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?"
Really?!? (Score:5, Insightful)
Orson Scott Card is pleading for tolerance? That's rich.
Re:Really?!? (Score:5, Insightful)
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)
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)
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)
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, Insightful)
Yep, the state sure profits, why the state makes money running orphanages, paying for the foster system, and operating prisons.
Nobody else is getting rich off that system.
Just the state.
Not sure how you figure it's the *state* making money on this. Actually, it's the Prison/Industrial complex making all the money. Even with the kids [wikipedia.org].
Re:Really?!? (Score:4)
The state is a wholly owned subsidary of the prison/industrial/military complex.
Re:Really?!? (Score:4)
The product. Our justice system is designed to manufacture criminals which profits police, judges, lawyers, politicians, prison guards, prison owners, small towns that surround prisons, etc. There are lots and lots of people in our economy that benefit when someone is incarcerated, and fewer who benefit when one is freed. That creates a lot of perverse incentives.
Re: Really?!? (Score:4)
You are seriously deluded or misinformed if you think the military wants society's rejects.
They will take what they can get. There's been plenty of articles on how the recruiters are scraping the bottoms of barrels because less and less educated people are making the decision to go die in the desert for someone else's profit.
Re:Really?!? (Score:5, Interesting)
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, Informative)
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:Really?!? (Score:5, Insightful)
There are more than 0 affairs that occur in those states, and they do, in fact, kill the women involved.
FTFY
Re:Really?!? (Score:4, Funny)
Polygamy is an abomination. One should not mix greek and latin roots.
Re:Really?!? (Score:5, Informative)
He never advocated overthrowing the government for it.
Yes he did. From an article he wrote for the Mormon Times:
And more:
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.
Re:Funny thing about polygamy (Score:4, Informative)
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.
Re:Really?!? (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
If that were true, they would have accepted a civil unions law that gave civil unions 100% equality with marriage. I have yet to meet a gay couple that would have accepted a civil union, even if it was legally equal to marriage in every way. Most would claim some bullshit about the "separate but equal" issues in the civil rights era, where a water fountain for blacks was dirty and unmaintained while the "white's only" water fountain was new and shiny. I call it bullshit because if a law says two things are equal, they are equal, period. It's not like inheritance laws for gays can get dirty or leak. These are not physical objects.
When I would explain that "separate but equal" only applies to physical objects, they would say that they wanted to be "married", not unionized. So I ask them was stopping them from putting on white dresses, saying vows, exchanging rings, smearing cake on each other's faces, throwing a party and telling everyone they know that they are married? What difference does it make what the government called it?
If you want to be married, be married. Marriage is about love, trust and commitment. It's not about inheritance rights, taxes and contracts. Why must you demand that government call your relationship a "marriage" when the "rights" part can be achieved with using that exact word? Their only HONEST response was they wanted to FORCE those bigoted Christians to recognize their marriage.
This is not about equal rights. If it were, they could have had it years ago with little resistance. This is about revenge and punishing those they hate; religious people.
Don't mod this down because you don't like it. Be an adult and reply with why you think I'm wrong.
Marriage (Score:5, Insightful)
I agree with the conceptual basis for your statement, but I disagree with your overall point. Well, specifically I agree with you that I am against the existence of civil unions.
However, I am also against the existence of marriage as a state-regulated legal construct for anyone.
What difference does it make what the government called it?
Exactly. Having the government involved in defining this most intimate of interpersonal relationships is a horrible idea. If labels really matter to people, then let them choose a religious/group affiliation that will give them a ceremony/label for their relationship. However, none of these labels should carry the force of law. You could therefore get your heterosexual-only marriage at the Catholic church, or your het/homo marriage at an Episcopalian church.
In case you were wondering if this is an instance of Poe's Law: I practice what I advocate. My partner and I decided we wished to have a lifelong exclusive commitment but we did not want the government to define our relationship for us. So, we setup health care powers of attorney, durable powers of attorney, wills, etc, and then gave each other a ring.
