Frankly, if marriage as an institution is no longer resting primarily on the biological foundation of reproduction, but is now just a container for the granting of certain rights, there is absolutely no reason to prevent ANYONE from sharing a household and certain rights, even siblings. So give the word "marriage" back the individual (not the church - the individual), and let the government grant Domestic Partnerships to everyone who wants to share a residence on an ongoing basis.
I agree with the principle of what you're saying, but when you say give marriage “back to the individual,” it never was in the hands of the individual. Since its beginnings marriage has always been defined by the government and the church, and often they were one and the same. I think that’s part of the reason the religious right feel so threatened by marriage equality legislature; it takes away their power to define a huge aspect of our culture.
Give someone enough rope & they'll eventually hang himself/herself.
This is the kind of PR nightmare sports teams normally fear with some of their athletes. I think about how much Belichick corals his players to prevent this type of PR backlash that ultimately comes back to the orangization.
As for the definition of "marriage" I always understood it to be a union. Two people, more then 1 ingredient in a recipe, etc. it sounds very narrow-minded to pick & choice what definition someone is willing to accept.
I'm kind of glad this is happening to Card. Actions & words have consequences...some times people need a reminder.
I'm kind of glad this is happening to Card. Actions & words have consequences...some times people need a reminder.
M
People need a reminder to what? Never disagree with the majority? Never say anything controversial? It's so depressing to find that persons of all ideological stripes take such easy pleasure in knuckling under those who would dare to not conform.
It's no different than when openly gay persons or people interested in Communism or anyone else were drummed out of the public square 40 or 50 years ago for saying what they really believed. And don't tell me it's because Card's views are dangerous or whatever else, because that's ALWAYS the reason the majority gives for silencing people.
Christopher Hitchens used to say vile things about my faith. He vilified me as a religious person, blamed me and my beliefs for millions of deaths, assaulted my motives, and insisted my thinking should play no role in public life. And you know what? I read the man's books, and listened to his arguments, and I'm proud to live in a society where he was free to say and think what he liked.
You can't say you're for freedom of speech, thought and conscience and then seek to levy punishment beyond your own disagreement and non-participation on those who voice contrary opinions, guys. You just can't. It's the scandal of our time, this repulsive, filthy political correctness, and I'll speak out against it at every turn.
I'm kind of glad this is happening to Card. Actions & words have consequences...some times people need a reminder.
M
People need a reminder to what? Never disagree with the majority? Never say anything controversial? It's so depressing to find that persons of all ideological stripes take such easy pleasure in knuckling under those who would dare to not conform.
It's no different than when openly gay persons or people interested in Communism or anyone else were drummed out of the public square 40 or 50 years ago for saying what they really believed. And don't tell me it's because Card's views are dangerous or whatever else, because that's ALWAYS the reason the majority gives for silencing people.
Christopher Hitchens used to say vile things about my faith. He vilified me as a religious person, blamed me and my beliefs for millions of deaths, assaulted my motives, and insisted my thinking should play no role in public life. And you know what? I read the man's books, and listened to his arguments, and I'm proud to live in a society where he was free to say and think what he liked.
You can't say you're for freedom of speech, thought and conscience and then seek to levy punishment beyond your own disagreement and non-participation on those who voice contrary opinions, guys. You just can't. It's the scandal of our time, this repulsive, filthy political correctness, and I'll speak out against it at every turn.
Actually, I normally disagree with the majority. For all I know, the "majority" is composed of mostly people conforming so they do not stand out and potentially be ostracized. I think political-correctness has gone to the complete other side of the spectrum to the point where it is nearly a farce.
I am FOR freedom of speech, and actually prefer to live under my own structured guidelines then those set by others. I am, however, also aware that when I say or do something (majority or not), there is going to be a potential equal and opposite reaction. It causes me to make sure I think about what I am going to say/do, how it will be conveyed, and what my conviction is to back up my action.
All I am saying is, (example) people will say things like "that's retarded" and even though the intent might not be to insult a specific group of people, there is going to be some type of backlash. Just like with comics, things DO have a way of coming back to haunt you later. If those people aren't afraid of the backlash, then there is nothing to worry about.
I'm looking at Card as more of the sacrificial goat for people to be more aware of what they say/do and the possible fallouts (depending on the person's career), then trying to strictly point out Card for what he said. I wasn't going to see his movie OR read Superman regardless.
