A call to skip "Ender's Game" to oppose OSC's homophobia


Movies

1 to 50 of 793 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
The Exchange

I recently found out there's quite a serious movement to ostracize the upcoming "Ender's Game" blockbuster, as a protest to Orson Scott Card's public, vile and outspoken homophobia. More information about it can be found here.

Personally I don't think I'll skip the movie, because I think it's a tale worthy of being told, and Lionsgate (the company making the movie) have made it absolutely clear that not only do they oppose Card's views, they are also going to donate some money they make from the movie to LGBT organizations. Just imagining the kind of mood this must put Card in makes me want to smile, and I think we really should support that kind of open minded humanity from large companies. That aside, I want to watch the movie and don't generally participate in any sort of organized consumer pressure.
However, I thought some people might want to reconsider what they want to do with the issue, so I brought it here.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I actually had no plans to see Ender's Gate actually. Never got into the book series. The current controversy does not change my plans.


I'm not going to see the film because it doesn't interest me.

Boycotting it seems a little extreme given that (as far as I know) the film and the book have nothing to do with his views on same-sex marriage or homosexuality. If it were some kind of anti-LGBT manifesto, then yes, I could see the interest in boycotting - but from what I can tell, its simply a coming of age scifi story.

The man is a cad (as is anyone else who refers to LGBT civil rights as the "homosexual agenda"), but we should never silence anyone's freedom of expression - even if they disagree with us on fundamental levels.

Liberty's Edge

Orsen Scott Card wrote:

Ender’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.

Entertainment Weekly


I read Lovecraft, so I'm willing to look past some of writer's personal views and agendas - and I enjoyed the book, so was considering watching the movie.

What annoys me a bit is Mazer Rackham. Kingsley is a great actor, and I wouldn't have minded it he was made into the character... but why with the Maori facial tattoos?

Especially when there are a couple of decent Maori choices.

I don't mind that they picked Kingsley - more that they picked Kingsley and plastered him with Tā moko.

Silver Crusade

NSFW, potentially offensive, related, and presenting another possibility to those torn on the issue.

Technically two.


I have really no intention of seeing the movie as I am really not fan of his works regardless of his veiws. I might be dragged to it by a friend who is a big fan though...I'll just make him pay for it.

I do think it is really...extreme to bocott this movie because of a writer's veiws. I always separate the artwork for the creator if possible...for instance I love Wagner's music...but disagree with his veiws. It is also one of the reasons why I don't idolize any kind of artist...be it a writter, artist, conposer, actor, etc.


nm


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Tirisfal wrote:

I'm not going to see the film because it doesn't interest me.

Boycotting it seems a little extreme given that (as far as I know) the film and the book have nothing to do with his views on same-sex marriage or homosexuality. If it were some kind of anti-LGBT manifesto, then yes, I could see the interest in boycotting - but from what I can tell, its simply a coming of age scifi story.

The man is a cad (as is anyone else who refers to LGBT civil rights as the "homosexual agenda"), but we should never silence anyone's freedom of expression - even if they disagree with us on fundamental levels.

A boycott is not silencing free speech, it is itself an expression of free speech. OSC is allowed to say the things he's said, but people are also allowed to respond. There are consequences for all things. This isn't about silencing him, it's about the flow of money.

A lot of people complain more and more about how government is just a tool of corporations and the wealthy. If that is true, how you spend your money is becoming more important than voting.

The debate over LGBT rights isn't over or settled yet. Progress has been made, but there are still people who want to deny or rescind rights given so far. The National Organization for Marriage is one of them and OSC supports them, with his time, effort and money. Geek OUT can't do anything about his time and effort, but they are not willing to contribute their own money so he can use it to oppose them.

It's not just his views that they are worried about. It's the money he's going to make from the movie and how he'll spend it (which is definitely informed by his views).

Silver Crusade

If Card were just himself homophobic, I probably wouldn't boycott it. After all, many authors and artists hold or held views which I find anathema, but which don't necessarily detract from the work. Just because Agatha Christie was a rabid anti-Semite doesn't mean I won't read her stories.

