| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I understand your feelings, but can't agree with your call for "uncivil" treatment of those you disagree with.Because I don't believe hating or mistreatingI 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.
Civility is important most of the time. But, in this case, it is no longer called for. The only people who are left on the opposing side of the gay marriage debate are those who didn't respond to civility.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I believe that to be the best human possible, we need to treat everyone with respect, even when when we don't like them or their views. Derision never wins people over, it just breeds mutual contempt.
Derision on a mass social scale is a persuasive tool. It is a way of reaching people who were not persuaded through rational or compassionate means that their actions or beliefs are not acceptable. This is not controversial. Nearly every culture in the world makes effective use of institutionalized shaming to encourage compliance with social norms.
I understand your want for civility, but unfortunately sometimes it does move past the point of civility. As a gay man, I was kicked out of my house a 17 for coming out, I was ganged up and beaten by my fellow classmates on multiple occasions. I continually get criticized for something I had no choice in, and sometimes physically attacked. I really wish there were a civil discourse but realize there are a lot of people out there who will not be civil.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.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.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.But you're also pushing a false equivalency, implying both sides are equally culpable and raising civility above the actual issues.
I am sorry to hear this. That sucks. No one deserves to be treated like that.
I noticed that everyone ignored the comparison to Tom Cruise and Scientology.
Sissyl actually mentioned that long before you did.
The difference is that Scientology litigates in an effort to sheild itself from criticism, rather than in an effort to outlaw every other religion. Yeah, they're a whacko cult, but unless you sign up and then change youre mind, they're pretty harmless to non-members.
In contrast, the NOM's entire purpose is to be harmful to non-members.
ShinHakkaider--
I wanted to respond to your Spider-Man thread here, as there isn't really much need to have the conversation going in two threads.
In society as a whole, I agree. Here is an article that I posted in another thread, mostly hung out in by lefties, which was roundly booed and derided:
(Btw, intersectionality back on!)
In geek culture, I couldn't say. Despite my ubiquitous presence on this website, I'm not really all that immersed in said subculture.
In this thread, I disagree. While I wouldn't presume to say "You should look past the racism in Lovecraft," I would suggest that reading and enjoying an author with repugnant views doesn't in any way detract from one's opposition to those views. Life is more complex than that, I say, while listening to The Eminem Show.
Yeah, forgive me, but is he saying that? Or some other people?I am not trying to defend OSC, but can you please give a specific example where he has said that gays should be imprisoned or exterminated?Ahem:
Laws against homosexual behavior should remain on the books, not to be indiscriminately enforced against anyone who happens to be caught violating them, but to be used when necessary to send a clear message that those who flagrantly violate society's regulation of sexual behavior cannot be permitted to remain as acceptable, equal citizens within that society.(Original page now deleted, unarchived at Archive.org) Regardless of law, marriage has only one definition, and any government that attempts to change it is my mortal enemy. I will act to destroy that government and bring it down, so it can be replaced with a government that will respect and support marriage, and help me raise my children in a society where they will expect to marry in their turn....But homosexual “marriage” is an act of intolerance. It is an attempt to eliminate any special preference for marriage in society — to erase the protected status of marriage in the constant balancing act between civilization and individual reproduction.
So if my friends insist on calling what they do “marriage,” they are not turning their relationship into what my wife and I have created, because no court has the power to change what their relationship actually is.
Instead they are attempting to strike a death blow against the well-earned protected status of our, and every other, real marriage.
They steal from me what I
I have admit that some of his statements (which you cite here) seem extreme and even "nutty." However, I still don't see any calls to round people up, imprison them, exterminate them, etc.
I have admit that some of his statements (which you cite here) seem extreme and even "nutty." However, I still don't see any calls to round people up, imprison them, exterminate them, etc.
Laws against homosexual behavior should remain on the books, not to be indiscriminately enforced against anyone who happens to be caught violating them, but to be used when necessary to send a clear message that those who flagrantly violate society's regulation of sexual behavior cannot be permitted to remain as acceptable, equal citizens within that society."Laws against homosexual behavior should remain on the books" seems to imply imprisonment to me.
In fairness to Card, this was a while back and he's backed off that statement.
Whether his actual feelings have changed or just his presentation is unclear, but seems unlikely to me. He certainly gives no indication of having changed his general attitude towards homosexuality or his basic theory of opposition, it's just that the battleground has moved from behavior to marriage.
Either way he's concerned about tolerance of homosexuality, whether that's allowing marriage or not punishing the behavior, encouraging its spread and undermining society.
To be fair, in the same citation he also says, "The goal of the polity is not to put homosexuals in jail." I am glad to hear that OSC has at least backed off the idea of keeping such laws on the books.
He's an active boardmember of the National Organisation for Marriage, which isn't too shy about how it pursues it's agenda. You might want to check this wiki entry Which means he's not just someone who holds views I disagree with he's an activist on those views. Although given his Mormon background, one shouldn't be too surprised.
