Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Movies Books Sci-Fi

Orson Scott Card Pleads 'Tolerance' For Ender's Game Movie 1448

Posted by Soulskill
from the flexing-his-iron-knee dept.
interval1066 writes "A story in Wired describes Orson Scott Card's quest for tolerance in response to a boycott for Gavin Hood's film adaption of Ender's Game, saying that 'The gay marriage issue is moot' in a statement to Entertainment Weekly. Card is a long time anti-gay and defense of marriage activist. 'His concern, ostensibly, is that someone might be petty enough not to see his movie simply because he spent years lobbying for laws that treated certain people as less than human. The fallacy he employs here — that calling out hate-speech is intolerance on par with curtailing the human rights of others — is a favorite fallback of cowards and bullies, and a way of evading responsibility for the impact of their words and actions.' I guess he didn't see this film and the box-office importance of wide appeal coming, did he?"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Orson Scott Card Pleads 'Tolerance' For Ender's Game Movie

Comments Filter:
  • Really?!? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by realityimpaired (1668397) on Wednesday July 10, 2013 @08:16AM (#44236293)

    Orson Scott Card is pleading for tolerance? That's rich.

    • Re:Really?!? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by somersault (912633) on Wednesday July 10, 2013 @08:24AM (#44236353) Homepage Journal

      He'd have been better off not saying anything. I'm sure I've read about him being a bigot in the past, but I'd actually forgotten about it. I can understand people not liking things that they feel are too "different", but I can't understand why he'd actively campaign against people who are different from him..

      This is like some weird, modified version of the Streissand effect at work.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by tbannist (230135)

        Yeah, I think you cross a line when you call for the violent overthrow of the government for the crime of treating people equally. I wasn't aware that Card had done that or advocated to criminalize/keep criminalized homosexual behaviour so the the government could jail anyone who dared to admit they were gay.

        I don't think I need to actually consciously boycott Card. I was already tired of his endless rehashing of the Book of Mormon in every thing he writes. These (new to me) revelations about his bigotry

        • Re:Really?!? (Score:4, Insightful)

          by KiloByte (825081) on Wednesday July 10, 2013 @08:51AM (#44236693)

          You call the scheme of picking just one alternate sexuality scheme, promoting it above everything else, and banning the rest, including fully natural behaviour -- "equal"?

          A vast majority of animals, and most human cultures other than graeco-roman allow polygamy, usually as the default mode. By a quirk of history, this particular culture won and imposed it customs on everyone else. And now, unless you follow the deviation of restricting yourself to just one partner, you go to prison in most countries.

          Up until late 19th century, the age of sexual/marriage majority matched being a biological adult. Yet these days, this natural behaviour is considered the most heinous crime that must be eradicated at all costs, including curbing all civil liberties. Before, people acted with revulsion only to sexual relations with an actual child -- today, if a woman of this age sends her naked photo to the father of her child, she goes to jail for "pedophilia".

          • Re:Really?!? (Score:5, Informative)

            by drinkypoo (153816) <martin.espinoza@gmail.com> on Wednesday July 10, 2013 @08:53AM (#44236725) Homepage Journal

            Before, people acted with revulsion only to sexual relations with an actual child -- today, if a woman of this age sends her naked photo to the father of her child, she goes to jail for "pedophilia".

            Almost. They both go to jail for child pornography, she for producing and he for possessing. Then the child goes into a home, and probably eventually into the military or a prison. Either way, the state profits.

          • Re:Really?!? (Score:5, Interesting)

            by Insightfill (554828) on Wednesday July 10, 2013 @10:05AM (#44237771) Homepage

            By a quirk of history, this particular culture won and imposed it customs on everyone else.

            There's a societal down-side to polygamy, one that needs STRONG cultural overrides to prevent. If (presumably) richer men are allowed multiple wives, that means that there are fewer wives for the rest of the men. You then end up with an excess of unmarried, non-parental young adult men, and being married and a parent is usually a calming influence. These single men are usually the first in the streets if things take even a tiny down-turn. We still see this in Arabic countries which allow polygamy, as well as countries where there's an imbalance of men and women, such as China and India (one-child policies as well as gender-based abortions responsible.

            Up until late 19th century, the age of sexual/marriage majority matched being a biological adult.

            That works when age of menarche is around 16-17 as it was in England until about the 1850s. This meant that a woman who was old enough to have children was taller and more experienced. Larger families also meant she was likely to have helped raise and take care of siblings. The average age in the US is currently ~12.5. Not enough time to grow the whole body, and not likely to have a lot of experience raising siblings.

