From my facebook status last week. (Also I am an openly gay married man).
"I am not going to see Ender's Game. I wish it was out of some altruism to stand with my gay brethren against prejudice, but really it's just that I'm not interested in the premise, and the preview did nothing for me. I get why people are upset with Card but frankly I see a bunch of other movies from various actors and directors who I have no idea of their ideological viewpoints."
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.
Because Lovecraft didn't know better and Card does. Card is alive and well NOW.
Are Lovecraft's views "OK"? No, certainly not. But honestly no-one thought they were unusual back then, no-one called him out on them, etc. Card knows full well his views are unpopular, he knows better.
We should downplay Lovecraft's views but shun Card.
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.
If not the answer.
It is simply because most folks acting in a knee jerk fashion always seem to miss the forest for the trees.
But, hey, can't make an omelette without breaking a few eggs, am I right?
|
A few points I'd like to make:
1. Ender's Game wasn't just about the psychological abuse of children. It stressed the points of what will happen with a lack of communication, the fact that everyone lies, the individual vs. society, the dangers of blindly following any side without thinking, and (this one is just me personally not literary theory) the idea that kids aren't as sweet and fluffy as people think. They are "adult" in some ways and fragile in others.
2. Card's already been paid for the film. He has the money. He optioned the rights and as far as I know (and I had to research this) doesn't have a cut of the profits. I believe he only went with Net Points, which is the equivalent of "here are some beads for your land."
So me not going to see the movie means he still has the money to do as he pleases and I will not have seen the movie. He gains nothing by my going or not. So I'd rather drive up the Gross points and see him loose money.
3. There's nothing homophobic in the novel. As much as I dislike his views, I can admire how he keeps them out of his work. For me that's the big difference.
4. Protests drive publicity. They're giving the movie free press. Which might make those who weren't sure or hadn't heard of the movie go see it. It drives traffic on search engines and social media. It's free advertisement.
5. Everyone is free to do what they want. I personally had several of my students who are in fact lesbians and two gay couples who read the book, then were given the task of researching Card. What they found shocked them, but when I asked them about it changing their opinions of the novel, they said no. In fact it made them want to see the movie more to show him that homosexuals weren't as different or as strange as he thinks and like the same things as everyone else. I was DAMN proud of the maturity of those kids. As one put it "I want to fight their fear by showing them I'm just a normal person. If I want to see a movie or eat a chicken sandwich, I will. If you don't like me and my girlfriend--eat somewhere else, but know that your views didn't affect me and you nourished me and now entertained me and the world didn't end."
Just my thoughts. Also, as I stated somewhere else, I plan on seeing the movie, running a field trip, and then donating the cost of the tickets to an LGBT charity. But that's because I like balance and irony, not because I feel guilty.
Doesn't matter if you adversely effect the lives of other people (eggs being broken) as long as the point (the omelette) is made, i.e. via boycott.
If boycotting is voting with my wallet and not giving money to a project that would financially benefit a homophobe and explaining my reasons if specifically asked about it. Yes I am going to boycott this movie.
If boycotting is going out and trying to convince other people to not see this movie. No I'm not going to boycott his movie
Hey, it's a free country. Do with your money as you will.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
My favorite part of this thread is the idea of a Richard Dawkins-penned Spider-Man title.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I enjoyed the book and will probably see the movie (unless it get tanked on Rotten Tomatoes). I don't agree with OSC on his views, but those are pretty much absent from Ender's Game.
Another motivating factor is that I want to see more good science fiction movies. I wonder if any loss in profit from the boycott will be interpreted not as "We disagree with Orson Scott Card and don't want to see anything with his name on it" to "This type of Science Fiction doesn't sell theater seats...we should fast track the next 3 Transformers movies instead of an adaptation of [insert favorite science fiction book].
2. Card's already been paid for the film. He has the money. He optioned the rights and as far as I know (and I had to research this) doesn't have a cut of the profits. I believe he only went with Net Points, which is the equivalent of "here are some beads for your land."
So me not going to see the movie means he still has the money to do as he pleases and I will not have seen the movie. He gains nothing by my going or not. So I'd rather drive up the Gross points and see him loose money.
