Ender's Game (Ender's Saga, #1) Ender's Game discussion


566 views
Boycotters - You believe someone shouldn't get paid for their work if they have different beliefs than you do?

Comments Showing 1-50 of 173 (173 new)    post a comment »
« previous 1 3 4

Jacob I haven't called for the movie to be boycotted, and I read the book long before this all came about, but I wouldn't want any of MY money to go to Card, or people who I feel hold hateful and discriminatory beliefs. I would even go so far as to suggest to people who are strongly opposed to his speech and actions to not give their money to his projects. But if someone wants to read his books then of course he should get money from them.


Brian Short answer - yes

Longer answer - only when it is something major and topical happening in the world today, and if they use their belief to cause harm to others.

I love plenty of authors that have different beliefs than I do (religious, political, etc.) but these are often areas of open debate, and they are usually not hurting others.

I also love Brandon Sanderson, who has some anti-gay sentiments. Not terrible mind you, as he believes that marriage should be a religious term and the church(es) can decide who to include, while civic unions should be government sponsored and that can include gay people. Not exactly what I believe, but he is torn between his faith and what he sees in the world, and he is not spewing hate. I can live with that.

Orson Scott Card actively advocates against gay people. He is hurtful. And anyone that believes that gay people should not have equal rights is wrong. This is not open to debate among any decent human beings. Advocating inequality for gay people today is the same as advocating inequality for black people in the 60s or women in the 20s. History will prove that these people are bigots.


Eden Fenn The question seems to imply that all differences of belief are created equal.

A more relevant question: If an author of enjoyable books was using the fame garnered by those books to promote a segregationist or Nazi perspective, could you in good conscience continue to finance that author's career?

It's an apt comparison as anti-gay movement aims mirror the goals of segregationists (see the "gay Jim Crow" laws nearly passed in several states, and only averted for fear of national ridicule) and Nazis (the recent laws passed in African nations like Uganda, with American missionary influence, and Russia).

I'll support a great author who disagrees with my beliefs, unless I believe he is actively advancing a mission to dehumanize a group of people.


message 4: by Raptori (last edited Apr 30, 2014 11:54AM) (new) - rated it 5 stars

Raptori In addition to what those above have said - and by far the most important aspect for me - Card actively gives money to organisations that campaign against equal rights. An increase in earnings for Card is likely to mean an increase in funding for those organisations.

So for example Evan was slightly off with his analogy - it's not just using the fame to promote it, it's using some of the money you spent on your ticket to actively fund it.

For me that's a big difference.


message 5: by Matthew (last edited Apr 30, 2014 01:35PM) (new) - rated it 3 stars

Matthew Williams Of course not. It comes down to them using our money, which we pay them by endorsing their work, to advance these beliefs. Which is precisely what the whole boycott against Card is all about. As a board member of NOAM and as an individual, he has dedicated himself and his financial resources to both criminalizing gay behavior and repealing gay marriage for the past two and a half decades.

Somehow, this is lost on certain people who try to distill it all and make it about tolerance for Card's views, which is little more than a repetition of what Card himself has tried to say about how he and his ilk are not being tolerated. Under the circumstances, this is abundantly hypocritical.


Brian I just want to point out that I answered the question as "yes" because I answered the question in the literal way it was asked. Matthew answered the question as "of course not" because he answered the spirit of the question.

Yet, we agree. This is the problem with asking a question as a negative.


Matthew Williams Brian wrote: "I just want to point out that I answered the question as "yes" because I answered the question in the literal way it was asked. Matthew answered the question as "of course not" because he answered..."

Bingo! It's a loaded one, and betrays the fact that the person asking the question is deliberately slanting it.


Brian Matthew wrote: Bingo! It's a loaded one, and betrays the fact that the person asking the question is deliberately slanting it.

Yep. I am awaiting a response. If there is one.


Bill Golden http://www.thewrap.com/orson-scott-ca...

10 seconds of Google tells me that people who boycotted the movie were too blinded by their ideology to actually do their homework.

