The Sword and Laser discussion
For your OSC problem
date
newest »
newest »
Rick wrote: "Jo - Card's trick is an old troll trick to evade responsibility. You can say anything, no matter how offensive or outrageous, if you follow it with "Just Kidding!!," It's juvenile bullshit.
And..."
Agreed, and the point should be made that he used Obama for his 'hypothetical' scenario. When you choose to use a public figure as an example you don't get out of criticism for what you 'hypothetically' said about them by saying 'just kidding'. Whether that figure is Bush or Obama.
For those cheese fanatics upthread, read Jasper Fforde's The Eyre Affair, wherein cheese is a proscribed substance, leading to an illicit trade in cross border cheese smuggling.
Jo wrote: "Am I the only one who thinks it's ridiculous when people start insisting they know what Card *really* meant even when Card specifically wrote that it was nothing more than a thought experiment?"JAQing off is the act of spouting accusations while hiding behind the claim that one is "Just Asking Questions." The strategy is to keep asking leading questions in an attempt to influence listeners' views; the term is derived from the frequent claim by the questioner that they are "just asking questions," albeit in a manner much the same as political push polls.
See also: South Park, "Dances with Smurfs"
Jo wrote: "Or, of course, we can all assume you have the real skinny on what motivates someone else."...or we can read more of his writing on the subject and draw conclusions from the weight of evidence.
Jo wrote: "Sean, I'm not sure who you think is just asking questions here."Card, quite obviously -- that's the point of qualifying his paranoid fantasy with, "This is purely hypothetical, of course."
And even if we accept that it's just a thought experiment, that doesn't excuse the fact that he's just updating The Turner Diaries without even bothering to hide the racist twaddle:
The NaPo will be recruited from "young out-of-work urban men" and it will be hailed as a cure for the economic malaise of the inner cities.
In other words, Obama will put a thin veneer of training and military structure on urban gangs, and send them out to channel their violence against Obama's enemies.
We all understand that when Card talks about "urban men" he's using a code word for, "scary black people," right? His whole hypothetical is built around the idea of a race-war with blacks and maybe Hispanics as the bad guys. This is indefensible.
Jo wrote: "I'm utterly sick of manufactured outrage. If you want to attack someone, attack them based on what they have said. Not on what you've read they said, and not on something they've explicitly claimed they don't believe."Oh, it's not manufactured. OSC is living in some head space around here, rent free. But don't mention there might be another way to look at it!
https://sphotos-b-atl.xx.fbcdn.net/hp...
Not every gay person is pro-hate, btw. Some are more interested in more logical and peaceful ways of dealing with the issue. http://m.hollywoodreporter.com/heat-v...
(Edit: Pro-hate is a bit harsher than what I intended, but I'll leave that sentence to stand without changing it. I don't believe in editing statements on boards for more than spelling errors. Hate against Card, was what I meant. Also, most of OSC's most vocal opponents here are not gay anyway. Sorry about that, it came out completely wrong.)
I've been listening to the old podcasts for a while now, and it's pretty clear that higher ups of S&L have taken the Neil Gaiman approach to OSC. And yet... we're still dealing with this every week.
Gary wrote: "Jo wrote: "Or, of course, we can all assume you have the real skinny on what motivates someone else."...or we can read more of his writing on the subject and draw conclusions from the weight of e..."
Precisely. Jo seems very eager to ignore what OSC has actually written and keeps complaining about everyone else claiming to know what he thinks. We claim to know what he thinks *because he keeps telling us*.
Nice bigotry there Thane.
Apology not accepted I guess. If only we were all as perfect as Rick.
Thane wrote: "Not every gay person is pro-hate, btw. Some are more interested in more logical and peaceful ways of dealing with the issue. http://m.hollywoodreporter.com/heat-v..."From the article: "There's so much good to be done right now," Black wrote on his Facebook page Saturday. "Boycotting a movie made by 99% lgbt equality folks in an lgbt equality industry is a waste of our collective energy. Making one phone call to a relative in the south who isn't quite there yet would be 1000 times more effective."
Why can't we do both and then more? I can boycott the movie while I am calling relatives and volunteering to help homeless LGBT teens. They are not mutually exclusive.
From the article: On Facebook, Black added to his original post, writing in the comments: "The homophobic novelist who wrote the book hasn't been involved in decades. Misguided boycott."