I'm kind of glad this is happening to Card. Actions & words have consequences...some times people need a reminder.
M
People need a reminder to what? Never disagree with the majority? Never say anything controversial? It's so depressing to find that persons of all ideological stripes take such easy pleasure in knuckling under those who would dare to not conform.
It's no different than when openly gay persons or people interested in Communism or anyone else were drummed out of the public square 40 or 50 years ago for saying what they really believed. And don't tell me it's because Card's views are dangerous or whatever else, because that's ALWAYS the reason the majority gives for silencing people.
Christopher Hitchens used to say vile things about my faith. He vilified me as a religious person, blamed me and my beliefs for millions of deaths, assaulted my motives, and insisted my thinking should play no role in public life. And you know what? I read the man's books, and listened to his arguments, and I'm proud to live in a society where he was free to say and think what he liked.
You can't say you're for freedom of speech, thought and conscience and then seek to levy punishment beyond your own disagreement and non-participation on those who voice contrary opinions, guys. You just can't. It's the scandal of our time, this repulsive, filthy political correctness, and I'll speak out against it at every turn.
I think you are scolding a straw man on this one. The only sorts of consequences or punishments that have been supported so far in this discussion have been those of non-participation: to not buy a comic book; to not see a movie. Even those who would call for an organized boycott are merely loudly non-participating, only in a group and making noise about it. And such non-participation is not an abridgement of speech, so long as you are not the government. In fact, that non-participation IS speech, too.
If people were calling for the government to intervene in Card's speech or activities, if they were saying Card should be called before Congress to answer for his activism, or be jailed for it, then I would see the comparison to the McCarthy era.
But those are not the consequences or actions I am seeing supported, at least here on this thread. I am seeing people deciding what they will buy or not buy. That is not censorship, that is the free market. Card is not in criminal jeopardy, nor in fear of any government intervention. But he does have a brand problem. When a person who has a brand and sells things from that brand gets political, there will always be sales lost (and some sales gained) based on that activism. And that is true all over the political spectrum, from Card to The Dixie Chicks and beyond.
But that has nothing to do with Freedom of Speech. If people were saying that Card should be stopped by the government, or his books or writings banned by the government, then it would be.
In fact, those deciding to vote against Card's work with their dollars (as well as those deciding to vote for it with their dollars on political grounds) are actually champions of Freedom of Speech according to the Supreme Court. Because money is speech, as the Supreme Court upheld in the Citizens United decision.
I'm kind of glad this is happening to Card. Actions & words have consequences...some times people need a reminder.
M
People need a reminder to what? Never disagree with the majority? Never say anything controversial? It's so depressing to find that persons of all ideological stripes take such easy pleasure in knuckling under those who would dare to not conform.
It's no different than when openly gay persons or people interested in Communism or anyone else were drummed out of the public square 40 or 50 years ago for saying what they really believed. And don't tell me it's because Card's views are dangerous or whatever else, because that's ALWAYS the reason the majority gives for silencing people.
No, it's that if you DO say things that are controversial, you will have to live with what people feel, say and do about it. Freedom of speech means that that speech is subjected to the marketplace of ideas...and in that marketplace, you may say something that people will choose not to give you money.
It's freedom of speech as Jefferson intended. You can publish a novel about how a certain ethnic group is evil and is planning on using the government to take your guns (and yes, such a novel exists), but you also have to allow people to react to it, write about it and choose not to give you their money. The government can't ban it, but stores can choose not to carry it, people can choose not to buy it and people CAN publish parodies about it.
No one is saying they will silence him. All of the comments I have read have been "He doesn't get my money."
I'm kind of glad this is happening to Card. Actions & words have consequences...some times people need a reminder.
M
People need a reminder to what? Never disagree with the majority? Never say anything controversial? It's so depressing to find that persons of all ideological stripes take such easy pleasure in knuckling under those who would dare to not conform.
It's no different than when openly gay persons or people interested in Communism or anyone else were drummed out of the public square 40 or 50 years ago for saying what they really believed. And don't tell me it's because Card's views are dangerous or whatever else, because that's ALWAYS the reason the majority gives for silencing people.
Christopher Hitchens used to say vile things about my faith. He vilified me as a religious person, blamed me and my beliefs for millions of deaths, assaulted my motives, and insisted my thinking should play no role in public life. And you know what? I read the man's books, and listened to his arguments, and I'm proud to live in a society where he was free to say and think what he liked.
