Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Orson Scott Card Pleads 'Tolerance' For Ender's Game Movie

Soulskill posted about a year ago | from the flexing-his-iron-knee dept.

Movies 1448

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?"

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Really?!? (5, Insightful)

realityimpaired (1668397) | about a year ago | (#44236293)

Orson Scott Card is pleading for tolerance? That's rich.

Re:Really?!? (5, Insightful)

somersault (912633) | about a year ago | (#44236353)

He'd have been better off not saying anything. I'm sure I've read about him being a bigot in the past, but I'd actually forgotten about it. I can understand people not liking things that they feel are too "different", but I can't understand why he'd actively campaign against people who are different from him..

This is like some weird, modified version of the Streissand effect at work.

Re:Really?!? (3, Insightful)

tbannist (230135) | about a year ago | (#44236457)

Yeah, I think you cross a line when you call for the violent overthrow of the government for the crime of treating people equally. I wasn't aware that Card had done that or advocated to criminalize/keep criminalized homosexual behaviour so the the government could jail anyone who dared to admit they were gay.

I don't think I need to actually consciously boycott Card. I was already tired of his endless rehashing of the Book of Mormon in every thing he writes. These (new to me) revelations about his bigotry have made anything with his name of it completely unappealing.

Re:Really?!? (1, Insightful)

Bigbutt (65939) | about a year ago | (#44236629)

Is that what it was?? I was reading some book years ago and about a third of the way through I realized it was a story from The Book of Mormon (family converted when I was 14) that was Sci-Fi'd up a bit and laughed. I'll have to see if I still have it.

[John]

Re:Really?!? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44236477)

He'd have been better off not saying anything.

You don't get people talking about a new film by staying quiet. The publicity agents for the film must be loving this whole thing. I expect some people will stay away but how many more will only be going because all the controversy keeps this film on their radar?

Re:Really?!? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44236363)

What an amazingly accurate handle you use.

Re:Really?!? (5, Insightful)

Rosco P. Coltrane (209368) | about a year ago | (#44236403)

Yes, believe it or not, those who have different points of view deserve tolerance, regardless of whether you agree with them or not.

Crazy communists deserve tolerance,
Crazy white supremacists deserve tolerance,
Crazy Tea party members deserve tolerance,
Crazy gay activists deserve tolerance,
Crazy anti-gay activists deserve tolerance.

Besides, OSC's SF books have nothing to do with his views on a totally orthogonal societal issue. Boycotting the former because of the latter is called an ad hominem. Case in point, a lot of people enjoy Disney movies and Ford cars despite Walt Disney and Henry Ford being nasty antisemitic pro-nazi nutjobs.

Tolerate whoever you like (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44236481)

I'll go see a better movie by a better screenwriter instead, and I will enjoy the fact that I didn't contribute anything to that festering asshole's bank account all the same.

I'm glad he was dumb enough to remind people what a cunt he is.

BTW, his work is overrated anyway.

Re:Tolerate whoever you like (1, Funny)

sageres (561626) | about a year ago | (#44236621)

Funny.. I have all Mr. Card's books, and re-read Ender's Game at least once a year, because it is a quality work that deserves to go down in history as one of the classics of American literature. In the future people will forget about Stephen King (the author of toilet-paper level trash), but they will remember Twain, Hemingway, Poe, Fitzgerald, Emerson, Hughes, Hawthorne, Whitman, Poe, Thoreau, Melville, Dickinson, Bradbury and Card.

Re:Really?!? (4, Insightful)

mlk (18543) | about a year ago | (#44236613)

Neither Walt Disney or Henry Ford are currently alive. Do their companies now stand for pro-nazi-ness?

Re:Really?!? (1)

Thanshin (1188877) | about a year ago | (#44236635)

Yes, believe it or not, those who have different points of view deserve tolerance, regardless of whether you agree with them or not.

It's not a question of belief. What you say is a philosophy I, for example, might not follow.

