Orson Scott Card Hiring Sends Mixed Signals to DC Comics' LGBT Fans

[AlfredIslas]

What a horrible article. Pure rhetoric.

And reading some of these comments, some of you are just as guilty of doing what you accuse him of, but from the other direction.

Just think about the people taking away other people's civil rights!!! They have feelings too. Oh Dear God, let's not think about all the tens of thousands of people that OSC is fighting to oppress, but let's think about OSC's feelings. You know those slave owners worked hard to buy their slaves, why did they have to give them up :(?

[DeadXMan]

Funny I don't remember any homophobia in Card's Ult Iron man....

Stupid as hell.... but no bigotry

[ChordNohVarr]

I’m not going to address the “he can’t do the job point” because that’s ridiculous. Can Stephen King write about murderers without having murdered someone? People are perfectly capable of writing stories about people worse, and better, than they are. To say otherwise is just foolish.

On bigotry being an opinion I’m sorry but it is.

Bigot is a pejorative. All it means is “that person hates a group of people and I don’t believe that is right”. Meaning bigotry is contingent on what you BELIEVE to be right and the only way bigotry isn’t a matter of opinion would be if good and bad were absolutes and they aren’t.

The dangers in thinking good and bad are absolutes is you forget good people can hold bad opinions. Like it or not more than 50% of Americans are against gay marriage. Polls say it’s about 50% but those same polls acknowledge a large margin of error because people who are against gay marriage don’t always admit it in public. But in California, a very liberal state, gay marriage lost 52% to 48%. Also of note, Gay Marriage is still illegal in all but 9 states

If you want to change that you have to be open minded enough to debate the point. That means you can’t call everyone that opposes gay marriage a bigot and be done with it. You have to acknowledge they might be good people who simply have a bad opinion and try to persuade them.

Freedom of speech is not just to let good ideas out but to smack bad ideas down.

The level of stupidity of that statement is nauseating. I'm going to say this--
1) Free Speech simply means that the government cannot arrest you for simply speaking your mind. But OSC and NOM do not have a reason for their hatred other than hate. Furthermore, that hate translates dollars into funding to deny people basic civil rights. Your statement tells us that you don't care about these basic human rights. If OSC wants to spout his crap, he has the right to do so without government interference. But to dump money in his lap? So he can further his opposition to basic human rights?
2)Bigotry is only a pejorative to intellectual airheads who have never experienced the receiving end. And if that person with said "opinion" is capable of blocking human rights? Rights, BTW shouldn't have to be voted on. OSC may be a brilliant writer, but NOM shouldn't benefit from his work. Bigotry is real, It's harmful, and we must oppose it. To call it an opinion is fence-straddling at BEST.
3) And yes, you call a bigot a BIGOT. Many of these people, as you pointed out, have these opinions--not as many as you seem to think. You're not paying attention to what's going on out there.
The only statement I can concur with you on is the last one "Freedom of speech is not just to let good ideas out but to smack bad ideas down." Our freedom of speech, and much else, are at stake here. I encourage the boycott. DC Comics and Marvel need to have nothing to do with NOM. For the record, I didn't buy that Ult IM book either.
4) If you really believe bigotry is an opinion, may you NEVER experience it. You'll freak.

[chakal]

I would love if everyone in the world was gay. That would solve the problem of bigotry and human population.

[FIFTY-TWO (52)]

This isn't just about his beliefs, it's about his actions.

Is his writing considered an "act"? Because his politics haven't come through in his literary work.

Think about the minority you find yourself in, imagine one of your favorite companies hired someone who spends a significant portion of his life trying to prevent your people from living happier lives.

Political activism isn't a crime. You have the ability to counter his argument and win souls to your side of the debate and carry the day through the democratic process. But he shouldn't be denied the right to work because you don't like what he has to say.

[RoguefanAM]

What a horrible article. Pure rhetoric.

And reading some of these comments, some of you are just as guilty of doing what you accuse him of, but from the other direction.

Really, we're on a board of directors trying to take away his rights? I don't think so.

Political activism isn't a crime. You have the ability to counter his argument and win souls to your side of the debate and carry the day through the democratic process. But he shouldn't be denied the right to work because you don't like what he has to say.

He won't be denied the right to work. He's still a big name writer, this small stint in DC doesn't really help or hurt him much. It's DC whose getting backlash from all this.

DC has an image to uphold, they have a right to be looking into who they're hiring. I'm pretty sure if they hired a KKK member, there wouldn't be as many people trying to defend the writer.

[FIFTY-TWO (52)]

Really, we're on a board of directors trying to take away his rights? I don't think so.

He has a right to work and express his opinion as he sees fit. You're not trying to do away with that, are you?

[chakal]

This article looks like a huge manipulation. What Card's views has to do with writing Superman's stories? It's not like there aren't any editors at DC, right?

[americanwonder]

This isn't just about his beliefs, it's about his actions. Think about the minority you find yourself in, imagine one of your favorite companies hired someone who spends a significant portion of his life trying to prevent your people from living happier lives.

I'm fine with working with such people (and I have; maybe I still do as I don't know everyone's activities). As long as what s/he is doing is not illegal, and s/he can do the job without said beliefs becoming an issue at work? Then fine by me. I will defend his/her freedom of speech, religion, assembly, political activism, etc., even when I don't like it.

