Slashdot Mirror
Card's Intergalactic Medicine Show
grammar fascist writes "Orson Scott Card's Intergalactic Medicine Show, a science fiction / fantasy webzine, went online just yesterday. Card, the editor-in-chief, has stayed true to his ideals: quality stories, author's rights, and trust in people's honesty. New stories are released quarterly, with new column installments added monthly to the current issue. New art is created for each story. There isn't even an attempt at draconian content control. Writers and artists give exclusive rights for one year - after that, limited rights. Card wants your stories and art, not your copyrights. I've finished the first issue now, and the stories are great. "Eviction Notice" made me cry, and I laughed out loud at "Loose in the Wires." I paid my $2.50 initially to support the business model, but the stories themselves are worth it."
Cory Doctorow from BoingBoing is going to jump all over this.
(Not without reason though, it seems.)
but sci-fi sucks.. not meaning to troll but i really just cant stand it.. :(
you should be a critic honestly you would fit in with them.....
This follows in the great tradition of the old print anthologies of SF Stories. Hopefully this will lead to more interest in SF and writing in general. Perhaps we can return to the glory days of SciFi.
You do realize most of the anti-paypal stuff out there is just people bitching and complaining because they were attempting some sort of fraud and paypal caught them on it. There are a few valid complaints yes, but I've never heard of anyone without an account paying through them having any problems. They havn't had any breaches in security that would cause your CC data to be worrysome.
I use PayPal, even though they are scum bags, but I don't give them my credit card info. I set up a special bank account which I only keep a minimal (~ $20) balance, so they cannot drain my main account. That way I can use PayPal without worrying about them stealing my money. It's easy to ask your bank to set up a new special account.
Another way to support independant sci-fi is to listen to Escape Pod, the weekly science-fiction podcast magazine.
I'm not involved in this project, but I have been a frequent donor. I think EP is a very important project. To some extent, the sci-fi and fantasy genres are dominated by the feature film, the novel and the long-running series. The traditional vehicle for short stories, magazines, have a dwindling readership, and do not have the distribution that they once had at their peak.
EP seeks to create an audience, and perhaps one day a market for short, original science-fiction stories. I think this is a very noble and important cause.
Please tune in. I hope you enjoy it. You can find it listed on all good podcast directories.
Orson Scott Card's Intergalactic Medicine Show, a science fiction / fantasy webzine, went online just yesterday. Card, the editor-in-chief, wants to have his server stress tested.
SIG: TAKE OFF EVERY 'CAPTAIN'!!
Card, the editor-in-chief, has stayed true to his ideals: quality stories, author's rights, and trust in people's honesty.
Pffft. Leave it to a Mormon to actually implement a business model that respects the work's creator...
(I just spent last week in SLC. Can't say I agree with a lot of their views, but they are a very nice bunch of people.)
Be a real patriot: Question authority. Think for yourself. Formulate your own conclusions.
I'm definitely interested. My favorite magazine back when I was a kid was Omni. Loved the short story sci-fi they would always have there, and the creepy Giger artwork and all that. Totally bummed me out when they went all new-age.
I've been looking for a good magazine sci-fi fix ever since. This could be just what I've been looking for since I was a teenager, if they do it right.
Weaselmancer
rediculous.
He's a complete asshole, his politics are slightly to the right of Genghis Khan, when I read this article ( http://www.ornery.org/essays/warwatch/2005-05-15-1 .html ) I binned the few books I had of his.
There's no room in the 21st century for animals like him, except maybe in the Shite House.
Ok, so Orson Scott Card is a great author... but how is this groundbreaking? There are numerous webzines that publish quality stories, out there...
Try Duotrope's digest to find them.
Daniel
Carpe Diem
Card, the editor-in-chief, has stayed true to his ideals: quality stories, author's rights, and trust in people's honesty...
...and flagrant homophobia.
Hope it takes off.. Here's a free story idea.. A short story written from the perspective of an Ethernet Frame. Would be no doubt scary, but also educational.
~jennifer.k~
I used to be a big enders game fan and thought OSC was the king until i read things from the like peter f hamilton, greg bear and ian m banks etc The nights dawn trilogy makes enders game look like fan-fiction
You do realize what a testimonial against using PayPal this is, don't you?
No folly is more costly than the folly of intolerant idealism. - Winston Churchill
Card's site actually looks like a real magazine.
"God fights on the side with the best artillery." - Napoleon, Marshal of France - speaking truth to power
Uhhh.... no. My PayPal account was frozen when I sold something on eBay and there was a dispute between myself and the buyer. Both PayPal and eBay ruled in my favor (this was before eBay bought PayPal) but then in sour grapes that the arbitration didn't go his way, the buyer did a reverse charge on his credit card, PayPal told me to pay up or they freeze my account. And this is despite the fact that they ruled in my favor. I told them which layer of Dante's Infero to go and will NEVER use PayPal ever again.
And they don't go to extreme lenghts to try to convert you. Once it's clear that you're not interested they leave you alone.