My point of view is that tolerance is not binary. The acceptance of the beliefs, opinions or practices of others is to be given based on a number of criteria. For me, bigotry isn't not to accept the beliefs of others, is to have personal opinion as the overwhelming criterion.

I have no problem with the disqualification of beliefs based on their scientific inaccuracy or on their discrimination of human beings.

However, I fully agree with you on the idea that whether you agree or not with a point of view can never be accepted as a reason not to tolerate it.

Re:Really?!? (3, Insightful)

gl4ss (559668) | about a year ago | (#44236439)

his answer is really perplexing. it's like just because his opinion side lost and the issue is settled in courts that somehow his opinions on the issue no longer should matter to other people... did he change his opinion on the issue? apparently not. why the fuck even make a statement like that? should have just kept his mouth shut.

i don't really see what people see in the novel either... which is the reason I'm not going to see it, not the apparent fact that he is an idiot(ok, I saw the trailer and that's another reason).

Re:Really?!? (1)

Danathar (267989) | about a year ago | (#44236565)

did you read the novel?

Re:Really?!? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44236639)

I may read it after his funeral. Don't want to give him the satisfaction when he's there to enjoy it. Or I may read something else.

Re:Really?!? (1)

Danathar (267989) | about a year ago | (#44236551)

I read his statement.

I have no idea where the "Pleading" came from. There is no pleading going on.

He asked the QUESTION if supporters of gay marriage would be tolerant. The implication is of course they should, but pleading? Nah.

Who Cares? (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44236315)

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.

Re:Who Cares? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44236383)

I guess it depends on what you can stomach. If you're cool enough with the the makers of product X to purchase their product, that's fine. If not, that's fine too. That's the great thing about voting with your wallet - the decision is completely up to you.

Re:Who Cares? (5, Insightful)

eldavojohn (898314) | about a year ago | (#44236393)

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.

The primary problem is when he uses his artistic medium and influence to spread this message. Which he most certainly has [ornery.org] :

In the first place, no law in any state in the United States now or ever has forbidden homosexuals to marry. The law has never asked that a man prove his heterosexuality in order to marry a woman, or a woman hers in order to marry a man.

Any homosexual man who can persuade a woman to take him as her husband can avail himself of all the rights of husbandhood under the law. And, in fact, many homosexual men have done precisely that, without any legal prejudice at all.

Ditto with lesbian women. Many have married men and borne children. And while a fair number of such marriages in recent years have ended in divorce, there are many that have not.

So it is a flat lie to say that homosexuals are deprived of any civil right pertaining to marriage. To get those civil rights, all homosexuals have to do is find someone of the opposite sex willing to join them in marriage.

Translation: "Your entire life has to be a lie because I'm ignorant." And no, I do not go see Tom Cruise movies because he uses his stardom and money he gets from those movies to push a very dangerous religion [youtube.com] ! There are some issues where I flat out draw the line. I'm not boycotting Clint Eastwood because he's said some politically stupid stuff but there are some issues like homosexuality where I feel like I'm promoting ignorance if I promote those who think homosexuals should not have the same rights as heterosexuals. It's an egalitarian issue in my mind and I'm not going to see Ender's Game nor will I read the rest of the Shadow series.

Re:Who Cares? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44236537)

I find it much more telling that some people, yourself included, feel the need to beg the federal government for what you feel is a right. Maybe you'd be much further ahead to leave the institution of government behind while seeking your rights or the rights of others and if you really feel the need to confront the government in this case maybe you'd be better off getting them out of a social ritual that they should have no say in in the first place.

Re:Who Cares? (4, Insightful)

swimboy (30943) | about a year ago | (#44236637)

*I* find it much more telling that people feel the need to *insist* that the federal government deny gay people their rights, merely because *their* religious beliefs say that gay people are sinners.

And then they have the pathological gall to explicitly express that their rights are being trampled upon if someone suggests that gay people should have the same rights as everyone else.

And furthermore, the government has nothing to do with your "social ritual". Holy matrimony is a religious institution that the government does not regulate. Civil marriage is a contract between two people that the government administers. Just because people use the word "marriage" to refer to both of them does not mean that they are the same thing.

