Ornery.org
  Front Page   |   About Ornery.org   |   World Watch   |   Guest Essays   |   Contact Us

The Ornery American Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Ornery American Forum » General Comments » GRENADE! or LGBT Boycott of "Ender's Game" (Page 1)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 6 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  6   
Author Topic: GRENADE! or LGBT Boycott of "Ender's Game"
Grant
Member
Member # 1925

 - posted      Profile for Grant   Email Grant       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Usually I'd just like to throw a pity topic subject, a couple of links, into the forum, close the door, and wait for the bang. I understand that's kind of intellectual cowardice if I do it all the time, and tensions seem to be high enough right now, so I'll actually give some opinions (gasp) and let everybody tear me apart for a change.

Skip Ender's Game site

Huff Post link

quote:
Author Orson Scott Card's controversial stance on lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) rights has prompted an online protest ahead of the November release of "Ender's Game," the big-budget Hollywood movie based on his famed 1985 novel.

Launched by Geeks OUT, "Skip Ender's Game" asks LGBT rights supports to "keep your money out of Orson Scott Card’s pockets" by opting out of seeing "Ender's Game" in theaters when the film is released in cinemas on Nov. 1. The group is organizing a series of "Skip Ender's Game" events in New York, Orlando, Seattle and other major U.S. cities to coincide with the movie's debut.

"By pledging to Skip Ender’s Game, we can send a clear and serious message to Card and those that do business with his brand of anti-gay activism -- whatever he’s selling, we’re not buying," Geeks OUT officials write. "The queer geek community will not subsidize his fear-mongering and religious bullying. We will not pay him to demean, insult, and oppress us."

They also note, "Do not buy a ticket at the theater, do not purchase the DVD, do not watch it on-demand. Ignore all merchandise and toys."

First, am I allowed to talk about this? I mean, nobody else is and I was kinda surprised. Everybody is just distracted right now, or what? Yeah, I know, it's not as important as a murder trial in Florida. I always follow those.

Anyways... I support these guys' right to boycott. More power to 'em. I'm not sure if this is actually the right target for the Geeks OUT people.

I don't know if the political views of an artist should really come into play in the decision to purchase their work. I personally watch lots of movies that feature actors, writers, directors, etc, that have political views that don't line up with my political views. I separate their work from their political views. Most of the time their work doesn't have anything to do with their political views, and in this case I would say that "Ender's Game" really doesn't have much to say or do with gay rights.

The second thing is that I'm not sure if this is the kind of exposure the LGBT community wants to give this movie. I don't think that the Chick-fil-A boycott really worked out for them, and there is a possibility that this thing could backfire on them as well.

I'm a big fan of boycotting. I just don't know about boycotting something because of somebody's views. I think it has to do with respecting the fact that everyone is entitled to their views.

Posts: 3264 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DarkJello
Member
Member # 6828

 - posted      Profile for DarkJello   Email DarkJello       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Grant:
I personally watch lots of movies that feature actors, writers, directors, etc, that have political views that don't line up with my political views. I separate their work from their political views. Most of the time their work doesn't have anything to do with their political views, and in this case I would say that "Ender's Game" really doesn't have much to say or do with gay rights.

I'm a big fan of boycotting. I just don't know about boycotting something because of somebody's views. I think it has to do with respecting the fact that everyone is entitled to their views.

#1) I agree with everything in the first paragraph, except the last sentence. E's G has nothing to do with gay rights.

#2) I almost never agree with boycotts. Too often it feels like doing what the cool kids want.


OSC has some very strong views, but I don't find them controversial. Others 100% believe in gay marriage, and I don't find that controversial either.

If the movie makes gobs of cash--which I hope occurs, so they make more movies in the series--it will have NOTHING to do with support for or against gay marriage. And if it does poorly, it should have NOTHING to do with gay marriage. Some people launch into tizzy fits because there is disagreement in the world... and such a response is counterproductive.

The following is OSC's response to the boycott:

Ender’s Game is set more than a century in the future and has nothing to do with political issues that did not exist when the book was written in 1984.
With the recent Supreme Court ruling, the gay marriage issue becomes moot. The Full Faith and Credit clause of the Constitution will, sooner or later, give legal force in every state to any marriage contract recognized by any other state.
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.