But Card goes well beyond privately holding views I find offensive. He has actively promoted his agenda, and only stopped when faced with a push-back from the public, then cried that he shouldn't be persecuted for his views. This crosses the line for me, and I refuse to support any project he's connected to, despite how much I truly loved his book, back in the day.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

I don't really give a rip what his views are. He wrote a good story. One I will likely see in the box office.


LazarX wrote:
I actually had no plans to see Ender's Gate actually. Never got into the book series. The current controversy does not change my plans.

Ditto.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Thanks for making decisions even harder by being awesome, Harrison Ford.* >:(

Lionsgate's charity donations are going to at least match what OSC is taking, right?

*It honestly is nice to have some childhood heroes that don't let you down.


I'm not going to go see it, because the story is

Spoiler:
a cruel story of physical and psychological abuse of children.
I'm not sure if that will come through in the movie, but it sure did in the book.


Vod Canockers wrote:
I'm not going to go see it, because the story is ** spoiler omitted ** I'm not sure if that will come through in the movie, but it sure did in the book.

That's more or less the point of the the book, as far as I'm aware.

Silver Crusade

17 people marked this as a favorite.

If I boycotted everything done by someone whose views I disagreed with, I'd be living in the woods making my own clothes. I wouldn't play using the Pathfinder setting due to its Cthuhlu influences, because Lovecraft was a racist misogynistic bastard. Yet I do use the setting because I don't associate the man with his work in that way.

That's called tolerance.

For a society that's supposedly become more tolerant, we seem decidedly more intolerant now than we've ever been.

My point is that for those who felt persecuted for being a part of the LGBT community, isn't it a bit hypocritical to persecute someone who disagrees with your lifestyle in the same way that you were? I always thought the goal was to be the better person and be above that sort of thing, not come down to the level of those who despise you.

Sovereign Court

8 people marked this as a favorite.
Blayde MacRonan wrote:
For a society that's supposedly become more tolerant, we seem decidedly more intolerant now than we've ever been.

Don't be silly. Since WW2 you've gone from segregation and mccarthyism to now.

Tolerance is about accepting those who are outside of the norm and the domninant paradigm. Not about giving equal respect to every opinion. And nobody is doing anything to actively harm Card, they're just avoiding giving him money.

Blayde MacRonan wrote:
My point is that for those who felt persecuted for being a part of the LGBT community, isn't it a bit hypocritical to persecute someone who disagrees with your lifestyle in the same way that you were? I always thought the goal was to be the better person and be above that sort of thing, not come down to the level of those who despise you.

You don't seem to understand what persecution is: Alan Turing was persecuted; Card is not being persecuted.

Making peoples' harmless emotions and desires illegal is persecution; not buying a product Card made is not persecution.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

Be consistent then. Boycott the Hobbit. Tolkien - as well as a great many other writers - did not approve of homosexuality. Safe bet, any writer that wasn't homosexual, and lived prior to 1950, was probably opposed to it.
For the record, a good number of people today still do not approve. Whether this is right or wrong, it is an OPINION. So long as they do not act in a harmful manner they are entitled to it. Just like you are entitled to hate a book and a movie that have absolutely nothing to do with homosexuality because of the author's personal opinions.

Silver Crusade

8 people marked this as a favorite.

Actually, as a 42 year old, 6'5", 226 lb. black Mormon, I know quite a bit about persecution. I've experienced it first hand. Still do, in fact.

Here's the definition of tolerance, persecute and persecution.

Tolerance
2a : sympathy or indulgence for beliefs or practices differing from or conflicting with one's own
2b : the act of allowing something : toleration

Persecute

1: to harass or punish in a manner designed to injure, grieve, or afflict; specifically : to cause to suffer because of belief
2: to annoy with persistent or urgent approaches (as attacks, pleas, or importunities)

Persecution

1: the act or practice of persecuting especially those who differ in origin, religion, or social outlook
2: the condition of being persecuted, harassed, or annoyed

If this was the only place that was talking about boycotting Ender's Game, I'd agree that he wasn't being persecuted. But this thread is only one of many others like it calling for this action. I think the man is being persecuted. I get that you and many others disagree with his outlook, but when you engage in the concerted refusal to have dealings with a person to express disapproval or to force acceptance of certain conditions (the definition of boycott), you are hurting the person. In this case, you're doing it financially. And that's not all you're hurting. You're hurting the studio, who decided to take a chance with the making of the movie in the first place. By ensuring the movie fails, you're also ensuring that other sci-fi classics won't get made or be consigned to development hell. And since I know we constantly complain about how there's no good sci-fi being made in Hollywood, that hurts all of us.

