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

EternallyBored

Terminally Apathetic
Jun 17, 2013
1,434
0
0
SanguiniusMagnificum said:
Ahh That's good, the fair trade food movement has its benefits, and I agree that it's worth it to pay a little extra to support the kinds of business practices you want to see continue and thrive into the future.

As for separating an artist from his work, in most cases I would agree, I can appreciate Wagner's operas separate from his Nazi sympathies, and I can read lovecraft while ignoring his racist tendencies, I can even appreciate the philosophy of Thomas Jefferson, despite his letters to Europe detailing why the black man needs to be enslaved in order to be civilized.

The difference here, is that Card is alive, and directly admits that he puts profits from his books and works towards a number of anti-gay organizations in America. I don't just mean gay marriage either, he has directly served on the board of directors for an organization that encouraged and funded camps designed to "reform" gay children. The same camps that have disastrously high suicide rates in its participants, and operating on a thoroughly faulty methodology. Why would a gay rights advocate want to give money to a work that directly funds a man that wants to deny them one of the central goals of the gay rights movement in the U.S.

Like I said, I can appreciate Wagner's operas despite his beliefs, but I would be far less likely to buy his music if I had to make a small donation to a neo-Nazi group in order to do so.
 

Lovely Mixture

New member
Jul 12, 2011
1,474
0
0
Repost what I posted before.

Lovely Mixture said:
thaluikhain said:
jab136 said:
and 2. because the author is a d-bag and I don't want to give him any money.
Yeah, this.

TBH, that's all I know about it. I've heard nothing about it except for people saying that we shouldn't give him money, or that he's a horrible person but giving him money is ok because he's rich or people should care about him being horrible or something.
Marter said:
jab136 said:
2. because the author is a d-bag and I don't want to give him any money.
He signed away and got paid for the rights years ago. He's not making any back-end from the film. Your ticket will not in any way be going to Orson Scott Card. Just in case that was the most important reason for you to not see the film.

Source: http://www.thewrap.com/orson-scott-card-boycott-enders-game-box-office-book-instead
Yes, this appears to be a non-issue now.
But I think the foremost problem is that people are having trouble dissociating the movie from Card. Like people who aren't eager to play Fez because Phil Fish's behavior.

It still cracks me up that Ender's Game is supposedly about accepting others and supporting tolerance......and yet the author is a huge bigot.

"You should treat others with respect.....as long as they aren't gay."
tl;dr yes if we were REALLY particular we would refuse to read/watch/play games related to any people who didn't share our beliefs. But we can be selective.



babinro said:
I personally find what Movie Bob did to be extremely unprofessional. He told people about controversial matters that were none of our business and then said we have every right to boycott based on our beliefs. He then acted as if he was not going to judge and then reviewed the movie. The movie review didn't seem to start for almost one quarter of the video. What Movie Bob did there is immediately setup the movie to fail or be looked down upon based on the actions of one person related to the making of this movie.

Should we be calling out controversial personal opinions of directors, supporting actors, co-writers etc in our video reviews?
I'm no fan of Bob, but he didn't do anything wrong if he did that. It's an issue that surrounds the film, he can address it however he wants to. Bob has done MUCH scummier things in the past.
 

Wolf In A Bear Suit

New member
Jun 2, 2012
519
0
0
This boyo is scum of the earth but if you want to ethically boycott films you'd better be ready to boycott a lot of stuff you may like. I'm not going to see this movie anyway but it's not in the form of boycott. If I wanted to I would simply because I am not willing to boycott everything that contradicts my correct opinion. Now if he were in a position to actually do something it would be a different story.
 

Thaluikhain

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 16, 2010
18,580
3,538
118
Wolf In A Bear Suit said:
Now if he were in a position to actually do something it would be a different story.
Define "do something". He is a notable member of a notable homophobic group, going out of their way to spread homophobic and rallying against certain laws.

Now, he's not personally throwing bricks through windows himself, but he is very much encouraging people who do.
 

