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

[Storm Rider]

Yep, read them and I still don't see any strong criticism of this group. What exactly does "calling for Mr. Card's head on a pike" actually mean? To have him fired. I sense Daniel that you don't want civil discourse as you want it sanitized of all real criticism of the gay culture and its aggressive agenda. I laughed out loud when I read the criticisms of Card's over-the-top comments on demanding a government that does not attack his moral beliefs. ACT UP would have achieved nothing if it had remained a quiet, civil organization. At times, it is necessary in society to be over-the-top, to be in-your-face, and be absolutely clear. It is certain that Card expresses strong emotion and aggressive action, but this does not intimidate me or define him as someone that needs to be locked away from people. Where would we be as a society if we did this to every radical group? One thing for certain is that we would not be talking about a gay agenda; they would be so far back in the closet that it would not even be a question. Value the radicals on both sides; but for goodness sake's have the decency to defend the rights of individuals to state their opinion without fear of reprisal or attack.

[semlogo]

Whatever happened to the classic liberal expression of tolerance?

It's still strong. Tolerance of viewpoints is quite a different thing from tolerance of gender, sexuality, race, nationality, etc. No one can or should tolerate every viewpoint.

[semlogo]

Yes. If they did it on a blog on their own time that had no connection to whatever job they had. If it had no effect on the work they did. If it had no actual effect on the community or individuals in the community minus the fact that anyone who chose to read the blog was offended... Yes.

Same goes for race and sex, whether I'm apart of those groups or not: if you have an issue with mixed people, white, black, hispanic, mormons, or women I'm going to have a low opinion of you. But as long as it doesn't affect my life or the lives of the groups that I associated with and felt some affiliation to, I don't care and I wouldn't feel like I have the right to make them pay for their stupid beliefs. And this isn't stated purely hypothetically, there have been direct experience with it.

So change the group to whatever one you desire, my answer remains the same.

With luv,

BD

You're entitled to your opinion. In the real world, however, people get fired for this sort of thing all the time. For instance:

http://www.wfsb.com/story/21231752/man-accused-of-slapping-baby-on-plane-fired-from-job

[semlogo]

Sure it is. You are saying tolerance is good universally, but then going against your own statement.

Well then they aren't really tolerant people, are they?

That's up to you. But in that case, you couldn't say tolerance was good universally.

No one is obliged to tolerate backwards viewpoints. We should all feel obliged to tolerate things we can't help, like sexual orientation, gender, race, etc.

[semlogo]

Glenn101, on 13 February 2013 - 08:02 PM, said:

I am glad that you do not think that the extreme intolerance by the gays against Orson Scott Card should be tolerated.

That is strange. I would consider agitating to have someone fired for stating their beliefs as rather intolerant. Maybe you have a different definition than the dictionary.

in·tol·er·ant

adjective

1. not tolerating or respecting beliefs, opinions, usages, manners, etc., different from one's own, as in political or religious matters; bigoted.

Glenn

Mr Card is free to express whatever views he wishes. He is also free to work for an employer whose customers don't care.

[mrmandias]

Any insurrection would be cause for great concern. We are supposed to be a nation of laws. Courts are a function of law. Any thing less is an appeal to mobocracy.

Can't quite say I agree, in principle. I don't think you've thought this all the way through.

Insurrection can be justified on rare occasions, and its not an appeal to 'mobocracy' when it happens. The American Revolution is one example.

Not everything a court does is legal. Judges are human and can abuse their power. Look at the Dred Scott court, for example, or Roe v. Wade. Suppose that a court some day held that the bill of rights didn't apply anymore, because its a living constitution and a changing society--surely you would agree that the court had gone too far?

On the other hand, in a government run by people part of accepting the rule of law is accepting that there will be occasional errors or abuses. So its a judgement call about what errors and abuses go to far so that insurrection becomes thinkable. That's a far different call, however, from flatly stating that whatever the courts do is the law and we all have to accept it if we don't want to be mobocrats.

[mrmandias]

Mr Card is free to express whatever views he wishes. He is also free to work for an employer whose customers don't care.

And you are free to be a hypocrite. And we are free to criticize you for it.

