Please boycott Ender's game if you care about equality and the end

[pheo3309]

Something that seems to be lost in this thread is that Freedom of Speech is the right of someone to speak without hindrance even when the message they have makes your skin crawl. Attempting to silence someone by extra legal methods such as boycotts is simply trying an end run around the First Amendment. Freedom of Speech is exactly that..the unabridged right to say what you like or believe with the notable exception of inciting criminal or treasonous acts.

 

 

For the record, there's nothing infringing any rights through a boycott. Boycotts are a form of protest which is also a First Amendment right in America as well. A protected right. If we didn't have the ability to protest, there'd never be any fight for basic human rights. Do I agree with boycotts? Sometimes. But there's no rights being infringed, circumvented, or acted upon other than the the right to protest. Do I agree with this one? Not anymore. Why? 1) The movie doesn't interest me to begin with, so I'm not going to watch it in theaters. Why boycott the movie if it doesn't interest me? 2) Based on the hype of the hysteria revolving around Mr. Card's statements, they've stated that he's not onboard with them and others in this topic parroted the same thing by saying that if he does get money from the movie, it's little to none. But boycotting the movie isn't going to hurt him because he's not the one behind it. Lionsgate is. He just wrote the book.

[JimboUK]

 

Something that seems to be lost in this thread is that Freedom of Speech is the right of someone to speak without hindrance even when the message they have makes your skin crawl. Attempting to silence someone by extra legal methods such as boycotts is simply trying an end run around the First Amendment. Freedom of Speech is exactly that..the unabridged right to say what you like or believe with the notable exception of inciting criminal or treasonous acts.

 

 

For the record, there's nothing infringing any rights through a boycott. Boycotts are a form of protest which is also a First Amendment right in America as well. A protected right. If we didn't have the ability to protest, there'd never be any fight for basic human rights. Do I agree with boycotts? Sometimes. But there's no rights being infringed, circumvented, or acted upon other than the the right to protest. Do I agree with this one? Not anymore. Why? 1) The movie doesn't interest me to begin with, so I'm not going to watch it in theaters. Why boycott the movie if it doesn't interest me? 2) Based on the hype of the hysteria revolving around Mr. Card's statements, they've stated that he's not onboard with them and others in this topic parroted the same thing by saying that if he does get money from the movie, it's little to none. But boycotting the movie isn't going to hurt him because he's not the one behind it. Lionsgate is. He just wrote the book.

 

 

What the boycott does is send a message, it tells people that if they say something a group finds offensive they will be punished, the result is people start self censoring and that is exactly what opponents of free speech want.

[Zewp]

Politicians sure seem to get away with it.

 

To be completely serious, freedom of speech is all about being able to say what you want, when you want. As long as you are not physically removing someone else's rights, or doing something criminal like inciting violence (another topic entirely) a person should be able to express their opinions without fear of punishment - be it from the government or from the population. Just like it's not fair for, say, Christian groups to advocate mass boycotts of a gay author's film, it isn't fair to advocate mass boycotts of Card's film for talking about his unfortunate opinion.

 

So it's unfair to advocate boycotting a film because you don't like the author's opinion, but it's fair to advocate removing the rights of certain demographics because you don't like their lifestyle? Because that's what I'm taking from your post.

 

 

 

What the boycott does is send a message, it tells people that if they say something a group finds offensive they will be punished, the result is people start self censoring and that is exactly what opponents of free speech want.

That's misrepresenting the argument somewhat. This isn't just about someone saying something offensive, this is about protesting because someone is advocating having peoples' basic human rights removed. You have your complete freedom of speech, but your freedom of speech does not make you immune to having your opinions scrutinized or opposed.

Opposing a radical opinion is nowhere near the same as opposing freedom of speech.

Edited August 13, 2013 by Zewp

[JimboUK]

 

Politicians sure seem to get away with it.

