Gays Trying To Get Orson Scott Card Fired As A Comic Book Writer

[Sleeper Cell]

How many Mormons would be boycotting a film written by Governor Boggs?

I was not aware that Gov. Card had signed an “Extermination Order.”

BTW, where are the organized Mormon boycotts aimed at prominent anti-Mormons and their employers and business associates?

[Kevin Christensen]

Daniel2 asks, rhetorically"

Does anyone believe there would be calls for a boycott by the gay and gay-supportive community if Orson Scott Card had no anti-gay history, but being known to be a Mormon, was asked in an interview "What's your opinion on same-gender

marriage?" and he responded "Well I'm a Mormon and our religion teaches that marriage should only be between a man and a woman ."

Such things have happened, not that long ago.

Public confrontation and humiliation

Boycott of El Coyote restaurant (Los Angeles, California).

According to an editorial in The Mercury News, "One ugly case was the boisterous protest by dozens of gay marriage

supporters outside a small Los Angeles restaurant where the owner's daughter had contributed $100 to Proposition 8. The loss of customers

threatened the livelihoods of employees, some of whom were gay and opposed the initiative." [47] Ex-Mormon suggests that boycott can be averted

by equal donation to campaign to overturn Prop 8.[48] The manager eventually resigned.[49]

Intimidation to resign

Scott Eckern, Artistic Director

for California Musical Theatre for seven years, resigned after the theatre was threatened by some in the entertainment industry. Eckern gave

an apology and donated an equal amount to the effort to overturn Prop 8.[50][51][52]

(Background info: Scott Eckern, “Seek the Truth. Tell the Truth”, Speech, 2007 College Honored Alumni Lecture Series, College of Fine Arts and

Communications, Brigham Young University, 20 September 2007)

Richard Raddon, LA Film Festival director, resigns after "anti-Raddon bile continued to bubble in the blogosphere" and "No on 8" supporters "berated Raddon personally via phone calls and e-mails."[53]

Calls for resignation of Mark Paredes, national director of Latino outreach for the American Jewish Congress (Paredes is LDS).

It was "demanded that Paredes retract his financial contribution to the Yes on 8 campaign, donate money to the anti-Proposition

8 campaign or resign his position at the Jewish communal organization." [54]

And quite a lot more.

http://en.fairmormon.org/Mormonism_and_politics/California_Proposition_8/Post-Election_Events

I'm been impressed more and more of late, with the implications of D&C 121:42, on striving to persuade via "kindness and

pure knowledge, which shall greatly enlarge the soul without hypocrisy, and without guile..." It follows that impure knowledge

leads to a contraction of the soul, among other things.

I know Scott Card fairly well, based on personal encounters at intervals over 30 plus years, and reading a lot of what he has

written. The picture I have does not match the picture I'm getting here. My soul is much more enlarged towards him,

I rather thing because my personal knowledge is of a higher quality, not merely composed of sound bites and one-dimensional agendas.

The orchestrated contraction of the soul towards specific, targeted individuals, via portrayals in media and blog posts, puts me

in mind both of Greg Smith's informative discussion of the creation of "folk devils" and Rene Girard's discussions of the scapegoat.

Here are a few notes from Greg's sources on the creation of folk devils:

“All moral panics,” continue Richardson and Introvigne, “by their very nature, identify, denounce,

and attempt to root out folk devils. . . . Folk devils are deviants; they are engaged in wrong-doing; their actions are harmful to society; they are selfish and evil; they must be stopped, their actions

neutralized.”

And this:

A key goal of any moral panic is to impose control upon the deviant folk devils. This can be achieved

via “atrocity tales,”

“an event which is viewed as a flagrant violation of a fundamental cultural value.”

The atrocity tale is offered in order to:

(a) evoke moral outrage by specifying and detailing the value violations,

(b) authorize, implicitly or explicitly, punitive actions, and

© mobilize control efforts against the alleged perpetrators.

Given the short lifespan of many moral panics, a more formal or systematic approach to long-term

control is useful for those targeting the folk devils:

Some moral panics may become routinized or institutionalized,

that is, after the panic has run its course the moral concern about the target behavior results in, or remains in place in the form of, social movement organizations, legislation, enforcement

practices, informal interpersonal norms or practices for punishing transgressors.

Greg quotes the following:

It is extremely rarely the case—although it sometimes happens—that the conditions

a movement focuses on are

worse than its activists claim. With most conditions, nearly

all the time, movement participants must make them

out to be worse than

they are; they tend to focus on the worst aspects of the condition as if they were

typical.