[semlogo]

And you are free to be a hypocrite. And we are free to criticize you for it.

I guess you're free to call me names.

Tolerance should always be aimed at the things we can't help. But you're free to continue to be tone deaf to the difference.

[Glenn101]

Glenn101, on 13 February 2013 - 08:02 PM, said:

I am glad that you do not think that the extreme intolerance by the gays against Orson Scott Card should be tolerated.

That is strange. I would consider agitating to have someone fired for stating their beliefs as rather intolerant. Maybe you have a different definition than the dictionary.

in·tol·er·ant

adjective

1. not tolerating or respecting beliefs, opinions, usages, manners, etc., different from one's own, as in political or religious matters; bigoted.

Glenn

Mr Card is free to express whatever views he wishes. He is also free to work for an employer whose customers don't care.

You have completely dodged the issue.

Glenn

[BlueDreams]

You're entitled to your opinion. In the real world, however, people get fired for this sort of thing all the time. For instance:

http://www.wfsb.com/...-fired-from-job

Being charged with simple assault by slapping a toddler in the face is not even close to the same as writing blog posts. For one: One's illegal and a form of child abuse (and basic human decency). The other is not. If Card went and punched a gay person for being gay, then I'd be right on in there in calling for his job and charging him with assualt/hate crimes. When you can pinpoint something that Card's done that is actually punishable by law, then I'll give you that example. Right now it doesn't work and it doesn't fit the parameters I initially mentioned/inferred in the first place. That definitely impinges on the rights and basic security of another. They not even close to equivalent.

With luv,

BD

[bluebell]

You're entitled to your opinion. In the real world, however, people get fired for this sort of thing all the time. For instance:

http://www.wfsb.com/...-fired-from-job

To be accurate, the title of the article doesn't exactly fit the information that the article itself gives:

"Hundley's employer initially suspended him after hearing of the alleged incident. A company spokesman would not say whether he resigned or was fired, only that the allegations were contradictory to the company's values."

He certainly might have been fired, but no one but him and the company knows if that is the case (at this point anyway). Firing someone for assault is a lot different than firing them for something they said on a blog though, so I'm not sure the comparison is at all valid.

More to the point of your point though-just because something happens in the 'real world all the time' does not mean it's o.k. Let's not try to argue that, because that will lead us into a real mess.

[thesometimesaint]

Can't quite say I agree, in principle. I don't think you've thought this all the way through.

Insurrection can be justified on rare occasions, and its not an appeal to 'mobocracy' when it happens. The American Revolution is one example.

Not everything a court does is legal. Judges are human and can abuse their power. Look at the Dred Scott court, for example, or Roe v. Wade. Suppose that a court some day held that the bill of rights didn't apply anymore, because its a living constitution and a changing society--surely you would agree that the court had gone too far?

On the other hand, in a government run by people part of accepting the rule of law is accepting that there will be occasional errors or abuses. So its a judgement call about what errors and abuses go to far so that insurrection becomes thinkable. That's a far different call, however, from flatly stating that whatever the courts do is the law and we all have to accept it if we don't want to be mobocrats.

Under our laws insurrection is never justified. Either change the laws, or move to where different laws apply.

Even the American Revolution was an act of defiance to law. Our beloved founding fathers would have been hung if the British would have captured them.

By definition it is legal. Moral, or even rational are sometimes another story.

The Supreme Court is the ultimate authority on what is Constitutional. We either change the laws or wait long enough to change the composition of the Supreme Court. Again moral or even rational are different arguments. The Bill of Rights is enshrined within our Constitution. The Supreme Court has no authority to eliminate them. Since 1803 the Supreme Court has the right and responsibility to determine how those rights are interpreted.

We are a Republic. if we can keep it. We vote for our representatives to represent us. If we don't like the job they are doing it is our right and responsibility to vote them out of office. We have no authority on our own to setup our own government. The South tried that about 140 years ago. It didn't workout really well for them.

[Sleeper Cell]

Can you provide some examples of what you're referring to where "'social justice'" has "trump[ed] justice"?