Can we get back to real issues like child soldiers in Africa, genocide, and the growing number of veterans who have come back from recent conflicts disabled in some way (psychologically and physically)? It would sure make a nice change of pace.


message 10: by Raptori (last edited Apr 30, 2014 02:58PM) (new) - rated it 5 stars

Raptori 10 seconds of logic proves that the fact he won't directly earn money from the tickets is irrelevant. OSC has written a lot of books. A lot of them are popular (I myself like a lot of them).

If this film had been a hit, and there had been no issues with his actions, then it'd be reasonable to assume that someone would take up the option to buy up some of his other stories. Boycotting the film is a reasonable action to prevent that from happening - and judging by how big an issue it became, and how badly the film did, it may well have worked.

Can we stop pretending that we can only fight against a set number of issues at any given time please? We can fight against child soldiers, genocide, climate change, and inequality all at the same time. It's not mutually exclusive.


message 11: by Gary (last edited Apr 30, 2014 03:00PM) (new) - rated it 2 stars

Gary "You believe someone shouldn't get paid for their work if they have different beliefs than you do?"

Which boycotters are you asking? Are you asking the people who supported the boycott of the film, or the people who support Orson Scott Card's National Organization of Marriage boycott of Starbucks? Are you talking about all boycotts of any kind at all?


Matthew Williams RaptorSaur wrote: "10 seconds of logic proves that the fact he won't directly earn money from the tickets is irrelevant. OSC has written a lot of books. A lot of them are popular (I myself like a lot of them).

If th..."


Never mind the troll, Raptor. He's got a massive personality disorder and reacts violently to disagreement. And previous arguments made by him in other forums have shown he doesn't look at his sources too closely in is mad drive to make an argument.

Save yourself the time, it never ends well with him.


Matthew Williams Gary wrote: ""You believe someone shouldn't get paid for their work if they have different beliefs than you do?"

Which boycotters are you asking? Are you asking the people who supported the boycott of the fil..."


Booya, Gary! Got a link for their boycott? There are many who claimed the boycott against Card was censorship and intolerance. I would very much like to rub their noses in that delicious hypocrisy.


message 14: by Xdyj (last edited May 02, 2014 04:39PM) (new) - rated it 4 stars

Xdyj We live in a market economy, which means that "getting paid for one's work" is not an absolute right & people get paid for their work ONLY when others are willing to purchase it, and no one has any moral obligation to financially "support" any writer or any business by purchasing their works.

Bill wrote: "http://www.thewrap.com/orson-scott-ca...

10 seconds of Google tells me that people who boycotted the movie were too blinded by their ideology to actually..."


O. S. Card is an interventionist, at least according to his blog. The failure of U.S. military adventures in recent years is a major reason why there are so many "veterans who have come back from recent conflicts disabled in some way".

As to the boycott stuff, I think it should be up to individual choice, i.e. I am in favor of open discussion about potential ethical ramifications of consumer activities & let ppl decide for themselves. What I'm against is irrational, sectarian boycotts like BDS but this isn't one of those.


message 15: by Gary (last edited Apr 30, 2014 03:56PM) (new) - rated it 2 stars

Gary Matthew wrote: "Booya, Gary! Got a link for their boycott? There are many who claimed the boycott against Card was censorship and intolerance. I would very much like to rub their noses in that delicious hypocrisy."

It's right on their web page. Under "Our Work" and "Get Involved" you'll find Dump Starbucks. Dump General Mills is just under "Get Involved" for some reason. I guess Starbucks is more worthy of doubling down on....

https://www.nationformarriage.org/sit...

They aren't shy about it, but they are kind of inconsistent. Their boycotts are "activism" but boycotts about the movie are "McCarthyism."

“Gay marriage advocates are trying to build up a boycott of Ender’s Game because of Orson Scott Card’s personal views on marriage. It seems very strange to me that so many artists and people on the left are supporting the idea that to make art in the mainstream you have to have the right political opinions. This used to be considered the heart of McCarthyism: loyalty oaths for filmmakers as the condition forworking in the film industry. (These were imposed by the industry, not the government, remember, in response to public pressure). I suspect this boycott will be a failure, like the boycott of Card’s video game and like the Chick-fil-A boycott, because most of the public is more concerned with questions such as whether those waffle fries are banging or not.”