Oh, and we're heterosexuals living in a non-common-law marriage state. Not that it matters.
What difference does it make what the government called it?
I agree with you: let's not allow gay marriage under law—in fact, let's not allow any legal concept of marriage at all. Sounds like you would be fine with that, because no one will be able to force your chosen religion to violate its tenets to label any nonadherents as "married". And if some people are really desperate for the government to define the parameters of their relationship for them, then I suppose that allowing the legal concept of civil unions might be an option (for both gays and straights).
But no marriage under law.
Re:Marriage (Score:4, Interesting)
Marriage is a religious rite. Government has no business regulating or even recognizing a religious rite.
Well, that's how it should be and that's how it has been marketed politically; however, the truth really comes out when one considers the following situations:
1) If two people have a marriage ceremony in a church without a marriage license, are they married? (no)
2) If two people obtain a marriage license and then have an irreligious solemnization ceremony with a justice of the peace, are they married? (yes)
Like you said, I just don't like government redefining what has been a religious concept a thousand years before western culture, much less America or American law.
I agree entirely, but the concept of marriage got hijacked by the state hundreds of years ago (to varying degrees, culminating in what we have today)—the "redefinition" happened long before we were born. Now, the government just allows the window-dressing of an optional religious ceremony (for those who desire it) in order to placate those who mistakenly believe modern marriage is a religious rite.
The fundamental problem with a legally-recognized union is that the government is allowed to change the terms after the commitment is made. Married/unioned individuals delegate to the state the ability to define (and redefine at whim) what the individuals' responsibilities are to one another, whether their interpersonal contractual agreements are enforceable, etc.
It was an epiphany to me when I realized that my only reticence to a permanent, exclusive commitment to my partner was due to these considerations. I had zero concerns about spending the rest of our lives together, better/worse, forsaking all others, etc, etc. However, I wouldn't agree to any other type of significant contract where another party has the ability to unilaterally change the contract after I had signed, so why would I allow this with the most important relationship in my life?
Besides, it's just offensive that the state implicitly wants to be a third party in our relationship. So, we rejected that notion entirely.
However, there is a purpose to the government recognition of marriage, specifically taxes, shared property ownership, power of attorney, inheritance rights and so on
There are very few "features" of a legal union that cannot be replicated via individual contractual agreements. Inheritance, property ownership, power of attorney, etc are all trivial to handle (this makes sense, because you can elect to partner/delegate these to *anyone*). Joint filing of taxes is the main unresolvable issue, but that is a flaw in our legal system: why should two people in a relationship have a substantially different tax treatment than two individuals?
Re: Really?!? (Score:4, Insightful)
To be fair, many states quietly started down that path way back in the 1990's and 2000's. unions started negotiating coverage for "partners". Adoption agencies wouldn't adopt to "gay couples" but to one partner or the other. Some states even started offering Civil Unions....
EXCEPT... For that pesky little DOMA law in 1996 that made all those small steps ILLEGAL TO RECOGNIZE at the Federal level. And set off a chain of counter laws and State CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS to FORCE employers and insurance companies to VOID the fairly negotiated steps taken. That's what happened here in Michigan, as soon as the ink was dry on our "marriage" amendment, they went straight for University professor unions that negotiated "+ 1" style "no questions" coverage for partners.
So in short, its not the "gays" that started this open fight... It's the "moralists" that are actively UNDOING any small progress and actively trying to use the LAW against gays. Now that the fight is in the open, after the LAW said gay couldn't be made illegal anymore, why go back to living in shadows??
Re:Really?!? (Score:5, Insightful)
And the only HONEST reason why we'd need a "civil union" that's 100% equal to marriage but not marriage is to enshrine the religious bigotry of these Christians into law, which is expressly forbidden by the First Amendment. And that, in turn, would be basically admitting that gays are not protected by the Constitution. Would you make such an admission? Could you afford to dare to?
