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


Movies

151 to 200 of 793 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Cori Marie wrote:
Except that Target is an HRC 100 company. Which means they are one of the best corporations in the world for LGBT employees and family members. For instance, their insurance, unlike most insurance plans in the country, will help a transgender person pay for surgery. Quite the opposite of 'quietly hating gay people'.

If you are looking for a company that supports Diversity - I can recommend one of the worlds top Banks ... I am very proud of our Diversity policy..


What I am unable to figure out is how some people get away with, get a pass on the most vile and disgusting hateful speech and others are criticized for doing very little.

I guess it just depends.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Asshat Jackwagon would make a great name for a punk REO Speedwagon cover/tribute band.


Scott Betts wrote:
LazarX wrote:
QXL99 wrote:
It seems like Paizo should just scrap Golarion and develop a completely new setting that owes nothing to any fantasy literature traditions, so no one feels offended?
That makes a TON of sense, dump a well selling fantasy setting that's being lapped up by thousands because one or two idiots on a messageboard have their knickers in a bunch?
The impossibility of creating a fantasy setting that doesn't take inspiration from works that came before aside, I think QXL99 was being tongue-in-cheek.

I was indeed.

Silver Crusade

Wow... just wow.

My original comment seems to have been taken completely out of context.

It's okay, though. I possess a sense of humor.

I think... I'll have to check with my wife to be sure.


Buggers... Well, did any of you guys see the stuff people made about arabs after 9/11? Yeah. Fear, especially strongly packaged and politically sold fear, does things to people. And here, their Earth was Attacked by Horrible! Bug! Monsters! What did you think they would be called? Exactly. Should perhaps mention that the comic calls them Formics, which is just stupid.

Silver Crusade

Sissyl wrote:
Buggers... Well, did any of you guys see the stuff people made about arabs after 9/11? Yeah. Fear, especially strongly packaged and politically sold fear, does things to people. And here, their Earth was Attacked by Horrible! Bug! Monsters! What did you think they would be called? Exactly. Should perhaps mention that the comic calls them Formics, which is just stupid.

The bugs were called Formics in Ender's Shadow, so the name is official. I'm not fond of the name either. Never really pictured them as being like ants, but as something more exotic.


I was just asking, okay?!

I guess the thing is, OSC's stuff always seems obvious to me in the wrong ways. I would, however, love to see a movie trilogy adapted from Shockwave Rider, Stand on Zanzibar and The Sheep look Up by John Brunner. The producers can even choose their order of publication, or whatever you want to call it.

Silver Crusade

One of the sadder and more frustrating ironies of all this is that the dangers of xenophobia and demonization of the "other"* were themes confronted by the Ender series, two things which audiences need punched into their skulls more and more, especially since the theatrical version of I Am Legend dropped the ball in that area. But then it comes tied with one hell of an infuriating catch...

It's the kind of story I'd love to see get told, but I'd prefer an option that came with a clear conscience.

*I know, right? One would hope he'd be a bit more self-aware.

Silver Crusade

Mikaze wrote:

One of the sadder and more frustrating ironies of all this is that the dangers of xenophobia and demonization of the "other"* were themes confronted by the Ender series, two things which audiences need punched into their skulls more and more, especially since the theatrical version of I Am Legend dropped the ball in that area. But then it comes tied with one hell of an infuriating catch...

*I know, right? One would hope he'd be a bit more self-aware.

Can't disagree with you there, Mikaze.

That's why this whole deal with OSC frustrates me to no end.


I Am Legend (as played by Will Smith) did totally drop the ball in that area.

Mikaze, have you read Octavia Butler's Xenogenesis trilogy? Worth it!

EDIT: And you too, Blayde, it's an open question. :)

Silver Crusade

Can't say that I have.


Mikaze wrote:
One of the sadder and more frustrating ironies of all this is that the dangers of xenophobia and demonization of the "other"* were themes confronted by the Ender series, two things which audiences need punched into their skulls more and more, especially since the theatrical version of I Am Legend dropped the ball in that area.

