycott, and in such a passive-aggressive way. I honestly did not expect that. I would have expected him to shrug it off as a predictable consequence of the fact that he has fought for his beliefs against what he considers to be a horde of degenerates out to turn the world into an immoral shithole that he'd rather not have his children live in. But this miserable little whimper of his, this passive-aggressive plea for tolerance, is not something I expected from someone with his tenacity.

 

[Helmholtz Watson]

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?

It would depend on why you gave them money, and what you hoped to do with it. Also, just fyi, but unless you are giving money to some dead former confederates [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ku_Klux_Klan#First_KKK], you should realize that the KKK has long since expanded their attention to include not only Black Americans, but other groups as well and that you could summarize how they view themselves and the groups they hate/terrorize with this cartoon [http://img.gawkerassets.com/img/18gog77bcqfsyjpg/original.jpg].

Case in point, apparently the KKK has protested the WBC [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-kRvqplEUS8]....so if you gave them money because of their counter protest to the WBC I might call you misguided and tell you that there are better ways to support people who disprove of the WBC but I don't know if I would call you racist based solely on that action alone.

 

[Spearmaster]

If that is what you did no it wouldn't be a strawman

Since it is, I'm glad you agree it's not a strawman. Apology accepted.

Now, the question stands. Is slavery okay? After all, if rights are abstract....

Slavery again? If you want an apology then tell me how stating rights are abstract is also stating that slavery is probably ok. Slavery being ok or not is a morality issue, rights are a legal issue, you creating a morality issue was your strawman and apparently still is.

Your asking a morality question that has nothing to do with "rights" being abstract. Is slavery ok? no its not ok. What does that have to do with rights being abstract? A government can give people the "right" to own another is that ok? A government can give people the "right" to do anything immoral.

The whole "harming another" thing which you failed to quote...really?

Of course, "harm" is still a subjective terms. I'm depriving them of rights, but that's an abstract concept.

...Yeah, you might have walked into that one.

Walked into what? Your ignorance on the subject? Your depriving them of basic human freedom, which I stated all people should have unless it harms another, if you enslave them you are harming their freedom are you not? Rights can be created to let anyone do anything so if the government gives you the "right" to have slaves you can. Again this is a morality question. Not a legal "rights" question.

So if rights are not abstract where do they come from? and what determines who gets what rights?

 

[Spearmaster]

It seems that he has accepted the fact that gay marriage is happening and has conceded his stance against it, basically saying that he had a different viewpoint but the courts have spoken and he wont stand in the way of your rights.

How magnanimous that a man with absolutely no power has decided he's not going to do anything with that power he doesn't have.

So if he has no power why boycott his works? Other than attempting to censor his views.

Exactly my line of thinking. The point of this boycott is to punish a person for holding unpopular views. This is a dangerous path to tread now that advances in technology have enabled society to censor individuals almost more harmfully than the government. It is right to boycott to enact change, it is potentially unethical to boycott to censor someone.

I am conflicted on the matter. On the one hand, they have every right to boycott and not give money to someone they don't like. I also believe that people who hold particularly antisocial views (e.g. KKK) do deserve some social repercussions. But on the other hand, this is quite a dangerous tool to be wielding against a guy who believes the same thing a non-trivial number of other Americans believe. And to use it merely to shut him up when he's not actually doing anything himself is or feels wrong.

In any event, this may just have the streizand effect like the boycott of chic fil a caused. I should read his essay though. Perhaps it includes components that I would equate as hate speech, something I'm generally fine with dashing underfoot. But from what I've read, he just believed that marriage is between a man and a woman. I don't think boycotting a movie about a book he wrote thirty years ago that includes no reference to the material is going to do anything about anything. Just an attempt to censor. Which is interesting.

When it involves censoring someones views and thoughts it walks a fine line with me, at what point is it doing more harm than good? and is it just a mob out policing thought?

I view choosing not to support someone and trying to rally/guilt everyone into a boycott two completely different things, hell I was called a bigot because I did not want to join the chick-fil-a boycott.

Its the absolutist's with us or against us ideal that I distaste the most.

 

[Terramax]

May I ask a question, due to my ignorance? Are gay marriages in the US now allowed in churches, or must they be strictly via the registration method?

 

[Rastrelly]

Hahaha, you guys are so funny with those "problems" of some deviant minority being "oppressed". I love those screams of people being "intolerant", "homophobic" - sooo sweet to watch this new wave of witch hunt. OK, who will be next? You guys had communists, had homophobes, now... Let's see... Next will be apple juice drinkers who violate the rights of fruits to be equal!

 

[Lightknight]

May I ask a question, due to my ignorance? Are gay marriages in the US now allowed in churches, or must they be strictly via the registration method?

Gay marriages as far as the ceremony are allowed anywhere that it would be legal for anyone else to have a marriage. It's the marriage license that varies from state to state.

The ambiguity of the term has caused the confusion over your question.

