so... Orson Scott Card... boycott why?

[Lieju]

we have reached the point where people expressing these kind of views are seen as retarded cavemen banging their sticks together behind the dumpster.

Unfortunately, no.

It depends a lot on where you happen to live, and what social groups you hang out in.

I have plenty of friends who don't give a shit about my sexual orientation, but I also have to deal with people who will straight out be dicks about it.

Still, I very rarely get death-threats face-to-face, so that's nice, but not really enough.

 

[wulf3n]

So you're just guessing they're doing it too look good? So who exactly are you doing this to look good for? Because I have to say, jumping to that simple, easy, apparently somewhat popular position without giving much of a good reason for it deserves the same accusation.

Myself. A while ago I had an issue with cognitive dissonance. My lifestyle and what I enjoyed didn't match my definition of morality. So I accepted the fact that I'm a selfish jerk that only cares about myself.

And he's a convenient one. Is it really so difficult to think of deciding to do something because someone happened to mention it when you didn't bother to consider it yourself? Is that just some sneaky way to get 'brownie points', is it downright impossible to happen to agree with what you hear someone suggest? Ignoring all that clearly points to you having an ulterior motive and wanting to look good and noble to others.

And that's my issue. The convenience. Most people aren't willing to put in the effort boycott everyone who fuels their dangerous agenda, so they'll settle for jumping on the boycott bandwagon. But they'll still act like their fighting the good fight.

You just accused them of having the ulterior motive of wanting to gain points.

Yes, because they want to appear progressive, without all the hassle of being truly progressive. Hence Lazy.

 

[wulf3n]

Oh so you're special and this accusation doesn't apply to you.

No it applies. I never said it didn't.

Please, do show where massive amounts of people are acting like they're doing something incredibly important, versus them thinking it happens to be right. There's a big difference between thinking this thing is right and thinking it's important.

Are you still talking to me? Where did I say it wasn't right or important? The boycott wether it's right or wrong, important or unimportant is irrelevant to what I'm saying.

You seem to be imagining that they believe they're basking in glory based off... well nothing to do with how they actually act about it, just complaints that they aren't consistent enough for your liking.

I see people saying they're going to boycott a single instance of an issue, but not boycott the issue itself. Take from that what you will.

Ah, so you want to appear reasonable without the hassle of actually being reasonable.

I do?

You avoid actually showing this is their motive and just make accusations.

Yes hence why I said

To me it reeks of the weekend activist.

Or has my opinion become fact without me realising it?

 

[Olas]

When buying food at the grocery store, do you research to see what food companies are run by homophobic CEOs?

Card's an activist. Card's outspoken and vocal. He writes op-ed pieces, LTEs, and does major rounds. He's also on the head of a board.

It might be a little easier to notice a guy like that. You don't need to do much in the way of research.

Hence the part of my post where I said.

Or is it simply because he's more visible to us than these other people?

But does it matter if he's more visible or not? Is that what people are taking issue with? Would they be fine with seeing this movie if only they knew Card would be quieter about his homophobia?

Do you decide what electronics to buy based on the political beliefs of their designers?

People actually do this a lot. I guess you haven't noticed, but there are all sorts of boycotts.

I've never heard of them, what electronics companies are being boycotted because of the political beliefs of their owners? Again, I'm not talking about boycotting a product because you don't like how it's made, or anything to do with the product specifically. I'm talking about boycotting a product because of the personal beliefs of some of its creators.

If there actually are many instances of this I guess I concede that the Enders Game boycotters aren't alone in their lunacy.

I'm going to guess no.

And I'm going to ask why. I can only think you sided this way because it was convenient to your argument.

Because

1. I've never heard of anyone doing something this crazy before, and

2. Because the idea of it sounds completely absurd, and unlike the behavior of any mentally sound human being. Are you honestly telling me that when you buy shoes you do background research on the owners of the shoe company to make sure none of them are homophobes? Would you refuse to buy Nike until you had confirmed that it's owners weren't bigots? The same goes for every single product you buy.

