Ender's Game Author Asks For Tolerance After Boycott Threat

[Legion]

"Now it will be interesting to see whether the victorious proponents of gay marriage will show tolerance toward those who disagreed with them when the issue was still in dispute," Card concludes.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[JetFury]

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

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

 

[Lieju]

Boycotting is going 'I don't want to give you my money, and will tell other people not to give you money'.

That's what many critics do. "This is a bad movie, don't go see it."

How uncivilized.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

5) Martin Luther King had an affair.

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

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

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

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

 

[TwiZtah]

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

 

[bravetoaster]

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

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

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

There isn't any anti-gay stuff in Ender's Game as far as I'm aware (although if you want bizarre anti-gay stuff in science fiction, Dune's kind of creepily loaded with it, at times... still love the series and Frank Herbert, but... yeah).

Buuuulllshit.

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

Have you read the books, lately? (If not--do it! They're still fantastic! ...just stop after Frank Herbert died. Or after God Emperor.)

As I'm sure has been discussed elsewhere in far greater depth, the Baron is the only homosexual character (at least that I can recall--certainly in the first book) and, while he's brilliant, he is a completely vile human being (and it's been argued that his homosexuality was meant to emphasize how vile he was, although I can't pretend to know Herbert's intent). Also, if I recall correctly, there's a part later in the series where Duncan outright says (or tries to kill, even?) something about how disgusting homosexuality is. NOT a major theme or point or plot element to any of the stuff, but it's really jarring when I re-read the series a year or so back.

 

[theApoc]

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.

1. Which delegates it to the people.
2. Ok, first off, they didn't write new law, in fact the Supreme Court can't do that. Secondly, what they said was that it was unconstitutional for the federal government to decide who can and can't get married, they deferred this decision to the states, and the people of those states.

As I stated, all they really did was decide to not decide.

 

[Andrew_C]

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.

However, if your plumber used his standing as the best plumber in town to spout hate speech and perhaps stand as a candidate for the BNP, you would be well within your rights to refuse to do business with him, tell your friends not to do business with him and actively campaign against him.

Just as my plumber would be entitled to do the same if I used my wholly imaginary internet fame to publicly push my (theoretical) radical anarchist politics.

Orson Scott Card decided to use his standing as an author to promote his extremist viewpoints. He shouldn't be upset when people actively boycott him and his projects. He is the one who made thing political.

 

[theApoc]

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

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

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

You generalize the opposition and you dismiss their beliefs as bigotry and hate. That implies that people who don't think like you, don't count.

As someone who actually respects the constitution, regardless of my skin color, that was bad law then just as it is bad law now, and the truth of the matter is that there should not need to be a law regarding race. Last time I checked I was a human being, making laws about race only serves to reinforce the idea that we are different. So I don't agree with that as the ONLY solution to the problem of civil rights.

And as I stated. I agree with boycotting things that go against your beliefs, but I don't believe in forcing those beliefs on anyone without due process. Equal status? Last time I checked you had to actually tell someone your sexual orientation for them to know about it. In ALL things other than the currently flawed legalities of marriage, you have EXACTLY the same rights as anyone else. Gay people don't have to ride at the back of the bus, they don't have special drinking fountains. They are not treated by SOCIETY as subhuman. I am continually offended by the comparison between gay "rights" and civil rights. There is sexual discrimination, no doubt, but that is no where near the same thing as racial discrimination IMO.

My estate and my guardianship should be a legal contract and I should be able to enter that contract with ANYONE I choose. Marriage is a tradition that was used to celebrate that contract. By the standards set forth by the TRADITION of this country, marriage is between a man and a woman. Some states have decided to alter that tradition, some have not. The ones that have are not heroes, and the ones who have not are not villains.

The more this issue is debated by politicians and pundits, the more it becomes about propaganda and the less it becomes about people. You want to get "married" right now? Either move to a place where it is recognized(cause you can join with someone else of your choosing no matter where you live, legal recognition is your problem not the "right" to marry), or work from where you are at and rally people to your cause, understanding that it is ok for people to not agree with you and your beliefs.

And again, Card should be ashamed more for pandering than for having his beliefs IMO.

 

[Lilani]

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?

I don't really know what the KKK gets up to these days, but I don't think it's comparable to what Card is doing. He is on the board of directors for the National Organization for Marriage, which was formed specifically to pass Prop 8 in California. And chances are he had money as well as personal participation going into that project as well. I don't know what the KKK does, but I certainly know what the NOM[footnote]lol[/footnote] and other groups like it get up to. And those groups DO attack the gay community, actively and directly.