In this sense, the justifications that social movements construct to support

their position are similar to gossip, rumor, legends, and paranormal beliefs—that is,

they “tell one hell of a good story.” In order to grab the observer

by the throat, get

his or her attention, and insist, “This condition is important, it is bad, and something

must be done about it!” it is almost always necessary to lie or at least exaggerate a

little. It would be difficult to contest the point that, while some participants in some

social movements accurately describe the conditions they wish to change, taken as a

whole, social movement participants and activists tend to exaggerate their extent

and seriousness. To be plain about it, exaggeration is a great deal more effective as a

movement strategy than the complex task of literal, point-for-point truth-telling.

Goode and Ben-Yehuda, 145

http://www.mormoninterpreter.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/SMITH2-Return-of-the-Unread-Review.pdf

I'll quote some Girard on scapegoating later. It fits rather nicely.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Bethel Park, PA

[Stone holm]

Daniel2 asks, rhetorically"

Such things have happened, not that long ago.

And quite a lot more.

http://en.fairmormon...Election_Events

I'm been impressed more and more of late, with the implications of D&C 121:42, on striving to persuade via "kindness and

pure knowledge, which shall greatly enlarge the soul without hypocrisy, and without guile..." It follows that impure knowledge

leads to a contraction of the soul, among other things.

I know Scott Card fairly well, based on personal encounters at intervals over 30 plus years, and reading a lot of what he has

written. The picture I have does not match the picture I'm getting here. My soul is much more enlarged towards him,

I rather thing because my personal knowledge is of a higher quality, not merely composed of sound bites and one-dimensional agendas.

The orchestrated contraction of the soul towards specific, targeted individuals, via portrayals in media and blog posts, puts me

in mind both of Greg Smith's informative discussion of the creation of "folk devils" and Rene Girard's discussions of the scapegoat.

Here are a few notes from Greg's sources on the creation of folk devils:

And this:

Greg quotes the following:

http://www.mormonint...read-Review.pdf

I'll quote some Girard on scapegoating later. It fits rather nicely.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Bethel Park, PA

Uh, you are citing examples of pressure being placed on individuals who advocated for Prop 8....I see...an Prop 8 advocated to define marriage so that gays could not get married...and we gave that a push from the pulpit at General Conference which resulted in millions of donations....and there really shouldn't be any economic push back with that regard...hm.....yeah I understand this logic....er, I guess I don't understand this logic....

[Kevin Christensen]

Uh, you are citing examples of pressure being placed on individuals who advocated for Prop 8....I see...an Prop 8 advocated to define marriage so that gays could not get married...and we gave that a push from the pulpit at General Conference which resulted in millions of donations....and there really shouldn't be any economic push back with that regard...hm.....yeah I understand this logic....er, I guess I don't understand this logic....

I was responding to Daniel2's claim that if a person with no history on topic expressed an opinion, they would not be targeted. I gave specific examples of just that sort of thing going on. That is the logic around the questions I was answering, in case you overlooked it. Context matters.

But I've become more interested in the social mechanisms involved. Who gets selected as a target? Why are the targets treated as such?

The Fair Wiki quoted this non-LDS observer to the scene in 2008:

There were some more measured and thoughtful responses however. One "No on 8" blogger made the following observations:

...notice how these protests overwhelmingly target the Mormon Church. Why? Because these protesters and boycotters are cowards...What is required in these protests is a target. But the very nature of identity politics precludes the two most obvious demographics who voted for the initiative - Hispanics and African-Americans. Could anyone imagine a parade of mostly white gays and lesbians descending on black communities and churches in protest? No, and those pushing the protests know that tactic would never fly in America. Why not go after Catholics, a demographic that supported the proposition with both cash and votes? First, because Catholics comprise roughly 25% of the American population. In addition, California is a heavily hispanic state, and hispanics are overwhelming Catholic. Would any smart GLBT [gay, lesbian, bi-sexual, transgender] organizer have their activists and supporters declare war on the Catholic Church and expect support from hispanics and a large portion of white voters? No, not even in that liberal state. This leaves us with the Mormons, the red-headed stepchild of American religion...They’re the safe target. The only target. The one target that invites almost no recrimination among a large swath of conservatives, liberals, the religiously devout, and atheists.

And that sort of thing is why I'm getting more interested in the creation of folk devils, the selection of scapegoats. It seems likely to me the commentator I just quoted here knows something of Gerard. Read his I See Satan Fall Like Lightning, who the scapegoat mechanism has adapted to the rise of Christianity, the movement that exposed the notion of the innocent of the scapegoats that worked everywhere in the ancient world. Because Christianity has awakened society to the plight of innocent victims (Jesus being the scapegoat who refused the accept the accusations of guilt), the business of selecting scapegoats has gotten another layer. Accusers must depict the accused as a perp before they can be selected as a scapegoat, because nowadays the scapegoating process masquerades most effectively under the guide of defending the innocent. And as Girard points out, the trick is often to accuse Christianity of not defending the innocent victims with enough ardor.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Bethel Park, PA

[Calm]

Uh, you are citing examples of pressure being placed on individuals who advocated for Prop 8....