Re:Who Cares? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44236549)

In my head, what youre doing to him is on par with what he is doing to homosexuals. Similarly you also have the "i do it because its right"-justification.

Re:Who Cares? (3, Insightful)

TrekkieGod (627867) | about a year ago | (#44236587)

The primary problem is when he uses his artistic medium and influence to spread this message.

Sometimes I hear this criticism, and I don't get it. That's the point of art. If it doesn't have a message, what's the point?

Your objection is that it has a message you disagree with. In that sense, I agree with Card. It is intolerance. And closed-mindedness. If you refuse to listen to any argument against what you believe in, you must believe in a lot of things that aren't true.

Now, I'm completely against him on the gay marriage issue (and on most issues, really), but why the hell would I have a problem with him voicing his opinions? That's how we get rid of bad ideas. We listen to the arguments, and we refute them. The best way of making a point against racism, for example, is letting the KKK talk and make asses of themselves. We only stop them when they move beyond talking.

Re:Who Cares? (2)

Surak_Prime (160061) | about a year ago | (#44236601)

You could still read the Shadow series - just buy them 2nd hand. Card won't see an additional penny.

Re:Who Cares? (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44236411)

It's less that he has dumb opinions and more that he directly financially supports people working to make things worse. That's a legitimate reason to not give him money, isn't it?

Re:Who Cares? (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44236465)

It's more than that: Orson Scott Card Has Always Been An Asshat [kuro5hin.org] . Kind of funny folks are only now caring. Guess no one reads any more.

Re:Who Cares? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44236493)

You may not care about the views of the people behind the movie, I certainly don't. But I do care about where my money goes, and I don't want it going to fund the oppression of people based on their sexuality.

Card doesn't just dislike gay marriage but actively funds organisations seeking to prevent it, and if you give him your money then you are indirectly doing the same.

less than human? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44236333)

I wouldn't say Card went that far. Don't be a tool. He was a bigot, no doubt, but lets not get too exagerated, shall we?

Ender's game's end of the book reveal and 2 cultures learning to understand each other might be a good message to bring up.

Re:less than human? (3, Insightful)

MickyTheIdiot (1032226) | about a year ago | (#44236351)

Interesting how he couldn't bring that idea into his real life.

Re:less than human? SPOILERS (2)

halexists (2587109) | about a year ago | (#44236473)

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.

Don't give him the attention. (5, Insightful)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | about a year ago | (#44236335)

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.

Re:Don't give him the attention. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44236437)

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.

Off the top of my head they're described as being like giant ants in some physiological and social aspects, so at I guess I'd say the name was mainly from describing them as "bugs", combined with one definition of bugger as " a general-purpose expletive, used to imply dissatisfaction, or used to refer to someone or something whose behaviour is in some way displeasing" (Wiki). I've not read the later books but apparently they're referred to as Formics in them (from the Latin for ant).

I agree, you can't form an opinion of something based on the author. If the work itself was homophobic then I'd understand it, but in every other situation people would be saying "attack the message, not the messenger".

Re:Don't give him the attention. (1)

Danathar (267989) | about a year ago | (#44236453)

I agree with you completely.

From a practical viewpoint though, the press will make people who know nothing about the movie go see it...just the opposite of what they are trying to achieve.

Re:Don't give him the attention. (2)

Surak_Prime (160061) | about a year ago | (#44236459)

"Really, practically every author before 1900 was an extreme racist."

I guess since you modified that with "practically", that means I'm just nitpicking, but right off the top of my head, I seem to recall that Hamilton had some pretty strong opinions about extending full citizen rights to black people who had fought for the country's freedom in "The Federalist Papers", Mark Twain was pretty remarkably liberal in that regard, and whomever the author was that put the parable of The Good Samaritan into Jesus's mouth seemed to be preaching not to judge people by the look of their body but by the content of their character, as well.

"Everyone else is doing it" is no excuse for bad behavior, especially when the "everyone else" you have to point at are people 100 years or more behind the times. Card gets no pass from me.