 

To be completely serious, freedom of speech is all about being able to say what you want, when you want. As long as you are not physically removing someone else's rights, or doing something criminal like inciting violence (another topic entirely) a person should be able to express their opinions without fear of punishment - be it from the government or from the population. Just like it's not fair for, say, Christian groups to advocate mass boycotts of a gay author's film, it isn't fair to advocate mass boycotts of Card's film for talking about his unfortunate opinion.

 

So it's unfair to advocate boycotting a film because you don't like the author's opinion, but it's fair to advocate removing the rights of certain demographics because you don't like their lifestyle? Because that's what I'm taking from your post.

 

 

 

What the boycott does is send a message, it tells people that if they say something a group finds offensive they will be punished, the result is people start self censoring and that is exactly what opponents of free speech want.

That's misrepresenting the argument somewhat. This isn't just about someone saying something offensive, this is about protesting because someone is advocating having peoples' basic human rights removed. You have your complete freedom of speech, but your freedom of speech does not make you immune to having your opinions scrutinized or opposed.

Opposing a radical opinion is nowhere near the same as opposing freedom of speech.

 

 

The answer to someone who wants to remove the rights of others is not a removal of their rights, that drags you down to his level, two wrongs do not make a right. I think Card is a disgusting individual but I think those who want to silence him are equally disgusting. Many people have fought and died for the rights we have today, don't be so quick to throw them away.

[Aurielius]

@Zewp

"Opposing a radical opinion is nowhere near the same as opposing freedom of speech"...amusing distinction..so by that logic someone who sees your life view as 'radical' has the same right to attempt to silence you by economic means. Abridging freedoms has no end once you start down that path.

[MajKrAzAm]

words....

Free speech has consequences, da comrade??

 

Gay activists who are used to positive publicity and free promotion in the media are enraged because their own group solidarity makes them angrier about other groups. That's the beauty of group dynamics and how they influence awareness of and hatred for the Other. That's why there has never been a society in which decreasing homogeneity resulted in less conflict. That's why gays (and everyone else) will keep getting angrier--because even if you win, They exist, and They must be eradicated. It's as old as human civilization.

 

This won’t end. Look at how in less than one generation homosexuality has gone from being considered a pathological personality disorder, to now where gays not only demand acceptance of their dysgenic lifestyles but also for the right to marry.

[Zewp]

The answer to someone who wants to remove the rights of others is not a removal of their rights, that drags you down to his level, two wrongs do not make a right. I think Card is a disgusting individual but I think those who want to silence him are equally disgusting. Many people have fought and died for the rights we have today, don't be so quick to throw them away.

 

 

How is this trying to infringe on the rights of others? Once again, nobody is trying to remove his freedom of speech. People are, however, protesting his opinions. He has the right to stick to his opinions just like anyone else has the right to not support his products because of his opinions. If I advocate for having black people stripped of human rights, I'm not going to b&@*$ and moan about my freedom of speech being impeded when people boycott my shop.

 

@Zewp

"Opposing a radical opinion is nowhere near the same as opposing freedom of speech"...amusing distinction..so by that logic someone who sees your life view as 'radical' has the same right to attempt to silence you by economic means. Abridging freedoms has no end once you start down that path.

 

 

Once again, this isn't about trying to silence anyone. Hell, Card can just continue spewing his homophobic bigotry all he wants, but that doesn't make him immune to people protesting against it.

 

The Westboro Baptist Church is frequently protesting gay rights and nobody is trying to impede their right to doing so, despite people having counter-protests against them.

 

 

This won’t end. Look at how in less than one generation homosexuality has gone from being considered a pathological personality disorder, to now where gays not only demand acceptance of their dysgenic lifestyles but also for the right to marry.

 

 

Well, thanks for at least being honest about the fact that you are disgustingly homophobic. Whether you like it or not, though, homosexual people are human too and they do you absolutely no harm. We are entitled to basic human rights such as the right to marry, whether it sends you into you into a righteous fury or not. You don't have to accept homosexuality, but you are expected to tolerate just like racists are expected to tolerate other races.

