Card was a very early Internet adopter. He had an online presence in the eighties. He was also one of the first writers to write books "publicly". Allowing his fans to read chapters as he went, offering their reactions and comments.
I participated in these forums in the early nineties. And exchanged the occasional email with Card. He always seemed like a gentle and compassionate person. He rarely discussed politics directly. And his indirect comments weren't controversial.
I'd heard that he'd expressed some extreme views in publications geared at Mormons. But it didn't jibe with my experience so I discounted it.
By the mid to late nineties, he'd become much more public with his right wing views. And his online presence went form generous and compassionate to surly and belligerent.
I don't really know if Card had changed. Or if that early persona had been an act. But his views on a lot of things, including writing. Went from rather interesting to very odd.
Well, in the early to mid-’90s I heard that Card was being pressured by the leaders of the LDS to be more overtly Mormon in his writing. I don't know if that’s true or not, as I heard it third-hand from local writers. If true, though, it would explain the shift.
And for what it's worth, while his views on gay rights lead people to paint him as a right-winger, he has some rather liberal—or more accurately socialist—views when it comes to the distribution of wealth. From interviews I’ve read, he actually seems to lean left on a number of issues. By today’s standards he’d probably be considered a moderate, not a right-winger.
The manner which he expresses his views may be harsh but the idea that because he open supports a traditional view of marriage that he should not write Superman is a bit much.
He has every right to write Superman, and DC has every right to hire him to do so. But at the same time, those of us who disagree with what he says and/or how he says it have every right to not buy the book.
If I dropped every title by an author with a political/moral ethos different from mine i would buy zero comics. I liked Ultimate Iron Man. Of course, Enders Game is some of the best science fiction ever written. I'm never going to be a guy that embrases LDS theology but dammit its a free country. you are allowed to believe what you want even if i personally find it abhorrent. I havn't stopped buying Gail Simone comics because I disagree with her politics. I havn't stopped buying Alan Moore comics because he's nuts (brilliant but, face it, nuts). If Card can crank out a good compelling story with interesting characters, i'm reading.
I don't even view it as a matter of politics, but as a simple matter of right and wrong. I think he's wrong, and I don't appreciate the idea that his Superman might be used to promote that wrongness. So I won't support it. I'll pass on the comic and purchase something else instead.
You either believe in freedom of conscience, speech and thought or you don't, and if you freak out every time someone gets a JOB who doesn't agree with you, I can assure you that you do not.
I thought expressing one's opinion was freedom of speech?
And I have more of a problem with the hate in Card's speech rather than the difference of opinion.
You, sir, stated your position without rancor, and though I disagree, I appreciate your thought behind the argument and your demeanor. Thanks.
This is what I'm saying. If the CGS crew, or the podcast fans wanted to rally against him, they could. I think theres enough listeners they could maybe make a differnce. If they chose too.
i was checking out "Uncle Orson's" site to see if he was making any comments himself regarding the controversy. I came across the article above but nothing from Card directly. then again it was just a quick look around.
What has Card said that's particularly hateful or inflammatory? I looked at his wiki page and it seems that he backtracked on some of his more extreme positions (like saying that laws against homosexuality should still be on the books) decades ago. I'm not seeing how he expresses his traditionalist viewpoints in ways that are hateful, but maybe he has somewhere? I don't really have a dog in this fight, but to me it seems like some people are just trying to blackball Card (whose writing I don't particularly care for) because he's a fairly prominent person whose beliefs differ from their own. Shudder to think.
And I really, really doubt his Superman will be used to talk about traditional marriage. If for no other reason than the fact that THAT political stance can't be used as a gimmick to garner positive press coverage. ;)
it seems like some people are just trying to blackball Card (whose writing I don't particularly care for) because he's a fairly prominent person whose beliefs differ from their own. Shudder to think.