So when del Toro gets around to finishing At The Mountains of Madness, will you boycott that too so that the Lovecraft Foundation doesn't get a dime of your money? Lovecraft was far worse in his views, yet I don't see anyone calling for his works (or adaptations of his work) to be boycotted.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Blayde MacRonan wrote:
Lovecraft was far worse in his views, yet I don't see anyone calling for his works (or adaptations of his work) to be boycotted.

That's what I personally find hilarious about this. The man was a racist, I believe homophobic, jerk, and it came through in his writing. There is no "Homosexuality is EVIL!!!1!!11!" message in Ender's Game.

If you don't go see Ender's Game, don't go see it because you don't like Card's work. That's why I don't see many movies; because I dislike the movies themselves.

Silver Crusade

6 people marked this as a favorite.

As I wrote above, there is a world of difference between holding views, and advocating views.

Card isn't being persecuted because he holds an unpopular opinion. People are boycotting his work because they do not want to been seen as supporting the opinion that he is advocating. For him to rail against homosexuals, and then complain that people have stopped buying his (intellectual) product as a result...

Me not watching Ender's Game hurts no one but the makers of the film. Card's words and actions can limit the rights and freedoms of millions, and can lead to persecutions far greater in scope than anything he might suffer personally.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
GreenDragon1133 wrote:

Be consistent then. Boycott the Hobbit. Tolkien - as well as a great many other writers - did not approve of homosexuality. Safe bet, any writer that wasn't homosexual, and lived prior to 1950, was probably opposed to it.

For the record, a good number of people today still do not approve. Whether this is right or wrong, it is an OPINION. So long as they do not act in a harmful manner they are entitled to it. Just like you are entitled to hate a book and a movie that have absolutely nothing to do with homosexuality because of the author's personal opinions.

There's also a huge difference between buying something by a long dead author who had opinions typical of his time and buying something from a living author who not only holds that opinion but donates money and openly speaks against it.

And yes, it's an OPINION. Just like believing women should be kept barefoot, pregnant and subservient to men is an opinion. Or believing that blacks are naturally inferior and suited only to slavery is an opinion.
If a modern author was openly pushing those claims, would people still be arguing we should ignore them and just go see the movie? Assuming said outspoken author wasn't being persecuted by having no one buy his books or make the movie in the first place.

Silver Crusade

GreenDragon1133 wrote:
For the record, a good number of people today still do not approve. Whether this is right or wrong, it is an OPINION. So long as they do not act in a harmful manner they are entitled to it.

Yes. I agree completely. The question is whether or not Card is acting "in a harmful manner".

He is entitled to say anything he likes, and to spend however much energy as he wishes to push for or against any cause he likes. His choices, though, have consequences. By being a successful author, his words carry greater weight. By supporting his works I give him a larger soap-box from which to advocate. While I like his book as it is, I do not want to give the man a larger soap-box. I do not want him to have a wildly successful film, and be given endless interviews, and become a new Hollywood mogul.

The way I prevent this is by not buying a ticket, and by encouraging others to follow suit.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Boycotting the movie will probably work real good. It won't just drum up massive amounts of publicity for a movie that probably, if you go ask any non geek at the moment, won't know a damn thing about it.

And, well......Chick fil a.....the only people who actially suffered with that boycott were the poor workers who worked that day the cars were wrapped around the parkinglot twice for the drivethru.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.

It hurts all of us, as I stated before. And it hurts you as well, because by limiting yourself to such a narrow viewpoint, it makes you really no better or different than OSC.


