If by thrashing you mean I'm of the opinion he's a douchebag
Yes, calling someone a massive douchebag because they don't agree with you while insulting their religion and faith is trashing--that's exactly what I meant.
Um, read the Mormon Times link I posted (not the first one).
I didn't really expect you to be able to point out where Card advocated hate, so, thanks for fulfilling my expectations.
My point is that your bitching about to me intolerance can conflation of political opinions with literary merit when I am not doing those things is mainly serving to irritate me. If you have issues with the behavior of other people, go talk to them and not to me.
Hey, I said you weren't intolerant in my 3rd(?) message to you after you explained your position, and I've just been replying since then--I try to reply to all non-ACs that reply to me. Sorry it upset you, didn't mean to. Cheers!
Just fwiw, from my parent post, here is what I listed as lies I have seen in this thread. I still believe (and as AFAIK) these are all false:
-accused him of wanting to put homosexuals in camps -kill them[homosexuals] -violently overthrow the government -Card says every homosexual relationship starts with a rape
And you're entitled to your opinion. I still read it the other way. That is what we call a difference of interpretation. Which is hardly the "outright lie" that you called it. I'll look for your apology to those you've slandered shortly.
Sheesh, again with people getting so worked up in this thread! Barring ANY evidence that Orson Scott Card approves of any violent actions, has EVER called for violent action, or even would in some theoretical situation approve of violent action, your interpretation is bunk. Mormon "radicals" are not exactly known for their violence are they?
Secondly, the "outright lies" I referred to (and referenced in my parent post) were much more than just falsely claiming that Card was advocating violence violence. People who make statements that Card has called for violence against homosexuals or violence against the government ARE lying. If that's what you're claiming, I'm afraid I do believe that would be a lie.
Yes, that's sure what I do with my to-the-death enemies. I vote at them.
Ok, maybe to you, violence against those you disagree with is acceptable--I find that pretty scary. I have no evidence that Orson Scott Card believes violence against those who disagree with him is acceptable. If you can find any evidence, please share it with me, and I'll gladly rescind these comments.
It seems that Card does believe that. That's how I interpret this [mormontimes.com], anyhow:
I don't interpret it that way at all. If Orson Scott Card had a history of calling for violence...or had indeed EVER called for violence, I could understand your interpretation. But, as far as I know, he hasn't.
He's certainly advocating overthrow of the government over this. I guess, to be fair, he could be talking about destroying his mortal enemy through the playing of patty-cake
What do you think the point of banning gay marriage is, exactly, except to discourage the formation and encourage the dissolution of gay families?
It keeps the term "marriage" to mean a man and a woman, that's all. Prop 8 has no effect on civil unions. Cohabitating couples can still live together. Couples can still get civil unions. Couples still have visitation rights, insurance rights, etc, just like a marrage. Except, it is not called a marriage. That is all. Nobody is "breaking up" anything.
In particular, one of the possible consequences of Prop 8 is that the currently married people will have their marriages invalidated.
That's actually unclear as I understand it.
Yes. Trying to change the constitution and passed so my friends and relatives can't get married is also pretty serious. But only one of those things is intolerant of living human beings. I just dislike his opinions and his stunted moral sense. If you've got a problem with intolerance, shouldn't you be upset at Card, not me?
Since you've brought it up multiple times, I get it--you have gay friends and relatives. I don't see how that changes the conversation, especially since I haven't said one thing for or against Cards' views!
My point--from the first post on--has been that it's a shame that somebody's personal opinion can cause people to say things like his entire body of works is worthless, and many other things along those lines. It's absolutely fine that you don't like his views, and it's fine if you don't want to support his views and so choose not to give him anymore money. I have no problem with this. I DO have a problem with people acting as if his views change anything that he's written.
No, the intolerance is the amount of people spouting outright lies about Card's beliefs and calling him a bigot, homicidal, wingnut, crazy, douchebag, etc. People in this thread have accused him of wanting to put homosexuals in camps, kill them, violently overthrow the government, they have claimed that Card says every homosexual relationship starts with a rape, etc. Bunk.
