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

2012 Wont Happen

New member
Aug 12, 2009
4,286
0
0
The movie was excellent, which I expected. I had always intended to see it.

Every day of my life I'm likely to buy something made by modern slave labor. Why would I care if what I pay for is made by an old bigot?
 

ThatDarnCoyote

New member
Dec 3, 2011
224
0
0
Here's a quote [http://www.hatrack.com/misc/Quotes_in_Context.shtml] from Card in an October 2008 article:

"We do not believe that homosexuals, by entering into a marriage, are personally hurting anybody. Where the law makes such a thing available, even temporarily, those who marry are not our enemies. We believe the law is wrong and the marriage is not, in any meaningful way, what we mean by marriage.

But my family and I are perfectly able to deal with such couples socially and keep them as friends, as long as they show the same respect and understanding for our customs and beliefs as we show for theirs.

Only when a gay friend demanded that I agree with his or her point of view or cease to be friends has the friendship ended. What is odd is that in every case they call me intolerant. They misunderstood the meaning of "tolerance."

Tolerance implies disagreement - it means that even though we don't agree with or approve of each other's beliefs or actions, we can still live together amicably. When we agree, we aren't being tolerant, we are being uniform.

It makes me sad when people are so intolerant that they cannot bear to be friends with anyone who disapproves of some action or opinion of theirs. But I believe that if we could only be friends with people who never disapprove of something we do, we will end up with "friends" who either don't know us very well, or don't care about us very much."



Yes, truly, this man is the devil.
 

Axolotl

New member
Feb 17, 2008
2,401
0
0
ThatDarnCoyote said:
Here's a quote [http://www.hatrack.com/misc/Quotes_in_Context.shtml] from Card in an October 2008 article:

"We do not believe that homosexuals, by entering into a marriage, are personally hurting anybody. Where the law makes such a thing available, even temporarily, those who marry are not our enemies. We believe the law is wrong and the marriage is not, in any meaningful way, what we mean by marriage.

But my family and I are perfectly able to deal with such couples socially and keep them as friends, as long as they show the same respect and understanding for our customs and beliefs as we show for theirs.

Only when a gay friend demanded that I agree with his or her point of view or cease to be friends has the friendship ended. What is odd is that in every case they call me intolerant. They misunderstood the meaning of "tolerance."

Tolerance implies disagreement - it means that even though we don't agree with or approve of each other's beliefs or actions, we can still live together amicably. When we agree, we aren't being tolerant, we are being uniform.

It makes me sad when people are so intolerant that they cannot bear to be friends with anyone who disapproves of some action or opinion of theirs. But I believe that if we could only be friends with people who never disapprove of something we do, we will end up with "friends" who either don't know us very well, or don't care about us very much."



Yes, truly, this man is the devil.
He's right. Gay people asking to be treated with basic human dignity and compassion, they were the real bigots all along.
 

FalloutJack

Bah weep grah nah neep ninny bom
Nov 20, 2008
15,489
0
0
Tono Makt said:
Listen, H.P. Lovecraft was a fantastic racist, but I don't see anyone boycotting HIS work because of it. No, I see so much Cthulhu, Nyarlathotep, and Great Old Ones in life that you'd think R'lyeh rose from the sea already. Put simply, you're not really fighting a war here and neither you or he is going to make any great headway in the meantime. Then, there's effects like with Alice In Wonderland. I seem to recall that that was suppose to be an insulting deconstruction of people that Carol hated, but instead it was a grand slam hit for the literature buffs, much to his shagrin. I think that if you really believe Orson's trying to be Peter, then you might do better by ignoring him.
 

Axolotl

New member
Feb 17, 2008
2,401
0
0
FalloutJack said:
Listen, H.P. Lovecraft was a fantastic racist, but I don't see anyone boycotting HIS work because of it.
That's because he's been dead for over three quarters of a century. If he were still alive and helping run hate groups then people would boycott him. n fact some people who refuse buy or read his work base of his racism.
 