Re:Don't give him the attention. (5, Insightful)

David Wilcox (2859869) | about a year ago | (#44236591)

The racist views of pre-1900 authors and Shakespeare can be more easily dismissed because our society as a whole has decided those beliefs are wrong and no longer relevant in the big picture. We're no longer fighting on a large scale for civil rights and most of our society can look back on those beliefs as antiquated. However, the fight for gay rights and marriage equality is still going on and is highly relevant to our society, so Card's beliefs are fair game for criticism.

Whether or not he expressed his beliefs in his books or in the upcoming movie is irrelevant. Card is still very much alive to benefit financially from both and from the wider exposure the movie can generate for him. Since he actively campaigns for anti-gay laws and defense of marriage bills, providing him additional financial support and publicity for a cause I am directly opposed to is not an action I plan on taking. Ignoring the author is not an option for me and many others.

problem mistated. (5, Interesting)

MickyTheIdiot (1032226) | about a year ago | (#44236341)

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.

Re:problem mistated. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44236491)

Seriously, if I stopped watching movies because of the ethos and beliefs of the actors and directors, I couldn't watch anything, especially Tom Cruise.

Re:problem mistated. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44236579)

People can think what they want, but as soon as they try to "act" on their beliefs and opinions, that makes them assholes, if their opinions differ from yours? Maybe they just need to keep their opinions and beliefs in the bedroom?

How does this make you different than Orson Scott Card?

IMO he is human and fallible. That is not unexpected. We rarely celebrate people - we celebrate their achievements.

CAPTCHA: observe

Re:problem mistated. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44236593)

Laws are merely codified versions of values/morals/prejudices.

The question becomes "Who's morals are we going to codify into law?"

In a monarchy the obvious answer is "The King's morals." But a representative government is a tricky beast. Every citizen has the right to try and have their morals codified. Success depends on their ability to convince others of their position.

Their position may be wrong, but they still have the right to try to convince others.

Last time I checked... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44236343)

Marriage is not a "human right"... its a christian ceremony. Between a man and a woman.

Re:Last time I checked... (4, Insightful)

MickyTheIdiot (1032226) | about a year ago | (#44236377)

It's not codified into law, huh? It doesn't have massive numbers of government benefits hooked to it, huh?

Re:Last time I checked... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44236609)

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.

Re:Last time I checked... (5, Informative)

Cenan (1892902) | about a year ago | (#44236471)

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 [wikipedia.org]

While the institution of marriage pre-dates recorded history, many cultures have legends concerning the origins of marriage.

Re:Last time I checked... (4, Insightful)

Thanshin (1188877) | about a year ago | (#44236475)

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?

Re:Last time I checked... (5, Informative)

Surak_Prime (160061) | about a year ago | (#44236479)

"Marriage" predates Christianity. You're describing Holy Matrimony, Batman.

Re:Last time I checked... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44236495)

So Muslims don't get married?
Jews don't get married?
Buddhists don't get married?
Hindu's don't get married?
Wiccan's don't get married? ...

And whilst I'm not an American and I'm not completly aware of the specifics, but I'd imagine the fact you have a seperation of church and state and yet marriage affects tax would go some way to show YOU'RE TALKING OUT OF YOUR ARSE.

Re:Last time I checked... (1)

halexists (2587109) | about a year ago | (#44236515)

...and a Hindu ceremony, and a Buddhist ceremony, and a Jewish ceremony, and a... oh, maybe in fact it's a human institution that's been blessed by various faiths around the globe then? Something humans seek to do regardless of their creed?

Seen in that context, marriage is whatever people want it to be, and it's been that way for a LONG time. Legislating it to conform to Christian ideals is theocratic.

Re:Last time I checked... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44236563)

Maybe you should check again, To say that it is a Christian ceremony between one man and one woman is just a small part of the concept of marriage. The early church didn't exactly like marriage at all, they adopted it later on. Marriage has never been defined as one thing forever and ever. Many cultures have had different kinds of marriage traditions, and many religions have been involved, or not involved. One man and one woman is just one of many. What about when women were merely property changing owners? Or how about bigamy/polygamy? Same sex marriage is not new to the modern western world, it has been done before by other cultures. Religions are not always involved at all. In some countries the required part is entirely secular, and you can add your own ceremony to that.

