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

[Hober Mallow]

New Tagline for the movie: "If you like Chick-fil-A, you'll love this film!"

 

[Sindatur]

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.

HR Departments are skittish. You try to fire someone for a bumper sticker, they're going to protest. And, with all the protected classes, Gay, old, religious, black, brown, disabled, female, etc, there's very few people who don't fall under at least one protected class, so, any reasonably sized company, wether "at will" or not, is not going to fire for no legitimate reason. But, Yea, a very small business without an HR person/department may pull that.

 

[Relayer1]

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

Sorry, I'm not trying to be funny, but are you really saying that in California you can just fire someone for no reason ?

 

[Psion]

I enjoyed reading Ender's Game a long time ago. Speaker for the Dead and Xenocide less so. I plan to see the film.

Card's political views simply don't relate to the story he wrote or the film's interpretation. And my decision to see the film simply means I liked the book, not that I share any or all of his political views.

Sure, the argument can be made that my money will, in some meager, minuscule way finance his anti-gay agenda, but it will also finance the guy who writes stories that I do like. Nor do I for one minute assume that the guy is so limited in mindset that he's only capable of writing mediocre to great stories and funding anti-gay crusades. I bet if I dug into his blogs I'd find plenty that's objectionable and other stuff that I'd applaud. So where do I draw the line?

In this case, I draw the line where I mentioned above. I liked this story and I'm happy to toss a few coins his way for it. If he comes out with a story that's anti-gay, I'll pass on that and let his finances help inform his opinions.

 

[Stone_Cold_Sisko]

I like when people spends years being loathesome (and OSC had said some really ugly things about gays) and then hide behind "political opinion".

If somebody earnestly opposed marriage between blacks and whites (and at one time people used word for word the same arguments they use now), nobody would be like "oh it's just a political opinion."

 

[sidious618]

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.

Well this was a needlessly condescending post. If you want to talk about Ender's Game being morally corrupt then you're free to start such a topic. Lecturing all of us on how we should not be talking about the topic of this very thread, and how we should act in regards to our politics, is remarkably unhelpful at best.

 

[Lapis Exilis]

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"?

I said that voting is a proper political response. I never said not purchasing something was "improper". They are not mutually exclusive options. I think political action is a much more effective response than boycotting the work of a minor artist with anti-gay views, but there's nothing wrong with boycotting.

Well. You're free to start one.

I have before. What's interesting about this discussion is that it doesn't seem to look at Ender's Game itself and how it is constructed according to Card's views. The story basically says that as long as you suffer over doing violence, and your intentions were good, you can remain morally pure while doing something as extreme as eradicating an entire race.

Move that over to the real world for a second - it's the same morality that informed the Spanish Inquisition and that informs Card's anti-gay views. As long as you love the sinner and hate the sin, and it causes you pain rather than gives you pleasure you can do horrible things and remain morally pure. Yet, thousands of sci-fi fans love and adore Ender's Game and can sidestep this issue by saying that the story itself is not anti-gay. It's not explicilty anti-gay, but it certainly lives in a moral world where you can easily situate anti-gay action (or action against any other group of "sinners"), even to the point of violence, and still believe that you are morally pure. So, to me, Card is not the scary thing per se, but the many people who love Ender's Game without apparently looking critically at the dangerous things that it is saying.

 

[CorporalClegg]

I was actually going to go see it, but now I think I won't. Uncle Orson should have just kept his moth shut.

Oh wait...

 

[sojourner]

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

Sorry, I'm not trying to be funny, but are you really saying that in California you can just fire someone for no reason ?

In Florida you can be fired with no reason given, not sure if that's true for CA.

Also, who is this Hector and why is everyone heckling him?

 

[Professor Zoom]

I said that voting is a proper political response. I never said not purchasing something was "improper". They are not mutually exclusive options. I think political action is a much more effective response than boycotting the work of a minor artist with anti-gay views, but there's nothing wrong with boycotting.

So, it's a proper response? Not paying to see the movie?

Well. You're free to start one.

I have before. What's interesting about this discussion is that it doesn't seem to look at Ender's Game itself and how it is constructed according to Card's views.

Because, as it has been stated over and over, it's not about the NOVEL. I'm choosing to not see it because of Card's political activism. As others have also said. Over and over.

The story basically says that as long as you suffer over doing violence, and your intentions were good, you can remain morally pure while doing something as extreme as eradicating an entire race.

Move that over to the real world for a second - it's the same morality that informed the Spanish Inquisition and that informs Card's anti-gay views. As long as you love the sinner and hate the sin, and it causes you pain rather than gives you pleasure you can do horrible things and remain morally pure. Yet, thousands of sci-fi fans love and adore Ender's Game and can sidestep this issue by saying that the story itself is not anti-gay. It's not explicilty anti-gay, but it certainly lives in a moral world where you can easily situate anti-gay action (or action against any other group of "sinners"), even to the point of violence, and still believe that you are morally pure. So, to me, Card is not the scary thing per se, but the many people who love Ender's Game without apparently looking critically at the dangerous things that it is saying.

This sounds like a great beginning to a thread talking about the NOVEL.

