Friction at DC

[Nagisa Furukawa]

Locutus of Bored wrote:

---

And then you don't come across like a hypocrite for giving OSC a complete pass

Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa?

I already said I find Scott Card's views sickening and that the most baffling thing in the world would be someone giving a fuck about someone else's sex life, which OSC clearly does. I read Ender's Game when in high school, but haven't read anything he's done since then and don't plan to.

How am I giving him a complete pass just because I don't like petitioning for someone to be removed for their views (even if I disagree with them, which I do)?!?!

[Nerys Myk]

Gotham Central wrote:

---

I'll say again, and no one has yet to disprove this...had Card been expressing openly racist, anti-Semitic or sexist ideas and openly advocating limiting the rights of minorities, jews, or women AND been a high profile member of an organization that supported such positions...this conversation would not be happening. NO ONE would be here defending him.

Hey, don't sell the fanbase short like that.

[Nagisa Furukawa]

Gotham Central wrote:

---

I'll say again, and no one has yet to disprove this...had Card been expressing openly racist, anti-Semitic or sexist ideas and openly advocating limiting the rights of minorities, jews, or women AND been a high profile member of an organization that supported such positions...this conversation would not be happening. NO ONE would be here defending him.

Sorry I didn't see that post, because yes, I absolutely would. I have no problem with anyone holding any kind of views from getting work so long as their prejudices don't actively interfere with someone else's livelihood (IE, a racist manager discriminating against an African-American employee). But I don't think someone's personal views, regardless of how much I may strongly disagree with them, should have anything to do with their employment one way or another.

Nerys Myk wrote:

---

Hey, don't sell the fanbase short like that.

Indeed, because I absolutely see nothing wrong with employing someone who has those views. I DO see something very, very wrong with any racist, anti-Semetic, sexist, or homophobic views and I would tell OSC or a Neo-Nazi or anyone else that to their face. But I also see something wrong with thinking someone's work should be withheld because the worker had those views.

[Nerys Myk]

Nagisa Furukawa wrote:

---

Sorry I didn't see that post, because yes, I absolutely would. I have no problem with anyone holding any kind of views from getting work so long as their prejudices don't actively interfere with someone else's livelihood (IE, a racist manager discriminating against an African-American employee). But I don't think someone's personal views, regardless of how much I may strongly disagree with them, should have anything to do with their employment one way or another.

Employment isn't a right. If the company see his employment as a negative he can be terminated. See Sheen, Charlie.

[Christopher]

Nagisa Furukawa wrote:

---

The article says the petition is "calling for DC to remove him from the book." To actively campaign for someone to be removed from the book for disagreeing with his personal view. Not buying it is one thing. Boycotting it is one thing. Not wanting ANYONE to be able to have his story because you don't like what he does when he's not writing comics is over the line.

I'm not sure I agree. We're talking about a piece of merchandise, a product meant to satisfy consumers. Don't consumers have the right to give feedback about what they want in the products they buy? This isn't a free-speech issue, because the government isn't involved. It's an issue of commerce, of buyers making their preferences known to a seller. If, say, consumers petitioned a restaurant not to serve tuna that wasn't dolphin-safe, or petitioned a toy company not to make their toys in a country that used child labor, would you say that was over the line?

People have the freedom to express their views in public all they want. But if they want to sell a product -- which is what a work of professional fiction is -- then they're not guaranteed success, not in a capitalist system. Their work may get rejected by the publisher, or it may fail to get ordered in significant quantities by stores, or it may not sell many copies due to lack of promotion or bad reviews or any number of factors. In capitalism, you take your chances and failure is always an option.

Ultimately, of course, a petition is just a request, an expression of an opinion. It's still going to be up to DC to decide whether to publish the story or not. Just because a petition exists, that doesn't mean they'll obey its request. But the petition is a way for people to express their opinions to the publisher. It's audience feedback, nothing more.

[Nagisa Furukawa]

Nerys Myk wrote:

---

Employment isn't a right. If the company see his employment as a negative he can be terminated. See Sheen, Charlie.

And I keep saying again and again that I understand this. I'm not saying DC doesn't have the right to hire or fire anyone they choose. These are just my opinions on the reasons.

