TWCL Forum Index TWCL
Forums for The Webcomic List
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

Anti-Gay Activist to Write Superman Comic
Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    TWCL Forum Index -> General Ramblings
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Justinfh



Joined: 30 Sep 2012
Posts: 87

PostPosted: Fri Feb 15, 2013 5:07 am    Post subject: Anti-Gay Activist to Write Superman Comic Reply with quote

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/UvmtEiYOnYI" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Here's my response to it.


If you like this comic, you can find more at [url="http://DisgruntedComics.com]DisgruntledComics.com[/url]

Anyway, what's your opinion on this topic?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Marscaleb



Joined: 28 Aug 2012
Posts: 255

PostPosted: Fri Feb 15, 2013 6:48 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Just from the title I think... Someone may have their views on something and they may write for a popular form, but that doesn't mean that they will be expressing or supporting their opinions through their medium.

If someone were gay and they made a comic, would the comic have to be gay? Would they have to only have gay characters in their story? No, of course not; that would just be stupid.
They can write whatever story they dang well want to and there is no law that requires their work to try to convey the plight of the homosexual, or that it can't be appreciated by those who are not gay, or that it has to support some sort of gay agenda.

Likewise, if someone takes a stance for an anti-gay agenda, since when does that absolutely positively HAVE TO mean that ANYTHING they write is trying to undermine homosexuality somehow?
News flash: There are thousands of writers in the world who take stances for views that are considered "anti-gay" and these views are NEVER expressed in their work.

In all honesty, the whole fact that this headline and article would even be used suggests to me a very subtle -but also cruel- agenda to slander any who do not actively support homosexual causes. It straight away instigates feelings of "are you with us or against us" but with that also adds a light to portray the gay crowd as the underdog because this big name is being used to assault them. This is all done on a nearly sub-conscious level, but these are the exact kinds of emotions that story invokes. The first image that comes to a person's mind is that they are going to make Superman himself fighting against the gay community, and that's not what's going to happen. DC would never allow it; they have too much to lose from such an incident.
No, all that title REALLY does is subtly move us to think that this man shouldn't be allowed to make a comic because of his views. Or to re-iterate, that he should not be allowed to have a job because of his beliefs.
And that, my friends, is wrong and oppressive.
_________________
My webcomic: Mischief in Maytia
http://maytiacomic.com/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
mcmasters



Joined: 28 Jun 2012
Posts: 432

PostPosted: Fri Feb 15, 2013 2:37 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

The youtube link doesn't work (and I'm not big on watching youtube for news, I would rather read) and there is not a news article linked so it's hard to comment- is the guy really an "anti-gay activist" (that alone is subjective and needs a ton of definition)? Is he at comic conventions making anti-gay marriage pronouncements and handing out literature? If so that in my opinion rises to the level of "news" and I have no problem with people getting pissed and boycotting Superman. I don't know if the article-writer/youtuber is implying the guy will be covertly, or even openly, inserting anti-gay material into the stories...surely not.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mcmasters



Joined: 28 Jun 2012
Posts: 432

PostPosted: Fri Feb 15, 2013 2:49 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Marscaleb wrote:
No, all that title REALLY does is subtly move us to think that this man shouldn't be allowed to make a comic because of his views. Or to re-iterate, that he should not be allowed to have a job because of his beliefs.


I think there are a lot of articles and op-eds like this but I don't know if this is one of them. Again I don't know how outspoken the Superman writer is about it, but if he's really on a soapbox banging away, yes, that's news and an accurate title for the news would be: Anti-Gay Activist to Write Superman Comic.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
wendyw
The Bomb-diggity


Joined: 10 Jul 2008
Posts: 4116
Location: North-East England

PostPosted: Fri Feb 15, 2013 2:51 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Orson Scott Card is on the board of the National Organization for Marriage, has previously called for prominent gay people to be arrested to set an example, stated that if gay marriage goes through the US government should be overthrown, rewrote Hamlet so that the old king was a gay child abuser making his ghost the villain of the story, campaigned for it to be perfectly legal to fire people if they're gay (hey, and why not if you can arrest them for it?) and stated that homosexuality is a mental illness caused by sexual abuse, meaning that he not only thinks we're mentally ill but that we should be thrown in prison for being so.