    • Re:Really?!? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Rosco P. Coltrane (209368) on Wednesday July 10, 2013 @08:28AM (#44236403)

      Yes, believe it or not, those who have different points of view deserve tolerance, regardless of whether you agree with them or not.

      Crazy communists deserve tolerance,
      Crazy white supremacists deserve tolerance,
      Crazy Tea party members deserve tolerance,
      Crazy gay activists deserve tolerance,
      Crazy anti-gay activists deserve tolerance.

      Besides, OSC's SF books have nothing to do with his views on a totally orthogonal societal issue. Boycotting the former because of the latter is called an ad hominem. Case in point, a lot of people enjoy Disney movies and Ford cars despite Walt Disney and Henry Ford being nasty antisemitic pro-nazi nutjobs.

      • Re:Really?!? (Score:4, Insightful)

        by mlk (18543) <michael.lloyd.le ... il.OOOcom minus > on Wednesday July 10, 2013 @08:44AM (#44236613) Homepage Journal

        Neither Walt Disney or Henry Ford are currently alive. Do their companies now stand for pro-nazi-ness?

        • Re:Really?!? (Score:5, Insightful)

          by schnell (163007) <me@schnelTWAINl.net minus author> on Wednesday July 10, 2013 @08:55AM (#44236749) Homepage

          Neither Walt Disney or Henry Ford are currently alive. Do their companies now stand for pro-nazi-ness?

          No, but the overarching point is that if you let the opinions and views of the artist cloud your interpretation of the work, you will never enjoy anything because ultimately *everybody* out there has some belief you disagree with. You can refuse to put dollars in the pocket of someone you disagree with, fine. But in general it's like refusing to read the Declaration of Independence because Jefferson was a slaveholder.

          Some of the best advice I was ever given was "trust the art, not the artist." Artists are stupid people like everyone else and will always break your heart if you expect them to be as awesome as you want them to be. Leave them out of it and you'll have a much easier time enjoying art for what it is.

          • Re:Really?!? (Score:5, Insightful)

            by h4rr4r (612664) on Wednesday July 10, 2013 @08:59AM (#44236805)

            None of those things are like handing a bigot money.

            I don't have to buy Jefferson a slave to read his works, I don't have to pay an artist to see his work in a museum. I do have to give Card money to see his film, he will use that money against people who I like.

          • No, but the overarching point is that if you let the opinions and views of the artist cloud your interpretation of the work, you will never enjoy anything

            His opinions do not cloud my mind, his opinions make me sick.
            Since I know his inhuman attitude I did not even reread the books of him I already own. And certainly I won't buy anything from him ever again.

            ... because ultimately *everybody* out there has some belief you disagree with.

            That has nothing to do with believes. I don't care what people "believe" u

          • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

            Some of the best advice I was ever given was "trust the art, not the artist." Artists are stupid people like everyone else and will always break your heart if you expect them to be as awesome as you want them to be. Leave them out of it and you'll have a much easier time enjoying art for what it is.

            I can enjoy art without making a financial contribution to the artist. I know this is a difficult concept to grasp in the age of RIAA and copyright maximalists, but it was only recently that art became a work for hire, and throughout most of human history art was something you did to pass the time once the business of staying alive was completed. Our ancestors made music and beat drums in the evening because the hunting and gathering of food was done; It was to promote tribal unity, to express emotion. But

      • Re:Really?!? (Score:5, Insightful)

        by ideonexus (1257332) on Wednesday July 10, 2013 @08:57AM (#44236787) Homepage Journal

        I loved loved loved "Ender's Game" as a youth, but 10 years ago, when I discovered Orson Scott Card's blog [ornery.org] and his perpetual stream of scientifically illiterate bigoted ravings, it really tainted everything with his name on it for me. Suddenly, "Ender's Game," "Speaker for the Dead," and "Xenocide" were no longer deep books about ethical conundrums, but shallow stories where ethical conflicts just happen with depth given to them by the reader--because there's no way Card's shallow, binary mind could possibly comprehend the many ethical dimensions of the events he describes in his stories.

        As for tolerance. You are correct, I am completely intolerant of Card's intolerance. I am choosing to not give my patronage to the film adaptation of his book because his personal views and political activism have soiled the whole thing for me; however, I fully support his right to voice those views. By contrast, Card believes that those he disagrees with, homosexuals, should be incarcerated and stripped of their rights. So I find the attempts by many online to draw an equivalency between the intolerance of those participating in the boycott and Card's intolerance extremely weak.