Maggie Gallagher, writing for the National Review


message 16: by Bill (new) - rated it 5 stars

Bill Golden RaptorSaur wrote: "If this film had been a hit, and there had been no issues with his actions, then it'd be reasonable to assume that someone would take up the option to buy up some of his other stories. Boycotting the film is a reasonable action to prevent that from happening - and judging by how big an issue it became, and how badly the film did, it may well have worked."

That's a mighty tall stack of "ifs," but there was no way in hell that the movie was going to be a success, even if Card himself had walked out on stage for a promotional gig and kissed a gay man on the lips (with tongue).

The release date pretty much doomed it from the get-go. Unless it gets a summer blockbuster release (May to August), an Oscar nod release (late December to January), or is based on a JRR Tolkien novel, it's just not going to do well financially.

(The sole other exception is horror movie in October... and even that window is shrinking).

EVEN IF the movie somehow survived the bad release date and protests... there's no way the studio would pay Card for the rights to sequels, because they would be protested straight into bankruptcy by the preachers of "tolerance." Unless a deal had already been struck and paid for, "Speaker for the Dead" and "Xenocide" would remain unmade due to the mere potential for controversy.

I'll still buy any books related to Ender's Game that I don't already possess (maybe 1? I'll have to look), because I regard the message of those books to be much more important to disseminate than the author's views on pretty damned near anything else. It's a message that has been downplayed and cheapened by the boycott crowd, however, and that will continue to piss me off.


message 17: by Alicja (new)

Alicja You believe someone shouldn't get paid for their work if they have different beliefs than you do?

First, how is this relevant anymore? Didn't the movie come out back in November? Can't convince anyone to boycott or not boycott it anymore.

How about all those LGBT writers/movies who I am sure Card has never bought/supported financially. Should those writers not be paid for their work just because they have different beliefs or because of who they are? You can still be fired in 29 states just for being gay, shouldn't those people be able to make a living?

Personally, I love sci fi, movies especially. But I didn't go because I tend to avoid places where I would feel uncomfortable holding my girlfriend's hand. Apparently Card's message in Ender's Game doesn't include all people, and why would I pay to go somewhere, see something when I'm not wanted?


message 18: by Gary (new) - rated it 2 stars

Gary Alicja wrote: "First, how is this relevant anymore? Didn't the movie come out back in November?"

People are now obligated to run out and buy the DVD or Blu-ray or they are stomping all over OSC's right to advocate the violent overthrow of the Constitution.


message 19: by Alicja (new)

Alicja Gary wrote: "Alicja wrote: "First, how is this relevant anymore? Didn't the movie come out back in November?"

People are now obligated to run out and buy the DVD or Blu-ray or they are stomping all over OSC's ..."


Ah DVD sales... makes sense. I know gay people who have checked his books out the library to read or watched the movie without paying, they don't feel comfortable supporting him or anyone associated with his name monetarily but they still liked his message. Its whatever you feel comfortable with, an individual choice.

And everyone makes consumer choices every single day, from the brand of bread we buy to the car we drive and the entertainment we consume. We make choices based on many reasons, some moral. Why is this any different than boycotting Starbucks? Which by the way I do anyway because their coffee tastes like crap. I don't like crappy coffee and I don't like bigots donating money to anti-LGBT causes. Same diff, I spend money on what I want.


message 20: by Ed (new) - rated it 4 stars

Ed So, just because I disagree with somebody I must give them money?

Because that sure as hell sounds like what some of the OSC supporters are saying.


message 21: by Gary (last edited Apr 30, 2014 06:18PM) (new) - rated it 2 stars

Gary Alicja wrote: "Ah DVD sales... makes sense."

