Ender's Game Author Asks For Tolerance After Boycott Threat

[Lovely Mixture]

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

Then it was irrelevant to you. But you opted for the neutral option anyway.

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.

Yeah, every movement has fanatics.

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.

And....as you said it was one person who sought to eradicate someone's opinion. And boycott's don't do that regardless.

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.

Yeah and it's irrelevant, you can't know where all your money goes. But it doesn't defeat the purpose of making your money go somewhere that isn't supporting bigotry.

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

A possible end result, but unless they're being physically threatened, they have all the benefits of free speech. No one is forcing them to change their beliefs, they have to do that themselves.

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?

Card made it part of his business, he doesn't hold it separate. Ender's game might not have homophobia, but Card's business is writing, and he has written much about homophobia.

For other cases, I might agree.

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?

Not sure what you're arguing here. Since when was this defined as a silent boycott? Why does it matter?

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?

And what's the problem with public protest?

Also it's simple, because most protests are the same,they're displays of principle and opposition.

You might as well ask "why did those people set themselves on fire? Do they think it will change anything? They're gonna be dead anyway."

They do it because they want to make a statement, they want to do it in a way that doesn't harm others. It doesn't matter to them if it gets results or not, they want to say "I'm sticking by my principles."

Sometimes it works. Sometimes it doesn't. This protest got Card's attention and instead of directly addressing it, he did the most cowardly option of saying "it's not a big deal for me right now but I hope those gays are nice to us."

What other result can someone wish to gain by this other that attempting to force people to censor themselves for fear of financial harm?

Understanding? Recognition that they dislike those views? Extending an olive branch?

Boycotting this film won't help, when efforts could be focused on something more constructive.

Principle.

Also it's a boycott, I doubt it requires any effort other than not seeing a movie.

 

[Andrew_C]

Regardless of the morality of boycotting Card is a terrible person. This is someone who has publicly called for homosexuality to be criminalised (in 1990). He back-pedalled slightly after being called out but still holds his homophobic believes and is still a board member of the homophobic pressure group the National Organisation for Marriage. Do you really want someone like that and an organisation like that benefiting from your money?

 

[K12]

I never tolerate homophobia in the sense that I just sit back and let them say all the misconceptions and bad arguments without being challenged. If I hear "it's a choice" or "marriage is defined as a man and a woman" or "marriages are meant to produce children" I challenge that.

I'd never lock anyone up for just being homophobic or racist or misogynist etc. but that doesn't mean I have to let people spew it uninterrupted. You have the right to free speech, you can keep talking without being silenced, but not a right to have your views left unchallenged.

There's tolerance and there's tolerance. Card's views are intolerant of gays because they seek to restrict their rights. My views of homophobes are "intolerant" because they seek to prevent homophobic views from being unchallenged when they put them out in public...

Definitely not the same thing!

 

[MammothBlade]

Well, now I read Ender's Game, it didn't exactly come across as a work of literary genius - but the man is entitled to his views and his works should be judged on their merits alone not on his personal opinion. However, if he's donating to anti-gay charity, that's a different story and I for one would not want to fund that, directly or indirectly.

 

[maidenm]

So, this guy is a mormon right? Hmm...
He is actively intolerant towards homosexuals and people who support them, both verbally and actively. He believes in Jesus Christ, who preached that you should treat others as you would have them treat you. I can therefore conclude that his behaviour is his subtle way of telling us he does not wish to be tolerated and it is our moral obligation to follow his wishes!

Jokes aside, yadayada what people have said. A work of art does not become tarnished by it's creator's views, supporting him still gives him money to finance his bloody crusade against equal rights, should we boycott or be the bigger person etc. etc. Personally I never read his book and now I won't unless I find them on the street. People say good things about them apparently, I can't ignore that. But I will not buy them myself and I'm not really interested in the movie so I might unintentionally boycott it. Either way, he's not getting anything from me as long as he donates him money to these "charities".