Apr 5, 2008
3,736
0
0
I don't know what happened to respectfully disagreeing with people. While I absolutely don't condone his views I will absolutely defend his or anyone's right to have them. It's a political view and in a country with freedom of speech and democratic process everyone is entitled to their religious faith, political views and so on. It seems that Internet forumites however have no respect for any views other than their own (atheists, ironically, are a good example of this) and are as bad as the people they protest against.

As long as he doesn't break the law and practice discrimination in any of his dealings, I don't care what his views are. I'll grant of course that he is a dick however.

The way to win people is with the carrot, not with the stick.
 

EternallyBored

Terminally Apathetic
Jun 17, 2013
1,434
0
0
wulf3n said:
Ok I know you and Skies are having it out right now, but I'm going to interject my two cents again, I'm bored and watching really depressing social dramas for a law class so I got nothing better to do at the moment.

I've done a lot of this kind of thing in my life, I mean a whole lot, pretty much comes with being a social worker, LGBT, feminist, children's welfare, worker's rights, poverty, spousal abuse, etc. etc. etc. Like you just mentioned, your major mistake was saying "many" it's a fuzzy term and heavily implies that that you are trying to delegitimize anyone that boycotts Mr. Card as a fad follower who doesn't actually care that much for gay rights in general, at best it sounds dismissive, at worst, it looks like your basically attacking anyone that wants to boycott the movie.

Boycotts are not a stable thing, they come from many sources and can form in many ways, a boycott can change as it loses or gains popularity, but any boycott with enough people in it usually follows a general model. At the center, you've got people who make up the organizers and advocates. These are the people that do this kind of thing for a living or as a major volunteer effort: professional bloggers, staff in various advocacy groups (in this case, staff and organizers from major LGBT groups), professors (usually of the liberal arts variety), community organizers, social workers, and many others. Basically these people make it their job to spread information on issues they are passionate about, if a boycott is getting traction on a major issue, you're going to have a core group of people organizing and setting up things like protests, media attention, and outreach; these aren't spontaneous events and usually revolve around people with the time and dedication to do this way way more than on a single instance of an issue. Don't mistake this for intricately planned leadership though, even at the core level, these things can still be little more than unintended consequences, a blog post here, a little blurb on a University website there.

The next level out (imagine it as a circle with smaller circles inside it getting towards the previously mentioned core), you've got the dedicated people. Volunteers or staff, these are the people that make up the primary circle of your efforts. These are the passionate people, generally focused on a single issue like gay rights, these are your regulars. The people you can count on to follow up on any issue they are passionate about. In volunteers cases these people dedicate the time they can, maybe they can't participate all the time, but they will generally try to be genuine contributors to the cause they believe in. Between your organizers and your regulars, these are the people you'll see often showing up at protests or on the news when these types of issues gain traction. This is where a lot of the initial word of mouth comes from when a boycott starts.

The next level you've got your allies and participants. People who have commitments and lives, but genuinely want to help. These are the people, you've generally wrangled in from previous outreach efforts, they've stuck around because they believe in the issue your representing. Anything at this point or past is going to have high turnover, internet forum advocacy is easy, but eating up a chunk of a person's time to ask them to help spread information on your chosen target is difficult, people have lives, and even gay people have careers and families, they can't always dedicate significant chunks of time to anything you ask. These people generally specialize a bit more, for example people that will reliably show up to gay marriage rallies, but don't have the time for much else.

I can go on but I'll skip to the relevant part, at the outermost ring of this onion o' activism, you've got the uninitiated and the hangers on. These are the people that have been pulled in by whatever your current effort is, in this case, the Card Boycott. As I said before, a lot of people have been boycotting Card for decades, now that the Ender's game movie is coming out, many of those inner layers are trying to raise awareness to inform people about Mr. Card's views and actions. People on the outside see that information and decide to spread it around. Some people will indeed make rash decisions or support something superficially, it is the job of those inner layers to educate these people on why they are boycotting Mr. Card, as well as raising other issues relevant to their movement. In this case, Card is a good demonstration of the kinds of people still arrayed against gay marriage advocates. The idea is to take some of these uninitiated and to either educate them to make them better advocates for their beliefs and ideal, or to inspire them to take a greater role in advocacy and participate in future initiatives.