You may not be intolerant, your was about the 5th post in a row that said the same thing "this guy is a douche bag and he sucks as a writer now!" The correlation in many posts are clears, not yours.
Card's opinions are vile. He has let his (crazy) religious beliefs triumph over any sort of consideration for his fellow man. Trying to break up happy, successful families because you don't like something about their members is intolerance. Calling that out isn't.
Where has Card demanded breaking up happy families?
I have a problem with people demanding tolerance from others, while themselves being intolerant. I can't judge you as I don't know you from Adam, but going around calling people douchebags, crazy, who holds vile beliefs and is a homebreaker is pretty serious.
And while we're at it, we can also throw in why everyone is making such a big ado over half of Obama heritage whilst ignoring the other half. Or more importantly, what's that got to do with the job of being President in the first place. But I digress...
Are you talking about the African American voters voting race or what?
But let's say, for example, David Dukes, A Klu-Klux-Klan Imperial Wizard, wrote Ender's Game, and let's say you are a member of one of the groups the KKK would string up to a tree. You really expect me to believe you'd still have no problem enjoying that story, knowing full well the author of that story would no sooner kill you than a roach.
I think somebody having an opinion vs being part of a murderous terrorist organization is a little different.
When I read the writings of another, it's like sitting around a campfire listening to a story being told to me. If the story-teller had utter contempt for me, I would not feel comfortable sitting around that campfire with him. If you could sit at a campfire and enjoy a story from a man you knew would sooner squish you like a bug or have you sent off to a leper's colony, then you must be a very extraordinary person. Me, I'd want to get the hell away from that campfire!
Godwin has come full circle, then. How many of you are aware who it was who had just been called a Nazi - and for what reason - when Mike Godwin first stated his "rule of Nazi analogies" [google.com] as such?
I'm not sure I believe that. Slashdot is populated by a lot of social libertarians, but when it comes to economics, government vs private business, taxes, etc, I think the crowd loses its libertarian edge. Slashdot is made up largely (I would hazard a wager) of people making (or from families making) substantially more than the average and with more education than the average.
The LDS require tithing, so the purchase of anything from any LDS member contributes directly to the coffers of the LDS. That money then gets funneled into initiatives like Prop 8, et al.
Absolutely untrue--but that talking point IS being spread around very frequently now.
Re:*sigh* you're worse than homophobes
on
Ender in Exile
·
· Score: 1
Card has openly advocated mass murder if his strict religious views are not adopted by the country. He sounds a lot like, for example, Osama bin Laden.
Oh please, stop lying or provide some evidence for your viewpoints.
You're just showing everyone who the real fanatics are.
Re:Nope, sorry
on
Ender in Exile
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Owners of local BBQ place talking about how social safety nets are bullshit and a gun and your own wits are all you need (because nothing bad ever happens to you out of your control) and how in an ideal world they could just shoot all the corrupt *local* politicians that make them charge sales tax and pay for library bonds? I won't eat there again. (And they should learn to keep their political views to themselves while patrons are in their restaurant, unless they wish to only cater to their nutball crowd.)
Your g*ddamned right, how dare they have an opinion? How dare they express themselves? They should learn to be more like you and your enlightened crowd. I can't wait till we are all in ideological lockstep...differing opinions really suck and are offensive. Must have been a tough visit to that restaurant.
Oh yeah, ban all bumperstickers and yard signs--they show differences in opinion which should not be allowed.
Card takes it to the extreme that he believes its important enough that he would be willing to wage physical war to keep gays from getting married
Please provide a reference for where Card advocated any form of violence? I've seen a bunch of people in this thread claim such things, but I have yet to see a single example...you're not jumping onto the pile are you?
Ironic given that Orson Scott Card has advocated the violent overthrow of the government due to his bigotry and hatred of gays (outright disapproval of their lifestyle).
Please indicate where Card has advocated the violent overthrow of the government? While at it, please show his hatred of homosexuals?
I would say the proper argument for not reading the sci-fi works of someone who's proven their self (personally, to you) to be "a big douche" is that sci-fi has always provided a pulpit for the political and social ideals of the authors, especially if they feel that they'd face unwanted social backlash for voicing those ideals more mundanely.