If this point is true....and the prior point somebody made the the movie company will donate a portion of the proceeds from this movies a LGBT groups...than probably going to see it will help your cause more.
As it won't give Card any money...and if the money makes enough movie...than your organizations will gain more money than he did.
If this is true of course.
| 9 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.
There's a significant difference between someone who holds repulsive personal views, and someone who currently sits on the board of a hate group and donates large sums of money to it.
And tolerance doesn't require you to give money to people who are actively trying to hurt other people. It doesn't even require you to listen to them. It simply requires you to oppose attempts by the government or literal lynch mobs to attempt to silence them.
Living in a free society doesn't -- and shouldn't -- prevent you from being subject to social and financial consequences for the opinions you express.
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.
Nope.
Choosing not to give someone your money is not persecuting them. That's like saying for a non-Christian to refuse to donate money to a church is persecuting Christians.
| 1 person 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.
There's are several major differences between Card and Lovecraft.
1) Lovecraft is dead. He personally isn't receiving or spending any moeny.
2) Lovecraft didn't protect his estate. When you buy something with Cthulhu in it, or influenced by him, no one associated with Lovecraft is receiving any money, unless they are contributing to this new work as well, which has nothing to do with HP Lovecraft. (elements of the Cthulhu mythos are protected, such as the name "Call of Cthulhu" which is trademarked, but the concept of Cthulhu is not protected by copyright)
The boycott does not prevent OSC from saying anything. He completely and utterly retains his rights to free speech, regardless of what he says in this matter. The boycott is about money. Some people don't want to give money to someone who has a track record of spending money in ways they morally oppose.
Just like OSC is allowed to say whatever he wants about gay marriage, other people are allowed to not buy his products for whatever reason they choose. People are only obligated to give him money if they want his products and choose to consume them. If they choose not to consume his works, that is their right.
For example, boycotting the movie on morale reasons, and then pirating it later would be an unprincipled stand IMO.
The KKK is always accepting donations. As a "tolerant" society, are we all required to give them money?
2. Card's already been paid for the film. He has the money. He optioned the rights and as far as I know (and I had to research this) doesn't have a cut of the profits. I believe he only went with Net Points, which is the equivalent of "here are some beads for your land."So me not going to see the movie means he still has the money to do as he pleases and I will not have seen the movie. He gains nothing by my going or not. So I'd rather drive up the Gross points and see him loose money.
If the boycott were successful it would hurt the studio more, no matter what. If truly successful, it would mean that the studio takes a loss for doing business with someone who holds these kinds of views, thereby providing a disincentive to this studio, or others, from working with OSC or similar folks.
(I highly doubt the boycott will be that successful though, look how Chick-fil-A benefited from the negative press the other year)
5. Everyone is free to do what they want. I personally had several of my students who are in fact lesbians and two gay couples who read the book, then were given the task of researching Card. What they found shocked them, but when I asked them about it changing their opinions of the novel, they said no. In fact it made them want to see the movie more to show him that homosexuals weren't as different or as strange as he thinks and like the same things as everyone else. I was DAMN proud of the maturity of those kids. As one put it "I want to fight their fear by showing them I'm just a normal person. If I want to see a movie or eat a chicken sandwich, I will. If you don't like...
I think there are a lot of appropriate responses and people do get to choose. I for one will probably see the movie at some point, but since I usually go later in the run, the theater typically gets most of the profits from my ticket (theaters often take 0-25% on opening weekend, slowly going up to 75%+ after one month). Based on his "moot" statements, I'm thinking he's probably going to invest a little less time and money on the subject anyways.
The book hit me really hard when I was a kid. If it gets good reviews, I'll probably go see it 3-4 weeks after release, like I do with most movies I want to see.
I really can't read anything Card said as persecuting anyone. He expressed an opinion and donates to a group that holds the same opinion. You may agree or disagree or really, really disagree with him, but he's still not persecuting anyone. We all know enough history to know what persecution actually looks like. This ain't it.
Also, opposing gay marriage does not make your group a hate group. It makes them the opposition.
Finally, if I never went to movies where some portion of my ticket fee went someone whose opinion I oppose, I'd never see any movies at all.
