Orson Scott Card "Please don't boycott my film!"

[Opus]

"Fire and Brimstone" Evangelicals tend to cherry pick. They do it with the Bible all the time.

 

[DalekJim]

Not too fussed about his religious views, the guy knew how to write absorbing children's fantasy fiction.

 

[sonak]

[QUOTE =sonak;8360299]

speech is not persecution. I am also extremely uncomfortable with laws against "hate speech." Well-intentioned as they may be, putting government in the role of censor is wrong. Also, "offense" is so subjective that they become hard to enforce.

I agree with this as well. There have been several controversial examples in Canada over the years of heavy handedness in applying the law. I apparently missed the point of several posts and was not clear what I was responding to.

sonak: speech can be persecution. if you were a gay person in a non gay-friendly area and had people shouting abuse at you every day for being gay, i think that would count.

theeenglish: you need to take out the other guy's quote = bit when quoting as this currently makes it look like i said what sonak did. seems to happen sometimes.

well if they're shouting loudly enough, it can be a different offense, of "disturbing the peace." But conversation-level slurs, while they're offensive, are not something government should be involved in stopping.

 

[Admiral2]

If I wanted to boycott everything I watch or read written by someone I disagreed with politically I'd have to give up everything but the bible and the Left Behind series.

Exactly.

(Let's face it, sci-fi and fantasy writing is dominated by leftists.)

Horrendous generalities, but here it is: Sci-fi, being principally interested in understanding the present to speculate about the future, is intrinsically progressive (even tho there is a strong libertarian bend in many contemporary sci-fi works).

Bull. "Intrinsically" implies that the progressive bent in the sci-fi story is automatic. It's not. No ideology is automatic to a fiction story. If the science fiction I'm reading has a progressive - or conservative or libertarian or green or what have you - bend, that's because it was inserted by the author, who made a conscious or subconscious decision to include it.

And most of the time, the progressive bend is what I'm seeing, but if what you're saying is true, then any story that depicts the future would have the exact same trait. So then how do you explain Starship Troopers, or practically any other book Robert Heinlein wrote before the 80's?

Fantasy, on the other hand, being about an imaginary past with a strong emphasis on traditional values, is habitually conservative.

Again, bull, because this statement is based on a fundamental misunderstanding about Conservative Political thought, which is based on the uses and extent of government power, and has little to do with the dictionary definition of the word "conservative." It's also a pejorative Progressives typically level against Conservatives. (i.e. "He wants to live in the past!")

 

[Awesome Possum]

Wired did an article on the subject, an excellent read.

Here are some key bits.

In a recent statement to Entertainment Weekly, Orson Scott Card responded to a proposed boycott of the upcoming film adaptation of his novel Ender’s Game by informing the movie-going public that it doesn’t really matter that he’s been working ceaselessly for the last decade to make sure gay people don’t get basic human rights, or that he advocated the violent overthrow of the government should same-sex marriage become legal, or that he’s used his position as a popular author as a platform from which to spew increasingly aggressive anti-equality rhetoric like his comment in a 2004 essay that gays “cannot be permitted to remain as acceptable, equal citizens within that society.”
[...]
His concern, ostensibly, is that someone might be petty enough not to see his movie simply because he spent years lobbying for laws that treated certain people as less than human. The fallacy he employs here — that calling out hate-speech is intolerance on par with curtailing the human rights of others — is a favorite fallback of cowards and bullies, and a way of evading responsibility for the impact of their words and actions.

 

[Avon]

But conversation-level slurs, while they're offensive, are not something government should be involved in stopping.

well i'm glad where i am has hate crime laws to protect minorities. Not that they always work

 

[DalekJim]

If people try to picket a funeral or whatever then they should be legally stopped, but that's really nothing to do with the opinion expressed. That's just a violation of people's right not to be harassed. I'd expect the same if a crowd of people arrived at a funeral holding signs with Jason David Frank's face on them and singing the Power Rangers theme tune.

I don't think we should really have laws specifically stopping people from saying certain things. I don't think that's any of the government's business.

In life you are going to come across ideas you disagree with or that make you angry but that's just how reality is. Liberals shouldn't expect the government to always cushion them from it, it just makes them more sensitive and is counter-productive.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Card's defenders here and elsewhere appear pretty uninformed of or unwilling to examine what he's actually said - and worked for.

In any event, as posted elsewhere here's David Gerrold's response to Card's butthurt:

Puh-leeze.

After twenty years of despicably virulent homophobia ... no. This is just another detestable characterization of LGBT people -- that we are intolerant.

Intolerant? Of people who want to lock us up, put us in concentration camps, deny us our civil rights? Intolerant? Are you fucking kidding me?

You want me to be tolerant, Scott? First be one of those people who understands. Or to put it bluntly -- get your fucking foot off my neck, then we'll talk tolerance.

See, Scott -- I don't dislike you. I honestly don't. I think you're a very interesting author and you've turned out some works I admire. But you've made PR Mistake Number One. You've sided with hate-mongers. You've targeted a minority and you've characterized yourself as the righteous warrior. That gives you a short-term gain and a long-term loss. Look up Father Coughlin and Anita Bryant and Kirk Cameron.