So is all art. S.f. isn't even remotely unique in this respect.
Before reading this slashdot article tonight, I had no idea that Card could be considered controversial. The first time I read any Card was a short story last night, in the first ever Card book I've ever really laid eyes on, "The InterGalactic Medicine Show" (showcase of his webzine). The first story by Card in there is about, whoa, the moral quandary and psychic torture of travelling faster than the speed of light and everybody you know is dead. Whoopdedoo, not too impressive to me and really quite cheesed up. Not any kind of sounding board for any ethical considerations with real world applicability, but dull nonetheless. But proving my point: it's typical of sci-fi for pages upon pages to be wasted exploring ethical and moral issues, especially (again) real world issues that the author is grappling with and wants to give voice to without inviting direct backlash.
I'm not sure what that proves--that s.f. is art, and art is subjective?:p
I don't even like his damn crap and I just started reading it.
Now there's an ACTUAL reason. You don't like his writing. End of story. You weren't at all influenced by his moral and political and PERSONAL beliefs. IMHO, the way it should be.
I really hate those obsession-driven, overly long and tediously, pointedly self-referential sagas. Like Lord of the Rings.
Hmm..that's a lot of s.f. and fantasy!
Bear with me, pointing to the sounding-board thing again, that can even be a worthwhile reason to hunt out certain sci-fi or even just start reading all of it as much as you can: because you know the author(s) could be hiding social criticism in the stories.
Not sure what you're saying? You show me a book that doesn't have some form of social criticism in it though and I'll...well, I'll have to see what you come up with:-)
But hell, a million pages of maps of unreal places, and made-up languages, and the inter-galactic, space-operatic histories of make-believe aliens, and the comically egotistical qualities of the same damn protagonist who's "been there for you loyal reader" for three fucking novels or what have you, doesn't beg for any readership but from really socially awkward, reality- escapist/denial douchebags.
See that's the great thing about art. I like some of the Ender books. My enjoyment of his books doesn't hinge at ALL on what you happen to think of them. As they say, de gustibus non est disputandum. Your bigoted stereotyping of Card fans is fairly amusing though (to use terms from this thread).
It appeals to the analytical and the irrational mind and grabs the consumer reflex somewhere in between, spawns huge franchises, and is ultimately total drivel -- just plain bullshit as far as what it's worth to the human race for being written.
Ok?
Ender's Blah Blah strikes me as exactly such crap. If that's the biggest thing to talk about with this Card guy, this Ender crap, then I'm probably just going to read the anthology which will probably come out every year or so while he still has his webzine.
I feel like Card starts off with really good idea, and his sequels tend to trail off after 2-3 books. I liked the Seventh Son series. Earthfall was good too. My favorite Card book was the standalone Enchantment (and Card has said that that is his favorite as well). I'd give it a recommend.
Yeah, Card probably is more anti-gay marriage than your average bloke. I don't see him going around saying god hates fags, etc though. Maybe I'm wrong and he does fling hatespeech around though--info?
I think somebody claimed he was advocating violent overthrow? I don't see that? I took "act to destroy that government and bring it down" as "vote them out of office":-P
If the majority of Californians are against Gays and Lesbians having equal rights, I won't read any of their works, either!!!!
But to them it's not question of equal rights--Orson Scott Card makes exactly that argument--All men have the right to marry a woman. All women have the right to marry a man. Everyone has equal rights. (not saying I agree)
Quite frankly, I don't get why anyone would care what Gays and Lesbians do. Why would it even matter one whit to any non-homosexual how Gays and Lesbians wish to live their lives? Why go out of your way to make a big stink? That's the part I don't get.
Slashdot Mirror
If by thrashing you mean I'm of the opinion he's a douchebag
Yes, calling someone a massive douchebag because they don't agree with you while insulting their religion and faith is trashing--that's exactly what I meant.
Um, read the Mormon Times link I posted (not the first one).
I didn't really expect you to be able to point out where Card advocated hate, so, thanks for fulfilling my expectations.
What do you think of my observations?
I think you could be right. But that goes back to the beginning of this thread...
My point is that your bitching about to me intolerance can conflation of political opinions with literary merit when I am not doing those things is mainly serving to irritate me. If you have issues with the behavior of other people, go talk to them and not to me.
