Friction at DC

[Gaith]

Boycott (as I would), tells others to Boycott, but, you can't call for him to be fired for a "thought crime".

In Nineteen Eighty-Four, thoughtcrime is, by definition, a private thought. Card has joined a public political group expressing his opinions. Irrelevant term is irrelevant.

It is absolutely impossible to live your life trying not to fund anybody who's opinion you do not agree with (And I find it comical liberals find this to be in any way rational behaviour!). You'd have to stop paying taxes and probably stop buying absolutely anything.

There's nothing irrational about it. When people start valuing their wallets over their prejudice, social change occurs. Actions like protesting Card's employment contribute in tangible and real ways to gay partners getting access to pensions and health care.

I don't get why anybody would marry, whether gay or straight.

Then, no offense, you are objectively ignorant. Spouses get hospital visitation rights, parental custody rights... in the military, married members of all ranks get funds to live with their spouses greater than the housing allowances of single persons, and many lower-ranking single persons get no such funds at all. For a junior enlisted member, a marriage certificate can mean the difference between living in a cramped barracks with an assigned roommate who loathes you and living with your partner who loves you.

Your disinterest in marriage doesn't bother me in the slightest, but your blithe attitude towards the views of others is insulting, and has the practical effect of condoning prejudice.

 

[DalekJim]

Boycott (as I would), tells others to Boycott, but, you can't call for him to be fired for a "thought crime".

In Nineteen Eighty-Four, thoughtcrime is, by definition, a private thought. Card has joined a public political group expressing his opinions. Irrelevant term is irrelevant.

Absolutely everybody should have the right to express their opinion on anything. The opinion can be challenged, debated and even attacked but the right to say it should never be taken away. I find the idea that some opinions are banned from being expressed publicly to be terrifying. I genuinely can't believe somebody would post this.

Then, no offense, you are objectively ignorant. Spouses get hospital visitation rights, parental custody rights... in the military, married members of all ranks get funds to live with their spouses greater than the housing allowances of single persons, and many lower-ranking single persons get no such funds at all. For a junior enlisted member, a marriage certificate can mean the difference between living in a cramped barracks with an assigned roommate who loathes you and living with your partner who loves you.

Well, I disagree that people being in a relationship should get more rights than single people. I find it bafflingly unfair.

Your disinterest in marriage doesn't bother me in the slightest, but your blithe attitude towards the views of others is insulting, and has the practical effect of condoning prejudice.

My attitude is far fairer than yours. I believe absolutely everybody is entitled to their views and if they in no way affect the job in question, then they shouldn't be removed from it. You can't support equal rights for everybody while demanding those you don't agree with be made unemployed. It is absolute hypocrisy.

Our society is way too precious now and people seem to feel like they absolutely deserve not to be offended. Which is total bullshit. You will be offended every single day by something, and trying to infringe upon the rights and freedoms of others in order to make you feel a little better is monstrous.

 

[Nagisa Furukawa]

Funny how right-wingers forget to gush about the viciousness of the free market when it's a social discriminator's turn to smell the exhaust.

Funny how I'm not a right-winger.

I'm right on some issues, left on others.

Then, no offense, you are objectively ignorant. Spouses get hospital visitation rights, parental custody rights... in the military, married members of all ranks get funds to live with their spouses greater than the housing allowances of single persons, and many lower-ranking single persons get no such funds at all. For a junior enlisted member, a marriage certificate can mean the difference between living in a cramped barracks with an assigned roommate who loathes you and living with your partner who loves you.

All of which I think are wrong. A person shouldn't be given extra benefits because they made the social decision to be romantic with someone and put a made-up label on them.

 

[Mr. Adventure]

Wait. Has this guy even written any anti-gay Superman stories?

No.

So that'd be like getting a plumber fired for not agreeing with gay marriage. His view has nothing to do with the job at all. Do these people seriously believe those with minority views shouldn't be entitled to any kind of employment? What kind of vile view is that?

Modern liberalism continues to get more insane. Welcome to Obama's brave new world.

What it the world does Obama and liberalism have to do with this? These types of petitions over hot button issues/personalities happen all over the political spectrum.

As if conservatives have never called for a boycott! I mean, any way your political leanings go, I don't think you can say that's only a liberal thing.