Best Slashdot Co
You do realize most of the anti-paypal stuff out there is just people bitching and complaining because they were attempting some sort of fraud and paypal caught them on it. There are a few valid complaints yes, but I've never heard of anyone without an account paying through them having any problems. They havn't had any breaches in security that would cause your CC data to be worrysome.
f id=3&tid=5223&old_block=0
I like many others got their paypal frozen. No valid explanation, no correction, no fraud. Granted I just created another account using a more verbose form of my e-mail address but regardless there are people who bitching who have just cause... hince that class action lawsuit.
http://www.paypalsucks.com/forums/showthread.php?
There is no sanctuary. There is no sanctuary. SHUT UP! There is no shut up. There is no shut up.
Such is the cost of buisness in taking credit cards, your disagreement is with the credit card company that allowed him to reverse the charges. But if paypal had done what you wanted they would have had to shell out the money themselves, something they arn't going to do.
People don't read SF stories for the glossy paper/nice layout.
(I'm not suggesting Card's magazine doesn't have good content - but so do many free webzines out there, if only because they pay roughly the same rates)
Daniel
Carpe Diem
Orson Scott Card is a great writer, but he's also an insane rightwing religious fanatic. Since I found out, it's hard to enjoy his taking me on a tour of another person's mind.
--
make install -not war
I can't believe this was modded Interesting - it's totally wrong. Have a look at the size of the PayPalSucks forums to get an idea of what I mean - size alone should give you an idea of what you're dealing with here.
Then go read one of their draconian user agreements, the ex-employee/whistleblower interviews (PayPalSucks and elsewhere), and maybe something like this. Or just google it?
I was ripped off myself - thankfully only for US$2.50 - for the crime of living outside the US and sending verification papers a month too slow. I logged in one day to find my account locked before even the first transaction, with big red bold text to the effect of "bugger off, we don't want your money". I made several calls to get it working again before finding PayPalSucks, but couldn't be bothered spending any more time fighting their obfuscation-fu. I'd suggest my case was more incompetence than malice, but I've seen (firsthand) much worse.
No offense meant, but please do a little research before making such sweeping claims. It's really annoying to see someone sing their praises after watching them get away with the kind of shit that they do.
Read "Orson Scott Card Has Always Been an Asshat" over at Kuro5hin.
Pathman, Free (as in GPL) 3D Pac Man
I care what he or she thinks. I care what you think, too. But when you think that nobody cares whatever he or she thinks, then I know you are wrong. Because I care.
Only if you put some sci-fi references in that you wouldn't be offtopic.
He or she is a alien, you are from the future, and the jarhead sugesting that he or she shits in punch bowls is a vegitron. I think he or she can't stand sci-fi because he or she being from another planet can't take it seriously. I think you already know what i'm going to say, and this other guy is quarking on the floor pollinating it self.
It's Machine Vs. Man, Man Vs. Woman, and Woman Vs. Your Mother!!11
If you ever dealt with merchant accounts with real banks, you'd realize its the same shit, really it is. Of course half the bitching people do is that they arn't a real bank. Only different I've seen if the Federal Insurance, and lesser fees.
Want to read more free/cheap sci-fi and fantasy?
Strange Horizons - a weekly e-magazine, donation-supported.
Futurismic - a monthly e-magazine (focused on futuristic stories and articles about future technology), also donation-supported.
I've been reading both of these for a few months now, and the stories are great! I'm planning to donate in their fund drives, because I think the quality is superb.
Have you read the Moderation Guidelines Addendum?
From the /. article summary: "Card wants your stories and art, not your copyright."
Ummm, not to question the great slashdot editors, but this is *standard practice* for lit magazines, both in print and online. The author USUALLY retains the copyright for published work. Nothing unique here.
Also, most print lit magazines only purchase first serial rights and/or some type of one-time anthology rights. Card's magazine purchases EVERYTHING, all rights, for an entire year. This agreement is actually worse for writers than what most publications offer.
As for having all rights (except online rights, which they keep forever!!) returned to the author after a year, this seems great... except when you consider:
a) for many print/web literary publications, rights return to the author immediately after publication.
b) that the author won't be able to sell the story very easily if it's appeared in another magazine before. Editors want FIRST serial rights, so they can provide readers with unique, never-read-before content. When rights are returned to the author after a year, the author's not going to be able to do much with them, except for maybe putting the story in a print anthology.
Sorry slashdot editors, but this looks like a not-so-hot deal for authors.
Writerati
Whether it be a movie, book (Ender's Game was great), music, or whatever.
Lots of OSC's critics argue that "Ender's Game" amounts to an extended apologia for Hitler. (Look in the little outline at point 7.1.) Given OSC's general world view, yeah, that does affect my reading of the novel.
It's also hard for me to idolize Bobby Fischer at this point. Sad but true. And no matter how cool a modern artist is, no matter how amazing her use of material and so on, if she's constantly referring directly and indirectly to how much she detests Serbs/Croats/Kosovar Albanians, it'll detract from the work for me. I can't just shrug and say the colors are really well-chosen and leave with just the good, not if she's shoving her ideology down my throat.
Can anyone but a sicko really want OJ's autograph on a football now? I was a kid when he was huge, I remember how cool he was then. Only makes me wince now.
Doesn't make the artist an "animal," but it does compromise any satisfaction from the art.
"Fundamentalism" isn't about divine morality. It's about human authority.