Can you honestly assure me that none of the products you've ever bought have earned revenue for someone who opposes gay marriage?

If so then I concede this point, and highly recommend that you get some help.

Why is it different with Card?

Well, that's a false premise, innit? It takes the base assumption that it is somehow different and asserts it.

Yes, yes it does. And I think it's a very good assumption, and one I still stand by for the reasons explained above. However, it's not a false premise until you prove it false, which you haven't done.

 

[wulf3n]

So you have some ulterior motive involving an attempt to score points with homophobes.

No I want to score points with myself by seeing one of the few big budget sci-fi movies released every decade. The opinions/actions of the homophobe have no affect on me, therefor have no affect on my decisions.

Are you still talking to me? Where are the massive amounts of people talking about how great they are for doing it?

I'm pointing out what people are *actually* saying, that's how it's relevant. Versus your imagination where they're all congratulating themselves or whatever.

You haven't pointed out anything. You've simply done what I've done from the inverse position.

And where exactly does the evidence for the ulterior motive of wanting to look good come in here? I'm not seeing where you're coming to the conclusion that's the reason versus sheer laziness, not caring enough, having other priorities, or not being very thoughtful on the matter.

I never claimed to have evidence. Simply the observation that people are only boycotting Card not boycotting the giving of money to homophobes.

That you jump to one possibility without any given reason clearly shows you want to score points with the homophobes by defending one of them circumspectly. At least if I was using the logic you seem to be employing.

Perhaps it does.

Well you sure seem to think you're combating 'cognitive dissonance' when your argument's swiss cheese.

The cognitive dissonance being me thinking I was a moral person where my actions would indicate otherwise. The resolution being the conclusion that I am not moral.

Ah, so the "It's my opinion, it doesn't need to be based on any semblance of reality" defense.

Exactly. I had an observation of a series of actions that I interpreted to be a result of a certain behaviour. Nothing more.

Why you take such offence to my opinion that I've stated to be nothing but an opinion I can only hazard a guess.

Could it be that deep down what I've said resonates within you?

 

[infohippie]

Orson Scott Card is a piece of shit.
He recieved money for the rights to make this movie. Will he get money for the ticket I purchase? Inconsequential.
If enough people see it, he will get MORE money for MORE movie rights to make MORE movies out of his works.

Okay, now THAT'S actually quite worrying. Making a film of Ender's Game is one thing, but if it's successful what's to say they won't make a film of Xenocide? I think we should all be very afraid.

 

[EternallyBored]

Snip

Look I don't want to get too far into this thing You've got going with Skies, but I would like to ask where your seeing this glut of people boycotting only a single instance of an issue. Unless you've got some kind of really bad OCD thing going on compelling you to track people anytime they declare they are boycotting something, all you've really got is your preference on how you'd like things to be. Far be it from me to judge you for it, but it does kind of run counter to my own experiences as a professional advocate.

The vast majority of the people I know that vehemently boycott Card are the same people that Boycotted Chick Fil A last year, and generally tend to boycott more than one thing, L.

There are certainly hanger ons whenever there is a popular movement, but the Card boycott hardly qualifies, its not very large and is comprised and spread by people who have been boycotting Card's books for years, potentially decades. Certainly at the actual organized LGBT advocacy level, card is not the only thing spoken against, he's probably not even in the top 20.

 

[Vareoth]

Don't really care for this movie or series either way. But I must say that the guy's views do seem antiquated and hurtful to me. Can't really take another stance against such a person I'm afraid. Wouldn't stop me from seeing the movie if it actually looked interesting to me, however. He is only a small part of the large number of people that worked on this.

And call me an apologist if you will, but even though I am gay myself I still think he should be able to express his views on homosexuality even though I think they are wrong. Just as I, and anyone else, has the right to boycott his works if I felt so inclined.

I want acceptance of differences, not conformity.

 

[wulfy42]

The man is a bigot, plain and simple and I have moral issues with supporting bigotry.
I don't watch Glen Beck or Bill Maher (despite being an active Infidel myself) or buy their books for much the same reasons.