        • Re:Really?!? (Score:5, Insightful)

          by epine (68316) on Wednesday July 10, 2013 @09:26AM (#44237215)

          Well said, but I have quibbles.

          Suddenly, "Ender's Game," "Speaker for the Dead," and "Xenocide" were no longer deep books about ethical conundrums, but shallow stories where ethical conflicts just happen with depth given to them by the reader--because there's no way Card's shallow, binary mind could possibly comprehend the many ethical dimensions of the events he describes in his stories.

          You depict this as a literary cop-out, but in fact it's no small matter for the writer to create this space where the reader can import their own baggage and make the story their own. The sustained theme of Ender's Game is manipulation and counter manipulation, and how manipulation flows from point A to point Z through various waypoints. It's about how the rationality of the individual becomes embedded in the group and takes on political dynamics. His story is not so hollow that you feel your sitting in a curtained booth having your palms read by some fat, cynical, overdressed, sharp-eyed, post-menopausal woman who sized you up as you took your seat in a New York microsecond.

          That said, his homophobic blog rantings rate among the worst drivel I've ever forced myself to wade halfway through.

          Agatha Christie's Top 10 Racist Moments [thoughtcatalog.com]. Christie came to mind because I read an account by one of her contemporaries of not being able endure a social dinner in her company.

          Tolerance? If he's going to write these things, I hate his guts to the point where I would step up and excuse myself from the dinner table, damn the tuxedos. I don't wish him ill in any overt way. I just hope he self-selects himself into a like-minded coterie of the small minded and is never heard from again, unless he chooses to embrace a different path, placing a higher weight on the fallout of how he proposes to arrange the affairs of others to appease his own spastic bristles.

          He's in a bit of a commercial pickle, because much of the audience for science fiction where the driving themes are non-romantic are too sophisticated to appreciate his personal politics. I say most because there has always been the other contingent within our ranks.

          Dr. William Shockley on Race, IQ, and Eugenics [youtube.com]

          Somehow I doubt the Shockleys of this world amount to a driving force behind opening-weekend box office receipts.

          • Re:Really?!? (Score:5, Interesting)

            by ideonexus (1257332) on Wednesday July 10, 2013 @09:44AM (#44237471) Homepage Journal

            Thank you for the thoughtful response. I do still feel there is something highly 'accidental' to the genius of Card's Ender's series, but I have read some criticisms that damn the books for being highly manipulative [ncsu.edu] in the way they persuade the audience to forgive Ender's actions:

            "Card has spoken in interviews about his tropism for the story of the person who sacrifices himself for the community. This is the story, he tells us, that he has been drawn to tell again and again. For example, in justification of the scenes of violence in his fiction, Card told Publisher’s Weekly in 1990 that, “In every single case, cruelty was a voluntary sacrifice. The person being subjected to the torture was suffering for the sake of the community.” I find this statement astonishingly revealing. By “The person being subjected to the torture,” Card is not referring here to Stilson, Bonzo, or the buggers, who may well be sacrificed, but whose sacrifices are certainly not “voluntary.” Their deaths are not the voluntary sacrifices that draw Card’s concern. No, in these situations, according to Card the person being tortured is Ender, and even though he walks away from every battle, the sacrifice is his. In every situation where Ender wields violence against someone, the focus of the narrative’s sympathy is always and invariably on Ender, not on the objects of Ender’s violence. It is Ender who is offering up the voluntary sacrifice, and that sacrifice is the emotional price he must pay for physically destroying someone else. All the force of such passages is on the price paid by the destroyer, not on the price paid by the destroyed. “This hurts me more than it hurts you,” might well be the slogan of Ender’s Game."

      • Re:Really?!? (Score:5, Insightful)

        by h4rr4r (612664) on Wednesday July 10, 2013 @08:57AM (#44236789)

        Sure, and tolerance he can have. Tolerance does not mean putting money in his pocket. Not going to see his movie is not being intolerant. It is simply choosing to see another movie and tolerating others seeing that one.

        Disney and Ford are dead. When Card dies this issue will go away unless his children are hateful bigots as well.

        • Re:Really?!? (Score:5, Insightful)

          by SirGarlon (845873) on Wednesday July 10, 2013 @09:23AM (#44237153)

          I skimmed the essay linked from the summary [ornery.org]. I think it reflects a narrow-minded point of view (assuming that society cannot prosper unless all families look like Card's family) but I would hardly call it "hateful." If that is what you think hate speech looks like, you've had a very sheltered life.