My memory of the examples given by Kevin were that their donations to Prop 8 were the limit of their advocation, that the no on Prop 8 group found out about them not through their public commentary, but through checking the donations list.

[jim_mason]

Is it likely that Card would have been "targeted" without his calls for usurping the government or other inflammatory calls....Yes, it is likely, because he was board member or executive of a group that was supported Prop 8. It has already been pointed out in this thread, I believe, that both sides of the Prop 8 debate engaged in bully tactics. Threatening "we will expose you" type letters where sent by both friend and foe of Prop 8. And in my experience, both sides rail against the threatening tactics utilized by the opponent, yet justify their own threatening tactics...swallowing a camel while straining at a gnat comes to mind.

[Erin15]

How many Mormons would be boycotting a film written by Governor Boggs?

I know it's not a perfect example, but when those south park guys made that broadway play about mormons, I'm told it was just about as cruel and vulgur as you can get, but there were no protests, no death threats, no organized boycotts seeking publicity. In fact, I even heard that the church capitalized on the opportunity to do some real missionary work and bought some ad space in the programs so people could find out what the book of mormon is really like.

[thesometimesaint]

How many Mormons would be boycotting a film written by Governor Boggs?

I see very few movies as it is, to add Governor Boggs to my boycott list is no added sacrifice. I doubt that many Jews would see boycotting a movie based on The Protocols of the Elders of Zion as a sacrifice either.

[california boy]

I did not say “group.” I said “society.” Thirty years ago, society had a much different attitude toward “gay behavior” than it has now. Do you disagree?

You seem OK with boycotts when “your side” is strong enough to effectively use them. Would you still be OK with boycotts, if “your side” were so weak and had so little clout that, as a practical matter, only the “other side” could effectively use them? Suppose nobody cared whether or not “your side” boycotted a business? Suppose the members of your group were so despised that most businesses actually preferred that you did not patronize them? In such a situation, the “other side” could hurt individual members of your group with a boycott, but "your side" couldn’t hurt your opponents. Would you be OK with boycotts under these circumstances?

yes

.

Both sides? My “side” is not a monolithic organization. It is an ad hoc coalition of many individuals and groups, some of which have a long history of demeaning other groups in the coalition. Don’t know about the “other side.”

Neither side is a monolithic organization. They are both an ad hoc coalition of many indifiduals. So what is your point?

[california boy]

I know it's not a perfect example, but when those south park guys made that broadway play about mormons, I'm told it was just about as cruel and vulgur as you can get, but there were no protests, no death threats, no organized boycotts seeking publicity. In fact, I even heard that the church capitalized on the opportunity to do some real missionary work and bought some ad space in the programs so people could find out what the book of mormon is really like.

It is not a perfect example, but it is a good one. And I would say that most Mormons did boycott the play. Your example actually illustrates my point.

[Stone holm]

I was responding to Daniel2's claim that if a person with no history on topic expressed an opinion, they would not be targeted. I gave specific examples of just that sort of thing going on. That is the logic around the questions I was answering, in case you overlooked it. Context matters.

But I've become more interested in the social mechanisms involved. Who gets selected as a target? Why are the targets treated as such?

The Fair Wiki quoted this non-LDS observer to the scene in 2008:

And that sort of thing is why I'm getting more interested in the creation of folk devils, the selection of scapegoats. It seems likely to me the commentator I just quoted here knows something of Gerard. Read his I See Satan Fall Like Lightning, who the scapegoat mechanism has adapted to the rise of Christianity, the movement that exposed the notion of the innocent of the scapegoats that worked everywhere in the ancient world. Because Christianity has awakened society to the plight of innocent victims (Jesus being the scapegoat who refused the accept the accusations of guilt), the business of selecting scapegoats has gotten another layer. Accusers must depict the accused as a perp before they can be selected as a scapegoat, because nowadays the scapegoating process masquerades most effectively under the guide of defending the innocent. And as Girard points out, the trick is often to accuse Christianity of not defending the innocent victims with enough ardor.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Bethel Park, PA

The Church made itself and unfortunately all its members targets when it publicly endorsed activism in support in California. Some responded with money and donations, others like myself were uneasy but remained silent, and others like the Marriots immediately scrambled to publicly disavow any involvement with the push for Prop 8 . During similar political fighting earlier in VT the Catholic Church and our Church led the fight against Civil Unions. The reason it is pointless for them to attack the Catholics is that Catholics don't follow their leadership, Mormons do.

[BlueDreams]

It is not a perfect example, but it is a good one. And I would say that most Mormons did boycott the play. Your example actually illustrates my point.