You can't say you're for freedom of speech, thought and conscience and then seek to levy punishment beyond your own disagreement and non-participation on those who voice contrary opinions, guys. You just can't. It's the scandal of our time, this repulsive, filthy political correctness, and I'll speak out against it at every turn.
Although I disagree with the post, I think someone wrongly labeled this "Off Topic." It was as one topic as the rest of the posts.
Chris Sprouse, who had been slated to draw the Card story for the new Superman title, has withdrawn from the project, causing DC to push the story back to a different issue.
Say what you will about him. Agree or disagree. But I for one respect his right to believe what he does.
We live in a world of entertainers, creators, and politicians who will say anything to please anyone, and have no real core beliefs. They seek approval, favors, and fame in espousing the ideas that will appease the largest population one day, and are chasing another segment of the population the next. I am glad he is who he is, and won't change for anyone's popularity contest.
I would rather have a one Orson Scott Cards than a million chameleons.
I'm a right-wing Christian conservative. I try to ignore actors/artists/directors/authors politics. Because if I didn't, my entertainment consumption would drop by 95%.
If the guy can write a good Superman story, then let him be. I think it is stupid for people to try and have him removed from the book because of his political views.
I am right there with you pal! If I boycotted everything produced by liberals I disagree with, I would be left with Steven Baldwin, John Voigt, and Dennis Miller. Not a very entertaining evening.
Say what you will about him. Agree or disagree. But I for one respect his right to believe what he does.
We live in a world of entertainers, creators, and politicians who will say anything to please anyone, and have no real core beliefs. They seek approval, favors, and fame in espousing the ideas that will appease the largest population one day, and are chasing another segment of the population the next. I am glad he is who he is, and won't change for anyone's popularity contest.
I would rather have a one Orson Scott Cards than a million chameleons.
How, in the flying F***, is my comment off-topic? I think every time someone clicks that button, it should be accompanied by your name, address, and last four digits of your SS#.
I think that's what many people, including myself, were referencing. I think just about everyone agrees with the freedom to not give someone their money, if they disagree with that person.
How, in the flying F***, is my comment off-topic? I think every time someone clicks that button, it should be accompanied by your name, address, and last four digits of your SS#.
Must. Fight. Urge. To. Click. "Off-Topic". Just. For. Larfs.
How, in the flying F***, is my comment off-topic? I think every time someone clicks that button, it should be accompanied by your name, address, and last four digits of your SS#.
Must. Fight. Urge. To. Click. "Off-Topic". Just. For. Larfs.
Say what you will about him. Agree or disagree. But I for one respect his right to believe what he does.
We live in a world of entertainers, creators, and politicians who will say anything to please anyone, and have no real core beliefs. They seek approval, favors, and fame in espousing the ideas that will appease the largest population one day, and are chasing another segment of the population the next. I am glad he is who he is, and won't change for anyone's popularity contest.
I would rather have a one Orson Scott Cards than a million chameleons.
How, in the flying F***, is my comment off-topic? I think every time someone clicks that button, it should be accompanied by your name, address, and last four digits of your SS#.
Welcome to one of my fights...though mine mostly involves people misusing 'disagree' and 'dislike'. Someone can dislike a fact, but they would disagree with an opinion.
I wish people would at least comment on why they disagrees, agrees, or feel something is off topic. I mean, this IS a forum. I don't need everyone to agree with me (hell, I don't need everyone to like me either), but I'd enjoy having a conversation about the differences of opinions. Its virtually impossible when they're no comments added along with the "critic icon."
I think that's what many people, including myself, were referencing. I think just about everyone agrees with the freedom to not give someone their money, if they disagree with that person.
This is one of those things I find increasingly interesting. I think people forget that one person's civil rights end where another person's begins. I do not like the Kardashians, "reality" tv shows, & Chelsea Handler to name a few. SO, rather than sign any petition to get them off TV and out of entertainment, I just don't give them none of my time and/or money. I understand there are people who like one or all of those things. I could easily be in the minority of people who don't like them, but that doesn't mean it should become my mission to prevent everyone from enjoying their "entertainment."
It's that simple.