          The "prejudicial" label fits, because Card is fundamentally asserting that his values are normative and should become universal. But how is that not the same as what we do when we call him a bigot?

          • Re:Really?!? (Score:5, Insightful)

            by Ixokai (443555) on Wednesday July 10, 2013 @10:03AM (#44237731)

            Bear in mind, that's just one of many. Card has written many, many, many times on this subject -- even arguing that homosexual acts should be criminalized, that an adult willfully engaging in sex he doesn't find acceptable with other consenting adults should go to *jail* and be deemed an unacceptable part of society.

            Not all hate speech is going to say 'faggot' and 'burn in hell' and stuff like that: those extreme positions are also supported and maintained by more intellectual and softly spoken declarations of the inhumanity of the minority and supporting that it has no right to be seen as a peer because its difference is too different to allow.

      • Re:Really?!? (Score:4, Informative)

        by Lunix Nutcase (1092239) on Wednesday July 10, 2013 @09:04AM (#44236867)

        Funny since people like Card actively boycott all sorts of advertisers for sponsoring shows that might possibly show gay people in any sort of positive light. Yet they then come back and bitch about bein persecuted when their own tv show/movie/book gets boycotted because of their own views. He is a fucking hypocrite.

      • Re:Really?!? (Score:5, Insightful)

        by girlintraining (1395911) on Wednesday July 10, 2013 @09:14AM (#44237009)

        Boycotting the former because of the latter is called an ad hominem.

        No, an Ad Hominem attack is not what is in play here. We're discussing whether it is morally justified to support a person or organization whose profit from goods and/or services sold will be used in furtherance of the oppression of a political minority. Mr. Card is the example under discussion.

        But tolerance is not the same as acceptance, and this is where you have made a critical flaw in your reasoning. Tolerance means allowing them to participate in the discussion, to excercise free speech. It does not mean we should accept that their position has merit. I tolerate people who reject the theory of evolution, but I do not accept their position is valid. They're still nutjobs. I do not fund organizations that are anti-evolution out of some misguided notion that I must be tolerant of their viewpoint.

        And as far as people enjoying Disney movies and Ford cars... well, they may be ignorant, or simply not care enough, or lack alternatives. But that's another kind of logical fallacy -- just because people do it doesn't make it right, and it's no argument for the furtherance of those activities. We all pick and choose our battles -- we can't fight for every righteous cause. But that's no argument for not fighting at all. If I choose to tell Mr. Card to fuck off today, but go to a Chic Fil A tomorrow, that doesn't mean I don't support gay rights... it just means I place more value on not being hungry than not being entertained.

      • by PopeRatzo (965947)

        Besides, OSC's SF books have nothing to do with his views on a totally orthogonal societal issue.

        That's true. I hate Nazis, but I love the boots.

        So, if you want to see the Ender movie or read any of Orson Scott Card's books, go right ahead and enjoy them. Just be aware of the kind of person you are supporting when you do so. And the kind of beliefs. And hope like hell you never find yourself on the wrong side of his notion of "society's sexual norms". And hope like hell nobody like him ever comes to po

    • Re:Really?!? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by gl4ss (559668) on Wednesday July 10, 2013 @08:31AM (#44236439) Homepage Journal

      his answer is really perplexing. it's like just because his opinion side lost and the issue is settled in courts that somehow his opinions on the issue no longer should matter to other people... did he change his opinion on the issue? apparently not. why the fuck even make a statement like that? should have just kept his mouth shut.

      i don't really see what people see in the novel either... which is the reason I'm not going to see it, not the apparent fact that he is an idiot(ok, I saw the trailer and that's another reason).

  • Who Cares? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 10, 2013 @08:21AM (#44236315)

    If I cared about the views of the people behind the movies, or the actors... I wouldnt be able to watch any movies. I look forward to seeing this one, whether the author likes or dislikes gay people.

    • Re:Who Cares? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by eldavojohn (898314) * <eldavojohn@@@gmail...com> on Wednesday July 10, 2013 @08:27AM (#44236393) Journal

      If I cared about the views of the people behind the movies, or the actors... I wouldnt be able to watch any movies. I look forward to seeing this one, whether the author likes or dislikes gay people.

      The primary problem is when he uses his artistic medium and influence to spread this message. Which he most certainly has [ornery.org]:

      In the first place, no law in any state in the United States now or ever has forbidden homosexuals to marry. The law has never asked that a man prove his heterosexuality in order to marry a woman, or a woman hers in order to marry a man.