Hey, I said you weren't intolerant in my 3rd(?) message to you after you explained your position, and I've just been replying since then--I try to reply to all non-ACs that reply to me. Sorry it upset you, didn't mean to. Cheers!
Just fwiw, from my parent post, here is what I listed as lies I have seen in this thread. I still believe (and as AFAIK) these are all false:
-accused him of wanting to put homosexuals in camps
-kill them[homosexuals]
-violently overthrow the government
-Card says every homosexual relationship starts with a rape
And you're entitled to your opinion. I still read it the other way. That is what we call a difference of interpretation. Which is hardly the "outright lie" that you called it. I'll look for your apology to those you've slandered shortly.
Sheesh, again with people getting so worked up in this thread! Barring ANY evidence that Orson Scott Card approves of any violent actions, has EVER called for violent action, or even would in some theoretical situation approve of violent action, your interpretation is bunk. Mormon "radicals" are not exactly known for their violence are they?
Secondly, the "outright lies" I referred to (and referenced in my parent post) were much more than just falsely claiming that Card was advocating violence violence. People who make statements that Card has called for violence against homosexuals or violence against the government ARE lying. If that's what you're claiming, I'm afraid I do believe that would be a lie.
Yes, that's sure what I do with my to-the-death enemies. I vote at them.
Ok, maybe to you, violence against those you disagree with is acceptable--I find that pretty scary. I have no evidence that Orson Scott Card believes violence against those who disagree with him is acceptable. If you can find any evidence, please share it with me, and I'll gladly rescind these comments.
Card's views go well beyond the label applied.
Ah, I thought I was referring to Prop 8.
I mention it to help explain why I'm using language that conveys strong emotion.
I'm not a big fan of appeals to emotion. Emotion and appeals to emotion just clouds thing and makes people lose track of reason, imho.
Good thing I didn't do that then. Perhaps you should talk to somebody who did.
Have you been reading this whole thread? :p
violently overthrow the government,
It seems that Card does believe that. That's how I interpret this [mormontimes.com], anyhow:
I don't interpret it that way at all. If Orson Scott Card had a history of calling for violence...or had indeed EVER called for violence, I could understand your interpretation. But, as far as I know, he hasn't.
He's certainly advocating overthrow of the government over this. I guess, to be fair, he could be talking about destroying his mortal enemy through the playing of patty-cake
Or through, like, voting and stuff.
What do you think the point of banning gay marriage is, exactly, except to discourage the formation and encourage the dissolution of gay families?
It keeps the term "marriage" to mean a man and a woman, that's all. Prop 8 has no effect on civil unions. Cohabitating couples can still live together. Couples can still get civil unions. Couples still have visitation rights, insurance rights, etc, just like a marrage. Except, it is not called a marriage. That is all. Nobody is "breaking up" anything.
In particular, one of the possible consequences of Prop 8 is that the currently married people will have their marriages invalidated.
That's actually unclear as I understand it.
Yes. Trying to change the constitution and passed so my friends and relatives can't get married is also pretty serious. But only one of those things is intolerant of living human beings. I just dislike his opinions and his stunted moral sense. If you've got a problem with intolerance, shouldn't you be upset at Card, not me?
Since you've brought it up multiple times, I get it--you have gay friends and relatives. I don't see how that changes the conversation, especially since I haven't said one thing for or against Cards' views!
My point--from the first post on--has been that it's a shame that somebody's personal opinion can cause people to say things like his entire body of works is worthless, and many other things along those lines. It's absolutely fine that you don't like his views, and it's fine if you don't want to support his views and so choose not to give him anymore money. I have no problem with this. I DO have a problem with people acting as if his views change anything that he's written.
No, the intolerance is the amount of people spouting outright lies about Card's beliefs and calling him a bigot, homicidal, wingnut, crazy, douchebag, etc. People in this thread have accused him of wanting to put homosexuals in camps, kill them, violently overthrow the government, they have claimed that Card says every homosexual relationship starts with a rape, etc. Bunk.