Apparently the DVD came out in February (in time for Valentine's Day!) so the question is even tardy for that.


message 22: by Gavin (new)

Gavin Lyon Shit Film


message 23: by Gavin (new)

Gavin Lyon Absolute Drivel


message 24: by Gavin (new)

Gavin Lyon Mindless Tosh


message 25: by Bill (last edited Apr 30, 2014 08:26PM) (new) - rated it 5 stars

Bill Golden Ed wrote: "So, just because I disagree with somebody I must give them money?"

No one has said that. No one has even hinted at that.

Not a fan of sci-fi, or military fiction, or even books in general? I can understand not wanting to purchase or read Ender's Game.

Not a fan of a person's political beliefs? That's fine, too.

Organizing a protest against a film that the author had little to do with and doesn't promote the agenda you are protesting in support of? I'm sure Don Quixote would approve... but really, the only people you are punishing by doing that is the actors who put time into making the movie, the crew who put in long hours setting up and shooting the movie, and the special effects guys who made it look like a science-fiction film.

It also says you care more about the cause you are promoting by protesting than any positive message the film promotes. You may not see it that way, but it's definitely what you're doing.


Cathy Stanz Wow, never thought about Enders Game being anti gay. I thought the whole series just showed that those who are different are the ones who can change the world.
The ones who pack together with only others of like values end up fading into the background.
If you continue reading the series, you may find that "Ender" sacrifices himself for the group who hates him. Not sure how you can say that is a bad thing. Sort of an analogy of what Christ did for us.


Brian There is nothing wrong with Ender's Game. The problem is Card, which is ironic considering how tolerant the Ender series is. Or maybe Card is tolerant of everyone except gay people.


Candy Sparks I enjoy his books. I disagree with his views just as others disagree with my views. It won't stop me reading his books or watching his movies.


message 29: by Gary (last edited May 03, 2014 10:18AM) (new) - rated it 2 stars

Gary Cathy wrote: "Wow, never thought about Enders Game being anti gay."

It's funny (and a little disturbing) if you go through the book knowing about OSC's views regarding sexuality, there's a lot of creepy homoerotic content and freaky judgmental stuff. I honestly don't think the author was aware of how much he injected into the story, but if you want to give the book a reread with that in mind it becomes very revelatory.


Christian Congratulations, you've just written the most loaded question I've read all week.
The question isn't if he should be paid, it's if I should pay him. And no, I'm not going to pay a homophobic ass-hat whose writing skills have been going downhill for the last 25 years.


message 31: by Matthew (last edited May 03, 2014 12:11AM) (new) - rated it 3 stars

Matthew Williams Christian wrote: "Congratulations, you've just written the most loaded question I've read all week.
The question isn't if he should be paid, it's if I should pay him. And no, I'm not going to pay a homophobic ass-ha..."


That's true. The man's one claim to fame is that he wrote a semi-decent book 25 years ago and has been trying to milk it ever since with an endless array of sequels, prequels and spinoffs. For most authors, "one-hit wonder" is a terrible moniker to be saddled with; but in Card's case, he was more of a half-a-hit wonder.

And let's not forget the incredibly mixed message the book sends. Ender is a child who is rewarded for beating a school bully to death by being entrusted with the command of Earth's fleet, is honed and trained into a killing machine, and then unleashed against their enemy to commit genocide for which he becomes a hero.

And then when the war is over, we get a contrived twist where the last remnants of his enemy claim it was all a misunderstanding and he learns that one must show empathy to one's adversary. This is in no way meshed with the rest of the story that seemed to be saying that it was perfectly okay to inflict total destruction on an enemy in the name of self-preservation.

For those who seem to think that this book has some redeeming message, I would say they miss the obvious inconsistency. For those who seem to think this is someway negates his activities in real life, I would say they are ignorant of the obvious taking place. If Card is advocating tolerance - even for one's enemy - then how can he stand behind his beliefs, the ones that say that gay people commit a crime just by existing?


