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

[garbon]

*though personally I've no problem with holding that as a standard and do take it as a black mark, anyone, who at any point in their life, has been opposed.

Does that include Hillary, who at the time supported the very bill the USSC just struck down?

Yes. Of course, unlike Card, she has evolved and ultimately adopted a better view - and spoken out boldly about that view.

[11B4V]

He's entitled to his opinion.

[Jacob]

He's entitled to his opinion.

He sure is.

And people are entitled to think he's still a bigot because of the opinion he holds; and they are entitled to not go watch his movie if they're the sort of people who don't want to make movies made by bigots.

Personally it's moot for me as I've never read the book and have little interest in the movie, independent of Card's political proclivities.

[Neil]

So supporters of gay marriage, who were/are planning to boycott, should not boycott Card's in the name of tolerance because Card's backwards views have been trumped by the Supreme Court?

Pretty much.

Gay marriage has been a very divisive issue in politics for 10-20 years.  It now appears to be over.  It seems to me the correct response on behalf of proponents of gay marriage is to recognize that they've won and not 'spike the football' by going after people who once opposed it, since people who used to oppose gay marriage include practically everyone.

That's not how identity politics works.  You always need to be hunting your enemies down, even after you won.  They weren't just wrong, they were evil.  When things go back the other way and our successor societies persecute gays, you don't think that they won't 'spike the football'?

[Admiral Yi]

I have no respect for people who use the word homophobe the way it's used in this article.

[Razgovory]

I have no respect for people who use the word homophobe the way it's used in this article.

What's your beef, Yi.

[11B4V]

*though personally I've no problem with holding that as a standard and do take it as a black mark, anyone, who at any point in their life, has been opposed.

Does that include Hillary, who at the time supported the very bill the USSC just struck down?

Yes. Of course, unlike Card, she has evolved and ultimately adopted a better view - and spoken out boldly about that view.

So, you agree your statement was wrong then. That's good and show tolerance on your part.

[garbon]

*though personally I've no problem with holding that as a standard and do take it as a black mark, anyone, who at any point in their life, has been opposed.

Does that include Hillary, who at the time supported the very bill the USSC just struck down?

Yes. Of course, unlike Card, she has evolved and ultimately adopted a better view - and spoken out boldly about that view.

So, you agree your statement was wrong then. That's good and show tolerance on your part.

Can you translate that for me?

[11B4V]

*though personally I've no problem with holding that as a standard and do take it as a black mark, anyone, who at any point in their life, has been opposed.

Does that include Hillary, who at the time supported the very bill the USSC just struck down?

Yes. Of course, unlike Card, she has evolved and ultimately adopted a better view - and spoken out boldly about that view.

So, you agree your statement was wrong then. That's good and show tolerance on your part.

Can you translate that for me?

If I translated your statement(s) correctly. You hold a black mark to anyone who opposed Gay marriage/equality and such. Since Hillary has now championed the gay cause, you forgive her and dont hold it against her. 

[Siege]

I will strongly oppousse this movie, because of child exploitation.
Don't we have laws about this?

[OttoVonBismarck]

Mm, I'm of two minds of this sort of thing.

Firstly, if a work of art be it literature, film, theater etc is artistically relevant and worthy then I think it's irrelevant and stupid to criticize or oppose the work because of the politics of the artists. For example if John Steinbeck was a Nazi, I don't think that'd be a reason not to want kids reading Grapes of Wrath and East of Eden in High School. This idea that we should only consume art produced by our political fellow travelers is basically stupid and retarded, and is a dangerous trend. The social conservatives have basically always opposed all art that doesn't 100% synchronize with their world view (which is basically almost all art worth while.) But now liberals and "activists" have embraced this concept that anyone who isn't as enlightened as them on certain issues isn't worthy of any regard, period. Eventually the only art acceptable to them will be akin to the Goebbels approved art museums in the Third Reich, which contained bland and boring art. The Third Reich had a small museum for awhile to showcase art of the "undesirable type" and when the small run down museum containing it became the most popular museum in town they had to shut it down.

Secondly, most of the time when an author's book is made into a movie the author receives a lump sum payout when he sells the film rights to his movie. Rarely will the author receive either a penny more or a penny less based on the film's revenue. So for that reason the practical effects of boycotts of film adaptations designed to hit the author are mostly meaningless or misdirected. In this case OSC does have a producing credit, but some other guys are listed as the "financial producers" I don't know if that's a courtesy thing for OSC or if it means he actually has a direct pecuniary interest in the film. If he does, a boycott can make more sense, because it's a financial punishment instead of wrong-headed opposition to artistic works of people you oppose.

[garbon]

*though personally I've no problem with holding that as a standard and do take it as a black mark, anyone, who at any point in their life, has been opposed.

Does that include Hillary, who at the time supported the very bill the USSC just struck down?

Yes. Of course, unlike Card, she has evolved and ultimately adopted a better view - and spoken out boldly about that view.

So, you agree your statement was wrong then. That's good and show tolerance on your part.

Can you translate that for me?

If I translated your statement(s) correctly. You hold a black mark to anyone who opposed Gay marriage/equality and such. Since Hillary has now championed the gay cause, you forgive her and dont hold it against her. 

No, it is still a black mark against her.

[MadImmortalMan]

Anti-gay author Orson Scott Card

Ok whatever.

[Eddie Teach]

I will strongly oppousse this movie, because of child exploitation.
Don't we have laws about this?

We need them to protect us from buggering.

[Admiral Yi]

What's your beef, Yi.

A phobia is an irrational fear.  Homosexualists use homophobe to describe anyone who is opposed to homosexuality, much like rag heads use Islamophobe to describe anyone who criticizes Islam or Muslims.  Both of those are bullshit.