Languish.org

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/09/scott-orson-card-gay-marriage_n_3566122.html

QuoteAnti-gay author Orson Scott Card has responded to plans for a boycott of the big-screen adaptation of his 1985 novel "Ender's Game," suggesting that same-sex marriage supporters should show tolerance towards those who once opposed them.

Card, a Mormon and National Organization for Marriage board member, was dubbed a homophobe as far back as 2000 when he was criticized by Salon for his anti-gay views -- which included labeling homosexuality a "deviant behavior" and saying "gay rights is a collective delusion." In the subsequent years, he penned various essays opposing equal rights. He called any government that supports same-sex marriage a "mortal enemy" that he will "act to destroy."

Earlier this year, these views led to the boycott of an "Adventures of Superman" issue he co-authored. Now, LGBT group Geeks OUT is asking moviegoers to boycott Card's flick in a campaign called "Skip Ender's Game." Geeks OUT argues that by seeing the movie or purchasing merchandise associated with it consumers will only add to the science-fiction author's fortune.

But Card doesn't seem to think this is an appropriate response. In a statement to Entertainment Weekly he said:

QuoteEnder's Game is set more than a century in the future and has nothing to do with political issues that did not exist when the book was written in 1984. With the recent Supreme Court ruling, the gay marriage issue becomes moot. The Full Faith and Credit clause of the Constitution will, sooner or later, give legal force in every state to any marriage contract recognized by any other state. Now it will be interesting to see whether the victorious proponents of gay marriage will show tolerance toward those who disagreed with them when the issue was still in dispute.

Those behind "Ender's Game" have distanced themselves from Card.

"Orson's politics are not reflective of the moviemakers," an unnamed individual involved with the film told The Hollywood Reporter earlier this year. "We're adapting a work, not a person. The work will stand on its own."

"Ender's Game" takes place in the future, 70 years after an alien war has left mankind in peril. A military school has been set up to train young children who will later defend the planet, one of whom is the unusually gifted Ender Wiggin. The film stars Harrison Ford, Asa Butterfield, Viola Davis, Ben Kingsley, Abigail Breslin and Hailee Steinfeld. It is due in theaters Nov. 1.

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? :hmm:

IIRC I saw Card interviewed once and he was really effeminate. :sleep:

Quote from: garbon on July 09, 2013, 12:53:38 PM
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? :hmm:

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.

Quote from: Caliga on July 09, 2013, 12:54:43 PM
IIRC I saw Card interviewed once and he was really effeminate. :sleep:

SOOPRIIISE SOOPRIIIIISE SOOOOOOPRIIIIISE.

I doubt the film can live up to the book anyway.

Quote from: Barrister on July 09, 2013, 12:57:48 PM

Quote from: garbon on July 09, 2013, 12:53:38 PM
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? :hmm:

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.

Except that Card was pretty vitriolic on gays and gay marriage. People should just suddenly forget that he said hateful things? I doubt the same can be true of everyone who at one point opposed gay marriage*.

Also, I think it is mistaken to say that the debate is over. After all, most of the US still refuses (and in fact has constitutional amendments to block) to recognize/allow gay marriages.

*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.

I'm sure Card has ulterior motives (i.e. wants as many people as possible to see the film and pay for it). Still, in this day and age it's unusual enough that after the end of a polarizing and highly divisive political struggle a member of the losing side goes on record saying, "OK, this matter is settled. I saw it differently, but it's time to move on."

Oh and btw, BB, I think it is pretty obvious that Card is still intolerant.

Quote from: Syt on July 09, 2013, 01:07:46 PM
I'm sure Card has ulterior motives (i.e. wants as many people as possible to see the film and pay for it). Still, in this day and age it's unusual enough that after the end of a polarizing and highly divisive political struggle a member of the losing side goes on record saying, "OK, this matter is settled. I saw it differently, but it's time to move on."

He's going on record saying that he thinks we've moved in the wrong direction and btw, give me the tolerance that I've never been willing to show.

Quote from: garbon on July 09, 2013, 01:05:59 PM
and in fact has constitutional amendments to block

Can those stay with the recent Supreme Court decision?

Didn't even know this film was being made.

Quote from: garbon on July 09, 2013, 01:05:59 PM
*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.

There's a lot of people on your shit list, then.  Glad I'm not the only one :)

Quote from: Zanza on July 09, 2013, 01:11:00 PM

Quote from: garbon on July 09, 2013, 01:05:59 PM
and in fact has constitutional amendments to block

Can those stay with the recent Supreme Court decision?

Pretty sure the recent SC decision had a bit about states being left to decide these matters. That said, there is a court case, I think Minnesota or Michigan, challenging in relation to state bans.

Quote from: derspiess on July 09, 2013, 01:12:06 PM

Quote from: garbon on July 09, 2013, 01:05:59 PM
*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.

There's a lot of people on your shit list, then.  Glad I'm not the only one :)

I said a black mark - on the balance of the whole, they could be fine individuals. :)

Quote from: garbon on July 09, 2013, 01:05:59 PM
*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? :ph34r:

Quote from: Barrister on July 09, 2013, 01:15:50 PM

Quote from: garbon on July 09, 2013, 01:05:59 PM
*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? :ph34r:

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

He's entitled to his opinion.

Quote from: 11B4V on July 09, 2013, 01:21:46 PM
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.

Quote from: Barrister on July 09, 2013, 12:57:48 PM

Quote from: garbon on July 09, 2013, 12:53:38 PM
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? :hmm:

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'?

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

Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 09, 2013, 01:31:50 PM
I have no respect for people who use the word homophobe the way it's used in this article.

What's your beef, Yi.

Quote from: garbon on July 09, 2013, 01:19:37 PM

Quote from: Barrister on July 09, 2013, 01:15:50 PM

Quote from: garbon on July 09, 2013, 01:05:59 PM
*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? :ph34r:

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.

Quote from: 11B4V on July 09, 2013, 01:37:50 PM

Quote from: garbon on July 09, 2013, 01:19:37 PM

Quote from: Barrister on July 09, 2013, 01:15:50 PM

Quote from: garbon on July 09, 2013, 01:05:59 PM
*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? :ph34r:

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.

:huh:

Can you translate that for me?

Quote from: garbon on July 09, 2013, 01:41:27 PM

Quote from: 11B4V on July 09, 2013, 01:37:50 PM

Quote from: garbon on July 09, 2013, 01:19:37 PM

Quote from: Barrister on July 09, 2013, 01:15:50 PM

Quote from: garbon on July 09, 2013, 01:05:59 PM
*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? :ph34r:

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.

:huh:

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. 

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

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.

Quote from: 11B4V on July 09, 2013, 01:45:19 PM

Quote from: garbon on July 09, 2013, 01:41:27 PM

Quote from: 11B4V on July 09, 2013, 01:37:50 PM

Quote from: garbon on July 09, 2013, 01:19:37 PM

Quote from: Barrister on July 09, 2013, 01:15:50 PM

Quote from: garbon on July 09, 2013, 01:05:59 PM
*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? :ph34r:

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.

:huh:

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.

Quote
Anti-gay author Orson Scott Card

Ok whatever.

Quote from: Siege on July 09, 2013, 01:46:36 PM
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.

Quote from: Razgovory on July 09, 2013, 01:35:05 PM
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.

Abigail Breslin is in this movie?
Dam, I fear I'm gonna have to drop my boicott on child exploitation.

I have to watch this movie!!!!

Quote from: Siege on July 09, 2013, 01:56:30 PM
Abigail Breslin is in this movie?
Dam, I fear I'm gonna have to drop my boicott on child exploitation.

I have to watch this movie!!!!

:yes: :thumbsup: :perv:

OvB and Yi got it right.

Garbon and Grallon got it wrong.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 09, 2013, 01:54:36 PM

Quote from: Razgovory on July 09, 2013, 01:35:05 PM
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.

I think we're pretty far past the point where homophobe is just for people afraid of homosexuality.

Quote from: Jacob on July 09, 2013, 01:23:52 PM

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.

I don't care what a person thinks or feels. However, Card puts a portion of his income in trying to force his opinion into law. Because of that, I won't support him or his film. Which sucks, because Card used to be one of my favorite authors, and I've been waiting for this movie for a very long time.

Ah well.

Quote from: Siege on July 09, 2013, 01:57:42 PM
OvB and Yi got it right.

Garbon and Grallon got it wrong.

Yes, pretty silly of the groups wanting to boycott it. Wonder if there are any gay or bi actors, producers, etc, involved with it.

Quote from: merithyn on July 09, 2013, 02:02:13 PM

Quote from: Jacob on July 09, 2013, 01:23:52 PM

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.

I don't care what a person thinks or feels. However, Card puts a portion of his income in trying to force his opinion into law. Because of that, I won't support him or his film. Which sucks, because Card used to be one of my favorite authors, and I've been waiting for this movie for a very long time.

Ah well.

Ask Tamas to get you a copy. :ph34r:

Quote from: merithyn on July 09, 2013, 02:02:13 PM

Quote from: Jacob on July 09, 2013, 01:23:52 PM

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.

I don't care what a person thinks or feels. However, Card puts a portion of his income in trying to force his opinion into law. Because of that, I won't support him or his film. Which sucks, because Card used to be one of my favorite authors, and I've been waiting for this movie for a very long time.

Ah well.

What's wrong with putting your money where your mouth is?
I thought this was kind of a goal in politics, to get rid of the double-dealing assholes saying one thing then doing the complete oppossite?

Quote from: garbon on July 09, 2013, 02:00:13 PM
I think we're pretty far past the point where homophobe is just for people afraid of homosexuality.

Nope.  AFAICT the usage is limited to politicized gays and their friends in the lamestream media.

Besides, it's in your own self interest to maintain the original meaning.  Otherwise, how are you going to describe an opponent of gay rights who clearly is a twinky?

Quote from: garbon on July 09, 2013, 02:05:46 PM

Quote from: merithyn on July 09, 2013, 02:02:13 PM

Quote from: Jacob on July 09, 2013, 01:23:52 PM

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.

I don't care what a person thinks or feels. However, Card puts a portion of his income in trying to force his opinion into law. Because of that, I won't support him or his film. Which sucks, because Card used to be one of my favorite authors, and I've been waiting for this movie for a very long time.

Ah well.

Ask Tamas to get you a copy. :ph34r:

Piracy!!!  Call the cops!
I am sure the NSA is recording this!!!111

Quote from: merithyn on July 09, 2013, 02:02:13 PM

Quote from: Jacob on July 09, 2013, 01:23:52 PM

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.

I don't care what a person thinks or feels. However, Card puts a portion of his income in trying to force his opinion into law. Because of that, I won't support him or his film. Which sucks, because Card used to be one of my favorite authors, and I've been waiting for this movie for a very long time.

Ah well.

Other people from the opposing side put a portion of their income in trying to force their opinion into law. Hypocritical IMO.

I'll see it and hope it's good. Dont care about the other BS.

Quote from: Siege on July 09, 2013, 02:07:05 PM

What's wrong with putting your money where your mouth is?
I thought this was kind of a goal in politics, to get rid of the double-dealing assholes saying one thing then doing the complete oppossite?

Nothing at all. That's what I intend to do by not paying for his film.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 09, 2013, 02:07:54 PM

Quote from: garbon on July 09, 2013, 02:00:13 PM
I think we're pretty far past the point where homophobe is just for people afraid of homosexuality.

Nope.  AFAICT the usage is limited to politicized gays and their friends in the lamestream media.

Besides, it's in your own self interest to maintain the original meaning.  Otherwise, how are you going to describe an opponent of gay rights who clearly is a twinky?

Or merriam-webster:

Quoteirrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals

As to your second bit, I'm not quite sure what you mean, nor why that distinction is important (assuming you're saying a gay who is against gay rights?).

Quote from: 11B4V on July 09, 2013, 02:08:49 PM

Other people from the opposing side put a portion of their income in trying to force their opinion into law. Hypocritical IMO.

I'll see it and hope it's good. Dont care about the other BS.

How is it hypocritical? I didn't say that he couldn't do as he pleases with his cash. I just said that I choose not to support it.

Quote from: 11B4V on July 09, 2013, 02:08:49 PM

Quote from: merithyn on July 09, 2013, 02:02:13 PM

Quote from: Jacob on July 09, 2013, 01:23:52 PM

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.

