Spielberg was producer of the movie/segment though. As far as I know, producers are legally liable for whatever negligence occurs in the movies they're bankrolling. My theory is that he settled his involvement out of court.McGuinty1 said:
so... Orson Scott Card... boycott why?
- Thread starter DudeistBelieve
- Start date
Recommended Videos
If you were truly my friend, you would respect my lack of respect for you. The nerve of some people!ThatDarnCoyote said:
It's hypocritical sentiments like these that elevate OSC beyond a simple bigot and into the realm of asshat.
Anyways, I've no desire to see the movie regardless of OSC's views.
Except that opposing gay "marriage" has nothing to do with lack of respect... Strawman much?Animyr said:
Misrepresenting someone's view in order to try to depict him/her as a bigot is bigotry in itself.
WHile I odn't necessarily agree with everything said (the accusations of not writing and the Hitler Hypothesis, although founded are not proved in my eyes) those were some interesting reads. Thanks for that. I do agree that the morality of the story is not very good, if what they say is true. And that is the book, not the author.MinionJoe said:
- Mar 31, 2010
- 7,172
- 150
- 68
- Country
-
- Gender
-
Okay, quick question. How is treating one set of couples (heterosexual) differently from another set of couples (homosexual) more egalitarian than treating them as the same under law?Emanuele Ciriachi said:
If I was using the money I gained from my art to further an agenda someone disagrees with, I'd expect to be boycott as well.
If this was not the case then the art itself is still art and is still appreciated as a stand alone and from what I understand is very successful in it's message.
But this is not the case here.
At least it is within a very reasonable doubt that this is the case. And so if people feel that way... I actually among them, you cannot stop them from boycotting. Nor should you question it. A boycott is simply as it is defined. It is not a snub, it is not a decry of the art itself. It is a problem between the beholder and the artist. And it is entirely up to the two parties to make the call.
I myself have problems with EA. I boycott their work on my own. Sure I might not have an inside and personal take on their work and failings anymore since I have distanced myself from their media for nigh on 8-9 years. But I have my convictions.
Just like this guy has his convictions. He's not going to change in his views and that's fine. That is his right.
However he shouldn't be expected to be given money when parts of that money will go toward hurting the futures of some people who might have enjoyed his art/writing at a time. And it is entirely up to those individuals to make the call.
The transaction is as simple as that.
If it was explicitly stated that none of the money he makes from the movie goes to any of his anti-gay/trans groups. Then I might be more inclined to see this movie or read the book just to see what impact it has had. But as I have friends who are gay/trans and am not friends with Orson Scott Card, the choice is fairly clear to me.
I can live without experiencing Ender's game.
If this was not the case then the art itself is still art and is still appreciated as a stand alone and from what I understand is very successful in it's message.
But this is not the case here.
At least it is within a very reasonable doubt that this is the case. And so if people feel that way... I actually among them, you cannot stop them from boycotting. Nor should you question it. A boycott is simply as it is defined. It is not a snub, it is not a decry of the art itself. It is a problem between the beholder and the artist. And it is entirely up to the two parties to make the call.
I myself have problems with EA. I boycott their work on my own. Sure I might not have an inside and personal take on their work and failings anymore since I have distanced myself from their media for nigh on 8-9 years. But I have my convictions.
Just like this guy has his convictions. He's not going to change in his views and that's fine. That is his right.
However he shouldn't be expected to be given money when parts of that money will go toward hurting the futures of some people who might have enjoyed his art/writing at a time. And it is entirely up to those individuals to make the call.
The transaction is as simple as that.
If it was explicitly stated that none of the money he makes from the movie goes to any of his anti-gay/trans groups. Then I might be more inclined to see this movie or read the book just to see what impact it has had. But as I have friends who are gay/trans and am not friends with Orson Scott Card, the choice is fairly clear to me.
I can live without experiencing Ender's game.
Because one set can benefit the society in a fundamental way, and the other cannot.JoJo said:
And if you were _truly_ egalitarian, you should not restrict the discussion to just couples - if marriage is about love and love only as some supporters of SSM claim, there is no point in dropping the distinction in gender without dropping also the one in number.