Just think about the people taking away other people's civil rights!!! They have feelings too. Oh Dear God, let's not think about all the tens of thousands of people that OSC is fighting to oppress, but let's think about OSC's feelings. You know those slave owners worked hard to buy their slaves, why did they have to give them up :(?

It's not about his "feelings" - it's about balancing the rights of one group/individual with another group/individual. I'm all for increased legal rights for GLBT. I'm not for trampling over others to get there. I don't agree with Card/NOM's politics, but as I said above, I will defend his/her freedom of speech, religion, assembly, political activism, etc., even when I don't like it.

eta - I have, do, and will continue to challenge Card's political stance in the political arena. I don't think his work as a fiction writer is the place for that.

The comparison to slave owners (or KKK or nazis) is just stupid. He doesn't own slaves and hasn't killed anyone. Can we stick to what he has done? We can challenge his actual views without outlandish comparisons that are not applicable (there's a reason courts would not allow such comparions).

[RoguefanAM]

He has a right to work and express his opinion as he sees fit. You're not trying to do away with that, are you?

We don't really have the right to express our opinions as we see fit. Maybe in your own mind and home. But in the work setting, there are laws preventing you from saying whatever you want and rules of conduct in terms of work. I mean sure, you can be a rude @sshole to everyone but if you act like that then you're not going to get very many job prospects. There's a image an employee has to uphold for their employer or else they get a bad reputation and that hurts business.

[ChordNohVarr]

It's called political activism. Perfectly legal. Lots of people do it. Or are we saying he can have a belief, just not express it publicly? Can't assemble with others who share that belief? Can't vote?

We want to challenge his politics? Great. That's what the political process is for. His job is to write fiction and has nothing to do with his politics. Or can only those approved by the public now have a job? Are we going to get every conservative, religious person fired? Or, they can have a job as long as they don't voice their view and/or vote accordingly? Where's the line?

What you call activism is no less than disguised hate. Civil Rights aren't things to be voted upon or denied. You ask where the line is? If he was in a group that campaigned against blacks or minorities or women's rights, this discussion wouldn't even be happening. The line is drawn here and now. There is no neutrality--either you're for basic human rights or against them. Either way, whatever your answer this debate is pointless. OSC is a POS. NOM needs to spend their time on saving marriages that die in 3 days or less and people need to syop pretending that hate speech is free speech.
BTW--I should mention I feel very strongly about this. The guy at Bleeding Cool is FULL OF IT. Those who support this creep support hate. PERIOD. Unless you can extract from him his promise that he won't spend his profits on NOM.

[ChordNohVarr]

We don't really have the right to express our opinions as we see fit. Maybe in your own mind and home. But in the work setting, there are laws preventing you from saying whatever you want and rules of conduct in terms of work. I mean sure, you can be a rude @sshole to everyone but if you act like that then you're not going to get very many job prospects. There's a image an employee has to uphold for their employer or else they get a bad reputation and that hurts business.

THIS plus...Free speech only means no government interference--doesn't shield you from boycotts

[ChordNohVarr]

I'm fine with working with such people (and I have; maybe I still do as I don't know everyone's activities). As long as what s/he is doing is not illegal, and s/he can do the job without said beliefs becoming an issue at work? Then fine by me. I will defend his/her freedom of speech, religion, assembly, political activism, etc., even when I don't like it.



It's not about his "feelings" - it's about balancing the rights of one group/individual with another group/individual. I'm all for increased legal rights for GLBT. I'm not for trampling over others to get there. I don't agree with Card/NOM's politics, but as I said above, I will defend his/her freedom of speech, religion, assembly, political activism, etc., even when I don't like it.

eta - I have, do, and will continue to challenge Card's political stance in the political arena. I don't think his work as a fiction writer is the place for that.

The comparison to slave owners (or KKK or nazis) is just stupid. He doesn't own slaves and hasn't killed anyone. Can we stick to what he has done? We can challenge his actual views without outlandish comparisons that are not applicable (there's a reason courts would not allow such comparions).

OK--he funds and manages a hate group. Is that not enough? Or is it OK because of the target?

[americanwonder]

Is his writing considered an "act"? Because his politics haven't come through in his literary work.

Political activism isn't a crime. You have the ability to counter his argument and win souls to your side of the debate and carry the day through the democratic process. But he shouldn't be denied the right to work because you don't like what he has to say.

I thank you again, FIFTY-TWO (52).

[csis]

I'm sorry, what mixed messages are being sent, besides the message that if you believe differently from others you will be denied gainful employment?
I don't like Card's politics, but I'm not down with that mixed message at all.

You are missing the point entirely. It has nothing to do with believing "differently from others." Lots of people in comics are not supportive of homosexuality (Chuck Dixon comes to mind), and no one is proposing a boycott of them.
The reason OSC is different is because in addition to having views, he actively works to deny homosexuals rights. He is even a board member of an organization that only exists to deny homosexuals rights. This makes it a moral obligation for many people to not support him, because supporting him fuels a cause they find morally objectionable. If he were content to only have the view that gays should have less rights, no one would be making such a fuss.