 

[bravetoaster]

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

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

Not a typo--being a bigot is different from having an unpopular opinion. My opinion that raw, lukewarm tofu tastes better than a perfectly-cooked steak is unpopular (granted, that's a fake example), but has nothing to do with hating others or being devoted to my own prejudices. Bigots may, depending on time and place, have either popular or unpopular opinions; that doesn't change what they are. Card is a bigot who works to deny legal rights to US citizens. While he is not breaking the law in doing so, "tolerating" someone trying to deny other people their rights is not the same as "tolerating" other people living their own, free lives. "Tolerating" homosexuality means not giving a fuck about the fact that adults who you don't know and aren't in love with or having sex with are, completely independently of you, in love with each other and having sex when they want to. "Tolerating" Card's actions means standing idly by while someone tries to deny US citizens equal legal rights.

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.

I don't get the sense that you know what the word properly means: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bigot
Prejudices are judgements made without actual knowledge of something, as indicated by the "pre-" prefix and "judge" root. Bigots hate people they don't know or understand because they've prejudged them to be worth of hatred and intolerance.

Religion's way off-topic, but let me just address your example real fast: You would not be a bigot for telling Jews that their religion is horrible. You'd be a bigot if you obstinately hated and/or could not tolerate people who are Jewish because they are Jewish (note: not because of their personal beliefs or actions, but simply because they belong to that group).

 

[KingsGambit_v1legacy]

I'd say not giving my money to someone is a pretty civilized form of opposing them. They aren't entitled to my money.

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

It is a civilised form of protest, I just think it's a dumb one.

And if you watch it, legally or otherwise after what you said, then that is hypocrisy. You want his content but don't want to reward him for his work because you disagree with his political view. I thoroughly disagree with his view but I think what you're doing is on par or worse. If you want to take a moral high ground, don't watch the show.

 

[FieryTrainwreck]

I'd say not giving my money to someone is a pretty civilized form of opposing them. They aren't entitled to my money.

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

It is a civilised form of protest, I just think it's a dumb one.

And if you watch it, legally or otherwise after what you said, then that is hypocrisy. You want his content but don't want to reward him for his work because you disagree with his political view. I thoroughly disagree with his view but I think what you're doing is on par or worse. If you want to take a moral high ground, don't watch the show.

If the man has shown himself capable of publicly campaigning for views you find morally reprehensible, I think it's rather smart not to provide him with funds he might potentially use for this purpose. But if you can enjoy his artistic vision without rewarding him financially, and you do so legally, I think that's very sensible. You give him his due respect as an artist without enabling him as a bigot. Win/win.

 

[TsunamiWombat]

I'd say not giving my money to someone is a pretty civilized form of opposing them. They aren't entitled to my money.

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

It is a civilised form of protest, I just think it's a dumb one.

And if you watch it, legally or otherwise after what you said, then that is hypocrisy. You want his content but don't want to reward him for his work because you disagree with his political view. I thoroughly disagree with his view but I think what you're doing is on par or worse. If you want to take a moral high ground, don't watch the show.

The wholesale rejection of art is illogical and damaging to the narrative of culture. Not funding Card is a service to society, observing his art is a service to culture.

 

[Aggieknight]

It's quite simple actually. He has the right to say whatever he wants, but that doesn't mean he'll escape consequences of what he chooses to say.

i.e.: He can choose to be a bigot, & those he offends can choose not to give him money.

Ain't capitalism grand?

I agree completely.

I loved his books, but am unwilling to support a person who I believe is a bigot. To me this is the same as my decision not to buy an XBone because of their anti-consumer policies (not just always on, but also the advertising and Kinect BS). People who agree with him are free to help support him.

I'll admit that the decision is easy for me because the previews for the movie look awful. How the crap do you show the climax of the movie in the preview?

 

[Ihrgoth]

People who say I boycott his stuff because he is intolerant. If you are against intolerance why are intolerant of him? Will you stop saying chuck Norris jokes because he is a christian and against gay marriage? Will you stop listening to U2 because Bono does an interview with Focus on the Family? As a libertarian I believe people have the liberty to believe what they want to believe. His personal belief is that gay marriage is wrong. Well big whoop he believes differently than you that doesn't mean you have to say "I will never support his stuff with money." Well if you want to do that than fine but you are denying an author who has written a good scifi series his livelihood. Tell me how is you boycotting his books/movie and saying hatemonger, bigot, any different than that deplorable idiotic westboro baptist church saying "God hates gays" (which he doesn't he loves all sinners or at least that is what the bible teaches). The only difference being which side of the fence you are on.