I already did. A previous poster appealed to “social justice” rather than to “justice” to justify an attempt to get Orson Scott Card fired for reasons that have nothing to do with job performance, nor is it alleged that any contractual provisions concerning activities outside the workplace”. were violated. It is not just to pressure an employer to fire employees for exercising their fundamental right of free speech on their own time, simply because you disagree with it. If it were, the poster would not have had to resort to the term “social justice.”

People concerned with social justice and equality have never tolerated intolerance. Nor should we. It would be like a physician tolerating disease.

Those who say that they refuse to tolerate “intolerance,” are, by definition, admitting that they, themselves, are “intolerant.” In terms of the metaphor used above, they have become the very disease they are fighting.

“Tolerance” does not mean “agreement.” One does not “tolerate” speech with which he agrees. Nor is it limited only to those opposing views which one doesn’t find offensive. It is easy to tolerate opposing views on subjects one does not feel very strongly about. The real test is whether you can tolerate opposing views on the subjects you feel most passionate about, or whether you try to suppress opposing views and those who express them.

People concerned with justice and liberty oppose intolerant speech by exercising their own free speech rights to argue against what was said, not by trying to suppress the free speech of the other guy by trying to get him fired (and, not so incidentally, thereby intimidating others from exercising their right to free speech).

BTW, wasn’t the “Hollywood blacklist” of the early 1950s justified by appealing to a sort of right-wing version of “social justice?” At least, the victims of the “ blacklist” were accused/suspected of trying to sneak their objectionable views into the movies. As far as I know, nobody has ever accused Orson Scott Card of using Superman to advance his own personal agenda.

　

Finally, would you say any of your examples are morally rational (according to your view of morality... i.e. "it is better for one man to perish, than for an entire nation to dwindle, because of unbelief")?

IIRC, this quote refers to the atonement of Jesus (which, ultimately, was a voluntary act). It certainly is not a justification for persecuting influential unbelievers for exercising their right to free speech in 21st century America.

My view of morality includes my obligation to uphold and defend the Constitution, which, among other things, embodies the concept that it is better for a guilty man to go free than for an innocent man to be unjustly convicted.

[Sleeper Cell]

It's still strong. Tolerance of viewpoints is quite a different thing from tolerance of gender, sexuality, race, nationality, etc. No one can or should tolerate every viewpoint.

Apparently, it is not still strong. The entire point of the expression:

I don’t agree with what you said, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.

is that we should tolerate the expression of every viewpoint. You say that we should not tolerate the expression of every viewpoint and essentially admit that you are only willing to defend the right of someone to express those views which do not strongly offend you.

"Tolerance” does not mean “agreement” or “indifference.” Tolerant people fight against offensive viewpoints by exercising their own free speech to argue against what was said, not by trying to get people fired for saying it.

BTW, the above quoted expression of tolerance (to which you refer and which you say is still strong) has nothing to do with tolerance of gender, sexuality, race, nationality, etc (as worthy as these may be). It refers specifically to expression of viewpoints.

[Sleeper Cell]

No one is obliged to tolerate backwards viewpoints. We should all feel obliged to tolerate things we can't help, like sexual orientation, gender, race, etc.

Wonderful. Simply define a person’s viewpoint as “backward” and you can get him fired for it and still call yourself tolerant. On that basis, one can justify firing someone on the basis of religion. After all, many people believe the doctrines of some churches are “backwards.” For that matter, some believe that mere belief in God is “backward.” Since one‘s religious belief and church membership is something one can help (unlike “sexual orientation, gender, race, etc.”), do you believe that no one is obliged to practice religious tolerance?

[RobertAC]

In the news, DC said the following:

"DC Comics, a division of Time Warner, the parent company of CNN, issued a statement Wednesday defending its decision to include Card among the writers.

"'As content creators we steadfastly support freedom of expression, however the personal views of individuals associated with DC Comics are just that -- personal views -- and not those of the company itself," the statement said.

"Card declined to comment to CNN.

"Mitch Cutler, whose store, St. Mark's Comics has been open in New York City's East Village neighborhood for nearly 30 years, seemed to agree.