It's not about forcing bigoted Christians to recognize anything; it's about forcing the state to recognize that it is not at liberty to appease them. And that is a fight we all have a stake in. "First they came for gays..."
No one cares about what Fred Phelps thinks, but everyone loses if Uncle Sam bends over for him.
Re:Really?!? (Score:4, Insightful)
If you want to be married, be married. Marriage is about love, trust and commitment. It's not about inheritance rights, taxes and contracts. Why must you demand that government call your relationship a "marriage" when the "rights" part can be achieved with using that exact word? Their only HONEST response was they wanted to FORCE those bigoted Christians to recognize their marriage.
Perhaps. But why exactly do those bigoted Christian get to own the word marriage, and have that ownership explicitly endorsed by the government? Why is their bigoted sacrament more equal than, say, a Universal Unitarian sacrament, in a nation of laws under the 1st Amendment?
The answer is a certain Christian minority feels entitled to special privileges that "must" be endorsed by the federal government, and if we dare point that out they will whine that we are being narrow-minded because...they want to call us names, lacking an actual defensible rationale. I refuse to accept their claim for special status.
Furthermore, you are wrong. The traditional marriage is about child-creation, child-rearing, inheritance rights, contracts, property, love, lust, household creation, economic sharing. All. Of. The. Above. To accept a narrow definition is to piss on the traditional marriage as understood in practice for thousands of years.
Re:Really?!? (Score:5, Insightful)
It offends me.
And that which offends should be illegal. Make smoking illegal because it offends me. Some people are offended by alcohol. Lets start a second Prohibition, the first went so well. Some are offended by porn, or obesity. Lets make them illegal.
How does drilling in ANWAR affect you in any way?
How does a woman having or being denied an abortion in Texas affect you in any way?
How does taxing rich people affect you in any way? I can do this all day, but I think you get the point.
1) I own ANWAR. The US is owned by the people, not the politicians. I have the right to be offended by someone mistreating my property. And yes, I've seen ANWAR, have you?
2)I'm from Texas, and one-day, my daughter or granddaughter (I have neither now, but I might, someday), may be in Texas. So something that takes away "her" rights in TX would harm her, so that's offensive. I also empathize with the millions in TX under that law. For someone who claims offense at everything, you have a remarkable lack of empathy.
3) What does taxing rich people have to do with this? Most aren't "offended" by taxes on the rich, unless you are talking about increasing taxes on them to give cuts and subsides to the rich, which does *directly* affect them.
How does it affect you if the government calls your relation a civil union vs a marriage? Can you not have a wedding? Can you not wear a ring and tell everyone you are married? How does it make what you have any different?
It doesn't. Until you go to sign up for insurance and the form says "spouse" not "partner" and you either have to fill it out with a chance of rejection of all claims later because your partner is not a "spouse", or spend $10,000 on lawyers up front to verify legality.
So much in the US assumes "spouse" of a married partner, that transitioning to a concept of a civil union is, by definition, not equal. To claim this obviously inequal situation is equal is a lie. Lying to me is offensive.
And marriage is not just a Christian concept.
And neither is Christmas, Easter, and so many others, but Christianity claims them all now. Winter Solstice celebrations pre-date Christianity, as do spring-rebirth celebrations and fall festivals of death (all-saints day being the tie-in there). If marriage is not Christian, why do so many opposing unions claim religion as the reason? They want to defend family by preventing families, so maybe it's just their logic circuits are broken.
Re:Really?!? (Score:5, Insightful)
To be fair, it worked pretty well for C.S. lewis and the new testament.
Re:Really?!? (Score:5, Insightful)
How is that surprising? TBOM is America's first Science Fiction novel, after all! Steel swords and old world plants and animals in America, magnetic compasses, a Middle East with unrecognizable geometry -- it's clearly an alternate history steampunk novel ahead of its time.