I don't know if it's all that of a good one for either side of the argument. Most LDS didn't go and just ignored it.....I don't know if i could remember any organized boycotts but most mormons weren't exactly thrilled and did not have a desire to see it....and didn't. So this could run counter to her point. But It also doesn't exactly work for your parallel because the musical actually had something to do with mormons....it was the main subject of the entire thing. The movie, ender's game, has literally nothing to do in subject matter about SSM, homosexuality, or the likes.

With luv,

BD

[Calm]

And I would say that most Mormons did boycott the play.

"Boycotting" means avoiding to make a specific protest against something associated with what is being boycotted. Not going to something because one is not interested or doesn't like the vulgarity or subject matter is not the same thing as "boycotting".

One boycotts something one would likely have gone to otherwise if that association did not exist.

[Daniel2]

An editorial in the New York Times weighs in:

The ‘Ender’s Game’ Boycott

By JULIET LAPIDOS

Published: July 20, 2013

The film “Ender’s Game” tells the story of a gifted child sent to a military academy in space to prepare for an alien invasion. It’s catnip for the Comic-Con crowd, and Lionsgate Entertainment wants to position it as November’s big-budget blockbuster. But the studio is encountering an unexpected publicity nightmare: an activist group called Geeks Out is pushing a boycott of the film, claiming that anyone who pays to see it will effectively be subsidizing antigay “fear-mongering.”

Geeks Out wants to sink the film to punish Orson Scott Card, who wrote the 1985 novel “Ender’s Game” and was one of several producers for the screen adaptation. In 1990, Mr. Card argued in the magazine Sunstone that “laws against homosexual behavior should remain on the books” and “be used when necessary to send a clear message that those who flagrantly violate society’s regulation of sexual behavior cannot be permitted to remain as acceptable, equal citizens within that society.” He was on the board of the National Organization for Marriage, which opposes same-sex unions, from 2009 until this year.

Both Mr. Card and Lionsgate have issued statements in response to the boycott movement, emphasizing that “Ender’s Game” has nothing to do with gay rights or really any contemporary debate. Lionsgate said that while it does not “agree with the personal views of Orson Scott Card,” his opinions “are completely irrelevant to a discussion of ‘Ender’s Game.’ ” The studio’s response, though self-serving, is exactly right.

Generally, boycotts are used to pressure companies or governments to end objectionable activities; consider the boycott of Chick-fil-A to protest the chain’s financial support of antigay organizations. What Geeks Out has in mind is closer to blacklisting. The group wants to “send a clear and serious message to Card and those that do business with his brand of antigay activism — whatever he’s selling, we’re not buying.” This isn’t about stopping the dissemination of antigay sentiments; it’s about isolating Mr. Card and shaming his business partners, thus cutting into their profits.

If Mr. Card belongs in quarantine, who’s next? His views were fairly mainstream when the Sunstone article appeared and, unfortunately, are not unusual today. Just 10 years ago, Justice Antonin Scalia wrote in his inflammatory Lawrence v. Texas dissent that Americans have every right to enforce “the moral opprobrium that has traditionally attached to homosexual conduct” in order to protect themselves “from a lifestyle that they believe to be immoral and destructive.”

On a practical level, the Geeks Out project seems misguided. These things have a way of backfiring, as when former Gov. Mike Huckabee of Arkansas promoted Chick-fil-A Appreciation Day to counter the Chick-fil-A boycott. Attending a goofy popcorn movie could become a way to express disapproval of gays and lesbians — hardly a happy ending.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/21/opinion/sunday/the-enders-game-boycott.html?pagewanted=all&_r=2&

There's some good points. I expect the attempted boycott will actually likely increase exposure for the film.

Daniel

[Stone holm]

An editorial in the New York Times weighs in:

There's some good points. I expect the attempted boycott will actually likely increase exposure for the film.

Daniel

I agree. In this case it will be like the Pope banning a book makes it an instant best seller. The only counter indication might be that not sure that Card's reading fan base share his political/religious views. I am going because I have waited a long time for this film to come out, and I think there are a lot of other people who will go for the same reason.

[Sleeper Cell]

Neither side is a monolithic organization. They are both an ad hoc coalition of many indifiduals. So what is your point?

You said:

What does this even mean. There are beliefs on both sides of this coin. And both sides use boycotts to try and change beliefs. That was my only point

My point was that “both sides” do not use boycotts to try and change beliefs. Some members of “my side” have tried to use boycotts. Many other members of “my side” did not support those boycotts. I personally continued to patronize those businesses “my side” was supposedly boycotting. As did every other member of “my side” whom I personally knew.

