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

[Berkut]

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

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

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

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.

[Jacob]

Slippery 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.

[Eddie Teach]

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.

[merithyn]

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. Got it.

[Berkut]

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.

[merithyn]

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".

[merithyn]

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.

[OttoVonBismarck]

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.

[Berkut]

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.

[Berkut]

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.

[Maximus]

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.

[merithyn]

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. 

[merithyn]

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.

[garbon]

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.

[Berkut]

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.