I have seen both sides of the gay marriage debate (both pro and con) "demonize" each other. There seems to be a shortage of understanding, civility, and genuine dialogue on both sides. They tend to judge and label each other. Sad really.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Call me when Lord of Light gets done. For real, I mean.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Technotrooper wrote:
I have seen both sides of the gay marriage debate (both pro and con) "demonize" each other. There seems to be a shortage of understanding, civility, and genuine dialogue on both sides. They tend to judge and label each other. Sad really.

From what I understand there is a lack of understanding, civility, and genuine dialogue in politics in general. I blame the 80s.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Technotrooper wrote:
I have seen both sides of the gay marriage debate (both pro and con) "demonize" each other. There seems to be a shortage of understanding, civility, and genuine dialogue on both sides. They tend to judge and label each other.

Do not try this. You are trying to bring one group down to the level of the other in such a way as to make them appear to be on even moral footing. I can only guess as to why.

Gay marriage proponents denigrate people who oppose gay marriage, but they are not demonizing. They understand why the anti-gay-marriage crowd opposes gay marriage (e.g. bigotry, religious fervor, homophobia), and they are denigrating them for those reasons.

On the other hand, the anti-gay crowd does not understand the position of the gay rights crowd (or remains willfully ignorant of it), and demonizes gay people and those who support them for a whole host of things that are patently untrue ("They want to ruin the institution of marriage!" or "They want to turn our children gay!" or "Legalizing gay marriage will lead to calls to legalize bestiality!" or "They want to trample on our rights!"). In fact, the entire anti-gay-marriage campaign is predicated on the religious right's ability to convince their followers of things that are demonstrably not true. That's why they have, ultimately, lost the fight.

They are not the same. At all.


Mikaze wrote:
One of the sadder and more frustrating ironies of all this is that the dangers of xenophobia and demonization of the "other"* were themes confronted by the Ender series,

The Hierarchy of Foreignness has been a permanent takeaway for me from those books. The idea of classifying people according to how well you can communicate with them has only become more relevant as the world becomes more interconnected.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

An explanation of why gay marriage is a Terrible Idea for people who don't get it.

Silver Crusade

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Technotrooper wrote:
Mikaze wrote:
One of the sadder and more frustrating ironies of all this is that the dangers of xenophobia and demonization of the "other"* were themes confronted by the Ender series, two things which audiences need punched into their skulls more and more, especially since the theatrical version of I Am Legend dropped the ball in that area.
I have seen both sides of the gay marriage debate (both pro and con) "demonize" each other. There seems to be a shortage of understanding, civility, and genuine dialogue on both sides. They tend to judge and label each other. Sad really.

I can't really see the equivolence here. One side is denying the other a very basic human right. What is the other side denying them?

Now if you're talking about the frequent escalating nastiness that often arises, there's something to be said for civility and calm discourse. But again, one side is facing oppression while the other is not. Calling it what it is is hardly demonization.

"Gay people getting married is bad because secret frog people agenda." is demonization, while "This guy saying gay marriage enables the frogman empire is pretty damn ignorant." is not. It goes back to OSC's playing the victim earlier: After years of saying gay people are marrying because frog mans, suddenly we're expected to not point out all that crazy talk he was making with all that time.

Now I'm not going to say he's the clone of Hitler Satan or such. That's demonization, and is dangerous in its own way, no matter who the target is. But pointing out what OSC has actually said and done(and continues to do) is simply stating the truth.


Sissyl wrote:
An explanation of why gay marriage is a Terrible Idea for people who don't get it.

*gigglesnort*

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Hitdice wrote:

I Am Legend (as played by Will Smith) did totally drop the ball in that area.

Mikaze, have you read Octavia Butler's Xenogenesis trilogy? Worth it!

EDIT: And you too, Blayde, it's an open question. :)

I have not but a quick Google search tells me I should probably remedy that.

Humans and aliens doing it? @#$%ing sold.[/commandershepard]

edit-Oh wow, upon further research this looks a lot darker than I initially thought.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Sissyl wrote:
An explanation of why gay marriage is a Terrible Idea for people who don't get it.