I expected less ignorance from the Slashdot readers.

hypocracy (3, Interesting)

sageres (561626) | about a year ago | (#44236359)

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.

See My Movie (4, Insightful)

whisper_jeff (680366) | about a year ago | (#44236361)

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.

So? (1)

Macgruder (127971) | about a year ago | (#44236369)

I've stopped giving a rat's ass about the opinions of someone just because they happen to be an athletic / film / writer / etc persona. Unless in the very rare case they're actually talking about their chosen profession.

What did Card do besides have an opinion? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44236371)

Oh right, he tried to convince other people to share his opinion. Wow, what scum.
So he talked a lot. He even wrote terribly tedious books about his opinions. What a horrible guy.
And he supported laws. Wow, he even wanted to let people vote! What a nasty man.

Re:What did Card do besides have an opinion? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44236521)

Replace "Card" with Adolf Hitler, Charles Manson, or Pol Pot. Your "logic" still works.

I'm going to see it. (2)

dtmancom (925636) | about a year ago | (#44236373)

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.

Re:I'm going to see it. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44236547)

So I take it you're okay with Global Warming deniers?

Re:I'm going to see it. (1)

gl4ss (559668) | about a year ago | (#44236595)

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.

pretty much nobody is anti-gay because they're "evil", they all make the claim to be otherwise. but don't you get it? he's an asshat. it's not like his so called good arguments disappear into the night because his side lost.

Re:I'm going to see it. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44236597)

Who cares about his motivations, the result is the same. Just another bigot. Cry me a river about the boycott.

Re:I'm going to see it. (1)

serviscope_minor (664417) | about a year ago | (#44236625)

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,

I'm not claiming that he's evil but why does that fact that an opinion is honestly held obsolve one from being evil.

Looks Cool, Won't See It (1)

Surak_Prime (160061) | about a year ago | (#44236379)

It's a shame because the trailer makes the movie seem like it will be pretty awesome, but no bit of entertainment however well produced is worth putting money in the pocket of someone who would trample the rights of my fellow citizens.

Re:Looks Cool, Won't See It (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44236507)

So pirate it then. No money to the loathsome author, you get to see it anyway...

Poison fruit (4, Insightful)

girlintraining (1395911) | about a year ago | (#44236381)

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.

Re:Poison fruit (1)

wbr1 (2538558) | about a year ago | (#44236513)

My kingdom for mod points. This is also why I do not eat at chick-fil-a and chew out my girlfriend when she does. And she is bi, but lazy and apathetic politically.

I read all of the Ender stuff years ago. I did not know that Card was an active homophobe trying to get legislation passed then. No I won't touch his work with a 10 foot pole (or someone else's dick).

Re:Poison fruit (4, Informative)

Surak_Prime (160061) | about a year ago | (#44236535)

"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?"

Actually, this very question has been applied non-hypothetically to the body of research done by Nazi scientists utilizing experiments done on their prisoners. I won't try to summarize the HUGE number of articles involving the philosophies and ethics here, but if you're really interested in that question, I'm sure Google could turn up a few YEARS worth of reading on the subject for you, because it isn't a simple matter at all.

Re:Poison fruit (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44236553)

If Al Qaeda came up with a cure for cancer I'm sure we would use it, but I doubt we would pay them for it.

Re:Poison fruit (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44236557)

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?

Al quaeda? The people who bomb schools because illiterate subjects are easier to rule? Somehow, I DON'T think they will come up with a cure for cancer - other than stoning. At best, they might sit on some strategic mineral crucial to making cancer drugs - but that can be taken from them if need be.

Eh? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44236389)

laws that treated certain people as less than human?
curtailing the human rights of others?
cowards and bullies?

Well this one sure got objectivety written all over it.