Honestly, I hadn't heard anything against this until the movie was completed and got ready for release. I don't think any boycott will affect Orson Scott Card very much, but will hurt everyone else associated with the film. I feel that a better time to have called for a boycott was when they were doing the initial work to get the film started.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Blayde MacRonan wrote:
It hurts all of us, as I stated before. And it hurts you as well, because by limiting yourself to such a narrow viewpoint, it makes you really no better or different than OSC.

That's nonsense. Boycotting people and organizations that are actively trying to oppress you or deny you rights, or doing so to others, is not the same as actually oppressing people.

Boycotting racist businesses back in the days of the Civil Rights Movement was not at all the same as making blacks sit at the back of the bus.


Blayde MacRonan wrote:

It hurts all of us, as I stated before. And it hurts you as well, because by limiting yourself to such a narrow viewpoint, it makes you really no better or different than OSC.

See, here's the difference between me and you:

I don't think I'm any better or different than anybody else. Not even OSC.

Silver Crusade

I'd like to think that I'm the same way, Spanky.


Orson Scott Card used his freedom of speech to say that he believed homosexual marriage was wrong and should be illegal and to advocate for that. Geeks Out are using their freedom of speech to try and draw attention to what Card said and to suggest people not see the movie if they disagree with his views.

Now sure, if the boycott turned into marches on streets and harassment of people seeing the movie that's a level of persecution. But just getting the word out that "hey, we're not seeing this movie and this is why. If you agree with us maybe you shouldn't see the movie either" isn't somehow less acceptable than Card saying those things in the first place.

Personally I'd be a little torn on whether to avoid the movie because of the author's views or not. But the point is moot for me anyway since I'm not really a fan of the book in the first place.


Let us not judge people of the past by today's standards. That is called Presentism and its a form of intolerace. JRRT was not known for being anti homosexual, for example, he was fairly tolerant for a man of his time.

Otoh, Card is still alive.

Silver Crusade

Berik wrote:

Orson Scott Card used his freedom of speech to say that he believed homosexual marriage was wrong and should be illegal and to advocate for that. Geeks Out are using their freedom of speech to try and draw attention to what Card said and to suggest people not see the movie if they disagree with his views.

Now sure, if the boycott turned into marches on streets and harassment of people seeing the movie that's a level of persecution. But just getting the word out that "hey, we're not seeing this movie and this is why. If you agree with us maybe you shouldn't see the movie either" isn't somehow less acceptable than Card saying those things in the first place.

Personally I'd be a little torn on whether to avoid the movie because of the author's views or not. But the point is moot for me anyway since I'm not really a fan of the book in the first place.

I'm not trying to prevent anyone from expressing their beliefs. All I'm doing is trying to understand how any form of bigotry can be tolerated in one instance, but not in another.

Silver Crusade

Read Mikaze's link.

Harrison Ford has the right idea.

And OSC raises a very good point with this:

Speaking at the San Diego Comic-Con, Ford made reference to Card's statement that he had lost the gay marriage battle. Card had called it "moot" after the recent Supreme Court ruling and said that "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." Ford's reply to Card's statement was simple: "I think we all know that we've won. That humanity has won. And that's the end of the story." Later, at the Ender's Game fan panel, an attendee asked how involved Card was in the movie given his anti-gay views, prompting jeers from the audience to "let it go."


So the tolerance from gay rights supporters is to ignore those who've fought against their rights for years and even continue to do so. To support them financially by seeing their movies, buying their books, whatever, while they continue to speak against gay rights and may continue to fund other groups doing so.

Card has said he's lost the gay marriage battle and a significant step has been taken, but it's still illegal and unconstitutional in many states. I see no evidence that the anti-marriage equality people are stopping their efforts to fight expansion of gay rights. Has the National Organization for Marriage agreed to support same-sex marriage? Has Card denounced the organization and pledged not to offer it any more support?

Why is boycotting someone's work so much worse than actually trying to deny someone's rights?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Blayde MacRonan wrote:


So when del Toro gets around to finishing At The Mountains of Madness, will you boycott that too so that the Lovecraft Foundation doesn't get a dime of your money? Lovecraft was far worse in his views, yet I don't see anyone calling for his works (or adaptations of his work) to be boycotted.