When you said that “my side” used boycotts -- simply because some members of my side used boycotts -- you were treating it as a monolithic organization. You did this knowing it was not a monolithic organization, but an ad hoc coalition. You did not dispute the fact that it is made up of individuals and groups, “some of which have a long history of demeaning other groups in the coalition.” Yet, you insist on ascribing the words and actions of some members of the coalition to the entire coalition. And you do this without evidence that the coalition, or even the majority of its members, supported these boycotts. Indeed, the fact that the boycotts by some members of “my side” so abysmally failed in CA -- despite the fact that the majority of the voters supported “my side” on Prop 8 -- strongly suggests that the overwhelming majority of “my side” did not support those boycotts.

[Stargazer]

It strikes me as over-the-top to claim that this proposed boycott is an attempt at "Mind Control". The gay community did not invent the idea of boycotting products or services as a means of promoting a group's point of view. As other's have said, this is simply free speech being exercised.

Further, Brother Card is not just some average joe on the street who happens to be against marriage equality for homosexuals. He was on the board of the National Organization for Marriage... a group that actively fought against gay marriage.

All that said, even though I favor full marriage equality in our country, I will be seeing this movie. The Ender's Game story does not promote Brother Card's views against gays and a lot of other people have worked on the film.

Well, you misunderstand me if you think I said that this proposed boycott is an attempt at Mind Control. I am not saying that. I am saying that the entire effort to drive the opposing viewpoint with respect to gay marriage off the public stage by humiliation and inuendo, not to mention acts of violence, THAT is an attempt to control minds.

So what that he was actively working against it? There's lot of even more well-known figures who are fighting FOR it! Why aren't they being forced out of employment or denied paid work for being vociferously opinionated? What, there's only ONE viewpoint that is worthy of opprobium? And this isn't mind control?

[Stargazer]

I was a big fan of Orson Scott Card. I have read just about every book he has written. I have to admit that my attitudes towards him have certainly changed when I have read some of the outlandish statements he has made directed towards gay marriage and the gay community. I have also thought about boycotting Enders Game. I do feel that boycotting is an effective way society has to point out bad behavior that one disagrees with. It is one of the strongest ways that an average person on the street can make a statement that he disagrees with someones political beliefs that they feel are harmful to society. I feel many of the statements that Orson Scott Card do indeed harm society and he should be singled out for those statements.

How do you boycott a movie? I boycott movies ever week. I only ever see two or three movies (in the theaters) every year. I don't think boycotts change anything -- I am pretty sure they only make those who participate feel self-righteous and morally justified. But that's just my opinion.

This notion that an expression of an opinion can harm society I find very strange when expressed in a country where we supposedly celebrate "free speech". You've heard the one about how "I disagree with what you are saying, but I would defend to the death your right to say it." Most people who state this old chestnut don't really mean it, it's more a platitude than anything else, but when you say that one man's opinion harms society, then that is one or two steps away from demanding that that man be slienced.

The First Amendment protection of free speech was not created to prevent those who express the opinion of the majority from being suppressed. There is no need for that. It was created to protect the other side, the one's whom society wants to shut up. Has your side of the issue forgotten that? It appears that they have.

Unfortunately I don't buy his books anymore. But I feel like Orson Scott Card is just one part of the movie. He is not the movie. I plan to see the film.

So, you're already boycotting his books, right? No need to boycott the movie, then.

[Stargazer]

Isn't that rock pond's point? No current organization invented boycotts as a means to suppress the "free speech" or as a means of "mind control" or "thought control" of another. Radical groups, regardless of affiliation, use boycotts to suppress another "free speech". And yes "he started it" isn't a very good reason; but wouldn't it be hypocrisy to condemn one act of "free speech" suppression via a boycott, and not condemn another "free speech" suppression via a boycott - which I gather is rock ponds point.

For record, rockpond missed my point, and so have you.

I consider boycotts to be fairly useless but a harmless activity that helps to blow off steam. Go for it, whoever wants to! With my blessing, not that it's needed.

What I was talking about with respect to Card, mind control, and thoughtcrime, is the clear and obvious intent to SHUT CARD UP. Not just a boycott of comics or movies, or no longer purchasing Card's books, but an attempt to shut him up by way of ending his employment, making him unable to earn a living because of his opinion and the expressing thereof.

Wasn't the gay community sometime in the mists of history trying to fight for equal social justice, by way of making it ILLEGAL for an employer to terminate a person's employment because of their sexual orientation? And now that this has been largely achieved, that same gay community now wants to force employers to terminate a person's employment because of that person's expressed opinion.

The irony is striking.

[EllenMaksoud]

What do his personal views have to do with writing "Superman"??

http://radio.foxnews...man-writer.html

I've been close enough to "The Gay Agenda Folk" to know that group is like any group. Some of them just want to live out their lives peacefully, and a few want to have copious amounts of drama over the slightest, um slight. I know a gay man in our church who has done all he needed to do to keep his Temple Recommend. I hope for his sake that eventually we will know the precise etiology of the problem. I insist that for many Gays it is not a moral issue. Others, I can't say. Some can resist it. Others do not try.

