85 réponses à ce sujet

[Rylor Tormtor]

David Gaider wrote...

Chris_Really_Rocks wrote...
I don't get this one either. Bioware's writers are plenty competent. Maybe they're not all destined to write literary masterpieces but I'm pretty sure they can handle a comic book based on one of their own video games.

While I appreciate the vote of confidence, we're pretty busy.

As for how anyone feels about Orson Scott Card's personal views, they're not very relevant to the work at hand unless it's being used as a platform for those views (which it is not). If someone really feels that the politics of a writer and their creative endeavours can't be seperated, that's up to them, but eliminating anyone from being eligible to work on a creative project simply because someone might find their personal views objectionable isn't something we're prepared to do.

David,

That is a very tolerent and intelligent post. Unfortunately, it borders on slight rubbish. It is not so much his personal views are objectionable, but they are bigoted and exclusionary in the worst sense. I am sure Bioware would not hire a writer who held racists views and displayed those views without shame. See http://mormontimes.c...t_card/?id=3237 . As a responsible consumer, I unfortunately will not be purchasing this item, despite my enjoyment of the world you have created. I find it sad you turned over a creative part of this output to someone like this.

[Rolenka]

Killian Kalthorne wrote...

Anything that OSC involved in I won't touch. I don't take kindly to bigots.

Bingo.

Please vet your partners more carefully, Bioware. I won't have my money used to fund his hate campaign.

[Ethical Scabs]

outlaworacle wrote...

Oh yeah, I forgot armed revolution, too. You've picked a real class act to team up with, idiot. C'mon, play devil's advocate some more. I wanna see you spin this.

He's playing nice.  you should too.  He's just trying to get everyone to see everything from all sides---a laudable objective.

[Bullets McDeath]

Perhaps laudable if you're in a freshman philosophy class... perhaps. I don't see what point he is trying to make, aside from stirring **** up. Wow, there's two sides to every story. Thanks for blowing my mind!!! You know?

[fantasypisces]

Rylor Tormtor wrote...

David Gaider wrote...

Chris_Really_Rocks wrote...
I don't get this one either. Bioware's writers are plenty competent. Maybe they're not all destined to write literary masterpieces but I'm pretty sure they can handle a comic book based on one of their own video games.

While I appreciate the vote of confidence, we're pretty busy.

As for how anyone feels about Orson Scott Card's personal views, they're not very relevant to the work at hand unless it's being used as a platform for those views (which it is not). If someone really feels that the politics of a writer and their creative endeavours can't be seperated, that's up to them, but eliminating anyone from being eligible to work on a creative project simply because someone might find their personal views objectionable isn't something we're prepared to do.

David,

That is a very tolerent and intelligent post. Unfortunately, it borders on slight rubbish. It is not so much his personal views are objectionable, but they are bigoted and exclusionary in the worst sense. I am sure Bioware would not hire a writer who held racists views and displayed those views without shame. See http://mormontimes.c...t_card/?id=3237 . As a responsible consumer, I unfortunately will not be purchasing this item, despite my enjoyment of the world you have created. I find it sad you turned over a creative part of this output to someone like this.

Just read that article. Sorry BIOWARE, I will not be purchasing your comic if OSC has a hand in it.

[Mummolus]

The logical extension of this, though, is that everyone should buy everything from everyone, else they would be doing without.

Not necessarily - one of the key aspects of my statement was that the individuals in question are choosing to advertise their decisions on a public forum. Private decisions are one thing, but advertising those decisions is an attempt (deliberate or otherwise) to convince others to do the same, and in cases such as this one, would result in just as oppressive a regime as the one the various activists have been fighting against.

Now, the obvious counterargument is that OSC has invited such criticism by advertising his own beliefs, but keep in mind he does so in an environment where his beliefs are explicitly requested and expected. That's not as similar to a public forum as it may seem, regardless of public availability.

Slightly out of context, but he really did advocate revolution.

At no point does he encourage violence. There are many types of revolution and I suspect OSC is 'acting to destroy the government' already, in his own nonviolent way, through his political activism.

----------



Outlaworacle, I have been nothing but civil with you and you have been little except the opposite towards me. You're not even attempting to make arguments anymore, you're simply slinging post after post of insults in my direction. Please stop.

[Ethical Scabs]

It makes me sad. the Ender's Shadow series was really really good.