      Any homosexual man who can persuade a woman to take him as her husband can avail himself of all the rights of husbandhood under the law. And, in fact, many homosexual men have done precisely that, without any legal prejudice at all.

      Ditto with lesbian women. Many have married men and borne children. And while a fair number of such marriages in recent years have ended in divorce, there are many that have not.

      So it is a flat lie to say that homosexuals are deprived of any civil right pertaining to marriage. To get those civil rights, all homosexuals have to do is find someone of the opposite sex willing to join them in marriage.

      Translation: "Your entire life has to be a lie because I'm ignorant." And no, I do not go see Tom Cruise movies because he uses his stardom and money he gets from those movies to push a very dangerous religion [youtube.com]! There are some issues where I flat out draw the line. I'm not boycotting Clint Eastwood because he's said some politically stupid stuff but there are some issues like homosexuality where I feel like I'm promoting ignorance if I promote those who think homosexuals should not have the same rights as heterosexuals. It's an egalitarian issue in my mind and I'm not going to see Ender's Game nor will I read the rest of the Shadow series.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by TrekkieGod (627867)

        The primary problem is when he uses his artistic medium and influence to spread this message.

        Sometimes I hear this criticism, and I don't get it. That's the point of art. If it doesn't have a message, what's the point?

        Your objection is that it has a message you disagree with. In that sense, I agree with Card. It is intolerance. And closed-mindedness. If you refuse to listen to any argument against what you believe in, you must believe in a lot of things that aren't true.

        Now, I'm completely against him on the gay marriage issue (and on most issues, really), but why the hell would I have a prob

        • Re:Who Cares? (Score:5, Interesting)

          by eldavojohn (898314) * <eldavojohn@@@gmail...com> on Wednesday July 10, 2013 @09:01AM (#44236825) Journal

          Your objection is that it has a message you disagree with. In that sense, I agree with Card. It is intolerance. And closed-mindedness. If you refuse to listen to any argument against what you believe in, you must believe in a lot of things that aren't true.

          But I've read all his arguments. I've actually read them all. I went from being a huge Card fan to deciding he shall no longer see a cent of my money and I will no longer read his work. That's not closed-mindedness. He's had his pedestal for quite some time and I'm done with him. I'm not stripping him of his first amendment rights, he can go to the town square and scream himself hoarse for all I care. What I'm stripping him of is my hard earned money that he uses to spread that message on the internet and in his community.

          Would you buy fruit from a KKK vendor? Would you pay for magazines spouting racism just to make sure you are covering all your bases and hearing all arguments of the issue? No. Because that issue is settled in your mind and you no longer want to financially support the other side. I feel the same way about homosexual marriage. And from what I've read he's not providing any original viewpoints on this issue. So the guy's not getting one more ounce of my resources and on top of it, I'll let anyone know who brings him up what he's said in his newsletters and websites about equal rights of United States citizens.

          Believe it or not, KKK members cannot offer you much better arguments for racism than they could a hundred years ago. And for that I'm not stupid enough to accuse you of being closed minded because you ignore their message today.

        • by Dr. Manhattan (29720) <{sorceror171} {at} {gmail.com}> on Wednesday July 10, 2013 @09:09AM (#44236949) Homepage
          But a boycott isn't censorship or refusal to engage. If someone disagrees with a work's message, they can (a) not buy it, and (b) encourage others not to buy it. This is nothing like 'refusing to listen to any argument against what you believe in'. No one's saying Card can't sell his book or make his movie. They're just saying they don't want to spend their money on it, and encouraging others to avoid spending money on it, too.

          Are you saying people shouldn't be allowed to say, "I don't think people should spend money on this"?

          I mean, sure, I'm okay with "letting the KKK talk". Does that mean I have to pay admission to hear them? Am I not allowed to say, "I don't think you should bother paying admission to that KKK rally"?

      • Like most political problems it seems neither side recognizes what can be a right. A right has to be universal and non contradictory. This removes all "positive rights" because they contradict the rights of the people forces to provide for it. So take marriage. The parts of two or more people living together and having sex and pledging some sort of common ownership of property etc are all rights. They require nothing of other people but to but out and leave them alone. But when the state starts granting spe

    • Re:Who Cares? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 10, 2013 @08:28AM (#44236411)

      It's less that he has dumb opinions and more that he directly financially supports people working to make things worse. That's a legitimate reason to not give him money, isn't it?