Ender's game is one of the stories that keeps getting up on lists of best science fiction. It is a very good story, to my thinking, specifically because of the children's perspective. Yes, the man is a mormon, and has strong views on marriage and homosexuality, views he supports financially. Does this change anything? Not really.
If this goes bust, Hollywood will draw the conclusion that science fiction doesn't sell, not even with big name actors. SF that is not also horror really isn't a big genre. Honestly, if you want more SF movies, go see it. If you want to make a statement, donate to a charity of your choice as well. The problem with boycotts are that you need to advertise these too - which advertises the thing you want to boycott.
In a larger view, authors are often people with dramatic views. Tons of them hold opinions you might not like, if you knew about them. Is it reasonable to boycott someone who tells you what he thinks, but support all the people who do not? All that does is reward not saying where your money goes. Further, we are talking about a movie here. A message like any other. If you don't think it is a good one, don't see it... But avoid it for itself, not for the messenger.
P.S. When I read it, I got a strong sense of one of the boys holding feelings of more than friendship for another boy, something that was never cast as bad, questionable or anything of the sort. Admittedly, it was a long time now, but even so I remember it clearly.
|
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 : tolerationPersecute
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 annoyedIf 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.
Several important things that are either missing from your post or outright incorrect in it:
1) Anecdote - Lovecraft is dead. I get that some dead can not eternal lie, and with strange eons even death may die... but I still assume it's a safe bet to say we won't be seeing him again in a while. The Lovecraft foundation has distanced itself from the harmful aspects of his work and they preserve the important parts about it - the actual fiction. So there's really nothing to be boycotted here.
2) but I get your general point - "if you go around boycotting one author because of his views, then just to be consistent with yourselves you should boycott all of them". I never understood that kind of binary thinking. It's reminiscent of all those people who call out vegetarians as phonies, because "if you care so much about animals you should go all the way vegan and refuse milk and egg products as well".
Personally, I think there's nothing wrong in cherry picking your fights. for whatever reason, one can just choose when to "do the right thing" and when to cut oneself some slack. It's reasonable. Vegetarians are willing to go further than most people, but it's REALLY hard to be vegan. But they are at least doing something to propagate their beliefs.
So by your own logic, people should not for example donate money for any cause - for the poor, or for social organizations, or for civil rights movements, or anything - because hey there, phony, how come you think this poor homeless guy crouching in that gutter deserves a dollar, but a million other like him don't? give all you money to everyone!
People can be impulsive about such decisions. They can be inconsistent. They might have a scale for things they care about more than others and are willing to go further to oppose. Their decisions can also be almost arbitrary, depending on their mood this time of year. That doesn't make their decision to only partially, sometimes stand by what they believe a wrong or untruthful decision.
3) With all due respect, OSC is not being persecuted. The entire democratic way of life is built around solving differences between people in the least violent way possible. When someone commits a crime, for example, they might lose some of their freedoms (being put in jail is a good example of the government stripping away your freedom when it's necessary). A man or woman who did something wrong and is punished by society for it can't cry "persecution!". No one would persecute you if you never caused anyone harm (well, unless your'e gay, then you have the likes of OSC pulling their weight to degrade you even though you've never done anything to deserve this). Now what OSC did and is doing is not severe enough for the authorities to call it a crime and punish him. That's really good, and is an expression of just how much freedom one who lives in the western world today has. but the public? the living, beating heart of any democratic nation, a group of people who agree to live together despite differences, and are even willing to protect each other? it's wonderful to see the public at work. Doing it's own duty to itself, making it crystal clear for anyone that if they are out to get others, they'll have to go through a lot of people to get there. This is not persecution, this is an impressive show of people drawing the line where it should be drawn.
4) about another post of yours - Richard Dawkins is the kind of people who almost make me feel shame for describing myself as an atheist. His offensive behavior is more similar to OSC's than to the good people of Geek Out. I would not give my money to anything he is associated with, because he is a political figure I vehemently disagree with.
Interestingly, I would actually be less likely to go and see Ender's Game after Card's 'why can't we be tolerant of my hate?' speech than I would have been before. If I was going, obviously. He sits, donates his time and money to being less tolerant of others...but then, when his cash flow is in danger, suddenly declares we all need to be more tolerant?