So yes, some people do treat boycotts as a superficial do-nothing way to score social justice points. To equate that to "many" does a disservice to the time and effort so many people put forward, to share their ideals and beliefs with the masses. Advocacy and activism are an involved process, a boycott rarely just springs from nothing with no organization or guide, anything like that, that hopes to get anywhere, requires dedication, belief, and passion from many people involved. Just like Mr. Card has his organization that dedicates itself to banning gay marriage, so too does the LGBT community have it's counterpoint, with a lot of people donating millions of dollars and millions of manhours of volunteer time every single year in order to try to accomplish its goals.
 

EternallyBored

Terminally Apathetic
Jun 17, 2013
1,434
0
0
KingsGambit said:
I don't know what happened to respectfully disagreeing with people. While I absolutely don't condone his views I will absolutely defend his or anyone's right to have them. It's a political view and in a country with freedom of speech and democratic process everyone is entitled to their religious faith, political views and so on. It seems that Internet forumites however have no respect for any views other than their own (atheists, ironically, are a good example of this) and are as bad as the people they protest against.

As long as he doesn't break the law and practice discrimination in any of his dealings, I don't care what his views are. I'll grant of course that he is a dick however.

The way to win people is with the carrot, not with the stick.
Ok, what are you talking about? Nobody has actually said they want to censor the guy yet, a boycott is not a violation of someones free speech. You mention other people, but none of those people seem to be here right now, he absolutely has the right to express his views, and other people have the right to call him a hateful bigoted old man, and they also have the right not to see his movie.

You say other people have no respect for any views but their own? What about Mr. Card's lack of respect for Homosexual's views, why are his views protected speech, but other people's views of him as wrong, suddenly a lack of respect. Not that any of this actually matters, Freedom of speech only applies to the government, so unless the President or members of congress are posting here without our knowledge, there is literally nothing we can do to violate his freedom of speech and expression.

I apologize, but I am so damn tired of people pretending freedom of speech has some bearing on how private citizens are supposed to respond to someone else, please stop using the Constitution as some sort of moral bludgeon to make it look like you have the moral high ground, you don't. Freedom of speech has jack to do with this discussion, and bringing it up just comes across as cheap emotional manipulation to shame the side of the argument you don't like. If Mr. Card wants respect he can earn it himself, there is no law guaranteeing it to him.
 

jklinders

New member
Sep 21, 2010
945
0
0
I'm not reading through 4 pages of threads right now so I am responding directly to the OP here.

I'll start by saying that Orson Scott Card might have a credit on the movie but the deal he cut was a one time cash payment for the movie rights and he is getting NOTHING from royalties here. I saw that from multiple sources including Card himself. While he's an asshole I'll trust him on this.

As for reasons for the boycott...aside from the fallacy that such a boycott would actually hurt him (it can't since he was already paid as much as he will from this although book sales will undoubtedly increase for the first time in over a decade) it could be because he is a grade A nutjob. Forget wikipedia. Go to Card's website. He is politically active and everything you need to know about this man's vile and insane beliefs are there to be seen. From comparing Obama to Hitler, to his ongoing efforts to oppress homosexuals worldwide, to his lovely thoughts on immigration to the idea that religion should be force fed to children at as young an age as possible. It's all fucking there.

So yeah, I have no problem denying this fucknut money. I might see the movie though as I cannot control the fact he has already been paid but I will read no book of his. I see enough propaganda as it is, I don't need to subject myself to more.
 

wulf3n

New member
Mar 12, 2012
1,394
0
0
Master of the Skies said:
I hadn't posted yet(Edit: I did, I got confused there. I didn't take it to mean me however as I hadn't said anything about Card at that point). However the reason you seemed to give was that they weren't consistent enough, which might apply to quite a lot of people and there are other possible reasons for people not to be utterly consistent in their boycotts. And that is what I took issue with. Not that some likely support causes to look better, but the reason you seemed to use was insufficient and seemed to rope everyone who fit the criteria of not being particularly intent in checking who they ought to boycott.
My posts should taken as the rants of an ignorant jerk amongst many on the internet that they are. I hold no allusion to the validity of my belief as it stems from a pre-existing bias external to the OSC issue.

EternallyBored said:
snip...

