TWCL

[mcmasters]

I would also be curious if Justinfh's comic means Justinfh wants the guy to be fired. I took as general protest, but he can speak for himself.

[4LS]

Marscaleb wrote:

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.

I agree the video is over the top. I actually switched it off halfway through and had a poke round on google to find some other discussions on the subject.
_________________

[Marscaleb]

mcmasters wrote:

I can be totally in support of boycott without wanting him to be fired.

That's kind of like saying "I want to stab you but I don't want you to die."
Okay, perhaps that's a bit of an absurd analogy, but take a look at what else you said:

mcmasters wrote:

[Boycotting the comic] 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.

How is that really any different than him getting fired? So you'll let him keep his job this one time but he can't have a writing job in the future?

I support having boycotts as well, but you cannot escape the notion that when you are boycotting something you are stating that it should never be allowed. If you boycott a writer for having certain opinions then you are declaring that no one should be allowed to write if they have those opinions. There is no other way around this. (And truthfully, it really is stating that if you are a writer you can never declare that you have these opinions.)
There are writers who have opinions that are different than my own, but I would only boycott the works that are perpetuating the beliefs that I am against, not the author.
_________________
My webcomic: Mischief in Maytia
http://maytiacomic.com/

[Casual Notice]

Re: Boycotting a company v boycotting a perosn: Generally, a company is boycotted for something that company has done (raised prices, murdered a town in China with negligent waste disposal, etc.). The last time I heard of anyone attempting to boycott a company for their political opinion (Chik-Fil-A's support of Mitt Romney) that boycott failed miserably, and actually made the proponents a laughing stock. So, yeah, unless they started making it a corporate policy to kick puppies during business hours, I'm pretty sure the quality Swiss Chocolates of the Nestle company (and all of their wholly and partly owned subsidiaries) would get my business regardless of what bonehead political view they espoused.

RE: Card's RELIGIOUS (he's a devout Mormon, so even though those beliefs manifest as a political opinion, they are religious in nature) beliefs and his right to express them without repercussions: I'll be honest, in my opinion, almost everything that Card has said on the subject of Gay marriage and homosexuality is objectively and demonstrably wrong. By the same token, Susan Sarandon can't open her pie hole (without a script) and not spew out some bullshit second rate pseudo-philosophy she didn't fully understand in college but which stuck with her because it was "so deep, man..." And yet, I so don't care. As long as they keep making quality art, they'll still get my business. As comparison, I don't listen to Bill Maher because he's neither funny nor insiteful, mostly parroting the words of greater minds in an effort to get them to like him.

Re: Gay marriage in general: The only part of the marriage contract that should matter to any government body is the physical and fiscal distribution of rights and properties. It's not government's business whether the Pope thinks homosexuality is a sin or the High Duhat of the Church of the Holy Carbunkel swears it's the natural state of man. Government's business is the fair execution of contract and probate law. Period.
_________________
What I lack in sincerity, I make up for in sarcasm.
S*P*Q*R

[mcmasters]

Marscaleb wrote:

mcmasters wrote: I can be totally in support of boycott without wanting him to be fired. That's kind of like saying "I want to stab you but I don't want you to die." Okay, perhaps that's a bit of an absurd analogy, but take a look at what else you said: mcmasters wrote: [Boycotting the comic] 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. How is that really any different than him getting fired? So you'll let him keep his job this one time but he can't have a writing job in the future? I support having boycotts as well, but you cannot escape the notion that when you are boycotting something you are stating that it should never be allowed. If you boycott a writer for having certain opinions then you are declaring that no one should be allowed to write if they have those opinions. There is no other way around this. (And truthfully, it really is stating that if you are a writer you can never declare that you have these opinions.)

Yeah, I get what you are saying. I guess this is why I would make a shitty protester, I would be the one saying "it's cool that we made an effigy and all, but are we really going to burn it? Whoa!" Like with the ChickFilA thing, was the movement really "Hey, we want to CLOSE each and every store and ruin the lives of everyone at this business!"? Or was it, we're going to lean on you and maybe you'll redefine your anti-gay stance? Which is what I believe resulted (I can still get a sandwich, two pickles and one mayonnaise please!)

I'm just wary of the notion that there is this pro-gay tidal wave screaming for this guy's job. Is there? I watched the video (actually I stopped at 1:07 when the guy pulled the racism card, that told me all I needed to know about how objective the video was going to be) is there more than these two in outrage? I'm not plugged into the comic scene, I don't know. I like to give people the benefit of the doubt. Just like I don't like the stereotype of "anti-gay" people supposedly calling for gays to be led to the gas chamber, I don't like the stereotype of "pro-gays" being mindless politically correct headhunters. There's probably plenty of "pro-gays" sharing my opinion, which is the guy sounds like an asshole and I'm going to stop buying Superman, but I'm not calling for his firing.

Not that I read Superman. I grew up a Marvel snob.

[mcmasters]

4LS wrote:

I agree the video is over the top. I actually switched it off halfway through and had a poke round on google to find some other discussions on the subject.

Over the top is an understatement. Within four minutes they had Card depicted as a self-loathing racist closet homosexual. Thank god they didn't go five minutes, they would have me believe he was behind me right now raping my cat.