I don't care what a person thinks or feels. However, Card puts a portion of his income in trying to force his opinion into law. Because of that, I won't support him or his film. Which sucks, because Card used to be one of my favorite authors, and I've been waiting for this movie for a very long time.

Ah well.

Other people from the opposing side put a portion of their income in trying to force their opinion into law. Hypocritical IMO.

I'll see it and hope it's good. Dont care about the other BS.

I suppose you might have a case if both sides are equally good and supporting hate is a legitimate cause.

At any rate, I don't think there is hypocrisy involved in not forking over money to someone who will fork over money to causes that hurt you (/you disagree with).

Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 09, 2013, 01:54:36 PM

Quote from: Razgovory on July 09, 2013, 01:35:05 PM
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.

Okay, I'm cool with that.  What term would you use?  I typically use "Bigot".

Quote from: garbon on July 09, 2013, 02:15:18 PM

I suppose you might have a case if both sides are equally good and supporting hate is a legitimate cause.

At any rate, I don't think there is hypocrisy involved in not forking over money to someone who will fork over money to causes that hurt you (/you disagree with).

Exactly

Quote from: 11B4V on July 09, 2013, 02:08:49 PM

Quote from: merithyn on July 09, 2013, 02:02:13 PM

Quote from: Jacob on July 09, 2013, 01:23:52 PM

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.

I don't care what a person thinks or feels. However, Card puts a portion of his income in trying to force his opinion into law. Because of that, I won't support him or his film. Which sucks, because Card used to be one of my favorite authors, and I've been waiting for this movie for a very long time.

Ah well.

Other people from the opposing side put a portion of their income in trying to force their opinion into law. Hypocritical IMO.

I'll see it and hope it's good. Dont care about the other BS.

But we're not talking about other people.  This is a choice for the individual, if they can't live with the idea that somebody who is politically suspect might be earning a little bit of money off of their decisions.

Granted, it's a foolish choice rooted is vicious, obscurantist stupidity, but it's still legitimate.

Quote from: merithyn on July 09, 2013, 02:15:03 PM

Quote from: 11B4V on July 09, 2013, 02:08:49 PM

Other people from the opposing side put a portion of their income in trying to force their opinion into law. Hypocritical IMO.

I'll see it and hope it's good. Dont care about the other BS.

How is it hypocritical? I didn't say that he couldn't do as he pleases with his cash. I just said that I choose not to support it.

Like someone else said, get a pirated copy, or wait till it comes out on DVD and borrow it.

I love how everyone just ignored the point I made about the fact if Card's deal is anything like normal ones, he received a lump sum for selling the film rights to his novel and probably doesn't make any money off of ticket sales. Does anyone have any evidence he has an unusual deal with Ender's game? If not that part of the argument doesn't make sense.

A lot of times authors sell the film rights many years or even decades prior to the film being produced. It's quite possible he sold the rights to Ender's game back in the 80s or maybe 90s, and it has traded hands from one studio to another over the years, meaning he may have even received a relatively small amount of money for it given there's been a lot of inflation in the payouts for film rights for popular novels in the past 10-15 years.

Quote from: 11B4V on July 09, 2013, 02:18:40 PM

Like someone else said, get a pirated copy, or wait till it comes out on DVD and borrow it.

I'm not sure that I won't, but I'm not going to go out of my way for it.

Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on July 09, 2013, 02:19:36 PM
I love how everyone just ignored the point I made about the fact if Card's deal is anything like normal ones, he received a lump sum for selling the film rights to his novel and probably doesn't make any money off of ticket sales. Does anyone have any evidence he has an unusual deal with Ender's game? If not that part of the argument doesn't make sense.

A lot of times authors sell the film rights many years or even decades prior to the film being produced. It's quite possible he sold the rights to Ender's game back in the 80s or maybe 90s, and it has traded hands from one studio to another over the years, meaning he may have even received a relatively small amount of money for it given there's been a lot of inflation in the payouts for film rights for popular novels in the past 10-15 years.

Didn't you mention that the deal was unusual?  After all Card is Coproducer.  Question:  If the film is a success and they make a sequel does he get another check?

Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on July 09, 2013, 02:19:36 PM
I love how everyone just ignored the point I made about the fact if Card's deal is anything like normal ones, he received a lump sum for selling the film rights to his novel and probably doesn't make any money off of ticket sales. Does anyone have any evidence he has an unusual deal with Ender's game? If not that part of the argument doesn't make sense.

A lot of times authors sell the film rights many years or even decades prior to the film being produced. It's quite possible he sold the rights to Ender's game back in the 80s or maybe 90s, and it has traded hands from one studio to another over the years, meaning he may have even received a relatively small amount of money for it given there's been a lot of inflation in the payouts for film rights for popular novels in the past 10-15 years.

I'm not sure if it is as cut and dry as you are suggesting as certainly different individuals can come up with different structures (much in the same way that different compensation schemes exist for different screenplay writers).

At any rate, let's theorize that this boycott took place and one could observe that it really hurt film sales. Seems like that would play a role in whether or not a film based on another of his works gets greenlit.

Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on July 09, 2013, 02:19:36 PM
I love how everyone just ignored the point I made about the fact if Card's deal is anything like normal ones, he received a lump sum for selling the film rights to his novel and probably doesn't make any money off of ticket sales. Does anyone have any evidence he has an unusual deal with Ender's game? If not that part of the argument doesn't make sense.

A lot of times authors sell the film rights many years or even decades prior to the film being produced. It's quite possible he sold the rights to Ender's game back in the 80s or maybe 90s, and it has traded hands from one studio to another over the years, meaning he may have even received a relatively small amount of money for it given there's been a lot of inflation in the payouts for film rights for popular novels in the past 10-15 years.

IMO this boycott wont amount to shit.

Quote from: 11B4V on July 09, 2013, 02:26:02 PM

Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on July 09, 2013, 02:19:36 PM
I love how everyone just ignored the point I made about the fact if Card's deal is anything like normal ones, he received a lump sum for selling the film rights to his novel and probably doesn't make any money off of ticket sales. Does anyone have any evidence he has an unusual deal with Ender's game? If not that part of the argument doesn't make sense.

A lot of times authors sell the film rights many years or even decades prior to the film being produced. It's quite possible he sold the rights to Ender's game back in the 80s or maybe 90s, and it has traded hands from one studio to another over the years, meaning he may have even received a relatively small amount of money for it given there's been a lot of inflation in the payouts for film rights for popular novels in the past 10-15 years.

IMO this boycott wont amount to shit.

I think that's likely true.

Quote from: garbon on July 09, 2013, 02:24:12 PM
At any rate, let's theorize that this boycott took place and one could observe that it really hurt film sales.

But one can't observe that. One can merely observe that the movie didn't meet some expectation of returns and theorize that the boycott caused it.

Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on July 09, 2013, 02:19:36 PM
I love how everyone just ignored the point I made about the fact if Card's deal is anything like normal ones, he received a lump sum for selling the film rights to his novel and probably doesn't make any money off of ticket sales. Does anyone have any evidence he has an unusual deal with Ender's game? If not that part of the argument doesn't make sense.

A lot of times authors sell the film rights many years or even decades prior to the film being produced. It's quite possible he sold the rights to Ender's game back in the 80s or maybe 90s, and it has traded hands from one studio to another over the years, meaning he may have even received a relatively small amount of money for it given there's been a lot of inflation in the payouts for film rights for popular novels in the past 10-15 years.

Because the point is irrelevant. Even if he doesn't earn more through the box office, the success or failure of this film will dictate whether or not more of his books are made into movies. Ender's Game isn't a one-off; it's the first of a series.

Quote from: Peter Wiggin on July 09, 2013, 02:28:43 PM

Quote from: garbon on July 09, 2013, 02:24:12 PM
At any rate, let's theorize that this boycott took place and one could observe that it really hurt film sales.

But one can't observe that. One can merely observe that the movie didn't meet some expectation of returns and theorize that the boycott caused it.

ok?

Quote from: garbon on July 09, 2013, 02:27:21 PM

Quote from: 11B4V on July 09, 2013, 02:26:02 PM

Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on July 09, 2013, 02:19:36 PM
I love how everyone just ignored the point I made about the fact if Card's deal is anything like normal ones, he received a lump sum for selling the film rights to his novel and probably doesn't make any money off of ticket sales. Does anyone have any evidence he has an unusual deal with Ender's game? If not that part of the argument doesn't make sense.

A lot of times authors sell the film rights many years or even decades prior to the film being produced. It's quite possible he sold the rights to Ender's game back in the 80s or maybe 90s, and it has traded hands from one studio to another over the years, meaning he may have even received a relatively small amount of money for it given there's been a lot of inflation in the payouts for film rights for popular novels in the past 10-15 years.

IMO this boycott wont amount to shit.

I think that's likely true.

Now that's not saying they dont have cause to boycott. Just the youth nowadays dont give a shit if it's a good movie.

Quote from: 11B4V on July 09, 2013, 02:26:02 PM

IMO this boycott wont amount to shit.

It might or might not. I'll still know that I'm not giving my money to his endeavors. *shrugs*

Quote from: garbon on July 09, 2013, 02:29:38 PM
ok?

Though I'm sure the boycott organizers will be quick to take credit if the movie bombs.

This boycott is bad publicity.
Somebody said once that there is no such a thing.

Hey, what if, this was all planned to get this reaction from the homos, to get free publicity!!!!!!1111  :smarty:

Quote from: merithyn on July 09, 2013, 02:31:20 PM

Quote from: 11B4V on July 09, 2013, 02:26:02 PM

IMO this boycott wont amount to shit.

It might or might not. I'll still know that I'm not giving my money to his endeavors. *shrugs*

That's cause, you're a crusader.  :P

We don't know anything about his deal, just that he has a producer credit which is unusual because typically at most once the author has sold their film rights their only involvement will be as some sort of consultant to help with certain details of the filming (meaning they basically receive a paycheck for working on the movie.) You typically have to basically be part of the group that bankrolls the film which includes individual producers and the studio etc to get a cut of the box office money. Sometimes the very top end actors can negotiate a cut of box office, too, or at least bonuses based on hitting certain box office metrics.

Card wasn't listed as one of the 'financial producers', so I don't know in what capacity he's involved with the film. He's most likely become attached to it long after selling the movie rights, because given the age of the book and how long they've talked about the movie I'd be shocked if he didn't sell those rights ages ago and also shocked if the rights haven't changed hands over the years. Sometimes if you sell film rights they revert back to the author after a certain period of years if the entity that purchased them failed to produce a film--which may have happened here, who knows.

I'm just making the point you guys are boycotting something that has a high likelihood of not affecting this dude's personal cash flow whatsoever. I think maybe if your intention is to hurt his pocketbook you should at least investigate whether it does or not. (Sort of how the BP branded gas stations actually aren't really part of the BP corporation and thus didn't affect said corporation when boycotted.)

After that is the larger point about when we distinguish art from its creator. Shakespeare was undoubtedly a vicious anti-semite based on his writings, do we give him a pass because of how long ago it was? Or is the key point whether or not the artist is still alive? There's lot of great 20th century deceased artists who held repugnant views, is it necessary to boycott them or only the ones who are still alive?

Quote from: 11B4V on July 09, 2013, 02:33:29 PM

That's cause, you're a crusader.  :P

You say that as if it's a bad thing. :sleep:

Quote from: merithyn on July 09, 2013, 02:35:51 PM

Quote from: 11B4V on July 09, 2013, 02:33:29 PM

That's cause, you're a crusader.  :P

You say that as if it's a bad thing. :sleep:

No ma'am.  ;)

The point about future movies is also likely irrelevant. Because do you really think the people that bought the original film rights to Ender's Game wouldn't have bought the rights to the later books? Most likely it was a package deal, just like the one Martin did with HBO and Game of Thrones, HBO got rights to the whole series of ASOIAF, not just the novels extant at the time.

Can I be a crusader too?
Oh wait, nevermind.

As an example of how these things normally work, look at Tolkien and Lord of the Rings. He sold all film rights in 1968, they passed hands several times through different companies until a company bought them and created the "Middle-earth Enterprises" company which was basically a vehicle to hold his film rights and use them to make money for the owners of the venture. Tolkien, his estate and etc were so far removed from the rights to the movies that they made nothing off all those LotR animate films in the late 70s/early 80s, or the big blockbusters in the 2000s.

