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.
And I respect that. I guess I don't, or can't, make as much of a separation.
So all is good and everythings cool so long as no one ever voices their personal beliefs or opinions? (unless of course it falls perfectly in line with popular opinion). What we dont know wont / cant hurt us.
So all is good and everythings cool so long as no one ever voices their personal beliefs or opinions? (unless of course it falls perfectly in line with popular opinion). What we dont know wont / cant hurt us.
Well, you can't know how someone's beliefs coincide/conflict with your own until you hear them. I think this is why so many politicians and movie stars in the past always seemed to be as bland as possible... the fewer feathers you ruffle, the wider your potential appeal.
Look at Mel Gibson. Everyone used to LOVE him, but his drunken escapade with all the antisemitic and sexist remarks pretty much made him box office poison, and the alleged domestic assault thing sealed the deal. He probably always had those views, but they were never voiced so he was pretty popular. Or Michael Richards, riding high on post-Seinfeld goodwill (even if his post-Seinfeld career wasn't awesome) until his weird racist remarks. And everyone used to think Victoria Jackson was all cute and bubbly on SNL, but that crusade against Glee and homosexuality in genera; was the end of her in a lot of peoples' eyes.
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.
Can't separate the two in this case. I give money to DC for this book, they give money to Card, and he gives money to NOW. I won't contribute to that cycle. Nor do I want to offer any kind of moral support to him, even indirectly, by buying anything that he writes. When he steps away from NOW, I might reconsider. Might.
So all is good and everythings cool so long as no one ever voices their personal beliefs or opinions? (unless of course it falls perfectly in line with popular opinion). What we dont know wont / cant hurt us.
In a way, yes. At least, that is a safer bet.
I am not saying people who create art and entertainment shouldn't be publically political, or even a political activist. They can choose to be. It is absolutely their right, just as people in all sorts of other professions may decide to also have a public political life.
But the reality is that it will lose them some of their prior audience. And may also gain them some new audience. Just based on politics alone.
And that is true all over the political spectrum. Whether you are Card or The Dixie Chicks. One might have thought it would have been going along with popular opinion for an entertainer to criticize Bush in the mid-00s. But that certainly lost them some audience. Stephen King probably lost some of his readers when he publised his recent essay on guns. And he may have also gained some new readers.
And I don't think it is just about what is or isn't *popular* opinion. (Especially as the most controversial or contentious issues, by their very nature, tend to have large groups on each side. . . or else the issue wouldn't really be politically charged, you know what I mean?)
A person choosing not to spend based on politics is choosing based on what they alone care about. It is from their gut. It is not a decision from the lens of what the majority of everyone else thinks. And such is their right. As money is speech, too. And that is why a publicly political life is risky for someone who also has their own apolitical wares to sell.
Personally, I don't agree with any attempt for his speech to be abridged, or to get him 'fired' (not that he is actually a DC Entertainment employee anyway).
But I also see nothing wrong with not being interested in opting into his work with my dollars.
So all is good and everythings cool so long as no one ever voices their personal beliefs or opinions? (unless of course it falls perfectly in line with popular opinion). What we dont know wont / cant hurt us.
As the saying goes - "Your right to freedom of speech ends where my nose begins."
Apparently Card isn't just saying he's against marital equality. He's standing up to be counted with an organization that wants to end homosexuality by any means necessary (or something to that effect). There is a difference.
Boycotts happen all the time, both on individual and group levels. Heck, just this past week Morrissey refused to appear on the same show with the cast of Duck Dynasty because he didn't agree with killing animals. That's his right, and to their credit the cast of Duck Dynasty did say they didn't know who he was but they respected his opinion and right not to show up (of course they did do a skit about making a duck call for a carrot for him! :) ).
Just as it is Card's right to belong to the organizations he chooses to, and talk about his views in public, it is no less a right for people to assemble and say "We do not agree" (again on either an individual OR a group basis) and write to DC and say "You've employed the work of an individual I do not like for the following reasons. I will not be buying the books he is on. Bring back the Omega Men."
So all is good and everythings cool so long as no one ever voices their personal beliefs or opinions? (unless of course it falls perfectly in line with popular opinion). What we dont know wont / cant hurt us.
As the saying goes - "Your right to freedom of speech ends where my nose begins."
And, to be clear, Card's freedom of speech is actually maintained. Where ones' nose begins, as far as what they do or don't buy, actually has nothing to do with what Card is not stopped by the government from publishing. Because that is where Freedom of Speech ends.
Choosing not to opt into something by buying it. Or even loudly opting out by not buying it, or even encouraging others to do the same, is not an abridgment of speech. It is just more speech.
Comments
Look at Mel Gibson. Everyone used to LOVE him, but his drunken escapade with all the antisemitic and sexist remarks pretty much made him box office poison, and the alleged domestic assault thing sealed the deal. He probably always had those views, but they were never voiced so he was pretty popular. Or Michael Richards, riding high on post-Seinfeld goodwill (even if his post-Seinfeld career wasn't awesome) until his weird racist remarks. And everyone used to think Victoria Jackson was all cute and bubbly on SNL, but that crusade against Glee and homosexuality in genera; was the end of her in a lot of peoples' eyes.
I am not saying people who create art and entertainment shouldn't be publically political, or even a political activist. They can choose to be. It is absolutely their right, just as people in all sorts of other professions may decide to also have a public political life.
But the reality is that it will lose them some of their prior audience. And may also gain them some new audience. Just based on politics alone.
And that is true all over the political spectrum. Whether you are Card or The Dixie Chicks. One might have thought it would have been going along with popular opinion for an entertainer to criticize Bush in the mid-00s. But that certainly lost them some audience. Stephen King probably lost some of his readers when he publised his recent essay on guns. And he may have also gained some new readers.
And I don't think it is just about what is or isn't *popular* opinion. (Especially as the most controversial or contentious issues, by their very nature, tend to have large groups on each side. . . or else the issue wouldn't really be politically charged, you know what I mean?)
A person choosing not to spend based on politics is choosing based on what they alone care about. It is from their gut. It is not a decision from the lens of what the majority of everyone else thinks. And such is their right. As money is speech, too. And that is why a publicly political life is risky for someone who also has their own apolitical wares to sell.
Personally, I don't agree with any attempt for his speech to be abridged, or to get him 'fired' (not that he is actually a DC Entertainment employee anyway).
But I also see nothing wrong with not being interested in opting into his work with my dollars.
Apparently Card isn't just saying he's against marital equality. He's standing up to be counted with an organization that wants to end homosexuality by any means necessary (or something to that effect). There is a difference.
Boycotts happen all the time, both on individual and group levels. Heck, just this past week Morrissey refused to appear on the same show with the cast of Duck Dynasty because he didn't agree with killing animals. That's his right, and to their credit the cast of Duck Dynasty did say they didn't know who he was but they respected his opinion and right not to show up (of course they did do a skit about making a duck call for a carrot for him! :) ).
Just as it is Card's right to belong to the organizations he chooses to, and talk about his views in public, it is no less a right for people to assemble and say "We do not agree" (again on either an individual OR a group basis) and write to DC and say "You've employed the work of an individual I do not like for the following reasons. I will not be buying the books he is on. Bring back the Omega Men."
Had to get that last bit in there. :)
Choosing not to opt into something by buying it. Or even loudly opting out by not buying it, or even encouraging others to do the same, is not an abridgment of speech. It is just more speech.