Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed


Forgot your password?
Movies Books Sci-Fi

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

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This discussion has been archived.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:
  • 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 []. Kind of funny folks are only now caring. Guess no one reads any more.

  • by Cenan (1892902) on Wednesday July 10, 2013 @08:34AM (#44236471)

    its a christian ceremony

    The fuck it is, and a few milliseconds of research would have told you as much, but I guess that is implied in the "last time I checked", which would be, never?
    a source from the top of the hit list on Google, that you would have found had your bother to search []

    While the institution of marriage pre-dates recorded history, many cultures have legends concerning the origins of marriage.

  • by Surak_Prime (160061) on Wednesday July 10, 2013 @08:35AM (#44236479)

    "Marriage" predates Christianity. You're describing Holy Matrimony, Batman.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 10, 2013 @08:36AM (#44236483)

    And everyone here who is against marrying goats right now will be labeled a bigot.

    It's a matter of consent. You can't marry plants or animals because they cannot legally consent to marriage because they cannot understand it. Adults of sound mind who consent to marriage can have it, regardless of their sex you ignorant bigot. Of course, keep parroting your tired and flawed arguments against gay marriage ... you've had your chance to read up on it, now you're just embarrassing yourself.

  • 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.

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

    by drinkypoo (153816) <> 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: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.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 10, 2013 @09:30AM (#44237267)

    Man you forgot P. K. Dick and Asimov

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

    by h4rr4r (612664) on Wednesday July 10, 2013 @09:44AM (#44237487)

    Go get a polisci book, read it before you post again.

    Right and Left have not a thing to do with authoritarianism.

    The National Socialist Party is about as accurate a name as the Democratic People's Republic of Korea.

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

    by Dixie_Flatline (5077) <vincent DOT jan DOT goh AT gmail DOT com> on Wednesday July 10, 2013 @10:40AM (#44238255) Homepage

    Read 'Sex at Dawn'. Or one of several well-researched books on the topic.

    First of all, I don't think you can claim that 'we are naturally almost monogamous'. There are several cultures (that still exist!) that were never monogamous and don't hew to the scheme of rich men and several wives.

    Don't 'Flintstonize' the past. That is, don't assume what's happening now is the same thing that has been happening in the past, just slightly more advanced. Monogamy hasn't really been the state of affairs except for the last few hundred years at best. Casual and secretive non-monogamy has been happening for a long time.

    Lastly, consider this: there are countries in the Middle East where adultery is a capital crime. They'll KILL you for having an affair.

    There are more than 0 affairs that occur in those states, and they do, in fact, kill the people involved.

    What creature on Earth needs to be threatened with death to adhere to its natural inclinations? Moreover, which creature will actually run counter to its 'natural' inclination and risk death for a few moments of sweaty, non-procreative activity.

    Monogamy is a social construct, which is fine. Humans have those and we work with them. That doesn't make it the only social construct, the most natural social construct, the best social construct or even the CORRECT social construct.

  • Re:Who Cares? (Score:3, Informative)

    by Jhon (241832) on Wednesday July 10, 2013 @10:53AM (#44238441) Homepage Journal

    "I'd love to see where in our constitution it spells out exactly which rights straight people have, and which ones gay people have. Nobody is "magically" finding rights. It's spelled out in black and white, "all men are created equal". It can't get any plainer than that."

    I'd love to see where in our constitution it says "all men are created equal". I really don't need to read further than this to know that you've not read the constitution or the papers by the framers supporting it. But at least you're familiar with catch phrases from the DoI. It appears our tax dollars weren't ENTIRELY wasted on your education.

  • Re:Really?!? (Score:1, Informative)

    by emilper (826945) on Wednesday July 10, 2013 @10:57AM (#44238515)

    the LGBT were angry about not being allowed to sign a contract covering what everybody else had covered (such as inheritance, common properties, pensions etc.), not about the provisions for polygamy or polyandry, and not about legal provisions for whom they can choose as sex partners, that was fixed a few years ago.

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

    by levork (160540) on Wednesday July 10, 2013 @11:14AM (#44238799) Homepage

    He never advocated overthrowing the government for it.

    Yes he did. From an article he wrote for the Mormon Times:

    Faithful sexual monogamy, persistence until death, male protection and providence for wife and children, female loyalty to children and husband, and parental discretion in child-rearing.

    If government is going to meddle in this, it had better be to support marriage in general while providing protection for those caught in truly destructive marriages.

    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.

    And more:

    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.

    I don't know about you, but "I will act to destroy that government and bring it down" is a pretty clear advocation of overthrowing the government.

  • by Thugthrasher (935401) on Wednesday July 10, 2013 @11:21AM (#44238919)
    Polyandry is still polygamy.

    Polygamy - more than two partners, no matter the sexes
    Polygyny - 1 man, multiple women
    Polyandry - 1 woman, multiple men
    I have no idea if there is a term for multiple men and multiple women that is more specific than polygamy.

To iterate is human, to recurse, divine. -- Robert Heller