Interestingly, the wiki article you cited says that Card resigned from the NOM board in July 2013. So this must have just recently happened.
To be fair, in the same citation he also says, "The goal of the polity is not to put homosexuals in jail." I am glad to hear that OSC has at least backed off the idea of keeping such laws on the books.I have admit that some of his statements (which you cite here) seem extreme and even "nutty." However, I still don't see any calls to round people up, imprison them, exterminate them, etc.
Laws against homosexual behavior should remain on the books, not to be indiscriminately enforced against anyone who happens to be caught violating them, but to be used when necessary to send a clear message that those who flagrantly violate society's regulation of sexual behavior cannot be permitted to remain as acceptable, equal citizens within that society."Laws against homosexual behavior should remain on the books" seems to imply imprisonment to me.
In fairness to Card, this was a while back and he's backed off that statement.
Whether his actual feelings have changed or just his presentation is unclear, but seems unlikely to me. He certainly gives no indication of having changed his general attitude towards homosexuality or his basic theory of opposition, it's just that the battleground has moved from behavior to marriage.
Either way he's concerned about tolerance of homosexuality, whether that's allowing marriage or not punishing the behavior, encouraging its spread and undermining society.No. It's to keep them from doing such things or at least forcing them to remain underground.
The main purpose of almost all laws is not to put people in jail, but to discourage them from doing the illegal things.And it's arguable that he's backed off because the laws aren't on the books anymore. Or have been struck down by various court decisions.
I honestly don't know what his current views on this topic are. I was only going by the previous statement that "this was a while back and he's backed off that statement."
He's an active boardmember of the National Organisation for Marriage, which isn't too shy about how it pursues it's agenda. You might want to check this wiki entry Which means he's not just someone who holds views I disagree with he's an activist on those views. Although given his Mormon background, one shouldn't be too surprised.Interestingly, the wiki article you cited says that Card resigned from the NOM board in July 2013. So this must have just recently happened.That's a point in his favor at least. Or possibly in favor of public pressure. :)
It looks like it only went public yesterday. And pretty late at that.
I was wondering how I missed it yesterday.
Yeah, I have to admit that the timing (with his movie about to release) does seem a bit suspicious.
Can I go see Ender's Game now?
|
It might be suspicious... or it might be that he's re-evaluating his stance. The thing is we won't know unless someone takes the time to find out for sure. That would require actually reaching out to the man with something other than venom. Has anyone tried to learn for sure what's going on?
The idealist in me wants him to have had a true change of heart because its the right thing to do, not out of mere convenience (or rather inconvenience).
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 a lot 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?
For the same reason that George Zimmerman can reportedly rescue someone from a truck and still be viewed as a reprehensible human being who remains the catalyst for protests across the country, even after acquittal.
For the same reason that the death of James Byrd's killers is not the end of the matter.
For the same reason that passing a Matthew Shepherd bill is not the end of the matter.
Don't get me wrong, I understand your appeal to peoples' better angels. In a perfect world I'd be in full concurrence with you.
Unfortunately, Card is unrepentant, and still fully capable of influencing people by the views he actively hold. As a human being, I totally support his right to be a stupid bigoted idiot person of a faith I find questionable in its legitimacy and value. People can believe what they want, and hate who they want to hate, and I can live with that and do every day.
When their profits can be and ARE used to harm others, I don't want them getting a wooden nickel. And this is coming from someone who LOVED Ender's Game in his youth, and still have a copy of the book, but have had to wrestle with whether or not I could keep the craft separated from the creator.
Now that OSC has repented and we can all go happily see Ender's Game without crossing picket lines manned by violent, intolerant Paizonians, let's keep talking about authors (and I see in my "Compose" page that Citizen K(e)rensky is picking up cudgels for Kipling, whom, I must admit, I haven't read since boyhood):
Edgar Rice Burroughs.
So, I first read John Carter of Mars 2 years ago or so. I had purchased one of those cheapo but nice-looking compendiums of the first three books at Barnes & Noble, and read the first one. I didn't really care for it, at first, and put the book down. Later, though, I kept having visions of Barsoom, so, I thought to myself, that must mean something. I then read it again.
Anyway, I dug up what I wrote about it two years ago in order to a) show off; and b) maybe direct some traffic to the best thread on Paizo.com.
While I'm sure I'll be dismissed by many as an apologist or revisionist, Kipling's place is far from settled. Every piece of his I've read has almost seemed to drip with sarcasm and condemnation of imperialism and colonialism if you read between the lines, especially if you consider the timing of White Man's Burden and Recessional.
[Dismisses Citizen K(e)rensky]
No, no, I kid.
