Petition to oust orson scott card

[gwydion]

Then why not bring up the possibility of hypocrisy from both sides and not pick just one?

Because...one side started the thread! Which should be fairly obvious. There's plenty of that to go around of course, but since the thread is about a certain thing, I respond to that.

[ropeburn39]

A big YAY! to my old comic store and Richard for being a leader:

http://comicsbeat.com/dallas-retaile...uperman-comic/

[Ian Pressman]

Particularly because it misrepresents the opposing argument....



I'm sorry, but it sounds like you didn't actually bother to read the entirety of my post and just reacted to the first line.

I am completely fine with him voicing his opinion. If you were to have a look around, you'd see that I've said multiple times on these boards that I support people's right to speak on whatever issue they wish, no matter how uncomfortable it is for people who disagree. It is not his opinion that is the problem, but his actions that attempt to harm thousands of people. I really don't think it's necessary to repeat the details, since they can be found in dozens of posts by several people already, if one has the inclination to read them before responding to headlines.

He's working within his rights as a citizen to affect change. The change he's trying to affect is ridiculous and it won't succeed, but he's still within his rights to do as he likes as long as it's within the law. Attacking his professional career to punish him for it is social jackbooting, and it doesn't matter where it comes from. Card attempting to deny others their rights, is terrible. You attempting deny him his rights, is worse because you know better. You abandon any claims to the high road when you adopt his tactics.

[AlfredIslas]

He's working within his rights as a citizen to affect change. The change he's trying to affect is ridiculous and it won't succeed, but he's still within his rights to do as he likes as long as it's within the law. Attacking his professional career to punish him for it is social jackbooting, and it doesn't matter where it comes from. Card attempting to deny others their rights, is terrible. You attempting deny him his rights, is worse because you know better. You abandon any claims to the high road when you adopt his tactics.

It's not anybody's right to work at DC comics. They will hire whoever they want to and fire whoever they want to. If their customers don't want them to hire OSC, they have the right to choose not to.

[GokaiRed]

He's working within his rights as a citizen to affect change. The change he's trying to affect is ridiculous and it won't succeed, but he's still within his rights to do as he likes as long as it's within the law. Attacking his professional career to punish him for it is social jackbooting, and it doesn't matter where it comes from. Card attempting to deny others their rights, is terrible. You attempting deny him his rights, is worse because you know better. You abandon any claims to the high road when you adopt his tactics.

I confess, I don't understand this line of reasoning.

Exactly what rights am I attempting to deny him? You quoted me as saying that I support his right to say whatever he wants. But speaking honestly about how I wish for DC to not hire him is not the same as what Card does, and I really don't appreciate the comparison.

Card is a wealthy individual who is seeking to permanently restrict the rights of a minority group as he believes they are beneath him. I support his right to say that he feels this way, and his ability to do so is not dependent upon his employment with DC. Or anyone else, for that matter. If he loses this job (which is basically impossible, at this point, since it's already done), or any writing job with people who disagree with his views, he'll survive. Unfortunately, there are still plenty of people in the world who would be happy to employ someone with his views and/or his celebrity status. Even if that weren't the case, his wrongful actions are not immune to consequence.

So again I ask, exactly what rights am I denying him?

[Ian Pressman]

I confess, I don't understand this line of reasoning.

Exactly what rights am I attempting to deny him? You quoted me as saying that I support his right to say whatever he wants. But speaking honestly about how I wish for DC to not hire him is not the same as what Card does, and I really don't appreciate the comparison.

Card is a wealthy individual who is seeking to permanently restrict the rights of a minority group as he believes they are beneath him. I support his right to say that he feels this way, and his ability to do so is not dependent upon his employment with DC. Or anyone else, for that matter. If he loses this job (which is basically impossible, at this point, since it's already done), or any writing job with people who disagree with his views, he'll survive. Unfortunately, there are still plenty of people in the world who would be happy to employ someone with his views and/or his celebrity status. Even if that weren't the case, his wrongful actions are not immune to consequence.