You may not be intolerant, your was about the 5th post in a row that said the same thing "this guy is a douche bag and he sucks as a writer now!" The correlation in many posts are clears, not yours.
Card's opinions are vile. He has let his (crazy) religious beliefs triumph over any sort of consideration for his fellow man. Trying to break up happy, successful families because you don't like something about their members is intolerance. Calling that out isn't.
Where has Card demanded breaking up happy families?
I have a problem with people demanding tolerance from others, while themselves being intolerant. I can't judge you as I don't know you from Adam, but going around calling people douchebags, crazy, who holds vile beliefs and is a homebreaker is pretty serious.
Which part of my post was intolerant? Calling him a douchebag
yes :-)
And while we're at it, we can also throw in why everyone is making such a big ado over half of Obama heritage whilst ignoring the other half. Or more importantly, what's that got to do with the job of being President in the first place. But I digress...
Are you talking about the African American voters voting race or what?
I dunno -- moving gays to leper colonies sounds pretty violent to me.
Ok, so where does he advocate that?
But let's say, for example, David Dukes, A Klu-Klux-Klan Imperial Wizard, wrote Ender's Game, and let's say you are a member of one of the groups the KKK would string up to a tree. You really expect me to believe you'd still have no problem enjoying that story, knowing full well the author of that story would no sooner kill you than a roach.
I think somebody having an opinion vs being part of a murderous terrorist organization is a little different.
When I read the writings of another, it's like sitting around a campfire listening to a story being told to me. If the story-teller had utter contempt for me, I would not feel comfortable sitting around that campfire with him. If you could sit at a campfire and enjoy a story from a man you knew would sooner squish you like a bug or have you sent off to a leper's colony, then you must be a very extraordinary person. Me, I'd want to get the hell away from that campfire!
Fair enough and makes perfect sense.
Godwin has come full circle, then. How many of you are aware who it was who had just been called a Nazi - and for what reason - when Mike Godwin first stated his "rule of Nazi analogies" [google.com] as such?
Hahahaha, that is amazing, I had no idea....
I'm not sure I believe that. Slashdot is populated by a lot of social libertarians, but when it comes to economics, government vs private business, taxes, etc, I think the crowd loses its libertarian edge. Slashdot is made up largely (I would hazard a wager) of people making (or from families making) substantially more than the average and with more education than the average.
The LDS require tithing, so the purchase of anything from any LDS member contributes directly to the coffers of the LDS. That money then gets funneled into initiatives like Prop 8, et al.
Absolutely untrue--but that talking point IS being spread around very frequently now.
This post sums up a lot of it for me: http://volokh.com/posts/1226094712.shtml
Card has openly advocated mass murder if his strict religious views are not adopted by the country. He sounds a lot like, for example, Osama bin Laden.
Oh please, stop lying or provide some evidence for your viewpoints.
You're just showing everyone who the real fanatics are.
Owners of local BBQ place talking about how social safety nets are bullshit and a gun and your own wits are all you need (because nothing bad ever happens to you out of your control) and how in an ideal world they could just shoot all the corrupt *local* politicians that make them charge sales tax and pay for library bonds? I won't eat there again. (And they should learn to keep their political views to themselves while patrons are in their restaurant, unless they wish to only cater to their nutball crowd.)
Your g*ddamned right, how dare they have an opinion? How dare they express themselves? They should learn to be more like you and your enlightened crowd. I can't wait till we are all in ideological lockstep...differing opinions really suck and are offensive. Must have been a tough visit to that restaurant.
Oh yeah, ban all bumperstickers and yard signs--they show differences in opinion which should not be allowed.
Card takes it to the extreme that he believes its important enough that he would be willing to wage physical war to keep gays from getting married
Please provide a reference for where Card advocated any form of violence? I've seen a bunch of people in this thread claim such things, but I have yet to see a single example...you're not jumping onto the pile are you?
Sheesh, I have seen more intolerant posts in this thread than just about anywhere on slashdot, ever.
Ironic given that Orson Scott Card has advocated the violent overthrow of the government due to his bigotry and hatred of gays (outright disapproval of their lifestyle).