 

[Terramax]

May I ask a question, due to my ignorance? Are gay marriages in the US now allowed in churches, or must they be strictly via the registration method?

Gay marriages in the US aren't even allowed in most states.

What the court actually overturned was the ability of the federal government to not recognize a marriage that was legal in a state. Before this, even though gay marriage was legal in, for example, Iowa, a married couple in Iowa couldn't get their federal benefits because the federal government said "Go To Hell". This was, rightly, ruled as unconstitutional.

However, under half of the states actually allow gay marriage right now. A few allow a less benefit-filled civil union with the benefits of common-law marriage.

And no, no religious institution is required to marry people if it's against their beliefs. So only churches that believe in gay marriage (which exist, but are a pretty slim minority) are ones currently performing gay marriages, and the law didn't change that.

Ah, ok. Many thanks for clarifying.

 

[Use_Imagination_here]

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.

With my Devil's Advocate hat on again, it might be said that homophobes believe gay people *do* 'bad things' - and they would be in the moral majority in most places and centuries too. So in that respect I don't think it's entirely unreasonable for him to ask us to tolerate his views. Which I do. I just don't want to give him any money to spend on propagating them.

I don't see how that changes the fact that his views are harmful and irrational. Homosexuality is not "bad" as evidenced by the fact that there are no rational arguments to support that it is, regardless of all the people who have motivation to make such. The fact that he THINKS he's right is irrelevant, of course he does.

 

[Lovely Mixture]

So if he has no power why boycott his works? Other than attempting to censor his views.

Exactly my line of thinking. The point of this boycott is to punish a person for holding unpopular views. This is a dangerous path to tread now that advances in technology have enabled society to censor individuals almost more harmfully than the government. It is right to boycott to enact change, it is potentially unethical to boycott to censor someone.

When it involves censoring someones views and thoughts it walks a fine line with me, at what point is it doing more harm than good? and is it just a mob out policing thought?

I don't see why this needs to be explained, but boycotts do not equate to censorship.

Censorship is demanding the movie not be shown.
Censorship is refusing to allow the movie to be published or preventing people from seeing the movie.
Thought crime would be demanding he be arrested for his views.

I view choosing not to support someone and trying to rally/guilt everyone into a boycott two completely different things, hell I was called a bigot because I did not want to join the chick-fil-a boycott.

Its the absolutist's with us or against us ideal that I distaste the most.

You're not a bigot, but you're supporting bigotry inadvertently.

I wouldn't call a person bigot for not wanting to join the boycott, but I would tell them that they are choosing to ignore the feelings of those who are being oppressed, you don't need to feel guilty about that. But that's how it is.

You say false equivalence but on what authority? Perhaps he is a victim of his environment.
Perhaps if he was shown tolerance for his actions his bigotry would die off and be replaced with true acceptance rather than whipping him and his friends into another anti-gay shitstorm.

He has been shown tolerance.....for the last three decades, his bigotry still hasn't died down.

My over all question was when is the fighting back and forth going to stop and who is gonna be the bigger man? I guess time will tell.

There is no "bigger man" in this case. There's Man One trying to take away rights from Man Two. Do you think Man Two and his friends should just sit by?

It's not an issue with middle ground

"A wants gays to have rights, B doesn't want gays to have rights. Therefore we should give give gays one and a half rights."

 

[Lightknight]

I don't see why this needs to be explained, but boycotts do not equate to censorship.

Didn't say that boycotts did. Said the intention of it was to censor Card himself from expressing his views. Also, as a shot across the bow of anyone else with financial endeavors who holds such opinions.

The entire point is that this boycott isn't to stop something from happen or to get something to change. This is to punish someone for his beliefs despite him not actively doing anything about it in the movie or elsewhere.

We're not saying (or I hope the others here aren't) that they're censoring the movie by boycotting it. Merely that they're trying to punish him by doing so.

 

[Lovely Mixture]

Didn't say that boycotts did. Said the intention of it was to censor Card himself from expressing his views. Also, as a shot across the bow of anyone else with financial endeavors who holds such opinions.

But that's also not the case. Because it doesn't do that either. Card can say his views, Bigots can say their views. The boycott does not prevent them from doing either, it's a message that says "we do not support your views."

Card and the bigots can rant and do whatever the fuck they want. But me and the boycotters aren't giving them money.

I've had to say this at least three times in the thread.

The entire point is that this boycott isn't to stop something from happen or to get something to change. This is to punish someone for his beliefs despite him not actively doing anything about it in the movie or elsewhere.

He is doing it elsewhere, He is STILL a member of the NOM, giving money to him is giving money to NOM. The boycott is a matter of principle, integrity, and refusal to support such organizations.

We're not saying (or I hope the others here aren't) that they're censoring the movie by boycotting it. Merely that they're trying to punish him by doing so.

Yes. That's what boycotts are, they are punishment. They are the mildest form of punishment, they are a form of punishment that is made possible by the freedom to spend your money how you want to. Passive resistance.

