5 ms·

People like you are far more dangerous, in our times, than Orson Scott Card could ever be.

by anatoly 13y ago

DanBC 13y ago
Why?
- anatoly 13y ago
  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.
daughart 13y ago
Because pro-gay-rights activists have so much blood on their hands compared to homophobes and bigots. Oh right, it's the other way around. In America, a "vote" with a wallet means as much as a vote with a ballot.
smirksirlot 13y ago
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.
mikeash 13y ago
Asking people not to contribute money to bigots is dangerous? What?
- talmand 13y ago
  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 13y ago
    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.
ceejayoz 13y ago
[citation needed]

People like you are far more dangerous, in our times, than Orson Scott Card could ever be.

by anatoly 13y ago

People like you are far more dangerous, in our times, than Orson Scott Card could ever be.

DanBC 13y ago

Why?

anatoly 13y ago
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.

daughart 13y ago

Because pro-gay-rights activists have so much blood on their hands compared to homophobes and bigots. Oh right, it's the other way around. In America, a "vote" with a wallet means as much as a vote with a ballot.

smirksirlot 13y ago

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.

mikeash 13y ago

Asking people not to contribute money to bigots is dangerous? What?

talmand 13y ago
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 13y ago
  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.

ceejayoz 13y ago

[citation needed]