Amir Kondori

New member
Apr 11, 2013
932
0
0
thaluikhain said:
Amir Kondori said:
Card has never insulted or personally attack homosexual people, just argued that marriage should not be expanded to include gay couples.
And that straight people should launch an armed uprising and overthrow the government if gay marriage isn't banned in the US constitution.
No he didn't. This is exactly what I was talking about. I will quote the text, since you failed to.

"How long before married people answer the dictators thus: Regardless of law, marriage has only one definition, and any government that attempts to change it is my mortal enemy. I will act to destroy that government and bring it down, so it can be replaced with a government that will respect and support marriage, and help me raise my children in a society where they will expect to marry in their turn."

Destroying the "government that attempts to change it (definition of marriage)" can be as simple as campaigning against those in power who voted for marriage equality and helping fund their political opponents in the next election. He never mentions armed insurrection and I believe it is obvious he is talking about bringing down any government that would help pass marriage equality in democratic means, especially when read in context.

For anyone who wants to read just what he wrote on the subject, which I completely disagree with btw, here are some links to his actual writing on the subject of marriage equality:
http://www.ornery.org/essays/warwatch/2004-02-15-1.html
and:
http://www.nauvoo.com/library/card-hypocrites.html

If you are going to attack the man at least know why you are attacking him. Personally I believe in outreach, especially when someone is as reasoned as he has been. Keep in mind he feels as strongly about this as many of us do on the opposite side.
 

Mycroft Holmes

New member
Sep 26, 2011
850
0
0
Soundwave said:
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?
I don't have access to the article anymore, it probably exists somewhere in its entirety but I'm too lazy to find it(or too cheap to buy an online account to the Mormon Times with archive access.) It is pretty easy to find quotes from the actual article though:

Stuff like:

"Because when government is the enemy of marriage, then the people who are actually creating successful marriages have no choice but to change governments, by whatever means is made possible or necessary." - Orson Scott Card

and

"Regardless of law, marriage has only one definition, and any government that attempts to change it is my mortal enemy. I will act to destroy that government and bring it down" - Orson Scott Card
 

Thaluikhain

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 16, 2010
18,580
3,538
118
Amir Kondori said:
Destroying the "government that attempts to change it (definition of marriage)" can be as simple as campaigning against those in power who voted for marriage equality and helping fund their political opponents in the next election. He never mentions armed insurrection and I believe it is obvious he is talking about bringing down any government that would help pass marriage equality in democratic means, especially when read in context.
Yeah, no. When you talk about destroying your mortal enemy, you generally don't mean voting against it.

In any case:

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/700245157/State-job-is-not-to-redefine-marriage.html?pg=all

Because when government is the enemy of marriage, then the people who are actually creating successful marriages have no choice but to change governments, by whatever means is made possible or necessary.
 

Thaluikhain

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 16, 2010
18,580
3,538
118
Res Plus said:
Meh, you should know by now OP freedom of speech is only allowed on the Escapist if you say the right things.
A) That is literally true, this being a privately run site.

B) Nobody is saying that he can't speak. A lot of people, however, do not feel like listening.
 

shellshock3d

New member
Nov 20, 2010
22
0
0
OlasDAlmighty said:
Mcoffey said:
OlasDAlmighty said:
I don't understand it either OP. I think a person who creates a good work of art or entertainment should be rewarded for his work, regardless of his unrelated personal beliefs.

When buying food at the grocery store, do you research to see what food companies are run by homophobic CEOs? Do you decide what electronics to buy based on the political beliefs of their designers? After all, your purchasing decisions will end up contributing money to these people.

I'm going to guess no.

Why is it different with Card? Are we worried that his anti-gay agenda is somehow reflected in his science fiction story about battling aliens? Or is it simply because he's more visible to us than these other people?

Regardless I think we should have more than a 1 dimensional view of him. You can disagree with someone while still appreciating them for things they've contributed.
People do this all the time. Some people don't buy certain electronics if they're made with conflict minerals, or cosmetics if they've been tested on animals. It's about what you're morally comfortable contributing to.
That's a totally different situation. You're talking about products who's creation directly involves causing harm to someone or something. Unless the filming of this movie actually prevented gays from getting married somehow, I don't think you can argue that this is even close to being analogous to those instances.

