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?"

Comments

Really?!?

[realityimpaired]

Orson Scott Card is pleading for tolerance? That's rich.

Re:Really?!?

[somersault]

He'd have been better off not saying anything. I'm sure I've read about him being a bigot in the past, but I'd actually forgotten about it. I can understand people not liking things that they feel are too "different", but I can't understand why he'd actively campaign against people who are different from him..

This is like some weird, modified version of the Streissand effect at work.

Re:Really?!?

[Rosco P. Coltrane]

Yes, believe it or not, those who have different points of view deserve tolerance, regardless of whether you agree with them or not.

Crazy communists deserve tolerance,
Crazy white supremacists deserve tolerance,
Crazy Tea party members deserve tolerance,
Crazy gay activists deserve tolerance,
Crazy anti-gay activists deserve tolerance.

Besides, OSC's SF books have nothing to do with his views on a totally orthogonal societal issue. Boycotting the former because of the latter is called an ad hominem. Case in point, a lot of people enjoy Disney movies and Ford cars despite Walt Disney and Henry Ford being nasty antisemitic pro-nazi nutjobs.

Re:Really?!?

[schnell]

Neither Walt Disney or Henry Ford are currently alive. Do their companies now stand for pro-nazi-ness?

No, but the overarching point is that if you let the opinions and views of the artist cloud your interpretation of the work, you will never enjoy anything because ultimately *everybody* out there has some belief you disagree with. You can refuse to put dollars in the pocket of someone you disagree with, fine. But in general it's like refusing to read the Declaration of Independence because Jefferson was a slaveholder.

Some of the best advice I was ever given was "trust the art, not the artist." Artists are stupid people like everyone else and will always break your heart if you expect them to be as awesome as you want them to be. Leave them out of it and you'll have a much easier time enjoying art for what it is.

Re:Really?!?

[SirGarlon]

I skimmed the essay linked from the summary. I think it reflects a narrow-minded point of view (assuming that society cannot prosper unless all families look like Card's family) but I would hardly call it "hateful." If that is what you think hate speech looks like, you've had a very sheltered life.

The "prejudicial" label fits, because Card is fundamentally asserting that his values are normative and should become universal. But how is that not the same as what we do when we call him a bigot?

Re:Really?!?

[Ixokai]

Bear in mind, that's just one of many. Card has written many, many, many times on this subject -- even arguing that homosexual acts should be criminalized, that an adult willfully engaging in sex he doesn't find acceptable with other consenting adults should go to *jail* and be deemed an unacceptable part of society.

Not all hate speech is going to say 'faggot' and 'burn in hell' and stuff like that: those extreme positions are also supported and maintained by more intellectual and softly spoken declarations of the inhumanity of the minority and supporting that it has no right to be seen as a peer because its difference is too different to allow.

Re: Really?!?

[Anonymous Coward]

Here's the problem: if you put money in the pocket of any activist bigot, you're guaranteed to be putting money toward his cause. If you find the idea of donating to an anti-gay campaign repugnant, it's not going to be less repugnant if you're doing it through a proxy.

Re:Really?!?

[AK Marc]

It offends me.

And that which offends should be illegal. Make smoking illegal because it offends me. Some people are offended by alcohol. Lets start a second Prohibition, the first went so well. Some are offended by porn, or obesity. Lets make them illegal.

How does drilling in ANWAR affect you in any way?
How does a woman having or being denied an abortion in Texas affect you in any way?
How does taxing rich people affect you in any way? I can do this all day, but I think you get the point.

1) I own ANWAR. The US is owned by the people, not the politicians. I have the right to be offended by someone mistreating my property. And yes, I've seen ANWAR, have you?
2)I'm from Texas, and one-day, my daughter or granddaughter (I have neither now, but I might, someday), may be in Texas. So something that takes away "her" rights in TX would harm her, so that's offensive. I also empathize with the millions in TX under that law. For someone who claims offense at everything, you have a remarkable lack of empathy.
3) What does taxing rich people have to do with this? Most aren't "offended" by taxes on the rich, unless you are talking about increasing taxes on them to give cuts and subsides to the rich, which does *directly* affect them.