If I had to guess, and I'm just guessing, OSC sold his rights and similar happened to them long ago, probably before 1995. His involvement in the current movie is probably as a paid consultant or something and he's been given a producing credit.

Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on July 09, 2013, 02:37:54 PM
The point about future movies is also likely irrelevant. Because do you really think the people that bought the original film rights to Ender's Game wouldn't have bought the rights to the later books? Most likely it was a package deal, just like the one Martin did with HBO and Game of Thrones, HBO got rights to the whole series of ASOIAF, not just the novels extant at the time.

If he sold the rights in the '80s, then the other books couldn't have been included in the contract since they weren't all written yet. In addition, a successful movie will result in more books being sold.

Quote from: merithyn on July 09, 2013, 02:43:44 PM

Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on July 09, 2013, 02:37:54 PM
The point about future movies is also likely irrelevant. Because do you really think the people that bought the original film rights to Ender's Game wouldn't have bought the rights to the later books? Most likely it was a package deal, just like the one Martin did with HBO and Game of Thrones, HBO got rights to the whole series of ASOIAF, not just the novels extant at the time.

If he sold the rights in the '80s, then the other books couldn't have been included in the contract since they weren't all written yet. In addition, a successful movie will result in more books being sold.

Meri, doesn't matter how much you hate it, this movie is going to succeed beyong anybody's wildest expectations.

Quote from: merithyn on July 09, 2013, 02:43:44 PM

Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on July 09, 2013, 02:37:54 PM
The point about future movies is also likely irrelevant. Because do you really think the people that bought the original film rights to Ender's Game wouldn't have bought the rights to the later books? Most likely it was a package deal, just like the one Martin did with HBO and Game of Thrones, HBO got rights to the whole series of ASOIAF, not just the novels extant at the time.

If he sold the rights in the '80s, then the other books couldn't have been included in the contract since they weren't all written yet. In addition, a successful movie will result in more books being sold.

I'll admit I've never read any OSC books, so I was not aware of that. Book sales are the one thing you're unambiguously correct on, they will increase if the movie does well and authors almost always make money off of every book sold if the book is popular enough. If they aren't popular enough we probably aren't talking about film rights or anything anyway.

I just like pointing out that most people who do these boycotts are totally unaware of the financials, and I think most of these boycotts only tangentially and perhaps never affect the person financially at all. It's like the people who boycotted Domino's when they found out the CEO and Founder ran a pro-life organization, even after they found out he no longer had any active involvement with Domino's and had sold his stake in the company.

I guess for me, aside from most boy-cotters being ignorant of where money flows, what concerns me more is the squelching of ideas. The worst part about many of my compatriots on the right is they are closed minded. They raise their children insulated from many works of great literature and film because they feel it goes against the Bible or is sinful. I don't see how the left is doing any better by trying to boycott stuff because the content creators hold views they view as hateful. This concept that we have nothing to learn from creative works from people we disagree with, or even unambiguously bad people, is a dangerous one.

Quote from: Siege on July 09, 2013, 02:47:30 PM

Meri, doesn't matter how much you hate it, this movie is going to succeed beyong anybody's wildest expectations.

:mellow:

You ascribe far more passion than necessary.

Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on July 09, 2013, 02:49:21 PM

I'll admit I've never read any OSC books, so I was not aware of that. Book sales are the one thing you're unambiguously correct on, they will increase if the movie does well and authors almost always make money off of every book sold if the book is popular enough. If they aren't popular enough we probably aren't talking about film rights or anything anyway.

I just like pointing out that most people who do these boycotts are totally unaware of the financials, and I think most of these boycotts only tangentially and perhaps never affect the person financially at all. It's like the people who boycotted Domino's when they found out the CEO and Founder ran a pro-life organization, even after they found out he no longer had any active involvement with Domino's and had sold his stake in the company.

I guess for me, aside from most boy-cotters being ignorant of where money flows, what concerns me more is the squelching of ideas. The worst part about many of my compatriots on the right is they are closed minded. They raise their children insulated from many works of great literature and film because they feel it goes against the Bible or is sinful. I don't see how the left is doing any better by trying to boycott stuff because the content creators hold views they view as hateful. This concept that we have nothing to learn from creative works from people we disagree with, or even unambiguously bad people, is a dangerous one.

Okay. :)

Quote from: merithyn on July 09, 2013, 02:50:44 PM

Quote from: Siege on July 09, 2013, 02:47:30 PM

Meri, doesn't matter how much you hate it, this movie is going to succeed beyong anybody's wildest expectations.

:mellow:

You ascribe far more passion than necessary.

Crusaders are usually pretty passionate, though :P

Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on July 09, 2013, 02:35:27 PM
I'm just making the point you guys are boycotting something that has a high likelihood of not affecting this dude's personal cash flow whatsoever. I think maybe if your intention is to hurt his pocketbook you should at least investigate whether it does or not. (Sort of how the BP branded gas stations actually aren't really part of the BP corporation and thus didn't affect said corporation when boycotted.)

I'm not actually boycotting anything as I didn't have plans to see this anyway (never read any of his books). That said, I don't think you are correct as Meri and I have noted several potential revenue streams for him (and beyond that just the gratification of his ego).

Meri's a spicy latina.  She doesn't do anything halfway.

And I view boycotts of Exxon, BP, Chik-fil-A, Domino's etc as a childish protest gesture but sort of take a "who cares" view on those. Those are just firms out to make money, and people are going to buy or not buy their stuff based on all kinds of reasons, I don't think boycotts of such firms is really injurious to anyone even if I do think them silly and pointless.

But if you like Ender's Game, to boycott the film is basically saying even though I like this work of art, I dislike the person who created it, so I want to see it do badly or etc. It's like the old Italian patrons who would turn artists out into the streets when they took views opposite them on theological or political issues, and I think that's different from just boycotting a business. It's subsuming artistic expression and experience to personal political concerns.

Quote from: garbon on July 09, 2013, 02:57:24 PM

Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on July 09, 2013, 02:35:27 PM
I'm just making the point you guys are boycotting something that has a high likelihood of not affecting this dude's personal cash flow whatsoever. I think maybe if your intention is to hurt his pocketbook you should at least investigate whether it does or not. (Sort of how the BP branded gas stations actually aren't really part of the BP corporation and thus didn't affect said corporation when boycotted.)

I'm not actually boycotting anything as I didn't have plans to see this anyway (never read any of his books). That said, I don't think you are correct as Meri and I have noted several potential revenue streams for him (and beyond that just the gratification of his ego).

Boycotters are like conspiracy theorists. I've noticed it doesn't really matter if you explain how much nonsense their beliefs are or what they are doing is, they are committed to it for stupid emotional reasons so will never be swayed, worst kind of imbeciles really. Just like people who buy into "Fair Trade" nonsense or organic food.

Quote from: merithyn on July 09, 2013, 02:02:13 PM

Quote from: Jacob on July 09, 2013, 01:23:52 PM

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.

I don't care what a person thinks or feels. However, Card puts a portion of his income in trying to force his opinion into law. Because of that, I won't support him or his film. Which sucks, because Card used to be one of my favorite authors, and I've been waiting for this movie for a very long time.

Ah well.

There are probably a good 200+ people involved in the making of a major Hollywood movie. Hell, maybe even two or three times that number. Who knows.

I can assure you that some of those people will use some of their money to do something you do not approve of, or fund some political group you don't like.

So really, you and garbon and everyone else who want to boycott this movie, need to boycott all movies. And music. And art. And plays. And food. And drink. And clothes. And everything that you can spend money on.

Because I can assure you that there is no item you buy that somewhere in the chain of people involved in getting that item to you doesn't support some cause you don't like.

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

Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on July 09, 2013, 03:00:19 PM
But if you like Ender's Game, to boycott the film is basically saying even though I like this work of art, I dislike the person who created it, so I want to see it do badly or etc. It's like the old Italian patrons who would turn artists out into the streets when they took views opposite them on theological or political issues, and I think that's different from just boycotting a business. It's subsuming artistic expression and experience to personal political concerns.

I think boycotting someone who wants you to be unhappy isn't wrongheaded. Particularly when that person actually has used his funds to promote your unhappiness.

Quote from: Berkut on July 09, 2013, 03:02:33 PM
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.

I really don't like to see people engaged in boycocks.

Quote from: Siege on July 09, 2013, 03:07:13 PM
I really don't like to see people engaged in boy-cocks.

Ok. :)

Quote from: Berkut on July 09, 2013, 03:02:33 PM
There are probably a good 200+ people involved in the making of a major Hollywood movie. Hell, maybe even two or three times that number. Who knows.

I can assure you that some of those people will use some of their money to do something you do not approve of, or fund some political group you don't like.

So really, you and garbon and everyone else who want to boycott this movie, need to boycott all movies. And music. And art. And plays. And food. And drink. And clothes. And everything that you can spend money on.

Because I can assure you that there is no item you buy that somewhere in the chain of people involved in getting that item to you doesn't support some cause you don't like.

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

Well, and here's the thing, most likely at least a decent portion of those people will make substantially more money than OSC. Harrison Ford for example has demanded and received a portion of gross from most of his recent big budget films (maybe why you don't see him in as many as you once did), and he's even out there openly supporting gay marriage and has described the fight for it with references to Jackie Robinson and etc. Since he's almost certainly going to take home vastly more money from Ender's Game than OSC, you could argue that by boycotting the movie you're hurting a supporting of gay marriage more than you're hurting an opponent of it. Since most of the film industry is full of very socially liberal people, that probably is true for almost everyone associated with the film except for card, including the studio executives and others who take home some of the biggest pay checks.

It's like boycotting a company whose CEO/Founder donates $10m/year to gay rights causes because one of their mid-level managers is against gay marriage.

This is bullshit. If Brain makes the joke is funny, if I make it is not.

Anti-semitism!!!!!!!1111

Quote from: garbon on July 09, 2013, 03:04:02 PM

Quote from: Berkut on July 09, 2013, 03:02:33 PM
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.

Quote from: Berkut on July 09, 2013, 03:09:09 PM

Quote from: garbon on July 09, 2013, 03:04:02 PM

Quote from: Berkut on July 09, 2013, 03:02:33 PM
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.

Quote from: garbon on July 09, 2013, 03:10:38 PM
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.

Now let's not drag mongers into this, whether you hate him or not.

Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on July 09, 2013, 03:08:12 PM

Quote from: Berkut on July 09, 2013, 03:02:33 PM
There are probably a good 200+ people involved in the making of a major Hollywood movie. Hell, maybe even two or three times that number. Who knows.

I can assure you that some of those people will use some of their money to do something you do not approve of, or fund some political group you don't like.

So really, you and garbon and everyone else who want to boycott this movie, need to boycott all movies. And music. And art. And plays. And food. And drink. And clothes. And everything that you can spend money on.

Because I can assure you that there is no item you buy that somewhere in the chain of people involved in getting that item to you doesn't support some cause you don't like.

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

Well, and here's the thing, most likely at least a decent portion of those people will make substantially more money than OSC. Harrison Ford for example has demanded and received a portion of gross from most of his recent big budget films (maybe why you don't see him in as many as you once did), and he's even out there openly supporting gay marriage and has described the fight for it with references to Jackie Robinson and etc. Since he's almost certainly going to take home vastly more money from Ender's Game than OSC, you could argue that by boycotting the movie you're hurting a supporting of gay marriage more than you're hurting an opponent of it. Since most of the film industry is full of very socially liberal people, that probably is true for almost everyone associated with the film except for card, including the studio executives and others who take home some of the biggest pay checks.

It's like boycotting a company whose CEO/Founder donates $10m/year to gay rights causes because one of their mid-level managers is against gay marriage.

I actually find the entire thing more objectionable as a matter of principle than anything else.

This is no different in kind than boycotting a business that refuses to have a separate lunch counter for blacks, or refusing to buy products from someone because they are Jews.

It is an attempt to stifle free speech through economic blackmail of businesses. I hate it because it fucking works. Businesses do in fact decide just not to mess with stuff because the bottom line might be harmed. It may not work in this particular case, but it has certainly worked in the past when businesses make decisions about what markets they want to engage in or what products they want to sell or who they want to associate with based on bullshit like this.

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

Quote from: garbon on July 09, 2013, 03:10:38 PM
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. 

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.

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.

Quote from: Berkut on July 09, 2013, 03:13:10 PM
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?