[ttallan]

I'm very glad I won't have to make a choice here-- I got bored with the DC superheroes a long time ago and I wouldn't read them no matter who was writing them. (This is more of a problem with DC's current mode of thinking, rather than their writers, I expect. I'd read more Astro City in a heartbeat.)

I wish I could divorce my enjoyment of books and comics from the authors' personalities. The internet, however, makes it really hard to do so. It goes the other way, too-- when I hear about an author doing something I consider particularly awesome, I'll be more likely to seek out his or her books.

FWIW, I met Mr Card many years ago at a book store signing. He was a nice man, with a good sense of humor.
_________________

[Marscaleb]

mcmasters wrote:

I'm just wary of the notion that there is this pro-gay tidal wave screaming for this guy's job. Is there?

I wouldn't say tidal wave, but there are some responses on this thread alone that suggest that there are a number of people offering their own boycott of Card. Enough to dissuade companies from hiring Card? I doubt. Enough to warrant honest discussion? I'd say so.

ttallan wrote:

I got bored with the DC superheroes a long time ago

mcmasters wrote:

Not that I read Superman. I grew up a Marvel snob.

This exactly why they hired Card to write for them.
I had never heard of any of this animosity toward Card before this thread appeared. I knew of his religious views and if I cared I could easily extrapolate what radicals hate him, but overall being an "anti-gay activist" is just not something Card is known as (and honestly, the title sounds to me on the same level as the claims that people interviewed after the Sandy Hook shooting were actors.)
No, the public really sees Orson Scott Card as one of the biggest -if not THE biggest- science-fiction writers alive today. Because that's what he is, even if a few people poisoned by resentment are trying to make him seem like his personal opinions are greater than his public works.

So DC, still struggling to get good numbers out of their comic sales, decided to hire the biggest name in science fiction they could.
Sounds like a good idea to me.
_________________
My webcomic: Mischief in Maytia
http://maytiacomic.com/

[iaviv]

http://tytempletonart.wordpress.com/2013/02/16/i-can-read-it-by-myself-bun-toons-yay/

He's also making some valid points below the comic, so read that too if you may.
_________________

[mcmasters]

Marscaleb wrote:

mcmasters wrote: I'm just wary of the notion that there is this pro-gay tidal wave screaming for this guy's job. Is there? I wouldn't say tidal wave, but there are some responses on this thread alone that suggest that there are a number of people offering their own boycott of Card. Enough to dissuade companies from hiring Card? I doubt. Enough to warrant honest discussion? I'd say so.

Actually the responses on this thread alone suggest any disdain at all for Card is at best unwarranted and at worst pro-gay propaganda.

Which I embrace, I don't want to be part of a community of single-minded Borgs. I still think the guy deserves a kick in the nuts rather than a stabbing (to stick with the analogy) but again if I were a regular buyer of Superman (I'm not) I would give it a rest for a few months.

[mcmasters]

iaviv wrote:

http://tytempletonart.wordpress.com/2013/02/16/i-can-read-it-by-myself-bun-toons-yay/ He's also making some valid points below the comic, so read that too if you may.

I don't agree with all of what he's saying but I love his use of Suess. I'm strongly influenced by Dr. S.

It mentions (disapprovingly) a push for a boycott for ALL of DC, I do not approve of that and had not even considered it. Anyone going that far I can't support.

[vulpeslibertas]

I'm not sure I should participate in this thread much further, but...

mcmasters wrote:

I still think the guy deserves a kick in the nuts rather than a stabbing (to stick with the analogy) but again if I were a regular buyer of Superman (I'm not) I would give it a rest for a few months.

Would Card be justified if he decided not to buy something because it was made by homosexuals? Isn't that more or less what he's doing that merits condemnation in the first place?
_________________

[nsanelilmunky]

While I don't agree with the guy's views (heh, I'd probably try to debate him if I ever met him) maybe these people should wait and see if he tries including an agenda in his writing or not. He hasn't made Superman do or say anything yet that would show you if he's writing in his political agenda or not. It's much the same as the male gamer community attacking Femanist Frequency for having a Kickstarter with the hopes of studying women in video games. While the attacks were childish, harsh, and wide-spread, they actually called her project to attention and she managed to raise more money than she was hoping to. Same with Chik-fil-a (spelling?) as someone else pointed out. And I really doubt that boycotting his work is really going to work. From what I remember, Superman's sales are in the toilet because DC killed him, then brought him back (Mary Sue style) like one or two issues later. I doubt DC would really see any difference in the numbers with this boycott.

[iaviv]

@nsanelilmunky- Yeah, a boycott might actually have an opposite effect. DC may sell more copies because of the supposed controversy. Wait, is this their strategy? Superman sales are, in fact, in the toilet (Aquaman is even doing better! No kidding!) so they can't get much worse.

Anyway, I don't read these things. Let me know if he's making Superman crash a gay wedding or something.
_________________

[mcmasters]

vulpeslibertas wrote:

mcmasters wrote: I still think the guy deserves a kick in the nuts rather than a stabbing (to stick with the analogy) but again if I were a regular buyer of Superman (I'm not) I would give it a rest for a few months. Would Card be justified if he decided not to buy something because it was made by homosexuals?

Sure.

Quote:

Isn't that more or less what he's doing that merits condemnation in the first place?

I'm not quite following you here...