    • Re:Who Cares? (Score:5, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 10, 2013 @08:34AM (#44236465)

      It's more than that: Orson Scott Card Has Always Been An Asshat [kuro5hin.org]. Kind of funny folks are only now caring. Guess no one reads any more.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by sageres (561626)

        Yeah, I read this nonsence. Basically the author is trying to find an excuse as to why a talented author, a winner of multiple awards for his works would come out against something as nice and progressive as Gay Marriage. So, he went out to destroy his character...... by comparing Ender to... Hitler!

        Oy Vey, if this is his entire arguments to call a man an "asshat" -- these people need serious help....

  • by SuricouRaven (1897204) on Wednesday July 10, 2013 @08:23AM (#44236335)

    None of his views on this particular issue are evident in the novel, except perhaps in the naming of the aliens - and that might just be coincidence.

    So make the film, and ignore where it comes from. No need to dismiss a story just because of it's author.

    Really, practically every author before 1900 was an extreme racist.

    You'd be better off trying to get Shakesphere out of schools for his anti-Jewish views - those *did* get expressed in his plays.

    • by David Wilcox (2859869) on Wednesday July 10, 2013 @08:43AM (#44236591)

      The racist views of pre-1900 authors and Shakespeare can be more easily dismissed because our society as a whole has decided those beliefs are wrong and no longer relevant in the big picture. We're no longer fighting on a large scale for civil rights and most of our society can look back on those beliefs as antiquated. However, the fight for gay rights and marriage equality is still going on and is highly relevant to our society, so Card's beliefs are fair game for criticism.

      Whether or not he expressed his beliefs in his books or in the upcoming movie is irrelevant. Card is still very much alive to benefit financially from both and from the wider exposure the movie can generate for him. Since he actively campaigns for anti-gay laws and defense of marriage bills, providing him additional financial support and publicity for a cause I am directly opposed to is not an action I plan on taking. Ignoring the author is not an option for me and many others.

    • by smellsofbikes (890263) on Wednesday July 10, 2013 @11:37AM (#44239207) Journal

      You'd be better off trying to get Shakesphere out of schools for his anti-Jewish views - those *did* get expressed in his plays.

      Slashdot isn't the place for a deep discussion of Shakespeare, but I'm going to, anyway. It's arguable (and is regularly argued) that Shakespeare was not actually anti-Semitic. Shylock is portrayed as a villain, it's true, but his speech, "I am a Jew. Hath not a Jew eyes? Hath not a Jew hands, organs, dimensions, senses, affections, passions; fed with the same food, hurt with the same weapons, subject to the same diseases, healed by the same means, warmed and cooled by the same winter and summer as a Christian is?" shows him (at least in that passage) as a sympathetic human, not a villain, and more generally, the rest of the speech, where he declares that he'll act just as horribly as his persecutors do (and proceeds to do so, driving the play) can be seen as a character's reaction to a bigoted society, rather than of the author's hatred of Jews. Shakespeare had some outright villains who did evil just to do evil, but generally his worst characters (and I'm thinking of Iago and Shylock specifically) had excellent, rational motivations for doing the evil things they did. His writing of them was not based on hatred of their races, but on how society had shaped them into tools for evil.

  • problem mistated. (Score:5, Interesting)

    by MickyTheIdiot (1032226) on Wednesday July 10, 2013 @08:23AM (#44236341) Homepage Journal

    From TFA:

    "Responding to reports of a nascent boycott against the upcoming movie version of his beloved 1985 sci-fi novel Ender’s Game because of his stated opposition to same-sex marriage..."

    Whoa, whoa, WHOA there cowboy. People aren't pissed off a Card because of his "stated opposition" to gay marriage. I don't give a rat's ass what most authors think or even what they say. The problem here is that he was so active in campaigns that were openly trying to strip the rights of others based on sexual orientation. People have the right to think what they want, but when they start trying to codify their prejudice into law THAT is where the problem starts.

  • hypocracy (Score:3, Interesting)

    by sageres (561626) on Wednesday July 10, 2013 @08:25AM (#44236359)

    It seems that there are number of groups on both sides of the isle that plead for equal rights for their believes, opinions and convictions when their cause is under attack, however they are just as eager to deny the rights, prosecute their political opponents whenever opportunity arises.
    The hypocrisy present across entire political spectrum, btw. Left, Right, Liberals, Conservatives, Republicans, Democrats, Tea-partiers and Greens, and ironically Anarchists and Libertarians.