A quick google search will show you that Card has done far more than just put Romney and McCain bumperstickers on his car. He's on the board of a highly controversial organization (NOM). His essays and statements on Obama and Prop 8 are, depending on your politics, either troublesome, offensive or awesome. Card is free to do whatever he wants, but he has to realize there is fall-out to one's actions.
If I dropped every title by an author with a political/moral ethos different from mine i would buy zero comics. I liked Ultimate Iron Man. Of course, Enders Game is some of the best science fiction ever written. I'm never going to be a guy that embrases LDS theology but dammit its a free country. you are allowed to believe what you want even if i personally find it abhorrent. I havn't stopped buying Gail Simone comics because I disagree with her politics. I havn't stopped buying Alan Moore comics because he's nuts (brilliant but, face it, nuts). If Card can crank out a good compelling story with interesting characters, i'm reading.
I don't even view it as a matter of politics, but as a simple matter of right and wrong. I think he's wrong, and I don't appreciate the idea that his Superman might be used to promote that wrongness. So I won't support it. I'll pass on the comic and purchase something else instead.
This is where I am at with it, too. It is not that I need him blacklisted for his beliefs, especially as I can just choose to not buy.
And my not buying is not some roundabout way for me to take his job away. It is not so much voting against him with my dollars as it is having no interest in a Superman story that comes from the same mind and imagination as his hate speech has come from.
Simply put, I have no interest is Card's take on Truth, Justice, and the American Way.
I have a sincere issue with attaching the word "hate" to someone who has not said that they "hate" anyone. Has the man said that he "hates" gay people? I personally believe that it is flat out wrong (or sinful, if you prefer) for a man and a woman to live together in a sexual relationship without the benefit of marriage. That's my view, and I feel strongly about it. In my own affairs, I'm completely inflexible on the matter. Now, do I think my views should be codified in law? No, I do not. But here's another one. I feel the same way about downloading illegal music. It's wrong. I don't care if I'm last man on earth to say so, but it is dead wrong. But do I hate those who do it? Do I hate couples who live together? I absolutely adore and love with all of my heart so many people who do SO MANY THINGS that I believe are morally WRONG. I utterly despise this sickening view that someone who disagrees with you HATES you. It's preposterous. Maybe the tendency to quickly jump to that word says more about the person using it than the "hateful person" they are slandering with it.
I don't whether or not Card "hates" gays but he certainly advocates denying them their civil rights, which is the problem, not whether he likes or dislikes them.
I dont think the legislators who enacted Jim Crow laws "hated" African-Americans, I think they thought they were preserving their own (perverse) society. Doesn't make it any better or worse. Denial of someones rights is bad regardless of your personal feelings towards them.
Do you think that it is a denial of civil rights to say that three people can't get married? Do those who think marriage should be between two people hate anyone who would like to marry two people but can't according to the law?
I have a sincere issue with attaching the word "hate" to someone who has not said that they "hate" anyone. Has the man said that he "hates" gay people? I personally believe that it is flat out wrong (or sinful, if you prefer) for a man and a woman to live together in a sexual relationship without the benefit of marriage. That's my view, and I feel strongly about it. In my own affairs, I'm completely inflexible on the matter. Now, do I think my views should be codified in law? No, I do not. But here's another one. I feel the same way about downloading illegal music. It's wrong. I don't care if I'm last man on earth to say so, but it is dead wrong. But do I hate those who do it? Do I hate couples who live together? I absolutely adore and love with all of my heart so many people who do SO MANY THINGS that I believe are morally WRONG. I utterly despise this sickening view that someone who disagrees with you HATES you. It's preposterous. Maybe the tendency to quickly jump to that word says more about the person using it than the "hateful person" they are slandering with it.
There is nothing "off topic" about this. This fundamentally IS the topic. How do we as a community communicate with each other when we approach a topic from different worldviews. marking something as "off topic" is equevalant to turning your back on someone and disengaging from the conversation. it implies that whatever viewpoint they represent is not worthy of consideration and is to be dismissed. Nobody here deserves to be dismissed.