Yeah. I dont read Lovecraft and refuse to read any Lovecraft. But I cant begin to tell you how many fanboy friends of mine tell me I should really just "look past" the blatant racism inherent in the mans work because they enjoy it so much and how good some of the stories are.

I dont care if the man is long dead that's NO EXCUSE. People are still consuming the material. New people are consuming the material. There are people HERE, NOW in the present who share similar views to Lovecraft. But just because the book was crafted in the past I'm supposed to over look it.

I have a feeling if he were as virulently homophobic and vile toward the LGBT community he would be tolerated less.

Intersectionality my behind...

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Blayde MacRonan wrote:

I'm not trying to prevent anyone from expressing their beliefs. All I'm doing is trying to understand how any form of bigotry can be tolerated in one instance, but not in another.

Why do you consider a decision about how a person spends their money to be bigotry? Consider that NOM (while Card was on their board) organized a boycott of Starbuck's in response to the chain's support of joint benefits for same-sex couples. That's their right, and I support the right of anyone to choose how to spend their take-home pay according to any criterion they choose.


I wouldn't buy a ticket to this because I have no interest. If I was interested, I would be aware that my money would, in some small number of pennies, be going to a man who is likely to use it for a homophobic cause. This wouldn't stop me from seeing a movie - I would simply donate an equal amount of money to film ticket to a good pro-gay charity.

Now if the movie itself was anti-gay, I'd not wanna see it for that reason, and wouldn't pay for a ticket at all. But as I understand it Card's homophobia only shows up in later books. I dunno, I never read them.

I also don't like Card's attempts to gather sympathy for himself. He gets to state his view, and pays to try and keep it in legislation. That people are unwilling to help him keep trying to refuse gay people the right to marry by keeping money out of his pocket, even if it's only a few pennies per ticket, is there right too.

It does send a nice message that anti-gay products are getting less viable as a way of making money, and that the backlash is getting bigger and hitting more financially.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
thejeff wrote:

So the tolerance from gay rights supporters is to ignore those who've fought against their rights for years and even continue to do so. To support them financially by seeing their movies, buying their books, whatever, while they continue to speak against gay rights and may continue to fund other groups doing so.

Card has said he's lost the gay marriage battle and a significant step has been taken, but it's still illegal and unconstitutional in many states. I see no evidence that the anti-marriage equality people are stopping their efforts to fight expansion of gay rights. Has the National Organization for Marriage agreed to support same-sex marriage? Has Card denounced the organization and pledged not to offer it any more support?

Why is boycotting someone's work so much worse than actually trying to deny someone's rights?

Because boycotts are indiscriminate in who they "punish".

What about the folks who worked hard on that movie? This might be their first big break into the industry. Some special effects guys or other person who's name will be attached to it.

Card won't be hurt by a boycott of the movie.
He's already got his main chunk of money by selling the rights for it to be made in the first place.

Everyone else involved in the film will.

Silver Crusade

thejeff wrote:

So the tolerance from gay rights supporters is to ignore those who've fought against their rights for years and even continue to do so. To support them financially by seeing their movies, buying their books, whatever, while they continue to speak against gay rights and may continue to fund other groups doing so.

Card has said he's lost the gay marriage battle and a significant step has been taken, but it's still illegal and unconstitutional in many states. I see no evidence that the anti-marriage equality people are stopping their efforts to fight expansion of gay rights. Has the National Organization for Marriage agreed to support same-sex marriage? Has Card denounced the organization and pledged not to offer it any more support?

Why is boycotting someone's work so much worse than actually trying to deny someone's rights?

Who said anything about ignoring the struggle?

I get what you're saying, but there is such a thing as grace in victory. Sure there's alot of work that needs to be done to bring those on both sides of the issue together. But do you think that the boycotting of Ender's Game is going to be the catalyst that serves to accomplish that act?

Or will it serve to widen the gap that already exists?