So OSC didn't have far to go. With that said, I think Ender's Game is a decent novel. Perhaps his only decent novel. Not exactly a unique idea even as SF novels go, but enjoyable enough to read.
In the end, it's like Chick-Fil-A. It's hyper-Christian (closed on Sunday), its founder/owner is fond of gay-bashing, but it has damn good chicken and the actual people who work there are often lovely and courteous. Boycotting CFA over this issue is probably overkill. Ditto boycotting Ender's Game, the movie, or OSC books in general (aside from the fact that many of them are mediocre, which is a good reason not to buy anything).
After all, what's really at fault isn't any individual person here, it is "religion" -- believing scriptural dogma just because, for better or worse, to the complete exclusion of common sense, concern for human dignity and rights, and the simplest of honest ethical principles. All religious scriptures are fantasies, science fiction, mythologies, stories, and generate an enormous amount of pain and suffering in the world through the agency of those raised within the religions who cannot seem to differentiate fantasy from reality, or use anything like actual human judgment or rational ethical principle to make ethical decisions.
Sigh.
rgb
Re: Really?!? (Score:5, Insightful)
Here's the problem: if you put money in the pocket of any activist bigot, you're guaranteed to be putting money toward his cause. If you find the idea of donating to an anti-gay campaign repugnant, it's not going to be less repugnant if you're doing it through a proxy.
Re:Really?!? (Score:4, Insightful)
Well. You can be bitchy about it all you want.
I think if you had any ability to comprehend what you read after you think you saw a "Conservative, Gay hating, Fucktard" post something you might have noticed that I specifically pointed out at the beginning of the post that I was not stating the right or wrong of the current situation at all.
Just that "Technically" it is in fact "Equal" and therefore "Non Discriminatory".
So step down from your box of "Feel Good Rage" and listen.
Personally by the way, I think that government should have nothing to do with marriage at all.
Marriage by a church should in no way be recognized by the state. If the state wants to confer certain things to those who apply to be legally bound together by the state they can of course. Though it should have nothing to do with what ceremony they want to perform in their church.
There would be no problem at that point. The State could state what does and does not constitute a "Civil Union" and that should not include anything religious or have anything in it that cares about the sexual orientation of the members of the union or their sex.
Churches that want to perform gay marriages may. Those that choose not to may. And none of it would have any state recognized legal meanings.
Re:Really?!? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Really?!? (Score:5, Funny)
Fine, it's like some weird Treissand effect.
Re:Really?!? (Score:5, Insightful)
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)
Neither Walt Disney or Henry Ford are currently alive. Do their companies now stand for pro-nazi-ness?
Re:Really?!? (Score:5, Insightful)
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)
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.
Re:Really?!? (Score:5, Insightful)
How so?
I am not encouraging the use of Law against him or people like him. That is what he does. I am only suggesting people not give him money. I am not suggesting we overthrow the government to prevent him from doing what he likes, again he advocated that.
You can't see how that is not as bigoted?
I tolerate him, I hope he gets better, but I don't want to give him my money.
Re: (Score:3)
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.
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:4, Informative)
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, Insightful)
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)
Well said, but I have quibbles.
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
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:Tolerate whoever you like (Score:4, Insightful)
Ender's game is a good book, but if any sci-fi author will be regarded as one of the american greats, then it will be Frank Herbert for Dune.
Re: (Score:3)
Let the endless, pointless debate begin... now!
Re:Tolerate whoever you like (Score:4, Interesting)
No love for Asimov?
Re:Really?!? (Score:4, Insightful)
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).
Re:Really?!? (Score:5, Funny)
Better yet, download it from the Internet!
Each time you do that he loses a book's worth. Do it enough times, fast enough, and you might just bankrupt him before he dies.
Re:Really?!? (Score:5, Insightful)
Because that's one of the things available to you to protest.
So, you think a free and open exchange of ideas should translate into a free and open exchange of money? That people should somehow enrich him because it has nothing at all to do with his very vocal political views?