 

[Noname Given]

I'm not against Gay marriage myself (what two consenting adults do in the privacy of their bedroom is their own personal business - and if they want to legalize their relationship, they should be allowed that choice <-- My personal belief); but in a country where we value freedom of speech and expression, I DO find it disturbing that we make such a big deal publicly and in effect persecute someone professionally for his private beliefs. Unless the editor or an artist sees something inappropriate in the story itself he's asked to work on - why should the personal beliefs of a co-worker matter in a professional situation?

 

[Sindatur]

Boycott (as I would), tells others to Boycott, but, you can't call for him to be fired for a "thought crime".

In Nineteen Eighty-Four, thoughtcrime is, by definition, a private thought. Card has joined a public political group expressing his opinions. Irrelevant term is irrelevant.

So, you think McCarthyism was Good?

Are you in favor of Gay Men beng banned from being Preachers or Scoutmasters or Coaches/Teachers because you think they'll molest little boys?

When he puts his Anti-Gay opinions forward, that is the time to go after him. You can't try to prevent a man from working, just because you disagree with his views. That is every bit as prejudiced as the things I listed above or not hiring a young black guy, because you believe "All young black guys are thugs"

@DalekJim, Marriage ensures you are able to be with your Partner/Spouse when they are in the hospital, it ensures you are able to inherit or leave stuff to your spouse/Partner.

There are many, many cases when Gay Partners were deprived of spending the last few minutes of the dying Partner's life, because of Gay Prejudice. There are lots of stories of a Gay partner's life being ruined, because their partner died and the State or the dead Partner's Family took possesion of their things (What a horrible thing to hapen to anyone, let alone someone who just lost the love of their life to death).

Marriage allows you to carry your spouse on your Medical Insurance.

These aren't "extra Rights" as you put it, these are basic rights that should be granted to anyone in a loving committed relationship who are building a life together

 

[Gotham Central]

Boycott (as I would), tells others to Boycott, but, you can't call for him to be fired for a "thought crime".

In Nineteen Eighty-Four, thoughtcrime is, by definition, a private thought. Card has joined a public political group expressing his opinions. Irrelevant term is irrelevant.

Absolutely everybody should have the right to express their opinion on anything. The opinion can be challenged, debated and even attacked but the right to say it should never be taken away. I find the idea that some opinions are banned from being expressed publicly to be terrifying. I genuinely can't believe somebody would post this.

Then, no offense, you are objectively ignorant. Spouses get hospital visitation rights, parental custody rights... in the military, married members of all ranks get funds to live with their spouses greater than the housing allowances of single persons, and many lower-ranking single persons get no such funds at all. For a junior enlisted member, a marriage certificate can mean the difference between living in a cramped barracks with an assigned roommate who loathes you and living with your partner who loves you.

Well, I disagree that people being in a relationship should get more rights than single people. I find it bafflingly unfair.

Your disinterest in marriage doesn't bother me in the slightest, but your blithe attitude towards the views of others is insulting, and has the practical effect of condoning prejudice.

My attitude is far fairer than yours. I believe absolutely everybody is entitled to their views and if they in no way affect the job in question, then they shouldn't be removed from it. You can't support equal rights for everybody while demanding those you don't agree with be made unemployed. It is absolute hypocrisy.

Our society is way too precious now and people seem to feel like they absolutely deserve not to be offended. Which is total bullshit. You will be offended every single day by something, and trying to infringe upon the rights and freedoms of others in order to make you feel a little better is monstrous.

You seem to have this dubious belief that opinions ought to be consequence free. That is utter nonsense.

Free speech just means that the government is not going to round you up and throw you in jail for your beliefs. However, having abhorent beliefs and EXPRESSING THEM PUBLICALLY can and should impact your ability to gain employment and make a living. That is called a consequence.

Here's a thought experiment...if Orson Scott Card was a known racist and an active member of a white supremacist group, would you fault Warner Brothers/DC for terminating his contract upon discovery of his activities. Would you fault ANY employer for doing so? Suppose he expoused anti-semetic sentiments publically...would he still be employed?