I wasn't going to see the movie in the theatre but (1)

Diss Champ (934796) | about a year ago | (#44236395)

I will go to the theatre and watch this one. I don't want to see good books not be turned into movies because someone disagrees with the politics of someone involved in the project. Art should be judged on its merits. If the movie is good, I will encourage friends to go see it as well. If it turns out to suck, well then I won't mind so much if it does poorly at the box office.

Read the book - didnt like it. (1)

Servaas (1050156) | about a year ago | (#44236413)

It was a fairly simple book to be honest. And I did not appreciate the "twist". Even if the movie doesn't bomb I don't see this getting sequels.

less than human? (3, Interesting)

gandhi_2 (1108023) | about a year ago | (#44236419)

How many authors (or chicken restaurant owners) would treat polygamists as "less than human" by supporting laws against plural marriage?

PR stunt (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44236423)

All he's doing is drawing attention to a project that's not making enough news. He's going to make a shit load of money from it should it perform well. When you can use PR to create friction, you generate a lot of coverage. That's free advertising.

Boycott all the things (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44236425)

Open sourcerers tend to be progressive politically - so that seems like a good reason why those on the right should simply boycott it. If it's find to boycott Ender's Game on the basis of Card's politics, it's fine to boycott Linux on the basis of Torvalds and Stallman's politics.

Way to misrepresent the Card's views subby... (1)

landofcleve (1959610) | about a year ago | (#44236445)

"less than human" You're a walking hyperbole aren't you?

One day we'll be allowed to marry goats (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44236447)

And everyone here who is against marrying goats right now will be labeled a bigot.

It's a Matter of Consent (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44236483)

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.

Re:One day we'll be allowed to marry goats (1)

fredrated (639554) | about a year ago | (#44236619)

Enjoy your goat wife, we know you want one.

From Ender's Game (0)

korbulon (2792438) | about a year ago | (#44236449)

To ender of gay marriage.

lol (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44236461)

He is obviously too obsessed with homosexuality not to be a homosexual himself.

Enders Game is a great book, Enders Shadow is better, and the rest are just bleh. IMO

If you really want to live in a free society stop trying to control other people.

Re:lol (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44236571)

You're generous with your 'bleh' comment. By the time I got to book 6, I was ready to start cutting myself. I forced myself to finish the series. I have no idea where I put the books, and I don't care if I never see them again.

persecution of the dissent (1)

sageres (561626) | about a year ago | (#44236487)

The persecution of the dissent is not unique to the gay community (after all, they have been persecuted a lot longer, and now, I guess, after gay marriage is won it is time for "payback").

When Will You Learn? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44236503)

When will you Gay Rights Activists learn that there is room on the spectrum for EVERYONE'S OPINION???!!! Just because someone doesn't agree with gays, gay marriage, gay lifestyle, etc does not necessarily mean that they automatically want to "round em' up and shoot em' down".

Christ.

I swear you people LOVE painting with such broad brush strokes, yet when someone does it to you, you get your panties in a nice tight bunch. You're Gay, congratulations. Go live your life and do your thing. There *are* plenty of people out there that don't fucking agree with your choice (or lack thereof) that are MORE than happy to let you do exactly that. But you continually cram your agenda down everyone's throat. Give it a fucking rest already.

Go ahead, lump yourselves in with Blacks, Latinos, Women and a ton of others that have been disenfranchised, oppressed, etc. That's beyond despicable and beyond ridiculous that you elevate yourselves and your cause to that level. What you call human rights or Civil Rights, others call a choice. Still others call it a genetic predisposition. Others call it 100% natural. Regardless of what you call it, it is not, and never will be, viewed as the "same" as or on the same level with, what Blacks, Latinos, Italians, Irishmen and damn near every other ethnic or religious group out there has gone through in this country.

Everything to you fucks is "hate speech" these days. Anyone that dares to disagree, for whatever reason, is automatically a "hate monger". The argument of weaklings and cowards indeed. You can't even have a civilized discussion on the issue. There's no room for negotiation or diplomacy. It's your way, or the highway. Real "forward" thinking of you guys. Way to fucking go.

