If you don't go see Enders Game...

[William]

It's hard to enjoy someone's work when you don't like them personally.

[Serendi]

This has been hashed out many times in these threads. Where "many" is an understatement.

You might want to read the threads.

[Kevin]

This again ... It's very simple really. Tolkien isn't currently, actively working to install laws that prevent innocent people from having basic rights. That's all there is too it. Why do people keep complicating this?

Card being a Mormon is only a very small part of it. Brandon Sanderson is also a Mormon. You don't see people starting anti-Sanderson campaigns.

Also, there already is a film of Battlefield Earth. It even stars Travolta. Noboby needed to boycott it: it sunk on it's own because it is horrible. I would definitely boycott a new attempt. I don't go see any Tom Cruise films in theatre either. But I didn't do that even before I knew he was nuts. I just don't like him on screen.

[Alicja]

I think you completely missed the point of the boycott. The reason people decided not to see the movie is not Card's personal opinions, it is his actions. Most notably his stint on the board of directors of NOM (National Organization for Marriage). Google NOM and see what kind of hateful bs they are spreading. Additionally, NOM has disclosed that they mostly function on the donations of 6 large donors. Their list of donors is confidential but because Card had a place on the board (he quit in July, after the negative publicity surrounding his views) that he is a highly probable candidate to being one of the 6 major donors. Therefore, seeing the movie would either put more money in Card's pocket since he has also been given a producer credit or in the least would make it more popular which would mean more sales in merchandize such as toys and more likely another movie, both which would put money in Card's pocket and therefore to NOM, who is politically active in denying citizens equal rights.

Additionally, yes, I would not be able to enjoy seeing a movie that was written by someone who has expressed such disdain for LGBTs, and who has actively participated in politics so that my girlfriend and I did not have equal rights. Many of my straight friends are of similar opinions, they do not wish to support monetarily someone who does not respect their LGBT friends, family, neighbors, etc.

A boycott is not about art, it is about money. I have read/viewed/listened to/etc. art by those I don't agree with but they are dead and can't effect current policies. For those alive, activism is the important line for me. I refuse to watch anything put out by Tom cruise because his activism against psychiatric drugs, regardless of issues that need to be resolved (and there are good critiques out there about overmedication), a flat out, uninformed rejection of psychiatric drugs is harmful and not just to the person that should be on them but maybe also to those around that person. I consider Card's activism similarly.

Saying that just because we couldn't possibly know if anything we do goes to support something we disagree with then we shouldn't do anything at all is just idiotic (mind, I didn't call you an idiot, just the reasoning behind this is idiotic). Since we can't make the world perfect then we shouldn't even try? It is all about the individual battles and even though we live most our lives in blissful ignorance when it comes to most consumer products doesn't mean that we shouldn't respond when we do find out that something is unjust or that someone is politically active in taking away the rights of others (like I have a long standing boycott of Wal-Mart for their numerous disgusting practices; I don't kid myself that I, as a one person, make a real difference but that does not mean that I should instead ignore it because I couldn't possibly boycott every company that sold products made by child labor, slave labor, or treated their employees like crap, etc.).

Lastly, the Mormon excuse is complete bullshit. There is another author, Brandon Sanderson, he is a Mormon and for the longest time he was against gay marriage. Actually, I think he is still against gay marriage, just for civil unions now, although this change only occurred in the last couple of years. So, why do I not boycott him? Because he isn't politically active. Because he is respectful and doesn't spread uninformed hate. By the way, here is an essay from him about same-sex marriage: http://brandonsanderson.com/euology-d.... We may disagree, but I appreciate his respect, openness to dialogue, and no political activism aside from casting a vote based on his conscience. There is a difference between respectful disagreement and spreading hateful words and lies while funding organizations deemed hate groups by the Southern Poverty Law Center.

[Andrew]

Okay so that prompted some comment.

So I apologise if this has been hashed over somewhere else, I should have looked better elsewhere.

My comments were based on what I heard on the S and L podcast, and they are not a criticism of what anyone said on the podcast, they're an observation on how all of us, me included, need to be careful about taking a moral position, and making that consistnet. I'm saying this to myself as much as anyone.

Alicja - you say: "Saying that just because we couldn't possibly know if anything we do goes to support something we disagree with then we shouldn't do anything at all is just idiotic" - I agree it would be an idotic thing to say - not that I said it of course.

Also boycotting something can be about art not money. I'd boycott an artistic expression that glorifies violence against LGBT communities whether anyone was making a dime out of it or not.

What you do say that is interesting and really very encouraging is that there is a difference between someone approaching the debate in a spiteful and hateful way versus someone who approaches this issue with a genuine desire to understand where people are at and to be respectful in that engagement. I don't know enough about Sanderson's or Card's activities to judge them, but in terms of the principle I agree wholeheartedly with you.

Anyway, I think my comment still stands. If we are going to engage with the art through who the artist is, what they do and say, we need to be consistent. I'm saying to myself as much as anyone, I need to be consistent.

[Andrew]

PS.. thanks to Alicja as well for the Sanderson link, I like a lot of what he says, I think most of all I like the tone in which he says it, honest and respect are a great context for the debate.