The fact is that there are a lots of writers out there that have views that can be seen as "anti-gay", but most of them don't fund and help run anti-gay rights organisations. LGBT people generally put up with a lot and mostly just try and get on with things, but Card is a pretty extreme example. He's on a personal crusade against anyone who isn't straight and he has the money and influence to actually effect some change, so whilst he may well be able to stop himself from putting a homophobic slant on the comic, it should be perfectly understandable why a lot of people are unhappy with DC's decision and why they don't want a company they regularly give money to passing that money onto him.
_________________

Blog
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Casual Notice
Spambot Extraordinaire


Joined: 18 Mar 2005
Posts: 2959
Location: Oh my God, It's full of stars!

PostPosted: Fri Feb 15, 2013 3:01 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

On the other side of that coin, his best-known work features an openly gay character who is treated (by the author) sympathetically and without judgement. The question you have to ask yourself, is whether or not the man's politics are an issue in his work.
_________________
Casual Notice--commentary, comics and an appreciation for snappy hats.
S*P*Q*R
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
4LS



Joined: 18 Jan 2007
Posts: 666
Location: UK

PostPosted: Fri Feb 15, 2013 5:04 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Casual Notice wrote:
On the other side of that coin, his best-known work features an openly gay character who is treated (by the author) sympathetically and without judgement. The question you have to ask yourself, is whether or not the man's politics are an issue in his work.

Huh. Kind of reminds me of Dave Sim. Perfectly capable of writing a naunced female character, and yet undeniably misogynist. Of course, I did have to stop buying Cerebus, because his views did end up in his work - and I can only be told I'm a creative vacuum with no capacity for logical thought so many times before getting pissed off.

I think the question here is whether the guy should be treated like a private individual who got himself a job and is being attacked because of his personal views - or should be treated like a public brand with power and political clout. For instance, people didn't generally say 'Boycotting Nestle for political reasons is unfair, they should be judged purely on whether the products they offer are any good'.

It's a difficult question. Personally, I don't know how much influence this guy has - I had no idea about any of this before reading the thread. Still, I'd say that if he's actively and vocally participating in political campaigns that have influenced the law (i.e. if his 'personal' views are affecting the lives of people he's never even met), then he's heading into the latter category - and should be prepared for people to take political action against him (i.e. boycotting his products).
_________________

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
vulpeslibertas
Level 1 threat


Joined: 19 Dec 2005
Posts: 2488
Location: Here and there...mostly there. Sometimes kinda in between.

PostPosted: Fri Feb 15, 2013 5:57 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

For me, it's a question of "Should this man be unemployed because I disagree with his political beliefs?"

There are lots of people I disagree with. If I campaigned to have them all fired, there would be a lot of starving people in the world. If I will fire this man for his political beliefs, how is that different from him firing people for their political beliefs? Now if his views seep into his writing, then that's an entirely different issue, but I won't stamp someone with a yellow boycott star simply because of what they believe.


The only issue here is primacy of the offense: i.e. "murder is wrong, but murdering a murderer is ok."

It always amazes me how quick people are to say "Fire that person because I don't like them". Really, how should they feed themselves then? Why should your opinions be the deciding factor in whether or where someone can work? Why should his opinions be the deciding factor in whether or where someone can work? I'm usually in favor of not firing people for these things.

If he writes bad Superman comics, then don't read them, and DC will fix it soon enough.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
mcmasters



Joined: 28 Jun 2012
Posts: 432

PostPosted: Fri Feb 15, 2013 6:32 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Is there really a vocal push coming out for the guy to be fired?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
wendyw
The Bomb-diggity


Joined: 10 Jul 2008
Posts: 4116
Location: North-East England

PostPosted: Fri Feb 15, 2013 6:32 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

vulpeslibertas wrote:
For me, it's a question of "Should this man be unemployed because I disagree with his political beliefs?"


I just can't really view the unmitigated hatred this man seems to have as a political belief though.
_________________

Blog
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
vulpeslibertas
Level 1 threat


Joined: 19 Dec 2005
Posts: 2488
Location: Here and there...mostly there. Sometimes kinda in between.