I write science fiction, and could write gay characters if I chose to, I mean it's fiction right? It would not bother me. Instead, I write lovely, soppy romances, set against an intergalactic background

[rockpond]

Well, you misunderstand me if you think I said that this proposed boycott is an attempt at Mind Control. I am not saying that. I am saying that the entire effort to drive the opposing viewpoint with respect to gay marriage off the public stage by humiliation and inuendo, not to mention acts of violence, THAT is an attempt to control minds.

I condemn acts of violence but they happen on both sides of this debate.

So what that he was actively working against it? There's lot of even more well-known figures who are fighting FOR it! Why aren't they being forced out of employment or denied paid work for being vociferously opinionated? What, there's only ONE viewpoint that is worthy of opprobium? And this isn't mind control?

Yes, there are well known figures fighting for gay marriage. One example has already been discussed on this thread: Ellen Degeneres who has spoken out in favor of gay marriage. After JC Penny hired her as their spokesperson, One Million Moms began a boycott in an attempt to have her fired. Is that mind control? No. It is simply people saying that we won't give you our money when you act contrary to the things that we value.

It has nothing to do with which viewpoint may or may not deserve opprobrium.

If a group wishes to attempt a boycott of Brother Card's work, they have the same right as One Million Moms to say: we won't give you our money when you act contrary to what we value.

If you want to back up to a broader scope of equating political propaganda with mind control than you have to do it with both sides.

[california boy]

You said:

My point was that “both sides” do not use boycotts to try and change beliefs. Some members of “my side” have tried to use boycotts. Many other members of “my side” did not support those boycotts. I personally continued to patronize those businesses “my side” was supposedly boycotting. As did every other member of “my side” whom I personally knew.

When you said that “my side” used boycotts -- simply because some members of my side used boycotts -- you were treating it as a monolithic organization. You did this knowing it was not a monolithic organization, but an ad hoc coalition. You did not dispute the fact that it is made up of individuals and groups, “some of which have a long history of demeaning other groups in the coalition.” Yet, you insist on ascribing the words and actions of some members of the coalition to the entire coalition. And you do this without evidence that the coalition, or even the majority of its members, supported these boycotts. Indeed, the fact that the boycotts by some members of “my side” so abysmally failed in CA -- despite the fact that the majority of the voters supported “my side” on Prop 8 -- strongly suggests that the overwhelming majority of “my side” did not support those boycotts.

This is such a distortion of what I have ever said. You are putting more words in my mouth than a mother birt trying to feed her chicks.

Show me where I have said

ALL members of "your side" boycott or have agreed to do anything as an entire group?

Where did I insist on ascribing the words and actions of some members of the coalition to the entire coalition.

The flip side of your pointless argument is also true. "My side" is also not a monolith. We don't get together and vote to decide what the majority wants to protest or boycott. In fact, in relationship to the op there are some very visible opposition to the boycott of Enders Game by some in the gay community. I specifically stated that I would probably see the film myself. I certainly have not accused you of painting the gay community as ALL being in favor of boycotting. There seems to be some small made up group that is trying to lead this charge agains OSC. Who even has ever heard of "Geeks Out". It could be ONE individual that has a problem supporting OSC. Sure others might agree with Geeks Out. Whether the actually do anything about it is doubtful. Until the film is released, you have no evidence that ANYONE is going to boycott the film.

You seem to be picking a fight where there is none.

[california boy]

How do you boycott a movie? I boycott movies ever week. I only ever see two or three movies (in the theaters) every year. I don't think boycotts change anything -- I am pretty sure they only make those who participate feel self-righteous and morally justified. But that's just my opinion.

This notion that an expression of an opinion can harm society I find very strange when expressed in a country where we supposedly celebrate "free speech". You've heard the one about how "I disagree with what you are saying, but I would defend to the death your right to say it." Most people who state this old chestnut don't really mean it, it's more a platitude than anything else, but when you say that one man's opinion harms society, then that is one or two steps away from demanding that that man be slienced.

The First Amendment protection of free speech was not created to prevent those who express the opinion of the majority from being suppressed. There is no need for that. It was created to protect the other side, the one's whom society wants to shut up. Has your side of the issue forgotten that? It appears that they have.

So, you're already boycotting his books, right? No need to boycott the movie, then.

Just wondering why you didn't quote the part of my post where I said that I probably would SEE the film. And you missed the point that OSC has done much more than simply stated that he is against gay marriage. Did you completely ignore the inflammatory over the top remarks he has made? Do you not think that boycott is also a form of free speech? Has anyone stated that OCS doesn't have a right to say whatever he wants? Do you feel there should never be any repercussions for what we say?