Although I DO agree that people should be able to voice their opinion, despite it going against the grain (I encourage more people to do so), I don't think people should not realize there are repercussions for that opinion. In Card's case, it cause a boycott of his work in DC (and elsewhere), which could lead to his firing. This did not come about from any petition, but just from people not buying a product (which I think would impact a company more than being sent a petition signed by a lot of people.)
People should voice their own opinion and beliefs, BUT also be aware that there can be a backlash from it. That should not deter people from voicing their opinions.
How, in the flying F***, is my comment off-topic? I think every time someone clicks that button, it should be accompanied by your name, address, and last four digits of your SS#.
I have this theory that all of the Off Topic clicks lately are being done by the same person, and that he or she has no idea what that phrase actually means.
How, in the flying F***, is my comment off-topic? I think every time someone clicks that button, it should be accompanied by your name, address, and last four digits of your SS#.
I have this theory that all of the Off Topic clicks lately are being done by the same person, and that he or she has no idea what that phrase actually means.
AND YOU'LL NEVER STOP ME, YOU BIG RED CHEESE!!!
/No it isn't me...I just wanted to invoke some Sivana into the mix. //Now THAT'S being off-topic!
As long as his writing style has little to do with his opinions on the LGBT community, i don't think people should be that mad about it.
I just don't want to support a writer who actively supports a hate organization.
Agreed.
You can hate whoever you want.
You can talk about your hate as much as you want.
But when you take action against the objects of your hate, you've crossed the line.
I've read an enjoyed much of Card's work over the years, I've met and liked him, but when he joined the board of the National Organization for Marriage, he lost me as a fan and a reader.
As long as his writing style has little to do with his opinions on the LGBT community, i don't think people should be that mad about it.
I just don't want to support a writer who actively supports a hate organization.
Neither do I, I just prefer to support the art than support the artist.
Sure. But at the same time, the art is coming from the artist. Even if, say, a Superman story that has nothing to do with civil rights is what is coming from Card's imagination, it is still nothing I am interested in.
Because it is coming from that imagination. The same imagination that some seriously fearful and hateful things have come from, and been publicly expressed from. So, as a consumer, I have no interest in a Superman story that starts in the place.
As long as his writing style has little to do with his opinions on the LGBT community, i don't think people should be that mad about it.
I just don't want to support a writer who actively supports a hate organization.
Neither do I, I just prefer to support the art than support the artist.
Sure. But at the same time, the art is coming from the artist. Even if, say, a Superman story that has nothing to do with civil rights is what is coming from Card's imagination, it is still nothing I am interested in.
Because it is coming from that imagination. The same imagination that some seriously fearful and hateful things have come from, and been publicly expressed from. So, as a consumer, I have no interest in a Superman story that starts in the place.
Which is why, even if i support the art, i wont buy it. I just wont be mad until he makes superman into someone spewing out homophobic slurs.
Comments
I agree with the principle of what you're saying, but when you say give marriage “back to the individual,” it never was in the hands of the individual. Since its beginnings marriage has always been defined by the government and the church, and often they were one and the same. I think that’s part of the reason the religious right feel so threatened by marriage equality legislature; it takes away their power to define a huge aspect of our culture.
The Hollywood Reporter
This is the kind of PR nightmare sports teams normally fear with some of their athletes. I think about how much Belichick corals his players to prevent this type of PR backlash that ultimately comes back to the orangization.
As for the definition of "marriage" I always understood it to be a union. Two people, more then 1 ingredient in a recipe, etc. it sounds very narrow-minded to pick & choice what definition someone is willing to accept.
I'm kind of glad this is happening to Card. Actions & words have consequences...some times people need a reminder.
M
It's no different than when openly gay persons or people interested in Communism or anyone else were drummed out of the public square 40 or 50 years ago for saying what they really believed. And don't tell me it's because Card's views are dangerous or whatever else, because that's ALWAYS the reason the majority gives for silencing people.
Christopher Hitchens used to say vile things about my faith. He vilified me as a religious person, blamed me and my beliefs for millions of deaths, assaulted my motives, and insisted my thinking should play no role in public life. And you know what? I read the man's books, and listened to his arguments, and I'm proud to live in a society where he was free to say and think what he liked.
You can't say you're for freedom of speech, thought and conscience and then seek to levy punishment beyond your own disagreement and non-participation on those who voice contrary opinions, guys. You just can't. It's the scandal of our time, this repulsive, filthy political correctness, and I'll speak out against it at every turn.