It's not nonsense, the analogy is that if people are gonna get judgemental with a movie because of a person's relation with that movie, however direct or indirect, they have to be serious about it (otherwise boycotting is just as random as watching the movie).Master of the Skies said:
Because I'm not American I don't know or care for theirs laws, so obviously you can tell me producers aren't responsible for shit in their movies and I'll have to believe you. Over here they'd have fried his ass on account of being a producer in a movie that resulted in the death of some of its cast.
Lastly, being acquitted doesn't instantly or necessarily make you innocent of anything. But since he wasn't tried for anything it doesn't matter.
This seems a simple one to answer. The default to seeing a movie is that you don't. A movie has to convince you to shell out your money in the first place. Because the author of the book behind it is a contemptible human being, some people feel that taints the movie too much to justify giving it money and indirectly supporting the asshole supporting movements they and any rational human being would not.
Thus, because the asshole is a vocal and financial supporter of that bullshit, giving him money and positive publicity by supporting the movie comes off as a rather bad idea. Conversely damning him with bad press and making sure his movie tanks and he is credited as the reason for it means he will more quickly fade into obscurity and his voice will lose reach, his wallet will get less funds.
Those trying to cry hypocrite though, yeah, need to realize that many people do oppose the other assholes you bring up. Well, not Spielberg though. That twilight zone movie one seemed more a horrible accident and less intentionally calling for the bloody over-through of the government. A valid enough reason to not support it if that is your though, but not hypocricy for those that may but oppose Card. An accident happening under your watch (no clue the full knowledge or extend Spielberg had there, but lets assume he was aware of the kids being hired) is still a world of difference from actively promoting bigotry. Unless you want to argue he intentionally planned for them all to die, but then you are just being a liar.
Thus, because the asshole is a vocal and financial supporter of that bullshit, giving him money and positive publicity by supporting the movie comes off as a rather bad idea. Conversely damning him with bad press and making sure his movie tanks and he is credited as the reason for it means he will more quickly fade into obscurity and his voice will lose reach, his wallet will get less funds.
Those trying to cry hypocrite though, yeah, need to realize that many people do oppose the other assholes you bring up. Well, not Spielberg though. That twilight zone movie one seemed more a horrible accident and less intentionally calling for the bloody over-through of the government. A valid enough reason to not support it if that is your though, but not hypocricy for those that may but oppose Card. An accident happening under your watch (no clue the full knowledge or extend Spielberg had there, but lets assume he was aware of the kids being hired) is still a world of difference from actively promoting bigotry. Unless you want to argue he intentionally planned for them all to die, but then you are just being a liar.
Everyone is allowed their opinions, and that includes opinions of other people's opinions. That can mean making a big deal out of shit from what an actress was wearing to what bigoted views some jackass write hold. And even not supporting the writers work based on the character and more importantly the continued actions of the writer.RT said:
Though, being financially supportive of restricting and even imprisoning people that are different is a bit more then just an opinion and if it was done against an average american instead of a sexual minority, would be labeled something akin to a terrorist funder, so it is a little disingenuous to try to claim it is only opinion.
Question, if someone dies in a car crash in your town, do they fire the mayor and the police chief? Lets say it was related to some law being broken on part of the parent. The parent would be the one looked at, right? You wouldn't go after his boss unless there was good reason to investigate them as well. The one at top is not instantly blamed when someone three rungs down screws up if they are not aware. They may take a publicity hit, sure, but they aren't dragged into court just because they were the top boss. That is for a good damn reason you know. I wasn't even aware the idea of responsibility and innocent until charged (let alone proven guilty) was solely an American notion so alien to you that you don't care about it.Johnny Novgorod said:
Are you seriously going with the "it's not the person, it's the lifestyle" thing there? Erm, yeah.Emanuele Ciriachi said:
And even if homosexuality was a lifestyle people could choose, Card would basically be saying that only his way of life is valid. For example, there's this quote from him;
"Regardless of law, marriage has only one definition, and any government that attempts to change it is my mortal enemy."