Such is life. People hate. it's natural; even --dare I say-- advantageous. Us vs. Them is a great attitude to have when you want your tribe to live if it means another must die.

[Bullets McDeath]

Yeah, way to avoid every point I've made. We get it. You're an "intellectual" just playing "devil's advocate".Wanting to overthrow the government is not violent at all? Wanting homosexuals segregated from the rest of society can be done peacefully and without violence against them?

Perhaps he does not simply say "i want all the kikes and dykes to die by my sword" but since your brain is so amazingly advanced maybe... just maybe... you can find a way to READ BETWEEN THE LINES. This is hate speech we are talking about. This is hate speech you continue to defend.

Modifié par outlaworacle, 05 janvier 2010 - 08:32 .

[Mummolus]

Wanting to overthrow the government is not violent at all?

Not inherently, no. There was an industrial 'revolution' and a cultural 'revolution', were these by definition violent?

Wanting homosexuals segregated from the rest of society can be done peacefully and without violence against them?

Can you point to the article or publication in which OSC proposes rounding homosexuals up into camps, as you've repeatedly accused him of doing? I've been a bit slow to reply because I've been looking for such an article.

[Obliterati]

Mummolus wrote...

The logical extension of this, though, is that everyone should buy everything from everyone, else they would be doing without.

Not necessarily - one of the key aspects of my statement was that the individuals in question are choosing to advertise their decisions on a public forum. Private decisions are one thing, but advertising those decisions is an attempt (deliberate or otherwise) to convince others to do the same, and in cases such as this one, would result in just as oppressive a regime as the one the various activists have been fighting against.

The oppressive regime of consumers making their own free choices? I have to admit, I've not heard that one before.

The irony here is that OSC has, on many occasions, openly advocated for boycotts of goods, services and companies that he finds to be in disagreement with his own principles.

[LightSabres]

Deran2 wrote...

I can't stand Orson Scott Card as a person, but he is generally a brilliant writer. His work on Ultimate Iron Man was amazing and I love the Ender series. Personally I'd rather have someone like Mark Waid, Grant Morrison, Mike Carey, or Marv Wolfman working on the comic, but I'm not against Card.

Mark Waid   :thumbup:

[El-Destructo]

Rylor Tormtor wrote...
It is not so much his personal views are objectionable, but they are bigoted and exclusionary in the worst sense.

Why exactly is the man a bigot? I read the article referenced and he came across as reasonable, wanting to defend the religious institution of marriage and his rights to raise his kids with his own values rather than the moral compass of some government officiary . He did not come across to me as a bile-spewing homosexual hater. In fact he takes offense with practices of some heterosexuals in his referenced writing just as often,  is he thus a heterophobe as well?

Rylor Tormtor wrote...
As a responsible consumer, I unfortunately will not be purchasing this item,

It is well within your rights to do so, if you feel it is necessary. Just as it is with Mr. Card's rights to express his own opinions in his writing. Such is the nature of freedom.

Modifié par El-Destructo, 05 janvier 2010 - 08:42 .

[Mummolus]

The oppressive regime of consumers making their own free choices? I have to admit, I've not heard that one before.

You still haven't. The difference here is between public and private choices, and the impact each can have. Consumers privately choosing not to purchase things involving OSC based on his private choices is perfectly fine, but when they encourage others to do the same they're effectively encouraging the stigmatization of an individual because of his private choices or beliefs.

The irony here is that OSC has, on many occasions, openly advocated for boycotts of goods, services and companies that he finds to be in disagreement with his own principles.

I would gladly have a very similar discussion with OSC if we were in contact. At least I could be assured he wouldn't start shouting "You're ****ing scum!" at me

[imikedoyle]

SheffSteel wrote...

I think it's because they're regretting providing players the ability to roleplay homosexual characters without any apparent punishment or moral judgment being levied upon them, and are now seeking to redress the balance by giving money to someone who's opposed to gay rights.

Well, if you don't like it, provide a better answer.

And in a later post another person wrote

I suspect OSC would argue that homosexuality is similarly toxic to peace and understanding.

Disclaimer: I am a fan or OSC, and I own almost all his books. I'm also an active member of a different religious sect (i.e. not a Mormon) and I find his treatment of religious issues in a SciFi / Fantasy setting encouraging and not offensive.