Quote from: garbon on July 09, 2013, 03:10:38 PM

Quote from: Berkut on July 09, 2013, 03:09:09 PM

Quote from: garbon on July 09, 2013, 03:04:02 PM

Quote from: Berkut on July 09, 2013, 03:02:33 PM
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.

Quote from: derspiess on July 09, 2013, 03:13:31 PM

Quote from: garbon on July 09, 2013, 03:10:38 PM
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.

Quote from: Siege on July 09, 2013, 03:17:05 PM
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.

Quote from: Berkut on July 09, 2013, 03:17:25 PM
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.

:huh:

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

Quote from: Berkut on July 09, 2013, 03:17:25 PM
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.

Quote from: Berkut on July 09, 2013, 03:17:25 PM
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.

Quote from: Berkut on July 09, 2013, 03:17:25 PM
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.

Quote from: Berkut on July 09, 2013, 03:19:16 PM
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.

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?

Quote from: Berkut on July 09, 2013, 03:23:42 PM
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.

Quote from: garbon on July 09, 2013, 03:23:04 PM

Quote from: Berkut on July 09, 2013, 03:17:25 PM
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.

:huh:

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...

Quote

Quote from: Berkut on July 09, 2013, 03:17:25 PM
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.

Quote from: Berkut on July 09, 2013, 03:17:25 PM
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.

Quote

Quote from: Berkut on July 09, 2013, 03:17:25 PM
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.

Quote from: garbon on July 09, 2013, 03:25:18 PM

Quote from: Berkut on July 09, 2013, 03:23:42 PM
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.

Quote from: Berkut on July 09, 2013, 03:23:42 PM
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?

:huh:

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

Quote from: garbon on July 09, 2013, 03:23:29 PM

Quote from: Berkut on July 09, 2013, 03:19:16 PM
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.

Quote from: Jacob on July 09, 2013, 03:31:19 PM

Quote from: Berkut on July 09, 2013, 03:23:42 PM
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?

:huh:

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

Slippery slope strawman?

I don't think either of those terms means what you think they mean.

Quote from: Berkut on July 09, 2013, 03:32:06 PMSlippery slope strawman?

I don't think either of those terms means what you think they mean.

Sure.

But you still didn't explain why you included me in your argument.

Quote from: Berkut on July 09, 2013, 03:31:21 PM
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.

Indeed. They really should be boycotting the movie because of its support of genocide.

Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on July 09, 2013, 03:02:30 PM

Boycotters are like conspiracy theorists. I've noticed it doesn't really matter if you explain how much nonsense their beliefs are or what they are doing is, they are committed to it for stupid emotional reasons so will never be swayed, worst kind of imbeciles really. Just like people who buy into "Fair Trade" nonsense or organic food.

So basically, if you can't convince them, they're imbeciles. :lol: Got it.

Quote from: Peter Wiggin on July 09, 2013, 03:37:22 PM

Quote from: Berkut on July 09, 2013, 03:31:21 PM
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.

Indeed. They really should be boycotting the movie because of its support of genocide.

That would at least make some kind of logical sense.

Boycotting a movie because a writer doesn't like gays?

That is about YOU, not about the writer.

Quote from: Berkut on July 09, 2013, 03:02:33 PM

There are probably a good 200+ people involved in the making of a major Hollywood movie. Hell, maybe even two or three times that number. Who knows.

I can assure you that some of those people will use some of their money to do something you do not approve of, or fund some political group you don't like.

So really, you and garbon and everyone else who want to boycott this movie, need to boycott all movies. And music. And art. And plays. And food. And drink. And clothes. And everything that you can spend money on.

Because I can assure you that there is no item you buy that somewhere in the chain of people involved in getting that item to you doesn't support some cause you don't like.

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

Because Card is openly and actively working toward something that I heartily disagree with. I'm aware of it, and I have an option to support or not support his work. It's my choice how I spend my money much as it's his choice how he spends his.

Whether you understand/agree with it is irrelevant to any decision that I might make. I'm not ignorant in my choices, nor am I an "embicile".

Quote from: Berkut on July 09, 2013, 03:09:09 PM

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.

This argument amuses me. It's okay for Card to spend his money to fight gay marriage, but my choice not to spend money on his movie is trying to "censor someone for their political beliefs". As I said, he's welcome to whatever opinion he wishes to have, and I have every right not to give him any of my money in which to do so.

It's that simple for me.

I'm not sure that embicile is an acceptable form of the word.

The point I and Berkut happen to make is there is no real rational basis for the argument you two are making. You know for a fact that any venture with more than a couple dozen people in it has people involved that hold views you find hateful, the larger the venture the less uncertainty there is. So there is no rational basis for singling Card/Ender's Game out. It also ignores the fact that we know for a fact, the people who stand to get the biggest payday (the Hollywood producers, Harrison Ford etc, are openly in favor of gay marriage and several of the other producers have given Card the cold shoulder in events and etc.)

It's also a patently dangerous idea that we should try to force society as a whole to reject not just the arguments but the artistic endeavors of people you disagree with. One is just part of societal arguments and decision making, the other is basically saying the only good art is art that comes from people with the correct opinions.

The truth and strength of these points frankly has nothing to do with what opinions you and garbon hold. About all you two have proven with your arguments is that you're fine that your position here is really shallow and more for show than anything else.

So if Card quietly and discreetly worked for something you heartily disagreed with, that would be ok?

The point is that there is no movie you can go see where someone related to the movie in some way is not as big a douchebag about something as Card.

Yet you do not boycott every movie, only this one.

Which means that your stance is either

A) Driven by ignorance, because you simply don't realize that it cannot possibly be applied consistently in a way that makes rational sense, or
B) Has nothing to do with Card, but is about something else.

I assume in most cases it is A - most people simply don't think much about it. I support gay rights, my gay rights friends told me I should be all upset because there is some anti-gay guy somehow related to a movie, so here I am supporting this boycott.

But since I've pointed out that this makes no sense on any number of levels, and in fact that practical effect is to endorse mob conformity and censorship on the arts, then continued support is really quite puzzling.

I find people who feel that their views are so superior to everyone else's that it is good and just for them to attempt to silence any dissenting views vastly more alarming than the run of the mill bigot like Card.

People like Card, in the long run, always lose. Sadly people who think that the mob can and should silence those who do not agree with them often win.

Quote from: merithyn on July 09, 2013, 03:47:43 PM

Quote from: Berkut on July 09, 2013, 03:09:09 PM

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.

This argument amuses me. It's okay for Card to spend his money to fight gay marriage, but my choice not to spend money on his movie is trying to "censor someone for their political beliefs". As I said, he's welcome to whatever opinion he wishes to have, and I have every right not to give him any of my money in which to do so.

It's that simple for me.

Of course you have every right to engage in intolerant activities, just like Card does.


I don't think it is "ok" for Card to fight gay marriage though - I mean, it is ok to the same extent it is ok for you to demand that business censor those who say things you don't like, but it is certainly not something I approve of.

I don't think it necessarily follows that if you can't fight every instance of something you oppose then it is irrational to fight any instance.

Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on July 09, 2013, 03:49:06 PM
I'm not sure that embicile is an acceptable form of the word.

The point I and Berkut happen to make is there is no real rational basis for the argument you two are making. You know for a fact that any venture with more than a couple dozen people in it has people involved that hold views you find hateful, the larger the venture the less uncertainty there is. So there is no rational basis for singling Card/Ender's Game out. It also ignores the fact that we know for a fact, the people who stand to get the biggest payday (the Hollywood producers, Harrison Ford etc, are openly in favor of gay marriage and several of the other producers have given Card the cold shoulder in events and etc.)

It's also a patently dangerous idea that we should try to force society as a whole to reject not just the arguments but the artistic endeavors of people you disagree with. One is just part of societal arguments and decision making, the other is basically saying the only good art is art that comes from people with the correct opinions.

The truth and strength of these points frankly has nothing to do with what opinions you and garbon hold. About all you two have proven with your arguments is that you're fine that your position here is really shallow and more for show than anything else.

It's kind of irrelevent what I say or what arguments I propose, as I'm "irrational" anyway. :)

Poor, silly me.  :uffda:

Quote from: Berkut on July 09, 2013, 03:50:22 PM
So if Card quietly and discreetly worked for something you heartily disagreed with, that would be ok?

The point is that there is no movie you can go see where someone related to the movie in some way is not as big a douchebag about something as Card.

Yet you do not boycott every movie, only this one.

Which means that your stance is either

A) Driven by ignorance, because you simply don't realize that it cannot possibly be applied consistently in a way that makes rational sense, or
B) Has nothing to do with Card, but is about something else.

I assume in most cases it is A - most people simply don't think much about it. I support gay rights, my gay rights friends told me I should be all upset because there is some anti-gay guy somehow related to a movie, so here I am supporting this boycott.

But since I've pointed out that this makes no sense on any number of levels, and in fact that practical effect is to endorse mob conformity and censorship on the arts, then continued support is really quite puzzling.

I find people who feel that their views are so superior to everyone else's that it is good and just for them to attempt to silence any dissenting views vastly more alarming than the run of the mill bigot like Card.

People like Card, in the long run, always lose. Sadly people who think that the mob can and should silence those who do not agree with them often win.

Okay.

Quote from: Maximus on July 09, 2013, 03:53:44 PM
I don't think it necessarily follows that if you can't fight every instance of something you oppose then it is irrational to fight any instance.

Yep. That's sort of the statement I had to that recent avalanche of posts from Berkut. :D

Yet another example of how thinly held most people's actual "belief" in the importance of liberty and freedom actually is when it comes right down to it.

Anyone who can claim that attempting to censor art if anyone involved in the production believes and supports things they don't like is ok doesn't understand the concept of liberty at all.

So then this Card fella is the latest "2 minutes of hate" target, then?  I doubt I would've heard about him, otherwise.

Quote from: Berkut on July 09, 2013, 04:04:14 PM
Yet another example of how thinly held most people's actual "belief" in the importance of liberty and freedom actually is when it comes right down to it.

Anyone who can claim that attempting to censor art if anyone involved in the production believes and supports things they don't like is ok doesn't understand the concept of liberty at all.

This is funny. I'm not attempting to censor anyone. I'm not calling for the movie to be taken down. I'm not demanding that it never be seen. I'm choosing not to spend my money on it. Period. End of story.

Quote from: Berkut on July 09, 2013, 04:04:14 PM
Yet another example of how thinly held most people's actual "belief" in the importance of liberty and freedom actually is when it comes right down to it.

Anyone who can claim that attempting to censor art if anyone involved in the production believes and supports things they don't like is ok doesn't understand the concept of liberty at all.

A boycott isn't really censoring though. :huh:

Quote from: derspiess on July 09, 2013, 04:05:15 PM
So then this Card fella is the latest "2 minutes of hate" target, then?  I doubt I would've heard about him, otherwise.

It is all so transparent, I am continually amazed at how easily people fall for mob psychology.

Quote from: merithyn on July 09, 2013, 04:06:19 PM

Quote from: Berkut on July 09, 2013, 04:04:14 PM
Yet another example of how thinly held most people's actual "belief" in the importance of liberty and freedom actually is when it comes right down to it.

Anyone who can claim that attempting to censor art if anyone involved in the production believes and supports things they don't like is ok doesn't understand the concept of liberty at all.

This is funny. I'm not attempting to censor anyone. I'm not calling for the movie to be taken down. I'm not demanding that it never be seen. I'm choosing not to spend my money on it because someone associated with it has beliefs I don't like. And hopefully, if enough people do the same, then business will stop associating with people who have views I don't like.

Fixed your post for completeness.

Quote from: Berkut on July 09, 2013, 04:08:03 PM

Quote from: merithyn on July 09, 2013, 04:06:19 PM

Quote from: Berkut on July 09, 2013, 04:04:14 PM
Yet another example of how thinly held most people's actual "belief" in the importance of liberty and freedom actually is when it comes right down to it.

Anyone who can claim that attempting to censor art if anyone involved in the production believes and supports things they don't like is ok doesn't understand the concept of liberty at all.

This is funny. I'm not attempting to censor anyone. I'm not calling for the movie to be taken down. I'm not demanding that it never be seen. I'm choosing not to spend my money on it because someone associated with it has beliefs I don't like. And hopefully, if enough people do the same, then business will stop associating with people who have views I don't like.

Fixed your post for completeness.