The critical point here is not just that OSC holds personal veiws...Its that he is a PUBLIC FIGURE who has gone out of his way to not only express those views but advocte for them and participate in groups that even the Southern Poverty Law Center calls a hate group. DC/Warner Brothers is a media conglomerate whos financial success is directly impacted by its public image. By hiring Card even after his public coments they are implicitly endorsing his position, or at least saying that they are not so abhorent that they would not want to be associated with him. In that sense DC/WB needs to own up to their willingness to associate with those ideas.

The public, conversely, has the right and indeed the obligation to reject ideas/sentiments that they find problematic. OSC might just start rethinking his position if he finds that he has been publically shunned for his attitudes. Indeed, shunning and shaming is exactly what societies used to do in order to express displeasure with some ideas.

OSC should be, and is free to say and believe what he wants. However he should never believe that doing so comes cost free.

 

[Gotham Central]

Boycott (as I would), tells others to Boycott, but, you can't call for him to be fired for a "thought crime".

In Nineteen Eighty-Four, thoughtcrime is, by definition, a private thought. Card has joined a public political group expressing his opinions. Irrelevant term is irrelevant.

So, you think McCarthyism was Good?

Are you in favor of Gay Men beng banned from being Preachers or Scoutmasters or Coaches/Teachers because you think they'll molest little boys?

When he puts his Anti-Gay opinions forward, that is the time to go after him. You can't try to prevent a man from working, just because you disagree with his views. That is every bit as prejudiced as the things I listed above or not hiring a young black guy, because you believe "All young black guys are thugs"

@DalekJim, Marriage ensures you are able to be with your Partner/Spouse when they are in the hospital, it ensures you are able to inherit or leave stuff to your spouse/Partner. There are many, many cases when Gay Partners were deprived of spending the last few minutes of the dying Partner's life, because of Gay Prejudice. There are lots of stories of a Gay partner's life being ruined, because their partner died and the State took possesion of their things (What a horrible thing to hapen to anyone, let alone someone who just lost the love of their life to death). Marriage allows you to carry your spouseon your Medical Insurance. These aren't "extra Rights" as you put it, these are basic rights that should be granted to anyone in a loving committed relationship who are building a life together

Actually, you most certainly can and should prevent someone from working if they hold socially abhorent views. As long as the government is not rounding them up and throwing them in jail, its all good. Employers have every right to decide what ideas they will and will not want to be associated with. The company I work for (and indeed many companies now) have social media polices that regulate what their employees can say and don online. Messages expressed in a public forum by the employee of any organization, even during their free time, can reflect on that business. Many businesses will terminate you for speech done on personal time that it finds objectionable.

 

[DalekJim]

You seem to have this dubious belief that opinions ought to be consequence free. That is utter nonsense.

Chilling. Absolutely chilling.

I suppose they should be government regulated?

Actually, you most certainly can and should prevent someone from working if they hold socially abhorent views. As long as the government is not rounding them up and throwing them in jail, its all good. Employers have every right to decide what ideas they will and will not want to be associated with. The company I work for (and indeed many companies now) have social media polices that regulate what their employees can say and don online.

And I disagree with that policy completely, I think it's deeply scary. My friend works a meaningless, dead-end job at Tesco and is prohibited from expressing certain views online, which I find hysterical. It's something that 30 years ago would have been written in a dystopian novel and people would have laughed it off as absurd. Corporations controlling what people can say or believe? That'll never happen!

Oh.

 

[Hound of UIster]

Sorry but writing Superman isn't a constitutionally guaranteed right.

 

[Gaith]

Absolutely everybody should have the right to express their opinion on anything. The opinion can be challenged, debated and even attacked but the right to say it should never be taken away. I find the idea that some opinions are banned from being expressed publicly to be terrifying. I genuinely can't believe somebody would post this.

You may want to look up the meaning of the word "ban". It may not mean what you think it means.

I'm not advocating any rights be "taken away"; I'm as committed to the First Amendment as much as anyone. But free speech pertains to governmental harassment only. So much as we're talking about private businesses, consumer protests are fair game.

A person shouldn't be given extra benefits because they made the social decision to be romantic with someone and put a made-up label on them.

Fine, but the fact is that legal marriage unions confer concrete priveleges and benefits, and that's not likely to change anytime soon, so it's insulting and frivolous to bring a general anti-governmental marriage stance into the equation.

So, you think McCarthyism was Good?

Don't mix governmental harassment with cultural protest.