#8 is frighteningly accurate. :p


#5 is my favourite.


Sissyl wrote:
#5 is my favourite.

#2 explains why I have so many tiny friends. :(


Mikaze wrote:
Now if you're talking about the frequent escalating nastiness that often arises, there's something to be said for civility and calm discourse. But again, one side is facing oppression while the other is not. Calling it what it is is hardly demonization.

I have to admit I am uncomfortable with some of the labeling (bigots, religious zealots, homophobes, etc.) occurring in this thread. I am equally uncomfortable when anti-gay-marriage proponents denigrate, demonize, or make slurs about those who support gay marriage. I just wish both sides could be more civilized in their approach. My 2 pennies.


Adventure Path Charter Subscriber
Kryzbyn wrote:


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.

No they won't. Most of the people involved in the movie have absolutely no monetary stake in it. They've already been paid. Their work has already been reviewed by their supervisors, and they're on to the next project.

The ones with the most to lose are the producers, director, screenwriters, and main role actors. And most of them can bounce back from lackluster box office performers.


Technotrooper wrote:
I have to admit I am uncomfortable with some of the labeling (bigots, religious zealots, homophobes, etc.) occurring in this thread. I am equally uncomfortable when anti-gay-marriage proponents denigrate, demonize, or make slurs about those who support gay marriage. I just wish both sides could be more civilized in their approach.

I believe that the time to be civil was when this country was having the gay marriage "discussion". But that discussion is over. You could have maybe claimed ignorance as an excuse 15 years ago, but not today. We, as a country, know full well what the right thing to do is - and, by and large, we're doing it. There is no longer an excuse for that flavor of bigotry.

So the time for civility is past. Now it's time to treat the anti-gay crowd the same way we treat openly racist or misogynistic people - with a level of derision and shaming appropriate to their offensive views. We don't see a need to treat the Klan with civility when discussing their views. And we are, thankfully, getting to the point where being against gay rights and wearing a white hood are both looked at with the same kind of revulsion.

Out of curiosity, why do you think that we need to be civil to people who are against gay rights?


Bill Dunn wrote:

No they won't. Most of the people involved in the movie have absolutely no monetary stake in it. They've already been paid. Their work has already been reviewed by their supervisors, and they're on to the next project.

The ones with the most to lose are the producers, director, screenwriters, and main role actors. And most of them can bounce back from lackluster box office performers.

The real damage will be done if Ender's Game performs poorly and as a result the studio (or film industry in general) decides that this genre of film can't sell tickets. It may well be that boycotts hurt the box office figures, but the studio can't tell the difference between a ticket sale lost due to a boycott, and a ticket sale lost because someone doesn't want to see a sci-fi movie.

This is, incidentally, one of the fundamental (and, in my view, often crippling) problems with boycotts - they seek to send a message to the company that their practices are losing them business, but the boycott does not actually deliver that message; instead, all it does is (maybe) lower sales, and most businesses are not equipped to make reliable determinations on why those sales were lost. It's like sending someone a letter in the mail, and deciding that the best way to get your point across is to write it in white-out on a plain white sheet of paper.


Scott Betts wrote:

So the time for civility is past. Now it's time to treat the anti-gay crowd the same way we treat openly racist or misogynistic people - with a level of derision and shaming appropriate to their offensive views. We don't see a need to treat the Klan with civility when discussing their views. And we are, thankfully, getting to the point where being against gay rights and wearing a white hood are both looked at with the same kind of revulsion.

Out of curiosity, why do you think that we need to be civil to people who are against gay rights?

Because I don't believe hating or mistreating people is ever the "right" thing to do, even if I really, really disagree with them.


Technotrooper wrote:
Because I don't believe hating or mistreating

I don't view it as mistreating at all. In fact, I think it's utterly appropriate treatment. It's how people who treat others as less of a person than they are ought to be treated.


