• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

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

also:

I did move on, pages ago. You keep replying to unrelated posts and dragging this stuff up.

We've already had a poster in this thread state Ender's Game is anti-gay, and that the enemy alien race are a stand-in for homosexuals. We've also had somebody link to an article they praise, in which Ender's Game is stated to be based on the life of Adolph Hitler.

delicious hypocrisy :p
 
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?

Baffling.
 
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.
 
Not really, it's worlds of difference. Firing someone for their political views is illegal. Making a choice not to support the work of someone who's political beliefs disagree with yours is legal and an integral part of Capitalism
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.
 
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.

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.
 
Not really, it's worlds of difference. Firing someone for their political views is illegal. Making a choice not to support the work of someone who's political beliefs disagree with yours is legal and an integral part of Capitalism
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.
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.
 
before you walk in and hector me

LeBron-James-Smallest-Violin-Gif_zpsad1807ce.gif
 
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.
 
Not really, it's worlds of difference. Firing someone for their political views is illegal. Making a choice not to support the work of someone who's political beliefs disagree with yours is legal and an integral part of Capitalism
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.
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.

We're both in California, an at-will state, which as I understand it means you don't need cause to fire someone.
 
Just the similarities in attitudes where people feel the need to hurt someone's bottom line when they don't like what they say.

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.
 
I'm not one for confusing the art and artist - Picasso was a misogynistic prick, but that doesn't make his paintings bad. Card's not exactly going to use the money he makes from Ender's Game to go on any anti-gay rights campaigns, so I don't see the point of a boycott based on his personal opinions about homosexuality.

You don't think he hasn't contributed to National Organization for Marriage, an anti gay marriage organization, the same organization he sits on the board of? Whatever money he HAS contributed came from the money he's earned... so... yeah, he will go on an anti-gay rights campaign.

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.
 
I'd rather be obtuse than constantly look for reasons to be upset :lol:.
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.

I think progressivism is about positive change, not change in general. Therefore, more pessimistic sci-fi, like dystopian sci-fi, wouldn't necessarily be "progressive."
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.
 
Personally for me the reaction that comes out is that Card is being given too much visibility about this. All this boycott talk is doing is making me curious about the movie..and about reading more of card's books beyond ender's game(which I've read and liked).

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.
 
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.
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.

We're both in California, an at-will state, which as I understand it means you don't need cause to fire someone.

California Labor Code:

1101. No employer shall make, adopt, or enforce any rule, regulation, or policy: (a) Forbidding or preventing employees from engaging or participating in politics or from becoming candidates for public office. (b) Controlling or directing, or tending to control or direct the political activities or affiliations of employees.

1102. No employer shall coerce or influence or attempt to coerce or influence his employees through or by means of threat of discharge or loss of employment to adopt or follow or refrain from adopting or following any particular course or line of political action or political activity.


http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=lab&group=01001-02000&file=1101-1106

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.
 
Didn't know this but must say that I don't care.

Ok... that's cool.

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.

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"?

Prop 8, in case you missed it, is dead.

Yeah, I know.

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.

And they will continue to slow it down... why should I help them by, indirectly, giving money to that organization?

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.

Right. And I do. Just like I don't give money to organizations I don't want to support.
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.


Well. You're free to start one.
 
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top