I don't whether or not Card "hates" gays but he certainly advocates denying them their civil rights, which is the problem, not whether he likes or dislikes them.
I dont think the legislators who enacted Jim Crow laws "hated" African-Americans, I think they thought they were preserving their own (perverse) society. Doesn't make it any better or worse. Denial of someones rights is bad regardless of your personal feelings towards them.
I will table the broader conversation of whether a denial of civil and human rights = hate and just stick with why I consider some of Card's public writings hate speech.
I specifically call the Card essay I quoted hate speech because it calls for gays and lesbians to be jailed. To be removed from the society as criminals supposedly for the good and preservation of the rest of the society. That is a more extreme argument than a discussion about whether or not the traditional definition of marriage should be maintained. That is basically an argument that gays and lesbians, by the nature of their consensual behavior, are non-citizens. And how long would he suggest such people be jailed? Should they be the same prisons as other criminals? Perhaps their own camps with pink triangles on their uniforms?
It is, as best, extreme xenophobia. But to me it reads like hate speech. ESPECIALLY as it is not just a statement of feelings, it is a call for action. It is an expression meant to stir support. Dressed up in personal belief and doctrine? Sure. But hate often is. There is often a group of peers to support and enable hate, as seen as long as there has been recorded history.
I have a sincere issue with attaching the word "hate" to someone who has not said that they "hate" anyone. Has the man said that he "hates" gay people? I personally believe that it is flat out wrong (or sinful, if you prefer) for a man and a woman to live together in a sexual relationship without the benefit of marriage. That's my view, and I feel strongly about it. In my own affairs, I'm completely inflexible on the matter. Now, do I think my views should be codified in law? No, I do not. But here's another one. I feel the same way about downloading illegal music. It's wrong. I don't care if I'm last man on earth to say so, but it is dead wrong. But do I hate those who do it? Do I hate couples who live together? I absolutely adore and love with all of my heart so many people who do SO MANY THINGS that I believe are morally WRONG. I utterly despise this sickening view that someone who disagrees with you HATES you. It's preposterous. Maybe the tendency to quickly jump to that word says more about the person using it than the "hateful person" they are slandering with it.
To answer this specifically, I don't jump to the word lightly. I feel like you are espousing not judging, but there is some presumption (or, at least, exaggeration) in saying that anyone calling Card hateful is saying, simply, that anyone that they disagree with hates. To be fair, you are yourself "quickly jumping" to presume that someone calling Card hateful is a quick jump, or that they would think that of everyone they disagree with. Or that they would think the same of you.
Personally, I don't jump to calling something hate speech lightly. There are huge amounts of my fellow citizens that believe about all sorts of things differently than I do, from matters great to small. I don't presume that they are all motivated by hate.
However, when one gets to the views that Card has publicly written about, and (here is a distinction from what you are saying about your views) when he calls for his views to be acted upon by the government, to the point of jailing fellow citizens for consensual sex with other adults, then one has crossed the line into hate speech.
I am glad to say those radical views are not ones I commonly come across.
I personally believe that it is flat out wrong (or sinful, if you prefer) for a man and a woman to live together in a sexual relationship without the benefit of marriage. That's my view, and I feel strongly about it. In my own affairs, I'm completely inflexible on the matter. Now, do I think my views should be codified in law? No, I do not. .
As someone who attends an evangelical church and lives among evangelicals, I find that this is where their argument falls apart. Evangelicals are morally opposed to what we used to call "fornicators," but if two fornicators decide to get married, hurray for them. Evangelicals will also not oppose the marriage of swingers, occultists, Scientologists, or even a murderer who wants a jailhouse marriage, even though they have problems with the lifestyle of all of them. However, two homosexuals getting married -- that's where the line is drawn. This is inconsistent at best, and selective at worst.
I would just say this: I think tax evaders should be jailed. I do not hate them. Hate is a strong word, and it suggests that someone is incapable of being reasoned with. It is employed to silence people and to shut down debate.