All I can hope is that this man understands that times have moved on, it's no longer acceptable to be intolerant on a active level. It's fine if you want to hate someone, it's even somewhat fine to say that to their face nowadays (politely, as in "I don't agree with your lifestyle"), it's not fine to make efforts to limit their freedom and their lives because you get nervous about what they do behind closed doors.

 

[Spartan448]

Yes, Card was an asshole. That much won't change. But by discriminating against the discriminator, we change nothing. If anything, we become just as bad as they do. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, no matter how politically incorrect it is, and the minute we start trying to destroy people for that is the minute we are no longer a free and open society.

And to me, that is more important than any other legal declaration.

Ok. Do you guys really think that boycotting is discrimination? Or am I just reading this really poorly?

Boycotting can be used for both discriminatory and non-discriminatory purposes. If all of the white people in the Civil Rights Era South had decided to boycott any business owned by an African American, you would have called it discrimination. And just because someone has been discriminated against does not give them the right to discriminate against others, even the people who discriminated against them to begin with.

We seem to have this notion in society that if someone does something to you, you have the right to do at least that much back to them. I hate to use something so controversial, but the recently decided Zimmerman trial is a good example of this, though I believe the Prosecution made the wrong arguments in that case. The argument should not have been, "did Zimmerman murder this kid", but "so if he was getting beaten by this kid, he is justified to defend himself. But with the absence of evidence that Martin meant to kill Zimmerman, was Zimmerman justified in responding with overwhelming lethal force?".

You see the same kind of argument come out whenever there are large protests broken up by police. People will often decry the police for responding with force way out of proportion to that of the protesters.

This societal notion that just because someone made you sad you then have the right to destroy them fiscally is quite frankly absurd and monstrous, and reveals some of the most disgusting parts of human nature.

 

[Spearmaster]

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

A possible end result, but unless they're being physically threatened, they have all the benefits of free speech. No one is forcing them to change their beliefs, they have to do that themselves.

Fair enough, as long as we are acknowledging that it can lead to censorship of views

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?

Card made it part of his business, he doesn't hold it separate. Ender's game might not have homophobia, but Card's business is writing, and he has written much about homophobia.

For other cases, I might agree.

Yes I agree, Card is fair game but what about the movie studio? Is it their fault for making a movie from a book that just happened to be written by a bigot? Do they now have to research the personal views of a creator of a property for fear of a boycott? They already avoid any material which is seen as insensitive.

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?

Not sure what you're arguing here. Since when was this defined as a silent boycott? Why does it matter?

I'm arguing that the innocent claim of "I'm just choosing not to spend my money to support X" doesn't exist, its more complicated than that when it moves from a silent boycott to a public protest boycott.

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?

And what's the problem with public protest?

Also it's simple, because most protests are the same,they're displays of principle and opposition.

You might as well ask "why did those people set themselves on fire? Do they think it will change anything? They're gonna be dead anyway."

They do it because they want to make a statement, they want to do it in a way that doesn't harm others. It doesn't matter to them if it gets results or not, they want to say "I'm sticking by my principles."

Sometimes it works. Sometimes it doesn't. This protest got Card's attention and instead of directly addressing it, he did the most cowardly option of saying "it's not a big deal for me right now but I hope those gays are nice to us."

The problem is a boycott IS meant to harm others financially because someone disagrees with their views, Card has no power to make any relevant changes in policy which has already been stated, so the statement being made is "think like us or we will try and cause you financial hardship" I don't see any other message.

What other result can someone wish to gain by this other that attempting to force people to censor themselves for fear of financial harm?

Understanding? Recognition that they dislike those views? Extending an olive branch?

An olive branch of "conform to our views or we will cause you financial harm"? When have people ever responded well when threatened?

I don't really mind people boycotting something but it seems like an ineffective way to gain an understanding from that person.

 

[Ultress]

I probably won't see this movie not because of his views though that is a part of it but because I just can't be asked. Never read the book and have little desire to do so. Also in the article picture why does he look like he's about to give a rousing speech to an underdog sports team.

 

[Xenedus]

OK... for everyone who keeps portraying this as the Political Correctness crowd punishing Card for his views let me lay it out for you.