Orson Scott Card

http://insidemovies.ew.com/2013/07/08/enders-game-orson-scott-card-statement/

Posts: 520 | Registered: Jun 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DarkJello
Member
Member # 6828

 - posted      Profile for DarkJello   Email DarkJello       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I like this guys logic very much:

http://flavorwire.com/403108/boycotting-enders-game-is-the-wrong-response-to-orson-scott-cards-homophobia

Posts: 520 | Registered: Jun 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
D.W.
Member
Member # 4370

 - posted      Profile for D.W.   Email D.W.   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
If it's boycotted it means I can get a better seat. There is a good chance I'll be seeing it more than once to make up for one boycotter anyway. And buying the blue-ray... It will have to stink pretty bad to not warrent that expenditure of cash. It's like Star Wars. They announce the movie is under works and my money is spent. Doesn't matter how bad they screw it up (nostalgia is that powerful).

OSC is entitled to whatever opinions he wants and he can voice them in as mello or inflamatory way he wants. He can spend his money supporting whatever he wants. His ability to tell a good story and entertain is all that I concern myself with when it comes to his books (and now movie).

I've never made it a habbit to research the sexual orientation or political views of directors, producers, authors or actors in the past. Not going to start now. Entertain me, get my money. Pretty simple.

[ July 16, 2013, 08:54 AM: Message edited by: D.W. ]

Posts: 4308 | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
starLisa
Member
Member # 2543

 - posted      Profile for starLisa   Email starLisa   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I support anyone's right to boycott anything. And I oppose OSC's views on virtually everything connected to gays and lesbians. But I'm damned if I'm going to miss the Ender's Game movie.
Posts: 2066 | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
It's no surprise that it's happening; as with most boycotts, the bigger purpose is pretty much already served by bringing the issue to light and getting people to talk about it; there's no way, except on the very local level to make much more than a small economic dent.

I would have been surprised if he'd gone as far to apologize on the issue, but I think most of us here have a little better understanding of the overall nuance involved than its going to come up in the general conversation. An acknowledgement that he's been on the wrong side of history, is a good step on him, even if it's probably going to fall flat to those most hurt by the efforts he's supported in the past.

I don't have a problem with his request for tolerance, as long as it's accompanied by the humility to accept that many will not be able to meet the challenge of extending him more consideration than then he gave to them. I hope his faith holds up to the challenge.

Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I hope the liberal elite boycott it here in WA, I'll get a better seat. The good theaters here are always over-crowded. However, I don't have much hope that they will. They tend to be very hypocritical, ie: they claim to care about things like energy consumption but drive cars that have a bigger carbon footprint than a hummer.

My guess is some may even publicly state they'll support this boycott but they'll quietly go to the movie and enjoy it anyway.

[ July 16, 2013, 11:50 AM: Message edited by: Seneca ]

Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I don't know what an apology would accomplish, other than prove that in the public sphere, the SSM "argument" is driven primarily by financial threats and the desire to suck up to what's perceived as a progressive trend.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
scifibum
Member
Member # 945

 - posted      Profile for scifibum   Email scifibum   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
I don't know what an apology would accomplish, other than prove that in the public sphere, the SSM "argument" is driven primarily by financial threats and the desire to suck up to what's perceived as a progressive trend.

That's rather overstating it, don't you think? The "primary" driver in the public sphere is a sense of fairness, usually coupled with already-progressive views about sexuality.

It might indicate that financial pressure can cause people to buckle on this issue, sure, but that's a much more limited statement.

Posts: 6847 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by DarkJello:
I like this guys logic very much:

http://flavorwire.com/403108/boycotting-enders-game-is-the-wrong-response-to-orson-scott-cards-homophobia

Ah.

OK, if THAT is what they are talking about, rather than Card's defense of the marriage ideal, then I could understand the anger and the call for an "apology." But I doubt that's what's going on here. The dominant vacuous leftiness of our blogosphere treats opposition to SSM in 2013 as a greater offense against political correctness than support of vicious laws that criminalized consensual sex acts back in the 1980s.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by scifibum:
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
I don't know what an apology would accomplish, other than prove that in the public sphere, the SSM "argument" is driven primarily by financial threats and the desire to suck up to what's perceived as a progressive trend.