Khaalidah Muhammad-Ali There are authors who hold views with which I disagree. Some of those views I find so reprehensible that I am unable to move past them, purchase their work, read further, or in any way endorse. Others I may disagree with it not to the same degree.
I don't find it a difficult choice to make ultimately, at least not for myself. I think that overall the big difficulty comes when people wish to convince others or decide what this should mean for others. Orson Scott Card's belief rises from his religious faith, and for that reason alone I pause to criticize him too harshly. In a world where people so easily cast off their beliefs in favor of mainstream acceptance, in the face of any and every criticism and critique... I think it takes strength and courage to stand by his beliefs. Do I agree with Cards sentiments?
That's a loaded a difficult question to answer. Simply, yes and no. I believe that marriage is a religious contract that would typically not be inclusive of a gay union, but that if the government wished to join two people civilly.... who am I? Do I want to jail or harm gay people? No more that I want to jail or harm anyone else.
Did I boycott the Ender's Game film? No, not official, but I didn't put down money to watch either. The fact that I disagree in part with his views isn't enough to make me pretend I never liked Ender's Game or like some people I've seen here on GR, make a point to leave a nasty review of the book despite never having read a word of it.
I'm not even certain these things are worthy of the continued discussions.
Do as your conscience tells you and leave the rest. Literally leave the rest alone.


message 33: by Gary (new) - rated it 2 stars

Gary I think that's a reasonable stance, Khaalidah. Would that OSC were so reasonable....

Personally, I find OSC's work derivative and shallow, so for me it was 50/50 boycott and simply not bothering. I had about as much interest as I did for the whole Duck Dynasty nonsense.

Were he a more talented writer who had both extreme/lunatic views and an undue amount of influence through a leadership position in a political organization with millions at its disposal, I'd probably make the same decision. However, if I just couldn't resist seeing a film or buying another book, I'd do what I could to keep that money from going to him directly; maybe a used copy of the book, or a screener for the film. At a certain point, one has to vote with one's dollars as much as with one's ballots.


Brian Gary wrote: "I think that's a reasonable stance, Khaalidah. Would that OSC were so reasonable...."

That is also Brandon Sanderson's stance, another Mormon. I don't quite agree with it, as I have no problem with using the word marriage for a gay civic union. However, it doesn't seem particularly hateful and Sanderson doesn't give money to stop gay marriages.


message 35: by [deleted user] (new)

It's not a matter of them not getting paid, for most people. It's more of a philosophical schism. The problem for them is that they can't enjoy, experience and immerse themselves in someone's ideas if they try to go in already not agreeing that individual's ideas, regardless of the fact that the particular idea of topic isn't a prominent subject of question or relevance to the ideas expressed in Card's Ender saga.

I don't necessarily agree that people should lock themselves out of experience just because they don't agree with some of the ideas the artist expresses, but I believe that's what it is. Not to mention, being bigoted in any manor, regardless of it's level power (in Card's case it is relatively low considering we have people like the Phelps in the media) is just simply not going to go over well today, period. people are too open-minded to stand for someone like that.

Again, I think it an unhealthy option to lock yourself off from experience because of such minor reasons.


Brian Sebastian wrote: "It's not a matter of them not getting paid, for most people. It's more of a philosophical schism. The problem for them is that they can't enjoy, experience and immerse themselves in someone's ideas..."

Not true. It is a matter of not wanting to give the bigot any more money. Most of us have already read the book.


message 37: by Matthew (last edited May 03, 2014 02:34PM) (new) - rated it 3 stars

Matthew Williams Michaela wrote: "?"

Can't help but notice the OP has had nothing to say on the subject since asking the original, loaded, question. Michaela, we've answered your query, care to offer any rebuttal in defense of your position?


Allan Ashinoff That's kind of a thin opening statement for this thread. I think i can explain what could be the "universal take" on this subject. I have no doubt some will disagree (that why I said what "could be")

It is not that a person shouldn't be paid for their work. Everyone should be able to receive compensation for their labor. It's that a person will not be paid for their work from those who disagree with it. In other words if you don't like the subject-matter of a book then by all means don't spend your money on the book or pay to see the movie.

