Slashdot Mirror
Orson Scott Card Pleads 'Tolerance' For Ender's Game Movie
interval1066 writes "A story in Wired describes Orson Scott Card's quest for tolerance in response to a boycott for Gavin Hood's film adaption of Ender's Game, saying that 'The gay marriage issue is moot' in a statement to Entertainment Weekly. Card is a long time anti-gay and defense of marriage activist. 'His concern, ostensibly, is that someone might be petty enough not to see his movie simply because he spent years lobbying for laws that treated certain people as less than human. The fallacy he employs here — that calling out hate-speech is intolerance on par with curtailing the human rights of others — is a favorite fallback of cowards and bullies, and a way of evading responsibility for the impact of their words and actions.' I guess he didn't see this film and the box-office importance of wide appeal coming, did he?"
Orson Scott Card is pleading for tolerance? That's rich.
If I cared about the views of the people behind the movies, or the actors... I wouldnt be able to watch any movies. I look forward to seeing this one, whether the author likes or dislikes gay people.
None of his views on this particular issue are evident in the novel, except perhaps in the naming of the aliens - and that might just be coincidence.
So make the film, and ignore where it comes from. No need to dismiss a story just because of it's author.
Really, practically every author before 1900 was an extreme racist.
You'd be better off trying to get Shakesphere out of schools for his anti-Jewish views - those *did* get expressed in his plays.
Interesting how he couldn't bring that idea into his real life.
I know I lobbied against your right to marry someone just because they're the same sex as you and I know I encouraged the violent overthrow of my government if they allowed you to marry someone who's the same sex as you but could you please go see my movie?
Um, no.
It's not codified into law, huh? It doesn't have massive numbers of government benefits hooked to it, huh?
Let me sum up my position on this by example; If Al Qaeda came up with a cure for cancer, would we as a society start using it, or reject it as poisoned fruit? Many a work of science fiction has been around the theme of asking how high of a price are we willing to pay. It is the age old question of whether the ends justify the means.
Granted, this is only a work of entertainment, but his pleadings for tolerance are not dissimilar from this theme; We are being asked to set aside our morality in exchange for some good or service. I don't think though that a work of fiction, regardless of quality, is worth my freedom and liberty, and even less so for others. Supporting this man's works would mean supporting something I find morally objectionable, even vile.
I cannot, in good conscience, support a work, however good, that would lead to harm to others' civil rights. Orson Scott Card -- you have been weighed, measured, and found wanting. I will not support you, and I urge any who place any value at all on civil rights to do the same. We cannot overlook this man's desire to force his own morality on others for our own... entertainment.
#fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
Marriage is not a "human right"...
Being equal under the law, on the other hand...
its a christian ceremony. Between a man and a woman.
Maybe you should rethink that statement. Marriage predates recorded history. Unlike Christ.
I mean... Mary and Joseph... Were quite married, you know?
As long as we as a society accept that people have the right to pick whatever fucked up religious beliefs they want, then we as a society have to deal with the consequences of real live modern humans expressing all the petty tribal prejudices of the past few thousand years, simple as that. Racism, misogyny, suicide bombers, birth control as a goddamned (no pun intended) presidential-race-changing issue... The crazy comes as a package deal, you don't get to pick and chose from God's Law (and spare me the "why don't you obey all of Leviticus" rhetoric, we already agree completely on that).
So yes, those calling Card out as a hypocrite on this do indeed express intolerance. He sincerely believes that his personal storm-god objects to homosexuality. You (and I) happen to believe that consenting adults should have the right to do whatever the hell they want with each other. Both of those express nothing but an opinion, with the one no more valid than the other. We would argue that we have the "right" to choose. He would argue that yes, we do, but one of those ways gives you a complimentary handbasket for your trip downstairs.
See the movie or don't, but we'd all do better to leave the politics out of whether or not we enjoy the movie.
One of the messages of Ender's game series is about tolerance, another is about bullying. Even someone who is intolerant can have beautiful things to say about tolerance. Just as a peacenic can talk about war, or someone who is themselves racist can have very profound things to say about race. Responding to someone with controvertial beliefs by harrasing, insulting, and boycotting them is not only itself intollerant, but is also bullying. Ender's Game is a case where an authors words are important, rather than their beliefs. Jefferson, Franklin, MLKing were all filandering hypocrites, it is their words which are important rather than their beliefs and actions.
Here's to losing my Karma Bonus again....
From 2004:
See that "Preview" button?
Ender's game is a good book, but if any sci-fi author will be regarded as one of the american greats, then it will be Frank Herbert for Dune.
I'm god, but it's a bit of a drag really...
That doesn't mean I have to give him my money, though.
PHEM - party like it's 1997-2003!
Are you saying people shouldn't be allowed to say, "I don't think people should spend money on this"?
I mean, sure, I'm okay with "letting the KKK talk". Does that mean I have to pay admission to hear them? Am I not allowed to say, "I don't think you should bother paying admission to that KKK rally"?
PHEM - party like it's 1997-2003!
I just thought about what might happened if someone with beliefs like Orson's ever got hold of the ubiquitous surveillance of the government. Picture someone with such strong beliefs about "sending a clear message to those who flagrantly violate society's regulation of sexual behavior" having control over the NSA.
You are welcome on my lawn.
I agree with the conceptual basis for your statement, but I disagree with your overall point. Well, specifically I agree with you that I am against the existence of civil unions.
However, I am also against the existence of marriage as a state-regulated legal construct for anyone.
What difference does it make what the government called it?
Exactly. Having the government involved in defining this most intimate of interpersonal relationships is a horrible idea. If labels really matter to people, then let them choose a religious/group affiliation that will give them a ceremony/label for their relationship. However, none of these labels should carry the force of law. You could therefore get your heterosexual-only marriage at the Catholic church, or your het/homo marriage at an Episcopalian church.
In case you were wondering if this is an instance of Poe's Law: I practice what I advocate. My partner and I decided we wished to have a lifelong exclusive commitment but we did not want the government to define our relationship for us. So, we setup health care powers of attorney, durable powers of attorney, wills, etc, and then gave each other a ring.
Oh, and we're heterosexuals living in a non-common-law marriage state. Not that it matters.
What difference does it make what the government called it?
I agree with you: let's not allow gay marriage under law—in fact, let's not allow any legal concept of marriage at all. Sounds like you would be fine with that, because no one will be able to force your chosen religion to violate its tenets to label any nonadherents as "married". And if some people are really desperate for the government to define the parameters of their relationship for them, then I suppose that allowing the legal concept of civil unions might be an option (for both gays and straights).
But no marriage under law.