That's rather overstating it, don't you think? The "primary" driver in the public sphere is a sense of fairness, usually coupled with already-progressive views about sexuality.

No, I don't think so. "Fairness" isn't about stomping on individuals for their opinions.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DarkJello
Member
Member # 6828

 - posted      Profile for DarkJello   Email DarkJello       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by starLisa:
I support anyone's right to boycott anything. And I oppose OSC's views on virtually everything connected to gays and lesbians. But I'm damned if I'm going to miss the Ender's Game movie.

I don't know you, but I sure as heck like you. That made me laugh, and coworkers are giving me looks. Oh well. Good times.
Posts: 520 | Registered: Jun 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
scifibum
Member
Member # 945

 - posted      Profile for scifibum   Email scifibum   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
quote:
Originally posted by scifibum:
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
I don't know what an apology would accomplish, other than prove that in the public sphere, the SSM "argument" is driven primarily by financial threats and the desire to suck up to what's perceived as a progressive trend.

That's rather overstating it, don't you think? The "primary" driver in the public sphere is a sense of fairness, usually coupled with already-progressive views about sexuality.

No, I don't think so. "Fairness" isn't about stomping on individuals for their opinions.
You're nothing if not committed to your hyperbole, Pete.
Posts: 6847 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Scifi, think about it. Telling someone they need to apologize for being on the "wrong side of history", i.e. for taking an argument that seems at the moment to have lost politically, is nothing more or less than a Vae Victis. You lost, so bend over. It's not remotely an argument about rightness or fairness.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
MattP
Member
Member # 2763

 - posted      Profile for MattP   Email MattP   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Telling someone they need to apologize for being on the "wrong side of history", i.e. for taking an argument that seems at the moment to have lost politically, is nothing more or less than a Vae Victis*. You lost, so bend over. It's not remotely an argument about rightness or fairness.
Correct; ergo that is not a product of the primary driver of the pro-SSM movement - sexual progressiveness coupled with a sense of fairness.
Posts: 3481 | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Yes, when you think you're winning you can call it anything you like. But "progressiveness" is just the PC flavor of the concept of cultural evolution, it's no different in essence than the victorian whites measuring skulls of other peoples and proclaiming themselves more evolved. There is a difference, and we have the upper hand ergo we are better, more evolved, than these poor benighted primitives. Vae Victis.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Grant
Member
Member # 1925

 - posted      Profile for Grant   Email Grant       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The pro-SSM movement IS driven by a sense of fairness, AND a certain amount of progressive trendiness.

Boycotting somebody who disagrees with your opinion, now and in the past, is about a sense of justice and political/economic warfare. For the GEEKS OUT crew, this is about attacking and denying what they believe is an enemy. Their stated goal is to deny OCS revenue that he may pass on to organizations that opposed SSM.

The question remains, where do you draw the line? Is their a line? It obviously isn't a legal line, so what is the line based on? What will happen to the economy when everybody stops patronizing everyone else who disagrees with them?

Posts: 3264 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
MattP
Member
Member # 2763

 - posted      Profile for MattP   Email MattP   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Yes, when you think you're winning you can call it anything you like. But "progressiveness" is just the PC flavor of the concept of cultural evolution
It can be, but it's also a neutral identifier for a group of positions that cluster together. (vs conservative) I wasn't making a value judgement about the superiority of the progressive position, just noting that it is a major driver of the gay rights movement. People whose whose mores do not categorize gay sexual relationships as wrong/evil are more sexually progressive than those who do not. And these sexually progressive people are more open to legal institutions like SSU and SSM.

*You* are sexually progressive, Pete, you are just working with some premises that make SSM unacceptable to you despite your sexual progressiveness.

quote:
There is a difference, and we have the upper hand ergo we are better, more evolved, than these poor benighted primitives. Vae Victis.
Whomever you are arguing with here is neither scifi nor me. I think OSC is wrong. I think he is wrong in a way that hurts people. If he ever feels this way as well I believe he should apologize. I certainly don't think an apology is owed merely because he's losing an argument.
Posts: 3481 | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
MattP
Member
Member # 2763

 - posted      Profile for MattP   Email MattP   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
What will happen to the economy when everybody stops patronizing everyone else who disagrees with them?
But that's not the criteria here. OSC doesn't merely hold an opinion on SSM nor does he doesn't merely express an opinion. He has used his art to gain a larger megaphone than most people have available to spread his opinions and has even landed a position on the board of NOM.

