Friction at DC

[BillJ]

When people take extreme viewpoints public, corporations are simply less likely to want to hire them.

It would be one thing if Card disapproved of the 'gay lifestyle' but once he starts pumping out poisonous propaganda, mainstream companies simply won't want anything to do with someone like that. They don't make money if they alienate the mainstream consumer.

 

[Noname Given]

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.

Actually, if Card's situation WAS like Sheen's they could have fired the guy without batting an eye. Sheen was coming to work stoned; and having problems DOING the work required. Sheen thought he was untouchable because of the high ratings and all the money being generated. The Producer/Creator had finally had enough though; and pulled the trigger and fired Sheen.

Again, in this situation, I'm NOT defending the guy's views AT ALL. I AM defending his right to be employed REGARDLESS of his views AS LONG AS those views do not affect his work product. I also acknowledge that DC is within its rights to NOT run the story if they feel it will hurt sales profitability; but again, I sttill think it's a sad state of affairs when ANYONE is in effect persecuted for personal beliefs or what they say or think - EVEN IF I think those beliefs are idiotic.

 

[Guy Gardener]

When people take extreme viewpoints public, corporations are simply less likely to want to hire them.

It would be one thing if Card disapproved of the 'gay lifestyle' but once he starts pumping out poisonous propaganda, mainstream companies simply won't want anything to do with someone like that. They don't make money if they alienate the mainstream consumer.

So to become hireable, he has to make homosexuality less popular?

 

[Locutus of Bored]

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

Keep those blinders on, chief.

Yeah, I think it's about time I bowed out of this discussion. My views on the subject have been stated, anyone's free to read them, agree with them or disagree with them.

The moment when it starts becoming personal is the moment I'm uninterested.

If that's too personal for you than you're bound to be in for disappointment in future internet endeavors.

But hey, look on the bright side, at least no bigoted author is trying to dictate the way you live your life through repressive legislation, so it's all good. That would actually be personal. Perhaps even something worth petitioning against him for.

 

[BillJ]

...I sttill think it's a sad state of affairs when ANYONE is in effect persecuted for personal beliefs or what they say or think - EVEN IF I think those beliefs are idiotic.

I don't think it's that he is being persecuted for his personal beliefs. I think he got caught in a backlash because he made those views very public and mentioned things like going to war over stopping gay rights.

 

[BillJ]

So to become hireable, he has to make homosexuality less popular?

Or not make his views so public and so hateful sounding.

 

[Nagisa Furukawa]

If that's too personal for you than you're bound to be in for disappointment in future internet endeavors.

I'm willing to discuss any issue so long as it's about the issue; I'm just not interested when it starts to become more about the people and less about the topic.

But hey, look on the bright side, at least no bigoted author is trying to dictate the way you live your life through repressive legislation, so it's all good.

I'm bi-sexual and said earlier in the thread that I've had consensual homosexual sex. If Scott Card got his way, what I've done would have been illegal and make me liable for prosecution. Which is why, as I said, I think his beliefs are sickening and repugnant.

It just wasn't what I was discussing.

 

[Nerys Myk]

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.

Actually, if Card's situation WAS like Sheen's they could have fired the guy without batting an eye. Sheen was coming to work stoned; and having problems DOING the work required. Sheen thought he was untouchable because of the high ratings and all the money being generated. The Producer/Creator had finally had enough though; and pulled the trigger and fired Sheen.

Again, in this situation, I'm NOT defending the guy's views AT ALL. I AM defending his right to be employed REGARDLESS of his views AS LONG AS those views do not affect his work product. I also acknowledge that DC is within its rights to NOT run the story if they feel it will hurt sales profitability; but again, I sttill think it's a sad state of affairs when ANYONE is in effect persecuted for personal beliefs or what they say or think - EVEN IF I think those beliefs are idiotic.

He got paid for his work. Once he turned in the work, his employment was at end. He may not be offered future work, though. Probably not worth the headache or bad publicity.

 

[Locutus of Bored]

But hey, look on the bright side, at least no bigoted author is trying to dictate the way you live your life through repressive legislation, so it's all good.

I'm bi-sexual and said earlier in the thread that I've had consensual homosexual sex. If Scott Card got his way, what I've done would have been illegal and make me liable for prosecution. Which is why, as I said, I think his beliefs are sickening and repugnant.

It just wasn't what I was discussing.

Than your position is even more baffling than before. If you acknowledge that he's actively trying to interfere in your personal life and choices (which you didn't acknowledge about him previously in the thread, but I digress), than how can you be so upset by people petitioning for his removal from the anthology? Turnabout is fair play and all that, even though what he's done is sooooo much worse.

