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.
From TFA:
"Responding to reports of a nascent boycott against the upcoming movie version of his beloved 1985 sci-fi novel Ender’s Game because of his stated opposition to same-sex marriage..."
Whoa, whoa, WHOA there cowboy. People aren't pissed off a Card because of his "stated opposition" to gay marriage. I don't give a rat's ass what most authors think or even what they say. The problem here is that he was so active in campaigns that were openly trying to strip the rights of others based on sexual orientation. People have the right to think what they want, but when they start trying to codify their prejudice into law THAT is where the problem starts.
Interesting how he couldn't bring that idea into his real life.
It seems that there are number of groups on both sides of the isle that plead for equal rights for their believes, opinions and convictions when their cause is under attack, however they are just as eager to deny the rights, prosecute their political opponents whenever opportunity arises.
The hypocrisy present across entire political spectrum, btw. Left, Right, Liberals, Conservatives, Republicans, Democrats, Tea-partiers and Greens, and ironically Anarchists and Libertarians.
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.
He wasn't anti-gay rights because he is EVIL, it was because it was his honest opinion that it was wrong for the society, and he had the arguments to back up his point of view. I never agreed with his arguments, but I saw where he was coming from.
I'll take an honest bigot over a devious do-gooder any day of the week.
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
Ken White over at Popehat seems to have nailed everything I would have said, and done it much better than I would have.
http://www.popehat.com/2013/07/09/ive-decided-to-give-orson-scott-card-the-benefit-of-the-doubt/
Never underestimate the potential of Human stupidity. -Heinlein
How many authors (or chicken restaurant owners) would treat polygamists as "less than human" by supporting laws against plural marriage?
THL phish sticks
its a christian ceremony
The fuck it is, and a few milliseconds of research would have told you as much, but I guess that is implied in the "last time I checked", which would be, never?
a source from the top of the hit list on Google, that you would have found had your bother to search
While the institution of marriage pre-dates recorded history, many cultures have legends concerning the origins of marriage.
... whatever
Also his series involves some of the most twisted and intricate alien reproduction methods ever described. I can see the campaign speech now: "Sex should be between one man and one woman... or one tree and one piggy... or some grass and insects..." I guess it's consistent with the view that sex is for reproducing, regardless of your species' method.
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?
"Marriage" predates Christianity. You're describing Holy Matrimony, Batman.
:::The Spear in the heart of the Other is the Spear in the heart of You; You are He - Surak of Vulcan:::
And everyone here who is against marrying goats right now will be labeled a bigot.
It's a matter of consent. You can't marry plants or animals because they cannot legally consent to marriage because they cannot understand it. Adults of sound mind who consent to marriage can have it, regardless of their sex you ignorant bigot. Of course, keep parroting your tired and flawed arguments against gay marriage ... you've had your chance to read up on it, now you're just embarrassing yourself.
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...
Like most political problems it seems neither side recognizes what can be a right. A right has to be universal and non contradictory. This removes all "positive rights" because they contradict the rights of the people forces to provide for it. So take marriage. The parts of two or more people living together and having sex and pledging some sort of common ownership of property etc are all rights. They require nothing of other people but to but out and leave them alone. But when the state starts granting special privlage a like tax benefits and inheritance without taxes this is a special treatment. This requires forcing other people to subsidize it.
This is the heart of the problem. Instead of granting more people special privileges we should work to remove them all so we are all treated equally and all of our rights as individuals (the only consistent basis for rights) are respected.
I love Jesus, except for his foreign policy.
That doesn't mean I have to give him my money, though.
PHEM - party like it's 1997-2003!
The controversy is not – and never has been – about the content of the story. It's been about the author's political activities, which have been funded in part by the money he received for this film, and which will continue to be funded by additional income which he'll get if it's a big hit (e.g. a sequel).
Legal recognition of lesbian/gay marriage was already an issue in 1984. Couples had sued for the right to a civil marriage as early as 1971. Not that this is relevant, but it just shows that Card is either lying or doesn't know the history.
No it hasn't, and as a National Organization for [sic] Marriage board member, he knows this well. He unquestionably intends to keep fighting it. After the movie comes out.
This is probably correct; it depends on the Supreme Court. A bit baffling that this hasn't already happened, but that's the legal system dragging its feet, waiting for society to catch up.
Don't worry, Orson. No one is going to force you to get gay-married.
This is part of the Christian right's persecution complex, in which they view their declining dominance over American culture as an indication that they are about to become (and the more delusional among them thinking they already have been) a persecuted minority. Begging for "tolerance" of their intolerance is a tacit admission (whether they admit it or not) that they expect others to do to them as they've done to others.
http://alternatives.rzero.com/
Marriages shouldn't have any government benefit. Government benefits should only be awarded for behaviors that benefit society as a whole. All marriages (same sex or not) are completely useless to society.
Society disagrees. Not religious society, mind you, society in general.
Couples are economically better than single parents. Trios would be even better, but our own psychology limits us somewhat from having stable three person interdependent relationships.
there any evidence that he is getting any portion of ticket sales?
He is listed as producer of the movie so it is very likely that he will get a cut of the ticket sales.
"I have downloaded hundreds and hundreds of records, why would I care if somebody downloads ours?" Robin Pecknold
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!
No love for Asimov?
sudo make me a sandwich
Let the endless, pointless debate begin... now!
Be kind, for everyone you meet is fighting a difficult battle. - Plato
I disagree. Ender's Game is a great coming of age novel, but it's by no means anything other than pulp sci-fi. Philip K. Dick, on the other hand...
Man you forgot P. K. Dick and Asimov
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.
No, by "bigot" we mean the very dictionary definition of the word:
a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices;
Somewhere along the way, some bigot, racist, or what not....helped produced the food you eat. Perhaps, in the same light, you should cease eating and starve.
Also, realize that this is one person of thousands who made this film.
Well, actually, I'm not all that fond of the messages in Ender's Game either.
But even if I thought Ender's Game was an important movie with positive moral lessons in it, I would, in fact, be boycotting it because I "disagree[] with the politics of the IP owner of the work".
Card isn't just a random bigot. He actually joined the board of directors of the main lobbying organization against same-sex marriage, and publicly advocated the overthrow of the government if same-sex marriage were made legal. (Of course, now it's "moot".)
Some works can be separated from their authors, or excused as having flaws endemic to the time they were created. But there's a continuum between that and profiting a leader of a movement you disagree with deeply. I don't know where the line is - there probably isn't a bright sharp line anyway - but Card is way past that line.
PHEM - party like it's 1997-2003!
Polyandry is still polygamy.
Polygamy - more than two partners, no matter the sexes
Polygyny - 1 man, multiple women
Polyandry - 1 woman, multiple men
I have no idea if there is a term for multiple men and multiple women that is more specific than polygamy.
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.
You really won't win an argument with bigots. They think their positions is RIGHT, as in absolutely right. As such they think everyone has to support it, or those people are wrong. So ya, they feel like you have to give them money, have to let them do as they wish, or you are the problem.
So just ignore them.