Someone has to take the first step. Why can't it be the supporters of gay rights?


Kryzbyn wrote:
thejeff wrote:

So the tolerance from gay rights supporters is to ignore those who've fought against their rights for years and even continue to do so. To support them financially by seeing their movies, buying their books, whatever, while they continue to speak against gay rights and may continue to fund other groups doing so.

Card has said he's lost the gay marriage battle and a significant step has been taken, but it's still illegal and unconstitutional in many states. I see no evidence that the anti-marriage equality people are stopping their efforts to fight expansion of gay rights. Has the National Organization for Marriage agreed to support same-sex marriage? Has Card denounced the organization and pledged not to offer it any more support?

Why is boycotting someone's work so much worse than actually trying to deny someone's rights?

Because boycotts are indiscriminate in who they "punish".

What about the folks who worked hard on that movie? This might be their first big break into the industry. Some special effects guys or other person who's name will be attached to it.

Card won't be hurt by a boycott of the movie.
He's already got his main chunk of money by selling the rights for it to be made in the first place.

Everyone else involved in the film will

Isn't this always an answer to boycotts? Think about the poor bus drivers in the segregated South. Or the poor folk working lunch counters during that boycott.

Card gets hurt if the movie flops. He might get less money in royalties. He's also much less likely to get money from the next movie sale. (Which we should also not boycott, because Card would have already gotten his money).
And the industry learns that outspoken bigots aren't good for business.

More likely of course, it only has minimal effect, certainly not enough to make the movie a success or failure.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
John Woodford wrote:
Blayde MacRonan wrote:

I'm not trying to prevent anyone from expressing their beliefs. All I'm doing is trying to understand how any form of bigotry can be tolerated in one instance, but not in another.

Why do you consider a decision about how a person spends their money to be bigotry? Consider that NOM (while Card was on their board) organized a boycott of Starbuck's in response to the chain's support of joint benefits for same-sex couples. That's their right, and I support the right of anyone to choose how to spend their take-home pay according to any criterion they choose.

I was talking about how Lovecraft's bigotry is seen as okay because he was a product of his time but OSC's isn't. It shouldn't matter that one is dead and the other isn't. Both views should be held equally as wrong.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

I won't boycott it. I won't hold it against anyone that does. It's their money and people will always vote with their wallet. Freedom of speech works both ways and people forget that. You can say all the hateful things you want, but suddenly when people fire back, you're the victim of bigotry.

And really, I absolutely hate it when bigots (homophobes, racists, sexists, etc) try playing the "I'm being persecuted for my beliefs" card, as if they are the victims for actively giving money to organizations that would oppress others. Note, you can believe all you want. No one can ever prevent you from believing in anything, nor should they. But as soon as you exercise that belief to negatively affect the rights of a group of people on order to oppress, that's where I draw the line. And I'm sure there will be someone saying that a group of people boycotting and doing rallies and sit-ins is affecting the rights of bigots to oppress, but that's only if you subscribe to the notion that the right to oppress is equal to the right to fight for your rights. And at least for me, it is easier (and certainly less oppressive) for a religion and culture to let go of a belief that oppresses a race, gender, or sexuality, rather than a race, gender, or sexuality to simply "turn the other cheek" and accept their role in the cosmos.

And it isn't bigotry to fight back for equal rights, so long as A) you aren't targeting innocent people that could be on your side (ie, being angry against all white people, straight people, or men instead of people actively against your rights) and B) it doesn't boil down to use of violence to instill change. And it is much easier said than done to "turn the other cheek" when people are actively preventing you from having equal voting rights despite your race or gender or equal marriage rights despite your sexual preference or just the simple right to be considered for health insurance despite changing your gender. The civil rights movement doing sit ins isn't bigotry and neither is boycotting this movie.

Though I do agree with Harrison Ford and see that OSC is conceding his opinion and that's why I'll watch the movie. And as for Lovecraft (and much of pulp honestly), if he were still alive, I'd probably never read his books. I suppose him being dead for the last half century helps. Plus, many of the later authors heavily downplay the racism aspect of some of his works. And Chaosium and Paizo also downplay them too. That's why for me, Lovecraftian aspects are okay because they have changed and adapted to a different world. The Lovecraft of today is very different from the Lovecraft of his time.