"'Someone did tweet to us about boycotting the series, but since the first day (we opened) we have been committed to carrying everything we can in comics," Cutler said. "I'm sure right now on the shelves there is content I might not necessarily agree with. So while I understand Mr. Card may have advocated things that might upset people, it would be very uncharacteristic of us to refuse to carry something for that reason.'"

http://www.cnn.com/2013/02/15/us/superman-controversy

[The Nehor]

I guess by the standards here I am very intolerant. I would not read a book written by a member of the KKK and would personally boycott any organization openly hiring one with a full knowledge of their beliefs.

Freedom of Speech does not include any protection from the social or economic consequences of those beliefs.

[Stargazer]

David Gerrold was quoted by Daniel2 as writing:

I see that you have hired a writer for Superman who has written strongly of his opposition to equal rights for LGBT people. And I see that there is an online petition protesting that move.

Of course, this is a very tired argument, but this so-called opposition to LGBT rights is very disingenuous. Someone spun up "rights" out of nothing at all, and now, instead of being opposed to marriage being redefined from its traditional definition as a legal and contractual relationship between a man and a woman for the purpose of procreation, now he is opposed to equal rights. And who could be opposed to equal rights? Only a bigot, of course. Nice pivot.

And I don't give a rat's ptooie that some men and women can't or won't procreate, that's the exception not the rule.

I believe that all lesbians, gays, bixexuals and transgendered people have every right that I have. They even have the right to marry -- as long as they marry someone of opposite sex. Because that is what marriage IS. Just because I label my rosebush as an azalea, does not by any stretch of the imagination MAKE it an azalea. Two men or two women cannot MARRY each other. I don't care what law you envision, it can't make it a marriage.

And King Knute could not legislate the ocean's tides either, no matter how hard he strained.

Don't bother to argue with me over this. You cannot convince me. My mind is made up. If you label me a bigot because of it, knock yourself out, but it makes no difference.

And trying to get me fired from my job because of my attitude is just as dastardly as trying to get a gay fired from HIS job because he's gay.

Pot meet kettle.

Edited to add: Actually, this whole thing makes me want to go out and buy this comic strip/book/whatever. Despite the fact that I outgrew Superman decades ago.

[TAO]

I guess by the standards here I am very intolerant. I would not read a book written by a member of the KKK and would personally boycott any organization openly hiring one with a full knowledge of their beliefs.

Freedom of Speech does not include any protection from the social or economic consequences of those beliefs.

Definately. Just make sure you are consistent about it. In other words, there are very few people who are truly tolerant, and so thus, it's not good to call oneself that unless one truly is and such.

[bluebell]

I guess by the standards here I am very intolerant. I would not read a book written by a member of the KKK and would personally boycott any organization openly hiring one with a full knowledge of their beliefs.

Freedom of Speech does not include any protection from the social or economic consequences of those beliefs.

like Tao said, as long as you're consistent then its not really something that another can validly argue against.

If you would support some trying to get a Mormon fired because they thought Mormonism was evil, for example, then your intolerance towards KKK members having jobs is reasonable and makes sense.

It's only when the criteria for being free from persecusion is "as long as you agree with my beliefs" that intolerance deserves to be called out, in my opinion.

[BlueDreams]

Of course, this is a very tired argument, but this so-called opposition to LGBT rights is very disingenuous. Someone spun up "rights" out of nothing at all, and now, instead of being opposed to marriage being redefined from its traditional definition as a legal and contractual relationship between a man and a woman for the purpose of procreation, now he is opposed to equal rights. And who could be opposed to equal rights? Only a bigot, of course. Nice pivot.

Honestly I'm surprised it took activists as long to change the terms to such an idea. It's quite common for people to change their major slogan or language of their points to appeal to the greater public. For example the idea of Pro-life v pro-choice. Both of them are meant to highlight what the two camps see as the positive aspects of their ideology. They both also infer that the other side does not want choices for mothers or that the others do not value life. Neither of the the which are accurate....but still.

Edited to add: Actually, this whole thing makes me want to go out and buy this comic strip/book/whatever. Despite the fact that I outgrew Superman decades ago.