Please indicate where Card has advocated the violent overthrow of the government? While at it, please show his hatred of homosexuals?
and he's using that voice to advocate hatred of people who do not share his values
Just like you are trashing somebody you don't agree with? These opinion issues go both ways...
Please indicate where Card is "advocating" hatred?
I would say the proper argument for not reading the sci-fi works of someone who's proven their self (personally, to you) to be "a big douche" is that sci-fi has always provided a pulpit for the political and social ideals of the authors, especially if they feel that they'd face unwanted social backlash for voicing those ideals more mundanely.
So is all art. S.f. isn't even remotely unique in this respect.
Before reading this slashdot article tonight, I had no idea that Card could be considered controversial. The first time I read any Card was a short story last night, in the first ever Card book I've ever really laid eyes on, "The InterGalactic Medicine Show" (showcase of his webzine). The first story by Card in there is about, whoa, the moral quandary and psychic torture of travelling faster than the speed of light and everybody you know is dead. Whoopdedoo, not too impressive to me and really quite cheesed up. Not any kind of sounding board for any ethical considerations with real world applicability, but dull nonetheless. But proving my point: it's typical of sci-fi for pages upon pages to be wasted exploring ethical and moral issues, especially (again) real world issues that the author is grappling with and wants to give voice to without inviting direct backlash.
I'm not sure what that proves--that s.f. is art, and art is subjective? :p
I don't even like his damn crap and I just started reading it.
Now there's an ACTUAL reason. You don't like his writing. End of story. You weren't at all influenced by his moral and political and PERSONAL beliefs. IMHO, the way it should be.
I really hate those obsession-driven, overly long and tediously, pointedly self-referential sagas. Like Lord of the Rings.
Hmm..that's a lot of s.f. and fantasy!
Bear with me, pointing to the sounding-board thing again, that can even be a worthwhile reason to hunt out certain sci-fi or even just start reading all of it as much as you can: because you know the author(s) could be hiding social criticism in the stories.
Not sure what you're saying? You show me a book that doesn't have some form of social criticism in it though and I'll...well, I'll have to see what you come up with :-)
But hell, a million pages of maps of unreal places, and made-up languages, and the inter-galactic, space-operatic histories of make-believe aliens, and the comically egotistical qualities of the same damn protagonist who's "been there for you loyal reader" for three fucking novels or what have you, doesn't beg for any readership but from really socially awkward, reality- escapist/denial douchebags.
See that's the great thing about art. I like some of the Ender books. My enjoyment of his books doesn't hinge at ALL on what you happen to think of them. As they say, de gustibus non est disputandum. Your bigoted stereotyping of Card fans is fairly amusing though (to use terms from this thread).
It appeals to the analytical and the irrational mind and grabs the consumer reflex somewhere in between, spawns huge franchises, and is ultimately total drivel -- just plain bullshit as far as what it's worth to the human race for being written.
Ok?
Ender's Blah Blah strikes me as exactly such crap. If that's the biggest thing to talk about with this Card guy, this Ender crap, then I'm probably just going to read the anthology which will probably come out every year or so while he still has his webzine.
I feel like Card starts off with really good idea, and his sequels tend to trail off after 2-3 books. I liked the Seventh Son series. Earthfall was good too. My favorite Card book was the standalone Enchantment (and Card has said that that is his favorite as well). I'd give it a recommend.
So there's another ar
I think you mean Phelps?
Yeah, Card probably is more anti-gay marriage than your average bloke. I don't see him going around saying god hates fags, etc though. Maybe I'm wrong and he does fling hatespeech around though--info?
I think somebody claimed he was advocating violent overthrow? I don't see that? I took "act to destroy that government and bring it down" as "vote them out of office" :-P
If the majority of Californians are against Gays and Lesbians having equal rights, I won't read any of their works, either!!!!
But to them it's not question of equal rights--Orson Scott Card makes exactly that argument--All men have the right to marry a woman. All women have the right to marry a man. Everyone has equal rights. (not saying I agree)
Quite frankly, I don't get why anyone would care what Gays and Lesbians do. Why would it even matter one whit to any non-homosexual how Gays and Lesbians wish to live their lives? Why go out of your way to make a big stink? That's the part I don't get.
I don't know.