Why should they reward him?
Has it occurred to you there are people who do exactly this? Christian groups have called on the boycott of banks [christianpost.com] because they supported gay pride events. It's [marketfaith.org]hardly [usanewsfirst.com] an [religiontoday.com] isolated [dailymail.co.uk] occurence [americanvision.org]. Hell, when people started boycotting Chik-A-Fil a bunch of other people started deliberately going there.
So, you think if you actively works against, say, purple people having rights, that purple people should enrich you in other endeavors? Why exactly? Out of kindness or stupidity? You have no right to expect people you have publicly stated are evil and should have no rights to buy your product.
But let's not pretend that Christians and other groups don't actively boycott things which they deem offensive. People choose to vote with their wallets all the time -- do you really think if Al Qaeda released a feature film that people should go see it? Why would you line the pockets of someone who hates you?
I'm sorry, but Orson Scottt Card is publicly on record as being a douchebag who campaigned against the rights of other people. To expect that group of people to say "oh well, the one has nothing to do with the other " and go to his movie is ridiculous.
OSC is free to hold his bigoted opinions, and people are free to choose to not pay money to see this movie. He's an idiot if he thinks 'tolerance' means people should forget about what he's done in the past and pay money to see it.
This amounts to "waaah, I hated those people for so long and now they won't give me money". Well, duh!
Re:Really?!? (Score:4, Insightful)
But that doesn't mean I need to give you my money when I disagree with you and think you're an idiot. I won't prevent you from selling your stuff to other people, but I sure as hell won't reward you by buying it.
Wait, you have a right to my money? What right would that be again? It's my money, I have a finite amount of it, and it is my right to spend it on what I want for whatever reason I choose. If I think you're an offensive prick, that is going to factor into my decision.
I have the right to disagree with you and withhold my money from you -- I'm under no obligation to give you money for any reason whatsoever. And if your free speech offends me, my remedy is to not buy your crap by exercising my freedom of choice.
If you don't like that fact, then you should refrain from so publicly making those claims if you don't want to live with the consequences of me thinking you're an asshole. If you campaign and say I shouldn't have rights, my rational response as a consumer is to not buy your stuff.
Do you think Jews should buy from Nazi's because it would be mean? Why should they provide money to people who hate them? Good luck with that.
Peaceful? Really? "... any government that attempts to change it is my mortal enemy. I will act to destroy that government and bring it down ...". This man actively spouted that these people are evil and deserve no rights, and you think they should reward him by seeing his film?
I'm not saying he should be arrested for the stuff he says, but he can damned well live with the fact that he has offended people who don't wish to spend money on his product.
Wow, an ad homenim attack -- here's one for you: You sir, are a fucking moron and a douchebag.
Not spending my money on the product of your labor when I disagree with you is my right. Expecting that I will buy your crap when you spout hatred towards me is irrational and childish.
I don't owe him or anybody else a living, and expecting that I should spend money his stuff is stupid.
Re:Really?!? (Score:4, Insightful)
Yep, it's basically the philosophy of guilt. Do what ever you have to to succeed as long as you feel bad about it afterwards.
Who Cares? (Score:5, Insightful)
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)
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)
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)
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.
Boycott != Censorship (Score:5, Insightful)
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"?
State Marriage is a privlage not a right (Score:3)
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)
*I* find it much more telling that people feel the need to *insist* that the federal government deny gay people their rights, merely because *their* religious beliefs say that gay people are sinners.
And then they have the pathological gall to explicitly express that their rights are being trampled upon if someone suggests that gay people should have the same rights as everyone else.
And furthermore, the government has nothing to do with your "social ritual". Holy matrimony is a religious institution that the government does not regulate. Civil marriage is a contract between two people that the government administers. Just because people use the word "marriage" to refer to both of them does not mean that they are the same thing.