Wrong. OSC joined the board of directors of NOM (National Organization for Marriage) in 2009 and only stepped down a few weeks ago (after his be-tolerant-of-my-intolerance plea). NOM is itself responsible for numerous calls to boycott, among dozens of other political activities to deny LGBTs rights. That means he belonged to the board of an organization whose president, Brian Brown, said he wants to take away kids from same-sex couples. Maybe the quote is referring to OSC's quote from 1990 where he is quoted saying that LGBTs need to be jailed under sodomy laws from time to time just to make a point that same-sex relations aren't acceptable. He has never retracted that statement as far as I know. He also spreads lies about LGBTs saying that same-sex attraction comes from being abused in childhood among other lies.
From the article: On July 8, Card attempted to head off criticism of his views, issuing a statement to Entertainment Weekly saying the book was unrelated to his views. He asked for "tolerance" from supporters of same-sex marriage because "with the recent Supreme Court ruling, the gay marriage issue becomes moot."
The point is not moot until equality is achieved. Two-thirds of the states still have a ban against it. And apparently showing OSC tolerance is spending money so he can make more of it.
Lastly, I'd just feel dirty walking into a movie theatre or sitting with OSC's book while holding my girlfriend's hand. It would feel like a betrayal...
Has anyone else noted as soon as equality groups has called for boycotting everything the bigot OSC stands for (his books and upcoming movie), the bigots and their defenders certainly started stepping up to the plate to defend their bigotry and their life in the bubble of ignorance?I for one LOVED the book Ender's Game and most of sequels. I also was looking forward to watching the movie. Guess what? I am still planning on watching Ender's Game.... I plan on watching it in the comfort of my home hours after someone in Hong Kong burns it on a DVD.
Hm. I thought Black meant OSC wasn't involved in the movie, and has had little to do with it since he sold the rights.
Thane wrote: ""Probably not the best guy to site on issues like this.
I've been listening to the old podcasts for a while now, and it's pretty clear that higher ups of S&L have taken the Neil Gaiman approach to OSC. And yet... we're still dealing with this every week.
Yes, it's almost as though this is an open forum that permits views other than those of Tom and Veronica.
AndrewP wrote: "Thanks for posting that. It's pretty obvious here that a lot of people are making comments without having read the essay. Particularly what he says in the end..."Will these things happen? Of course not. This was an experiment in fictional thinking." "
...said the lawyers who made him include that stuff.
Please notice his previous writings which don't have such disclaimers and are equally vile. Also note that said disclaimers only came into existence once people started threatening to hit him in the wallet by boycotting his crap.
Jo wrote: "Am I the only one who thinks it's ridiculous when people start insisting they know what Card *really* meant even when Card specifically wrote that it was nothing more than a thought experiment? "Yes. Because Card has been writing such shit for years. He's been actively engaged in organizations who work to deny people their basic rights and he's proven time and again that he is a racist nutjob who is one step away from being a militia member.
Anyone who thinks he's playacting is a full-on moron and isn't paying attention.
Michele wrote: "I'm curious, how many of you consider OSC to be an actual threat in any way? I mean, do you think he has or may gain enough followers make you feel threatened by his ability to influence the genera..."I think he's hugely influential. He has thrown millions of dollars at hate groups to further their aims and has raised millions more. Money drowns out free speech in America, in case you haven't noticed.
He's also extremely influential on science fiction and fantasy writers, who in turn defend him and spread his disease. That extends his reach beyond his little coterie of crazy kooks into millions of readers.
Sean wrote: "Thane wrote: ""Probably not the best guy to site on issues like this.
I've been listening to the old podcasts for a while now, and it's pretty clear that higher ups of S&L have taken the Neil Ga..."
Huh, hadn't heard of that. I'll file it under Gaiman. The cartoon is still true enough.
Of course you can think for yourself, but why be so repetitive on the same subject?
Jo wrote: "I submit that many of you folks are living in a bubble because you actively want to hate Orson Scott Card."I, for one, don't want to hate OSC (and don't in fact hate him). He is--and has long been--my favorite SF author. But it saddens me to see how many of his opinions on political and social issues are rooted in fictions that are just as complex as anything he's invented for his novels.