I personally am a Conservative Libertarian, and it is my conviction that we need to stay out of one another's affairs to the greatest degree possible, so please do not confuse my remarks as a defense of Card. They are a defense of freedom of thought, speech and conscience. I can think of nothing worse as a Christian than two Satanists getting married and having as many kids as possible, and then raising them to hate God. But it's legal, and in a free country it has to be. I abhor a witch hunt, coming from any side.
I would just say this: I think tax evaders should be jailed. I do not hate them. Hate is a strong word, and it suggests that someone is incapable of being reasoned with. It is employed to silence people and to shut down debate.
I personally am a Conservative Libertarian, and it is my conviction that we need to stay out of one another's affairs to the greatest degree possible, so please do not confuse my remarks as a defense of Card. They are a defense of freedom of thought, speech and conscience. I can think of nothing worse as a Christian than two Satanists getting married and having as many kids as possible, and then raising them to hate God. But it's legal, and in a free country it has to be. I abhor a witch hunt, coming from any side.
I respect what you are saying, and I appreciate your expanding upon it. But I think you may be misunderstanding what I am suggesting as an attempt to abridge speech or keep thought from being free. That is, simply put, not what I am calling for. So if you want to defend Card's freedom of thought, that is perfectly fine. But you are not defending it against me. As I am not arguing against his right to express himself. (And, to be fair, you may not even be talking to me. You may be talking to the people that would petition to get DC to fire him.)
For me to call what Card is saying hate speech is me making my value judgment on it, and on him. And I stand by that judgment. I find the extremity of Card's stated beliefs-- presented in a WRITTEN, PUBLIC essay. Not some fleeting comment in private caught on tape. Not some drunk comment at a bar. He wrote this and put it into the world-- to make me suspect that he is unreasonable in his feelings. Call that judgmental if you want. But there are unreasonable people in the world. And sometimes we have to make that judgment.
HOWEVER, I am not saying that he should not have the write to think what he thinks, or to publish or post it wherever he wants to. I may choose not to buy his writing because I am not at all interested in stories from his mind, but that is different from me believing he is not within his writes to express.
And I don't see how my calling expression that I am allowing him hate speech is a witch hunt. Not when one is not calling for legal consequences to be visited on the one making the expression.
Witch hunts, historically, are the things that jailed and killed those who were judged to be outsiders, with what is judged to be outsider beliefs that are too out of step with the rest of society. (You know, the sort of thing that Card is calling for in his 1990 essay- what he is calling for is, to me, an excellent example of a witch hunt). But I would not support anyone taking away his freedom of speech, or jailing him for his odious beliefs.
Unlike Card, I am willing to co-exist and society with those who would believe and live a different way than me. But I will call hate what it is when I see it. It is also my right to make that judgment. Trust me, it is nothing I enjoy doing, or seeing in the world. And it is not something I jump to quickly.
I don't think anybody was busting your balls specifically @David_D.
I don't think anyone is. But as there is talk about witch hunts and freedom of thought being made, I thought it is worth clarifying and making the distinction between making a value judgment and actually calling for the government to intervene.
So what I was trying to do is just clarify, towards better understanding.
Geez. Push something else. Off topic is not the same as "disagree"
Good luck. I'm still trying to figure out how people don't understand you can "disagree" with an opinion. "Disliking" an opinion (verses disliking a statement of fact) doesn't make sense. Maybe its the placement of feedback icon.
Comments
And for what it's worth, while his views on gay rights lead people to paint him as a right-winger, he has some rather liberal—or more accurately socialist—views when it comes to the distribution of wealth. From interviews I’ve read, he actually seems to lean left on a number of issues. By today’s standards he’d probably be considered a moderate, not a right-winger.
The Guardian:
DC Comics under fire for hiring anti-gay writer to pen Superman
And I have more of a problem with the hate in Card's speech rather than the difference of opinion.