1. Card is a producer of a commodity.

2. Card is supported by the people who buy that commodity.

3. People can freely choose to support or not to support Card and his work for any damn reason they choose.

4. With this in mind, Card is an idiot for actively pissing off a significant portion of the population.



Look at it this way. If I own a pizza place and vocally speak out to everyone who walks through the door about how much I hate Black people I am going to start seeing fewer people coming through my door because even though my pizza is unrelated to my political views people do not want to give someone like me their financial support.

Card can have any view he wants on anything he wants but that doesn't mean he is entitled to our money. People may like his books but that doesn't mean he's entitled to lots of money. Don't piss off your customers.

 

[Cpt. Lozan]

He ever opposed gay marriage? That's hugely surprising to me, since I thought I was picking up some gay tension between Ender and Alai. Remember that time they kissed. I do. It was pretty gay.

 

[Spearmaster]

Look at it this way. If I own a pizza place and vocally speak out to everyone who walks through the door about how much I hate Black people I am going to start seeing fewer people coming through my door because even though my pizza is unrelated to my political views people do not want to give someone like me their financial support.

Yeah but in that case you are using your pizza place as a venue for spreading those bigoted ideals so your pizza is related to your political views.

 

[Callie]

If he can't stick to his own ideas over fears he might lose money, this is more disappointing than his opinion to begin with. Someone who bends to pressure this easily can't be taken seriously

 

[Andrew_C]

Fair enough, as long as we are acknowledging that it can lead to censorship of views

Yes I agree, Card is fair game but what about the movie studio? Is it their fault for making a movie from a book that just happened to be written by a bigot? Do they now have to research the personal views of a creator of a property for fear of a boycott? They already avoid any material which is seen as insensitive.

I'm arguing that the innocent claim of "I'm just choosing not to spend my money to support X" doesn't exist, its more complicated than that when it moves from a silent boycott to a public protest boycott.

The problem is a boycott IS meant to harm others financially because someone disagrees with their views, Card has no power to make any relevant changes in policy which has already been stated, so the statement being made is "think like us or we will try and cause you financial hardship" I don't see any other message.

An olive branch of "conform to our views or we will cause you financial harm"? When have people ever responded well when threatened?

I don't really mind people boycotting something but it seems like an ineffective way to gain an understanding from that person.

You and several other in this thread appear to be trying to frame this as the boycotters somehow infringing Card's freedom of speech or the freedom of commerce of the movie studio. Would we still be having this conversation if he had called for interracial marriage to be criminalised, was a prominent member of the KKK and was well known for spouting racist bile? I think not.

 

[Lovely Mixture]

Boycotting can be used for both discriminatory and non-discriminatory purposes.

Yes, no one is arguing against that. But boycotting itself is not inherently discriminatory, it can be motivated by prejudice but it can also be motivated by logic.

We seem to have this notion in society that if someone does something to you, you have the right to do at least that much back to them.

You see the same kind of argument come out whenever there are large protests broken up by police. People will often decry the police for responding with force way out of proportion to that of the protesters.

But that's not the case...... at all.
If the situations were comparable people would be trying to take away Cards rights, his actual rights. He has a right to make money, people have the right to inform others and NOT spend their money.

This societal notion that just because someone made you sad you then have the right to destroy them fiscally is quite frankly absurd and monstrous, and reveals some of the most disgusting parts of human nature.

But it's not in response to him having "made people sad." He's actively lobbying to remove rights from people he is active in the anti-gay community.

It's not some mere disagreement.

Yes I agree, Card is fair game but what about the movie studio? Is it their fault for making a movie from a book that just happened to be written by a bigot? Do they now have to research the personal views of a creator of a property for fear of a boycott? They already avoid any material which is seen as insensitive.

No, they have a right to entertain how they choose to. But they can be supported in ways that aren't beneficial to Card.

I'm arguing that the innocent claim of "I'm just choosing not to spend my money to support X" doesn't exist, its more complicated than that when it moves from a silent boycott to a public protest boycott.

Yeah, I don't think anyone here disagrees with that. There's intent, but there's nothing malicious about it.

