Orson Scott Card, Anti-Gay Author, Responds To 'Ender's Game' Boycott Campaign

[derspiess]

We'll have to agree to disagree then. I don't think there is anything objectionable in taking one's leisure funds elsewhere to send the message that one isn't willing to tolerate the support of hate mongers.

Doing that individually is a bit different from an organized boycott. 

[OttoVonBismarck]

I'm pretty big on people doing whatever the hell they want, on that front I don't care how irrational garbon and Meri are and we know meri in particular is generally going to be on the irrational side of any discussion.

I guess what fundamentally seems weird to me is, unless you want it to be going to this movie doesn't imply support for Card's ideas. I'd say a good third of worthwhile 20th century authors have socialist or socialist-lite leanings, if I didn't read them because of that I'd miss out on a lot. We can't even read 19th century literature if we take the position we can't consume the work of racists. This concept that everything a person does must be intrinsically linked with their political positions is a dangerous one, and Berk is right that position is a lot more harmful than Card's--which recent electoral, opinion, and judicial decisions have shown has had little impact or influence regardless of his wishes on that matter.

You really have to want this to be about supporting an anti-gay guy or not.

[Siege]

I think you guys are missing the point of this boycott.

The people that want to boycott Ender's Game, they don't just want to financially hurt OSC, but also send a clear message to the people in the movie-making industry to not make art from anti-gay people. This is about censure, about silencing the oppossition, by impossing black out on disagreing art.

The result from this will be self-censure. People will refrain to make certain type of movies/art, or to produce movies based on art from blacklisted authors. This is about creating a new blacklist.

Sounds like Nazi Germany or Soviet Russia.

[garbon]

In this case, everyone is happy with it because they happen to agree with that cause, but that is missing the point.

The point being that business always have and always will decide what to market (and how to do so) based on what consumers want?

[Berkut]

Why Card and this movie deserves special consideration, I do not know.

I'd think likely because of the virulence of his beliefs. And then really, I didn't get annoyed at him till his call for tolerance.

Replace the relevant portions of my post with "perople with virulent beliefs about something you don't like".

I am with OvB on this. The attempt to force businesses to self censor what they produce based on completely unlreated political stances taken by some people they may employ or even be associated with is vastly more objectionable than anything Card thinks. If only because Card is just some guy with pretty common (even if I disagree with them vehemently) views on homosexual rights.

Trying to force censorship of businesses, and that is all this is at the end of the day an attempt to use money to censor someone for their political beliefs, affects a lot more than just Card.

We'll have to agree to disagree then. I don't think there is anything objectionable in taking one's leisure funds elsewhere to send the message that one isn't willing to tolerate the support of hate mongers.

The only way you can support that in any kind of rational sense is if you apply it consistently. In which case you are going to starve to death. Because you know that you cannot possible spend money on anything without supporting someone who you would consider a "hate monger", even if you don't know them in particular.

Of course, you will also be supporting people who work very hard to promote the causes you say you care so much about, and also support a lot of people who don't support or oppose them actively.

This isn't about supporting hate mongers or not (since I've shown that supporting or not supporting the movie does neither in any practical sense), it is about making a show of how shallowly active you can be in a way that means almost nothing personally, but looks good and sounds good.

Unfortunately, the only REAL effect this kind of thing has (if it works as intended) is almost 100% negative and harmful to society. But don't worry about that, keep on jumping up and down and making a show.

[garbon]

We'll have to agree to disagree then. I don't think there is anything objectionable in taking one's leisure funds elsewhere to send the message that one isn't willing to tolerate the support of hate mongers.

Doing that individually is a bit different from an organized boycott. 

In that an organized boycott galvanizes others to action, sure.

[Berkut]

I think you guys are missing the point of this boycott.

The people that want to boycott Ender's Game, they don't just want to financially hurt OSC, but also send a clear message to the people in the movie-making industry to not make art from anti-gay people. This is about censure, about silencing the oppossition, by impossing black out on disagreing art.

The result from this will be self-censure. People will refrain to make certain type of movies/art, or to produce movies based on art from blacklisted authors. This is about creating a new blacklist.

Sounds like Nazi Germany or Soviet Russia.

Indeed.

The point is simple economic blackmail. Do not make deals with people with political views we don't like.

This is no different in kind from saying I refuse to go see this movie because one of the producers is gay. Or a Jew. Or black. Or whatever.

[garbon]

The only way you can support that in any kind of rational sense is if you apply it consistently. In which case you are going to starve to death. Because you know that you cannot possible spend money on anything without supporting someone who you would consider a "hate monger", even if you don't know them in particular.

It isn't about inadvertently supporting people who hate you but about not supporting people you know to be hateful.

Of course, you will also be supporting people who work very hard to promote the causes you say you care so much about, and also support a lot of people who don't support or oppose them actively.

True.

This isn't about supporting hate mongers or not (since I've shown that supporting or not supporting the movie does neither in any practical sense), it is about making a show of how shallowly active you can be in a way that means almost nothing personally, but looks good and sounds good.