If you really, truly believe that choosing to go see this movie is going to somehow impact the livelihood of gay people, I guess I can sorta understand why you'd boycott it. But that's just not the case. Orson Card is receiving $0 from this movie, and if you're worried about giving him publicity; this controversy has given him way more publicity than a film credit would.
Hold the phone. I was content to sit back and read until I saw this. Do you honestly think, based alone on what people have been saying about OSC in this discussion, that giving him money won't hurt anyone? Because I do not think that. And I am not willing to give money to someone who is going to use it to further his anti-gay agenda.
 
Jan 1, 2013
193
0
0
Johnny Novgorod said:
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.
In the case of Spielberg, that boycotting his movies would not revive anybody. It also wasn't Spielberg's intention to kill people. With Card, you know he's going to invest his money and prestige into making life harder for homosexuals. He's already done that.
Moreover, you admit that people in general don't know that happened with Spielberg, so you cannot claim it's hypocritical for people to not act on things they don't know. The two aren't comparable anyway.
 

Emanuele Ciriachi

New member
Jun 6, 2013
208
0
0
People who oppose the irrational oxymoron of gay "marriage", regardless of why, are people who deserve respect - especially in this time where many _actual_ bigots of all colours are intolerant of people with moral values.
Ironically his position on the subject is much more egalitarian than his opponents' - many people's inability to grasp this makes it all the more entertaining.

I don't know too much about this person but none of his quotes from Wikipedia are troubling. If he's being blasted only for opposing gay marriage, kudos to him.
 

McGuinty1

New member
Oct 30, 2010
134
0
0
Johnny Novgorod said:
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.
Actually, John Landis was the director of that segment (as well as co-producer). Spielberg had little to nothing do do with what happened, he was not even on set at the time of the accident. It was Landis, along with the pilot and several crew members, that were tried (and acquitted) of criminal negligence charges. Spielberg was named in the civil suit only because of his production credit. Landis was the one who hired the child actors under the table to get around labor laws, and hid their involvement in the dangerous scene from safety inspectors. Why they had to use a real helicopter I'll never know, seems to me a dummy chopper on wires would have been a million times safer if less authentic.
 

Johnny Novgorod

Bebop Man
Legacy
Feb 9, 2012
18,467
3,005
118
Sir Christopher McFarlane said:
Johnny Novgorod said:
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.
In the case of Spielberg, that boycotting his movies would not revive anybody. It also wasn't Spielberg's intention to kill people. With Card, you know he's going to invest his money and prestige into making life harder for homosexuals. He's already done that.
Moreover, you admit that people in general don't know that happened with Spielberg, so you cannot claim it's hypocritical for people to not act on things they don't know. The two aren't comparable anyway.
By law, producers are held responsible for whatever fatal mishap may occur during production because of faulty production. So it was Spielberg's joint negligence with John Landis that resulted in the death of three people, two of which weren't even supposed to be there by legal standards. To pay for his movies is is to condone such shameful production standards that allowed the death of three people and may allow it again, technically speaking.

Now obviously I couldn't give a fuck about this. But like I said, 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). You'll agree accidental manslaughter is a more serious charge than bullshit-talking.
 

Johnny Novgorod

Bebop Man
Legacy
Feb 9, 2012
18,467
3,005
118
McGuinty1 said:
Johnny Novgorod said:
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.
Actually, John Landis was the director of that segment (as well as co-producer). Spielberg had little to nothing do do with what happened, he was not even on set at the time of the accident. It was Landis, along with the pilot and several crew members, that were tried (and acquitted) of criminal negligence charges. Spielberg was named in the civil suit only because of his production credit. Landis was the one who hired the child actors under the table to get around labor laws, and hid their involvement in the dangerous scene from safety inspectors. Why they had to use a real helicopter I'll never know, seems to me a dummy chopper on wires would have been a million times safer if less authentic.
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.