That's a bit rich. I've never said that I hoped "enough people do the same, then business will stop associating with people who have views I don't like." I said that I am choosing not to spend my money on it. Finite.

Quote from: Barrister on July 09, 2013, 04:06:27 PM

Quote from: Berkut on July 09, 2013, 04:04:14 PM
Yet another example of how thinly held most people's actual "belief" in the importance of liberty and freedom actually is when it comes right down to it.

Anyone who can claim that attempting to censor art if anyone involved in the production believes and supports things they don't like is ok doesn't understand the concept of liberty at all.

A boycott isn't really censoring though. :huh:

Of course it is - it isn't active censorship by the government of course (which would clearly be illegal), but it is most certainly an attempt to silence those who have divergent viewpoints by punishing completely unrelated business activities based on those viewpoints. The goal is to make the point that associating with people who hold anti-gay rights views will have an economic cost that makes it not worth it.

This is no different, as garbon said, to someone saying they have the right to not watch a movie written by a Jew, or a black guy, or starring someone who is gay or whatever, and they would like others to do the same, so that movie makers will quit trying to make movies written by Jews.

It isn't illegal censorship of course, but it is certainly censorship.

The irony that some parts of the gay community are engaging in activity that is identical to that which they fought so hard against is almost funny, if it wasn't so depressing.

How much does boycotting the movie affect him, though? Don't buy his books, perhaps.

Quote from: Josephus on July 09, 2013, 04:13:47 PM
How much does boycotting the movie affect him, though? Don't buy his books, perhaps.

Of course it won't affect him in any real way at all, even if it works - he already made his money.

The point is to send a message to Hollywood about who they can and cannot do business with in the future.

I honestly feel life is more enjoyable if you can ignore these little political tempests, and just consume the works you enjoy.  I couldn't give less of a shit what his views are on any current hot topics, so long as they don't appear polemically in the film.  I'm sure I've enjoyed countless works by people whose views on certain subjects I would strongly disagree with or even find distasteful, and my life is the richer for it.

Quote from: Berkut on July 09, 2013, 04:17:39 PM

Quote from: Josephus on July 09, 2013, 04:13:47 PM
How much does boycotting the movie affect him, though? Don't buy his books, perhaps.

Of course it won't affect him in any real way at all, even if it works - he already made his money.

The point is to send a message to Hollywood about who they can and cannot do business with in the future.

Are there conditions under which a boycott would not be a hypocritical self-defeating waste of time?

Quote from: Berkut on July 09, 2013, 04:12:48 PM

Quote from: Barrister on July 09, 2013, 04:06:27 PM

Quote from: Berkut on July 09, 2013, 04:04:14 PM
Yet another example of how thinly held most people's actual "belief" in the importance of liberty and freedom actually is when it comes right down to it.

Anyone who can claim that attempting to censor art if anyone involved in the production believes and supports things they don't like is ok doesn't understand the concept of liberty at all.

A boycott isn't really censoring though. :huh:

Of course it is - it isn't active censorship by the government of course (which would clearly be illegal), but it is most certainly an attempt to silence those who have divergent viewpoints by punishing completely unrelated business activities based on those viewpoints. The goal is to make the point that associating with people who hold anti-gay rights views will have an economic cost that makes it not worth it.

This is no different, as garbon said, to someone saying they have the right to not watch a movie written by a Jew, or a black guy, or starring someone who is gay or whatever, and they would like others to do the same, so that movie makers will quit trying to make movies written by Jews.

It isn't illegal censorship of course, but it is certainly censorship.

The irony that some parts of the gay community are engaging in activity that is identical to that which they fought so hard against is almost funny, if it wasn't so depressing.

I dunno man - I tend to avoid watching supporting Michael Moore's stuff because I strongly disagree with his politics.  I don't think of that as censorship...

Quote from: merithyn on July 09, 2013, 03:43:43 PM

Quote from: Berkut on July 09, 2013, 03:02:33 PM

There are probably a good 200+ people involved in the making of a major Hollywood movie. Hell, maybe even two or three times that number. Who knows.

I can assure you that some of those people will use some of their money to do something you do not approve of, or fund some political group you don't like.

So really, you and garbon and everyone else who want to boycott this movie, need to boycott all movies. And music. And art. And plays. And food. And drink. And clothes. And everything that you can spend money on.

Because I can assure you that there is no item you buy that somewhere in the chain of people involved in getting that item to you doesn't support some cause you don't like.

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

Because Card is openly and actively working toward something that I heartily disagree with. I'm aware of it, and I have an option to support or not support his work. It's my choice how I spend my money much as it's his choice how he spends his.

Whether you understand/agree with it is irrelevant to any decision that I might make. I'm not ignorant in my choices, nor am I an "embicile".

I suppose one point Berkut is making is that the writer of a book on which a movie is based isn't the most significant major player in the making of the movie ...  ;) A movie based on a book by Card isn't really "Card's work" in the same way as his books are, even if he writes the screenplay.

Doesn't one have to act in some sort of official capacity to be a censor?

Quote from: Malthus on July 09, 2013, 04:52:34 PM

I suppose one point Berkut is making is that the writer of a book on which a movie is based isn't the most significant major player in the making of the movie ...  ;) A movie based on a book by Card isn't really "Card's work" in the same way as his books are, even if he writes the screenplay.

I disagree. It affects the sale of his books.

Quote from: Barrister on July 09, 2013, 04:43:37 PM

Quote from: Berkut on July 09, 2013, 04:12:48 PM

Quote from: Barrister on July 09, 2013, 04:06:27 PM

Quote from: Berkut on July 09, 2013, 04:04:14 PM
Yet another example of how thinly held most people's actual "belief" in the importance of liberty and freedom actually is when it comes right down to it.

Anyone who can claim that attempting to censor art if anyone involved in the production believes and supports things they don't like is ok doesn't understand the concept of liberty at all.

A boycott isn't really censoring though. :huh:

Of course it is - it isn't active censorship by the government of course (which would clearly be illegal), but it is most certainly an attempt to silence those who have divergent viewpoints by punishing completely unrelated business activities based on those viewpoints. The goal is to make the point that associating with people who hold anti-gay rights views will have an economic cost that makes it not worth it.

This is no different, as garbon said, to someone saying they have the right to not watch a movie written by a Jew, or a black guy, or starring someone who is gay or whatever, and they would like others to do the same, so that movie makers will quit trying to make movies written by Jews.

It isn't illegal censorship of course, but it is certainly censorship.

The irony that some parts of the gay community are engaging in activity that is identical to that which they fought so hard against is almost funny, if it wasn't so depressing.

I dunno man - I tend to avoid watching supporting Michael Moore's stuff because I strongly disagree with his politics.  I don't think of that as censorship...

Huge difference though - you don't watch his stuff because the content of his stuff is all about his politics. So what he has to say is in and of itself part and parcel to what he is selling.


That isn't censorship at all, that is just being a consumer, and deciding what you like and do not like.


Note that of course someone could find Card so objectionable that they cannot possibly enjoy his movies, and hence don't want to go see them. But I kind of doubt that is the case here - most people would not even be aware that Card is anti-gay rights except that they've been told it was the case by the same people making the political statements demanding the boycott.


And even if that was the case, that would be a private, individual stance, and shouting about it would be completely unnecessary and irrelevant. Certainly not anything that would demand any media attention.

Quote from: merithyn on July 09, 2013, 04:59:15 PM

Quote from: Malthus on July 09, 2013, 04:52:34 PM

I suppose one point Berkut is making is that the writer of a book on which a movie is based isn't the most significant major player in the making of the movie ...  ;) A movie based on a book by Card isn't really "Card's work" in the same way as his books are, even if he writes the screenplay.

I disagree. It affects the sale of his books.

That isn't, in fact, a disagreement. Both  points can be (and are) true at the same time.

As it now seem too late to get involved without retreading old pages, I will just note that it is hilarious to see people criticizing others for voting with their dollars, and further note that Card's personal social views are very much a part of Enders Game, and more a part of each of card's successive works.

To give some context to that point - to most moviegoers, the new movie is being billed as "Harrison Ford's new movie". Hence, titles like "Gay rights activists to boycott Harrison Ford film".

http://movies.msn.com/movies/article.aspx?news=816824&gt1=28101

Harrison Ford, unlike Card, is highly in favour of gay marriage.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/12/harrison-ford-gay-marriage-_n_3069845.html

In order to indirectly 'get at' the book sales of one guy who has hateful views on gay marriage, the boycott will directly impact another guy who is all in favour of it, who is in fact more closely linked with the film in the public eye.

Quote from: ulmont on July 09, 2013, 05:06:57 PM
As it now seem too late to get involved without retreading old pages, I will just note that it is hilarious to see people criticizing others for voting with their dollars, and further note that Card's personal social views are very much a part of Enders Game, and more a part of each of card's successive works.

Indeed his views are in fact part of this books - but I've read a bunch of his books, and certainly have never seen anything in them that was in any way anti-gay, except insofar as I don't recall there being any gay characters of any kind. Which I suppose could be seen as anti-gay, if one were really, really trying hard to be offended.

If someone said he thinks his books (and likely his movies) suck because of the content of those books/movies (they think it glorifies violence or the military, or is overly religious, or whatever), then that would be a perfectly reasonable stance to take when deciding not to go see the movie, and in fact voting with their dollars. In fact, some of the later books would be much less interesting to me for exactly that reason. He does start getting a bit preachy.

But that is very different from saying that his movie should be boycotted regardless of the content, but strictly because of some onerous political views of the author.

Quote from: ulmont on July 09, 2013, 05:06:57 PM
As it now seem too late to get involved without retreading old pages, I will just note that it is hilarious to see people criticizing others for voting with their dollars, and further note that Card's personal social views are very much a part of Enders Game, and more a part of each of card's successive works.

I would be astounded if the topic of gay marriage was so much as mentioned in the movie. As far as I recall, it played no part in the book.

Mind you, that would be an awesome detail for the movie makers to just casually drop a reference to - like, having one of the adult officers mention in passing that"his husband" back on Earth was really worried about the invasion, or something!  :lol:

Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 09, 2013, 01:54:36 PM
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.

This is semantic nonsense though. It's a bit like people moaning about anti-Semitism when Arabs are Semites too.

QuoteNope.  AFAICT the usage is limited to politicized gays and their friends in the lamestream media.

Or the OED:

QuoteFear or hatred of homosexuals and homosexuality.

I can't think of another word for hatred of homosexuals (or Muslims). Perhaps the problem is that homosexualism and Islamism have rather different meanings so couldn't be used :lol:

That would be freaking awesome, in fact.

That would be a great way for them to thumb their nose a bit at Card! Hell, I would even think it was cool if they had one of the main characters actually be gay. Well, that might be over-politicizing the movie a biit much.

Quote from: Berkut on July 09, 2013, 05:16:22 PM
That would be freaking awesome, in fact.

That would be a great way for them to thumb their nose a bit at Card! Hell, I would even think it was cool if they had one of the main characters actually be gay. Well, that might be over-politicizing the movie a biit much.

That Mazer Rackham guy says at one point he had to live in a relativistic shuttle, leaving his whole family behind, just to teach the future warriors.

Make him mention the pain of leaving his husband.

Quote from: Berkut on July 09, 2013, 05:10:49 PM
But that is very different from saying that his movie should be boycotted regardless of the content, but strictly because of some onerous political views of the author.

Only different in that, while "quality" of a work is tougher to judge while decrying a work as lacking "quality," it's completely clear what Card's views are.

Quote from: Malthus on July 09, 2013, 05:13:32 PM
I would be astounded if the topic of gay marriage was so much as mentioned in the movie. As far as I recall, it played no part in the book.

Not that I recall either.  What I do recall - in relation to Card's Mormon social viewpoints - is a lot of glorification of traditional social roles, including but not limited to kids as the point of the family and government interference in the same being illegitimate.  This is even worse in Ender's Shadow, where Bean is portrayed as wanting kids uber alles.

Quote from: Barrister on July 09, 2013, 04:43:37 PM
I dunno man - I tend to avoid watching supporting Michael Moore's stuff because I strongly disagree with his politics.  I don't think of that as censorship...

That's a little different, the whole point of a Michael Moore movie is that it is a platform for his political views.
Not the same thing as say boycotting a movie just because Mel Gibson is in it and Mel Gibson is a jerk.

What I think is the ironic element in this discussion is that, the closer the director sticks to Card's actual work, the worse the movie will be.  There really isn't an adult movie in the book.