You refuse to meet in the middle. I'm going to shock and awe you with a big surprise, I'm a Conservative. I know many, many others who feel the exact same way as me and that is, if Gays want to get married, it should ultimately be left up to the states individually to decide. If a state decides it's legal, hooray for them. If they decide it's illegal, that's their choice. Whoop-dee-fucking-doo.

What's so hard to understand about that? Does that constitute "hate speech" to you fucks? Of course it does. This is the problem with the Gay Rights movement. EVERYTHING has to be crammed down everyone's throat. Dare to disagree, for any reason, and you're screwed.

Like I said, real forward thinking and progressive to basically lock out the discussion and dialog.

It's about revenge. It's about a need to "get even" or correct some historical injustices. Gays have been marginalized and discriminated against, therefore we're going to smugly show YOU how powerful we are, we're going to show YOU!!! Gimme a fucking break. For a supposedly "enlightened" group of people who seem fixated on the future of their movement, they sure are stuck being fixated on the PAST and what's happened to them here, there or anywhere.

Re:When Will You Learn? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44236573)

You caring so much to write all that is evidence of your inability to understand what tolerance is. Im sure people have been telling you to "practice what you preach" your entire life.

Does Card get Royalties? (1)

Danathar (267989) | about a year ago | (#44236505)

A lot of posters elsewhere are using as their reasoning that they don't want their ticket money or any part of it going to Card.

Is there any evidence that he is getting any portion of ticket sales? Usually book rights are sold outright, so if that is the case he may not be getting ANY percentage of ticket sales.

Won't read him either (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44236509)

I've been petty enough not to read his books. Won't miss not seeing the movie either.

intellectual dishonesty (1)

sageres (561626) | about a year ago | (#44236523)

Did anyone actually read the essay that Mr. Card wrote with clear and open mind? He is right in many aspects. Simply dismissing him as a "bigot" is rather intellectually dishonest.

Pot, quit calling that kettle b**** (2, Insightful)

pla (258480) | about a year ago | (#44236525)

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.

Re:Pot, quit calling that kettle b**** (0)

emagery (914122) | about a year ago | (#44236603)

Well said

Already not seeing it (1)

OzPeter (195038) | about a year ago | (#44236539)

I saw the preview trailer and based on that there was no way in the world I was going to spend money on it. Politics has nothing to do with that decision. But my having 2 lesbians and a transexual in my extended family means that I think OSC's point of view is misguided in the very least.

Nothing says you can't have it both ways (1)

smchris (464899) | about a year ago | (#44236541)

In these things, protesting just means waiting a while. Buy a used copy.

Torn (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44236543)

On the one hand, Card is a Bigot and I've asked my wife to stop buying his new books until he's dead because that would fund his bigotry directly.

On the other, he's not the only one that made his movie; and beyond that, once a work is out of a person's brain it belongs to the public and is open to the public's interpretation. A poem in 1744 once wrote, "He raised his plastic arm." Modern audiences today might take that to mean robot even though it meant no such thin in 1744. Similarly, the Xenocide story is actually a very warming story about acceptance of the "other". And while Card did not intend for it to be a parallel to the plight of gay people or other people who he chooses to persecute, it can be taken that way and likely will be in the future when this man is dead and buried.

I'm not sure if I want to punish everyone else involved and possibly contribute to burying the very works that might best undo Card's words and actions. I have a feeling I will see the movie and simultaneously make a donation to the LGBT cause and simply split the baby.

Meh (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44236561)

There are people who disagree strongly on the subject of gay marriage. Only recently did this become an issue. Orson Scott Card holds a view that many others hold. Since Card is a Mormon, it is not surprising that he holds this view. Opposition to gay marriage is a religious view. Are we screening out what we read because of religion? "I can't watch a movie by a Jew or a Catholic or a Mormon because they hold views I disagree with." Sounds like intolerance to me. Are we suggesting returning to the black listings of McCarthyism?