If OSC was hired to write a Superman story, wrote a good Superman story, and then they didn't run the Superman story for issues entirely unrelated to what he turned in, I just don't think that's a very good reason (while a good reason would be; he wrote a shit Superman story). Not that they shouldn't have been able to do it. Just that I don't like it.

Christopher wrote:

---

I'm not sure I agree. We're talking about a piece of merchandise, a product meant to satisfy consumers. Don't consumers have the right to give feedback about what they want in the products they buy? This isn't a free-speech issue, because the government isn't involved. It's an issue of commerce, of buyers making their preferences known to a seller. If, say, consumers petitioned a restaurant not to serve tuna that wasn't dolphin-safe, or petitioned a toy company not to make their toys in a country that used child labor, would you say that was over the line?

People have the freedom to express their views in public all they want. But if they want to sell a product -- which is what a work of professional fiction is -- then they're not guaranteed success, not in a capitalist system. Their work may get rejected by the publisher, or it may fail to get ordered in significant quantities by stores, or it may not sell many copies due to lack of promotion or bad reviews or any number of factors. In capitalism, you take your chances and failure is always an option.

Ultimately, of course, a petition is just a request, an expression of an opinion. It's still going to be up to DC to decide whether to publish the story or not. Just because a petition exists, that doesn't mean they'll obey its request. But the petition is a way for people to express their opinions to the publisher. It's audience feedback, nothing more. It's somewhat contradictory to say that Card has the right to express his views but the audience doesn't have the right to express theirs.

*sigh*

I feel like I'm repeating myself again and again. I think every person who signed that petition was perfectly, well-within their rights to do so and DC was well-within their rights to not publish the OSC story based on public opinion. All I've been discussing is how I feel about the petition's request, which I think is ridiculous. Not that it's illegal, not that they didn't have a write to do it, just how I feel on it.

[Nerys Myk]

Nagisa Furukawa wrote:

---

And I keep saying again and again that I understand this. I'm not saying DC doesn't have the right to hire or fire anyone they choose. These are just my opinions on the reasons.

If OSC was hired to write a Superman story, wrote a good Superman story, and then they didn't run the Superman story for issues entirely unrelated to what he turned in, I just don't think that's a very good reason. Not that they shouldn't have been able to do it. Just that I don't like it.

It being good is probably the least of DC's concerns at this point. Just as Sheen being the star of a top rated TV was the least concern of the producers of that show when thinking about keeping him. They have a lot more at stake than doing something you don't like.

[Locutus of Bored]

Nagisa Furukawa wrote:

---

Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa?

I already said I find Scott Card's views sickening and that the most baffling thing in the world would be someone giving a fuck about someone else's sex life, which OSC clearly does. I read Ender's Game when in high school, but haven't read anything he's done since then and don't plan to.

How am I giving him a complete pass just because I don't like petitioning for someone to be removed for their views (even if I disagree with them, which I do)?!?!

Because you're up at arms about them petitioning against his participation in the anthology even though that's exercising the same right to speech he has and even though what they're doing is far less harmful than actively promoting, financing, and otherwise supporting legislation that not only bans gay marriage, but actually banned consensual gay sex in some cases, as he used to support when it was still on the books, links homosexuality to rape and molestation, and calls for the violent overthrow of the government if they don't uphold his and his religion's views:

- In 1990, Card called for laws that ban consensual homosexual acts to "remain on the books, not to be indiscriminately enforced against anyone who happens to be caught violating them, but to be used when necessary to send a clear message that those who flagrantly violate society's regulation of sexual behavior cannot be permitted to remain as acceptable, equal citizens within that society."

- In 2008, Card wrote that "there is no branch of government with the authority to redefine marriage," and indicated that a revolution would be appropriate if gay marriage became law. He said:

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...

- Card has also voiced his opinion that paraphilia and homosexuality are linked. In a 2004 essay entitled "Homosexual 'Marriage' and Civilization", Card wrote:

The dark secret of homosexual society—the one that dares not speak its name—is how many homosexuals first entered into that world through a disturbing seduction or rape or molestation or abuse, and how many of them yearn to get out of the homosexual community and live normally.

You don't see why people would and should actively protest his involvement in pop culture works they care about? How about getting your priorities straight and putting things in perspective and not taking out your ire on the wrong targets?