13 people marked this as a favorite.

To me, it's simple. Card is still alive, and still funneling money to organizations who wish to prevent equality for LGBT folks. Not just marriage equality, but jobs, housing, adoption & child-raising, visitation and decisions in hospitals, etc. And if Ender's Game does good enough business in theaters and DVDs, likely more of his stories will be optioned at higher rates, meaning more funding to hate groups. As long as Card's dollars still work to deny me my basic humanity under the law, he gets nothing from me financially.

Lovecraft, Tolkein, Wagner, et all, are and remain dead. Whether their believes were a product of their times or fanatically held doesn't matter anymore, cause they are still dead. They can not profit from their works, and can not advocate for any hateful activities. Card can (and likely will).

Finally, I seem to remember the message to Ender's Game is that the protagonist must learn to live with the consequences of his horrible deeds. Seems kinda sad that Card can't even learn the lesson for his own book.


Blayde MacRonan wrote:
John Woodford wrote:
Blayde MacRonan wrote:

I'm not trying to prevent anyone from expressing their beliefs. All I'm doing is trying to understand how any form of bigotry can be tolerated in one instance, but not in another.

Why do you consider a decision about how a person spends their money to be bigotry? Consider that NOM (while Card was on their board) organized a boycott of Starbuck's in response to the chain's support of joint benefits for same-sex couples. That's their right, and I support the right of anyone to choose how to spend their take-home pay according to any criterion they choose.
I was talking about how Lovecraft's bigotry is seen as okay because he was a product of his time but OSC's isn't. It shouldn't matter that one is dead and the other isn't. Both views should be held equally as wrong.

Thing is, his bigotry isn't actually seen as okay at all. Instead, later authors and RPG companies have severely downplayed the racism in their stories and settings. The Lovecraft of today is different from the Lovecraft of its time. Who would have thought that you could remove the racism in a setting and have it still be awesome ;)

Silver Crusade

Odraude wrote:

I won't boycott it. I won't hold it against anyone that does. It's their money and people will always vote with their wallet. Freedom of speech works both ways and people forget that. You can say all the hateful things you want, but suddenly when people fire back, you're the victim of bigotry.

And really, I absolutely hate it when bigots (homophobes, racists, sexists, etc) try playing the "I'm being persecuted for my beliefs" card, as if they are the victims for actively giving money to organizations that would oppress others. Note, you can believe all you want. No one can ever prevent you from believing in anything, nor should they. But as soon as you exercise that belief to negatively affect the rights of a group of people on order to oppress, that's where I draw the line. And I'm sure there will be someone saying that a group of people boycotting and doing rallies and sit-ins is affecting the rights of bigots to oppress, but that's only if you subscribe to the notion that the right to oppress is equal to the right to fight for your rights. And at least for me, it is easier (and certainly less oppressive) for a religion and culture to let go of a belief that oppresses a race, gender, or sexuality, rather than a race, gender, or sexuality to simply "turn the other cheek" and accept their role in the cosmos.

And it isn't bigotry to fight back for equal rights, so long as A) you aren't targeting innocent people that could be on your side (ie, being angry against all white people, straight people, or men instead of people actively against your rights) and B) it doesn't boil down to use of violence to instill change. And it is much easier said than done to "turn the other cheek" when people are actively preventing you from having equal voting rights despite your race or gender or equal marriage rights despite your sexual preference or just the simple right to be considered for health insurance despite changing your gender. The civil rights movement doing sit ins isn't bigotry and neither is boycotting this...

As always sir, I like the cut of your jib.

Well said.

That's something I can get behind.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Blayde MacRonan wrote:
thejeff wrote:

So the tolerance from gay rights supporters is to ignore those who've fought against their rights for years and even continue to do so. To support them financially by seeing their movies, buying their books, whatever, while they continue to speak against gay rights and may continue to fund other groups doing so.