Disagreeing with someone's politics is not always a reason to not read their works (though invariably people add their on spin on any story they write ,which could make it less enjoyable for an opposing view point) ,However I would not pay for any services he provides or books he writes ,due to the fact he may use the money to lobby . I don't want to fund people with views like that .
The only things certain in war are Propaganda and Death. You can never be sure which is which though
Now, if by some mistake of birth, you should happen to be a member of that sect and decide you don't want to be affiliated with it anymore, prepare for the onslaught.
After my wife and I decided we'd had enough, we had nonstop unwanted calls and visits by guys in dark suits. Each and every time they came to our door we told them that we weren't interested, weren't coming back and that we wanted the harassment to stop. The bishop even told us that it was his "ecclesiastical duty" to continue the unwanted calls and visits until we wrote a letter resigning our membership. WTF??
After we wrote the letter, and they wouldn't accept an email, then the vicious rumors started and our Mormon friends stopped talking to us. It may be all smiles going in, but it's all daggers going out.
Yeah, nice folks. Love 'em to death.
And I just counted that I have 14 books by OSC on the shelf next to my elbow. So sad. I even met OSC twice at book fairs.
Recently I read some right-wing lunatic, post-9/11 columns by him. No attempt at reasoning, only 'must follow the leader; dissent is treason' kind of diatribe. That's when I noticed that he is an authoritarian.
Did you notice that in his books, democracies are the weaklings and loosers, and the strong (or shrewd) win? And what's with this fascination with genocide?
Fight Frist Psoting!
Browse Slashdot with 'Newest First'!
The dark secret of homosexual society - the one that dares not speak its name - is how many homosexuals first entered into that world through a disturbing seduction or rape or molestation or abuse, and how many of them yearn to get out of the homosexual community and live normally.
Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
Well, I've never had a merchant account with a real bank, so I can't do that comparison. And I agree that cost is a major driver in that industry, so much so that bad service may be optimal. But any company which makes money by freezing accounts, draining money, and making it very difficult/costly to retrieve said money (earning interest all the way) goes down as evil in my book.
It's true that people bitch about them misrepresenting themselves as a bank. I'm bitching about how PayPal takes peoples' money for the flimsiest of reasons and refuses to give it back just because they're big and lawyers are expensive.
"You do realize most of the anti-paypal stuff out there is just people bitching and complaining because they were attempting some sort of fraud and paypal caught them on it."
/. of some american idiot rent-a-coder that exported and zipped a productive database, and posted it on a website, asking if someone can help him format that data. In fact, he posted it twice. Complete with people's names, addresses, etc.
Actually, of all the anti-paypal stuff I've read so far, none involved a fraud.
Plus, people commiting frauds tend to keep a low profile, because we're talking a crime punishable by law. You don't see whole public web-sites of people advertising that they've commited fraud against, say, a bank, any more than you see web sites full of people advertising their rapist prowess. Much less class-action lawsuits against the bank by them.
So I'm wondering on what do you base that kind of a broad-sweeping generalization. You're accusing a helluva lot of people of commiting a crime, so I'd like that to be based on some actual evidence, rather than fanboyism.
But even that's missing the whole point: even without those complaints, why should I trust my money to a company (A) who ostensibly is not a bank, and (B) whose terms and conditions of use basically say "all your money are belong to us. We can do whatever we wish, for any damn reason we wish. You have no rights, and don't guarantee anything, not even that you'll ever see your money back. And, oh, suing us to get your money back is also a breach of this contract."
See, banks aren't just a big company that you trust, but are subject to strict government regulations _and_ backing. You essentially don't even have to trust your bank, because there's a whole legal framework that's not only there to kick them in the teeth if they tried to run away with it, but also to make sure that you _will_ get your money back. From your government, if all else fails.
By comparison, PayPal is... what? A dot-com which overtly makes no guarantees, puts itself outside any rules or obligations, and you just have to trust them that they'll do the right thing. It's like giving your CC to a John Doe on the street, because he looks like a thrustworthy fellow. Or to the widdow of Mr Bantu Nguana from Nigeria, because she seems so sincere in that email asking for your help to transfer those 80 million dollars.
And even if you trust their current management, we're talking a dot-com which changed management and got bought at least once. Do you automatically trust that any future managers will also be trustworthy, even though your contract with them says "do what you will with my money, you are always automatically right, and I'm automatically wrong if I disaggree"? Why?
"They havn't had any breaches in security that would cause your CC data to be worrysome."
No, you don't know that. You only know that they haven't published any incident, but then they also didn't put their other mistakes on the front page. But even assuming it were so:
1. How do you know it will stay so? What happens when a new CEO is brought to reduce costs and he outsources it all to the cheapest monkeys he can find? I'm not even talking about offshoring only: there has been a recent case right on
2. What is your recourse when that eventually happens? With a bank you have a certain guarantee, both from it and from your government, that your money won't just disappear down a rat hole. PayPal explicitly gives none.
A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
Though OSC has addressed the Hitler issue numerous times regarding Ender, I think you have a valid point. I look at it this way, if I never read about OSC's world view then I can still enjoy his work and get out of it what I read into it. I assume the same thing goes for L. Ron Hubbard's sci-fi, but I've honestly never read any of his work because I read about scientology first. That's not to say that I wouldn't read his work though, just that I'd be biased against it.