PostPosted: Fri Feb 15, 2013 7:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

wendyw wrote:
I just can't really view the unmitigated hatred this man seems to have as a political belief though.
And he can't see yours, either. Tolerance depends on accepting that which is wrong. It isn't tolerance if you accept something that you agree with. Have you talked with the man? Do you know what his actual views are, or are we taking it on hearsay? How do you know that he does not think of his opponents as hateful, and if so, wouldn't he then be justified in wanting people fired, just as you believe that you are? Assuming that the view of him posited here is correct, does the man's opinion, hate, merit a judgment and a sentencing? What is the difference between that and a thought crime?

If you (hypothetically) want to see this man fired because of his viewpoint, then why isn't he (hypothetically) justified in wanting someone else fired because of their viewpoint? What's the difference between the two sides from a dispassionate third-person perspective?

mcmasters wrote:
Is there really a vocal push coming out for the guy to be fired?
That's what Justinfh's comic implies. Although "vocal" may be technically incorrect since we are talking comics. This thread certainly didn't start because someone wanted to see the man get a raise. There is no point in protesting DC Comics unless A. You expect them to fire Card, or B. You have an ulterior motive, like a PR stunt.

---

From time to time, someone will post a "X guy needs to be fired because of Z" post here. Usually I'm on the side of letting the person keep their job. I wouldn't want to be fired because of what I believe, think, or because of a single stupid mistake, and so I would not fire someone else for what they believe or because of a single stupid mistake. Now if it is relevant to the position, that's another story: I wouldn't want a convicted embezzler working at my bank. But there's no reason the embezzler can't work washing windows, flipping burgers, or writing comic books.

Same thing for the bus driver oogling boobs. Ok, so maybe he oogled her boobs and said something inappropriate. Reprimand the guy, but let him keep earning food for the table.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
4LS



Joined: 18 Jan 2007
Posts: 666
Location: UK

PostPosted: Fri Feb 15, 2013 7:33 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

vulpeslibertas wrote:
There are lots of people I disagree with. If I campaigned to have them all fired, there would be a lot of starving people in the world. If I will fire this man for his political beliefs, how is that different from him firing people for their political beliefs? Now if his views seep into his writing, then that's an entirely different issue, but I won't stamp someone with a yellow boycott star simply because of what they believe.

I'd argue there's a difference between simply saying 'Sack this guy', and saying 'I'm not going to actively give this guy my money'. Should a pro-gay Superman fan force themselves to buy this book, when they know that some percentage of that money could end up funding a campaign to limit gay rights? In the end, it's their money - they should be able to spend it how they like.

Not that I believe it'll make any difference anyway. Hell, controversy usually gives sales a boost.
_________________

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Marscaleb



Joined: 28 Aug 2012
Posts: 255

PostPosted: Fri Feb 15, 2013 7:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

vulpeslibertas wrote:
For me, it's a question of "Should this man be unemployed because I disagree with his political beliefs?"


Exactly!

Also, I am extremely displeased at the notion that one would throw out the term "anti-gay."

Let's be clear about something here. The only person who could be classified as being "anti-gay" would be someone who is willfully engaging in measures to exterminate homosexuality. News flash: there are very few people in the US who who want to round up gays into concentration camps. (I can't speak for other nations as I do not know their culture.)
Yet I can easily see people throwing an "anti-gay" label on someone for being against same-sex marriage. These are not the same thing. People who oppose same-sex marriage do so because they view marriage as sacred, and find it offensive that people would want to redefine a religious institution to fulfill what is essentially a self-serving motivation.
There is so much slander and hateful propaganda out there trying to make it look like people who are against same-sex marriage are doing so purely out of a hatred (or at least a dislike) of homosexuals. That's not the case, and I want to make a public statement here that that is not what it's about.
Furthermore, marriage itself is not about expressing love between two people, it is about establishing a family. The notion that marriage is an expression of love (which is a pillar in the argument of same-sex marriage) is one that also accelerates rampant divorce rates and tears families apart.