Re:Who Cares? (Score:5, Insightful)
I, on the other hand, find it more telling that people feel the need for the federal government to "magically" find rights where none existed before and ignore the actual PROCESS our framers put in place to amend the constitution. There are REASONS why its difficult to change the constitution -- one of which is that wild changes on emotional whims can rip this country apart.
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.
Being against homosexual marriage is *NOT* unusual or extreme by definition. In all 50 states, only about 7 or 8 allow it, and only 2 were by electoral choice of their respective peoples. Even the left-coast liberal state of California (who voted in President Obama for a second term by a wide margin) ALSO passed Prop 8 amending the constitution of the State of CA preventing homosexual marriage.
Actually, it's 12 states, plus the District of Columbia. And furthermore, it was 3 states, Washington, Maine, and Maryland who passed via a direct vote of the people, and 6 more, Vermont, New York, Rhode Island, Delaware, Minnesota, and the District of Columbia, who passed a vote in the legislature, representing the will of their constituents. Prop 8 in California passed because the Catholic Church and the Mormon Church spent untold millions of dollars campaigning for it. Polls in California before and since the vote show a decided majority of Californians support gay marriage.
People think that EXTREME? If so, to paraphrase a famous swordsman, "I do not think it means what you think it means".
When our country is READY to accept this issue without further polarizing us, it will pass an amendment. Until then, the fed should REALLY stay out of it.
The fed should not stay out of it. One of the express goals of our government is to protect minorities from the tyranny of the masses. That is exactly what is happening here. Saying that anyone should "stay out of it" is the same as saying, "We're doing a good job of marginalizing these people right now, don't go and do something that would change the status quo."
Re:Who Cares? (Score:5, Insightful)
In my head, what youre doing to him is on par with what he is doing to homosexuals. Similarly you also have the "i do it because its right"-justification.
Is that a joke? He has a right to his religion. I get upset when that belief infringes on other people's rights. The Federal government has over a thousand laws referring to marriage. Many of those laws benefits couples living together like social security benefits, inheritance rights, etc. I am advocating this from an egalitarian standpoint that those people who are in love with each other are treated like any other pair of human beings consensually in love with each other. And yes, I think that trumps Mr. Card's horseshit religion or his lack of his ability to sit down with his dumbass children and say "Look, two people can love each other no matter what sex they are." But because he's afraid some bearded cloud God is going to fire and brimstone us, I cannot promote equal rights among human beings?
My justification isn't "I do it because it's right" you idiot, my justification is I do it because these laws are ridiculously unfair to a subset of the people who have done nothing wrong in the eyes of a secular government.
If you want to call it a "civil union" or whatever, that's fine. But I don't want employers or government offices calling some people "married" and other people "civil unioned" because that can lead to "second class" treatment and promotes discrimination among employers. In the eyes of the government, two humans should be able to marry each other with equal treatment and equal labeling.
Calling me intolerant on this issue makes no sense. I support freedom of religion but I'm not going to stand for some Christian version of sharia law in what claims to be a secular government.
Capitalism suffers from a lack of responsibility to know what you are supporting. A small group of people boycotting this movie is merely informing people what they are supporting. Just like I would boycott a company that pollutes.
Re:Who Cares? (Score:5, Insightful)
There is ZERO equivalency. Making the Constitutionally-protected choice to freely associate or not associate with someone because of their political or religious beliefs by simply not buying a movie ticket is in no way the same thing as supporting the government incarcerating people for their private lifestyle. It boggles my mind that you can see these two things as equivalent.
Re:That's not the half of it (Score:5, Insightful)
I just thought about what might happened if someone with beliefs like Orson's ever got hold of the ubiquitous surveillance of the government. Picture someone with such strong beliefs about "sending a clear message to those who flagrantly violate society's regulation of sexual behavior" having control over the NSA.
Re:Who Cares? (Score:5, Insightful)
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)
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)
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....
Don't give him the attention. (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Don't give him the attention. (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Don't give him the attention. (Score:5, Insightful)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
"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: (Score:3)
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)
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.