How does it affect you if the government calls your relation a civil union vs a marriage? Can you not have a wedding? Can you not wear a ring and tell everyone you are married? How does it make what you have any different?

It doesn't. Until you go to sign up for insurance and the form says "spouse" not "partner" and you either have to fill it out with a chance of rejection of all claims later because your partner is not a "spouse", or spend $10,000 on lawyers up front to verify legality.

So much in the US assumes "spouse" of a married partner, that transitioning to a concept of a civil union is, by definition, not equal. To claim this obviously inequal situation is equal is a lie. Lying to me is offensive.

And marriage is not just a Christian concept.

And neither is Christmas, Easter, and so many others, but Christianity claims them all now. Winter Solstice celebrations pre-date Christianity, as do spring-rebirth celebrations and fall festivals of death (all-saints day being the tie-in there). If marriage is not Christian, why do so many opposing unions claim religion as the reason? They want to defend family by preventing families, so maybe it's just their logic circuits are broken.

Who Cares?

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Who Cares?

[eldavojohn]

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.

The primary problem is when he uses his artistic medium and influence to spread this message. Which he most certainly has:

In the first place, no law in any state in the United States now or ever has forbidden homosexuals to marry. The law has never asked that a man prove his heterosexuality in order to marry a woman, or a woman hers in order to marry a man.

Any homosexual man who can persuade a woman to take him as her husband can avail himself of all the rights of husbandhood under the law. And, in fact, many homosexual men have done precisely that, without any legal prejudice at all.

Ditto with lesbian women. Many have married men and borne children. And while a fair number of such marriages in recent years have ended in divorce, there are many that have not.

So it is a flat lie to say that homosexuals are deprived of any civil right pertaining to marriage. To get those civil rights, all homosexuals have to do is find someone of the opposite sex willing to join them in marriage.

Translation: "Your entire life has to be a lie because I'm ignorant." And no, I do not go see Tom Cruise movies because he uses his stardom and money he gets from those movies to push a very dangerous religion! There are some issues where I flat out draw the line. I'm not boycotting Clint Eastwood because he's said some politically stupid stuff but there are some issues like homosexuality where I feel like I'm promoting ignorance if I promote those who think homosexuals should not have the same rights as heterosexuals. It's an egalitarian issue in my mind and I'm not going to see Ender's Game nor will I read the rest of the Shadow series.

Re:Who Cares?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's less that he has dumb opinions and more that he directly financially supports people working to make things worse. That's a legitimate reason to not give him money, isn't it?

Re:Who Cares?

[eldavojohn]

In my head, what youre doing to him is on par with what he is doing to homosexuals. Similarly you also have the "i do it because its right"-justification.

Is that a joke? He has a right to his religion. I get upset when that belief infringes on other people's rights. The Federal government has over a thousand laws referring to marriage. Many of those laws benefits couples living together like social security benefits, inheritance rights, etc. I am advocating this from an egalitarian standpoint that those people who are in love with each other are treated like any other pair of human beings consensually in love with each other. And yes, I think that trumps Mr. Card's horseshit religion or his lack of his ability to sit down with his dumbass children and say "Look, two people can love each other no matter what sex they are." But because he's afraid some bearded cloud God is going to fire and brimstone us, I cannot promote equal rights among human beings?

My justification isn't "I do it because it's right" you idiot, my justification is I do it because these laws are ridiculously unfair to a subset of the people who have done nothing wrong in the eyes of a secular government.

If you want to call it a "civil union" or whatever, that's fine. But I don't want employers or government offices calling some people "married" and other people "civil unioned" because that can lead to "second class" treatment and promotes discrimination among employers. In the eyes of the government, two humans should be able to marry each other with equal treatment and equal labeling.

Calling me intolerant on this issue makes no sense. I support freedom of religion but I'm not going to stand for some Christian version of sharia law in what claims to be a secular government.