I was actually thinking about that yesterday (not buying a comic....I've never bought a comic and am not about to start). Comic books don't get a lot of press time in the first place. I was wondering if this would hurt sales or actually help it....or at least neutralize the effect.

with luv,

BD

[thesometimesaint]

I guess by the standards here I am very intolerant. I would not read a book written by a member of the KKK and would personally boycott any organization openly hiring one with a full knowledge of their beliefs.

Freedom of Speech does not include any protection from the social or economic consequences of those beliefs.

I've read KKK material. It is indeed disgusting. But I do so in order to know when to run.

Ps; The cure for bad speech is not censorship, but more good speech.

[semlogo]

Being charged with simple assault by slapping a toddler in the face is not even close to the same as writing blog posts. For one: One's illegal and a form of child abuse (and basic human decency). The other is not. If Card went and punched a gay person for being gay, then I'd be right on in there in calling for his job and charging him with assualt/hate crimes. When you can pinpoint something that Card's done that is actually punishable by law, then I'll give you that example. Right now it doesn't work and it doesn't fit the parameters I initially mentioned/inferred in the first place. That definitely impinges on the rights and basic security of another. They not even close to equivalent.

With luv,

BD

I was referring to what this man called the child. People can and do get fired for racism, even when expressed off the clock. Homophobia is no different. In America employers have the right to terminate employees for this kind of conduct.

[semlogo]

To be accurate, the title of the article doesn't exactly fit the information that the article itself gives:

"Hundley's employer initially suspended him after hearing of the alleged incident. A company spokesman would not say whether he resigned or was fired, only that the allegations were contradictory to the company's values."

He certainly might have been fired, but no one but him and the company knows if that is the case (at this point anyway). Firing someone for assault is a lot different than firing them for something they said on a blog though, so I'm not sure the comparison is at all valid.

More to the point of your point though-just because something happens in the 'real world all the time' does not mean it's o.k. Let's not try to argue that, because that will lead us into a real mess.

It's not really different. People get fired for the things they say all the time. Free speech doesn't cover guaranteed employment. Nor should it.

[semlogo]

I already did. A previous poster appealed to “social justice” rather than to “justice” to justify an attempt to get Orson Scott Card fired for reasons that have nothing to do with job performance, nor is it alleged that any contractual provisions concerning activities outside the workplace”. were violated. It is not just to pressure an employer to fire employees for exercising their fundamental right of free speech on their own time, simply because you disagree with it. If it were, the poster would not have had to resort to the term “social justice.”

Those who say that they refuse to tolerate “intolerance,” are, by definition, admitting that they, themselves, are “intolerant.” In terms of the metaphor used above, they have become the very disease they are fighting.

“Tolerance” does not mean “agreement.” One does not “tolerate” speech with which he agrees. Nor is it limited only to those opposing views which one doesn’t find offensive. It is easy to tolerate opposing views on subjects one does not feel very strongly about. The real test is whether you can tolerate opposing views on the subjects you feel most passionate about, or whether you try to suppress opposing views and those who express them.

People concerned with justice and liberty oppose intolerant speech by exercising their own free speech rights to argue against what was said, not by trying to suppress the free speech of the other guy by trying to get him fired (and, not so incidentally, thereby intimidating others from exercising their right to free speech).

BTW, wasn’t the “Hollywood blacklist” of the early 1950s justified by appealing to a sort of right-wing version of “social justice?” At least, the victims of the “ blacklist” were accused/suspected of trying to sneak their objectionable views into the movies. As far as I know, nobody has ever accused Orson Scott Card of using Superman to advance his own personal agenda.

　

IIRC, this quote refers to the atonement of Jesus (which, ultimately, was a voluntary act). It certainly is not a justification for persecuting influential unbelievers for exercising their right to free speech in 21st century America.

My view of morality includes my obligation to uphold and defend the Constitution, which, among other things, embodies the concept that it is better for a guilty man to go free than for an innocent man to be unjustly convicted.

No one is infringing on Mr. Card's free speech rights. He is clear to be as intolerant toward gays, pinkos, and other perceived enemies all he likes.

Your tone-deaf view of "tolerance" is easy to dismantle with a simple (but boring) Godwin's law violation.