Jo wrote: "I've met the man; I've talked to him. In my experience, he's a reasonable person who happens to be open to discussion, even with folks who disagree with him. And he manages to have very polite, thoughtful conversations about these subjects. And he's quick to admit when someone else makes a strong point."That's interesting. When and where did you meet him?
Jo wrote: "Of course Card *must* believe Obama wants to create urban gangs to act as his personal police force. Eyeroll."
Just to clarify: I don't think for one second that OSC actually believes that Obama wants to create urban gangs to act as a police force. It's ridiculous. Card is not a particularly intelligent or creative individual, but he's not so stupid as to think the President of the United States would either be able, or need to create a personal police force recruited from inner cities. It's childishly silly.
However, I do think that's why he wrote it. He wrote it because it's childishly silly. Racism is always childishly silly. That's the basis of racism. Oh, it has horrific and deadly long term, adult effects, but the intellectual basis of racism is a kind of elaborate playground logic run amok. It's the logic of the sandbox extended into adulthood.
OSC is playing with that sandbox level dynamic in order to create what is really a highly derivative piece of work. Every President in the history of the United States has at some point or another been called a dictator (and worse) by some fringe political opponent or another. Lincoln was called a tyrant. Washington, a despot. John Quincy Adams was accused of pimping women while he was an ambassador overseas. Clinton was accused of being a drug smuggler and a murderer. People associated Ronald Wilson Reagan with the number of letters in his name and insisted that that was the Mark of the Beast. That's business as usual in American politics. Presidents are held in the deepest of contempt by certain fringe elements of society.
Most of the time, the rest of the population recognizes that process for what it is: a pack of outrageous and silly lies told for propaganda purposes by people who claim to be disenfranchised, but who, in reality, have an awful lot of influence. After all, they have enough influence that people are going to read their opinions, no matter how ridiculous they might be. What OSC wrote in the article referenced above is little more than the 21st century equivalent of yellow journalism.
I've seen variations of that particular diatribe in one form or another dedicated to nearly every President.
However, that should in no way excuse it. It's ugly and it's vile, and people of good conscience should stand up and oppose it. OSC has behaved in a silly and childish way for years, and his activities should be exposed for what they are.
Jo wrote: "We just happen to live in the same town. As such, I've had the opportunity to meet with him, talk to him, and hear what he has to say at length."I see. As a general rule, I don't think you should be overly influenced by the fact that he's personable in public. The issue is what happens when he sits down alone with a keyboard and a checkbook and starts spewing out what is, objectively examined, some really vile hate speech.
Not to Godwinize the thread overmuch, but there's a poem that addresses this issue:
All There is to know about Adolf Eichmann
by Leonard Cohen
Eyes: Medium
Hair: Medium
Weight: Medium
Height: Medium
Distinguishing features: None
Number of fingers: Ten
Intelligence: Medium
What did you expect?
Talons?
Oversize incisors?
Green saliva?
Madness?
Of course, OSC doesn't rise to the level of Eichmann (though, I have to note he has compared Obama to Hitler.) However, there is an unpleasant reality to face when it comes to his activities. The suicide rate amongst gay teens is more than double that of the rest of the population.
From "'Striking' Risk for Suicidality, Depression in Gay Teens"
"We believe poor mental health outcomes are a function of teasing and bullying and discrimination that happens at all levels of our society but which starts in the playground."
The full article: http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/7...
So, we have a guy who writes books with teenaged or younger protagonists... and anti-gay hate speech, and who participates in anti-gay legislation as a political activist. That really ought to be seen as a problem for most folks.
OSC is, for all intents and purposes, not simply an internet bully, he's a bullying activist. I cannot tie him directly to that suicide rate. I know of no child who has killed himself or herself clutching one of his anti-gay articles in his/er hand. However, I have no doubt that he is part of the social machinery that justifies that bullying. Does he force anyone to do anything? No, of course not. He has to my knowledge never acted out physically. But his actions as a writer and an activist are depraved, and though he'd never be willing to admit this fact, they have a body count.
Jo wrote: "I've met the man; I've talked to him. In my experience, he's a reasonable person who happens to be open to discussion, even with folks who disagree with him. And he manages to have very polite, thoughtful conversations about these subjects. And he's quick to admit when someone else makes a strong point."Yes, and I'm sure George Wallace was an absolute peach in the right social settings, but as Dave Barry said, "Someone who's nice to you but rude to the waiter is not a nice person." No matter how well Card treated you, that doesn't negate that he's an outspoken bigot who's worked to deny civil rights to millions of Americans. This latest episode demonstrates that his hate-mongering goes beyond homophobia to outright racism.