Capitalism suffers from a lack of responsibility to know what you are supporting. A small group of people boycotting this movie is merely informing people what they are supporting. Just like I would boycott a company that pollutes.

Re:Who Cares?

[ideonexus]

There is ZERO equivalency. Making the Constitutionally-protected choice to freely associate or not associate with someone because of their political or religious beliefs by simply not buying a movie ticket is in no way the same thing as supporting the government incarcerating people for their private lifestyle. It boggles my mind that you can see these two things as equivalent.

Re:Who Cares?

[swimboy]

I, on the other hand, find it more telling that people feel the need for the federal government to "magically" find rights where none existed before and ignore the actual PROCESS our framers put in place to amend the constitution. There are REASONS why its difficult to change the constitution -- one of which is that wild changes on emotional whims can rip this country apart.

I'd love to see where in our constitution it spells out exactly which rights straight people have, and which ones gay people have. Nobody is "magically" finding rights. It's spelled out in black and white, "all men are created equal". It can't get any plainer than that.

Being against homosexual marriage is *NOT* unusual or extreme by definition. In all 50 states, only about 7 or 8 allow it, and only 2 were by electoral choice of their respective peoples. Even the left-coast liberal state of California (who voted in President Obama for a second term by a wide margin) ALSO passed Prop 8 amending the constitution of the State of CA preventing homosexual marriage.

Actually, it's 12 states, plus the District of Columbia. And furthermore, it was 3 states, Washington, Maine, and Maryland who passed via a direct vote of the people, and 6 more, Vermont, New York, Rhode Island, Delaware, Minnesota, and the District of Columbia, who passed a vote in the legislature, representing the will of their constituents. Prop 8 in California passed because the Catholic Church and the Mormon Church spent untold millions of dollars campaigning for it. Polls in California before and since the vote show a decided majority of Californians support gay marriage.

People think that EXTREME? If so, to paraphrase a famous swordsman, "I do not think it means what you think it means".

When our country is READY to accept this issue without further polarizing us, it will pass an amendment. Until then, the fed should REALLY stay out of it.

The fed should not stay out of it. One of the express goals of our government is to protect minorities from the tyranny of the masses. That is exactly what is happening here. Saying that anyone should "stay out of it" is the same as saying, "We're doing a good job of marginalizing these people right now, don't go and do something that would change the status quo."

Don't give him the attention.

[SuricouRaven]

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.

Re:Don't give him the attention.

[davidtwilcox]

The racist views of pre-1900 authors and Shakespeare can be more easily dismissed because our society as a whole has decided those beliefs are wrong and no longer relevant in the big picture. We're no longer fighting on a large scale for civil rights and most of our society can look back on those beliefs as antiquated. However, the fight for gay rights and marriage equality is still going on and is highly relevant to our society, so Card's beliefs are fair game for criticism.

Whether or not he expressed his beliefs in his books or in the upcoming movie is irrelevant. Card is still very much alive to benefit financially from both and from the wider exposure the movie can generate for him. Since he actively campaigns for anti-gay laws and defense of marriage bills, providing him additional financial support and publicity for a cause I am directly opposed to is not an action I plan on taking. Ignoring the author is not an option for me and many others.

Wow, did he ever call it:

[Orgasmatron]

From 2004:
 

And we all know the course this thing will follow. Anyone who opposes this edict will be branded a bigot; any schoolchild who questions the legitimacy of homosexual marriage will be expelled for "hate speech." The fanatical Left will insist that anyone who upholds the fundamental meaning that marriage has always had, everywhere, until this generation, is a "homophobe" and therefore mentally ill.

Boycott != Censorship

[Dr. Manhattan]

But a boycott isn't censorship or refusal to engage. If someone disagrees with a work's message, they can (a) not buy it, and (b) encourage others not to buy it. This is nothing like 'refusing to listen to any argument against what you believe in'. No one's saying Card can't sell his book or make his movie. They're just saying they don't want to spend their money on it, and encouraging others to avoid spending money on it, too.

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"?