Now you've made PR Mistake Number Two -- instead of honestly and sincerely apologizing for the hurt you have caused others, you have doubled down. You have played the martyr card, arguing that you are the victim.

What this demonstrates is that you have no idea of what the issue really is. It's about the 1138 rights, privileges, benefits, and obligations attendant to the civil contract of marriage. It's about social security benefits and inheritance and child custody and joint taxation and deathbed decisions and hospital visitation and adoption and community property and all the other things that you and your wife take for granted. It's about equality in the eyes of the law.

This is the goal that women set out to achieve when they first demanded the right to vote. This is the goal that Dr. Martin Luther King set out to achieve for African-Americans and other minorities when he started the Montgomery bus boycott. This is the goal that Harvey Milk set out to achieve when he opposed CA's Prop 6 and when he ran for the San Francisco Board of Supervisors.

Our nation was founded on the idea that "we hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men (people) are created equal, endowed with certain inalienable rights -- and that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."

Your public statements, Orson Scott Card, put you on the wrong side of that declaration. Until you recognize that your public utterances have been at the service of bigotry and prejudice, there can be no redemption for you in the eyes of the LGBT community. Or anyone else, for that matter.

 

[DalekJim]

I don't think he should apologise if he doesn't mean it. What would the point even be?

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Card's defenders here and elsewhere appear pretty uninformed of or unwilling to examine what he's actually said - and worked for.

In any event, as posted elsewhere here's David Gerrold's response to Card's butthurt:

Puh-leeze.

After twenty years of despicably virulent homophobia ... no. This is just another detestable characterization of LGBT people -- that we are intolerant.

Intolerant? Of people who want to lock us up, put us in concentration camps, deny us our civil rights? Intolerant? Are you fucking kidding me?

You want me to be tolerant, Scott? First be one of those people who understands. Or to put it bluntly -- get your fucking foot off my neck, then we'll talk tolerance.

See, Scott -- I don't dislike you. I honestly don't. I think you're a very interesting author and you've turned out some works I admire. But you've made PR Mistake Number One. You've sided with hate-mongers. You've targeted a minority and you've characterized yourself as the righteous warrior. That gives you a short-term gain and a long-term loss. Look up Father Coughlin and Anita Bryant and Kirk Cameron.

Now you've made PR Mistake Number Two -- instead of honestly and sincerely apologizing for the hurt you have caused others, you have doubled down. You have played the martyr card, arguing that you are the victim.

What this demonstrates is that you have no idea of what the issue really is. It's about the 1138 rights, privileges, benefits, and obligations attendant to the civil contract of marriage. It's about social security benefits and inheritance and child custody and joint taxation and deathbed decisions and hospital visitation and adoption and community property and all the other things that you and your wife take for granted. It's about equality in the eyes of the law.

This is the goal that women set out to achieve when they first demanded the right to vote. This is the goal that Dr. Martin Luther King set out to achieve for African-Americans and other minorities when he started the Montgomery bus boycott. This is the goal that Harvey Milk set out to achieve when he opposed CA's Prop 6 and when he ran for the San Francisco Board of Supervisors.

Our nation was founded on the idea that "we hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men (people) are created equal, endowed with certain inalienable rights -- and that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."

Your public statements, Orson Scott Card, put you on the wrong side of that declaration. Until you recognize that your public utterances have been at the service of bigotry and prejudice, there can be no redemption for you in the eyes of the LGBT community. Or anyone else, for that matter.

 

[Allyn Gibson]

I don't think he should apologise if he doesn't mean it. What would the point even be?

Going back to what I said a few pages back, because based on his work I would expect better of him. Doubling down on his intolerance, which is what he's done, runs counter to the ideals espoused and behaviors exhibited by the characters that made his career and his fame.

 

[YJAGG]

never read it ( I know shame on me) did read the sumary and to me honest - 20 plus years later - meh

unless it's a crappy movie and they want all the hardcore right wingers to come and support it, by alienating gays... but I do marvel at the irony of intolerance for the intolerent

Wow, what a thoughtful contribution to the discussion.

.

everyone as an opinion and an ass and both of them can stink


reading this reminded me of something if recall- after TNG -The Outcast came out ( no pun intended) there was an article in magizine that said (bear with me) that Gene was not really a gay rights fan -anyone know the article I am thhinking of?

 

[DalekJim]

I don't think he should apologise if he doesn't mean it. What would the point even be?

Going back to what I said a few pages back, because based on his work I would expect better of him. Doubling down on his intolerance, which is what he's done, runs counter to the ideals espoused and behaviors exhibited by the characters that made his career and his fame.

I don't think he should back down from his position just to be some PR-friendly talking head when the movie is released. It never seems real when celebrities do this and the gay community would just accuse him of lying if he did anyway. When Michael Richards made a public declaration that he wasn't a racist after that whole "nigger"-gate incident, absolutely nobody believed it.