[Alicja]

Andrew wrote: "Assuming we all want to have a reasonably consistent moral position does this mean we need to check out the opinions of all of the people who's work we engage with? Whether that's in book or film or whatever? "

This is the comment I was addressing. It is impossible to check everything out and it may not be practical to boycott something (for example, I may have issues with the oil industry but it is impossible for me to drive an electric car due for many reasons and too expensive for other alternate fuel options in my area). However, if we take the time when we stumble upon something that seems wrong, we should consider whether it is realistic to boycott that product. Consistency doesn't have to mean boycott everything you disagree with and spend your days looking for stuff to boycott. Consistency means that I will boycott Hershey for the use of child labor just as much as Victoria's Secret when I found out they had ties to child labor. These are both products that living without does not place an extraordinary hardship on me, I can happily live without them, and it is a stand against using child labor. Do I know about every company that uses child labor? Nope. Does that make me inconsistent? No, because if I find out that a company such as Microsoft uses components made in factories that use child labor (and so does Apple by the way), since realistically I can't not use a computer, I just try to limit buying Microsoft products as much as possible (especially Xbox, mice, and keyboards since those are the ones the company is accused of purchasing, kids working 16 hour days making .65 cents an hour). It is practical, it is about limiting our negative impact and I don't find that inconsistent.

[Gary]

Andrew wrote: "Assuming we all want to have a reasonably consistent moral position does this mean we need to check out the opinions of all of the people who's work we engage with? Whether that's in book or film or whatever?"

From what I can tell, the people who have supported a boycott are pretty consistent, and I don't see any reason to wonder if their views aren't being expressed across the range of their activities any more or less than any other person. Are folks who boycott a film because of the homophobic work of the author of the book upon which it is based going to then ignore the rest of the political world? I don't think that something like a boycott appears randomly in some person's mind and then disappears when the film goes out of theaters.

When it becomes common knowledge that an author has advocated the violent overthrow of the government, supported keeping legislation on the books that would arbitrarily imprison homosexuals, and has worked on the board of directors for a PAC that supports those causes, it is reasonable to assume that the people who have been paying attention in OSC's case are going to also pay attention in comparable situations.

In all honesty, I find the question a little suspect. It seems to assume that the political ideas of people who are demonstrably informed about the political work of a particular person are otherwise inconsistent in the rest of their political views. There's a whole marketing campaign to portray so-called "liberals" as flaky and scattered, and it seems to me that the question itself is an attempt to paint them yet again with that brush.

So, I have to ask: why would you ask? Why question the consistency of people engaging in a very typical form of political discourse?

[Rick]

Serendi wrote: "This has been hashed out many times in these threads. Where "many" is an understatement.

You might want to read the threads."

This. Starting another thread on this, in the wrong folder to boot, is basically trolling. The site has search. Use it.

PS: they're an observation on how all of us, me included, need to be careful about taking a moral position, and making that consistent. I'm saying this to myself as much as anyone.

Don't tell other people how to make moral judgements.

[Sean]

Andrew wrote: "Anyway, I think my comment still stands. If we are going to engage with the art through who the artist is, what they do and say, we need to be consistent"

Unsupported assertion.

[Pickle]

William wrote: "It's hard to enjoy someone's work when you don't like them personally."

have you met him personally to make that judgement?

[Gary]

Pickle wrote: "have you met him personally to make that judgement?"

You have to have a face to face to make a personal decision?

OSC has given up an awful lot of his personal character in his writing and political work. I don't think it makes a lot of sense to require an introduction in this day and age, if it ever did. I don't personally like Charles Manson, Pol Pot or Justin Bieber. I don't think I have to have tea with those guys to make that assessment.

[William]

I can dislike someone personally and be wrong.
You don't have to be right to feel something.
It's the feeling that makes it difficult to enjoy the work.
It's a road block.
I don't enjoy Tom Cruise or Sean Connery films anymore either.
The less I know about you, the better.

[Ruth (tilltab) Ashworth]

Andrew wrote: "If we are going to engage with the art through who the artist is, what they do and say, we need to be consistent."

I disagree that we need to be consistent with these kinds of things. Everyone has their own ideas of what may, or may not be acceptable, and since it is a personal choice, I don't really see how consistency is relevant. I mean, who could say what is and isn't consistent within the workings of each individual?

And I agree with what William says; it isn't always a choice. You may wish to judge by art alone, but it isn't always so easy to put information about the artist to one side. There is music I used to love, for example, that I now cannot listen to because of recent stories about one of the artists responsible. The music hasn't changed, but my feelings towards it cannot be the same, because I cannot forget or disconnect the art from the artist in this case.

[Gary]

I think it also needs to be noted that "consistency" also includes some ability to measure the seriousness and effect of the situation. Offhand, drunken anti-Semitic comments from Mel Gibson don't rank as high as a lifelong writing against gay rights and participation at the board level of a political action committee. They are demonstrably and numerically (in terms of $ spent) different in scope, scale, time invested and vehemence.

The call for "consistency" in regards to OSC's work invariable suggests that those who support a boycott must then go through every entertainment activity they participate in and investigate all those who to those activities, so that they can be given the same treatment should they disagree with the boycott supporter. This is an absurd stance. OSC has made a display of his views, and those views are beyond the drunken rant or even sober stupidity. Those who make the "consistency" argument seem unable recognize the of the breadth of OSC's activities. Either they minimize them as "just free speech" or ignore them altogether. It may be that they are unaware of the extent of his work or the extreme nature of his position, or they may be ignoring it intentionally, but either way, it's really not a well informed or formulated stance.