Card is saying that only his definition of marriage is valid ,and apparently so valid that if it's not given exclusive rights under the law, the government should be overthrown. Since he says "regardless of law" I'm assuming he's talking about the religious definition of marriage. But there's multiple religions with multiple definitions of marriage (like Muslims, or even other Mormons and polygamy) so he seems to be saying here that the government ought to respect his religious views alone (and that only his viewpoint deserves to be respected). Which, besides breaking the first amendment, sounds pretty disrespectful to every other viewpoint (regardless of whether or not those viewpoints deserve respect).
And regardless of whether you think homosexual marriage will unravel society or something the fact remains that advocates of homosexual marriage are saying that their type if marriage is valid, not that his isn't. In short, they're perfectly willing to co-exist with his heterosexual lifestyle, and he is not willing to co-exist with theirs. He may tolerate in day to day life, but he makes it pretty clear in his writings that if he had the power to shut it all down, he would. The reverse is not the case. That's a clear imbalance and even if you think he's right Card is clearly being the more intrinsically intolerant one here.
The question then becomes whether or not his intolerance is justified. For instance, we have plenty of reason to be intolerant towards the actions of serial killers or pedophiles, even if they are tolerant of the actions of non-serial killers or pedophiles, because these behaviors are demonstrably harmful. Is the same true for homosexuality (as, if I'm reading this right, you seem to think)? But even Card says that "We do not believe that homosexuals, by entering into a marriage, are personally hurting anybody" so what's the problem, then?(Of course he's also claimed that all homosexuals are pedophiles, so it's hard to say for sure what he thinks or why).
If you read my post, you'll notice I never said that giving him money wouldn't hurt anyone; I said that he isn't making money directly from this movie, so watching this movie isn't going to affect anything. At least not any more than making a fuss about it on the internet will.Shelley Gelschus said:
Though I also doubt giving him more money will cause any real harm, that would require
1. That extra money he makes will directly increase the amount of money he donates to these organizations and
2. That this extra donated money will actually allow these organizations to enact meaningful political change, that they wouldn't otherwise be able to
I don't know if either of these is true, but it seems like a stretch to assume both are.
I think this is less a rational concern about the consequences of giving him money than emotional outrage over his homophobia, which the internet is very passionate about right now.
I've actually used rhetoric like that in regards to capitalism (for an assortment of reasons, recognized by proponents of capitalism) and while I do feel the sentiment, I certainly wouldn't be acting on that sentiment unless there was an actual movement doing it.thaluikhain said:
Now, I'd never use that rhetoric in regards to gay marriage, because I don't have a dog in that fight, but after reading the article, it's not really out of line for someone with his religious beliefs to make such a statement, nor is it likely to be anything more than bluster for bluster's sake.
Disclaimer: Even though I personally would receive no perceivable benefit (from/the lack of) Gay Marriage, I recognize it as a basic human right and would not dispute it.
I honestly think it's less a need to boycott (which is unlikely to actually affect him personally in any way) as it is to just continue the conversation. When you get someone who is both anti-gay and has otherwise insane beliefs (i.e. Obama is going to organize minority gangs into a personal army that he will use to make himself into a life-long Dictator of America), it works well for the pro-gay rights groups to make sure everyone knows about him to help paint their opposition as being as crazy as possible.
For the record, I already think that anyone who wants to legislate their views of what willing adults should do to each other sexually as a legal mandate for all citizens is already nuts.
But seriously, when life hands you an anti-gay celebrity who is this nuts, you make sure as many people as possible equate anti-gay with nuts.
The weirdest thing about the whole issue is that his books themselves are incredibly open as to the definition of person. I mean, by the end of the series, you essentially have two extremely weird alien races defended as "people" deserving of personal freedoms and rights regardless of how odd those rights seem to humans. Yet the author doesn't give that same definition of "people" to, you know, actual people. It adds a special layer of crazy to all the other crazy. Which, again, if you want to paint anti-gay religious conservatives as crazy, Card is doing most of your work for you.
For the record, I already think that anyone who wants to legislate their views of what willing adults should do to each other sexually as a legal mandate for all citizens is already nuts.
But seriously, when life hands you an anti-gay celebrity who is this nuts, you make sure as many people as possible equate anti-gay with nuts.