[Stone holm]

This is such a distortion of what I have ever said. You are putting more words in my mouth than a mother birt trying to feed her chicks.

Show me where I have said

ALL members of "your side" boycott or have agreed to do anything as an entire group?

Where did I insist on ascribing the words and actions of some members of the coalition to the entire coalition.

The flip side of your pointless argument is also true. "My side" is also not a monolith. We don't get together and vote to decide what the majority wants to protest or boycott. In fact, in relationship to the op there are some very visible opposition to the boycott of Enders Game by some in the gay community. I specifically stated that I would probably see the film myself. I certainly have not accused you of painting the gay community as ALL being in favor of boycotting. There seems to be some small made up group that is trying to lead this charge agains OSC. Who even has ever heard of "Geeks Out". It could be ONE individual that has a problem supporting OSC. Sure others might agree with Geeks Out. Whether the actually do anything about it is doubtful. Until the film is released, you have no evidence that ANYONE is going to boycott the film.

You seem to be picking a fight where there is none.

I agree both sides to this conflict have made use of whatever tools were available to apply pressure to achieve their political goals, just wish the churches could have seen fit to stay out of the political forums and stuck to calling people to repentance rather than using the stick of legislative action.

[Daniel2]

I found this editorial to be rather thought-provoking:

What Boycotting ‘Ender’s Game’ Won’t Do

By on July 16, 2013 |

(28) Comments

“Probably the most egregiously overlooked area of gay visibility is, if you can swing with me on this, science fiction…Since all these shows are set in the future, the grim possibility exists that, at least in their creators’ minds, there are no gay people in the future. It’s a curious notion for science-fiction to embrace…”

Discussing queer visibility on network television, Bruce Vilanch wrote these words for in 1997, but he might as well have been talking about films in 2013.

Last year, I made “the genres that dominate Hollywood right now are also the most heteronormative (action sequels, superhero franchises, and children’s films)”; outside of the occasional

, one could add science-fiction to this mix as well.

Of all the conversations surrounding the controversy over Orson Scott Card’s affiliation with the homophobic National Organization for Marriage in advance of Lionsgate’s expensive adaptation of Ender’s Game, one repeated assertion has been bugging me quite a bit – the notion that the film itself will have nothing to do, and does not in any way exercise, Card’s problematic politics. Such a view sees the routine absence of homosexuality in popular movies – specifically, genre movies – as somehow apolitical.

Strangely enough, this is a perspective that is, to varying ends, endorsed by Card himself, Lionsgate, and even Geeks Out, the wonderful queer geek community-wrangler that organized the boycott of the Ender’s Game film.

Responding to the criticism about Card’s political affiliations, the author sent “Entertainment Weekly” a that opened with, “Ender’s Game is set more than a century in the future and has nothing to do with political issues that did not exist when the book was written in 1984.” This statement both manufactures a 1980s in which LGBT identity was not involved with any “political issues,” and is complicit in the strange lack of social imagination in Utopian science fiction as discussed by Vilanch. It’s also only slightly less infuriating than some of the other things Card says in his brief, condescending statement.

While Lionsgate renounced Card’s politics, they too argued that Ender’s Game itself is somehow :

“As proud longtime supporters of the LGBT community, champions of films ranging from Gods and Monsters to The Perks of Being a Wallflower and a company that is proud to have recognized same-sex unions and domestic partnerships within its employee benefits policies for many years, we obviously do not agree with the personal views of Orson Scott Card and those of the National Organization for Marriage. However, they are completely irrelevant to a discussion of Ender’s Game. The simple fact is that neither the underlying book nor the film itself reflect these views in any way, shape or form. On the contrary, the film not only transports viewers to an entertaining and action-filled world, but it does so with positive and inspiring characters who ultimately deliver an ennobling and life-affirming message.”

Thank you, Lionsgate, for mapping this moral terrain so deftly. Of course, films depicting “action-filled worlds” are always to political views sympathetic to Card.

But this view that the adaptation of “Ender’s Game” is important entirely for its author and not at all for its content has been accepted as common wisdom. Geeks Out, responding at length to Card’s befuddling statement, that, “This is not and has never been about a much beloved sci-fi novel,” implicitly conceding that an absence of overt LGBT themes/characters/politics in a creative work renders that work apolitical, unassociated with overt extratextual displays of homophobia. But systemic LGBT invisibility in genre cinema is not, in Card’s parlance, “moot.”