By the way, I was serious about wondering (from anyone, not just you) whether the anthology is being published as separate books by each author that can be purchased individually, or combined into one book where you can't pick and choose which author's books you want to buy. Because to me, that gives extra motivation for the petition to remove Card from the book, because while they may want to boycott his writing, they might not want to boycott the other authors at the same time and hurt their sales. Just something to consider outside of the fact that OSC is a giant douche.

ETA:

Let's look at the situation this way. Orson Scott Card is a person with celebrity, wealth, stature with the LDS Church and community, and access to the media. All of those give him a fairly good deal of power and influence over a wide range of people. Someone forming a petition to keep me from getting a certain job because of my pro-LGBT rights stances wouldn't make a whole lot of sense, because the reaction is disproportionate to my own power, influence, and access, which is minimal. Just yelling at me on an internet forum is an equivalent response. However, using collective action in the form of a petition to match OSC's power and influence with some of your own makes perfect sense and is reasonable and proportionate. Do you understand what I'm getting at now, and why you shouldn't have a problem with the petition?

 

[Guy Gardener]

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.

Actually, if Card's situation WAS like Sheen's they could have fired the guy without batting an eye. Sheen was coming to work stoned; and having problems DOING the work required. Sheen thought he was untouchable because of the high ratings and all the money being generated. The Producer/Creator had finally had enough though; and pulled the trigger and fired Sheen.

Again, in this situation, I'm NOT defending the guy's views AT ALL. I AM defending his right to be employed REGARDLESS of his views AS LONG AS those views do not affect his work product. I also acknowledge that DC is within its rights to NOT run the story if they feel it will hurt sales profitability; but again, I sttill think it's a sad state of affairs when ANYONE is in effect persecuted for personal beliefs or what they say or think - EVEN IF I think those beliefs are idiotic.

He got paid for his work. Once he turned in the work, his employment was at end. He may not be offered future work, though. Probably not worth the headache or bad publicity.

Being serious here for a moment.

This isn't just about comics.

The gaygenda found it's poster child, and they're going to follow him and keep kicking till he's a bloody mess that falls down a manhole. Any time he tries to earn money for the rest of his life, they'll be there until he is fired. One day they could still be protesting the homeless shelter that took Orsen in because the elements deserve a chance to kill him.

Stopping now because Superman is safe is weaksauce.

Do you think that Superman is really the only product so pure and noble that it can't be sullied by a homophobe? Maybe that's how it started, and I do mean MAYBE, but it's not going to be how it finishes. Card better make a lot of money off this movie, becuase I seriously think this is a dress rehersal for the movie, and if he can't live off what he makes form Enders Game (after it tanks) for the rest of his life, then he's going to be a drunk rentboy on meth living in an alley within three years. (It's not fair. Chosing to become a prostitute becuase everything went wrong is a game of chicken that woman always lose first. Not all women, just the women who become prositutues or get married. But by the time all the blokes figure out that the only way they can make ends meet is to have sex for a living, all the degenrate women that would pay for sex, are already prostitutes being paid for sex, so the lads either become "gay for pay" or drown themselves. Like I said, it's not fair that men have a stronger moral compass than women.)

Did this lynching of Orson Scott Card happen organically, or are we being manipulated by a spindoctor/publisist into generating and expressing these views we have now, until shaping the public concensensus like exactly how they wanted us to months in advance? Hell, consdering how publicity works, Cards own peopel might have started this just so he can been seen as some poor bastard beaten down and forced to come to an epiphany about how worng he is and deliver a sincere apology about his affiliation with this group and his hobby so that his PERSONALITY won't effect the back end on Enders Game, not unlike some grifter who throws themself under a bus to collect insuarance.

"THEY'RE USING YOU! THEY'RE USING YOU!"

 

[IndyJones]

I'm certainly not a fan of these anti-gay marriage groups, but signing petitions and trying to throw a writer off a Superman comic just seems silly to me, and makes the whole movement look bad.

Yeah. And a couple of wife beaters make all men look bad. And all anti-war protesters are diminished by the actions of Code Pink, and...

I sttill think it's a sad state of affairs when ANYONE is in effect persecuted for personal beliefs or what they say or think...

...or do.

You forgot to add that part in.

OSC doesn't just think I shouldn't have equal rights, he puts his money and time into the fight. He is a board member for the National Organization of Marriage, which is putting money into the fight against marriage equality in my state.

And I think persecution may not have been the word you were looking for there.

 

[Nerys Myk]

No, I don't think it's just about Superman. And yeah, this will have an impact on products with Card's name attached to it. Card's views aren't a secret. They are there for anyone who bother's to look to see. No need for spin doctors, this twister was already in motion. Conspiracy theorists need not apply.