Scott Betts wrote:
Out of curiosity, why do you think that we need to be civil to people who are against gay rights?

Because you can prove yourself to be the better person, you can set an example for others, you can bring people along with you rather than backing them into a corner and forcing them to dig in become more resistant to change.

Scott I agree with a lot of things you say, but I find your style confrontational, aggressive and constantly turned up to 11.

I often don't comment in threads where I agree with you, because you go for the throat and I don't want to be associated with that.


Scott Betts wrote:
Technotrooper wrote:
Because I don't believe hating or mistreating
I don't view it as mistreating at all. In fact, I think it's utterly appropriate treatment. It's how people who treat others as less of a person than they are ought to be treated.

I understand your feelings, but can't agree with your call for "uncivil" treatment of those you disagree with.


You're right, we should all hug and be friends with people who want us to suffer and die.
I mean, it's just an opinion man.


Scott Betts wrote:
Bill Dunn wrote:

No they won't. Most of the people involved in the movie have absolutely no monetary stake in it. They've already been paid. Their work has already been reviewed by their supervisors, and they're on to the next project.

The ones with the most to lose are the producers, director, screenwriters, and main role actors. And most of them can bounce back from lackluster box office performers.

The real damage will be done if Ender's Game performs poorly and as a result the studio (or film industry in general) decides that this genre of film can't sell tickets. It may well be that boycotts hurt the box office figures, but the studio can't tell the difference between a ticket sale lost due to a boycott, and a ticket sale lost because someone doesn't want to see a sci-fi movie.

This is, incidentally, one of the fundamental (and, in my view, often crippling) problems with boycotts - they seek to send a message to the company that their practices are losing them business, but the boycott does not actually deliver that message; instead, all it does is (maybe) lower sales, and most businesses are not equipped to make reliable determinations on why those sales were lost. It's like sending someone a letter in the mail, and deciding that the best way to get your point across is to write it in white-out on a plain white sheet of paper.

OTOH, since it's about business, if you complain about something but by the product anyway they don't care. If sales drop and that's accompanied by enough protest and explanation of why, then companies can figure it out.


meatrace wrote:

You're right, we should all hug and be friends with people who want us to suffer and die.

I mean, it's just an opinion man.

I am not asking anyone to hug or even to be friends, I am just trying (perhaps unsuccessfully) to advocate for civility on both sides and to speak against uncivil treatment and labeling of those we disagree with.


I understand the idea of boycotting. The practice of it is far less effective and far more problematic than people think. It is unlikely to work. If so, the message sent is "who cares if an author supports gay marriage or not". If it does work, the likely take home message will be "science fiction movies don't sell". So far, I haven't seen any sort of outrage about Tom Cruise being in a movie, even though he is a leadership figure of one of the vilest cults out there. Oblivion didn't generate "scientology mistreats mentally ill people" (see whyaretheydead.com). All in all then, I feel this is a publicity stunt, and I have a hard time taking this outrage seriously.

That does not change the fact that being against gay marriage is a s!$#ty stance to take. I just never saw a point in "we have to do something, this is something, so we have to do this".

The Exchange

I think that you can separate the "artist" and the "art", and indeed it's quite important to do so. OSC is, I believe, a Mormon - certainly religious - and his views are doubtless shaped by that background and the doctrine to which he has been exposed. I'm not aware he is an out-and-out bastard (in that I have no idea either way) just that his views reflect that (and some very nice people I have encountered nevertheless hold some views on stuff like this that I would disagree with).

More broadly, just because you disagree with some aspects of an artist's views or demeanour doesn't necessarily mean what he or she produces is invalid. Richard Wagner really was a complete bastard, and an anti-semite to boot, but that doesn't necessarily mean his works should be boycotted (even if they are in Israel, mainly beacuse he was unfortunate that Hitler liked his stuff) or that they are bad art (quite the opposite). At a lower level, Picasso treated his women badly - should feminists (male and female) boycott exhibitions of his work. In fact, holding up an artist as a moral paragon so that, when they inevitably fail to meet that standard, you then boycott their work would probably mean that you would never read a book, see a film, go to an art gallery, and so one, ever.