This is not at all to suggest that Card’s political involvement is exemplary of the rest of the sci-fi community. Fans, authors, filmmakers in that community tend to lean left. And that’s why Card’s egregious rhetoric should inspire a productive opportunity to interrogate the representational gaps in genre cinema. After all, if Card never joined NOM, never wrote a 2004 essay titled “Homosexual ‘Marriage’ and Civilization,” and never threatened to “destroy” the US government for recognizing gay marriage, Ender’s Game would still be a film that inconspicuously contained zero non-straight characters, like nearly every studio science-fiction film before it.

The narrative conventions and cultivated expectations of science-fiction permitted Card to succeed extravagantly, political alliances unnoticed, until now, and it’s important that people who proudly call themselves geeks seriously ask why that is.

This is also not to suggest that simply representing LGBT characters in genre fare leads to progressive politics – representation has the capacity to do more harm than good, and can often amount to little more than pandering to a superficial, token notion of what it means to exhibit diversity. Rather, the historical lack of queer representation in genre cinema is important in this case because it demonstrates what a boycott of Ender’s Game won’t accomplish: it won’t make corporate movies any friendlier of a place for queer themes, politics, or characters.

As Dustin Lance Black stated in , “Boycotting a movie made by 99% LGBT equality folks in an LGBT equality industry is a waste of our collective energy. Making one phone call to a relative in the south who isn’t quite there yet would be 1,000 times more effective.”

While I disagree that the Card boycott is a “waste of energy” – we should try to meet the butcher before we buy the meat in as many of our transactions as we can – I do agree that this isn’t, to a degree, Chick-fil-A. Card’s politics don’t reflect corporate discriminatory practices or evidence a direct chain of commerce from consumers to homophobic organizations (I doubt Card got a back-end deal of the film’s theatrical gross). However, as Hollywood’s MO is , “99% LGBT equality folks in an LGBT equality industry” don’t necessarily make for “LGBT equality cinema.”

In response to the Ender’s Game controversy, Lionsgate has promised to hold a benefit/premiere for the LGBT community. This benefit is, naturally, meant for the benefit of Lionsgate – an opportunity for the company to cater to a niche audience and protect a multi-million dollar property. Hollywood does this across the political spectrum, turning ideology and identity into advertising – look at Man of Steel’s promotional efforts towards . In response to Lionsgate’s response, that both Lionsgate and Card are entitled to any act of free speech they so please, but they are not entitled to anybody’s dollar.

But this also makes me wonder about what can ever be satisfying about this type of boycott, especially if it isn’t, according to any vocal side of it, supposed to be “about the movie.” Do we expect – or, more importantly, do we even want corporate entities like Lionsgate and their bottom-line studio practices to be elevated to the place of moral exemplars, meant to demonstrate the interpersonal values we hold as humans? Is there any possible outcome of this that won’t result in turning LGBT audiences into dollar signs, or a faceless group taken into account for risk assessment and brand management? Are we ultimately to suggest that the invisibility of certain politics is a virtue by default – and homophobia is only recognizable in its most cartoonishly virulent form, rather than as a series of nuanced but present practices and endemic assumptions?

The response to Ender’s Game has more than a few parallels to last summer’s protest around Mike Huckabee’s favorite preservative barn, especially because it’s articulated in the very same terms: not giving money to a commercial enterprise that might then funnel that money towards an anti-LGBT organization (a logic trail that implicates Lionsgate’s contracts with Card, rather than Card alone). For Slate last year, J. Bryan Lowder wrote about the limitations of corporate protest. Here are a few choice quotes:

“The stench of corporate personhood is all over this thing. Both the Left and Right are looking to boardrooms for guidance not only on what to buy, but also on what to believe. Corporations have become role models, moral actors worthy of praise or derision depending on your point of view. . . When we look to corporations for statements on sociopolitical issues, we’re promoting them to a status far beyond mere product or service provider. Suddenly, Starbucks and Chick-fil-A are being called upon to make moral judgments. The problem is, as organizations whose commitments shift with every quarterly profit report, they are supremely unqualified to make those kinds of pronouncements.”

In all seriousness, geeks and bloggers: keep up the boycott. Geeks Out: keep holding the practices and associations of studio filmmaking accountable and transparent. Orson Scott Card: go **** yourself. No amount of advertising and sleek promotion means that a movie deserves our money or must be seen. If Ender’s Game flops, I will likely enjoy a brief moment of satisfaction. Not only because of Card’s homophobia but, as with Chick-fil-A, because some forms of mass production are just plain bad for you.

That said, Ender’s Game may make the bar, and it’s important not to see this or any single commercial film’s fate as the terms by which LGBT advocacy in the field of entertainment is valued. Queer cinema exists. It exists on HBO with Behind the Candelabra. It exists in underground cinema with Interior. Leather Bar. It exists in the arthouse with Laurence Anyways. It doesn’t yet exist in science-fiction.

Emphasis on “yet.”

- See more at: