[talmand]

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 If someone says he doesn't like gays, fine, let the guy state his outdated rant and get on with your day.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.

[mikeash]

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.

[talmand]

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.

[mikeash]

If you weren't talking about it being dangerous than who cares? That is literally the only thing that is being discussed.

[talmand]

Just because this particular item isn't necessarily dangerous doesn't mean that it cannot potentially lead to a dangerous way of thinking.

[mikeash]

Does the same apply to Card's craziness, or is it just mine?

[talmand]

Ah, so you are being obtuse.

But to answer your question, if he is attempting to prevent you from speaking out then, yes, it applies.

You seem lost, I'm not speaking of preventing you from stating your opinion. I'm speaking about your desire to prevent him from stating his.

[anatoly]

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?

[talmand]

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.

[mikeash]

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".

[talmand]

You're deflecting. This discussion is about your response to my post. If you were referring to the original comment without regarding what I was saying, then you should have replied to the original comment and not mine.