Card has said he's lost the gay marriage battle and a significant step has been taken, but it's still illegal and unconstitutional in many states. I see no evidence that the anti-marriage equality people are stopping their efforts to fight expansion of gay rights. Has the National Organization for Marriage agreed to support same-sex marriage? Has Card denounced the organization and pledged not to offer it any more support?

Why is boycotting someone's work so much worse than actually trying to deny someone's rights?

Who said anything about ignoring the struggle?

I get what you're saying, but there is such a thing as grace in victory. Sure there's alot of work that needs to be done to bring those on both sides of the issue together. But do you think that the boycotting of Ender's Game is going to be the catalyst that serves to accomplish that act?

Or will it serve to widen the gap that already exists?

Someone has to take the first step. Why can't it be the supporters of gay rights?

What first step? Between people fighting for their rights and people trying to deny those rights, the people who still don't have their rights should "take the first step"? We can work on bringing those on both sides together after the battle is actually won.

SF author David Gerrold said it better:

Quote:

Puh-leeze.

After twenty years of despicably virulent homophobia ... no. This is just another detestable characterization of LGBT people -- that we are intolerant.

Intolerant? Of people who want to lock us up, put us in concentration camps, deny us our civil rights? Intolerant? Are you f!%&ing kidding me?

You want me to be tolerant, Scott? First be one of those people who understands. Or to put it bluntly -- get your f#@!ing foot off my neck, then we'll talk tolerance.

And it's not just marriage. Card has said a lot of homophobic crap over the years.
Card wrote:
The dark secret of homosexual society—the one that dares not speak its name—is how many homosexuals first entered into that world through a disturbing seduction or rape or molestation or abuse, and how many of them yearn to get out of the homosexual community and live normally.

And he's still on the board of NOM. No. I don't particularly want to come together with bigots. The gap can start closing when they stop attacking my friends.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Y'know, whenever something like this pops up, I always have myself to replace same-sex marriage with interracial marriage and ask "Would I boycott X?" And the answer is always yes. So I think I may skip out on this movie.

Silver Crusade

So you propose that being just as intolerant of them is good for us all.

Nope.

The idealist in me can't agree with that.

Here's a simple test: Imagine that Richard Dawkins, the noted atheist anti-religious bigot and hate-monger, has been hired by Marvel to write a Spider-Man series. Religious people attempt to get him fired because of his toxic hatred for people of faith (except Muslims, oddly). Would the same people decrying Card join in calling for Dawkins' dismissal or would they tell the religious people to pound sand because the First Amendment and all that?

If your answer is even a little ambiguous, then we're not at the place that we need to be as far as relations go.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

False equivalence. Richard Dawkins doesn't give money to organizations that hinder the rights of religious people and oppress them. If he did, then yeah, I'd at the very least boycott him because people, all people, have the right to believe in their own opinions.

And again, you're comparing being intolerant of people and being intolerant of bigots that hate your people as being equal when they are not. Gay people aren't asking to restrict the rights of religious people and bigots. They are asking for their rights to stop being restricted. That's the key difference.

For the record though, I dislike Dawkins and even though I am an atheist, I still have respect for religious people that are good to people. His hate spewing is something I honestly dislike.

Silver Crusade

Fair enough.

Perhaps he wasn't the best example I could've come up with. He's just one that came to mind.

But at least you would have done the same regardless, and for that I give you kudos.

I won't boycott the movie. The overall message of the book helped shaped my world view and I've been waiting a long time for the day its released as a movie to come to allow it to pass me by.

I must say that though I'm troubled by the views OSC holds (20 years of that?), I still won't let that detract from my experience at watching the movie. Though he is Mormon, like myself, I don't necessarily see eye to eye on these issues. Much like Tracy Hickman being ostracized by the Mormon church for being a gamer, there are some things I just don't tow the church line on.

It has been a pleasure to debate with you all on this issue. My wife is getting annoyed by my continued online conversation on the matter and so I must depart. I will check in to see what more is said.

1 to 50 of 793 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / Entertainment / Movies / A call to skip "Ender's Game" to oppose OSC's homophobia All Messageboards