Clearly it is up to the consumer to spend their money how they see fit, and for the reasons they deem appropriate. But I don't think going to a showing of Ender's Game makes you complicit in homophobia.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I don't think it's Card's views that upset most people. There are bound to have been movies seen by people who shares those views less vocally. It's that money from there ticket would go to an anti-gay platform. That my main issue, and as I stated, simply donating the price of your ticket should more than offset that issue.


Technotrooper wrote:
meatrace wrote:

You're right, we should all hug and be friends with people who want us to suffer and die.

I mean, it's just an opinion man.
I am not asking anyone to hug or even to be friends, I am just trying (perhaps unsuccessfully) to advocate for civility on both sides and to speak against uncivil treatment and labeling of those we disagree with.

But you're also pushing a false equivalency, implying both sides are equally culpable and raising civility above the actual issues.

Much like Card's plea for "tolerance" from those he's fought for years to oppress.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:
Technotrooper wrote:
meatrace wrote:

You're right, we should all hug and be friends with people who want us to suffer and die.

I mean, it's just an opinion man.
I am not asking anyone to hug or even to be friends, I am just trying (perhaps unsuccessfully) to advocate for civility on both sides and to speak against uncivil treatment and labeling of those we disagree with.

But you're also pushing a false equivalency, implying both sides are equally culpable and raising civility above the actual issues.

Saying both sides of an argument should try to be civil towards one another is not the same as saying both sides have equal merit or culpability. It's late/early and I am going to sign off. Thanks for an engaging discussion.

The Exchange

JonGarrett wrote:
I don't think it's Card's views that upset most people. There are bound to have been movies seen by people who shares those views less vocally. It's that money from there ticket would go to an anti-gay platform. That my main issue, and as I stated, simply donating the price of your ticket should more than offset that issue.

The film itself doesn't talk about it as far as I can tell (I read the book maybe a couple of decades ago and didn't pick up an anti-gay agenda from it from my ancient recollection). So it, in and of itself, doesn't represent a platform for anything. As to what Card will spend his share of the money on is pretty much up to him. Again, do you parse what every person who's views you might potentially disapprove of might potentially spend their money on before you make a decision? If anything, this is something that has probably been whipped up by a pressure group that has just about managed to gain traction, probably because Card is more outspoken than most rather then because his views are particularly unique or merit particular attention.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

It's certainly up to Card what he spends his share of any money on. But that's the point. If I have good reason to believe that somebody is going to use money I give them to do something that affects me negatively then it makes good sense for me not to give them money. It also makes fine sense for me to tell my friends why I've made that choice.

You're right, anybody I give money to may potentially use that money to do something I don't like. I can't change that (without spontaneously developing psychic powers) and I don't much intend to interrogate everybody I give money to. But if I already know beforehand that the person will use the money to do something I don't like? That's pretty clearly different isn't it?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Aubrey the Malformed wrote:
JonGarrett wrote:
I don't think it's Card's views that upset most people. There are bound to have been movies seen by people who shares those views less vocally. It's that money from there ticket would go to an anti-gay platform. That my main issue, and as I stated, simply donating the price of your ticket should more than offset that issue.
The film itself doesn't talk about it as far as I can tell (I read the book maybe a couple of decades ago and didn't pick up an anti-gay agenda from it from my ancient recollection). So it, in and of itself, doesn't represent a platform for anything. As to what Card will spend his share of the money on is pretty much up to him. Again, do you parse what every person who's views you might potentially disapprove of might potentially spend their money on before you make a decision? If anything, this is something that has probably been whipped up by a pressure group that has just about managed to gain traction, probably because Card is more outspoken than most rather then because his views are particularly unique or merit particular attention.

No. It's because he's serving on the board of the major national organization fighting against gay marriage (National Organization for Marriage).

You're right that it isn't about the content of the film or the book. It isn't even really about his views. It's about his actions.


Well, NOM may have just taken another hit.