 

[Guy Gardener]

Well, Chick Fil-A set the tone.

 

[nightwind1]

The petition is sickening.

You don't like Scott Card's views on gay marriage*? Cool. Don't buy it. There's plenty of other Superman books by plenty of other people who are just fine with homosexual marriage. But to actively campaign for the man to lose his job because you disagree with him?? He has a right to his views and he has a right to make a living if he's good at what he does (having read Ender's Game but nothing else by him, I certainly would say he is going by that), just as you're free to not support him. And don't give me any of this crap about Superman being an icon and therefore, we can't have someone who doesn't have the same value system as us writing for him even though those views probably have absolutely nothing to do with the story whatsoever.

It's situations like this that make liberals seem as totalitarian and repressive as conservatives. Fight words with words. Make your point and make it clear; don't lobby for someone to actually lose their fucking job because you disagree with them. And because Sprouse has quit, not because he disagreed with Card, but because "The media surrounding this story reached the point where it took away from the actual work, and that’s something I wasn’t comfortable with," they actually succeeded in harming this man's job because they don't like his views on a subject.

*My own view is that the government should stay out of marriage period, but if they have to, then two men or two women (or three men, or two women and a man, or whatever any consenting, conscious adult wants) should be equal to anyone else who wants to. But that's irrelevant.

He can THINK whatever he wants...

The problem is he actively ACTS WITH and CONTRIBUTES MONEY AND HIS TIME to groups which ACTIVELY work to keep civil rights from a particular group of citizens.

When THINKING turns to ACTING, then all bets are off.

 

[TREK_GOD_1]

[What's your point? If they did something that offended a large enough people who would choose to boycott it, cause what, it would be in their best financial interests to change.

Large enough? If DC had to rely on an alleged 16,000 people for the survival of any of their titles, the company would fold. You are allowing your sociopolitical leaning make this into a cause it--apparently--is not.

DC is not threatened by this.

So, you watch things you might get offended by, what is your point? That you're the bigger person? Or MAYBE it's because SNL doesn't REALLY go all that far? Even in its Satire?

It means as a functioning adult, you should be able to exercise the choice to avoid content you do not like, or content produced by people with views you disagree with. A far different situation than trying to force those creating and/or producing content to influence hiring decisions (or content) because you cannot stand a view of one of the employees.

In other words, change the channel, let your fingers skip over a comic on the rack, etc.

I would argue his PUBLIC advocacy of Straight only marriage DOES damage their brand.

You will need to prove this. Yes, I know the media would have the world believe "everyone" supports same sex marriage, but if we take actual events on a case by case basis--away from the media generalizing, the OSC response is so tepid that it would suggest--strongly--the opposite: few care at all, and it is not going to damage the DC brand to any significant degree.

The signatures could grow to 30,000 tomorrow, but that too, is not a threat to DC Comics (or the parent company), and no one is taking to the streets over this.

To be frank, the comic publishing world recieved more heat from the death of a fictional character (Superman) than this issue.

Shouldn't that be reason enough to get rid of him?

Do you even hear yourself? Would you agrue the same if a gay writer's personal views offended 16,000 readers enough to complain for his removal?

 

[Hound of UIster]

Large enough? If DC had to rely on an alleged 16,000 people for the survival of any of their titles, the company would fold.

Their cancellation threshold is around 10-20,000 so yes 16,000 or even 4000 could make or break a book.

Which makes this next statement outrageous:

DC is not losing a dime (or sleep) over this.

They probably are losing money. Because they PAID OSC already, but since the artist quit, they shelved the story and had to use ANOTHER story. So yes likely they are losing money and the negative publicity has already had stories boycotting the book.

To be frank, the comic publishing world recieved more heat from the death of a fictional character (Superman) than this issue.

That was in the 90s. The Return of Superman is part of the reason the industry crashed during that time.

 

[TREK_GOD_1]

Comic companies cancel titles often. Take a look at the number DC alonr has dropped in the past 5 years. A decade. The company moves on.

Because they PAID OSC already, but since the artist quit, they shelved the story and had to use ANOTHER story. So yes likely they are losing money and the negative publicity has already had stories boycotting the book.

Comic companies paying for pages (art) and scripts that end up never seeing the light of day is not uncommon, so any suggestion that paying for an unpublished OSC comic was some notable loss to the company is simply politicized stretching of reality.

That was in the 90s. The Return of Superman is part of the reason the industry crashed during that time.