So, I suspect that the actual movie will have as much to do with the book as Starship Troopers did its book, and Card will be whining about how they ignored his work, and he will be happy to see people boycott the movie no matter their reasons.

Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on July 09, 2013, 01:47:43 PM
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.

I completely agree, if we held artists to modern moral standards we'd have virtually no worth while art left. 

The artistic angle is one I'm much more concerned about. The business angle concerns me less. Boycotts against business are effective at changing behavior if the business owner is running a small shop. That's how many businesses in the South ultimately desegregated, society's laws made it so there was no reason they couldn't mistreat upward of 50% of their customers. But when acceptance of Jim Crow type laws began to collapse even without the SCOTUS decisions ending separate but equal in public accommodations businesses that held to that standard risked going out of business as competitors became more accommodating.

However, large multinational firms primarily stay in business based operational factors relating to management (do they maximize efficiency, do they avoid getting into debt that kills the company etc) and whether or not their product or service is competitively positioned to excel in the market place. If it is, then I've never seen any evidence any kind of grassroots boycott has any effect whatsoever. That sort of effort certainly hasn't hurt Chik-fil-A, which is relative small potatoes, and it never came close to hurting BP or Exxon (which really are immune from such boycotts anyway.) I've even heard of people trying to boycott Koch Industries, except most of their products are several layers removed from the customer so it's basically impossible to know specifically if you're using them or not, making the whole exercise stupid.

But art is different. Art can and has been quickly squelched by public condemnation and outcry, many great artists were squashed by the establishment because in the grand scheme of things artists don't have a lot of resources in society. I don't know that it's ideal that we make it even harder for artists by applying ideological purity tests to their political beliefs--especially when those beliefs don't intersect with their art at all. It's honestly as ironic as the school libraries that banned Fahrenheit 451.

I hesitate to bring this up because I can only imagine the bashing I'm going to get for it. Nonetheless, in the order of full disclosure, here goes.

My Orson Scott Card Story:

I first read Ender's Game in college, at the suggestion of my then-boyfriend, now-exhusband, while I was pregnant with Carter and Jackson. I loved the book, and feverishly devoured the next two in the series. By the time that my third son, Jeremy, was born in 1995, I was a devout Card fan. It happened that Card was coming to Chicago for a book signing the weekend that my son was due. And, of course, Jeremy was on-time for the only time in his life. On top of that, he was a very sick baby, having been born with meningitis, and I was very sick having lost a lot of blood with his delivery. Both of us were still in the hospital when Card came. So, a friend of mine bought three brand new books of the series and asked Card to sign them. She explained the situation, and he happily signed them, one to each of the boys. I was ecstatic.

Flash forward four years, and I'm pregnant with my fifth child, my fourth - another son - having died in utero. During this time, Card has written a fourth book in the series, and I really wanted a complete set for all of the kids. So, I sent him a fan letter along with a brand new copy of the fourth book in the series asking him to sign it. He sent it back with a letter of his own with the book signed to Riley, telling me how important children are to him, and that he and his wife had recently lost one. I replied, mentioning my son who hadn't made it, telling him that I understood. A month later, I received another book, this one signed to me and Jerry.

The book was "Sarah", his book about the biblical, barren Sarah, who allowed her husband, Abraham, to lie with the maid in order to have a son. Shortly after, she found that God had given her a child, as well. Card said, in the letter that came with the book, that I would understand Sarah's sacrifice and desire for a child more than many others.

It was very sweet, and it solidified my adoration of the man. Not only was he an incredible writer, but he was genuinely a kind man. I still believe that he is a geniunely kind man... to those he accepts as his equals. Unfortunately, his treatment of homosexuals shows a much uglier and nastier side, and his calls to bring down a government that equates gays with straights is abhorent.

QuoteLINK  (http://www.deseretnews.com/article/700245157/State-job-is-not-to-redefine-marriage.html?pg=all) - What these dictator-judges do not seem to understand is that their authority extends only as far as people choose to obey them.

How long before married people answer the dictators thus: Regardless of law, marriage has only one definition, and any government that attempts to change it is my mortal enemy. I will act to destroy that government and bring it down, so it can be replaced with a government that will respect and support marriage, and help me raise my children in a society where they will expect to marry in their turn.

When I learned that Card was spending a large part of his time and money trying to prevent gay-marriage, I stopped buying his books. I have no desire to see Ender's Game: The Movie. I can't imagine spending my money on an enterprise that can and will be directly used to thwart a cause that I feel very strongly for. Whether my money for a ticket will affect this particular movie, the success of it will definitely lead to more books being sold and more money to Card and his agenda. My not attending the movie may not do much of anything at all. But if enough people feel as I do, then it just might have an affect.

Does it stifle his Art? Nope. He's written his books, he's sold millions of copies, and his life continues. He's an established author with serious pull in the publishing world, and his Art continues with or without my support. He is welcome to write whatever makes his heart go pitter-patter, and it will get published, of that I have no doubt.

My money, however, will not support it.

I hesitate to bring this up because I can only imagine the bashing I'm going to get for it. Nonetheless, in the order of full disclosure, here goes.

My position on gay marriage:

Gay marriage rights has been equated with the social movement in the 1960s for racial equality. When I look at history, it is clear to me that G-d has raised the nations that sought ending slavery, while the nations that tried to perpetuate slavery became poorer and eventually fell behind. 19th century slavery was nothing like the highly regulated slavery of ancient Israel. Then came the fight for equality, and once again, nations that sought equality and oppoussed racism became rich countries, while the extremely catholic and racist countries became poorer.

The diference is, being black or African is not a sin according to the Torah. Being gay is.

I really don't care what homosexuals do in their privacy. Its their lives. The problem is the institutionalization of gay marriage, and its impact on society at large. Sodom wasn't destroyed because it had gay people, it was destroyed because homosexuality became an institution, accepted by the society at large, and eventually dominant social behavior.

I don't think this is going to end well. I think the West will lose its economical and technological hegemony, and other nations, which G-d finds less sinful, will become the next dominant powers.

Quote from: Siege on July 10, 2013, 05:03:55 PM
I hesitate to bring this up because I can only imagine the bashing I'm going to get for it. Nonetheless, in the order of full disclosure, here goes.

My position on gay marriage:

Gay marriage rights has been equated with the social movement in the 1960s for racial equality. When I look at history, it is clear to me that G-d has raised the nations that sought ending slavery, while the nations that tried to perpetuate slavery became poorer and eventually fell behind. 19th century slavery was nothing like the highly regulated slavery of ancient Israel. Then came the fight for equality, and once again, nations that sought equality and oppoussed racism became rich countries, while the extremely catholic and racist countries became poorer.

The diference is, being black or African is not a sin according to the Torah. Being gay is.

I really don't care what homosexuals do in their privacy. Its their lives. The problem is the institutionalization of gay marriage, and its impact on society at large. Sodom wasn't destroyed because it had gay people, it was destroyed because homosexuality became an institution, accepted by the society at large, and eventually dominant social behavior.

I don't think this is going to end well. I think the West will lose its economical and technological hegemony, and other nations, which G-d finds less sinful, will become the next dominant powers.

There were those who argued that being black was the Mark of Cain, ie a sin.

Quote from: merithyn on July 10, 2013, 05:13:58 PM

There were those who argued that being black was the Mark of Cain, ie a sin.

Oh come on. You are trying to pull this by the hair.
There is no one single word in the Torah about skin color being bad or good. Moshe himself married a Cushite, meaning a black woman.

Homosexuality, however...

Quote from: Siege on July 10, 2013, 05:17:46 PM

Quote from: merithyn on July 10, 2013, 05:13:58 PM

There were those who argued that being black was the Mark of Cain, ie a sin.

Oh come on. You are trying to pull this by the hair.
There is no one single word in the Torah about skin color being bad or good. Moshe himself married a Cushite, meaning a black woman.

Homosexuality, however...

Hey, if you wanna get technical, being a lesbian is a-okay according to the OT.

For that matter, David and Jonathan were held up as role models ... David clearly swung both ways, but he is quoted in the OT as saying that gay was better than hetero.  :P

1 Samuel 1:26, David talking about him and Jonathan:

QuoteYour love for me was wonderful,

more wonderful than that of women

Quote from: Malthus on July 10, 2013, 05:23:56 PM

1 Samuel 1:26, David talking about him and Jonathan:

QuoteYour love for me was wonderful,

more wonderful than that of women

Lots of societies other than the modern west since the advent of the concept and fear of homosexuality in the late 19th century have emphasized emotionally deep same sex friendships.

The vast majority of these would have been platonic, yet such a sentiment as that would not be unusual between the closest of friends, especially in more sexist/patriarchal societies.

Quote from: jimmy olsen on July 10, 2013, 05:41:37 PM

Quote from: Malthus on July 10, 2013, 05:23:56 PM

1 Samuel 1:26, David talking about him and Jonathan:

QuoteYour love for me was wonderful,

more wonderful than that of women

Lots of societies other than the modern west since the advent of the concept and fear of homosexuality in the late 19th century have emphasized emotionally deep same sex friendships.

The vast majority of these would have been platonic, yet such a sentiment as that would not be unusual between the closest of friends, especially in more sexist/patriarchal societies.

Yes, relations between young warrior-aristocrats were often very close.

For example, among the ancient Greeks.

Whether they were platonic ... well, let's just say, what happens in the royal barracks stays in the royal barracks.  ;)

In the OT, David gives Jonathan his clothes, and they sleep under a single blanket ... and Jonathan's dad, worried at their relationship, attempts to have David killed.  :hmm:

Quote from: Malthus on July 10, 2013, 05:50:41 PM
In the OT, David gives Jonathan his clothes, and they sleep under a single blanket ...

Definitely gay, like Spellus and his friend Ishmael.

Quote from: Malthus on July 10, 2013, 05:50:41 PM

Quote from: Jimmy Olsen
Lots of societies other than the modern west since the advent of the concept and fear of homosexuality in the late 19th century have emphasized emotionally deep same sex friendships.

The vast majority of these would have been platonic, yet such a sentiment as that would not be unusual between the closest of friends, especially in more sexist/patriarchal societies.

Yes, relations between young warrior-aristocrats were often very close.

For example, among the ancient Greeks.

Whether they were platonic ... well, let's just say, what happens in the royal barracks stays in the royal barracks.  ;)

Cherry picking one culture which was famous for what we consider homosexuality does not invalidate the general point I made.

What we would consider a straight man could easily make a similar statement in early Victorian Britain or modern Korea and nobody would think it strange.

The problem is not the personal lives of gay people.
It is the institution of gay marriage.

Regardless, there is nothing to be done. We cannot stop this train. Therefore, the West will lose to less sinful enemies.

Quote from: merithyn on July 10, 2013, 05:13:58 PM
There were those who argued that being black was the Mark of Cain, ie a sin.

The Mark of Cain is most likely intended to be some sort of tattoo; but no matter what it was it's not in itself a sin.  Killing Abel was Cain's sin, not being marked.

Quote from: Malthus on July 10, 2013, 05:23:56 PM

Hey, if you wanna get technical, being a lesbian is a-okay according to the OT.

For that matter, David and Jonathan were held up as role models ... David clearly swung both ways, but he is quoted in the OT as saying that gay was better than hetero.  :P

1 Samuel 1:26, David talking about him and Jonathan:

QuoteYour love for me was wonderful,

more wonderful than that of women

David was hardly a role model when it comes to following the Torah.  ;)

Quote from: merithyn on July 10, 2013, 05:13:58 PM


There were those who argued that being black was the Mark of Cain, ie a sin.

There were those who argued that Jesus was a space alien.  What's your point?

Where in the bible/torah does it actually say being gay is forbidden?
Most of the supposed instances of it being said that I've ever seen can be interpreted quite differently.

But of course, using a 2000+ year old book written by a bunch of desert nomads as a guide for how to live today=  :nelson:

Greeks weren't desert nomads.

Quote from: Tyr on July 10, 2013, 09:20:06 PM
Where in the bible/torah does it actually say being gay is forbidden?
Most of the supposed instances of it being said that I've ever seen can be interpreted quite differently.

Being gay isn't forbidden, having gay sex is.

Quote from: Tyr on July 10, 2013, 09:20:06 PM
Where in the bible/torah does it actually say being gay is forbidden?
Most of the supposed instances of it being said that I've ever seen can be interpreted quite differently.