I recently read the book and am going to watch the movie. It's not like the movie demonizes gays. In fact homosexuality isn't even mentioned. I did not become a Mormon after reading the book and I am not going to become one after watching this movie. I don't really care what Card's views on gay marriage are. They have nothing to do with my enjoyment of Ender's Game.

actual quotes from card (1)

nimbius (983462) | about a year ago | (#44236567)

from the googles, not hard to find most of these. For the record, as a gay man, there is absolutely no future tolerance for a person or group of people who have systematically enacted legislation and perpetuated stereotypes and outright lies to justify my existence as a second class citizen. Its like after the 1964 civil rights amendment, you issue a statement calling for tolerance and respect of the view that interracial marriage is an abomination. Not surprisingly, Card is a member of the National Organization for Marriage, a group thats equated gays to the downfall of organized religion and government, and largely bankrolled californias proposition 8.

"Regardless of law, marriage has only one definition, and any government that attempts to change it is my mortal enemy. I will act to destroy that government and bring it down, so it can be replaced with a government that will respect and support marriage..."

"The first and greatest threat from court decisions in California and Massachusetts, giving legal recognition to "gay marriage," is that it marks the end of democracy in America. "

"And if you choose to home-school your children so they are not propagandized with the "normality" of "gay marriage," you will find more states trying to do as California is doing -- making it illegal to take your children out of the propaganda mill that our schools are rapidly becoming."

"in another column I will talk seriously and candidly about the state of scientific research on the causes of homosexuality, and the reasons why homosexuality persists even though it does not provide a reproductive advantage."

Messages of Enders game (4, Insightful)

caffiend666 (598633) | about a year ago | (#44236575)

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.

Good write up about a whiner. (1)

fredrated (639554) | about a year ago | (#44236581)

He trashes others, now he whines that others may trash him. I think I will skip the movie.
I read the book and enjoyed it, except the part where the protagonist always advanced by kicking others in the balls (as my fading memory recalls). There is an irony here somewhere.

Oddly enough... (1)

emagery (914122) | about a year ago | (#44236583)

the remainder of the series after Ender's Game deals with coming to an understanding with and realizing that the 'bad guys' weren't actually bad... which kinda IS a message of tolerance. Sounds like he's a conflicted and confused person, to me... just as the rest of us are on one topic or another.

Every gay opposing plural marriage is a bigot (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44236585)

I have not heard any reason for allowing same-sex marriage that will not apply to all forms of plural marriage. Personally I think government should butt out of the marriage control business completely. Thanks for reminding me to go see the movie.

Wow, did he ever call it: (5, Insightful)

Orgasmatron (8103) | about a year ago | (#44236599)

From 2004 [ornery.org] :
 

And we all know the course this thing will follow. Anyone who opposes this edict will be branded a bigot; any schoolchild who questions the legitimacy of homosexual marriage will be expelled for "hate speech." The fanatical Left will insist that anyone who upholds the fundamental meaning that marriage has always had, everywhere, until this generation, is a "homophobe" and therefore mentally ill.

Easy solution (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44236605)

I read Ender's Game many years ago (before I knew the kind of bigoted asshat Card is), and thoroughly enjoyed it. Based on that, I do want to watch the movie.

On the other hand, I don't want to make a financial contribution (however small) towards him, because of his views and actions which I find abhorrent.

I guess I'll just have to pirate it then :)

I bet the studio... (1)

babymac (312364) | about a year ago | (#44236611)

LOVES the fact that Card chose to open his mouth on this immediately prior to the movie's release!

Just ban all marriage (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44236617)

Don't worry about the film, lets just get the government out of ALL marriage. Marriage is a disgusting, filthy practice that is sexist oppression by itself, so OSC's problem shouldn't be that he objects to gay marriage but that he doesn't go far enough in objecting to marriage at all.

Oh, that's the problem? (1)

Lord Kano (13027) | about a year ago | (#44236623)

Not the fact that he belonged to a church that taught that people of African descent were cursed by God?

Hypocrite much, liberal crusaders?

LK

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?