It's not implausible that had he never written Ender's Game he wouldn't be on the board of NOM and publishing anti-SSM editorials with wide circulation. Given that, it's not unreasonable to take a principled stand about not supporting his art.

Personally, I don't think it's worth the effort. But I don't see a slippery slope ahead of the people that do.

Posts: 3481 | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
D.W.
Member
Member # 4370

 - posted      Profile for D.W.   Email D.W.   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
For the GEEKS OUT crew, this is about attacking and denying what they believe is an enemy.
I think this is about riding to coat tails of someone with name recognition to further their goals. The economic threat they pose to OSC is pretty insignificant given that I would say most people who are sympathetic to LGBT concerns draw a distinction between what entertains us and the opinions of those who do the entertaining. If Ender's Game had anti-gay themes and were an obvious metaphor for current cultural issues they'd have a shot at an effective boycott.
Posts: 4308 | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
scifibum
Member
Member # 945

 - posted      Profile for scifibum   Email scifibum   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by MattP:
Whomever you are arguing with here is neither scifi nor me.

Thanks, I'm glad I don't seem to you to be making any of the arguments that would fit in opposition to Pete's last few posts.

I think what happened was that Pete thought I was justifying punitive actions toward those on the "losing" side as the natural result of a sense of fairness and progressive views on sex. I'm not sure WHY he thought that, but it seems pretty clear that he did now that I read back over it.

Pete, I was disputing what you were calling the primary driver of the pro-SSM argument in the public sphere:

quote:
the SSM "argument" is driven primarily by financial threats and the desire to suck up to what's perceived as a progressive trend.
Note that what you're saying here doesn't make any sense. Most SSM supporters have zero financial stake in the issue, and would not find it very easy to suck up to a trend. (How do you even know if the trend is picking up on your flattery?)

I then posited that a coerced apology might be evidence that financial pressure can cause people to pretend to reverse their position.

Please do me a favor and next time you think I'm saying something stupid and evil, stop and reconsider until you come up with another interpretation.

Posts: 6847 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
scifibum
Member
Member # 945

 - posted      Profile for scifibum   Email scifibum   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Grant:
The pro-SSM movement IS driven by a sense of fairness, AND a certain amount of progressive trendiness.

Boycotting somebody who disagrees with your opinion, now and in the past, is about a sense of justice and political/economic warfare. For the GEEKS OUT crew, this is about attacking and denying what they believe is an enemy. Their stated goal is to deny OCS revenue that he may pass on to organizations that opposed SSM.

The question remains, where do you draw the line? Is their a line? It obviously isn't a legal line, so what is the line based on? What will happen to the economy when everybody stops patronizing everyone else who disagrees with them?

Grant, I was with you most of the way, here. But preventing revenue from going to organizations that oppose SSM is not necessarily a punitive goal.

The means of preventing it matter, of course. Not giving him money is, really, pretty benign. (If someone decided to stage some trip-and-fall accidents on his property to set up lawsuits to deprive him of his wealth, that would be pretty evil, on the other hand.)

While there's a part of me that feels like live-and-let-live is the best option for those who disagree with OSC at this point, I think there's a moral difference between boycotts of his work aimed at a political result, and those that are just trying to make him hurt. The latter are wrong, IMO.

Posts: 6847 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Grant
Member
Member # 1925

 - posted      Profile for Grant   Email Grant       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by MattP:
But that's not the criteria here. OSC doesn't merely hold an opinion on SSM nor does he doesn't merely express an opinion. He has used his art to gain a larger megaphone than most people have available to spread his opinions and has even landed a position on the board of NOM.

So there is a difference between expressing an opinion, and expressing an opinion with "a larger megaphone"?

quote:
Given that, it's not unreasonable to take a principled stand about not supporting his art.