Plus, is this anthology being sold separately or all together in one book? Because it's difficult to boycott one author whose views you don't like without adversely affecting the other authors if they're all in the same book. I'm curious about how it's being sold. That might be a good reason for the petition as well, if that's the case.

[Gotham Central]

Nagisa Furukawa wrote:

---

And I keep saying again and again that I understand this. I'm not saying DC doesn't have the right to hire or fire anyone they choose. These are just my opinions on the reasons.

If OSC was hired to write a Superman story, wrote a good Superman story, and then they didn't run the Superman story for issues entirely unrelated to what he turned in, I just don't think that's a very good reason (while a good reason would be; he wrote a shit Superman story). Not that they shouldn't have been able to do it. Just that I don't like it.

*sigh*

I feel like I'm repeating myself again and again. I think every person who signed that petition was perfectly, well-within their rights to do so and DC was well-within their rights to not publish the OSC story based on public opinion. All I've been discussing is how I feel about the petition's request, which I think is ridiculous. Not that it's illegal, not that they didn't have a write to do it, just how I feel on it.

So lets review...DC's readership is tells them that they will not purchase their product until this guy is removed from the book. Retailers that listen to their patrons have decided that they will not carry said book by this author...

Yet you are saying that DC should continue to employ this guy to put out a product that is now going to be created at a financial loss? How does that make any sense from a business perspective?

[Nagisa Furukawa]

Locutus of Bored wrote:

---

Because you're up at arms about them petitioning against his participation in the anthology even though that's exercising the same right to speech he has and even though what they're doing is far less harmful than actively promoting, financing, and otherwise supporting legislation that not only bans gay marriage, but actually banned consensual gay sex in some cases, as he used to support when it was still on the books, links homosexuality to rape and molestation, and calls for the violent overthrow of the government if they don't uphold his and his religion's views

Again, I think his views are appalling and repugnant.

You don't see why people would and should actively protest his involvement in pop culture works they care about?

Sure, of course people should protest his involvement in works they care about. But I'm sorry, there's just a difference in my mind between saying I'm not going to buy it and asking others not to buy it as well, and asking the people who made it to remove him entirely.

How about getting your priorities straight and putting things in perspective and not taking out your ire on the wrong targets?

I can take my ire out on multiple people for multiple reasons. Clearly, someone saying linking homosexuality to rape is worse than asking that person not be employed. But just because I dislike one doesn't mean I have to like the other. Nowhere in this thread have I come anywhere near supporting OSC's repellent views, and if this was an OSC's Thoughts on Homosexuality thread, that's what my posts would be focused on, but since this is about the petition and his work on the Superman comic, I'm making my feelings on that issue known. Staying on topic seems like having my priorities straight to me.

[BillJ]

And that the story has the chance of bringing negative publicity to the rest of the line and that DC in general supports the views that Card has.

[Nagisa Furukawa]

Gotham Central wrote:

---

So lets review...DC's readership is tells them that they will not purchase their product until this guy is removed from the book. Retailers that listen to their patrons have decided that they will not carry said book by this author...

Yet you are saying that DC should continue to employ this guy to put out a product that is now going to be created at a financial loss? How does that make any sense from a business perspective?

Clearly not.

But I think I've made what I actually think on this issue clear in multiple posts so there's no reason to repeat them.

[Hound of UIster]

JoeZhang wrote:

---

This is why you need a mirror - so you can see the look of love in that pooch's eyes.

this is why god invented videorecording.

[Nagisa Furukawa]

BillJ wrote:

---

that DC in general supports the views that Card has.

Which of course is a ridiculous view to have anyways. The idea that hiring someone means endorsing their personal views on an issue that has nothing to do with what they were hired to do is something no one would even discuss except in extreme cases like this. No one thinks that by hiring a McDonalds employee that the McDonalds corporation supports that employee's views on how to fix the economy. I think most people realize that DC's sole interest in the guy was writing a Superman story, not endorsing his views just because they wrote him a paycheck.

And before anyone says, "But he's so high profile about it!!" that's also baffling to me. So it's okay to hire someone with repugnant views as long as they keep their mouth shut, but not if they actually go out in public and say it? How does that work?

[Nerys Myk]

You are truly the most enlightened person in the thread, Nagisa.