I strongly encourage everyone to abstain from buying the book or seeing the movie. You're lining Orson Scott Card's bigoted pockets to oppress sexual minorities.
I can enjoy Polanksi's films whilst not condoning his private activities. I can appreciate the remarkable skill of Wayne Carey on the football field whilst acknowledging he is probably a prick in his personal life. Humans are all too often both brilliant and flawed in equal measures.
Leaving that aside, did you read the article? Card isn't producing the movie. He sold the rights years ago. So unless you have a time machine, any lining you provide for his pockets is likely to be so indirect as to be inconsequential.
Paying for it is another matter.
I'm a fan of the book, and I've been waiting to see this movie, but I confess that I don't know much about the author. Sources would be greatly appreciated.
Just as talented programmers can be horrible people, so too can talented authors.
Plus explain how my going to see the movie is not good for the numerous people who have worked on this movie who will get paid that may not share in Card's viewpoints.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orson_scott_card#Views_about_h...
Yet, reading through the text, I fail to see how Card is personally oppressing sexual minorities.
Yes, he’s not personally driving a pickup truck around Utah with a gang looking to do some gay-bashing. But he obviously cares enough about the issue to write a lot of articles expressing clearly an anti-gay standpoint.
Examples from the Wikipedia article:
"The dark secret of homosexual society—the one that dares not speak its name—is how many homosexuals first entered into that world through a disturbing seduction or rape or molestation or abuse, and how many of them yearn to get out of the homosexual community and live normally."
“Card stated that he regarded any government that would attempt to recognize same-sex marriage a "mortal enemy" that he would act to destroy”
What I'm referring to is the claim that he is personally oppressing sexual minorities, which I don't see.
As for his wish to destroy a government that would attempt to recognize same-sex marriage, seems he's failing quite spectacularly at that. So how exactly is he this big homophobe boogey man that I must avoid at all costs, including his old books and current movies he has little to do with?
On the one hand, homophobia. I think OSC's got a rather strange and potentially dangerous set of political views.
But ... and this is a big but.
It's Ender's Game!
Card's book and the movie have nothing to do with his bigoted views, and should stand or fall on their own. In fact, the book (and possibly the movie), with its strong moral stance that resonates with teenagers, is likely to spread far more good by encouraging its readers to think about bullying, suffering of others, etc. than Card could possibly do harm, even if he wanted to, with its proceeds.
Historically, just about every famous writer has been bigoted about something; all of us are probably bigoted in some ways in which future generations will judge us. If the sanctimonious boycott calls leveled against Card succeeded in the past, we'd be left without many wonderful masterpieces that enrich our lives and deepen our understanding.
Oh right, it's the other way around. In America, a "vote" with a wallet means as much as a vote with a ballot.
Let's just go with the notion that Card is expressing his opinion on the matter. He has a right to this opinion, whether you agree with it or even if you consider it right or wrong.
But anytime someone is allowed to shut down an opposing viewpoint it will eventually lead to problems. Once someone has the ability to shut down one opposing viewpoint they disagree with, then they will have the power to shut down any viewpoint they disagree with. Possibly even shutting down a viewpoint they think is of the opposition when it's likely it's not, such as a misunderstanding or being inarticulate.
The difference being, a person actually has to commit actions against another human being to for a reaction need to take place. If someone says he doesn't like gays, fine, let the guy state his outdated rant and get on with your day. The moment the guy actually discriminates or commits an illegal act, then do something.
As for consequences, this movie is an excellent example. If you boycott the movie because of your disagreement with Card, then you are hurting far more people then you will ever hurt Card. Another example, the Chik-Fil-A boycott a while back. That hurt local businesses run by local owners who employ local people far more than the dude at the top that still got paid no matter how much chicken you refused to eat.
If anyone has the generic "you seem to defend what I don't like so I dislike you" reaction to this post, you are practically proving my point.
Deciding not to pay for a product is somehow dangerous? Expressing my opinion to other people and asking them to do the same is dangerous?
If Card is allowed to say hateful things, then I'm allowed to tell people about it and recommend that they not give him money. It is not logically possible for you to accept the former without also accepting the latter.
As for "somehow dangerous", please read the post again. Here, I'll quote from the very first sentence for you; "in this case I can't speak of it being dangerous".
Yes indeed, you are allowed to express your opinion and recommend that people avoid providing him with money if they disagree with what he has to say. But that's the consequences part; read the post again. The consequences being that with your boycott in an attempt to punish the target of your disagreement you are more likely hurting people who have nothing to do with the thing you are disagreeing with. Those are the consequences. If you feel fine with that, then power to you and by all means speak up. Just keep in mind that their might be hundreds of people with families to support that may be somewhat upset with your choice.
In the end I'm not even suggesting that Card should be saying the things he does. I disagree with him with my total being. But I am aware of how these things work, just read history. If you provide someone with the power to curtail speech that you do not like, that gives them the power to curtail all speech. It's why I disagree with hate speech laws. Who defines hate speech? Today hate speech may be defined as stating negative things about minorities, tomorrow it could be defined as saying anything negative against government or your local police department.
Sometimes when you make your short-term choices, you have to consider the long-term consequences.
But to answer your question, if he is attempting to prevent you from speaking out then, yes, it applies.
You seem lost, I'm not speaking of preventing you from stating your opinion. I'm speaking about your desire to prevent him from stating his.
Please explain to me how I said anything that disagrees with your last statement.
If it didn't, then why did you reply to my comment in the first place?