If the gay marriage act hadn't succeeded, I wonder if he would be so gracious in victory? If he would start defending the remaining gay rights once he had stopped gay marriage? Y'know, somehow, I don't see that happening.
I hate that kinda two faced attitude. 'I will show no tolerance to the life styles of others, but they have to be tolerant of my hate' is a terrible message. Still, I would rather people donate an equal amount of money to there ticket price to a good pro-gay charity than not see a movie they'd like to, since the movie is itself fine. As I understand it it's only Card's later stuff where Big Gay Doom appears, but I've never read any of it.
As for Dawkins...the man is what he claims to hate - a narrow minded zealot incapable of seeing other view points than his own.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I really can't read anything Card said as persecuting anyone. He expressed an opinion and donates to a group that holds the same opinion. You may agree or disagree or really, really disagree with him, but he's still not persecuting anyone. We all know enough history to know what persecution actually looks like. This ain't it.
Also, opposing gay marriage does not make your group a hate group. It makes them the opposition.
Finally, if I never went to movies where some portion of my ticket fee went someone whose opinion I oppose, I'd never see any movies at all.
...Yes, the man is a mormon, and has strong views on marriage and homosexuality, views he supports financially. Does this change anything? Not really.
...Is it reasonable to boycott someone who tells you what he thinks, but support all the people who do not?
I don't care that Card is a Mormon or that he hates LGBT folk. I do believe he has a First Amendment right to speak hateful bile about LGBT folks. And I've yet to see anyone call for any kind of censorship of his work.
But he has served, and still does, on the board of directors at the National Organization for Marriage since 2009, actively working to prevent, suppress, and rollback LGBT rights throughout the country. He donates funds to NOW and other anti-LGBT political groups, and until his recent whining, has done so proudly. This isn't about his personal views and free speech anymore, this isn't merely simple opposition or disagreement to LGBT people.
And he isn't just paid and done. He has a producer co-credit on the Ender's film. If it succeeds, Hollywood will option more Card works and pay more, including a percentage.
He has made it a point to publicly fund and work toward the oppression of LGBT people... is it so unreasonable that some LGBT people and allies wish to deny him the funds he uses as weapons against us?
Are Lovecraft's views "OK"? No, certainly not. But honestly no-one thought they were unusual back then, no-one called him out on them, etc. Card knows full well his views are unpopular, he knows better.
Lovecraft is a classic case of 'discrimination through ignorance'. Eg. he had the most horrible things to say about Jews, yet some of his closest friends were jewish. That's pretty typical of the period, and something you treat by education people (except that the guy is, you know, dead) rather than ignoring them. It was the kind of 'us vs. them' mentality that really flourished during the Depression.
He was also all kinds of screwed up, but that's hardly an excuse.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
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).
There's been a lot of really bizarre Dawkins hate and subsequent piling on, stemming from this comment, and I feel obliged to step in before my head explodes.
Hate-monger? In what world do you live? Can you point me to a single quote from Dawkins where he refers to or even insinuates that he has incited violence or encouraged anyone to take any actions against another person?
Can you illustrate for me how he is in any way intolerant or hateful of people of faith? Quite to the contrary, Dawkins argues against the IDEA of faith, not against any individual or individuals.
The bolded part is what really got me though. If you think Dawkins spares Islam in his pointed criticisms of organized religion you simply haven't been paying attention since, in fact, Dawkins has been extremely vocal about the fact that Islam is by far the current reigning champion of intolerance and human rights abuse.
I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you've actually never heard or read anything of his other than what has been spoonfed to you by conservative sources, hence your ignorance on the subject, rather than that you are purposely dissembling.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And for the record I probably won't go to see Ender's Game because I think, aside from being an imbecile and a bigot, Orson Scott Card isn't a very good writer and the original novel was a piece of s$*$.
I enjoyed the book and will probably see the movie (unless it get tanked on Rotten Tomatoes). I don't agree with OSC on his views, but those are pretty much absent from Ender's Game.