Scroll down to 18:22 and on the second link to 20:13

http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt0318.htm

http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt0320.htm

18:22  "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind; it is abomination. "

20:13 "And if a man lie with mankind, as with womankind, both of them have committed abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them."

Great now, we're quoting random books from the past.

You have to keep in mind jewish law is only applicable to jews.
It would be violation of the Torah to ask non-jew to obey the Torah. Unless he converts, of course.

Gentiles do not suffer anywhere near as the jewish people have done historically when abandon the Torah. (Babylonian exile, expulsion from Spain, WW2 holocaust, etc)

However, G-d does judge all the nations, and the ones that sin the less are the most successful nations. I.e protestants better than catholics because of no images, etc.
Relationship with Israel is also important. See the Soviet Empire.

There is a New Testament prohibition against homosexuality, but it's near the back so most people don't find it.  Leviticus is much closer to the front so it gets quoted more.

Quote from: Siege on July 10, 2013, 09:48:51 PM

Quote from: Tyr on July 10, 2013, 09:20:06 PM
Where in the bible/torah does it actually say being gay is forbidden?
Most of the supposed instances of it being said that I've ever seen can be interpreted quite differently.

Scroll down to 18:22 and on the second link to 20:13

http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt0318.htm

http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt0320.htm

18:22  "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind; it is abomination. "

20:13 "And if a man lie with mankind, as with womankind, both of them have committed abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them."

Lying with a man in the same way you would a woman does sound like it would be an abomination. Luckily our bodies don't work that way, its not possible.

Really? you are physically unable to lie down next to a women?

Quote from: Siege on July 10, 2013, 09:59:57 PM
Gentiles do not suffer anywhere near as the jewish people have done historically when abandon the Torah. (Babylonian exile, expulsion from Spain, WW2 holocaust, etc)

However, G-d does judge all the nations, and the ones that sin the less are the most successful nations. I.e protestants better than catholics because of no images, etc.
Relationship with Israel is also important. See the Soviet Empire.

Expulsion from Spain?  How about the Spanish Inquisition?  The Irish Potato Famine?  Centuries of blacks in slavery?

Talk about a selective memory, dude.

Quote from: Siege on July 10, 2013, 05:03:55 PM
I hesitate to bring this up because I can only imagine the bashing I'm going to get for it. Nonetheless, in the order of full disclosure, here goes.

My position on gay marriage:

Gay marriage rights has been equated with the social movement in the 1960s for racial equality. When I look at history, it is clear to me that G-d has raised the nations that sought ending slavery, while the nations that tried to perpetuate slavery became poorer and eventually fell behind. 19th century slavery was nothing like the highly regulated slavery of ancient Israel. Then came the fight for equality, and once again, nations that sought equality and oppoussed racism became rich countries, while the extremely catholic and racist countries became poorer.

The diference is, being black or African is not a sin according to the Torah. Being gay is.

I really don't care what homosexuals do in their privacy. Its their lives. The problem is the institutionalization of gay marriage, and its impact on society at large. Sodom wasn't destroyed because it had gay people, it was destroyed because homosexuality became an institution, accepted by the society at large, and eventually dominant social behavior.

I don't think this is going to end well. I think the West will lose its economical and technological hegemony, and other nations, which G-d finds less sinful, will become the next dominant powers.

http://www.buzzfeed.com/omgitsanf/19-things-the-bible-forbids-other-than-homosexuali-b83k

Oh I wanted to add here, belatedly, to Otto - clearly Card has some skin in the game if he's trying to make sure people go and see the movie based on his book.

http://www.buzzfeed.com/omgitsanf/19-things-the-bible-forbids-other-than-homosexuali-b83k (http://www.buzzfeed.com/omgitsanf/19-things-the-bible-forbids-other-than-homosexuali-b83k)


Wow, that's brilliant garbon.  Thanks for bringing that to our attention.

Quote from: DontSayBanana on July 11, 2013, 07:51:51 AM

Quote from: Siege on July 10, 2013, 09:59:57 PM
Gentiles do not suffer anywhere near as the jewish people have done historically when abandon the Torah. (Babylonian exile, expulsion from Spain, WW2 holocaust, etc)

However, G-d does judge all the nations, and the ones that sin the less are the most successful nations. I.e protestants better than catholics because of no images, etc.
Relationship with Israel is also important. See the Soviet Empire.

Expulsion from Spain?  How about the Spanish Inquisition?  The Irish Potato Famine?  Centuries of blacks in slavery?

Talk about a selective memory, dude.

EDIT: Dammit. 

The Spanish inquisition killed like what?  3,000 people over 300 years? 

Quote from: Razgovory on July 11, 2013, 02:31:59 PM


http://www.buzzfeed.com/omgitsanf/19-things-the-bible-forbids-other-than-homosexuali-b83k (http://www.buzzfeed.com/omgitsanf/19-things-the-bible-forbids-other-than-homosexuali-b83k)


Wow, that's brilliant garbon.  Thanks for bringing that to our attention.

It has little relevance for non-Jewish America anyway.

Re:  gay marriage, I am for it.  But I can't fault some people like Siege for wondering what its impact will be on society, given that its never really happened before in human history (though personally I don't imagine it will be terribly large).

Quote from: Pitiful Pathos on July 11, 2013, 06:33:43 PM

Quote from: Razgovory on July 11, 2013, 02:31:59 PM


http://www.buzzfeed.com/omgitsanf/19-things-the-bible-forbids-other-than-homosexuali-b83k (http://www.buzzfeed.com/omgitsanf/19-things-the-bible-forbids-other-than-homosexuali-b83k)


Wow, that's brilliant garbon.  Thanks for bringing that to our attention.

It has little relevance for non-Jewish America anyway.

What are you talking about. There nothing jewish in there. That's clearly directed at Christians.
Fuck. Now I have to go back and break it down one by one. Fuck you Raz. Fuck you Pathos.


1- "1. First off, we are doing a TERRIBLE job when it comes to dietary restrictions."
- Please. We keep them all.

2- "2. Time to cut out the shellfish."
- Read above

3- "3. Hopefully nobody's EATING YOUR PETS."
- Blahblabla


4. Or eating... weird-ass animals.



5. America is gonna have trouble with the no-fat rule, though.
- This is where they start to mislead. This refers to the not eating the internal fat in the organs of animals. The natural fat that you find in the beef have a diferent name in Hebrew. Of course plenty of hareidim do read it as the fat in the meat though.


6. Eating blood. BLOOD.
- Yep. Who the hell drinks or eat blood anyway? Oh, I forgot you guys eat some kind hot dog looking thing made of blood...


7. Oh, and there's like, 100 birds we shouldn't chow down on, either.
- Yes, we know.



8. Secondly, our fashion is one huge blasphemous abomination to God.
Leviticus 10:6 "Uncover not your heads, neither rend your clothes; lest ye die, and lest wrath come upon all the people."
Translation: Torn clothes are a no-no. Sorry, every single person who owns a pair of ripped-knees jeans.

- I laughed at this one for a while. Let me try to explain. This one was taken completely out of context. What happen is, the two older sons of Aaron, Moshe's brother, went to the tabernacle (sp) when in Sinai, and offered fire out of the normal kohen ritual. So they got whacked with fire, and Moshe told Aaron to not (what's the word in English?) feel sorry that his two elder sons had died, because they had died because of their sins. The custom was, and is to this day, to rend/cut your clothes when you were (that English word again?) feeling sad because you lost a family member, and Moshe told Aaron to not do it. That is all. This is by no means a PERMANENT command to not cut your jeans.



9. Thought you were gonna wear your leather jacket over that cotton V-neck? Think again, sinner.
Leviticus 19:19 "Neither shall a garment mingled of linen and woollen come upon thee."

- Yes, don't wear shit with mixed shit.



10. After fashion comes personal appearance. Supercuts is about to go straight outta business.
Leviticus 19:27 "Ye shall not round the corners of your heads."  Translation: Long hair, don't care!

- WTF. Round cuts are like what Christian monks did during mediaval times. This is most definitively not a command to not cut your hair. By the way, one of the reasons the haredim wear the long locks is to not have a rounded haircut.



11. And I hope you ladies like a man with some scruff!
Leviticus 19:27 "Neither shalt thou mar the corners of thy beard."
Translation: "5 o'clock shadow" just became "lifetime shadow."

- Wrong again. The command is to not do stupid shit to the CORNERS of your beard like assyrians and most other people in the area did at the time. If the command was to not shave, it would have said so clearly, since Egyptians did shave, so the custom was not unknown. BTW, jews that do not shave do this using a diferent law, the one that says to not follow the traditions of other peoples, since shaving is clearly a non-Jewish tradition or fashion.



12. Tattoos? Forget about it.
Leviticus 19:28 "Ye shall not make any cuttings in your flesh for the dead, nor print any marks upon you: I am the Lord."
Translation: Get your street cred some other way.

- Yeah. No tattoos. However this is not the law for no tattoos. This one is for people who are (was that English word again?) feeling sad because they lost a loved one, to not do like most people at the time did, cutting their flesh, marking themselves, and shaving their eyebrows.



13. Some things seem rather harmless, like having a mixed garden.
Leviticus 19:19 "Thou shalt not sow thy field with mingled seed."
Translation: Everything is a sin nowadays.

- Yeah. We don't mixed seed in the fields. I don't see how this one is controversial.



14. Or Bichon-Yorkies.
Leviticus 19:19 "Thou shalt not let thy cattle gender with a diverse kind."
Translation: No mixing up animals! Or maybe it's just cows. What would you breed a cow with anyway? WHY CAN'T THE BIBLE JUST BE LESS CRYPTIC?


- This dude is retarded. CATTLE.
There is another one that prohibit mixing of animals more generally. Still, it does not cover mixing dogs. Mixing diferent types of dogs is not prohibited by this, since they are all still dogs. Now mixing a horse and a donkey to get a mule is a no go. BTW, so is cutting the balls of the oxes.



15. Other things are sorta bad, I guess. Like revenge.
Leviticus 19:18 "Thou shalt not avenge, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people."
Translation: We all need to be the bigger person. But sometimes it's so harddd!

- Yeah. No revenge against your people. Foreign enemies are game though.



16. There's a bunch of things we're not supposed to touch.
There's a bunch of things we're not supposed to touch.


Leviticus 5:2 "If a soul touch any unclean thing, whether it be a carcase of an unclean beast, or a carcase of unclean cattle, or the carcase of unclean creeping things, and if it be hidden from him; he also shall be unclean, and guilty."
Translation: Your bet is as good as mine as to what warrants an "unclean beast." But I'm guessing your puppy isn't exactly a clean freak.

- This dude is retard. unclean beast is non-kosher animal, animal that cannot be eaten.



17. Some really confuse me. You mean, less church is better?
Leviticus 12:4–5 "And she shall then continue in the blood of her purifying three and thirty days; she shall touch no hallowed thing, nor come into the sanctuary, until the days of her purifying be fulfilled. But if she bear a maid child, then she shall be unclean two weeks, as in her separation: and she shall continue in the blood of her purifying threescore and six days."

Translation: Hey, new moms: STAY OUT OF CHURCH. Thirty-three days for bubbly baby boys; 66 days for glowing baby girls.


- Church? This is about the Temple, of which there was only ONE in Israel, and people went there to offer sacrifices, not to seat inside and hear people talk.



18. Like, they really confuse me: No alcohol in church. What?!
19 Things The Bible Forbids Other Than Homosexuality


Leviticus 10:9 "Do not drink wine nor strong drink, thou, nor thy sons with thee, when ye go into the tabernacle of the congregation, lest ye die."

Translation: The bazillion people drinking wine as the blood of Christ in church are soooo over this rule.


- Again.



19. Last but not least: Working on Sundays. The whole NFL is screwed!
Leviticus 23:3 "Six days shall work be done: but the seventh day is the sabbath of rest, an holy convocation; ye shall do no work therein: it is the sabbath of the Lord in all your dwellings."

Translation: Tebow is done for.


- Please. The Shabbat is on Saturday, not sunday.



Now, you guys realize of all the misleading in all this, right?
Lets look at the first one.
No eating pork.
Yes, it is a command, if you do not keep kosher you cannot communicate with G-d.
However, if you eat pork, the penalty is to wash the clothes you are wearing, wash your entire body, before sundown.