My main objection was to the labelling of OSC as an "animal". I tend to reserve that word for people who deserve it, as in my previous OJ Simpson reference.
I wholly support this way of paying for a subscription, $2.50 is not bad at all.
2 550706/103-3928436-9214253?v=glance
PS the book 'Ender's Game' by Orson Scott Card is excellent, I recommend it to anyone.
LINK: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/081
He who knows best knows how little he knows. - Thomas Jefferson
So, as long as I churn out second rate overblown sci-fi and inane social commentary - I am free to bash, discredit and spread hate and religious intolerance?
The man is a racist homophobic bigot who deserves scorn and scrutiny, not praise.
If you just want to read/look at scifi stories and art, Elfwood http://www.elfwood.com/ is much easier to access, and it's free. And at the spin-off sites like Elftown http://www.elftown.com/ and Writersco http://www.writersco.com/ you can have a much more intime conversations with or between the writers and artists. But there are also some pretty bad amateurs there, but many see that as a feature, not a bug.
OSC also is very active compared to other SFF writers in teaching the next generation to write. He's taught creative writing classes (and he's much more qualified than most who teach those usually worthless classes). He's written a book on how to write SFF, and a book on characterization. And, believe it or not, both books have solid advice...I taught myself how to write before I picked up his books on characterization and SFF, and I pretty much was nodding, going, "Yes, this is right...I do that already...yep, he's got it right..." What I had learned independantly on my own was confirmed in them. They're the only books on writing I've read so far that actually know what they're talking about...I've laughed a few others out the window for being absurdly incorrect on a lot of points.
I have the feeling that the new webzine is just another step in making a high-quality market for the next generation of writers. I wouldn't be surprised if this turned into the next, oh, I don't know...Azimov's, or something like Marion Zimmer Bradley's anthologies, or other SFF 'zine that was backed by a highly talented author, back in the "Good 'ol days".
If they went out to the titty bar in assless chaps you'd be okay with them?
HBI's Law: Frequency of calling others Nazis is directly correlated with the likelihood of the accuser being Communist.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but did you say that your reading of the novel is affected by critics claims that he has denied? The 7.1 outline point brings up another great critique that Ender's Game was actually written by a committee of Mormons to warm people up to forgiving. That just sounds like conspiracy theory drivel to me. I can't think of a good reason to go to someone who doesn't like an author to figure out what the original meaning was.
On the topic of the Ender/Hitler thing, all we can do is acknowledge that one side says yes and the other side says no. I have to go with the author on this one. I don't know why he would try to hide the Hitler comparisons seeing how Ender is quite detestable in man ways. The case is shaky when you see how much Ender is played and used to commit genocide, where Hitler is anything but a pawn.
Heroscape, it's like legos combined with anachronistic wargames.
By comparison, PayPal is... what?
I don't know where people got the idea that PayPal was anything like a bank in the first place. They're more like a bare-bones cheap credit card processing service. You'd get the same lack of service and callous disregard for your money from those "$25/mo plus 5% of each transaction" card processing folks. Buyer disputes a charge? You're mostly SOL! If you want good service as a merchant, you gotta pay for it. Get a decent payment processing service. If you're so bent on accepting paypal, find a service provider like Andale who will middleman it for you.
If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
There's definitly something amazing about the short story format. It is particularly well-suited to sci-fi, as can be evidenced by the beginnings of the genre in Amazing Stories, etc, and thousands of issues of Omni and Asimov's Science Fiction that continue to publish great fiction. And there's something wonderful about holding the latest issue in your hand, taking it with you on the bus, reading it cover to cover, one story at a time.
It's great that Orson Scott Card is doing his own magazine! I've read some anthologies that he's edited, and they were very good. However, I'd really love to order this in PRINT, if I could, or head over to the magazine store to pick up the latest issue.
As much as we'd like websites to take over the print market, I just don't see it happening. I still want a piece of paper in my hand when it comes to reading. Even if it was on one of those nice new paper-like LCD screens, I can't imagine it would be an equal experience to holding a book in your hand. I think it's not resolution that is the defining factor here. It is something about the permanence of ink on paper that wins me over. When I finish reading a great story, I never want to lose it. I want to put it on my shelf so I know where it is. The harddrive is such a volatile place to store memories that you don't want to lose...
Yes, because Bush personally could have done a whole lot, such as
Such as giving the head of FEMA job to a qualified person instead of treating it as gift to hand over to his incompetant buddy.
But no, let's not blame the result of nepotism and incompetance on the guilty... obviously, no one could have anticipated that the levees would break, right? So it would have been the same mess no matter who had been in charge?
Man, seriously, when someone's incompetance costs people their lives, it MIGHT be time to stop thinking that it's OK to be leave the incompetant in charge. Just a thought.
You can't take the sky from me...
You should have called him an insane rightwing racist homophobe. Then you would have ben modded Informative. :-\
My brother bought a few of L Ron's together as remainder hardcovers, and Steve's pretty bread and butter as a Sci Fi fan. Even for someone who just wants an okay space opera sort of deal, he said they were terrible. Leafing through one of them I'd agree. Embarrassingly bad writing.
"Fundamentalism" isn't about divine morality. It's about human authority.
Since religion is generally viewed as a big commitment/part of life, is writing a letter all that hard?