The weirdest thing about the whole issue is that his books themselves are incredibly open as to the definition of person. I mean, by the end of the series, you essentially have two extremely weird alien races defended as "people" deserving of personal freedoms and rights regardless of how odd those rights seem to humans. Yet the author doesn't give that same definition of "people" to, you know, actual people. It adds a special layer of crazy to all the other crazy. Which, again, if you want to paint anti-gay religious conservatives as crazy, Card is doing most of your work for you.
I agree and disagree with you here. A creator being a dick is not an immediate "no sale here" line for me. I mean Card wasn't the only guy that worked on this movie, he's not the lead actor, director, camera guy or the caterer. What makes me not want to see this dudes movie on principle is that unlike the Fez creator, he's supporting organizations that promote an agenda I completely find antithetical to my principles and these principles aren't about view I hold on entertainment or food or something like that. Its about the rights of a large portion of other people. I mean fez guy is a dick about the industry he's in BUT he's also invested in that industry, and his opinions comes from his passion for that profession, not from some visceral hatred for what he rails against or a ignorance of it. So I would agree with you man if it wasn't an issue that was so important to the happiness and well being of so many people.BreakfastMan said:
+_+ I just reread it and realized you agreed with my opinion. XP stupid me.
Well, there's that, but I think in large part it's the principle of the thing. You don't hang out with people you don't approve of, even if all the cool kids are doing it.Belaam said:
Most people want to boycott because he's a board member of the hate group National Organisation for Marriage, and in the past has expressed his disappointment that homosexuality is not a crime and written that he believes that all homosexuals are paedophiles. Nothing he has said recently indicate that his beliefs have changed.
Some people have indicated that his producers credit is likely in lieu of additional payment and that that due to Hollywood accounting he would be unlikely to see any more money anyway. But I think that it is wrong to let such a hateful person benefit in any way, directly or indirectly, without protest.
Some people have indicated that his producers credit is likely in lieu of additional payment and that that due to Hollywood accounting he would be unlikely to see any more money anyway. But I think that it is wrong to let such a hateful person benefit in any way, directly or indirectly, without protest.
- Mar 31, 2010
- 7,172
- 150
- 68
- Country
-
- Gender
-
Adoption by same-sex couples exists though, as well as bringing along a child from a previous opposite-sex relationship or the use of a surrogate, so if you are claiming that opposite-sex marriage has fundamental benefits for society because it helps raise the next generation, the same can equally be said about same-sex marriage. I don't know about you but in my opinion there's a great lack of stable families in our society today and so we should be doing all we can to encourage the parents of children to stay together in the stable institution of marriage, regardless of whether the parents are opposite or same-sex.Emanuele Ciriachi said:
As for poly marriage, I (and many others) do support that as well under certain circumstances, though that isn't what we are discussing in this thread.
Hi Animyr,Animyr said:
No, I haven't spoke about person vs. lifestyle distinction.
Card correctly distinguishes between unions that can have children and others that cannot. This distinction is rational, given that marriage confers additional rights to those who contract it, some of which have a cost for the taxpayers. The (potential) contribution of new individuals that marriage can provide is the reason of those rights, rights that individual citizens that pay their taxes and are otherwise valued members of society don't enjoy.
Of course yes, this is discrimination - in the actual meaning of the word, not in the negative connotation that some people attempt to give it.
One could argue that discriminating between different situations is one of the goals of law as a whole.
The problem is one of both definition and fairness. If you completely remove the role of procreation from marriage, I see no practical reason for which married people are entitled to those additional rights.Animyr said:
If two men can marry, despite having no biological ability to reproduce (which some argue is the government?s stake in heterosexual marriage) and without having both genders represented as role models in the household (which others argue is the government?s stake in heterosexual marriage), then certainly two men and a woman can marry.
No one can credibly argue that three people cannot be in love.
Raising children is hard. Committing to stay together as a couple for the children's benefit is hard - many people, myself included, agreed that monogamy is fundamentally against our male genetic predisposition of spreading our DNA as much as possible.
As a geek and gamer I find it difficult to limit my hobby in order to dedicate to my family the time they deserve, but I do it anyway because I know it's the right thing - toward my parents who have done the same for me, toward my ancestors that gave their blood and life for our freedom, toward society as a whole.
I refuse to accept that this is completely equivalent to two people that stay together simply because they love each other.