Compare this to gay sex, in which the penalty is death.

Clearly this guy is comparing apples to oranges.
Also, if you cannot keep a couple laws, that is not reason to not keep all the ones that you can.
I cannot sacrify at the Temple, because there is not Temple. That doesn't mean I cannot keep a kosher diet.

More importantly, nobody gives a flying fuck about gay sex.
What they do in their privacy is their problem. If I do not witness it, I have nothing to say.
Gay marriage, however, is a public matter.

Quote from: Siege on July 11, 2013, 10:25:54 PM

Quote from: Pitiful Pathos on July 11, 2013, 06:33:43 PM

Quote from: Razgovory on July 11, 2013, 02:31:59 PM


http://www.buzzfeed.com/omgitsanf/19-things-the-bible-forbids-other-than-homosexuali-b83k (http://www.buzzfeed.com/omgitsanf/19-things-the-bible-forbids-other-than-homosexuali-b83k)


Wow, that's brilliant garbon.  Thanks for bringing that to our attention.

It has little relevance for non-Jewish America anyway.

What are you talking about. There nothing jewish in there. That's clearly directed at Christians.
Fuck. Now I have to go back and break it down one by one. Fuck you Raz. Fuck you Pathos.

What did I do now?

Oh, I figured it out.  That was sarcasm you git.  I was disappointed in garbon in bringing that sophomoric bullshit to our attention.

Oh and the English word you were looking for was "Mourning".

Quote from: Siege on July 11, 2013, 10:25:54 PM

Quote from: Pitiful Pathos on July 11, 2013, 06:33:43 PM

Quote from: Razgovory on July 11, 2013, 02:31:59 PM


http://www.buzzfeed.com/omgitsanf/19-things-the-bible-forbids-other-than-homosexuali-b83k (http://www.buzzfeed.com/omgitsanf/19-things-the-bible-forbids-other-than-homosexuali-b83k)


Wow, that's brilliant garbon.  Thanks for bringing that to our attention.

It has little relevance for non-Jewish America anyway.

What are you talking about. There nothing jewish in there. That's clearly directed at Christians.
Fuck. Now I have to go back and break it down one by one. Fuck you Raz. Fuck you Pathos.

It's directed at Christians, but only because the author of the website is ignorant on this issue (as are many Christians).  The New Testament expressly absolves Christians from all of these dietary laws, thus they aren't relevant to Christians.

Quote from: Pitiful Pathos on July 11, 2013, 11:17:02 PM

Quote from: Siege on July 11, 2013, 10:25:54 PM

Quote from: Pitiful Pathos on July 11, 2013, 06:33:43 PM

Quote from: Razgovory on July 11, 2013, 02:31:59 PM


http://www.buzzfeed.com/omgitsanf/19-things-the-bible-forbids-other-than-homosexuali-b83k (http://www.buzzfeed.com/omgitsanf/19-things-the-bible-forbids-other-than-homosexuali-b83k)


Wow, that's brilliant garbon.  Thanks for bringing that to our attention.

It has little relevance for non-Jewish America anyway.

What are you talking about. There nothing jewish in there. That's clearly directed at Christians.
Fuck. Now I have to go back and break it down one by one. Fuck you Raz. Fuck you Pathos.

It's directed at Christians, but only because the author of the website is ignorant on this issue (as are many Christians).  The New Testament expressly absolves Christians from all of these dietary laws, thus they aren't relevant to Christians.

It's directed at Athiests who can chortle about how stoopid the Christians are and how smart they are.

Quote from: Razgovory on July 12, 2013, 01:30:24 AM

Quote from: Pitiful Pathos on July 11, 2013, 11:17:02 PM

Quote from: Siege on July 11, 2013, 10:25:54 PM

Quote from: Pitiful Pathos on July 11, 2013, 06:33:43 PM

Quote from: Razgovory on July 11, 2013, 02:31:59 PM


http://www.buzzfeed.com/omgitsanf/19-things-the-bible-forbids-other-than-homosexuali-b83k (http://www.buzzfeed.com/omgitsanf/19-things-the-bible-forbids-other-than-homosexuali-b83k)


Wow, that's brilliant garbon.  Thanks for bringing that to our attention.

It has little relevance for non-Jewish America anyway.

What are you talking about. There nothing jewish in there. That's clearly directed at Christians.
Fuck. Now I have to go back and break it down one by one. Fuck you Raz. Fuck you Pathos.

It's directed at Christians, but only because the author of the website is ignorant on this issue (as are many Christians).  The New Testament expressly absolves Christians from all of these dietary laws, thus they aren't relevant to Christians.

It's directed at Athiests who can chortle about how stoopid the Christians are and how smart they are.

Actually I think it was directed at saying that it's rather bullshit how much credence is given to the idea that Christians have to oppose same sex marriage.

At any rate, it is a juvenile piece but fitting in response to Siege's juvenile post. ;)

Quote from: garbon on July 12, 2013, 02:10:00 AM


Actually I think it was directed at saying that it's rather bullshit how much credence is given to the idea that Christians have to oppose same sex marriage.

At any rate, it is a juvenile piece but fitting in response to Siege's juvenile post. ;)

No, I think this was just childish "Look how stupid these people are" bullshit. Hence the snide and puerile comments.  Like " We all need to be the bigger person. But sometimes it's so harddd!"

Well it is buzzfeed. :mellow:

You posted it here.  Anyway, Siege did his best, and much better then some simpering little high school shit giving his opinion on theology on Buzzfeed.

It's a bad idea, not assimilating people.

Quote from: Razgovory on July 12, 2013, 03:22:33 AM
You posted it here.  Anyway, Siege did his best, and much better then some simpering little high school shit giving his opinion on theology on Buzzfeed.

Whatever, Raz. :)

Quote from: frunk on July 09, 2013, 04:37:00 PM

Quote from: Berkut on July 09, 2013, 04:17:39 PM

Quote from: Josephus on July 09, 2013, 04:13:47 PM
How much does boycotting the movie affect him, though? Don't buy his books, perhaps.

Of course it won't affect him in any real way at all, even if it works - he already made his money.

The point is to send a message to Hollywood about who they can and cannot do business with in the future.

Are there conditions under which a boycott would not be a hypocritical self-defeating waste of time?

Alabama bus boycott, Claiborne County MS business boycott, etc.  But those are economic boycotts intended to correct de jure and de facto economic discrimination by the business owners/operators.  I'm pretty sure that Hollywood doesn't discriminate against homosexuals economically.

Quote from: Pitiful Pathos on July 11, 2013, 11:17:02 PM
It's directed at Christians, but only because the author of the website is ignorant on this issue (as are many Christians).  The New Testament expressly absolves Christians from all of these dietary laws, thus they aren't relevant to Christians.

Not only that but the absolution was only required for converts from Judaism - gentile Christians were never subject to those rules in the first place.  The only rules in the Torah for gentiles are not to eat the flesh of still living animal and not to commit murder. 

http://www.theguardian.com/film/2013/aug/16/ender-s-game-orson-scott-card-essay-obama-hitler

QuoteHe has already upset many with his views on homosexuality. Now Orson Scott Card, author of the iconic source novel which forms the basis of upcoming sci-fi blockbuster Ender's Game, has repeated the trick, and imagined a post-democratic USA in which the current president rules as an autocrat forever.

In the essay, which was published on Card's Civilisation Watch blog and titled "Unlikely Events", the novelist posits a future where Obama rules as a "Hitler- or Stalin-style dictator" complete with his own "national police force" of "young out-of-work urban men". He also suggests that Obama and his wife, Michelle, might amend the US constitution to allow presidents to remain in power forever before the next presidential election and would then "win by 98 percent every time". Adds the author: "That's how it works in Nigeria and Zimbabwe; that's how it worked in Hitler's Germany."

Card labels the post "an experiment in fictional thinking," adding: "Will these things happen? Of course not." However, his work is unlikely to please executives at studio Lionsgate, already on the back foot over Ender's Game after many – including gay group Geeks Out – highlighted Card's opposition to same-sex marriage in the US and suggested film-goers might consider boycotting the upcoming movie based on his 1984 novel.

Card, a practising member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and key figure in the anti-gay National Organisation for Marriage, has been highly vocal on the issue for a number of years. His views, and the Geeks Out boycott, have seen him encouraged to stay away from promotional appearances to promote the Ender's Game movie such as last month's Comic-Con in San Diego. Lionsgate, meanwhile, has been at pains to flag up its equal rights credentials, issuing a statement describing the studio as "proud longtime supporters of the LGBT community, champions of films ranging from Gods and Monsters to The Perks of Being a Wallflower and a company that is proud to have recognised same-sex unions and domestic partnerships within its employee benefits policies for many years". The studio added last month: "We obviously do not agree with the personal views of Orson Scott Card and those of the National Organisation for Marriage."

Ender's Game, which stars Asa Butterfield, Abigail Breslin, Hailee Steinfeld, Ben Kingsley and Harrison Ford, centres on a gifted child who is sent to a military school in space to prepare for an alien invasion. It is released in UK cinemas on 25 October, Australian cinemas on 31 October and US cinemas a day later.

Forever? Will he be encased in a Golden Throne? Will the Obama Imperial Guard backed by the Democratic party Inquisiton an a thousand chapters of elite Democrat marines fight the forces of Chaos and their gods Limbaugh, Beck, Rand and Reagan?

Tune in next bat time, same bat channel!

That scenario is dumber than anything Tim's shared with us. Possibly dumber than anything Lettow's shared with us even.  :hmm:

Quote"win by 98 percent every time". Adds the author: "That's how it works in Nigeria and Zimbabwe; that's how it worked in Hitler's Germany."

Hitler won around 1/3 of the vote, then stopped elections
The winner in the last Nigerian elections won less than 60% and the elections were considered fair by outside observers.  Prior elections were not as clean but nothing close to 98 percent.
The Zimbabwe elections were screwed up but still Mugabe only got in the 60s.

The problem with this guy might just be garden variety rank stupidity.

Quote from: Ed Anger on August 16, 2013, 01:15:23 PM
Forever? Will he be encased in a Golden Throne? Will the Obama Imperial Guard backed by the Democratic party Inquisiton an a thousand chapters of elite Democrat marines fight the forces of Chaos and their gods Limbaugh, Beck, Rand and Reagan?

Tune in next bat time, same bat channel!

He's been in the Golden Shower awful long now. Hey, You better not be touching Yourself in there!

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 12, 2013, 04:25:04 PM

Quote from: Pitiful Pathos on July 11, 2013, 11:17:02 PM
It's directed at Christians, but only because the author of the website is ignorant on this issue (as are many Christians).  The New Testament expressly absolves Christians from all of these dietary laws, thus they aren't relevant to Christians.

Not only that but the absolution was only required for converts from Judaism - gentile Christians were never subject to those rules in the first place.  The only rules in the Torah for gentiles are not to eat the flesh of still living animal and not to commit murder.

I abide by Jewish law.

A "national police force" of "young out-of-work urban men"?  Holy shit, a Black FBI.  Now that's enough to put the fear of God in the average Conservative.

Quote from: crazy canuck on August 16, 2013, 01:44:25 PM

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 12, 2013, 04:25:04 PM

Quote from: Pitiful Pathos on July 11, 2013, 11:17:02 PM
It's directed at Christians, but only because the author of the website is ignorant on this issue (as are many Christians).  The New Testament expressly absolves Christians from all of these dietary laws, thus they aren't relevant to Christians.

Not only that but the absolution was only required for converts from Judaism - gentile Christians were never subject to those rules in the first place.  The only rules in the Torah for gentiles are not to eat the flesh of still living animal and not to commit murder.

I abide by Jewish law.

I find it too restrictive.

Quote from: Razgovory on August 16, 2013, 03:07:58 PM
A "national police force" of "young out-of-work urban men"?  Holy shit, a Black FBI.  Now that's enough to put the fear of God in the average Conservative.

(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.bet.com%2Fnews%2Fmusic%2F2012%2F12%2F11%2Fpublic-enemy-among-inductees-to-rock-and-roll-hall-of-fame%2F_jcr_content%2FfeaturedMedia%2Fnewsitemimage.newsimage.dimg%2F121112-music-public-enemy-among-rock-n-roll-hall-of-fame-honorees.jpg&hash=e5c0606a520a130d782c647e6d648c467730d11d)

I can't tell what time it is.