Anyway, here's a comic, that you may find interesting: The Unwritten
I only read the first volume, and without spoilering too much, part of it is about how Kipling was blackmailed by evil, conspiratorial pro-Britishiznoid imperialist forces to write the "problematic" pieces like Gunga Din and punished him for writing less chauvinist pieces by [spoiler].
Fun stuff, I should really pick up some more one of these days.
|
Now that OSC has repented and we can all go happily see Ender's Game without crossing picket lines manned by violent, intolerant Paizonians, let's keep talking about authors (and I see in my "Compose" page that Citizen K(e)rensky is picking up cudgels for Kipling, whom, I must admit, I haven't read since boyhood):
Edgar Rice Burroughs.
So, I first read John Carter of Mars 2 years ago or so. I had purchased one of those cheapo but nice-looking compendiums of the first three books at Barnes & Noble, and read the first one. I didn't really care for it, at first, and put the book down. Later, though, I kept having visions of Barsoom, so, I thought to myself, that must mean something. I then read it again.
Anyway, I dug up what I wrote about it two years ago in order to a) show off; and b) maybe direct some traffic to the best thread on Paizo.com.
I boycotted* the film of John Carter. Which I rather regret, since although it got a critical mauling those who saw it here at Paizo quite liked it.
*As in, never got round to seeing.
|
|
While I'm sure I'll be dismissed by many as an apologist or revisionist, Kipling's place is far from settled. Every piece of his I've read has almost seemed to drip with sarcasm and condemnation of imperialism and colonialism if you read between the lines, especially if you consider the timing of White Man's Burden and Recessional.
I'm far from a Kipling expert (though he does make exceptionally good cakes), but I understand that his views evolved over time (and were probably more subtle than is easily caricatured anyway) especially after the death of his son in WW1.
I think this thread is turning into a "authors who maybe aren't as bigotted as everyone thinks" "yes they are!" discussion.
I noticed that everyone ignored the comparison to Tom Cruise and Scientology.Sissyl actually mentioned that long before you did.
You do realize that it was specifically to Sissyl's comment I was referring to, right? Since I didn't mention Cruise at all except to point out the comparison was ignored.
Since I didn't mention Cruise at all except to point out the comparison was ignored.
A false comparison is still false, though. As soon as those wacko Scientologists actively try to ban your church? I'll happily boycott Tom Cruise movies with you then, and refrain from buying all 4 seasons of My Name Is Earl for everyone I like. Until then, if Tom and Jason's royalty money isn't actively being used to prevent groups of people from enjoying equal rights under the Constitution, and is instead going to finance the purchase of more bogus "e-meters" or whatever, they can go (believe in Thetan space aliens / jump on couches / name their kids idiotic things) all they want.
No one cares that OSC is a Mormon, or that he personally is anti-gay. Let's stop beating that particular straw man; its guys are strewn all over the thread. People care that OSC funds anti-gay-rights legislation.
So you didn't realize it.
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I boycotted* the film of John Carter. Which I rather regret, since although it got a critical mauling those who saw it here at Paizo quite liked it.*As in, never got round to seeing.
Too bad! You missed the best Star Wars movie since Jedi.
Alternatively, he may still be opposed to gay rights (either specifically marriage or more generally) but realize that the fight's over and there's better things for him to spend his time and money on than an ultimately lost cause.
This seems to be the most likely reason for his resignation, given some of his other comments on the matter lately. The war is over, there's just some mopping up to do now, the beginning of which has already started.
To be clear, there are some nuances to Ohio law in play here, but as OSC notes the Supreme Court ruling on full faith and credit pretty much seals the deal for gay marriage opponents at some point in the not too distant future. Honestly, that was the direction we were headed even before the ruling - it simply sped things along.
All of which leads to: I was going to see the movie one way or another.
|
OMG, let's boycott all religions that oppose homosexuality! Sounds pretty stupid huh? Falls along the same lines as boycotting Ender's Game for the same reason.
The man has written over 100 works, if you really think you're going to send him to the poor house by not spending your money on the movie, then you're just as stupid as the first sentence I wrote sounds.
Well, "we" (and I put it in quotes, because I wasn't participating, I just wasn't going to go see it) already drove him off the NOM board of directors, so...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think this thread is turning into a "authors who maybe aren't as bigotted as everyone thinks" "yes they are!" discussion.
God, I hope so. I'd rather discuss books than Harrison Ford movies any day of the week.
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'.
Okay my bad then. My initial sources seem to have been rather bad. Carry on.
Dirty Harry is a Republican. Republicans usually do stuff to infringe on same-sex couple's rights. Thus let's boycott any movie with Dirty Harry or any other person in the movie business that is a Republican.
OMG, let's boycott all religions that oppose homosexuality! Sounds pretty stupid huh?
Not at all. There are a lot of people who find a religion that paints non-heterosexuality as deviant to be repulsive. This is one of a number of contributing factors to the devastating decline of religion in a number of modern nations.