I actually have something to submit, but the submission form just says "Coming soon". How exactly do they propose to keep an SF magazine going without submissions?
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
scifiction.com is currently the highest paying market for science fiction period. It is edited by Ellen Datlow (from Omni) and the combination of the best editor and the best pay means it has in general the best ficiton.
Disclaimer: I'm an adept of "do whatever the fuck you please, as long as it's in the privacy of your home, and between consenting adults". I'm not opposed to your being gay, or whatever else you want to be. This time however, I'll basically also add "but fucking _keep_ it to the privacy of your own home, and leave the rest of us out of it already, because I'm already tired of the 'waah, you're a nazi if you don't support us' guilt-tripping."
So where should I start? He's a "rightwing religious fanatic"? Well, how about you support that claim? Because in that article you linked to, I've seen him actually argue his point of view without needing to base it on "God said it's wrong". So how the heck is it religious fanatism? He bases his argument on some things that are technically true, too. Things like:
1. That it's a redefinition of the word "marriage" to mean something it never meant before. It's true. Marriage always meant something involving a man and a woman. Anything else is an extension of the meaning. Now you may argue that it's a logical extension, and that it doesn't do anyone any harm, and we can even aggree on that. But an extension it is.
2. That you did have the exact same rights as heterosexual people, including, yes, the right to a heterosexual marriage. It may not be the kind of right you wanted, but technically you had the same rights. (Same as technically if homosexual marriage is allowed, heterosexuals have that right too. They might not want to exert that right, but they have it.) What you wanted was a _new_ right, that noone else had. Again, it may be a logical one, or one that doesn't harm anyone, and we can even aggree there, but it _is_ a new one.
3. Passing laws and granting new rights is a privilege of congress, not of a judge legislating from the bench. The courts of law are the branch that should apply the existing laws, not the ones that make new ones as they see fit. Separation of powers in the state is there for a reason, and let's keep it that way.
So how about you address those, if you really wish to discuss that, instead of reaching for the canned "insane rightwing religious fanatic" ad-hominem? (And if not, why did you bring it up?)
Because it seems to me like all three are technically right. Again, I'm not opposed to your getting that right. Makes sense to me. But the bullshit verbal fallacies (i.e., a whole argument based on redefining what a word means), ad-hominems, and endless guilt-tripping attempts based on those verbal falkacies, _are_ starting to get my goat. If you want to make your case, make it logically already, and not by fallacies. Verbal, ad-hominem, guilt by association (e.g., don't read his books because he's one of the homophobes), or otherwise. Or in other words, ffs, be honest for a start: if you want a new right, say just that, don't pretend someone was denying you something everyone else had.
And judging from the page you linked to, basically that's the same thing that Orson Scott Card was having a problem with too: that verbal fallacy involved. Hence the Humpty Dumpty reference. Can't even say I blame him for getting annoyed at hearing the same fallacy over and over again.
And you know what? It might even make your cause a lot of good to be honest for a change, and make a logical case instead of the whole "waah, I'm a victim" guilt trip. A lot of us couldn't care less what you do in your home. Sure, marry another guy, if that makes you happy. But if you act like an attention-whore, attention you'll get. And sometimes of the annoyed kind. If you scream the same fallacy (i.e., lie) again at people often enough, you've just insulted their intelligence and you've just lost their sympathy. Yes, the average human might be an idiot, but if you keep treating him like one and make your whole argument based on word-plays, he'll catch on to it. Just something to consider.
A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
We Mormons are not in the church for a social club, we believe in it so our actions show it. If someone you cared about was having a crisis of some kind, would you not care enough to try and help them, or would you just let them sink or swim on their own?
The individuals involved might have been clumsy about it, but their hearts were in the right place and you could at least take their attempts to reach out to you as the sign of love it was intended as.
And if anyone is serious about getting their name taken off the membership rolls, is writing a letter asking for it really such an onerous task?
As for those who give non-members a cold shoulder, we have been told not to behave that way, and outside of Utah I doubt you would find many Mormons who are like that.
"I don't know where people got the idea that PayPal was anything like a bank in the first place."
Thank you. That was actually the whole point: yes, it's nothing like a bank, which is precisely _why_ I don't trust them with my money.
A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
If there's one thing I can't tolerate, it's intolerance!
I'm goint to bash, discredit, and spread hate and personal intolerance.
And I am a bigot bigot who definitely deserves scorn and scrutiny, not praise.
as long as they leave me alone while I'm alive.
Best Slashdot Co
Fag.
I glanced at the first page (the free preview) of "Eviction Notice", since the submitter raved about how good it was.
I noticed "Dukes of Hazzard" was misspelled as "Dukes of Hazard". That's about as good a sign of quality as newspapers which have typos in their headlines.
(Posting anonymously since I'm not terribly proud of the fact that I knew off the top of my head that Hazzard has two z's. But hey, it's better than ranting about OSC's political views or about Paypal.)
No, I don't smoke cigarettes, thank you.
Cyric Zndovzny at your service.
NDT and Ender stuff aren't really comparible. Space Oprah versus a single-character centered narrative.