 

Ironically enough, 100 years ago people had the same mindset you had now, except back then they considered black people sub-humans and not deserving of basic human rights. Just like the racist attitudes back then, your homophobic attitude is part of a dying breed. I suspect 50 years from now people like you with your homophobic attitudes will likely be vilified the same way that racists are vilified today, and thank god for that.

[pheo3309]

 

 

Something that seems to be lost in this thread is that Freedom of Speech is the right of someone to speak without hindrance even when the message they have makes your skin crawl. Attempting to silence someone by extra legal methods such as boycotts is simply trying an end run around the First Amendment. Freedom of Speech is exactly that..the unabridged right to say what you like or believe with the notable exception of inciting criminal or treasonous acts.

 

 

For the record, there's nothing infringing any rights through a boycott. Boycotts are a form of protest which is also a First Amendment right in America as well. A protected right. If we didn't have the ability to protest, there'd never be any fight for basic human rights. Do I agree with boycotts? Sometimes. But there's no rights being infringed, circumvented, or acted upon other than the the right to protest. Do I agree with this one? Not anymore. Why? 1) The movie doesn't interest me to begin with, so I'm not going to watch it in theaters. Why boycott the movie if it doesn't interest me? 2) Based on the hype of the hysteria revolving around Mr. Card's statements, they've stated that he's not onboard with them and others in this topic parroted the same thing by saying that if he does get money from the movie, it's little to none. But boycotting the movie isn't going to hurt him because he's not the one behind it. Lionsgate is. He just wrote the book.

 

 

What the boycott does is send a message, it tells people that if they say something a group finds offensive they will be punished, the result is people start self censoring and that is exactly what opponents of free speech want.

 

 

There's a time and place for boycotts. It's not just for speech, but for actions as well. It's not about freedom of speech. We've discussed briefly in PM about how the boycott is wrong, and I still stand by this boycott being a wrongfully, unwarranted one. However there are points throughout history such as the Montgomery Bus Boycott that proved to strike true and just. There are times and there are places. Mr. Card isn't worth the effort. People are focusing too much on the freedom of speech part in America's political stance and not the other thing that the First Amendment covers, which is something I made sure that I researched heavily before even protesting in the field. When boycotts are done properly, it's not about the speech. It's about the action. Business wise, it's not financially wise to banter around in politics openly. You have people being denied wages, if they go on strike, is that against freedom of speech? The business thinks and says that employees don't need that much money. They're free to say it. But a strike is very similar to a boycott. I've said it many of times in this thread and now twice in this post. There's times and places for them. They DO help. Just not in this situation. Mr. Card isn't funding any organizations anymore because of how the turnout on DOMA was.

 

Edit: And with the turnout, it makes this boycott irrelevant with the other things that go into this. (Being that it's Lionsgate, that Lionsgate doesn't support the speech and views of Card, etc). But there are needs of boycotts just as there's a need of protest. To protest is to disagree. Any disagreement is a protest. It's as equally needed in Freedom of Speech, on all sides of the spectrum. If you feel that they're not warranted or needed, that's your opinion and one that I disagree with, however not all boycotts are about Freedom of Speech. Please don't forget that. It's the same with any protest. Throughout history, they've proven effective when used correctly. For the 90'th time, this boycott is not being used correctly and there's a time and place. This wasn't one of them. And I'll leave it at that.

 

 

words....

Free speech has consequences, da comrade??

 

Gay activists who are used to positive publicity and free promotion in the media are enraged because their own group solidarity makes them angrier about other groups. That's the beauty of group dynamics and how they influence awareness of and hatred for the Other. That's why there has never been a society in which decreasing homogeneity resulted in less conflict. That's why gays (and everyone else) will keep getting angrier--because even if you win, They exist, and They must be eradicated. It's as old as human civilization.

