Discussion in 'Science Fiction & Fantasy' started by Yminale, Jul 9, 2013.
I was replying to Locutus of Bored's post directed at me. It's ridiculous for that to count.
So Locutus quizzes me on a point, I give him my reply, and he's entitled to tell me to fucking move on and stop discussing the matter?
You've been bringing up people boycotting based on not understanding the book throughout the whole thread, which is the entire reason I mentioned it being an overused and misplaced argument. If you had only said it once we wouldn't even be having this discussion.
I could very well be wrong, but I was under the impression that your politics aren't protected from discrimination in the workplace in the way your gender or religion are. Also, I'd hardly call that an integral part of capitalism. Regardless, I'm not trying to make any points about the legalities of the situations. Just the similarities in attitudes where people feel the need to hurt someone's bottom line when they don't like what they say.
The conversation has evolved and moved on to other matters several times, before you walk in and hector me, dragging us back to the beginning. If you want me to stop mentioning certain points then stop posting replies to me that bring them up. It is the most counter-productive thing you could possibly do.
Political views, no they're not protected, but, they also are not firable offenses, you have to have an actual justified reason for firing someone. A bumper sticker is not such a legitimate reason.
Yeah, political views aren't protected by law from being firable offences but like, neither is a guy's choice of favourite Ninja Turtle. An "Obama sucks!" bumper sticker, while entirely correct, would not warrant a firing.
and people keep telling you that those aren't reasons why anyone here might boycott the film.
We're both in California, an at-will state, which as I understand it means you don't need cause to fire someone.
It's not about what Card said, because I doubt anyone here is 100% proud of every word they've uttered in their life. The difference here is that Card was taking an active part in trying to revoke the rights of citizens whose lifestyle he disagrees with.
Didn't know this but must say that I don't care. The NOM was formed specifically to fund the passing of Prop 8 in California, where I live. I voted against Prop 8, which is the proper political response to people who suport legislation you disagree with. Prop 8, in case you missed it, is dead. The National Organization for Marriage will probably persue other legislation, which will likewise be struck down as unconstitutional should any of it pass. Discrimination is unconstitutional in this country and it is plain, especially after the recent SCOTUS decisions that, though it may take some time, laws discriminating against gays are not going to stand.
Orson Scott Card is a minor author in the grand scheme of things, who mostly rants his hate speech on his blog. Don't like his hate speech? Don't read his blog. Don't like his political views? Vote the other way, just as I did on Prop 8, and give your money to groups that support the laws you want to see enacted, which is your right, as well as his.
More power to anyone who wants to boycott the movie and Card's books to protest supporters of anti-gay legislation. But I'd find a discussion of why so many people find Ender's Game's twisted morality compelling to be far more interesting.
Your posts read as you were constantly enraged against something, and you go to great lengths to scorn anyone who disagrees with you. So if that was your goal, I'm pretty comfortable in saying that you are failing at it.
Well, I purposefully left-out the argument if change would be actually positive or negative to frame the discussion in the most neutral way possible. A sci-fi story with a dystopic future is usually used to argue that a specific type of change will be bad, not that change in general is a bad thing. Conservative thinking, on the other hand, holds that change is bad for society per se, usually idealizing a past "Golden Age" against which the modern world is compared and found lacking.
And that's why the studio is behind it as:
1) It leads to free publicity for the film.
2) Since even current polls indicate a approximately 60%-40% split in the acceptance of gay marriage; the studio realizes that the 40% is a large enough audience to appeal to; and some of the %60 may come along too.
This kind of 'uproar' almost always translates into a boost at the box office no matter what the underlying issue is.
Adamantium bullet proof.
Now, very few states have similar statutes, so you can still be fired for political affiliation in most of the country, but you were specifically talking about California.
^Interesting, I stand corrected.
Ok... that's cool.
Why is not buying a product improper? Later you say it's ok for me not to see the movie, but, why is NOT purchasing something "improper"?
Yeah, I know.
And they will continue to slow it down... why should I help them by, indirectly, giving money to that organization?
Right. And I do. Just like I don't give money to organizations I don't want to support.
Well. You're free to start one.
Separate names with a comma.