Ender's Game Author Asks For Tolerance After Boycott Threat

[2012 Wont Happen]

Card is homophobic, yes. However, up until a couple of years ago when you bought Nestle products they were produced largely by literal child slaves. I'd venture to guess that most of the clothing everyone posting here is wearing was made in sweatshop conditions. Isn't that more morally outrageous than an old man not liking gay people?

Damn near every product we all buy supports actual physical oppression. Until you can claim all of your goods are fair trade, boycotting a movie because of a powerless opinion its creator holds is morally naive.

I will see this film because the book was good.

edit - I do have to admit though that the timing of Card's somewhat retracting statement proves him to be as much a coward as any other frightened old man who doesn't understand a changing world. I don't hate him for it personally though, I just look forward to the eventual passing of his generation.

 

[carpathic]

Um, you people do know that the power/responsibility being pushed back on the states is not akin to "gay marriage becoming law throughout the land", right?

Folks, I hate to break it to you, intolerance, especially when it comes under voicing an opinion, is not a crime. Being passionate about beliefs, also, not a crime. The vilification of anyone with different ideals is a far bigger problem for EVERYONE than whether or not a gay couple can get married. I used to be for gay marriage. Now I only support legal protections and equality for ANYONE who wants to share their estate. The hypocrisy of "gay rights" advocates is appalling to me and I refuse to condone that type of social bullying.

We ALL, gay, straight, and otherwise, CHOOSE the people we love. We are not pre-destined to be one way or another. That CHOICE is ours to make and we should ALL be free to make it. Cohabitation law as well as legal binding of estate should have always been the focal point of this argument. I should be able to CHOOSE who I partner with from a legal standpoint. Love, religion, marriage, that is not something that can or should be legislated by anyone. You can't make a law that makes people tolerant and we shouldn't be trying.

Card should have left his beliefs out of his work, separated the two. And if he can't, he should be willing to accept the consequences. Pandering to the masses is more offensive than anything he has said about his beliefs.

And for the record, being a bigot is not exclusive to the people against gay marriage, both sides of this coin are far too intolerant for my tastes...

I am not an expert on American Law, but while throwing the decision back to the states does not make it "gay marriage throughout the land" as it were, it does do two crucial things:
1. Delegate the decision to the states
2. Dictate that it is unconstitutional for states to create an institution that is like marriage but inferior in legal standing.

So, states can call it what they want, but in order to exist as a law that cannot be challenged, it has to comply with the equality aspect. So, separate but equal isn't quite there, but is almost there and in the states represents a good start.

 

[Darken12]

I will show you the same tolerance that you have shown me and mine, Mr. Card.

You shall sit down with me and partake of the meal you have served me. You might learn a thing or two about empathy.

 

[Mister Linton]

"Rights" Okay, sure internet, sure...

 

[bravetoaster]

Card is homophobic, yes. However, up until a couple of years ago when you bought Nestle products they were produced largely by literal child slaves. I'd venture to guess that most of the clothing everyone posting here is wearing was made in sweatshop conditions. Isn't that more morally outrageous than an old man not liking gay people?

Damn near every product we all buy supports actual physical oppression. Until you can claim all of your goods are fair trade, boycotting a movie because of a powerless opinion its creator holds is morally naive.

Is outrage an all-or-nothing thing, now? Can someone dislike one thing only if they exhaustively search for anything remotely (as your example is, at best, several tangents removed from the topic at hand) similar to one thing they dislike and make sure to only start disliking anything after completing such a search? If you're on this forum--or using consumer electronics at all--you're almost certainly using products made via (essentially) slave labor, constructed using conflict minerals, and that poor people in places you've never seen have died or suffered for.

This has to be the weirdest approach to supporting OSC (and his efforts to deny US citizens legal rights) I've seen, yet. I guess I'll give points for nonsensical creativity. (I am baffled by the phrases "powerless opinion" and "morally naive" though.)

 

[2012 Wont Happen]

Card is homophobic, yes. However, up until a couple of years ago when you bought Nestle products they were produced largely by literal child slaves. I'd venture to guess that most of the clothing everyone posting here is wearing was made in sweatshop conditions. Isn't that more morally outrageous than an old man not liking gay people?

Damn near every product we all buy supports actual physical oppression. Until you can claim all of your goods are fair trade, boycotting a movie because of a powerless opinion its creator holds is morally naive.

Is outrage an all-or-nothing thing, now? Can someone dislike one thing only if they exhaustively search for anything remotely (as your example is, at best, several tangents removed from the topic at hand) similar to one thing they dislike and make sure to only start disliking anything after completing such a search? If you're on this forum--or using consumer electronics at all--you're almost certainly using products made via (essentially) slave labor, constructed using conflict minerals, and that poor people in places you've never seen have died or suffered for.

This has to be the weirdest approach to supporting OSC (and his efforts to deny US citizens legal rights) I've seen, yet. I guess I'll give points for nonsensical creativity. (I am baffled by the phrases "powerless opinion" and "morally naive" though.)

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.

 

[Darkness665]

Ender's Game, the short story was pretty good when it fist came out. Everything past that was not worth reading, IMHO. That includes his views on not living a Mormon approved life. Or his pleas for money so he can continue to actively promote bigotry based laws. Coming for a Mormon the whole my bigotry is okay but your bigotry isn't is actually sort of funny. And just a little gay.

 

[bravetoaster]

Card is homophobic, yes. However, up until a couple of years ago when you bought Nestle products they were produced largely by literal child slaves. I'd venture to guess that most of the clothing everyone posting here is wearing was made in sweatshop conditions. Isn't that more morally outrageous than an old man not liking gay people?

Damn near every product we all buy supports actual physical oppression. Until you can claim all of your goods are fair trade, boycotting a movie because of a powerless opinion its creator holds is morally naive.

Is outrage an all-or-nothing thing, now? Can someone dislike one thing only if they exhaustively search for anything remotely (as your example is, at best, several tangents removed from the topic at hand) similar to one thing they dislike and make sure to only start disliking anything after completing such a search? If you're on this forum--or using consumer electronics at all--you're almost certainly using products made via (essentially) slave labor, constructed using conflict minerals, and that poor people in places you've never seen have died or suffered for.

This has to be the weirdest approach to supporting OSC (and his efforts to deny US citizens legal rights) I've seen, yet. I guess I'll give points for nonsensical creativity. (I am baffled by the phrases "powerless opinion" and "morally naive" though.)

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.

1) Card is neither powerless nor harmless. See the rest of the thread (or Card's wikipedia entry. Or any of his actions relating to NOM or oppressing homosexuals.)

2) You're making massive assumptions about a lot of people with no real basis for it--given that it's completely off-topic, there's no way for you to know what non-OSC things people in this thread (or who object to Card's words and actions) think. No one's claiming moral perfection in this thread (so far as I'm aware--I certainly wouldn't) or that they are "responsible consumers [because of their dislike of Card and unwillingness to support his products]."

3) Equating Card's direct actions against other Americans with immoral manufacturing practices of massive, diffuse, global corporate entities does not work (on several levels).

4) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nirvana_fallacy -- just because real-life solutions to problems are imperfect does not mean those solutions are invalid.

 

[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.

"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)

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.

 

[Tono Makt]

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.

 

[bravetoaster]

"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)

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.

 

[Dwarfman]

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.

 

[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.

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.

 

[CM156_v1legacy]

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.

 

[Fox12]

"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.

"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)

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.

 

[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?

 

[weirdee]

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

 

[Helmholtz Watson]

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.

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.

 

[Abomination]

"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.

 

[theultimateend]

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.