 

This won’t end. Look at how in less than one generation homosexuality has gone from being considered a pathological personality disorder, to now where gays not only demand acceptance of their dysgenic lifestyles but also for the right to marry.

 

 

You seem to be forgetting something very important when talking about group think (for the lack of a better term), pathology, and psychology. 1) The reason why it was deemed as a personality disorder was because of various organizations saying that it's 'evil' or that we're 'sick'. We're in fact very normal people. Homosexuality has been observed with life partners in various other species of animal, and the human species is no different. 2) So if my lifestyle is 'dysgenic', how is it detrimental to society? That's only your opinion, not fact. There's not any cited scholarly sources on any study that homosexuality is detrimental. In fact it's helped control population of several species of animals, and again the human species is no different. So I'm just going to agree to disagree with you there. 3) As for the demanding, while I think that my fellow LGBT activists can protest it a little differently, I understand the need for it. Executor of Estate laws. Last wishes can be fought against by the next of Kin due to if it wasn't written down, claiming that the deceased wasn't in the right state of mind or that the deceased was manipulated by their partner. I've seen it more than the news talks about. There are things I want my brothers having, and there are things that I don't want them having. Executor of Estate is just one of those things. The second thing is spousal insurance. Some agencies have this clause and it's one of those that's greatly needed. There was a woman in California who was gay, had an organ transplant. She subsequently died because their marriage license was revoked. So I can understand the demand for the right to marry. But I do thank you for your opinions.

 

And @Zewp, I don't expect MajKrazAm to tolerate me. He doesn't have to if he doesn't want to. He can completely ignore me and I wouldn't be offended. If someone intolerant to homosexuality on the street walked up to me and called me derogatory things, being blatantly homophobic or bigoted (which there's a difference between a phobia and bigotry), I'd just smile and walk off. I could care less what they have to say about me. I've had worse things said about me, to be honest. I put my actions where where they belong, in the political spectrum.

 

 

Edit: This also may be my last reply to the subject because I feel this topic is going way off base from the original topic and I don't wish to further perpetuate it's derailment any further. It's old news, and I wish to move on. :P

Edited August 13, 2013 by pheo3309

[Zewp]

I actually think tolerance should be expected of people. We live in a multicultural society, so naturally there are going to be a lot of disagreements and not everyone is going to be accepting of everyone else, but everyone should definitely be tolerant of everyone else. Tale MajKraZam, as an example. I am not at all accepting of people like him, who appear to be homophobic redneck hicks, but I do tolerate them. It's his right to believe whatever he wants about homosexuals and as much as it frustrates me that people like him oppose equal rights for people who do them absolutely no harm, I'll just have to tolerate it.

 

Look at the countries where tolerance isn't enforced. Up in Africa, being homosexual can get you killed. In many countries around the world, incidents of violence against homosexuals occur hourly. MajKraZam doesn't have to like that I'm homosexual, but he does have to learn to live with it.

 

Free speech should not be used to harm. Seeing that MajKraZaam also holds gay rights activists in such low esteem, has he maybe considered that it's not necessarily because we want our 'dysgenic' lifestyles accepted, but because some of us would like to step out of our houses in the morning without feeling unsafe in the public. He might lead a very sheltered life, but most of us do not. I live in a very conservative community where homosexuality is frowned on and it is not uncommon to hear of hate crimes being committed against homosexual people in my community. The reason I fight for gay rights is so that I can step out my door in the morning and not be worried about whether I'm going to become the next headline in a homophobic hate-crime.

Edited August 13, 2013 by Zewp

[Aurielius]

@Zwep

Westboro is an extraneous stalking horse argument, those people protest honorable military funerals which offends the hell out of me but I don't attempt to inflict sanctions on them. If you want to argue gay rights that's one thing but from what I see here is the same lack of tolerance that you decry. Not one person has been able to show a homophobic view in the FILM..just the author. I'm more than likely not going to see the film but it's more for the reason that the plot is too juvenile for my sensibilities.