I am FOR freedom of speech, and actually prefer to live under my own structured guidelines then those set by others. I am, however, also aware that when I say or do something (majority or not), there is going to be a potential equal and opposite reaction. It causes me to make sure I think about what I am going to say/do, how it will be conveyed, and what my conviction is to back up my action.
All I am saying is, (example) people will say things like "that's retarded" and even though the intent might not be to insult a specific group of people, there is going to be some type of backlash. Just like with comics, things DO have a way of coming back to haunt you later. If those people aren't afraid of the backlash, then there is nothing to worry about.
I'm looking at Card as more of the sacrificial goat for people to be more aware of what they say/do and the possible fallouts (depending on the person's career), then trying to strictly point out Card for what he said. I wasn't going to see his movie OR read Superman regardless.
M
If people were calling for the government to intervene in Card's speech or activities, if they were saying Card should be called before Congress to answer for his activism, or be jailed for it, then I would see the comparison to the McCarthy era.
But those are not the consequences or actions I am seeing supported, at least here on this thread. I am seeing people deciding what they will buy or not buy. That is not censorship, that is the free market. Card is not in criminal jeopardy, nor in fear of any government intervention. But he does have a brand problem. When a person who has a brand and sells things from that brand gets political, there will always be sales lost (and some sales gained) based on that activism. And that is true all over the political spectrum, from Card to The Dixie Chicks and beyond.
But that has nothing to do with Freedom of Speech. If people were saying that Card should be stopped by the government, or his books or writings banned by the government, then it would be.
In fact, those deciding to vote against Card's work with their dollars (as well as those deciding to vote for it with their dollars on political grounds) are actually champions of Freedom of Speech according to the Supreme Court. Because money is speech, as the Supreme Court upheld in the Citizens United decision.
It's freedom of speech as Jefferson intended. You can publish a novel about how a certain ethnic group is evil and is planning on using the government to take your guns (and yes, such a novel exists), but you also have to allow people to react to it, write about it and choose not to give you their money. The government can't ban it, but stores can choose not to carry it, people can choose not to buy it and people CAN publish parodies about it.
No one is saying they will silence him. All of the comments I have read have been "He doesn't get my money."
And that is how it is supposed to work.
M
this is a thoughtful article
comicbookresources.com/?page=article&id=44109
Well, nuts. Now I wish I had ordered the book.
We live in a world of entertainers, creators, and politicians who will say anything to please anyone, and have no real core beliefs. They seek approval, favors, and fame in espousing the ideas that will appease the largest population one day, and are chasing another segment of the population the next. I am glad he is who he is, and won't change for anyone's popularity contest.
I would rather have a one Orson Scott Cards than a million chameleons.
:)
https://allout.org/en/actions/dccomics-osc
I think that's what many people, including myself, were referencing. I think just about everyone agrees with the freedom to not give someone their money, if they disagree with that person.
I wish people would at least comment on why they disagrees, agrees, or feel something is off topic. I mean, this IS a forum. I don't need everyone to agree with me (hell, I don't need everyone to like me either), but I'd enjoy having a conversation about the differences of opinions. Its virtually impossible when they're no comments added along with the "critic icon."
M
It's that simple.
Although I DO agree that people should be able to voice their opinion, despite it going against the grain (I encourage more people to do so), I don't think people should not realize there are repercussions for that opinion. In Card's case, it cause a boycott of his work in DC (and elsewhere), which could lead to his firing. This did not come about from any petition, but just from people not buying a product (which I think would impact a company more than being sent a petition signed by a lot of people.)
People should voice their own opinion and beliefs, BUT also be aware that there can be a backlash from it. That should not deter people from voicing their opinions.
M
/No it isn't me...I just wanted to invoke some Sivana into the mix.
//Now THAT'S being off-topic!
You can hate whoever you want.
You can talk about your hate as much as you want.
But when you take action against the objects of your hate, you've crossed the line.
I've read an enjoyed much of Card's work over the years, I've met and liked him, but when he joined the board of the National Organization for Marriage, he lost me as a fan and a reader.
Because it is coming from that imagination. The same imagination that some seriously fearful and hateful things have come from, and been publicly expressed from. So, as a consumer, I have no interest in a Superman story that starts in the place.