So yes, some people do treat boycotts as a superficial do-nothing way to score social justice points. To equate that to "many" does a disservice to the time and effort so many people put forward, to share their ideals and beliefs with the masses.

snip...
Many was a poor choice of words as I hold no opinion as to the quantity. That those who treat boycotts as a superficial do-nothing way to score social justice points exist makes me question the motives of all who aren't fervent in their crusade.

Is this an ignorant point of view? I believe so, but we are the sum of our experiences.

I would have liked to have given a more fitting response, worthy of the effort put into your post, however the sandman comes for us all.
 

neokiva

New member
Jun 14, 2013
27
0
0
SaneAmongInsane said:
I just went ahead and watched MovieBob's review, and knowing nothing of the man he blasted as the kind of the dicks, well obviously I wanted to know more... TO WIKIPEDIA!!!


Yeah so.... I read the wiki on him and it basically accounts to that he's religious and doesn't agree with gay marriage. About the worst of it was that he was a board member on some lobbyist group for defending marriage or some shit like that... Which really makes me wonder if everyone supports what GLADD does in it's quest to "promote equality."

I mean GLADD bullied Kevin Smith over Jay and Silent Bob Strikes Back according to Malcolm Ingram, extorted him out of some amount of money so they wouldn't boycott the film over it's gay jokes.

Anyway, I went to the wiki expecting it to be all "This fucker says we should round them all up and shove 'em into ovens!"

I mean is there like something more concrete than that or are we collectively as a community calling this guy an asshole because he holds a backwards political view? Someone drop a little science on me cause I'm not getting it, guy seems to share the same view on it as Sean Hannity... And Sean's like the Diet Coke of conservative views.
while i have a problem with the artists morals (read:backward asshat)I am more scared of the implications of boycotting an original movie that isn't just some kind of remake, we gotta support the original content otherwise movie studios wont bother and we'll be stuck with crappy remakes forever.
 

Mycroft Holmes

New member
Sep 26, 2011
850
0
0
Orson Scott Card advocates Utah seceding from the union in order to wage war against the US government to stop gays from getting married.

So I'd say it goes a bit beyond just holding a backwards political view.


jklinders said:
I see enough propaganda as it is, I don't need to subject myself to more.
To be fair, Ender's Game is gay as shit. Like, little naked boys wrestling each other in the shower, levels of homoeroticism. Card might have a few unresolved sexual issues...
 

Soundwave

New member
Sep 2, 2012
301
0
0
Mycroft Holmes said:
Orson Scott Card advocates Utah seceding from the union in order to wage war against the US government to stop gays from getting married.

So I'd say it goes a bit beyond just holding a backwards political view.
Do you have a link for that? I'd really like to see it, not that I don't believe you. He wasn't just being like, dramatic or something, right?
 

O maestre

New member
Nov 19, 2008
882
0
0
Axolotl said:
FalloutJack said:
Listen, H.P. Lovecraft was a fantastic racist, but I don't see anyone boycotting HIS work because of it.
That's because he's been dead for over three quarters of a century. If he were still alive and helping run hate groups then people would boycott him. n fact some people who refuse buy or read his work base of his racism.
So when Card dies it will be politically correct to see/read enders game?
 

Someone Depressing

New member
Jan 16, 2011
2,417
0
0
The guy's mad, extremely religious madman.

And he's involved with the film, even if he sold the rights; he's getting money from tickets.
 

Ritualist

New member
Oct 23, 2013
24
0
0
O maestre said:
Axolotl said:
FalloutJack said:
Listen, H.P. Lovecraft was a fantastic racist, but I don't see anyone boycotting HIS work because of it.
That's because he's been dead for over three quarters of a century. If he were still alive and helping run hate groups then people would boycott him. n fact some people who refuse buy or read his work base of his racism.
So when Card dies it will be politically correct to see/read enders game?
It's not about political correctness.
But, when Card dies, and money from his products is no longer going to hateful agendas, yes. It will be okay to partake in his works.
From my understanding there's nothing inherently hateful about them. Just misguided and silly at times. But while he lives he profits from them. And while he profits from them insane people who want homosexuals to be treated as criminals profit from them.