  • See My Movie (Score:5, Insightful)

    by whisper_jeff (680366) on Wednesday July 10, 2013 @08:25AM (#44236361)

    I know I lobbied against your right to marry someone just because they're the same sex as you and I know I encouraged the violent overthrow of my government if they allowed you to marry someone who's the same sex as you but could you please go see my movie?

    Um, no.

  • Poison fruit (Score:5, Insightful)

    by girlintraining (1395911) on Wednesday July 10, 2013 @08:26AM (#44236381)

    Let me sum up my position on this by example; If Al Qaeda came up with a cure for cancer, would we as a society start using it, or reject it as poisoned fruit? Many a work of science fiction has been around the theme of asking how high of a price are we willing to pay. It is the age old question of whether the ends justify the means.

    Granted, this is only a work of entertainment, but his pleadings for tolerance are not dissimilar from this theme; We are being asked to set aside our morality in exchange for some good or service. I don't think though that a work of fiction, regardless of quality, is worth my freedom and liberty, and even less so for others. Supporting this man's works would mean supporting something I find morally objectionable, even vile.

    I cannot, in good conscience, support a work, however good, that would lead to harm to others' civil rights. Orson Scott Card -- you have been weighed, measured, and found wanting. I will not support you, and I urge any who place any value at all on civil rights to do the same. We cannot overlook this man's desire to force his own morality on others for our own... entertainment.

    • Re:Poison fruit (Score:4, Informative)

      by Surak_Prime (160061) on Wednesday July 10, 2013 @08:40AM (#44236535)

      "Let me sum up my position on this by example; If Al Qaeda came up with a cure for cancer, would we as a society start using it, or reject it as poisoned fruit?"

      Actually, this very question has been applied non-hypothetically to the body of research done by Nazi scientists utilizing experiments done on their prisoners. I won't try to summarize the HUGE number of articles involving the philosophies and ethics here, but if you're really interested in that question, I'm sure Google could turn up a few YEARS worth of reading on the subject for you, because it isn't a simple matter at all.

      • Actually, this very question has been applied non-hypothetically to the body of research done by Nazi scientists utilizing experiments done on their prisoners.

        Didn't take long to Godwin the discussion, now did it? You must be proud. But more seriously, as long as we're on the subject many of those experiments were done on homosexuals. People remember the Holocaust as being about the Jews, but far more died as political prisoners -- a significant portion of which were homosexuals. Specifically, look up Carl Vaernet who tried to "cure" homosexuality with some highly unethical experimentation. But let's not cast stones in glass houses -- The British did the same thi

    • Re:Poison fruit (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Binestar (28861) on Wednesday July 10, 2013 @08:56AM (#44236761) Homepage

      If Al Qaeda came up with a cure for cancer, would we as a society start using it, or reject it as poisoned fruit?

      Just as we accepted the medical knowledge unlocked by the nazi's during WWII http://www.jlaw.com/Articles/NaziMedEx.html [jlaw.com] we would use the cure for cancer. The foundation of treatment for hypothermia was all determined through the torture and murder of jews by the NAZI's, and yet we use that information to save lives even today.

  • by ultraexactzz (546422) on Wednesday July 10, 2013 @08:29AM (#44236417) Journal
    Ken White over at Popehat seems to have nailed everything I would have said, and done it much better than I would have.

    http://www.popehat.com/2013/07/09/ive-decided-to-give-orson-scott-card-the-benefit-of-the-doubt/ [popehat.com]
  • less than human? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by gandhi_2 (1108023) on Wednesday July 10, 2013 @08:29AM (#44236419) Homepage

    How many authors (or chicken restaurant owners) would treat polygamists as "less than human" by supporting laws against plural marriage?

  • by pla (258480) on Wednesday July 10, 2013 @08:39AM (#44236525) Journal
    As long as we as a society accept that people have the right to pick whatever fucked up religious beliefs they want, then we as a society have to deal with the consequences of real live modern humans expressing all the petty tribal prejudices of the past few thousand years, simple as that. Racism, misogyny, suicide bombers, birth control as a goddamned (no pun intended) presidential-race-changing issue... The crazy comes as a package deal, you don't get to pick and chose from God's Law (and spare me the "why don't you obey all of Leviticus" rhetoric, we already agree completely on that).

    So yes, those calling Card out as a hypocrite on this do indeed express intolerance. He sincerely believes that his personal storm-god objects to homosexuality. You (and I) happen to believe that consenting adults should have the right to do whatever the hell they want with each other. Both of those express nothing but an opinion, with the one no more valid than the other. We would argue that we have the "right" to choose. He would argue that yes, we do, but one of those ways gives you a complimentary handbasket for your trip downstairs.