To what purpose? What is principled about not supporting the art of an individual who has an opinion you do not share, if the art is completely separated from the opinion? There are only two purposes I can see. To put economic pressure on OCS to change his views. I don't think that is the attempt here. Or to deny OCS funds in order to support anti-SSM groups, which does seem to be the purpose here.

That's all well and good. But there are lots of artists around who use either their "megaphone voice" or their money to support political causes. What would happen if all conservatives and liberals stopped patronizing artists who do not share their political beliefs and speak out about them?

Is it more principled to say, "I don't like this person's politics, but I appreciate their art, and I patronize them, because I believe they have a right to their opinion and a right to spend their money in whatever way they wish, and a right to speak their mind in whatever capacity they wish"? Or is it more principled to say "I don't like this person's politics, and I will not patronize their art, because they use the money they gain from patronization to support political beliefs I do not share"?

It seems to me that both statements are principled, but only one statement is concerned with the WHOLE, rather then the PART. Both are based on an individual's right. Only one of them is based on what a society needs to allow in order to get along economically and politically.

Posts: 3264 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Grant
Member
Member # 1925

 - posted      Profile for Grant   Email Grant       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by scifibum:
I think there's a moral difference between boycotts of his work aimed at a political result, and those that are just trying to make him hurt. The latter are wrong, IMO.

I couldn't agree more, but what is the exact political result being sought here? It is the denying of funds to an organization that supports certain political positions, yes?

Hasn't OSC already been paid for the movie? LOL. I don't know. I thought writers and executive producers got paid up front.

I don't have any problem at all with that idea. It's every individuals right. But where do YOU draw the line? Why? Is it right for just you or for everybody? It's not just about what rights an individual has, but what is right.

Posts: 3264 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Adam Masterman
Member
Member # 1142

 - posted      Profile for Adam Masterman   Email Adam Masterman   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by scifibum:

While there's a part of me that feels like live-and-let-live is the best option for those who disagree with OSC at this point, I think there's a moral difference between boycotts of his work aimed at a political result, and those that are just trying to make him hurt. The latter are wrong, IMO.

This would be my basic position as well. Punishment alone is bad activism; and I say that as a very strong proponent of activism. I can't really say how this boycott should be categorized, but I tend to think that a good boycott has an "out" for the target: stop this behavior, and we will stop the boycott. The Montgomery bus boycotts, for example, had a list of very concrete demands in exchange for ending the boycott. Even if the demand were something Card would obviously not do, such as stepping down from NOM or pledging to cease funding anti-marriage efforts, then I would be more comfortable with the effort (its rather moot for me, as the movie looks dull as heck anyway).

Its important to note that geeks are overwhelmingly opposed to anti-gay discrimination. If this group were able to mobilize the geek community, it would definitely hurt ticket sales, though it doesn't appear that that is happening (hard to say). I suspect that the goal is more along the lines of getting studios to stop giving OSC prominent platforms. They *did* manage to kill his Superman comics project, which is impressive considering the clout a best-selling author has in that industry (basically a free ticket to write any book they want, typically).

Posts: 4823 | Registered: Jul 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
hobsen
Member
Member # 2923

 - posted      Profile for hobsen   Email hobsen   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Orson Scott Card's statement read, so far as I can determine:
quote:
Ender’s Game is set more than a century in the future and has nothing to do with political issues that did not exist when the book was written in 1984.

With the recent Supreme Court ruling, the gay marriage issue becomes moot. The Full Faith and Credit clause of the Constitution will, sooner or later, give legal force in every state to any marriage contract recognized by any other state.

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.

What struck me about this is that the statement is vague: does he mean that the Supreme Court will in the future require that every one of the fifty states permit same sex couples to marry, or merely that all states will be required to recognize such marriages if performed in other states. And the word "moot" strikes me as strange, as clearly same sex couples are not marrying everywhere and receiving all the benefits given to opposite sex couples. Nevertheless, his statement should greatly hamper the National Organization for Marriage's efforts to raise money to continue to fight SSM, as he depicts this as a lost cause.

