Orson Scott Card "Please don't boycott my film!"
- Thread starter Yminale
- Start date
It's not just about what you wrote there, though that's part of the sidestepping issue I've been talking about, it's your general attitude and behavior throughout this and the previous Card thread. The worst part being your total misrepresentation of the opposition viewpoint.
If you wanted engage his point honestly, you could have imagined a what if scenario where Fred Phelps (or a fictional person who shared his views, tactics, and infamy) actually did put out a movie and how you would feel about people choosing not to support that with their hard-earned money (I suspect you wouldn't have a problem with it), but instead you chose to make a dismissive comment that sidesteps having to consider the issue at all.
One or two people that I'm aware of made mistakes or dubious comments about the content of the novel, and you spent the rest of the thread harping on that as if everyone who disagrees with you had made the same mistake or had never read the novel. No one has advocated for taking away Mr. Card's First Amendment right to free speech (though a couple have explained the different perspectives and limitations on free speech in their own countries), yet you've spent most of the thread harping on that too as if that's the main argument people have been making.
It would just be nice if you could actually engage with people based on what they've actually said instead of the fantasyland transcript you seem to be reading from.
Locutus of Bored said:
I haven't sidestepped anything. I've agreed with certain people, disagreed with others, and given my views in as much detail as I feel compelled to. Debating with others on this issue generally tests my patience, but I have been respectful and tried to meet people at least halfway.
I see no reason why I should ever feel the need to humour a liberal's fantasy of self-suffering but so be it.
If Fred Phelps wrote one of the most significant sci-fi novels of the modern era, and it was made in to a movie I thought looked somewhat interesting, from which he would gain a share of the profits, then I would think little of boycotting it. I feel the people who do such acts are by and large hypocrites, likely eating meat from animals that have suffered pain, wearing clothes made by children in torturous conditions, need I even go on...
Giving up those comforts however, would actually show a certain degree of dedication and effort to their supposed cause. Instead, people try to pass off not seeing a movie they know nothing about, based on a book they've never read, by a man they know nothing of, as an act of political protest. It is laughable in its laziness and dishonesty.
Obviously I'm not referring to people who aren't like these people, but a few posters in this thread are clearly ignorant of the matter at hand, know nothing of Card or Ender's Game, and I feel obliged to call them on it.
So nobody should ever take a stand on anything they believe in, unless they take a stand on every other injustice in the world at the same time?
What a joke.
Okay, Homer.
[yt]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tcqNV_xbw0Y[/yt]
What's amazing to me is, even after I and others directly point out the ridiculous tactics and arguments you've used, you're still so oblivious that you have to go right on using them in the next post.
It shouldn't be an exclusively liberal issue, but you cry "liberals!" again. Seriously, you're a broken record.
It's not a problem of most people not knowing the book, yet that's the main focus of your complaint again.
Pingfah didn't mention Phelps making a scifi movie or being an established scific author, yet that's how you have to frame the argument.
You're debate skills and tactics are a joke.
I don't see why you're so adamant to get this fictional, not-actually-happening scenario "answered" but I'll give mine straight and blunt if you think DalekJim is side-stepping.
I'd have no problem seeing that movie. I don't think when I pay someone for a service (be it bringing me food, fixing my roof or making a movie for me to enjoy) that their political views have anything to do with the service I'm paying them for. I don't feel bad for lining their pockets because I'm not paying them for expressing an opinion; I'm paying them for the service and how well they do it. I'm sure I've had people fix my plumbing by men who think women should stay in the kitchen, bought candy at a store whose owners think all Mexicans should be kicked out of the US. Nor do I think that their vocalness on these issues should matter either. If someone takes my money and gives it to a racist/sexist/homophobic organization and I don't know, they're doing it all the same and I don't think I should punish the person who is open about what they believe, even if I don't agree, just because they're not keeping their mouth shut. So yes, I dunno about DalekJim, but I would see a movie by Fred Phelps if it looks interesting and well-made (all of this is under the assumption it's something like Ender's Game, something completely irrelevant to Phelps' opinions on homosexuality, correct?), disagreeing with him on what he spends the majority of his time doing while not feeling bad about giving him $7 for a product that has nothing to do with his homophobia.
Does that answer your question?
Ender's Game, the book, is awesome. The sequels were a downward spiral.
