I strongly encourage everyone to abstain from buying the book or seeing the movie. You're lining Orson Scott Card's bigoted pockets to oppress sexual minorities.
There are many people who were and are wrong about certain things in life. Does that mean we should ignore their contributions in other areas out of spite?
I can enjoy Polanksi's films whilst not condoning his private activities. I can appreciate the remarkable skill of Wayne Carey on the football field whilst acknowledging he is probably a prick in his personal life. Humans are all too often both brilliant and flawed in equal measures.
Leaving that aside, did you read the article? Card isn't producing the movie. He sold the rights years ago. So unless you have a time machine, any lining you provide for his pockets is likely to be so indirect as to be inconsequential.
Could you provide some links or sources to substantiate your claim that Orson Scott Card is bigoted against sexual minorities?
I'm a fan of the book, and I've been waiting to see this movie, but I confess that I don't know much about the author. Sources would be greatly appreciated.
As long as you include almost all Christian and Islamic movements and sects into that group you don't want us to give money to, I fully approve of this encouragement.
In danger of causing a "I think you're defending someone I dislike therefore I must dislike you" response, I think it would be good if you explain to the audience how exactly Orson Scott Card is personally oppressing sexual minorities.
Plus explain how my going to see the movie is not good for the numerous people who have worked on this movie who will get paid that may not share in Card's viewpoints.
If that's to be considered accurate then I don't quite see the homophobe boogey man people are trying to make him out to be. Seems to me he has a constantly changing attitude towards the matter that reflects the same education our society is currently going through.
Yet, reading through the text, I fail to see how Card is personally oppressing sexual minorities.
If you don’t consider OSC to be obviously anti-gay based on the Wikipedia sources, I’m not sure what would convince you.
Yes, he’s not personally driving a pickup truck around Utah with a gang looking to do some gay-bashing. But he obviously cares enough about the issue to write a lot of articles expressing clearly an anti-gay standpoint.
Examples from the Wikipedia article:
"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."
“Card stated that he regarded any government that would attempt to recognize same-sex marriage a "mortal enemy" that he would act to destroy”
I don't believe I've denied the claim that he is against the homosexual lifestyle. That part is quite clear since he openly admits to that.
What I'm referring to is the claim that he is personally oppressing sexual minorities, which I don't see.
As for his wish to destroy a government that would attempt to recognize same-sex marriage, seems he's failing quite spectacularly at that. So how exactly is he this big homophobe boogey man that I must avoid at all costs, including his old books and current movies he has little to do with?
See, isn't this interesting? You provide the very answer I would have liked to see but somehow my reasonable post gets downvotes. Much the response I predicted.
So what you're saying is... asking people not to spend money to support Orson Scott Card is on the same scale as giving money to institutions and people to 1) lobby against sexual minority rights and 2) encourage foreign countries to have laws to criminalize queer behavior, resulting in more violence and attacks on queer people. Cool.
Well, in this case I can't speak of it being dangerous, but it can be a bad precedent and have unintended consequences.
Let's just go with the notion that Card is expressing his opinion on the matter. He has a right to this opinion, whether you agree with it or even if you consider it right or wrong.
But anytime someone is allowed to shut down an opposing viewpoint it will eventually lead to problems. Once someone has the ability to shut down one opposing viewpoint they disagree with, then they will have the power to shut down any viewpoint they disagree with. Possibly even shutting down a viewpoint they think is of the opposition when it's likely it's not, such as a misunderstanding or being inarticulate.
The difference being, a person actually has to commit actions against another human being to for a reaction need to take place. If someone says he doesn't like gays, fine, let the guy state his outdated rant and get on with your day. The moment the guy actually discriminates or commits an illegal act, then do something.
As for consequences, this movie is an excellent example. If you boycott the movie because of your disagreement with Card, then you are hurting far more people then you will ever hurt Card. Another example, the Chik-Fil-A boycott a while back. That hurt local businesses run by local owners who employ local people far more than the dude at the top that still got paid no matter how much chicken you refused to eat.
If anyone has the generic "you seem to defend what I don't like so I dislike you" reaction to this post, you are practically proving my point.
I don't understand. Card has the right to express his opinion but I don't have the right to express mine?
Deciding not to pay for a product is somehow dangerous? Expressing my opinion to other people and asking them to do the same is dangerous?
If Card is allowed to say hateful things, then I'm allowed to tell people about it and recommend that they not give him money. It is not logically possible for you to accept the former without also accepting the latter.
You are indeed correct, you do not understand. I did not state in any way you are not allowed to express your opinion. I suggest you read over my post again to see that I did not suggest this. My post was about someone attempting to shut down an opposing viewpoint they do not agree with. Expressing your opinion is one thing, preventing another from expressing his is another.
As for "somehow dangerous", please read the post again. Here, I'll quote from the very first sentence for you; "in this case I can't speak of it being dangerous".
Yes indeed, you are allowed to express your opinion and recommend that people avoid providing him with money if they disagree with what he has to say. But that's the consequences part; read the post again. The consequences being that with your boycott in an attempt to punish the target of your disagreement you are more likely hurting people who have nothing to do with the thing you are disagreeing with. Those are the consequences. If you feel fine with that, then power to you and by all means speak up. Just keep in mind that their might be hundreds of people with families to support that may be somewhat upset with your choice.
In the end I'm not even suggesting that Card should be saying the things he does. I disagree with him with my total being. But I am aware of how these things work, just read history. If you provide someone with the power to curtail speech that you do not like, that gives them the power to curtail all speech. It's why I disagree with hate speech laws. Who defines hate speech? Today hate speech may be defined as stating negative things about minorities, tomorrow it could be defined as saying anything negative against government or your local police department.
Sometimes when you make your short-term choices, you have to consider the long-term consequences.
Are you being willfully obtuse, or deliberately misleading? No one said you weren't _allowed_ to express your opinion, recommend anything you want, that you _didn't have the right_ to say what you want, etc. Why do you pretend that anyone did?
It's okay, that's one of the many responses that I would expect from this type of discussion. Often times it sheds an interesting light on a person that thinks stating their opinion gives them the right to prevent another from stating their own opinion, but at the same time claim that someone is attempting to stifle their opinion that they've already stated.
The original comment up there said, "People like you are far more dangerous, in our times, than Orson Scott Card could ever be." Just because they said maybe you shouldn't give your money to Mr. Card. No, they didn't come out and say we weren't allowed to say it, but they did call it "dangerous".
Because of the mind-numbing tendency to politicize everything.
Card's book and the movie have nothing to do with his bigoted views, and should stand or fall on their own. In fact, the book (and possibly the movie), with its strong moral stance that resonates with teenagers, is likely to spread far more good by encouraging its readers to think about bullying, suffering of others, etc. than Card could possibly do harm, even if he wanted to, with its proceeds.
Historically, just about every famous writer has been bigoted about something; all of us are probably bigoted in some ways in which future generations will judge us. If the sanctimonious boycott calls leveled against Card succeeded in the past, we'd be left without many wonderful masterpieces that enrich our lives and deepen our understanding.
I can enjoy Polanksi's films whilst not condoning his private activities. I can appreciate the remarkable skill of Wayne Carey on the football field whilst acknowledging he is probably a prick in his personal life. Humans are all too often both brilliant and flawed in equal measures.
Leaving that aside, did you read the article? Card isn't producing the movie. He sold the rights years ago. So unless you have a time machine, any lining you provide for his pockets is likely to be so indirect as to be inconsequential.