Beyond that, I think it unfair to blame Card for being asked to write a series of articles for the Mormon Times setting forth the grounds for the LDS Church's opposition to SSM, or for accepting a position on the National Organization for Marriage's board of directors to replace a Mormon representative who had resigned. NOM has since its inception tried to have Mormons and other denominations represented among its avowed leaders, to combat the perception that the group is exclusively Roman Catholic. Card's series of articles made him a natural choice for the position, and he had every right to accept it.

But looking at responses to OSC's statement, which mollified very few critics, I found those people were not angry about his opposition to SSM itself but about language he has used demonizing or ridiculing homosexuals and SSM supporters. It seems to me he might have done better to express some regret for intemperate remarks he has made in the course of the debate, because that is what is still making people angry. He is under no obligation to do so of course, but some of the language he has used seems to me well beyond what critics should be expected to tolerate. And that is why OSC's work is getting boycotted, while that of others equally opposed to SSM are not.

However, I should agree that the boycott is useless, will probably draw attention to the movie and increase ticket sales, and is morally dubious. Works should be judged on their merits, not on the views of their authors. And those most likely to be harmed are others associated with the film, not OSC himself.

[ July 16, 2013, 09:13 PM: Message edited by: hobsen ]

Posts: 4387 | Registered: Jul 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
scifibum
Member
Member # 945

 - posted      Profile for scifibum   Email scifibum   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Grant:
quote:
Originally posted by scifibum:
I think there's a moral difference between boycotts of his work aimed at a political result, and those that are just trying to make him hurt. The latter are wrong, IMO.

I couldn't agree more, but what is the exact political result being sought here? It is the denying of funds to an organization that supports certain political positions, yes?
Well, no, that would (hypothetically) be the means to the desired end, which would be to defeat the aims of those groups (or rather to succeed in their own opposed aims).

However I think some of the people who are boycotting Ender's Game are just angry at OSC and don't want him to benefit from their entertainment dollars. That's not the decision that *I* am making (I do want to see the movie, more than I want to accomplish anything I think I can accomplish by not seeing it), but I don't see *much* of a moral problem with choosing to spend entertainment dollars in a way that accords with ones like or dislike of the people involved. It gets iffy for me when it comes to pressuring others on how to spend their money if the aim is punitive.

Posts: 6847 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Grant
Member
Member # 1925

 - posted      Profile for Grant   Email Grant       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Adam Masterman:
I suspect that the goal is more along the lines of getting studios to stop giving OSC prominent platforms.

Has OSC actually used any of these prominent platforms, given to him by studios, movie and otherwise, to express his opinion on SSM? If not then the goal is moot.
Posts: 3264 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Grant
Member
Member # 1925

 - posted      Profile for Grant   Email Grant       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by scifibum:
Well, no, that would (hypothetically) be the means to the desired end, which would be to defeat the aims of those groups (or rather to succeed in their own opposed aims).

Is there a difference between DEFEATING the aims of these groups and attempting to SILENCE these groups? That is all these groups and OSC are doing really, expressing an opinion.
Posts: 3264 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
scifibum
Member
Member # 945

 - posted      Profile for scifibum   Email scifibum   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I would note that expressing an opinion does not require funding. So they are doing something else, if money is an issue. One is not preventing them from making choices in how to spend their money by not giving it to them in the first place...
Posts: 6847 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Grant
Member
Member # 1925

 - posted      Profile for Grant   Email Grant       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by scifibum:
I would note that expressing an opinion does not require funding. So they are doing something else, if money is an issue. One is not preventing them from making choices in how to spend their money by not giving it to them in the first place...

Expressing an opinion in media does require money. Print, television, radio, or internet. We are able to express our opinion here on this forum because as far as I know, OSC pays the bill to allow us to.

The political goal, the purpose, is to silence a particular group that takes a stance that Geeks OUT opposes. Not to change their minds or change policy.

[ July 16, 2013, 10:28 PM: Message edited by: Grant ]

Posts: 3264 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Adam Masterman
Member
Member # 1142

 - posted      Profile for Adam Masterman   Email Adam Masterman   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Grant:
quote:
Originally posted by Adam Masterman:
I suspect that the goal is more along the lines of getting studios to stop giving OSC prominent platforms.