The whole idea of having to write a letter to an organization in order to get them to leave you alone is offensive and creepy. Whether it's easy or not to write a letter is entirely beside the point. If Mormons don't want to be thought of as creepy cult members who won't leave their former members alone, then perhaps they ought to rethink some of their policies.
As for this being the work of a few isolated individuals, there is actually a support group for former Mormons:
http://www.exmormon.org/
They have an archive of many stories by ex-Mormons who have experienced a similar kick in the butt on their way out. You know you have a quality religion, when former members band together and form support groups.
So he won't actually be submitting stories himself then? (:-{p}
BillyBob
bamph
OSC hates the democratic process. He glorifes ruthlessness, hierarchic controls and mindless unity. It's not simply the Ender trilogy, which I base this on.
1. Here is one of his columns: Condoleezza's Confirmation . Go read it.
Democracy cannot exist without dissent. It's a trademark of authoritarian and totalitarian systems that they demand that there never be any dissent. Card DEMANDS that the opposition must never show any disagreement with the current government, because the enemies COULD interpret this as a lack of unity and determination. (exactly how many Jihadis were watching the confirmation hearings, heh?) Apparently OSC is a strong believer in the 'Triumph of the Will'.
2. Did you read Songmaster, a novel which actually predates Ender's Game?
In this novel OSC shows a universe in which all inhabited planets are incorporated in one Empire. Through the words and actions of the characters he argues that the Emperor needs to be the most ruthless person in the world, or the empire fall into anarchy and infighting. His successor must be even more ruthless and a non-violent change of leadership is not possible - he has to kill the predecessor to show off his ruthlessness.
Maybe Ender's game isn't a glorification of Hitler, but Songmaster definitely is.
p.s I read the first homecoming book. Nothing about democracy there.
Fight Frist Psoting!
Browse Slashdot with 'Newest First'!
For people who spend an awful lot of time demanding that their point of view be heard, the gay community seems awfully ready to use any means possible, including prejudicial and inflammatory rhetoric, to make sure that others points of view are silenced or at least ignored.
"He who would learn astronomy, and other recondite arts, let him go elsewhere. " -- John Calvin, commenting on Genesis 1
I read column number (1) when it came out. He's giving the Democratic Senators grief for a relatively controversial, partisan move on their part. Nu? What's the problem here? There's a time and place for dissent, and a time and place to suck it up.
Before the election = great time for dissent. Maybe people change their minds and pick an administration which fits new views.
After the election = not as great a time for dissent. Acting like "I'm taking my ball and going home" or "I'm going to keep arguing the same things, even though the people have spoken" is not polite, not helpful, and not smart.
Honestly, it really IS the President's perogative to pick the SoS. How many Republicans voted against Madeline Allbright?
with regard to Riefenstahl, I think that more of that exists on the left than on the right nowadays: look at Michael Moore as example #1.
Nope, I didn't read Songmaster - it didn't look very good to me.
I don't know where this meme of Card == Hitler comes from, but if anything, he's more influenced by Ayn Rand, in that his protagonists are always individuals who are outside the power structure. It's when they get inside the power structure that they become corrupt. Again, that's what I was saying about his views: it's not Democracy he has issues with, it's organized power in general. It'd be hard to read "Earthborn" and not see his glorification of those outside of the hierarchy.
-David
Need Geek Rock? Try The Franchise!
Card is notorious (or at least should be) for his anti-gay rants and his support for a view of morality that closely mirrors that of the Christian Right. You can see echos of his strange world view in his books.
Since /. tends more toward libertarianism if it tends toward
anything, why contantly suck up to card? What's next, notices
about the latest novels by Newt Gingrich?
Any way, you can read who ever you want. But for me it's hard to forget who Card is and what kind of politics he promotes.
Do you ever shop online? I'm just wondering why you don't trust paypal with your CC info and yet you trust any other online store.
I used to get a monthly copy of Aboriginal sent to me back in 86-88. Similar format. Great stories! Glad to see Orson bring back something like it!!
I trust PayPal with my CC info, about as much as I do any online retailer -- which is to say, within limits: on a secure server and a per-transaction basis.
But I DON'T trust PayPal with my BANK ACCOUNT info, which they "require" if you want to spend over a certain amount (last I looked, the limit was $2000) or get paid by others. Paypal HAS been hacked in the past, and people's bank accounts pillaged thereby.
The solution is to have an isolated bank account (not connected to another account) that is used ONLY for Paypal stuff, has no overdrafts allowed, and is kept pretty much empty.
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
So what you're saying is, Paypal simply doesn't work. Your proposal that I am responsible for someone else's credit card is ridiculous. I'm as Libertarian and believe as much in self-responsibilty as the next person but your suggestion is preposterous and takes the concept to a ridiclous extreme. What's next? You're going to tell me that I should have started my own payment company and forced the buyer to sign a contract stating no chargebacks before I accept his payment? Let me BidPay or Western Union you five cents so you can buy a clue. :rolleyes:
"We're millions of miles from earth, inside a giant white face, what's impossible?"
One in particular had aliens coming to Earth and transforming human bodies into narcotics factories (and doing the person in, in the process).
:-)
That sounds somewhat like "I Come In Peace", starring Dolph Lundgren. It deals with an alien that sucks the endorphins out of heroin addicts' brains to produce an addictive "space drug". A silly movie, but worth a look if you have a couple of hours to waste.
