Ender's Game Author Asks For Tolerance After Boycott Threat

[Spearmaster]

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/

That's kind of my point, most people wont be going to geeks out to find out all the details, they will take it at face value based on what they hear on forums or on the street and those messages seem oversimplified and negative.

 

[Lovely Mixture]

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/

That's kind of my point, most people wont be going to geeks out to find out all the details, they will take it at face value based on what they hear on forums or on the street and those messages seem oversimplified and negative.

1. We were talking about YOUR perception of it, don't redirect the issue to how the general public perceives it. If you failed to look up the information, that's your fault, article on the first page has links to this information.
2. Yes, ignorant people will remain ignorant if they don't bother to look for information. If all they see is "boycott" and they don't look any further, you know doing that whole tedious "reading" thing? Then yeah they won't know what to think.
3. If those people can't bother to read about something, or even GOOGLING about something, they probably wouldn't care to begin with.
4. "Most people" would request more information.

 

[Dragonbums]

Perhaps his works are INDEED good.

However when you voice a political opinion vehemently, and with seemingly no tolerance or understanding for the opposition don't be surprised when people avoid your products as well.
We are starting to come to an age where saying you hate or have anything against gay marriage is akin saying people of color should be segregated again.

As someone who is close friends with gay and transgendered people I will not be using my money to support one income so they can continue to act like homosexuals don't deserve the same rights and benefits as anyone else.

Considering how nobody raises a stink at being able to marry your animals, and is indeed 100% legal in 18 different states in America and varies in legality in many other states long before America even allowed gay marriage in ONE state shows me that these kinds of people are either ignorant or hypocritical.

Sorry, but you have to live with the actions you chose.
Don't expect a pity party from those whom you offended.

 

[MeChaNiZ3D]

He's still being a bit of a fucker about it though. "Let's see if the victorious proponents will show tolerance" -> if you boycott my material you're a hypocrite.

But I always agreed with him to an extent. Not on the gay marriage, that's stupid. More that personal views should not be punished professionally where they aren't expressed, and as far as I know none of his homophobic crap made it into Ender's Game.

 

[Olrod]

We don't tolerate the intolerant because then they'd never learn anything. Treat people the way they treat others.

 

[Spearmaster]

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.

Never said people needed a reason not to do something, but when there is active organization its not as simple as simply not doing something because you are then actively doing something.

Also are you honestly saying there are no morality issues with a boycott? Or just no moral issues for you?

 

[Spearmaster]

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/

That's kind of my point, most people wont be going to geeks out to find out all the details, they will take it at face value based on what they hear on forums or on the street and those messages seem oversimplified and negative.

1. We were talking about YOUR perception of it, don't redirect the issue to how the general public perceives it. If you failed to look up the information, that's your fault, article on the first page has links to this information.
2. Yes, ignorant people will remain ignorant if they don't bother to look for information. If all they see is "boycott" and they don't look any further, you know doing that whole tedious "reading" thing? Then yeah they won't know what to think.
3. If those people can't bother to read about something, or even GOOGLING about something, they probably wouldn't care to begin with.
4. "Most people" would request more information.

Why not? I am part of the general public. I chose to base my perceptions on what people were posting on the subject to see what the people involving themselves were saying and how they were acting.

I was just stating that people will pass judgement without reading the articles based just on what the people talking about it are saying so it would be beneficial to go more into the "I don't wish my money to go to Anti-homosexual groups" rather than the "Card is a homophobic bigot monster so I'm boycotting everything he does" but that's just my perception so feel free to ignore it.

 

[Saika Renegade]

How about no?

Simply because the struggle towards equality is starting to actually starting to see a light at the end of the tunnel does in no way negate prior harmful words and actions on the part of Card. It isn't bigotry to not tolerate the harmful and bigoted acts in the past or the present, no matter what Card or numerous Yahoo users might say to make themselves feel better by looking like victims.

He and his views haven't changed. I had the loathsome displeasure of reading Hamlet's Father for a review, which proved just what he thinks of homosexuals and the agenda he promotes, and I certainly don't wish for my money to fund the furtherance of that agenda.

 

[Xenedus]

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.

Never said people needed a reason not to do something, but when there is active organization its not as simple as simply not doing something because you are then actively doing something.

Also are you honestly saying there are no morality issues with a boycott? Or just no moral issues for you?

No moral issues whatsoever. A Boycott is just another more fancy name for deciding not to buy something. There is no moral component to deciding not to buy something. That would be like suggesting that a rock or a cat is immoral because it is not supporting your product. You do not actively hinder something by not supporting it you simply do not aid it.

Even if you boycott the most benevolent charity in the world it doesn't mean that the boycott is a moral decision. Maybe you don't think the Charity goes about its work in the most efficient manner or maybe you just hate charities but either way the boycott itself remains morally ambivalent because boycotting is simply a more formal way of stating your lack of support. Actively harming something would have a moral component but it is hard to argue that refusing to give your financial support constitutes any sort of moral choice. The choice could be influenced by morals but the choice itself does not represent any sort of moral stance.

 

[Spearmaster]

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.

Never said people needed a reason not to do something, but when there is active organization its not as simple as simply not doing something because you are then actively doing something.

Also are you honestly saying there are no morality issues with a boycott? Or just no moral issues for you?