You, sir, stated your position without rancor, and though I disagree, I appreciate your thought behind the argument and your demeanor. Thanks.
chris
And I really, really doubt his Superman will be used to talk about traditional marriage. If for no other reason than the fact that THAT political stance can't be used as a gimmick to garner positive press coverage. ;)
And my not buying is not some roundabout way for me to take his job away. It is not so much voting against him with my dollars as it is having no interest in a Superman story that comes from the same mind and imagination as his hate speech has come from.
Simply put, I have no interest is Card's take on Truth, Justice, and the American Way.
I dont think the legislators who enacted Jim Crow laws "hated" African-Americans, I think they thought they were preserving their own (perverse) society. Doesn't make it any better or worse. Denial of someones rights is bad regardless of your personal feelings towards them.
again.
NOBODY HERE DESERVES TO BE DISMISSED.
I specifically call the Card essay I quoted hate speech because it calls for gays and lesbians to be jailed. To be removed from the society as criminals supposedly for the good and preservation of the rest of the society. That is a more extreme argument than a discussion about whether or not the traditional definition of marriage should be maintained. That is basically an argument that gays and lesbians, by the nature of their consensual behavior, are non-citizens. And how long would he suggest such people be jailed? Should they be the same prisons as other criminals? Perhaps their own camps with pink triangles on their uniforms?
It is, as best, extreme xenophobia. But to me it reads like hate speech. ESPECIALLY as it is not just a statement of feelings, it is a call for action. It is an expression meant to stir support. Dressed up in personal belief and doctrine? Sure. But hate often is. There is often a group of peers to support and enable hate, as seen as long as there has been recorded history.
Personally, I don't jump to calling something hate speech lightly. There are huge amounts of my fellow citizens that believe about all sorts of things differently than I do, from matters great to small. I don't presume that they are all motivated by hate.
However, when one gets to the views that Card has publicly written about, and (here is a distinction from what you are saying about your views) when he calls for his views to be acted upon by the government, to the point of jailing fellow citizens for consensual sex with other adults, then one has crossed the line into hate speech.
I am glad to say those radical views are not ones I commonly come across.
I personally am a Conservative Libertarian, and it is my conviction that we need to stay out of one another's affairs to the greatest degree possible, so please do not confuse my remarks as a defense of Card. They are a defense of freedom of thought, speech and conscience. I can think of nothing worse as a Christian than two Satanists getting married and having as many kids as possible, and then raising them to hate God. But it's legal, and in a free country it has to be. I abhor a witch hunt, coming from any side.
For me to call what Card is saying hate speech is me making my value judgment on it, and on him. And I stand by that judgment. I find the extremity of Card's stated beliefs-- presented in a WRITTEN, PUBLIC essay. Not some fleeting comment in private caught on tape. Not some drunk comment at a bar. He wrote this and put it into the world-- to make me suspect that he is unreasonable in his feelings. Call that judgmental if you want. But there are unreasonable people in the world. And sometimes we have to make that judgment.
HOWEVER, I am not saying that he should not have the write to think what he thinks, or to publish or post it wherever he wants to. I may choose not to buy his writing because I am not at all interested in stories from his mind, but that is different from me believing he is not within his writes to express.
And I don't see how my calling expression that I am allowing him hate speech is a witch hunt. Not when one is not calling for legal consequences to be visited on the one making the expression.
Witch hunts, historically, are the things that jailed and killed those who were judged to be outsiders, with what is judged to be outsider beliefs that are too out of step with the rest of society. (You know, the sort of thing that Card is calling for in his 1990 essay- what he is calling for is, to me, an excellent example of a witch hunt). But I would not support anyone taking away his freedom of speech, or jailing him for his odious beliefs.
Unlike Card, I am willing to co-exist and society with those who would believe and live a different way than me. But I will call hate what it is when I see it. It is also my right to make that judgment. Trust me, it is nothing I enjoy doing, or seeing in the world. And it is not something I jump to quickly.
So what I was trying to do is just clarify, towards better understanding.
Geez. Push something else. Off topic is not the same as "disagree"
M
M