Another motivating factor is that I want to see more good science fiction movies. I wonder if any loss in profit from the boycott will be interpreted not as "We disagree with Orson Scott Card and don't want to see anything with his name on it" to "This type of Science Fiction doesn't sell theater seats...we should fast track the next 3 Transformers movies instead of an adaptation of [insert favorite science fiction book].
I'm in.
And for the record I probably won't go to see Ender's Game because I think, aside from being an imbecile and a bigot, Orson Scott Card isn't a very good writer and the original novel was a piece of s$+*.
I'm with you, Meat. I'm sure I'll end up sitting through the thing when it hits cable, but no plans to actually trek to the multiplex.
Also (and this is a serious question) does anyone know if they're calling the evil aliens Buggers in the movie? Cause while the book isn't overtly homophobic, I do remember reading Ender's Game as a kid and thinking, "That's a little too obvious to be a coincidence."
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There's been a lot of really bizarre Dawkins hate and subsequent piling on, stemming from this comment, and I feel obliged to step in before my head explodes.
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).
Yeah, pretty much with Comrade Meatrace here.
I mean, don't get me wrong, I'm not a Dawkins fan. But whenever people provide examples of him being the hate-mongering anti-religion iconoclast (in the original meaning) I want him to be, I am disappointed.
A quick Google search gets a bunch of articles about him comparing raising a child with the belief in eternal punishment to child abuse, and I shrug, and one of the Britishiznoid brethren provided a youtube link where he was allegedly yelling at Muslim school children, but it wasn't available in the States. :(
Even The God Delusion was, while unapologetically atheist, nowhere near as bile-dripping as I had hoped. :(
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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.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'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.
Ah--apologies for misunderstanding you. I would say that--contra the subject header--it is deeds that are being punished by the boycott, not words or attitudes. If the Lovecraft Foundation (or whoever holds his copyrights) were financially supporting racist causes, I would boycott Lovecraft; I would not want my money to be used for that.
That said, I'm not boycotting "Ender's Game." I had no desire to see it in the first place because I reject Card's morality of intention, so I'm not going to take credit for any other motivation.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
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.Because Lovecraft didn't know better and Card does. Card is alive and well NOW.
Are Lovecraft's views "OK"? No, certainly not. But honestly no-one thought they were unusual back then, no-one called him out on them, etc. Card knows full well his views are unpopular, he knows better.
We should downplay Lovecraft's views but shun Card.
Strange. When I was a kid being gay was "unpopular", and "everybody knew better." No one boycotted Queen concerts because Freddy Mercury was gay. Or any other openly (or may as well have been openly) gay actors/singers/directors/etc. if being gay had nothing to do with their work.
What society considers "right", "wrong", "just" and "unjust" is not always set in stone.
Just because Card's beliefs are not popular, just because you or I disagree with them, does not mean that he is automatically wrong. Homosexuality was accepted or tolerated at many other points in history, and became unacceptable again. New discoveries in the future could prove him right and us wrong.
I'm not supporting his opinion. I just find your choice of wording to be arrogant, and based on the premise that your own opinion is an absolute fact. Is it? Fact that is. Not just an opinion that is currently popular.
Galileo had unpopular ideas, so did almost every revolutionary in history including MLK - that is part of what being revolutionary means. What is unpopular today can change. Sometimes shouting your unpopular ideas loudly and widely is important for positive change. After all, not long ago people started shouting unpopular things about the rights of homosexuals, and today things are getting better.
(For the record, I am hetero, and support the Right of all Humans to enjoy the same Freedoms.)
They are wrong though. No getting away from that.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
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.Because Lovecraft didn't know better and Card does. Card is alive and well NOW.
Are Lovecraft's views "OK"? No, certainly not. But honestly no-one thought they were unusual back then, no-one called him out on them, etc. Card knows full well his views are unpopular, he knows better.
We should downplay Lovecraft's views but shun Card.
Strange. When I was a kid being gay was "unpopular", and "everybody knew better." No one boycotted Queen concerts because Freddy Mercury was gay. Or any other openly (or may as well have been openly) gay actors/singers/directors/etc. if being gay had nothing to do with their work.
What society considers "right", "wrong", "just" and "unjust" is not always set in stone.