The problem is a boycott IS meant to harm others financially because someone disagrees with their views, Card has no power to make any relevant changes in policy which has already been stated, so the statement being made is "think like us or we will try and cause you financial hardship" I don't see any other message.

Why is it perceived as "financial hardship" to you, and not passive resistance in response to someone's goal? Making a decision to not give money to something you do not want to support?

An olive branch of "conform to our views or we will cause you financial harm"? When have people ever responded well when threatened?

How about "we aren't supporting your movie because you are trying to take away our rights, we refuse to give added support to this film because we fear it will support your agenda."

Yes, there are people would would boycott the movie for him having his opinion. But he doesn't just have his opinion, he is actively trying to remove rights from people.

I don't really mind people boycotting something but it seems like an ineffective way to gain an understanding from that person.

Not necessarily understanding, but attention. If there was no response like this, he wouldn't have even commented.

 

[Johnny Novgorod]

People pay too much attention to this guy, seriously.

 

[Spearmaster]

Fair enough, as long as we are acknowledging that it can lead to censorship of views

Yes I agree, Card is fair game but what about the movie studio? Is it their fault for making a movie from a book that just happened to be written by a bigot? Do they now have to research the personal views of a creator of a property for fear of a boycott? They already avoid any material which is seen as insensitive.

I'm arguing that the innocent claim of "I'm just choosing not to spend my money to support X" doesn't exist, its more complicated than that when it moves from a silent boycott to a public protest boycott.

The problem is a boycott IS meant to harm others financially because someone disagrees with their views, Card has no power to make any relevant changes in policy which has already been stated, so the statement being made is "think like us or we will try and cause you financial hardship" I don't see any other message.

An olive branch of "conform to our views or we will cause you financial harm"? When have people ever responded well when threatened?

I don't really mind people boycotting something but it seems like an ineffective way to gain an understanding from that person.

You and several other in this thread appear to be trying to frame this as the boycotters somehow infringing Card's freedom of speech or the freedom of commerce of the movie studio. Would we still be having this conversation if he had called for interracial marriage to be criminalised, was a prominent member of the KKK and was well known for spouting racist bile? I think not.

I'm not saying that there is any infringement of Card's or the movie studios rights, just that there are many other factors to a boycott than simply not supporting something. There are censorship issues and free commerce issues but people have to know those issues exist so they can decide on the morality of each boycott for them selves.

 

[Spearmaster]

Yes I agree, Card is fair game but what about the movie studio? Is it their fault for making a movie from a book that just happened to be written by a bigot? Do they now have to research the personal views of a creator of a property for fear of a boycott? They already avoid any material which is seen as insensitive.

No, they have a right to entertain how they choose to. But they can be supported in ways that aren't beneficial to Card.

I'm pretty sure card was paid for the rights to the movie well before there was even a script so boycotting the movie will probably not negatively affect Card unless he has a very rare contract giving him a percentage of the movies gross.

I'm arguing that the innocent claim of "I'm just choosing not to spend my money to support X" doesn't exist, its more complicated than that when it moves from a silent boycott to a public protest boycott.

Yeah, I don't think anyone here disagrees with that. There's intent, but there's nothing malicious about it.

No malicious intent from most people but I don't think you speak for everyone boycotting Card.

The problem is a boycott IS meant to harm others financially because someone disagrees with their views, Card has no power to make any relevant changes in policy which has already been stated, so the statement being made is "think like us or we will try and cause you financial hardship" I don't see any other message.

Why is it perceived as "financial hardship" to you, and not passive resistance in response to someone's goal? Making a decision to not give money to something you do not want to support?

Because what is Card's current goal? What is being resisted other than his personal views at this point? Is it to keep him from spreading awareness of his views?

An olive branch of "conform to our views or we will cause you financial harm"? When have people ever responded well when threatened?

How about "we aren't supporting your movie because you are trying to take away our rights, we refuse to give added support to this film because we fear it will support your agenda."

Yes, there are people would would boycott the movie for him having his opinion. But he doesn't just have his opinion, he is actively trying to remove rights from people.