 

[Vhite]

Unless a person incorporates their particular brand of prejudice into their works, I separate the creator from the creation. It seems like most people can't do that though.

This, because he doesn't.

Heck, you wouldn't even say he is homophobe trough his work. I just finished reading Ender's Game second time and I remember quite clearly that only two styles of clothing In Battle School were uniform or being naked and so armies (mostly composed of boys) usually spent time in their room naked and there wasn't any fuss about it.

So if he doesn't promote his ideas trough his work he doesn't deserve any more attention or boycott than any other homophobic person you may know.

 

[carpathic]

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.

1. Which delegates it to the people.
2. Ok, first off, they didn't write new law, in fact the Supreme Court can't do that. Secondly, what they said was that it was unconstitutional for the federal government to decide who can and can't get married, they deferred this decision to the states, and the people of those states.

As I stated, all they really did was decide to not decide.

For sure, I never said they wrote a new law. The importance here though is not that they said "Not the role of the federal government". Oddly, the USA can be a very loose confederation, and in many areas of governance States are more powerful than the federal government (not quite as powerful as individual provinces here in Canada, but pretty close). What is key, is the message being sent to the States is, "we will strike down laws that discriminate". So, the States have a definition of what they cannot do, or at least what will be "challengeable" and that gives a clear road map for law makers. What is interesting to me is that the supreme court with arguably the most extremely conservative (please see: http://moneyocracy.tumblr.com/post/27339787284/roberts-reign for a rough idea) bent in recent history did not choose to either ignore the challenge or to rule in support of DOMA but instead pushed things down. In Canada when that happened, Gay Marriage followed. Some Premiers at the time talked about invoking the "Notwithstanding" Clause in the constitution, but none of them did - the message was clear. You could call it anything you wanted, but if it did not afford equal standing under the law, then it would be ruled unconstitutional.

So yes, you are correct the supreme court did not declare "Gay Marriage Across the Land!" but they did say "Look, it is up the states to do decide" and in the end, it won't be particularly different.

I mean ultimately this was a good example of why you should not mess with a wealthy senior citizen. The woman in question started the challenge because she was expected to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars in estate taxes because her spouse was not accorded that status. So, a person with lots of money and a tonne of time got angry and our society becomes a more equal, more fair place. Put that in the 'W' column as far as I am concerned.

 

[TsunamiWombat]

Tell me how is you boycotting his books/movie and saying hatemonger, bigot, any different than that deplorable idiotic westboro baptist church saying "God hates gays" (which he doesn't he loves all sinners or at least that is what the bible teaches). The only difference being which side of the fence you are on.

The difference is, one is selective bigotry based on the arcane teachings of a tribe of xenophobic penis mutilating middle eastern conquerors, and the other is based on basic romantic (in the literary sense) humanity.

One is good for society, one isn't. Feel free to delude yourself on which is which.

 

[bravetoaster]

Tell me how is you boycotting his books/movie and saying hatemonger, bigot, any different than that deplorable idiotic westboro baptist church saying "God hates gays" (which he doesn't he loves all sinners or at least that is what the bible teaches). The only difference being which side of the fence you are on.

The difference is, one is selective bigotry based on the arcane teachings of a tribe of xenophobic penis mutilating middle eastern conquerors, and the other is based on basic romantic (in the literary sense) humanity.

One is good for society, one isn't. Feel free to delude yourself on which is which.

I think the bigger issue is that there isn't any similarity between the two in the first place. Ihrgoth is either trolling or not going to understand that, so it's silly to waste your time on it.

 

[Something Amyss]

People who say I boycott his stuff because he is intolerant. If you are against intolerance why are intolerant of him?

Yes, not supporting someone financially IS intolerance. Taking the piss?

Will you stop saying chuck Norris jokes because he is a christian and against gay marriage?

Chuck Norris jokes exist because he's a self-aggrandising dick who people decided to mock. According to your intolerance theory, shouldn't those jokes increase?

Will you stop listening to U2 because Bono does an interview with Focus on the Family?

I don't listen to U2 because they make bad music. That won't change even if Bono suddenly decides to single-handedly gay marry every couple in the US.

As a libertarian I believe people have the liberty to believe what they want to believe.

Surely as a libertarian, you support the free market and self determination, right? Because despite your libertarian beliefs....

Well if you want to do that than fine but you are denying an author who has written a good scifi series his livelihood.

This sounds like you think he's entitled to our money.

Especially funny since most libertarians support the right to FIRE any employee at-will.