The only reason that this particular topic is a point of controversy is because Ender's Game is, for a lot of folks, an important piece of fiction in the history of the science fiction genre and some people have trouble divorcing the creation from the creator.

It's compounded by the fact that Card has been very open with his bigotry, making it exceptionally more difficult to ignore the fact that supporting his work will is some way support his completely abhorrent ideologies.

And who cares if he gets money to support lobbying and advertisements etc...gay marriage is already available in many states and accepted federally (for taxes etc) so does it really matter anymore?

14 states within the US have fully recognized and legalized same sex marriages.
While an additional 5 will recognize "civil unions" and allow for "limited rights and state privileges."
And in virtually every case, they have fought an uphill battle due to organizations like the National Organization for Marriage (of which Card was a board member.)

The rest of the country still flat out bans same sex marriages with the more vehement ones going so far as to refuse recognition of marriages performed in other states and denying rights to any non-married union regardless of gender.

But yeah...I guess they should be happy with what they got.

Never said they should be happy with what they got, but...I do think the battle was wrong in the first place. There should be no fight for the right for same sex couples to get married. None. It should be a fight for the right to marry whoever you want without ANY government involvement. The only time AT ALL the gov should get involved is for taxes....and that fight should be strictly to determine how you can file jointly with other adults (which should basically allow any two adults living under the same roof to file jointly if they want.).

That is it.

There should be no religion in politics. No reason to have each state determine if a man and a man or a woman and a woman can get married...because that should be up to the religion they believe in (if they even believe in someone traditionally marrying them at all!!).

I just get so fed up with this whole "gay marriage" thing...because honestly it shouldn't be about marriage at all...and it's like people are fighting for the right to have the gov control their lives. Stop trying to make the gov give permission for you to live with who you want, and start fighting to keep the gov from putting labels on you and controlling how you live.

If you want to live your life with someone...why does the gov need to approve it?

The world is overpopulated, heck Orson Scott Card even has that as a central issue in his books...yet he's against gay marriage? I mean, the whole "Third" concept...pretty much invalidates the reason "Gay marriage" is considered bad in many religions (be fruitful and multiply and all that)...so I would think Orson would "get behind" the whole gay marriage thing personally.

I only got married btw because it mattered to my wife...but I was frustrated (just didn't let her know it) that it did matter so much to her. I believe marriage is something you enter into yourself...and it should mean something when you do. There are WAY to many people that get married and don't consider it important or something they should have to put effort forth to make work...but because the gov said they are married..they think they are. You are married when you consider your partners needs as well as your own (even often in front of your own) and plan a future for both of you that will make your partner and you as happy as possible. That is marriage...not a document saying you are married.

 

[wulf3n]

Nope, clearly you want to score points with the homophobes. Same baseless assumptions have to apply in reverse.

It very well could be. You really only have my word to indicate otherwise.

Please, feel free to go through the thread and point out where people are acting in the manner you seem to suggest.

I will. Feel free that is.

So you made a wild guess off of it? Riiiiiiiiiiight. It's not at all that you dislike their position and are trying to spew whatever accusations to attempt to weaken their position.

Who have I accused?

Okay, so here you admit it.

I admit that it's possible and that you have no reason to believe otherwise. Yes.

I'd say the cognitive dissonance is where you pretend your position is an honest opinion while at the same time claiming no evidence for it.

You're free to say that.

Because I don't take the lazy idea of "Opinions should be based on fairy dust". I think a bit more critical thinking is better. Your position is about as good as "It's a liberal conspiracy headed by Obama to ruin marriage!"

It probably is.

If we want to talk about ulterior motives, the obvious person to have one here is you. And this time I'm serious. Because you're throwing out an accusation without a good reason for it. When someone starts attributing sneaky motives to a lot of people with no evidence when there's plenty of easy explanations like laziness(which is not compatible with ulterior motive) then it suggests you have a motive to pick that accusation. It wasn't evidence that led you to it.

I never claimed it was evidence that lead me to it. Simply observation.

Could it be I dislike people who fling baseless accusations just to defend homophobes? Could it be I dislike people who scream "Ulterior motive" based on nothing?