Likely but then most things the general populace does is about that. Not sure why that should influence my own thoughts.

Unfortunately, the only REAL effect this kind of thing has (if it works as intended) is almost 100% negative and harmful to society. But don't worry about that, keep on jumping up and down and making a show.

I won't worry as I don't hold your opinion.

[garbon]

This is no different in kind from saying I refuse to go see this movie because one of the producers is gay. Or a Jew. Or black. Or whatever.

Actually it is as in those cases you'd be hateful.

[Berkut]

If this is in fact a reasonable and considered stance to take, then surely garbon and Meri and jake will not be so irresponsible as to support other products that may have anti-gay authors/writers/ designers/workers/etc. associate with them, right? Some of whom may be ever more douchebaggage than Card.

I assume they all spend most of their day researching thebabckground of all the products they buy to evaluate the net positive and negative impacts on gay haters/lovers/supporters and such on all the products they pay money for?

Or is it only just the ones that some group has managed to create a fake furor over?

[garbon]

If this is in fact a reasonable and considered stance to take, then surely garbon and Meri and jake will not be so irresponsible as to support other products that may have anti-gay authors/writers/ designers/workers/etc. associate with them, right? Some of whom may be ever more douchebaggage than Card.

I assume they all spend most of their day researching thebabckground of all the products they buy to evaluate the net positive and negative impacts on gay haters/lovers/supporters and such on all the products they pay money for?

Or is it only just the ones that some group has managed to create a fake furor over?

That is an odd bar that you are making. Not sure not supporting someone who is visibly an awful individual means a person needs to research and make sure to avoid all awful people.

[Berkut]

The only way you can support that in any kind of rational sense is if you apply it consistently. In which case you are going to starve to death. Because you know that you cannot possible spend money on anything without supporting someone who you would consider a "hate monger", even if you don't know them in particular.

It isn't about inadvertently supporting people who hate you but about not supporting people you know to be hateful.

As I pointed out, buying anything means you are supporting people you know to be hateful. Simple statistics will tell you that.

Just because you don't know who they are, or their name, changes nothing in whether it makes sense or not to support them.

Unless, of course, the entire point has nothing to do with what is claimed to begin with...

Of course, you will also be supporting people who work very hard to promote the causes you say you care so much about, and also support a lot of people who don't support or oppose them actively.

True.

This isn't about supporting hate mongers or not (since I've shown that supporting or not supporting the movie does neither in any practical sense), it is about making a show of how shallowly active you can be in a way that means almost nothing personally, but looks good and sounds good.

Likely but then most things the general populace does is about that. Not sure why that should influence my own thoughts.

I am talking about YOU, not society in general. Saying YOU will boycott this movie shows that YOU are engaged in making a show of how shallowly active YOU can be. You know, since I've explained it to you in a way that you cannot and have not refuted, that the "boycott" can have nothing but a negative effect, yet you insist that you will still go through with it.

Unfortunately, the only REAL effect this kind of thing has (if it works as intended) is almost 100% negative and harmful to society. But don't worry about that, keep on jumping up and down and making a show.

I won't worry as I don't hold your opinion.

You don't have to hold my opinion, I am right regardless.

[Berkut]

If this is in fact a reasonable and considered stance to take, then surely garbon and Meri and jake will not be so irresponsible as to support other products that may have anti-gay authors/writers/ designers/workers/etc. associate with them, right? Some of whom may be ever more douchebaggage than Card.

I assume they all spend most of their day researching thebabckground of all the products they buy to evaluate the net positive and negative impacts on gay haters/lovers/supporters and such on all the products they pay money for?

Or is it only just the ones that some group has managed to create a fake furor over?

That is an odd bar that you are making. Not sure not supporting someone who is visibly an awful individual means a person needs to research and make sure to avoid all awful people.

If your claim is that you don't want to support awful people, then yes, in fact you should be avoiding support of all awful people, rather than just one in particular.

[Jacob]

If this is in fact a reasonable and considered stance to take, then surely garbon and Meri and jake will not be so irresponsible as to support other products that may have anti-gay authors/writers/ designers/workers/etc. associate with them, right? Some of whom may be ever more douchebaggage than Card.

I assume they all spend most of their day researching thebabckground of all the products they buy to evaluate the net positive and negative impacts on gay haters/lovers/supporters and such on all the products they pay money for?

Or is it only just the ones that some group has managed to create a fake furor over?

Why are you including me in your silly slippery slope strawman argument?

[Berkut]

This is no different in kind from saying I refuse to go see this movie because one of the producers is gay. Or a Jew. Or black. Or whatever.

Actually it is as in those cases you'd be hateful.

Indeed you would. And refusing to see a movie because someone involved in it has views you don't like is in fact hateful and intolerant.

If the movie was about gay rights, then that would be one thing. But it isn't. The movie has nothing to do with homosexuality at all. This is about trying to force businesses to only deal with people who have views you approve of, and that is most definitely hateful and intolerant.

Especially since at the same time you are perfectly willing to harm other people in the process.