No moral issues whatsoever. A Boycott is just another more fancy name for deciding not to buy something. There is no moral component to deciding not to buy something. That would be like suggesting that a rock or a cat is immoral because it is not supporting your product. You do not actively hinder something by not supporting it you simply do not aid it.

Even if you boycott the most benevolent charity in the world it doesn't mean that the boycott is a moral decision. Maybe you don't think the Charity goes about its work in the most efficient manner or maybe you just hate charities but either way the boycott itself remains morally ambivalent because boycotting is simply a more formal way of stating your lack of support. Actively harming something would have a moral component but it is hard to argue that refusing to give your financial support constitutes any sort of moral choice. The choice could be influenced by morals but the choice itself does not represent any sort of moral stance.

I still feel that when a large boycott is organized as a protest of something it crosses a line that simply not supporting something does not. In this case its ok because Card pretty much did the same thing so my beef is not with this boycott, though I still feel there is a line to consider concerning boycotts.

 

[Andrew_C]

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.

It's only a censorship issue if government or local authorities step in and ban the movie, or the movie studio decides to pull the movie out of fear of official action. People protesting the actions of a hatemonger, making others aware of those actions and refusing to give him their money is NOT censorship.

EDIT: Perhaps a better way of putting it would be that it might become a censorship issue if the studio decided to withdraw the movie from circulation as a result of the bad publicity. At present it isn't, so it is pointless arguing about that particular issue.

 

[SonofaJohannes]

Okay. You're forgiven. I've never read his books, but I sure as heck ain't gonna boycott them. If I don't read his books it's going to be because I have no interest in them and not because he doesn't approve of homosexuality, because frankly, that does not concern nor bother me.

 

[thanatos388]

so why did they send kids into space again?

anyways, i doubt people will forgive him. it reached the interweb. and the net never forgets nor does it easily forgive.

That's what my good friend Chris Brown says everyday when he wakes up.

 

[Carrots_macduff]

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

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

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

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

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

how is it valid that legalizing gay marriage is "the end of democracy in America"

and if you're opinion is that gays are trying to undermine democracy by getting married, you probably should be afraid to voice it.

just because you have an opinion doesnt mean that its not wrong and completely ignorant

 

[PainInTheAssInternet]

Do you dislike paedophiles? Do you read any of Lewis Carroll's work (such as the Alice books)? Do you listen to Dr. Dre? He is a woman beater. How about Tim Allen (Galaxy Quest, Home Improvement, ect)? He was a drug addict who sold his friends down the river for a reduced sentence. Elvis Costello was a racist (as is Kramer from Seinfeld). Marvin Harrison (american football player) is an attempted murder. Chuck Berry was a pervert (as is PeeWee Herman). I could probably go on for quite a while, but the point is, I can almost guarantee that you enjoy some form of entertainment from someone you would probably despise, but because OSC was public about his indiscretion you want to organize a boycott.

My main point here is this, people only seem to be outraged when they are told they should be. Otherwise they don't care enough to look into the source of the things they enjoy. Hell if half the people knew what went on at the farms where they got their meats they would probably go vegan. However when I attempt to tell people about this stuff, they don't want to hear it shortly there after.

If you want to make a statement and not buy his stuff, great. However, don't expect other people to always follow suit. Was what he said/did wrong? Yes! Does it affect the quality of his work? No. Bottom line, if you want to avoid him I will support you. If you try to tell other people they are wrong for not wanting to support him, I will tell you that you are wrong.[/quote]

I most likely do enjoy media that comes from people that I fiercely disagree with. The difference between that and OSC is that he made his views well-known and uses money to fund them. Had he simply kept his mouth shut, I wouldn't have been any the wiser (similar with Domino's Pizza) and would have enjoyed his work.

But now his bigotry is staring me in the face so I have to react to it. Think of it as "Don't Ask, Don't Tell."

 

[PainInTheAssInternet]

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.

Implying that they haven't. No one here is ignorant of what they are doing; they've heard that OSC is using his money to fund anti-gay lobbying. They reasoned out that if they give him money, they will inadvertently be funding anti-gay lobbying. They decide to not give him money as a result. It might even be a decision as simple as they don't like him so they won't give him any money. In either case, they can do whatever they please.

 

[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.

Implying that they haven't. No one here is ignorant of what they are doing; they've heard that OSC is using his money to fund anti-gay lobbying. They reasoned out that if they give him money, they will inadvertently be funding anti-gay lobbying. They decide to not give him money as a result. It might even be a decision as simple as they don't like him so they won't give him any money. In either case, they can do whatever they please.

Show me one person that is sending a check to Card to see this film.

This movie boycott will prevent more money from getting to popcorn vendors at theaters than it will prevent Card from getting. Just saying...

 

[PainInTheAssInternet]

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.

Implying that they haven't. No one here is ignorant of what they are doing; they've heard that OSC is using his money to fund anti-gay lobbying. They reasoned out that if they give him money, they will inadvertently be funding anti-gay lobbying. They decide to not give him money as a result. It might even be a decision as simple as they don't like him so they won't give him any money. In either case, they can do whatever they please.

Show me one person that is sending a check to Card to see this film.

This movie boycott will prevent more money from getting to popcorn vendors at theaters than it will prevent Card from getting. Just saying...

Movie ticket sales and/or future success for OSC. The second half of your statement is basically of the mentality of "My vote doesn't count so why bother?" Apart from that, they won't be affected that much if at all because there will be other movies in the multiplex and if this movie fails to bring an audience it will be replaced with another anyways.