It could had I flung accusations.

Look I don't want to get too far into this thing You've got going with Skies, but I would like to ask where your seeing this glut of people boycotting only a single instance of an issue. Unless you've got some kind of really bad OCD thing going on compelling you to track people anytime they declare they are boycotting something, all you've really got is your preference on how you'd like things to be. Far be it from me to judge you for it, but it does kind of run counter to my own experiences as a professional advocate.

It's that I don't see evidence of it that leads me to my conclusion. Everyone could very well be researching and boycotting all instances of the issue, but I only ever see it come up when the person being boycotted is very open with their beliefs.

The vast majority of the people I know that vehemently boycott Card are the same people that Boycotted Chick Fil A last year, and generally tend to boycott more than one thing, L.

Another high profile case. I don't doubt people will boycott an issue when they become aware of it. What I question is how genuine it can really be when it's only high profile cases that appear to get boycotted.

There are certainly hanger ons whenever there is a popular movement, but the Card boycott hardly qualifies, its not very large and is comprised and spread by people who have been boycotting Card's books for years, potentially decades. Certainly at the actual organized LGBT advocacy level, card is not the only thing spoken against, he's probably not even in the top 20.

Large enough to become a talking point on the escapist.

I'm not saying everyone that boycotts these issues will be doing it for their own satisfaction or that anyone necessarily is. Simply that the existence of high profile cases such as this makes me question how genuine those boycotting are.

 

[wulf3n]

You do know saying "It's my opinion" doesn't make it any less of an accusation? But hey, let's just ignore that. Gotta find some way to defend the homophobes without admitting that's what you're doing by just passing along 'opinion's you've got.

An opinion can be an accusation however an accusation requires an accused. I'd be happy to apologise to anyone I've accused, but I don't recall ever accusing anyone.

 

[wulf3n]

Right, so many means nobody. I mean only if you're trying to pretend you didn't hold a position you stated.

But who exactly does many mean?

I am a being of my word.

Many. I am sorry I accused you of less than honourable motives in this case. I have nothing other than my own bias for the position I hold and did not intend to imply on you any wrong doing.

 

[FabTails]

Most people reason he's got a producer credit in the movie, meaning a % of the price you pay for your ticket goes to him, meaning you're indirectly giving him money, and with that money (some people claim) he goes to fund/donate to groups that further his agenda. I don't mind people doing this, but it's just a bit random and pointless. You know Spielberg directed and was an executive producer in a movie where one of the lead actors was killed along with two illegally-hired children because of technical negligence? How many people do you see boycotting his movies? Come on, if you're gonna boycott movies on general principle, either you go all the way or don't go at all.

How are these two cases even similar?

Orson Scott Card campaigns against gay marriage. When you see Ender's Game, he gets money. The theory behind the boycott is that if you view Ender's Game, you are in a way, financing his anti-rights campaign.

Spielberg was involved in a film where a tragedy occurred on set. He did not cast or hire the children. He was not flying the helicopter. He was not responsible for the unsafe use of pyrotechnics. In fact, Spielberg was not even there when the tragedy occurred and had nothing to do with the scene whatsoever.

So what the fuck would boycotting Spielberg films achieve? You can't possibly claim Spielberg is responsible for what happened in any direct way. Sure, he might (but also may not have been) have been aware that the children weren't legally hired - but you can't therefore condemn the guy because of their deaths.

I can't stand shit like this. You're trying way too hard to sound really edgy and self righteous. Stop trying to demonise people over something they had very little to do with.

 

[wulf3n]

Why am I not surprised you're ignoring the intent of your own sentence. I'd think you know who you were actually referring to since you used the word 'many'. But hey since it's vague, let's pretend it was actually no one.

I never believed it to be no one. But I have no evidence to prove it is anyone. Hence the generic "many"

I'll concede many was a poor choice in words as it implies a majority, which was not my intent.

edit: I was not however thinking of you when I wrote that post, If you choose to believe that or not. I did not think of any poster in this thread as I did not read anything beyond the OP.