You make it sound as if boycotts steal money from people. They don't. Every person chooses what to do with their money.

tl;dr there is no censorship or intention of censorship. Not supporting someone you are against is punishment, but you make that sound as if it's wrong to do.

 

[Kittyhawk]

I think if Card had put his politics into his work, they'd have more of a case. He hasn't done that, so while even I disagree with some of his personal views, I'd still go and see an awesome looking film based an an awesome book. On top of that, Card is entitled to make a living so he can eat and pay bills, like the rest of us.

I understand Lions Gates concerns, but despite this noise, I think Enders Game will do just fine for a few reasons. The first is that we don't get as much sci-fi these days as we used to get years ago, which makes fans more hungry for something cool, the most recent being Man of Steel and Pacific Rim. The second is that Enders Game has a young cast, which will tap into the young teen/adult crowd. And third its got Harrison Ford plus aliens in it. Don't see how it can fail.

As for the LGBT community, while I feel your pain, in a war for your agenda and equality, you have to pick your battles carefully. Boycotting this film won't help, when efforts could be focused on something more constructive.

 

[Korolev]

Do I tolerate Orson? Sure, I tolerate him. I'm not calling for his views to be made illegal, I'm not asking for him to be throw in jail or for the government to persecute him - all of which he has called for gays to be subjected to.

A boycott of your works isn't a "failure" of tolerance. It's saying that we don't like your views. That you should be free to spout your dribble, Mr. Card, sure. That you demand that we like you for it, no.

I don't want the law to come down on you Orson. I'm not calling for you to be fired. I'm not saying you can't make a film. I tolerate your existence. I just don't like you.

It's funny how a man who is extremely intolerant is now pleading for tolerance. Mr. Card, oh Mr. Card - you're already tolerated. A huge segment of the population and the government agree with your views. No one is saying you should be thrown in jail.

Tell you what, Card - you stop saying that Gays should be throw in PRISON, and maybe I'll despise you a little less.

 

[Lightknight]

Would you pay money to someone who was going to immediately spend that money to try and take away your rights?

No, I wouldn't pay money to do that. I also wouldn't actively try to enact a mass boycott a movie that was published and produced by other companies who enjoyed a book he wrote 30 years ago to punish him for voicing his opinion.

For three reasons.
1. The use of boycotting to censor/silence someone for voicing unpopular opinions is murky waters.
2. Because I understand the Streisand Effect. If this gains any kind of traction, it will only serve to increase viewership.
3. Because the movie itself has nothing to do with the topic the boycott is for.

EDIT: Speaking of which, the studio has since made a very public statement regarding their history of proud support of gay marriage and direct disagreement with Orson's beliefs. You'd generally be hurting the movie industry, not the writer himself. The movie industry generally being one of the most pro-gay industries there are.

 

[Spearmaster]

I view choosing not to support someone and trying to rally/guilt everyone into a boycott two completely different things, hell I was called a bigot because I did not want to join the chick-fil-a boycott.

Its the absolutist's with us or against us ideal that I distaste the most.

You're not a bigot, but you're supporting bigotry inadvertently.

I wouldn't call a person bigot for not wanting to join the boycott, but I would tell them that they are choosing to ignore the feelings of those who are being oppressed, you don't need to feel guilty about that. But that's how it is.

But I didn't support a bigot because I don't eat at chick-fil-a but I still didn't want to "join" the boycott because I didn't want to align myself with either side and to some that made me a bigot because according to the person I had this discussion with the reason for the boycott was to bankrupt and make unwelcome anyone that held those views and anyone that didn't pledge their support for the boycott might as well be a bigot themselves, but that's just one person I guess. A boycott when its a group of individuals simply not supporting someone is a great thing but I have a hard time swallowing it when there is clear malicious intent from a large organized entity to eventually censor or eradicate someones opinion.

As a side point do you know where every cent you spend goes? Because you are probably inadvertently supporting hundreds of bigots out there. If you pay taxes I know you are. I'm not saying that you shouldn't still boycott things, just a sad fact I'm afraid.

When it involves censoring someones views and thoughts it walks a fine line with me, at what point is it doing more harm than good? and is it just a mob out policing thought?

I don't see why this needs to be explained, but boycotts do not equate to censorship.

Censorship is demanding the movie not be shown.
Censorship is refusing to allow the movie to be published or preventing people from seeing the movie.
Thought crime would be demanding he be arrested for his views.

But censorship can be an end result for others that hold similar views out of fear for their livelihood, which is fine with me if they make their living advocating bigotry but for people that hold a personal view separate from their business all it does is force them into the closet with it...remind you of anything?

Silent boycotts don't do this but they also don't work because they are silent. Ever known anyone to boycott something and not try to make a big public deal out of it? That's why I find the whole "I'm just choosing not to support X thing/person" unbelievable because when someone enters the public realm with a boycott its a public protest, what are they protesting with the boycott? Another persons personal views/beliefs. What other result can someone wish to gain by this other that attempting to force people to censor themselves for fear of financial harm?