Thane wrote: "Apology not accepted I guess. If only we were all as perfect as Rick."WTF Are you talking about? You made this comment "Not every gay person is pro-hate, btw." which is what spurred my comment. That doesn't come across as any kind of apology (and I"m not sure what you'd have to apologize for in any event). If you can't express your point clearly that's your issue, not mine.
And gee, I'm sorry I didn't come back every hour to monitor the discussion but you know, there's life outside of the web and I was doing other things.
Jo - You seem determined to ignore and excuse every bigoted thing Card's said or written just because you've met him and he seems nice. It's all OK as long as he say he was just kidding and it was really just an experiment in fiction.
Jo wrote: "No, he hasn't. He's written opinion pieces before expressing ideas you happen to disagree with. He's against gay marriage. He's not a fan of Obama. But he hasn't been writing whatever in the world you seem to think it is he wrote here for years."The fuck he hasn't. Go look. He's been advocating this shit for nearly two decades.
'I submit that many of you folks are living in a bubble because you actively want to hate Orson Scott Card. I submit that the bulk of Card haters have only read about Card's opinions via second or third hand sources, and often biased ones at that."
Sorry, but you're wrong gain. I've read his actual essays.
He's calling for armed insurrection against the government. He's done that repeatedly. And for what? Oh, just letting other human beings have the same rights the rest of us already have.
The guy is the next best thing to a militia member, and if you can't see that, then you have your head so far up your ass that you should be able to see your own uvula.
"I've met the man; I've talked to him. In my experience, he's a reasonable person who happens to be open to discussion, even with folks who disagree with him. And he manages to have very polite, thoughtful conversations about these subjects. And he's quick to admit when someone else makes a strong point."
He's also inciting people to violence and he's a hatemonger.
Read your Bible to see what it says about silver-tongued devils.
"And finally, all your talk of boycott has done nothing but increase the man's sales. Look at the boycott leveled against Chik-Fil-A, for example. During the boycott, the company posted record profits. "
So. Fucking. What?
I'm standing up to be counted. I'm standing against a racist, a homophobe, an anti-American hatemonger. If you think that denying people their rights is good, then you're as despicable as he is. If you agree with his call to shoot cops and soldiers and politicians over granting gay marriage, then you need your damn head examined.
The evidence is there, but you are too blind to see.
“Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves." -- Matthew 7:15
This thread is getting out of hand. No cursing at each other is called for, discuss like an adult or take your argument somewhere else, like send a private message or whatever. We are here mainly to discuss books and how scifi/fantasy can help us see things from different perspectives and be open minded. We all want a better future, and hate and anger with each other here won't get us there. Save it for the man himself, if you believe he deserves it.
Bruce wrote: "it saddens me to see how many of his opinions on political and social issues are rooted in fictions that are just as complex as anything he's invented for his novels. "Well said.
In regard to just this essay, as with all things, I think the truth lies somewhere in the middle. I'm not sure which are the most dangerous, the people who believe EVERYTHING he says or the ones who believe NOTHING he says.
The Sword and Laser
Books mentioned in this topic
Ender’s Game (other topics)You Can Move the Cheese!: The Role of an Effective Servant-Leader (other topics)
Who Moved My Cheese? An Amazing Way to Deal with Change in Your Work and in Your Life... (other topics)
His work with NOM has been pretty influential over the past couple of years. He joined the Board of Directors of that group shortly AFTER they got Prop. 8 passed in California, but he'd been writing supporting materials for their work for a good decade, and given the way money has entered politics in the American system, they've been much more influential than they should be.
Do I think he'll actually run around beating gays and putting them in prison? No, I seriously doubt he has the courage of his convictions, nor do I think he has the inclination to get his hands dirty when he can stand back and use his money and rhetoric instead. However, he'll happily be the cheerleader for the football team, and he'll deny any responsibility for the continued abuse of gays that goes on while his rhetoric rationalizes that abuse. He'll assuage the guilt and responsibility of those who actually carry out the ideals he espouses by giving them a pseudo-philosophical argument for their activities and a social buffer to fall back on, which not only perpetuates but justifies those actions. In that sense, he's quite dangerous.