Sure, people are entitled to boycott the movie and speak out against the book all they like. Just like ANY person can speak, write or present on film whatever topic they choose even if others disagree with it.

Welcome to a free society (mostly). Thick skin required.


Heather dennis They are free to have that belief and if people want to buy their work and pay them thats fine. I, however, will not pay them or purchase their works and there should be no reason for me to be forced to pay them. Thats how boycotts work.

If you like his work or don't really care about his views/actions then by all means buy his works. I read enders game a long time ago as part of a required reading in college. This was long before I heard or knew about his views.


message 40: by Bill (new) - rated it 5 stars

Bill Golden Remember, people... this is a guy who, when you disagree with him, waves his "degree in English" in your face and calls you names.

Matthew wrote: "And let's not forget the incredibly mixed message the book sends."

There are no mixed messages in Ender's Game. I'm not sure what book you read, but it doesn't look anything like the one you described.

From the start, the higher ups wanted a person who was ruthless enough to kill the enemy, but not so ruthless that he would sacrifice the people under his command wantonly or carelessly (someone with empathy, which Peter lacked, and Valentine possessed too much of).

He wasn't "rewarded," unless you call being socially isolated, being set up to fail spectacularly at every turn, pushed to his physical and emotional limits to the point of physical and mental breakdown, then exiled from the planet of his birth a "reward."

Yes, exiled... because he was deemed too dangerous to fall into the hands of any one government on Earth. Some "hero."

As to the "contrived twist" argument... it was foreshadowed in the mind game. Not sure how you missed it.

...and yes, he had empathy... which is why they wanted him to be the Xenocide in the first place. The fact that he beat two kids to death, as well as the fact that he was actually fighting battles and not "simulating" them, were kept from him because he had empathy. His reaction at the end of the book (and to the mutation-causing microbes in Speaker for the Dead) stemmed from that empathy.

There's nothing contradictory here. I'm surprised that, given your "expertise" in dystopic literature, you misread this book so badly.


message 41: by Matthew (last edited May 03, 2014 11:07PM) (new) - rated it 3 stars

Matthew Williams As always, Bill, no one's listening you because they know you to be a cruel, stupid joke that has nothing to offer beyond petty insults and demeaning, hypocritical remarks. Oh, and whatever insults you've chosen to target specifically at me are useless since I've blocked you. You don't learn, do you?


message 42: by Bill (new) - rated it 5 stars

Bill Golden Matthew wrote: "As always, Bill, no one's listening you because they know you to be a cruel, stupid joke that has nothing to offer beyond petty insults and demeaning, hypocritical remarks."

The defense rests.


Matthew Williams Still not getting it, huh? Ah, the trollish ones never do...


Meran Sure, he should be paid for his work, as I am or anyone is. However, I have the freedom to not have to buy a bigot's work.

It's my opinion, just as what he writes is his. It's not only a right in outpr country, it's pretty much the law. And there's plenty of people out there to buy his efforts. I doubt he's a poor man.

Saying all that,mi question why this thread exists? Is it the opinion of the original poster that we MUST pay for his work if we don't want to? Mein Kampf still sells a lot of copies; some because it's historical.

Even if I didn't agree with the man's philosophies, I don't care for the indoctrination of young children. We have copies (from before I knew of his politics, so he already got his cash from us...) And I'm sure I could sell his work...

NOT a troll, btw...


message 45: by Ed (new) - rated it 4 stars

Ed When looking at the wording of the question, and placing it into the context of some of the rhetoric swirling around OSC's various positions, which stated that boycotting OSC's work was a violation of his 1st amendment rights, it is more than "hinted at."

My not giving money to somebody because of their opinion is not violating their rights. My asking other people to boycott is not violating anybody's rights. It's only a violation when I use coercion or lobby other people to use coercion. It's also a violation of their rights if I take their work without compensation.


message 46: by Gary (last edited May 04, 2014 09:39AM) (new) - rated it 2 stars

Gary Ed wrote: "When looking at the wording of the question, and placing it into the context of some of the rhetoric swirling around OSC's various positions, which stated that boycotting OSC's work was a violation of his 1st amendment rights, it is more than "hinted at."