You're missing the point, which is the "death" of a fictional character caused more of an uproar than this incident, which some (in this thread) are trying to turn into a controversy on the level of a certain administration BSing about WMDs.

 

[Guy Gardener]

They're not paying for physical pages.

This was an online comic... Check on that for me?

People still preordered it, but shops didn't preorder thousands of copies.

No trees were earmarked for this project.

IN the nineties, most oft he best selling comics sold over a million issues (in response to about a million preorders) which means that back then the cancellation threshold was set a hell of a lot higher then than it is now.

Comic books have quadrupled in cover price since 1990.

 

[Hound of UIster]

No it's both an online and paper comic. The online version gets released before the physical copies ship.

Comic companies cancel titles often. Take a look at the number DC alonr has dropped in the past 5 years. A decade.

And that is not good. The turnover is just one of the signs they are not doing too well.

Comic companies paying for pages (art) and scripts that end up never seeing the light of day is not uncommon, so any suggestion that paying for an unpublished OSC comic was some notable loss to the company is simply politicized stretching of reality.

No you are missing the point. People boycotting the comic, the editors paying for a story that will never see the light of day, that eats away at their bottom line. The bad rep, that is going to hurt sales and hurt their future plans for Superman. And Warner isn't going to be too pleased either with the bad publicity.

 

[Professor Zoom]

[What's your point? If they did something that offended a large enough people who would choose to boycott it, cause what, it would be in their best financial interests to change.

Large enough? If DC had to rely on an alleged 16,000 people for the survival of any of their titles, the company would fold. You are allowing your sociopolitical leaning make this into a cause it--apparently--is not.

16,000 is about half of a typical audience for a comic book sold by DC. So, I'm using math, not my sociopolitical views. If you're selling something and HALF of your potential audience is being vocal about not buying it, chances are there are more who won't buy as well.

DC is not threatened by this.

The boycott isn't about bringing down DC. DC is not being threatened. ONE comic book is being boycotted. So, your point is... pointless...

So, you watch things you might get offended by, what is your point? That you're the bigger person? Or MAYBE it's because SNL doesn't REALLY go all that far? Even in its Satire?

It means as a functioning adult, you should be able to exercise the choice to avoid content you do not like, or content produced by people with views you disagree with.

Sure. That's an option. And just let things like racism and homophobia continue. But, then, it's not really your problem, so who cares, right?

Some people DO care. Some people like to try and make the world a better place. You are free to participate or not.

A far different situation than trying to force those creating and/or producing content to influence hiring decisions (or content) because you cannot stand a view of one of the employees.

The company might not shelve the story. It's up to them. It's called the Free Market. Why shouldn't the market be able to speak to the producers?

In other words, change the channel, let your fingers skip over a comic on the rack, etc.

That's an option. Sure. It means being disengaged from the world. It means not trying to do anything to make the world more free, more fair. But, you are free to decide how want to participate in the world.

I would argue his PUBLIC advocacy of Straight only marriage DOES damage their brand.

You will need to prove this.

Really? Ok, then you prove the opposite. That his advocacy of bigotry reflects WELL on DC.

Just ask yourself, if I was a businessman, would I want a bigot representing my product? Would I want a bigot who actively pursues limiting the rights of other Americans representing my product?

Yes, I know the media would have the world believe "everyone" supports same sex marriage,

Over 50 percent of Americans support gay marriage. That's not media, that's math. I know reality challenges your conceptions of what you think Americans believe... but... it'll be ok.

but if we take actual events on a case by case basis--away from the media generalizing, the OSC response is so tepid that it would suggest--strongly--the opposite: few care at all, and it is not going to damage the DC brand to any significant degree.

The market of ACTUAL comic book buyers is SO small. That, again, 16,000 is a significant number.

The signatures could grow to 30,000 tomorrow, but that too, is not a threat to DC Comics (or the parent company), and no one is taking to the streets over this.

No. No one is. But, I don't think that's the expectation of the boycotters. It's a lovely straw man though.

To be frank, the comic publishing world recieved more heat from the death of a fictional character (Superman) than this issue.

Shouldn't that be reason enough to get rid of him?

Do you even hear yourself? Would you agrue the same if a gay writer's personal views offended 16,000 readers enough to complain for his removal?

I do hear myself. Do you hear yourself? Yes. I would. I would continue to argue that it's fully in their right to do that. Would I agree with them? No. Would I hope DC would stand by their writer who ISN'T a bigot? Yes, I would hope they would. But... it would be the companies choice.

I didn't get my panties in a twist when the "Million" Moms tried to protest JC Penny's hiring of Ellen. Let them. Do YOU get upset with the Million Moms? Are YOU consistent in your thinking?