Has OSC actually used any of these prominent platforms, given to him by studios, movie and otherwise, to express his opinion on SSM? If not then the goal is moot.
He has a prominent position *in general*, given to him mainly by publishers (not undeserved), which he uses to advocate against gay rights. I'm sure he doesn't go on Entertainment Tonight and talk about ssm, but being in the spotlight brings the spotlight to his political writing as well, with its long record of, well, you know what he writes. So I think its fair to say that, so long as he is a voice against ssm, its desirable for ssm proponents that he not be given the spotlight, so to speak.
Posts: 4823 | Registered: Jul 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
hobsen
Member
Member # 2923

 - posted      Profile for hobsen   Email hobsen   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
In the Windsor decision, Edith Windsor was not concerned about what OSC or anyone else thought about her lifestyle or marriage, but about having to pay more than $300,000 in taxes when the survivor of a heterosexual marriage would not. OSC's words seem to trivialize this inequity:
quote:
They steal from me what I treasure most, and gain for themselves nothing at all. They won’t be married. They’ll just be playing dress-up in their parents’ clothes.
And I have no idea whether the following is true, and I doubt OSC has any well researched figures either, but I am not surprised some found the following offensive.
quote:
The dark secret of homosexual society—the one that dares not speak its name—is how many homosexuals first entered into that world through a disturbing seduction or rape or molestation or abuse, and how many of them yearn to get out of the homosexual community and live normally.
My own guess would be that a lot of gays just found in childhood or adolescence that they were attracted to those of the same sex, just as I found I was attracted to persons of the opposite sex. Why either is true, I really have no idea, nor do I have any firm figures regarding who wants what. How could anyone find out except by asking people, and how would one know whether the replies were truthful? The effort is like trying to get scientifically verifiable data on which people really like the taste of caviar, and which just see eating it as a proof of status and wealth.
Posts: 4387 | Registered: Jul 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Adam Masterman
Member
Member # 1142

 - posted      Profile for Adam Masterman   Email Adam Masterman   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Grant:
We are able to express our opinion here on this forum because as far as I know, OSC pays the bill to allow us to.

This is a minor quibble, but this website is almost certainly a net revenue generator. It is often suggested that we have an ethical obligation to OSC because he "pays" for this site, when in reality the content we generate creates a net revenue for Card (his very occasional essays do not constitute enough dynamic content to drive the kind of traffic that would pay for hosting). I'm sure the amounts we are talking about are very small, but I think I have the same obligation to OSC when posting here as I do to Mark Zuckerberg when I post on Facebook (essentially, none).
Posts: 4823 | Registered: Jul 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Grant
Member
Member # 1925

 - posted      Profile for Grant   Email Grant       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Adam Masterman:
So I think its fair to say that, so long as he is a voice against ssm, its desirable for ssm proponents that he not be given the spotlight, so to speak.

So it is desirable for SSM proponents to limit or remove OSCs ability to speak or write about his opinion? They want to shut him up, publically? That's the goal?

Maybe they just don't want to feel like they're HELPING OSC or whatever organization speak out against SSM. Because they're having so much success at it, LOL. (Edit: OSC and whatever organization I mean).

[ July 16, 2013, 10:39 PM: Message edited by: Grant ]

Posts: 3264 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Grant
Member
Member # 1925

 - posted      Profile for Grant   Email Grant       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I believe that the nation was founded on very strong beliefs that everyone was entitled to speak their minds. 1st Amendment, right? That is not to give judgment on the content of the speech, but to give judgment over the concept of expressing that speech in the first place, especially in the political realm. We even have notions that there should be a certain amount of fairness in presenting different opinions on political matters.

Today, some conservative groups wish to limit funding for certain aspects of government that assist individuals in speaking their opinions to a wider audience, because they do not support the political messages being conveyed. They excuse this by saying that they do not wish to fund or assist in the spreading of opinions they do not agree with. If someone gets up on public television and expresses an opinion they do not agree with, they wish to defund public television. They are not necessarily silencing these individuals, they just do not wish to be a part of helping them, because the tax money that funds public television partly comes from their pockets.

Is this right? Is it okay to say, "I support your right to free speech, but I won't help you speak your mind"?

Posts: 3264 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TommySama
Member
Member # 2780

 - posted      Profile for TommySama   Email TommySama       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I'm not really sure this boycott is about OSC's mere opposition to same sex marriage. He's written plenty of hateful and odious things about the LGBT community.