Federal judge rules Ohio's refusal to recognize same sex marriage unconstitutional

Basically, because Ohio recognizes out-of-state marriages of minors and first cousins (which are not allowed under Ohio law) it cannot refuse to allow other marriages which are legal in the state they were performed in. You either have to allow them all, or allow none of them.

The Exchange

Berik wrote:

It's certainly up to Card what he spends his share of any money on. But that's the point. If I have good reason to believe that somebody is going to use money I give them to do something that affects me negatively then it makes good sense for me not to give them money. It also makes fine sense for me to tell my friends why I've made that choice.

You're right, anybody I give money to may potentially use that money to do something I don't like. I can't change that (without spontaneously developing psychic powers) and I don't much intend to interrogate everybody I give money to. But if I already know beforehand that the person will use the money to do something I don't like? That's pretty clearly different isn't it?

And that's fair enough. But Card's "problem" (other than the obvious one regarding his views on homosexuality) is probably more his willingness to express his views - you know what he thinks. Given that I suspect he does more in his day than go around spouting anti-gay rhetoric continuously from dawn till dusk, pausing only to breathe and swallow, I'd suggest the issue is more nuanced - if you think his character and beliefs are the issue. (I'm curious - I've only ever read Ender's Game: does this stuff come out in his other works?) You are, of course, utterly entitled to make a personal decision as to what you spend your money on and why. But I hope you appreciate that you don't really know where the money would go, you don't really know where any of the money you spend really goes, and for some of us the issue of his views of homosexuality and gay marriage really don't have any bearing on our views of whether we would see the film. The boycott of the His Dark Materials film due to the anti-religious and anti-clerical views of Philip Pullman, as a counter-example, wasn't really a very fine moment and possibly deprived the cinema-going public of a fine and entertaining trilogy of films. For me, boycotting Card looks about as narrow-minded as that.

(Note - I have no intention of going and seeing this film, mainly because I wasn't really that bowled over by the book.)

Silver Crusade

Aubrey the Malformed wrote:
(I'm curious - I've only ever read Ender's Game: does this stuff come out in his other works?)

I have not read the book in question, so grain of salt, but one of the older threads here mentioned his example of a positive homosexual character being one that was struggling against his sexuality.

I do know there's that Empire book series about a United States torn apart by a "right wing vs. left wing" civil war, which inspired the videogame Shadow Complex that stirred up this exact same controversy back when it came out.(I linked to a video about that on the first page) Joel Silver and Warner Bros. own the movie rights.

There was also Hamlet's Father, which caused a dust-up over a posible conflation with homosexuality and pedophiles, but Card adamantly denied that was what was going on. Given some of his quotes claiming that homosexuals are often such due to molestation, not a lot of folks were overly reassured.

Liberty's Edge RPG Superstar 2013 Top 16

ShinHakkaider wrote:
I dont read Lovecraft and refuse to read any Lovecraft. . . the blatant racism inherent in the mans work

Do you see the problem here?


Charlie Bell wrote:
Do you see the problem here?

Dude had Cthulhu run over with a steam boat! Great Old Ones are people too. :(

Oh, uhm, and spoiler warning.


Charlie Bell wrote:
ShinHakkaider wrote:
I dont read Lovecraft and refuse to read any Lovecraft. . . the blatant racism inherent in the mans work
Do you see the problem here?

I don't.

The Exchange

Charlie Bell wrote:
ShinHakkaider wrote:
I dont read Lovecraft and refuse to read any Lovecraft. . . the blatant racism inherent in the mans work
Do you see the problem here?

Must confess - I've not actually noticed blatant racism in Lovecraft. I do know he once expounded racist views and even wrote racist poems as a youth but I'm also pretty sure he then grew up. Lovecraft's fiction (the stuff he is known for) is probably no more racist than, say, Edgar Rice Burroughs. Not to say ERB is devoid of racist assumptions either but then they were both products of the late 19th Century - with eugenics and so on quite respectable at that time - and they need to be seen in that context.

151 to 200 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