Just because Card's beliefs are not popular, just because you or I disagree with them, does not mean that he is automatically wrong. Homosexuality was accepted or tolerated at many other points in history, and became unacceptable again. New discoveries in the future could prove him right and us wrong.
I'm not supporting his opinion. I just find your choice of wording to be arrogant, and based on the premise that your own opinion is an absolute fact. Is it? Fact that is. Not just an opinion that is currently popular.
Galileo had unpopular ideas, so did almost every revolutionary in history including MLK - that is part of what being revolutionary means. What is unpopular today can change. Sometimes shouting your unpopular ideas loudly and widely is important for positive change. After all, not long ago people started shouting unpopular things about the rights of homosexuals, and today things are getting better.
(For the record, I am hetero, and support the Right of all Humans to enjoy the same Freedoms.)
Don't, man, just don't. Don't compare homosexuality to the shape of the Earth and it's positioning in space. That's absurd for a number of reasons. And don't compare Galileo, who was so brilliantly smart he was able to lay the foundations for the science we still use today, to Orson Scott Card.
Frankly, there are no "new discoveries" that could change what we know today about homosexuality and present anyone's preference in bed as anything harmful. We have hundreds of documented works in psychology, biology and sociology to know that there's no reason whatsoever to persecute homosexuals more than any other group. Moreover, the reasons OSC cites for his opposition of homosexuality are not exactly in line with the truth and stem, mostly, from a religious belief. The man literally said he thinks it's only a matter of time until the straight citizens of America will gather arms and overthrow the government because it supports gay people. Clearly, he is delusional.
We know homosexuality is rather common with animals. We know it does not stem from being abused as a child (as OSC seems to suggest). We know for a fact that so far, if there is a God, he was yet to strike down a city for having a gay populace. We also know that homophobia originates in and is grounded on the various religions, not on anything scientific - arguments against homosexuality are never scientific.
So dude, just don't.
Well, given his background in ethology and evolution, maybe it should be a Venom title instead.
|
Lovecraft is a classic case of 'discrimination through ignorance'. Eg. he had the most horrible things to say about Jews, yet some of his closest friends were jewish. That's pretty typical of the period, and something you treat by education people (except that the guy is, you know, dead) rather than ignoring them. It was the kind of 'us vs. them' mentality that really flourished during the Depression.
Yeah. And let's not forget that Lovecraft actually married a Jewish woman as well. I think there's a lot of overstatement of his racism in this thread. Yes, he describes some other races in a very disturbing manner in some of his stories...but their inherent wrongness is usually much deeper than the colour of their skin...they are usually tainted with non-human blood, or they are reanimated dead bodies, or the like.
It's also worth noting that Lovecraft, no matter what his personal views might have been, is described as having always been unfailingly polite to anyone he actually interacted with, regardless of their background. (Admittedly, in 1920s New England he wasn't interacting with black people.)
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I loved Card's novel Ender's Game, and also Lovecraft's "Arthur Jermyn" and "Call of Cthulhu" and so on.
The thing is, if a new Mountains of Madness movie meant that X% of every ticket sold was going to be directly funneled to the Aryan Nation? I'd refrain from buying the ticket, because I don't really care to donate to that group. I believe they have the right to say what they want, but I also believe I have the right to not give them my money. But that's not the case. When a Lovecraft movie is made, no one involved is funneling revenue to the AB or whomever. My seeing movies based on his works in no way supports the dead author's Nazism, financially or otherwise.
Sadly, OSC will be funneling revenue from the EG movie to ant-gay causes. Which means that if I buy a ticket, I am financially supporting his homophobia. I'd have a real hard time doing that, despite how much I liked the book, and how much I like Harrison Ford.
Look at it this way: pretend Avengers IV comes out with all the original cast, plus Alan Rickman as the villain, and follows all the comic books as well as maintaining film-universe continuity, and it's directed by John Frankenheimer and William Friedkin, and has the greatest live stunts and most exquisite CGI ever put to film. Sounds awesome! Then we find out that X% of every ticket sold will go directly to funding Al Quaida. Still want to buy that ticket? The movie itself might not have a pro-terrorism message, but the actual ticket sales do. That would be a tough position to put a viewer in.