No one is shoving homosexuality in your face - unless you're going in for that particular kink without mentioning it. It's not really a strong argument to mention, but if you were going in for that, it would affect the interpretation of your comments about homophobia. It's not strong, because the two subjects are directly connected; separated only by your public/private boundary. But you really mean that you find homosexuality offensive, even if only slightly, when you can't ignore it. You also seem to be offended in the same way by heterosexuals acting less than "manly". The consistency says things about your own sexuality that I think you're ignoring. But now I've wandered pretty far afield. I will point out, though, that I did post the link to the other, much more serious discussion of Card's fascist personality - which you also conveniently ignored.
On topic, though, I'll point out that once I know about those attributes of your mind outside your writing, it affects my perception of it. Just like I said about Card: once I found out he was an asshole, I couldn't read his books without thinking of those aspects of him, and they turned me off. Reading is a trust between reader and writer, with which we perform the magic of projection into the created scenes, leaving the safety of our bodies and the familiar physical world behind. I posted that I couldn't read about it anymore. Once I'd got his insanity "in my face", I couldn't appreciate his writing without being reminded of his offensive attitude, spoiling the reading. I didn't say he should't write, or even that others shouldn't read him. And I posted a link, which anyone could ignore if they didn't want that to happen to them. And many who replied to my post mentioned they appreciated the insight. From there, it's up to them.
As far as our disagreement on "judicial restraint", it takes more than one judge to affect law. Every time a suit is brought before a judge, the lawyers have the chance to change the precedent with a better argument, the judge has the chance with a better insight. That's part of our democracy, which buffers the "mob rule" that has denied rights to so many Americans in the past, who we "restored" through law or judicial action, or even (more rarely) independent presidential intervention. To end segregation (the law of the land) it took more than an amendment, more than striking down "Jim Crow" and other laws. In many places in the US, blacks couldn't actually vote for more than a century after the Constitution protected that right. Every judge who defended that right, or property rights, or personal safety, was an "activist", finding the protections in the law that defended those people. Despite generations of activist judges, lawyers and juries who denied those rights under contrived legal cover. Desegregation of schools, and thereby all of society, was the law, despite previous laws, but not in effect until the president sent in National Guard, even forcing aside a governor physically obstructing a school door. Civil rights transcend your personal aversions and ideological artifacts of flawed representation that does not protect those rights. And even just a few years or generations later, the free exercise of those rights are taken for granted nearly universally (except by diehard bigots) - abandoning them is at least as repugnant as was the old, discredited bigotry.
But along the way, people who say they accept others as equals must do more than just say so. Acceptance is one of the most transformational processes we know. It often takes activists - who risk their careers, even their lives, for justice. Those are the kinds of people we want to be judges: who defend justice above the law, within the law, changing the law, or at least its interpretation consistent with liberty. That's their job in helping manage a dynamic, ever-evolving society of people governing ourselves.
--
make install -not war
I think you just outted yourself. Nobody calls the Mormon church "the Church" except Mormons. Now why would a Mormon pose as a non-member in order to promote their members as "honestly good people"?
Dude, I'm a veteran of many flame wars, starting with FidoNET, long before the Internet was anything else than an academic experiment. I've seen and written worse trolls than what you do there. But enough to know a lame troll when I see one.
And yes, that's you. The whole "let's put words in your mouth, and then pretend to be a shrink and discover repressed himosexual/oedipus/inferiority/etc complexes" spiel is just that: a lamer's trolling weapon. I've seen and wrote worse than that, so, honestly, I'm just amused at this point.
And yes, that's another one of the fallacies that the whole gay propaganda is built upon. "See, if you don't support us, you're secretly gay too and affraid to admit it." I'll call bullshit on that. It's just as bullshit as Card's "if you're gay, you're a victim secretly yearning to become hetero". It's just a case of begging the question, or in other words a circular-referencing premise pulled out of the ass. Other than as a means to troll those you extrapolate about, it holds as much water as a sieve.
But if you really want to play shrink, how about you address what was wrote there, instead of inventing strawmen you're comfortable with. Noone said anything about finding homosexuality itself offensive. I talked explicitly about attention-whoring and whole arguments built on fallacies (e.g., verbal fallacies, ad hominem, guilt by association and appeals to spite), and the whole off-topic trolling a topic that had nothing to do with either homosexuality or homophobia to start with.
See some highlighted words in the above paragraph? Those are the real keywords. Not sexuality. I don't care if it's about sexuality, vi-vs-emacs, Nintendo/Sony/MS fanboyism, or Linux/Amiga/BSD persecution syndrome. You can just quit the trolling, attention-whoring and fallacies. That's all. That's what it's all about.
In a nutshell, it's _not_ "don't be gay", it's simply "fucking grow up already". That's all.
But I have no doubt that you'll dodge the topic again, and turn it all into the same persecution complex you're comfortable with. "Waah, the bad man is secretly finding us offensive after all!" It's times like these that I wonder where did evolution go wrong.
A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
Let me first clarify one thing, I do not disparage OSC because his politics are right-wing (although he calls himself a moderate Democrat). My criticism goes beyond that. I would criticize a left-wing columnist in the same manner if one ever demanded that the opposition of the government MUST vote as the government wishes.