Re:Poison fruit (Score:5, Insightful)
There's quite a bit of difference between human experimentation and entertainment.
STOP RIGHT THERE. I wasn't commenting on entertainment. I was commenting on exactly the portion of his post that I QUOTED. Nothing more, nothing less. If you can't see that, you should really have your vision checked out. While technically a Godwin's law effect, the step was from one reprehensible group having data that helps society to another reprehensible group with the same. You may not like it, but the comment was on target, even though it included the Nazi reference (because his hypothetical HAS happened in the past and to forget it is a disservice).
Re:Poison fruit (Score:4, Insightful)
Popehat nails it again (Score:5, Interesting)
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)
How many authors (or chicken restaurant owners) would treat polygamists as "less than human" by supporting laws against plural marriage?
Pot, quit calling that kettle b**** (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re:Pot, quit calling that kettle b**** (Score:4, Insightful)
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).
Messages of Enders game (Score:5, Insightful)
Wow, did he ever call it: (Score:5, Insightful)
From 2004 [ornery.org]:
Re:Wow, did he ever call it: (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
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].
Re:Wow, did he ever call it: (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
He can have my tolerance. (Score:5, Insightful)
taking it apart (Score:4, Interesting)
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).
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.
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.
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.
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.
Re:less than human? (Score:4, Insightful)
Interesting how he couldn't bring that idea into his real life.
Re:Last time I checked... (Score:5, Insightful)
It's not codified into law, huh? It doesn't have massive numbers of government benefits hooked to it, huh?
Re: (Score:3)
Marriages shouldn't have any government benefit. Government benefits should only be awarded for behaviors that benefit society as a whole. All marriages (same sex or not) are completely useless to society.
Society disagrees. Not religious society, mind you, society in general.
Couples are economically better than single parents. Trios would be even better, but our own psychology limits us somewhat from having stable three person interdependent relationships.
Re:Last time I checked... (Score:5, Informative)
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 [wikipedia.org]
While the institution of marriage pre-dates recorded history, many cultures have legends concerning the origins of marriage.
Re:Last time I checked... (Score:5, Insightful)
Marriage is not a "human right"...
Being equal under the law, on the other hand...
its a christian ceremony. Between a man and a woman.
Maybe you should rethink that statement. Marriage predates recorded history. Unlike Christ.
I mean... Mary and Joseph... Were quite married, you know?
Re:Last time I checked... (Score:5, Informative)
"Marriage" predates Christianity. You're describing Holy Matrimony, Batman.
It's a Matter of Consent (Score:3, Informative)
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: (Score:3)
Re:It's a Matter of Consent (Score:4, Interesting)
You are not correct. You misunderstand the concept of consent. As a concept, it ceases to exist when applied to non-sentient things. Consent is concept which only exists if the entities involved are considered to be sentient. I like to make a point of this partially from an academic interest, but it is critically important to understand the concept if you are to justify any legal premise which concerns interactions between entities.
Why is it important to realize that you cannot use consent as an argument for/against laws concerning the interaction between a sentient and non-sentient? You use the example that you cannot do something to a plant, because the plant cannot legally consent. Such an argument sounds plausible, but in reality it is nonsense. If imposition of a sentient's will on a non-sentient required consent, then you would never be able to interact with the non-sentient at all. You might argue that consent is only required when the interaction might be harmful, but that would be nonsense as well.
We don't require the consent of wheat to harvest it. We don't even require the consent of animals when we decide to kill them. The reason is that when it comes to property, consent is a concept which simply doesn't exist.
You can argue that something isn't property(the current benchmark is sentience), you can argue that property must be handled in a particular manner (animal cruelty laws for example) but you can't argue that actions taken against property is subject to the concept of consent.
Re: (Score:3)
there any evidence that he is getting any portion of ticket sales?
He is listed as producer of the movie so it is very likely that he will get a cut of the ticket sales.