From the Skip Enders Game website:
quote:
“Laws against homosexual behavior should remain on the books, not to be indiscriminately enforced against anyone who happens to be caught violating them, but to be used when necessary to send a clear message that those who flagrantly violate society's regulation of sexual behavior cannot be permitted to remain as acceptable, equal citizens within that society.”
— Orson Scott Card, “The Hypocrites of Homosexuality,” Sunstone Magazine, Feb 1990 - See more at: " target="_blank">http://skipendersgame.com/#sthash.Rrhwp6BN.dpuf[/quote]

Posts: 6396 | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Grant
Member
Member # 1925

 - posted      Profile for Grant   Email Grant       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by TommySama:
I'm not really sure this boycott is about OSC's mere opposition to same sex marriage. He's written plenty of hateful and odious things about the LGBT community.

[/QUOTE]

Okay. How does the boycott effect the hateful things that OSC has said in the past? Several posters have stated their opinion that boycotts are only good if they have a purpose that is non-punitive. Is the boycott punitive in the sense they are trying to punish OSC for his hateful remarks, or are they attempting to stop him from staying more hateful things, or do they just not want to support his ability to say hateful things?

Posts: 3264 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Adam Masterman
Member
Member # 1142

 - posted      Profile for Adam Masterman   Email Adam Masterman   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Grant:
quote:
Originally posted by Adam Masterman:
So I think its fair to say that, so long as he is a voice against ssm, its desirable for ssm proponents that he not be given the spotlight, so to speak.

So it is desirable for SSM proponents to limit or remove OSCs ability to speak or write about his opinion? They want to shut him up, publically? That's the goal?

OSC's public prominence is not due to his wisdom on human sexuality; its due to his (sadly waning) skill at writing good science fiction. He then uses that prominence to, among other things, speak against gay interests (in rather despicable ways, see Tommy's post).

I think the idea is to stop patronizing his art, and thus stop giving him the disproportionately large soapbox to preach his ideas. I don't think anyone is suggesting any curtailment of his free speech rights in any way. They are trying to do what people have done to Rush Limbaugh; stop enabling him in any way to reach millions more people than the most of us with his rhetoric. Its kind of perverse to suggest that OSC being reduced to the same kind of audience as normal people is somehow unfair; as though he were entitled to large audiences for whatever he conceives of expressing. Remember, these people *are* his audience. If they are willing to forgo whatever enjoyment his work might provide to stop adding fuel to the anti-gay movement, that's a perfectly free and fair exchange. And freedom of speech includes their right to try and convince others to join them. Plenty of hard-core white supremacists in this world who no one listens to; are their rights in jeopardy because they don't have the massive audience that Card has?

Posts: 4823 | Registered: Jul 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TommySama
Member
Member # 2780

 - posted      Profile for TommySama   Email TommySama       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Grant:
quote:
Originally posted by TommySama:
I'm not really sure this boycott is about OSC's mere opposition to same sex marriage. He's written plenty of hateful and odious things about the LGBT community.


Okay. How does the boycott effect the hateful things that OSC has said in the past? Several posters have stated their opinion that boycotts are only good if they have a purpose that is non-punitive. Is the boycott punitive in the sense they are trying to punish OSC for his hateful remarks, or are they attempting to stop him from staying more hateful things, or do they just not want to support his ability to say hateful things? [/QUOTE]
Well, and again from the boycott website:
quote:
By pledging to Skip Ender’s Game, we can send a clear and serious message to Card and those that do business with his brand of anti-gay activism — whatever he’s selling, we’re not buying. The queer geek community will not subsidize his fear-mongering and religious bullying. We will not pay him to demean, insult, and oppress us.
It sounds like they want to raise awareness about OSC's extreme views while at the same time refusing to "pay him to demean, insult, and oppress [the queer community]."

They also seem to make a distinction between OSC and other "anti-gay" activists. I posted the original quote to demonstrate where I believe the outrage originated (as opposed to a mere opposition to same sex marriage, as some posters seemed to think was the case).

Posts: 6396 | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 6 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  6   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Ornery.org Front Page

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1