Don't get me wrong, I know everyone is just trying to keep money out of the hands of these anti-homosexual organizations
and that's great but it needs to be the bigger part of the boycott's message, all I've been hearing is that card is a bigot and a horrible homophobic monster. People need to express the concern of funding these organizations and not so much their personal vendetta with cards views.

I don't really mind people boycotting something but it seems like an ineffective way to gain an understanding from that person.

Not necessarily understanding, but attention. If there was no response like this, he wouldn't have even commented.

Just be careful of the attention that you generate and the message you send. People will be asking "why boycott this movie? Its not an anti-homosexual film"

 

[Lovely Mixture]

I'm pretty sure card was paid for the rights to the movie well before there was even a script so boycotting the movie will probably not negatively affect Card unless he has a very rare contract giving him a percentage of the movies gross.

Yes, it'd be silly to think otherwise. But if the movie is successful he will benefit from it from further deals.

No malicious intent from most people but I don't think you speak for everyone boycotting Card.

Which I've acknowledged previously. What I mean to say is that a show of passive resistance is the least malicious thing you could do to Card at this point.

If people throw eggs at his house, I will criticize them.
If people give him death threats, I will criticize them.
If people try to burn copies of the film, I will criticize them.

Because what is Card's current goal? What is being resisted other than his personal views at this point? Is it to keep him from spreading awareness of his views?

If the movie sells well
he gets more recognition and press
studios make further deals with him
He gets more money
More money for his anti-gay activities with NOM

Yes it's a long winded connection, but even a mild connection like that is enough to irritate people.

Don't get me wrong, I know everyone is just trying to keep money out of the hands of these anti-homosexual organizations
and that's great but it needs to be the bigger part of the boycott's message, all I've been hearing is that card is a bigot and a horrible homophobic monster. People need to express the concern of funding these organizations and not so much their personal vendetta with cards views.

Then you haven't read up on it, because that's been clearly stated by Geek Out

http://geeksout.org/blogs/jono/geeks-out-responds-orson-scott-card-still-plans-skip-enders-game
http://skipendersgame.com/

Just be careful of the attention that you generate and the message you send. People will be asking "why boycott this movie? Its not an anti-homosexual film"

I will be telling them the same thing I told you. "I don't want to give money that could result in a bigot getting more money."

Even if the movie does well and he still gets more funds, I'll be happy enough to say that I stuck by my principles.

 

[Xenedus]

Boycotting can be used for both discriminatory and non-discriminatory purposes.

Actually by definition Boycotting is always discriminatory. The only difference is your targets.

I'm not saying that there is any infringement of Card's or the movie studios rights, just that there are many other factors to a boycott than simply not supporting something. There are censorship issues and free commerce issues but people have to know those issues exist so they can decide on the morality of each boycott for them selves.

Actually it's not censorship if people let you make your film and then simply refuse to buy it. If that were the case then every movie that did poorly would have done so because of censorship. People don't go to see films for many reasons and any reason is just as legitimate as the next. People could decide not to see a film because it has a certain actor in it or because they don't like the message in the film or because they are bothered by the fact that the guy profiting from the film is actively taking a shit on them at every available opportunity.

Get this through your head: People don't NEED a reason to decide not to watch something that's the whole point of free choice. There is no real morality issues with a boycott. You can boycott anything for any reason at any time.

 

[gmaverick019_v1legacy]

So when his opinion was popular, he advocated [http://www.deseretnews.com/article/700245157/State-job-is-not-to-redefine-marriage.html] "chang[ing] governments, by whatever means is made possible or necessary", and added that if gay marriage were recognized, he would personally "act to destroy [the] government and bring it down". Now that the long arc of history is bending away from him, he suddenly says "I have no quarrel with proponents of gay marriage". I can't help but think of this:

awesome and perfect gif to describe my feelings on the matter, it's a bully-ish snob who isn't getting his ignorant way, so now he's all "oh, i didn't really mean to sneer and push you into the locker all those times, i was just trying to give you a high five-er whatever!"