    See the movie or don't, but we'd all do better to leave the politics out of whether or not we enjoy the movie.
    • by serviscope_minor (664417) on Wednesday July 10, 2013 @08:48AM (#44236653) Journal

      So yes, those calling Card out as a hypocrite on this do indeed express intolerance.

      That's crap.

      If they were saying he should be locked up or silenced, or tried to prevent him from him expressing his views then you'd have a point.

      But merely calling someone a hypocrite is not intolerance.

      we'd all do better to leave the politics out of whether or not we enjoy the movie.

      That's your opinion and I'm going to claim that it's misguided. But that doesn't make me intolerant either. It's not like I'm calling for you to be modded down (I'm not).

  • by caffiend666 (598633) on Wednesday July 10, 2013 @08:42AM (#44236575) Homepage
    One of the messages of Ender's game series is about tolerance, another is about bullying. Even someone who is intolerant can have beautiful things to say about tolerance. Just as a peacenic can talk about war, or someone who is themselves racist can have very profound things to say about race. Responding to someone with controvertial beliefs by harrasing, insulting, and boycotting them is not only itself intollerant, but is also bullying. Ender's Game is a case where an authors words are important, rather than their beliefs. Jefferson, Franklin, MLKing were all filandering hypocrites, it is their words which are important rather than their beliefs and actions.
  • by Orgasmatron (8103) on Wednesday July 10, 2013 @08:43AM (#44236599)

    From 2004 [ornery.org]:
     

    And we all know the course this thing will follow. Anyone who opposes this edict will be branded a bigot; any schoolchild who questions the legitimacy of homosexual marriage will be expelled for "hate speech." The fanatical Left will insist that anyone who upholds the fundamental meaning that marriage has always had, everywhere, until this generation, is a "homophobe" and therefore mentally ill.

    • by Surak_Prime (160061) on Wednesday July 10, 2013 @08:50AM (#44236687)

      So he's able to see the common sense in the situation ahead of time, but not actually able to practice it. Not sure if that makes him a visionary, an idiot, or both.

      • So he's able to see the common sense in the situation ahead of time, but not actually able to practice it. Not sure if that makes him a visionary, an idiot, or both.

        Neither; It makes him a bigot [merriam-webster.com].

    • by T.E.D. (34228) on Wednesday July 10, 2013 @09:47AM (#44237529)

      People who oppose interacial marriages are branded as bigots too. It doesn't exactly take a gift of prophecy to predict that someone who "regards or treats the members of a group with hatred and intolerance" will be branded as a bigot, since that is the English word for that exact activity.

      Mentally ill is a bit of a stretch though. Perhaps there's someone out there who feels that all people who nurse unreasonable hatreds are metally ill, but the sad truth is that this is a common human behavior.

  • by Dr. Manhattan (29720) <{sorceror171} {at} {gmail.com}> on Wednesday July 10, 2013 @08:56AM (#44236771) Homepage
    That doesn't mean I have to give him my money, though.
  • taking it apart (Score:4, Interesting)

    by tverbeek (457094) on Wednesday July 10, 2013 @09:00AM (#44236815) Homepage

    Ender’s Game is set more than a century in the future and has nothing to do with

    The controversy is not – and never has been – about the content of the story. It's been about the author's political activities, which have been funded in part by the money he received for this film, and which will continue to be funded by additional income which he'll get if it's a big hit (e.g. a sequel).

    political issues that did not exist when the book was written in 1984.

    Legal recognition of lesbian/gay marriage was already an issue in 1984. Couples had sued for the right to a civil marriage as early as 1971. Not that this is relevant, but it just shows that Card is either lying or doesn't know the history.

    With the recent Supreme Court ruling, the gay marriage issue becomes moot.

    No it hasn't, and as a National Organization for [sic] Marriage board member, he knows this well. He unquestionably intends to keep fighting it. After the movie comes out.

    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.

    This is probably correct; it depends on the Supreme Court. A bit baffling that this hasn't already happened, but that's the legal system dragging its feet, waiting for society to catch up.

    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.

    Don't worry, Orson. No one is going to force you to get gay-married.
    This is part of the Christian right's persecution complex, in which they view their declining dominance over American culture as an indication that they are about to become (and the more delusional among them thinking they already have been) a persecuted minority. Begging for "tolerance" of their intolerance is a tacit admission (whether they admit it or not) that they expect others to do to them as they've done to others.

We can predict everything, except the future.

Working...