I have seen nothing from Card which suggests that he is purporting "unmitigated hatred" of homosexuals.
Let's check some facts here:
-He views homosexuality as being a deviant behavior.
THAT IS NOT HATRED, THAT IS A BELIEF ON AN ISSUE OF BEHAVIOR THAT DOES NOT HAVE A CLEAR SCIENTIFIC EXPLANATION.
Someone can EASILY view homosexuality as being an errant behavior without having hatred toward homosexuals, because those two views are not connected. A person can care for another person greatly and still view certain aspects of their behavior to be wrong.
If you have a child, and your child does something bad, let's say they eat a whole box of cookies before dinner, do you somehow stop loving your child? Do you now fill yourself with nothing but "unmitigated hatred" toward your child because they did something wrong? Of course not. You still love your child more than anything, but you will take measures to keep your child from engaging in behavior that you know will hurt that child.
Likewise with such a view of homosexuality. Viewing it as a deviant behavior does NOT mean having hatred toward homosexuals. It means he views them as engaging in behavior that he feels will hurt them and/or society.

Now I am not saying I endorse this view of homosexuality, in fact I will state that I would not call it that. But it IS a valid opinion. Until someone can scientifically prove what causes a person to have homosexual desires, the only explanation anyone can give is one determined from observations of their own experiences and feelings. And the fact remains that whether or not someone can "choose" to be gay, all people still choose what they do with their sexual desires.

I'm saying all of this because this video and a few people here are throwing out terms of hatred that are based on gross misrepresentations of things Card has said. He has NEVER said anything along the lines that "all gays should die" nor has he said that gay people should be denied rights or punished except on matters where such actions are not one-sided issues, but rather that have valid debatable points on both sides.
And above all else, everything he has stated has come out of a belief that a homosexual can turn away from his homosexual behavior.
This is not hatred. You may argue that he is misguided or misinformed, but that is not hatred.

You want to know an example of hatred? Take a look at the video that sparked this whole debate. There is nothing ANYWHERE that has suggested that Card would try to turn Superman comic into an "anti-gay" rant. The whole purpose of that video is to try to demean a man over actions he has not taken, and which we have an overwhelming amount of history to suggest that he would not take. This video is running an agenda to get people to think that Card does not deserve have a job by slandering him with misrepresentation.
_________________
My webcomic: Mischief in Maytia
http://maytiacomic.com/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Marscaleb



Joined: 28 Aug 2012
Posts: 255

PostPosted: Fri Feb 15, 2013 8:11 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

4LS wrote:

I'd argue there's a difference between simply saying 'Sack this guy', and saying 'I'm not going to actively give this guy my money'.


A valid and rational point.
But when you make a news video like this one you cross the line from "personal beliefs and boycotts" to "public collaboration." In fact, this video goes even farther than that; it really is a slander agenda. They even try to demean him for having said "black." (Duh, geniuses, "African-American" is an extremely egotistical term. What do you call a black man who lives in Europe?)
They really do not in any present this matter as one of personal choice. They don't give any impression that this is just their individual opinion, let alone give room for the individual audience member to make their choice. They are trying to get people to feel bad for supporting him.

So, yes I agree that there is a difference between saying "sack this guy" and saying "I'm not going to actively give this guy my money," And I would say that they have crossed that line and are saying "sack this guy."
_________________
My webcomic: Mischief in Maytia
http://maytiacomic.com/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
mcmasters



Joined: 28 Jun 2012
Posts: 432

PostPosted: Fri Feb 15, 2013 8:11 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

vulpeslibertas wrote:
mcmasters wrote:
Is there really a vocal push coming out for the guy to be fired?
That's what Justinfh's comic implies. Although "vocal" may be technically incorrect since we are talking comics. This thread certainly didn't start because someone wanted to see the man get a raise. There is no point in protesting DC Comics unless A. You expect them to fire Card, or B. You have an ulterior motive, like a PR stunt.


I can be totally in support of boycott without wanting him to be fired. My feeling if I disagree with your political views, especially if you're in the entertainment business, is screw you you're not going to get my dollar. But no I don't want the guy fired, that's excessive and encourages political correctness and "proper-thinking." Enough people boycotting the comic could lead him to getting fired but not necessarily, but it could lead to DC thinking twice next time a similar situation come up, or it could lead to policy change in hiring for the future, or something like that.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    TWCL Forum Index -> General Ramblings All times are GMT + 1 Hour
Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next
Page 1 of 6

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group

Hosted by Fluent
The Webcomics List is operated and owned by Ash Young. Syndicate the comic updates.