Mind you, I don't think it's worth boycotting Ender's Game. But the only thing that sounds stupid here is your metaphor.
Dirty Harry is a Republican. Republicans usually do stuff to infringe on same-sex couple's rights. Thus let's boycott any movie with Dirty Harry or any other person in the movie business that is a Republican.
so many things wrong with this statement....
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But, Jeff, arguing nonsense is a lot easier than addressing what anyone is actually saying!
P.S. "It's what he does with the money, not what he believes" has been repeated ad nauseum, but no one bothers to look at that, and there's no reason to think that anyone will ever bother to look at that.
I think this thread is turning into a "authors who maybe aren't as bigotted as everyone thinks" "yes they are!" discussion.God, I hope so. I'd rather discuss books than Harrison Ford movies any day of the week.
Dear Sirs,
Thankyou for your letter….. I regret that I am not clear as to what you intend by arisch. I am not of Aryan extraction: that is Indo-Iranian; as far as I am aware none of my ancestors spoke Hindustani, Persian, Gypsy, or any related dialects. But if I am to understand that you are enquiring whether I am of Jewish origin, I can only reply that I regret that I appear to have no ancestors of that gifted people. My great-great-grandfather came to England in the eighteenth century from Germany: the main part of my descent is therefore purely English, and I am an English subject – which should be sufficient. I have been accustomed, nonetheless, to regard my German name with pride, and continued to do so throughout the period of the late regrettable war, in which I served in the English army. I cannot, however, forbear to comment that if impertinent and irrelevant inquiries of this sort are to become the rule in matters of literature, then the time is not far distant when a German name will no longer be a source of pride.
Your enquiry is doubtless made in order to comply with the laws of your own country, but that this should be held to apply to the subjects of another state would be improper, even if it had (as it has not) any bearing whatsoever on the merits of my work or its suitability for publication, of which you appear to have satisfied yourselves without reference to my Abstammung.
I trust you will find this reply satisfactory, and
remain yours faithfully,
J.R.R. Tolkien
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
OMG, let's boycott all religions that oppose homosexuality!
*looks up*
What? Did someone invoke me? I'll have you know I was just cackling with glee at how I live in the future over my first successful wireless printing (two pages of the Congressional Globe for the 33rd Congress containing the full text of Appeal of the Independent Democrats in Congress to the People of the United States for the blog) and doing a little dance brought on by equal parts delight, seizure, and full bladder but if you insist...
That sounds like an excellent idea; glad someone suggested it! I worry that the practicalities might make it difficult for the boycott to succeed, what with how religions don't even pay taxes, but it's worth a shot.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
OMG, let's boycott all religions that oppose homosexuality! Sounds pretty stupid huh?
I'll do you one better.
Let's boycott all religions full stop.
This thread influenced a dream I had the other day. IT was a dystopian future. The protagonists of the dream aside it was interesting. Both religion (Crosses were carved down and altered like Brave New World) and gay people were being oppressed. Also, the heroes' car had a number pad that if you punched in 3636 it gave your a burrito.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But, Jeff, arguing nonsense is a lot easier than addressing what anyone is actually saying!
P.S. "It's what he does with the money, not what he believes" has been repeated ad nauseum, but no one bothers to look at that, and there's no reason to think that anyone will ever bother to look at that.
Well, except for the other people who've said it.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It is odd how bent people get about boycotting. Snarkely scoffing at others choices to abstain from supporting a product.
We all boycott every single day, we just don't refer to it as "boycotting".
We might not go to a certain coffee shop because the staff was rude. We might not watch MSNBC, or FOX news out of some sense of principle. We might not buy clothing from various stores because you can get a similar product without child labor in 3rd world countries. Hell, I have not forgiven Starbucks CEO Howard Shultz for selling my Seattle Supersonics. I'll make him pay one coffee at a time. We are all making choices and a boycott is just a choice with some righteous indignation thrown in.
As for OSC..it truly broke my heart when I read his essays. Being a big fan of Enders game and the Alvin Maker series I never would have fathomed he had this kind of bitter resentment for my gay and lesbian brothers & sisters. I love many of his books and I hope some day he comes around. I've not decided if I'm going to abstain from Enders Game but I'm seriously thinking about it.
"No sweeteners will cloak some forms of bitterness. If it tastes bitter, spit it out. That's what our earliest ancestors did."
-The Coda
-MD
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Dirty Harry is a Republican. Republicans usually do stuff to infringe on same-sex couple's rights. Thus let's boycott any movie with Dirty Harry or any other person in the movie business that is a Republican.
No, its not that absurdly simple. Clint Eastwood and many other Republicans support LGBT equality, like same sex marriage.
Yes, Pres Man, I'm afraid this now means you must marry Eastwood in Expendables 3: The Strawmanninging.