The gay community will vote with their wallets by boycotting Ender's Game, a movie that most of these people would not have seen anyway judging by the general unfamiliarity with Card in many of his hate circles. Myself, I'll definitely be seeing it. Though I have worries it'll be an Abrams-esque disposable action movie instead of the slower film it should be.

 

[Avon]

everyone as an opinion and an ass and both of them can stink

but not everyone can talk out of both

 

[theenglish]

never read it ( I know shame on me) did read the sumary and to me honest - 20 plus years later - meh

unless it's a crappy movie and they want all the hardcore right wingers to come and support it, by alienating gays... but I do marvel at the irony of intolerance for the intolerent

Wow, what a thoughtful contribution to the discussion.

.

everyone as an opinion and an ass and both of them can stink


reading this reminded me of something if recall- after TNG -The Outcast came out ( no pun intended) there was an article in magizine that said (bear with me) that Gene was not really a gay rights fan -anyone know the article I am thhinking of?

I never saw that article. I do remember though an article leading into season 5 of TNG when Gene or somebody else talked about how the series would go further that season to show gay crew on board the ship. The idea was that there would be same-sex couples in the corridors or in Ten Forward just going about their daily lives. That, sadly, never came to pass.

 

[Awesome Possum]

If people try to picket a funeral or whatever then they should be legally stopped, but that's really nothing to do with the opinion expressed. That's just a violation of people's right not to be harassed. I'd expect the same if a crowd of people arrived at a funeral holding signs with Jason David Frank's face on them and singing the Power Rangers theme tune.

I don't think we should really have laws specifically stopping people from saying certain things. I don't think that's any of the government's business.

In life you are going to come across ideas you disagree with or that make you angry but that's just how reality is. Liberals shouldn't expect the government to always cushion them from it, it just makes them more sensitive and is counter-productive.

You contradicted yourself. I don't think people should be allowed to protest a funeral and need to be legally stopped from doing so, then you attack liberals because you think they want to protect people from opinions they don't like.

Protesting a funeral is the actions of a scumbag, but even scum has a right to free speech in America. They're also openly hated by pretty much everyone in the country. Is it right to protest a funeral, I don't think so. But I cannot deny someone's right to say something. Especially on public land, which is what they do. They'd quickly get tossed out of private land and rightly so. That's how free speech works, it protects all speech not just popular speech. I don't know why you keep claiming that liberals are trying to silence opinions when all that is being said that some people refuse to see a movie because of the actions of the man who wrote the novel it is based on. That isn't censorship, that's capitalism. If you don't like a product for some reason, don't buy it. No one here has said that Card shouldn't be allowed to say whatever he wants or write whatever he wants. Just that they don't want him to get their money. Other people, like yourself, are free to do so if you wish. The movie may succeed and it may fail. Card will likely have little effect on the actual box office returns, so the movie will stand or fall on its own merits. But if a few don't want to see it because of what Card said, he has only himself to blame.

 

[YJAGG]

Wow, what a thoughtful contribution to the discussion.

.

everyone as an opinion and an ass and both of them can stink


reading this reminded me of something if recall- after TNG -The Outcast came out ( no pun intended) there was an article in magizine that said (bear with me) that Gene was not really a gay rights fan -anyone know the article I am thhinking of?

I never saw that article. I do remember though an article leading into season 5 of TNG when Gene or somebody else talked about how the series would go further that season to show gay crew on board the ship. The idea was that there would be same-sex couples in the corridors or in Ten Forward just going about their daily lives. That, sadly, never came to pass.

I recall reading that someone pitched an idea to Gene that dealt with same sex realtionship not a main issue just a side note in a story - Gene said fine with me if so and so likes it - the person then went to see the decsion maker who was on the phone with gene and and they said Gene said I didn't want to do this- I don't lie for anyone...can nayone back me on up this either a Starlog, or Next gen magize article...

 

[ManOnTheWave]

That was David Gerrold in Cinefantastique, I think, talking about the script for Blood and Fire.

 

[Allyn Gibson]

That was David Gerrold in Cinefantastique, I think, talking about the script for Blood and Fire.

Yes. And it was Herb Wright who Gerrold went to talk to and who said he couldn't lie for anyone. It's also covered in Joel Engel's Gene Roddenberry: The Myth and the Man Behind Star Trek.

 

[Scout101]

Card's being an idiot, but kinda always been that way, not a shocker. I'm just more of the type that doesn't give a shit what movie/rock stars, athletes, or I suppose authors think about politics or religion. Able to enjoy their work for what it is, and shut off their personal opinions just like every other retard on facebook, twitter, instagram, whatever. Pretty obvious fail on his argument, though, and one that several of the shoddy posters HERE use all the time. "You're not tolerant of my intolerance, so you're just as bad as me (or no fair!)" Yeah, ok...

Loved the book as a kid, plan to see the movie. Likely will be disappointed based on enjoying the book for the past 20-25 years, but hey, that's what happens usually when favorite books become movies. Whether he hates gays or takes it in the ass 5x a day (or in the case of many politicians and public figures, BOTH), won't really have any bearing on the movie for me...