Card is a follower of authoritarianism. This can be clearly read from this column. This is not simply a result of a post-9/11 change in thinking, which would be understandable, but a life-long tendency. As I said, Card has written a book about a future universe which HAS to be ruled by a tyrant, or there will be chaos and anarchy.
In his books he is not writing that ruthless tyranny is either good or bad. What he is doing is much worse, he is writing that TYRANNY IS NECESSARY.
If you need a better example to understand this, OSC spend his life writing an apology for people like Saddam Hussain (and yes, even Hitler). Saddam could argue that gassing the Kurds, butchering the Shia uprising, this all was necessary to return Iraq to proper order under his leadership.
-- -- --
Now, what you have written to me as a response goes in the same line of thought. You are arguing, that when the executive power (the president) makes a decision, the Senate must not question it. There are several reasons why this approach is wrong and leads straight to despotism.
1. The senators had the right to go on record, that they believed that Rice is the wrong candidate. Voting against her was a way of showing that. When they voted they knew that she would be confirmed anyway.
2. The process is called 'confirmation hearings' for a reason. If it was the President's sole perogative, there would be no need for them. The president's less important decisions do not need a confirmation.
3. To use your words, "the people have [NOT] spoken". Nobody elected C.Rice, she got appointed by the President. GWB got elected, but it does not follow that it is the will of the people that Rice shall be the secretary of state. A more recent example is the nomination of Miers to the Supreme Court. Even GWB's hardcore electorate is against it, which shows that he does not represent even their will.
4. All authoritarians have a deep disregard for parliaments, because they are an obstacle for their unchecked power. Throughout history they have argued, that they, a single person, are the true voice of the will of the people, and the rotten, corrupt parliaments are not.
This is a monstrous fallacy. It should be obvious to anyone that a larger elected body is closer to the electorate than a smaller one. The perfect case is the Athenian or Swiss form of direct democracy. The rule of a single person is on the opposite side of the scale. An elected government without a pluralistic parliament is not a democracy. It is an elected tyranny.
-- -- --
As regards Riefenstahl, there are no analogies to Moore. She was a producer of propaganda FOR the government, M.Moore is producing propaganda AGAINST it. (I'd agree that he is a propagandist. I observed that Moore does not give people a fair chance of explaining themselves in the 'shocumentaries'.)
And it was not my goal to say that Card is like Riefenstahl. I meant that Card believes that military victories are the result of the stronger will, not the better strategy. In Card's mind, the US can only win in Iraq by being more stubborn than the insurgents, not smarter.
Fight Frist Psoting!
Browse Slashdot with 'Newest First'!
To be on topic, I'm glad to see this. SciFi in its most basic environment has been sufferring of late, and it's good to see someone doing something that's a bit more traditional in its concept. It almost hearkens back to the old scifi pulps of old. I just wish I could print it out myself on low-grade paper ;)
One thing I do find troubling is how the very mention of OSC seems to have the same effect on those that loathe him as a bull seeing red. They shout cries of bigot and hypocrite, when I see nothing about his character that would reveal him as such. Fault him for holding to his beliefs if you must, but the very fact that he holds to them discounts claims of hypocrisy.
Being labelled as a bigot these days seems to be more of a badge of honor than it should be. It's how the masses apparently refer to you when you hold to something unpopular. If that is the new definition of a bigot, a great many of us qualify, myself included.
The thing is, even if OSC didn't intend it that way, once you've heard the gist of this critique -- that the books are a sort of apologia for fascism and Hitler in particular -- it's hard to avoid. Some of the details are uncanny. Given any thought to Brazil being chosen as a locale later in the series?
Ayn Rand was about as unlikely a cult leader as I can imagine, given her public persona. Behind that she was a domineering cult leader. The public protestations don't amount to much in retrospect.
The 7.1 outline point brings up another great critique that Ender's Game was actually written by a committee of Mormons to warm people up to forgiving.
Hyup, and I'm bright enough to measure claims against the work and judge for myself which ones ring true. The fact that a lot of flaky people think W. Bush is evil for various imagined conspiratorial reasons doesn't mean he's not badly wrong on ideological and moral grounds. I can make those judgments for myself, I'm not just reading from an outline.
"Fundamentalism" isn't about divine morality. It's about human authority.
a "permissive attitude on homosexuality" is the opposite of a "restrictive attitude on homosexuality." Those are descriptive statements, not value judgements. One set of opinions might be more palatable than the other, but they are both descriptive (think "red hair" or "blonde hair").
"Homophobia" really *IS* just a buzzword - any rational understanding of the meaning of the word does not describe anyone I know, and I know a large number of people with varied attitudes toward homosexuality (from very right-wing religious folks to the gay couple around the corner).
With regard to "Insanity" which I said was not an appropriate word to describe Card or his beliefs, here's what Mirriam Webster's Medical Dictionary has to say (from dictionary.com):
Now exactly does that apply to Card, his work, or his belief systems? Remember, what I said which provoked your "You are using "sanity" in its most facile, oversimplified sense, which is not useful for any understanding of in/sanity - it's only good for vilification" response was the following sentence:
The English language is a powerful tool for communication. It is not necessary to use hyperbolic phrases to convey distaste.
Need Geek Rock? Try The Franchise!