I don't care if OSC hates gay people. I do care if he uses my money to fund that hate.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I didn't boycott the Golden Compass (movie or book)because it is written by an Athiest. The author is not only an atheist but his books also, in a way, push his agenda.
Please link to where the author uses that revenue to fund efforts to outlaw churches.
He expressed an opinion and donates to a group that holds the same opinion. You may agree or disagree or really, really disagree with him, but he's still not persecuting anyone. We all know enough history to know what persecution actually looks like. This ain't it.
I'm pretty sure that seeking to deny someone the fundamental rights you yourself benefit from qualifies as persecution, whether we're talking about the right to vote or the right to wed.
Also, opposing gay marriage does not make your group a hate group. It makes them the opposition.
Assuming that your opposition to gay marriage stems from a hatred of gay people (and, to this day, I am not aware of any anti-gay-marriage organization that doesn't fit the bill), it totally makes your group a hate group.
That said, I'm seeing the crap out of this movie. I try not to blame a work for its author. For those who are torn over this, consider going to see the movie (if it's the sort of movie you'd like), and then donating an amount of money equal to the ticket price to a LGBT rights organization. Card will get some tiny, tiny fraction of the money you spent on the ticket (if that), and the gay rights group will get the whole thing. As long as it's a net gain, I think you should feel pretty morally secure.
This is just some pathetic attempt for people to push their own agenda
Let's be frank, here: the only pathetic agenda on the table is Card's.
For those who are torn over this, consider going to see the movie (if it's the sort of movie you'd like), and then donating an amount of money equal to the ticket price to a LGBT rights organization. Card will get some tiny, tiny fraction of the money you spent on the ticket (if that), and the gay rights group will get the whole thing. As long as it's a net gain, I think you should feel pretty morally secure.
This seems like a pretty good solution.
I keep thinking about all the people who are involved in this movie. We are talking about punishing the investors, the other producers, all fo the cast, many of the workers because we do nto like what the original author likes/hates.
Sorry guys, I am going to go see the movie. I will give it an honest review once I do. I will not burn my copy of the book either. I will just make sure my voice is heard when the subject is discussed, and it will be I am sure.
When people complain about Lovecraft, I pretend that my favorite book evah wasn't written by a Nazi.
You wanna talk about your problematic writers, check out Celine.
Or try reading a Tarzan book. I picked one up at random - Tarzan and the Lost Empire, IIRC - and put it back down after 12 or so pages. Reading a diatribe about how wonderful Africa would be if we could get rid of the all of the blacks killed my interest in Burroughs.
I remember enjoying Ender's Game when I read it, and a couple of the follow up books, dealing with Ender's guilt over the death of the Buggers and his attempt at redemption (Speaker of the Dead and Xenocide, IIRC). The later ones felt pointless and I stopped reading the series.
Perhaps this is naive of me, but I think the aliens being Buggers may have had less to do with buggery and more to do with the aliens being insects.
OSC's views are appalling but I would still like Ender's Game to be a good movie, and succeed or fail based on its merits as a movie. Ender's Game being good and doing well may open the door for good sci-fi movies being made from the works of authors who aren't terrible people.
Huh. I suddenly want a Dragonriders of Pern movie.
Or try reading a Tarzan book. I picked one up at random - Tarzan and the Lost Empire, IIRC - and put it back down after 12 or so pages. Reading a diatribe about how wonderful Africa would be if we could get rid of the all of the blacks killed my interest in Burroughs.
The difference is, of course, that X% of every John Carter ticket didn't go towards the Restore Apartheid Foundation.
It's not about semantics; it's about results.
Talk is cheap. Sticks and stones, and all that.
Whiskey costs money.
I enjoyed the first golden compass book. The second one was ridiculous, so I never got past it.
I saw the movie though, and it seemed to not capture...well anything really of the actual story.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
This is why I don't purchase PF materials. PF uses Lovecraft inspired themes. Lovecraft was a racist. Ergo, if you support PF, you are supporting racism.
I just read my friend's copies.
Down with Paizo!
Vive le Galt!
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
This is also why I don't buy popcorn. Some portion of the sale goes to the kid behind the counter. That kid likes hentai. Hentai promotes a rape culture. Thus if you buy popcorn, you are supporting a rape culture.