 

[Locutus of Bored]

Move that over to the real world for a second - it's the same morality that informed the Spanish Inquisition and that informs Card's anti-gay views. As long as you love the sinner and hate the sin, and it causes you pain rather than gives you pleasure you can do horrible things and remain morally pure. Yet, thousands of sci-fi fans love and adore Ender's Game and can sidestep this issue by saying that the story itself is not anti-gay. It's not explicilty anti-gay, but it certainly lives in a moral world where you can easily situate anti-gay action (or action against any other group of "sinners"), even to the point of violence, and still believe that you are morally pure. So, to me, Card is not the scary thing per se, but the many people who love Ender's Game without apparently looking critically at the dangerous things that it is saying.

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that a lot of that is because most people read the book when they were around twelve, and most twelve year olds aren't sophisticated literary critics. They probably just identified more with the teenage protagonist and liked the cool space station and ships and stuff.

 

[iguana_tonante]

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

Sorry, I'm not trying to be funny, but are you really saying that in California you can just fire someone for no reason ?

Well, I may be horribly misinformed (and I really might), but I was under the impression that in most of the US you can be fired on the spot, no reason given. At-will employment. I would find it unthinkably terrifying, but different country, different story.

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that a lot of that is because most people read the book when they were around twelve, and most twelve year olds aren't sophisticated literary critics. They probably just identified more with the teenage protagonist and liked the cool space station and ships and stuff.

While today I find myself horrified by the book and its author, I'm pretty sure I would have loved the book in middle school.

 

[Lapis Exilis]

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that a lot of that is because most people read the book when they were around twelve, and most twelve year olds aren't sophisticated literary critics. They probably just identified more with the teenage protagonist and liked the cool space station and ships and stuff.

Maybe - but I've certainly known a lot of full grown men who have been slavering to get the movie for over a decade. If you're hungry to see a story you loved as a kid, maybe take your own kid to see it - it might be worth giving the tale a little thought, especially when it's a story about children being the victims and perpetrators of violence.

Professor Zoom - I'm not sure why you're belaboring my every point. Congratulations to you for boycotting the film because of Card's political views. I'm trying to point out how the story itself reflects Card's philosophy which creates his political views. Why do you care if the discussion takes that turn?

 

[Relayer1]

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

Sorry, I'm not trying to be funny, but are you really saying that in California you can just fire someone for no reason ?

Well, I may be horribly misinformed (and I really might), but I was under the impression that in most of the US you can be fired on the spot, no reason given. At-will employment. I would find it unthinkably terrifying, but different country, different story.

Jeez, that's unthinkable, to me at least. It's third world stuff...

 

[sojourner]

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

Sorry, I'm not trying to be funny, but are you really saying that in California you can just fire someone for no reason ?

Well, I may be horribly misinformed (and I really might), but I was under the impression that in most of the US you can be fired on the spot, no reason given. At-will employment. I would find it unthinkably terrifying, but different country, different story.

In general it varies from state to state. As I understand it, it tends to follow in which states that unions don't have any power. For example in Florida unions can't do jack shit.

 

[Sindatur]

Again though, if you have a Human Resources Department or a Human Resources Person, they are so skittish about being sued, and there is such a high percentage of the population who are part of a protected group, even in the "Employment at Will" states, HR will not allow you to fire someone for no reason, because you have a high percentage possibility they may sue you for being fired for being Gay, old, black, etc, etc. Small businesses with no Human Resources yes, there is a risk, but, really, that risk exists wether it's an "Employment at will" state or not in that size of a work place.

Layoff, yea, you can get laid off for no reason, other than lack of profitability, and that is sometimes used to get rid of folks you couldn't fire, but, almost no one will take a chance of firing someone without a legitimate reason.

 

[Greylock Crescent]

Also, aren't unemployment benefits often tied to the means by which employment is terminated?

 

[Miss Chicken]

I normally see most sci-fi, either at the cinema or on DVD, but i will certainly be giving Ender's Game a miss. My reason is my strong dislike of Orson Scott Card. My dislike of him is solely based on his apalling statements about gays. I wouldn't matter if he was the greatest sci-fi writer of all time because it is the man I dislike not his writing ability.

I also have, in the last few years, boycotted every movie that Tom Cruise is in because I have a strong dislike of him which stems from statements he has made in support of scientology.

There are plenty of movies to for me to watch without having to include any movie that OSC or TC are connected with so I am not really missing out on much and I don't have to sit through a movie knowing the writer of the story or an actor in the movie very presence annoys me.

 

[DalekJim]

I also have, in the last few years, boycotted every movie that Tom Cruise is in because I have a strong dislike of him which stems from statements he has made in support of scientology.

Hollywood is absolutely full of scientologists. I think you may as well boycott major American motion pictures altogether if you don't wanna fund them.

 

[Awesome Possum]

I also have, in the last few years, boycotted every movie that Tom Cruise is in because I have a strong dislike of him which stems from statements he has made in support of scientology.

Hollywood is absolutely full of scientologists. I think you may as well boycott major American motion pictures altogether if you don't wanna fund them.

Few are as confrontational and hostile as Cruise. Also few claim that they can help car crash victims due to what they learned in the cult.

He's probably crazy, but he's a good actor and I enjoy most of his films.