Are you in favor of Gay Men beng banned from being Preachers or Scoutmasters or Coaches/Teachers because you think they'll molest little boys?

If a nonprofit wants to not hire/fire people who publicly advocate for gay marriage, I'm okay with that so long as they receive no federal/taxpaying aid, which both churches and the Boy Scouts do in massive amounts.

 

[Klaus]

The free speech guarantee in the Constitution applies to the actions of the government and nothing else. Outside of that it's an ongoing negotiation within society... If the company in question feels that social pressure is going to affect their bottom line they can act, or not, just like we can buy their products or not.

 

[Mr. Adventure]

You seem to have this dubious belief that opinions ought to be consequence free. That is utter nonsense.

Chilling. Absolutely chilling.

I suppose they should be government regulated?

No, it should be right-to-work and at-will employment. The kind where you can be easily fired for saying something that someone doesn't like.

 

[Sindatur]

As public as he is, Warner's would obviously know of them, so there's no "Learning about them"

Yes, someone who is in the KKK has a right to be employed. They do not have the right to use a job to commit prejudiced acts though. And, if they were hired, and the position gives the possibility of performing their job with bias against their particular group they hate, they should be watched and warned it won't be allowed. It's not up to me to say who anyone hires, if that person abuses their position, then absolutely it becomes a problem that shold be protested and/or fought against. Now, of course, depending upon the degree of the potential problem, many wouldn't hire them, but, it's none of my business until thy actually do what I suspect they'll do.

McCarthyism wsn't just about Govt rounding up Commies, it went much further:

Fred was arrested last week for being a Commie
Joe, his next door neighbor was good friends with him
You had dinner at Joe's house last week, so, you must be a Commie, sorry, I can't let you have the job and I'm sending this information to the FBI

 

[BillJ]

Sorry but writing Superman isn't a constitutionally guaranteed right.

This is what it comes down to.

 

[BillJ]

As if conservatives have never called for a boycott! I mean, any way your political leanings go, I don't think you can say that's only a liberal thing.

Weird that some are defending Card's right to free expression yet are against private citizens getting together as a group to do the same thing...

 

[Allyn Gibson]

As public as he is, Warner's would obviously know of them, so there's no "Learning about them"

Actually, I can absolutely believe that the editor who commissioned the story didn't know about Card's militant homophobia. In almost every conversation I've had with people outside of the fandom bubble about why I won't financially support Card's work any longer, the people I spoke with simply weren't aware that Card wanted sodomy laws prosecuted and governments that legalize gay marriage overthrown by any means necessary. Here's the thing. Card is a big fish in the small pond that is literary science fiction. Outside of that pond, Card is nothing. He's not, by nature, a comic book writer. For people who care about Card and gay rights, they would know. For people who only know that Card is a big name in science fiction circles, they probably wouldn't know. It's entirely possible that DC's editor didn't know about Card's politics.

It's like the recent kerfuffle over Train and Carly Rae Jepson being booked for this Boy Scout Jamboree, and then both backed out after they were made aware of the BSA's ban of gay Scouts and leaders. Both issued statements that they didn't know. People responded, "But how could they not know?" Simple. If you didn't follow the Boy Scouts in the news, it's entirely possible not to know.

Just because there's more information out there, that doesn't mean that more people know it. It's actually easier now to be more selective in the news and information one gets. The Internet builds better epistemic bubbles.

 

[Hound of UIster]

It's more because the superman editor(s) at DC Editorial are idiots.

 

[Sindatur]

As if conservatives have never called for a boycott! I mean, any way your political leanings go, I don't think you can say that's only a liberal thing.

Weird that some are defending Card's right to free expression yet are against private citizens getting together as a group to do the same thing...

I personally am not against that, I am against "demanding he be fired" for his views, before he has "contanimated" his work with those views.

 

[JoeZhang]

As if conservatives have never called for a boycott! I mean, any way your political leanings go, I don't think you can say that's only a liberal thing.

Weird that some are defending Card's right to free expression yet are against private citizens getting together as a group to do the same thing...

I personally am not against that, I am against "demanding he be fired" for his views, before he has "contanimated" his work with those views.

So you are against corporations being able to act in their own best interests in the free market? They can't adjust behaviour based on the agency of actors (in this case possible consumers) within the market?