Card's activism does have the expected result of people avoiding his movie, and he has himself to blame for that. But, boycotting his movie and thinking that you're embracing free speech and being noble is pretty silly.
Wasn't everyone up in arms when some guy supposedly fired an employee for having an Obama bumper sticker?
Card's activism does have the expected result of people avoiding his movie, and he has himself to blame for that. But, boycotting his movie and thinking that you're embracing free speech and being noble is pretty silly.
Wasn't everyone up in arms when some guy supposedly fired an employee for having an Obama bumper sticker?
I'm going to buy some Gerrold Kindle books for that. Thanks, David!
So nobody should ever take a stand on anything they believe in, unless they take a stand on every other injustice in the world at the same time?
What a joke.
No, I'm saying that people shouldn't pass off not seeing a movie they'd never have had any intention of seeing anyway, as political activism, without expecting ridicule. I respect those that say they read Ender's Game, liked it.. yet won't support the movie because they don't want to give Card money to fuel his homophobic campaigns.
I don't respect the people saying Ender's Game is both a rubbish novel, that the film looks bad, and that they're going to boycott the movie to avoid fuelling Card's homophobic campaigns. They're not boycotting anything. They're not seeing a movie they know they wouldn't enjoy anyway, and passing it off as a political move. It's obvious and total bullshit.
Admiral Buzzkillsaid in this thread said the trailer for the film looked shit. That rids his boycott of any meaning. Any political agenda or angle has been lost. He's just not seeing a movie he thinks looks lame, and dressing it up as a political statement. It's hilarious.
As I already explained twice, it's not just about answering this specific scenario, it's the general dishonesty and dismissiveness that's been the hallmark of his arguments from the start. That was simply one example.
Yep, it does. I disagree completely, but it answers it.
Also, it's kind of a cop-out comparing it to things where you don't know what the people support (you didn't do that on all of the examples, but some). You're fully aware of what Card spends his time and money supporting now.
Hey look, it's someone merely pointing out who my friends are rather than debate my points!
But I said say, "Nor do I think that their vocalness on these issues should matter either. If someone takes my money and gives it to a racist/sexist/homophobic organization and I don't know, they're doing it all the same and I don't think I should punish the person who is open about what they believe, even if I don't agree, just because they're not keeping their mouth shut."
Whether someone is a homophobe who gives money to homophobic organizations in private or the same but public, I still do not care what their political opinions are if I am paying for a service so long as those opinions aren't impeding the service I paid them for. If my waiter at a restaurant went on a racist rant while I waited for him to bring me food or Ender's Game bashed me over the head with homophobia every two pages, I wouldn't enjoy either. But in their personal lives, outside of the work being paid for them, their opinions are their opinions whether they never say them aloud or go on TV and express them.
Good thing no one has done that then, huh? The only ones who think they're being noble defenders of free speech have been on the other side of the argument.
You don't see a slight difference in not spending money on a movie written by a virulent and borderline fascist homophobe who contributes to denying people's rights and firing someone not based on poor job performance but simply based on having a political bumper sticker you disagree with?
I believe he also said he's not participating in any boycott, but simply isn't seeing the film because he thinks it looks like crap from the trailers. And then separately from that he also pointed out that Card is a bigoted asshole. What's the problem? There's nothing contradictory about that.
No doubt about it, Card is a douchebag. With that being said, the bastard wrote a novel I enjoyed, and I'm going to see the movie, because there are many, many, many non douchebags who have worked on it and deserve to have their hard work judged on its own merits, and not that of a bigot who wrote it.
There you go. I have no problem with that stance whatsoever. If that had been the stance some others had taken this would have likely been a much shorter thread.
Calling for gay people to be imprisoned, calling gays a "genetic mistake," calling for the violent overthrow of the government if it legalizes same-sex marriage, and actively supporting through money and serving on the board of organizations that deny a whole group of people their civil rights seems like a pretty easy douche point to draw the line on for me. And that's just a small sample of Card's backwardness.
A difference of degree, sure, but not in the underlying principle. "Job performance" in this case would be analogous to how good of a movie Ender's Game ends up being. If an employer thinks that Obama is an Evil Muslim out to destroy America, why shouldn't he shitcan him? Some of that money the he's paying him will probably end up in the Obama war chest.
In both cases the idea is to shut up people you disagree with by hurting them financially.