So again I ask, exactly what rights am I denying him?

His right to employment is being attacked due to his usage of his right of free expression. Your defense of this appears to come down to: "He's rich, he'll survive." You seem intelligent enough to understand the implications of actions such as these, how they have been used in the past, and how they can be used in the future. What happens when the next target of the mob's ire isn't shielded by wealth and fame? What an exciting time for the rest of us, hey?

[GokaiRed]

His right to employment is being attacked due to his usage of his right of free expression. Your defense of this appears to come down to: "He's rich, he'll survive." You seem intelligent enough to understand the implications of actions such as these, how they have been used in the past, and how they can be used in the future. What happens when the next target of the mob's ire isn't shielded by wealth and fame? What an exciting time for the rest of us, hey?

I feel like you picked a few sentences out of my post and ignored the rest. Like the parts where I said his right to employment is not extinguished by the severance of DC's involvement with him. Which would be entirely up to them, and entirely within the rights of the consumers to tell them what they want from the publisher they buy from. And the part where I suggested that even if he was not wealthy, the fact that he didn't get hired back for work with DC is of his own making, being a supporter of a political stance that is not in DC's best interest to continue to represent.

The slippery slope argument is a failure in concept.

[fmarvel]

I don't really know who he is. What did he do to piss off the LGBT community?

[Ian Pressman]

I feel like you picked a few sentences out of my post and ignored the rest. Like the parts where I said his right to employment is not extinguished by the severance of DC's involvement with him. Which would be entirely up to them, and entirely within the rights of the consusmers to tell them what they want from the publisher they buy from. And the part where I suggested that even if he was not wealthy, the fact that he didn't get hired back for work with DC is of his own making, being a supporter of a political stance that is not in DC's best interest to continue to represent.

To which I respond, who is the consumer to impress upon the manufacturer, their views? DC comics are as politically relevant as a toilet paper manufacturer. Who cares who they employ?

The slippery slope argument is a failure in concept.

In your opinion, Sir.

[GokaiRed]

To which I respond, who is the consumer to impress upon the manufacturer, their views?.

You can't be serious.

The consumer is the basis upon which the entire enterprise is based. The consumer is the reason DC exists. Their actions are in direct response to what they believe will please the consumer the most and entice them to keep buying the product. When the consumer dislikes the product, they stop buying, and the publisher changes its brand to evolve with the change in consumer trends. This is basic business.

It's also a different point than the one you brought up a few minutes ago.

[Ian Pressman]

You can't be serious.

The consumer is the basis upon which the entire enterprise is based. The consumer is the reason DC exists. Their actions are in direct response to what they believe will please the consumer the most and entice them to keep buying the product. When the consumer dislikes the product, they stop buying, and the publisher changes its brand to evolve with the change in consumer trends. This is basic business.

And that is where I as an objectivist, choose to disagree.

It's also a different point than the one you brought up a few minutes ago.

Honestly, it's the underlining reason behind why everything about this bothers me.

[Bruce Kent]

To which I respond, who is the consumer to impress upon the manufacturer, their views?

And that is where I as an objectivist, choose to disagree.

Well, that's just nonsense. You seem to have no idea how the world works.

[Ian Pressman]

Well, that's just nonsense. You seem to have no idea how the world works.

I have an excellent idea of how the world works. I just happen to think it's crap.

[Bruce Kent]

I have an excellent idea of how the world works. I just happen to think it's crap.

In this case (and I'm not talking about the Orson Card thing), no. The consumers don't exist because of the manufacturer, it's the other way around. The manufacturer should, without any doubt, lean towards what the consumer wants.

[FoxMulder2012]

In this case (and I'm not talking about the Orson Card thing), no. The consumers don't exist because of the manufacturer, it's the other way around. The manufacturer should, without any doubt, lean towards what the consumer wants.

There's no point in arguing with an objectivist, Bruce. Might as well just let it go.