Card uses an awful lot of what I call "pop Orwellian rhetoric" in his writing, particularly his essays/articles. In many ways his fiction writing is an exploration of that same process of revisionism.

I mention it because the "free speech" argument--no matter how mis-attributed and mis-represented it might be--gets brought up as part of that process. Really, if one pays attention to how these folks work, it's one of the first appeals they'll make, and not just because the stance is otherwise indefensible. It has to be cast as civil right (freedom of speech, and sometimes freedom of religion) being violated to compensate for the attack on the civil liberties of others that they are making.

In the minds of many folks, that seems to create a "balancing" effect. The logic appears to be that they can discount both sides as equally wrong/harmed and, therefore, make their decision based on emotionalism or some abstract rationale.


message 47: by Matthew (last edited May 04, 2014 09:15AM) (new) - rated it 3 stars

Matthew Williams Gary wrote: "Ed wrote: "When looking at the wording of the question, and placing it into the context of some of the rhetoric swirling around OSC's various positions, which stated that boycotting OSC's work was ..."

Well observed. It is always the first act of a skewed mind too to claim that they are under attack, always as a pretext for making their own attacks. Have you ever watched Fox News? Perfect example. The entire network's raison d'être - and this is a network that specializes in telling it reporters how to slant the news of the day and long ago fired anyone who was not conservative in their views - is that they offer some kind of balance to the mainstream "liberal media".


message 48: by Paul (new) - rated it 5 stars

Paul Harmon Considering the free market society we live in I have no problem not giving money I make to those I disagree with and this would include more authors than just OSC and in fact more areas than just authors.

I dislike Larry correia for example for his mouth and his views and will not purchase his work knowing how he feels it would be in the back of my mind and impair my ability to enjoy it even if it was good. I also wouldn't eat at chik-fil-a or buy diamonds, or watch reality TV,or FOX news, my wife won't buy make-up that tests on animals etc.

I also have certain beliefs from the "other side of the aisle" that I won't support either but no way in hell I'm getting into that because even though I lean liberal left I know in this world now having a voice against anything on that side is akin to social suicide.

So even though sometimes it's exhausting doing what I feel is right for me I have no problem with not being comfortable giving money to an idea you oppose, but these people still have a right to try and make a living. Especially when that is all they're doing vs using acquired money to promote hate i.e. the Westboro baptist scumbags.

The fact that I actually did see The Enders Game movie (through a friends rental) and it sucked ass means that I feel even more justified in not paying for it :)


message 49: by Gary (last edited May 04, 2014 02:16PM) (new) - rated it 2 stars

Gary Yeah, it's definitely become a sort of mainstream trend. In fact, at this point, I'd argue that it's a kind of lifestyle or culture. We used to call it fascism (Meran's reference to Mein Kampf in post #46 is apt because Hitler's writing is an exemplar) but really the fascists were just the most successful mid-20th century practitioners. Before that period it was more of a royalist technique/tactic.

These days the so-called conservatives have embraced it completely. They aren't actually conservative, however, if one looks at their platform. It's really more of a corporatist Brahmanism that they embrace than anything having to do with conservative ideology.

OSC is definitely a practitioner. These days it seems to be based on little more than a sense of self-promotion and personal advantage. Previously there was some sort of nationalism attached, but I don't see that anymore except, perhaps, in relation to a sense of race and the status quo as those things connect to the concept of "nation" as a whole.

Given the corporatist agenda of the current batch of "pop Orwellian rhetoricians" there's a lot of money to be made from being a voice in that community. Those with deep pockets aren't shy about their patronage--especially since it's a cost effective way of marketing. In many ways it pays for itself as the consumers actually spend money to purchase it. I think that's really the source of a lot of the present popularity of the trend.


message 50: by Paul (new) - rated it 5 stars

Paul Harmon And not for nothing but I read Ender's Game well before I knew of OSC's beliefs and I thought on several occasions that the author may be gay or at least open to it.


« previous 1 3 4
back to top