I doubt the people who made those posts deriding OSC as homophobic can have read his "SongMaster" book, or the "Homecoming" series. He has important characters in both those stories who are homosexual (admittedly, the homosexual male character in the Homecoming series is more "bi" by the end of the series) and the main hero/viewpoint in SongMaster is Bisexual.

Yes, OSC himself is a devout Mormon, and those views come across clearly in some of his work. He is also avowedly pro-mariage and pro-life, and those views come across clearly in just about all of his work, but if you read what he writes, rather than other people's opinions of him, you will see that
(1) he is a good author
(2) he only "preaches" in books that are deliberately and clearly religious/alegorical. (Yes, some of his works are
deliberate alegories and/or overtly religious, including some retellings of the lives of some characters from the book of Genesis, not just retellings of parts of the Book of Mormon. He has other work that is NOT "preachy" and should be accessible to all readers.)

If you want to avoid his religious/political views, then avoid the "Alvin Maker" and "Homecoming" books, and stay clear of his editorial comments and is "Ornery American" site - but you can still enjoy the ender books and many of his other works.

[Ethical Scabs]

El-Destructo wrote...

Rylor Tormtor wrote...
It is not so much his personal views are objectionable, but they are bigoted and exclusionary in the worst sense.

Why exactly is the man a bigot? I read the article referenced and he came across as reasonable, wanting to defend the religious institution of marriage and his rights to raise his kids with his own values rather than the moral compass of some government officiary . He did not come across to me as a bile-spewing homosexual hater. In fact he takes offense with practices of some heterosexuals in his referenced writing just as often,  is he thus a heterophobe as well?

Eh... except the problem with this is that the institution of Marriage we are talking about is an entirely governmental one.  Defined by the government, and for the purposes of the government (estate disposition, taxes, etc).

The religious institution of Marriage is his business.  If the Mormon church refuses to marry two men, that's fine.  That's religion.

The trick is that this is all a way to backdoor religion into the officiating of government.  The religious definition of Marriage is not the governmental definition, and never should be.  Otherwise we're on the same slope as imposing Shari'a.

[Bullets McDeath]

Mummolus wrote...

Wanting to overthrow the government is not violent at all?

Not inherently, no. There was an industrial 'revolution' and a cultural 'revolution', were these by definition violent?

Are you ****ing serious? We are not talking about a technological revolution, or even a shift in paradigm. We're talking about anti-homosexual activists OVERTHROWING THE GOVERNMENT over letting gay people have the same rights as everyone else. If you can't tell the difference between the Industrial Revolution and the Bolshevik Revolution, I don't know why I'm wasiting my time. Actually, I just... don't know why I'm wasting my time. You're obviously trolling, even if you don't know it.

Wanting homosexuals segregated from the rest of society can be done peacefully and without violence against them?

Can you point to the article or publication in which OSC proposes rounding homosexuals up into camps, as you've repeatedly accused him of doing? I've been a bit slow to reply because I've been looking for such an article.

It's been over 10 years since he said something like that publicly. So to answer you succinctly, no I don't have a quote of him saying that and I doubt there are any. The Internet has taught the man many harsh lessons. These days he can just hide behind his Mormon claptrap and claim, like you do, he advocates for all of this in a peaceful, sincere, spiritual manner. You'll have to catch him in person some time for a real dose of his insanity. Seriously, go to a signing or Con appereance, talk to him for 20 minutes, see if you still want to waste your time defending him.

You are defined as much by your allies as your enemies, Mum. That's why I call you ****ing scum. As long as you continue to defend him intellectually, I can't revise my opinion of you.

Modifié par outlaworacle, 05 janvier 2010 - 08:51 .

[imikedoyle]

Rylor Tormtor wrote...

I am sure Bioware would not hire a writer who held racists views and displayed those views without shame. See http://mormontimes.c...t_card/?id=3237 . As a responsible consumer, I unfortunately will not be purchasing this item, despite my enjoyment of the world you have created. I find it sad you turned over a creative part of this output to someone like this.

What happened religious freedom?

Those views can be found most "main stream" christian church catechisms (certainly in the Catholic church of which I am a member) not just in the Mormon faith.

The comments expressed in that article are echoed on a daily basis on www.catholic.org. That doesn't make
OSC a catholic.

Does this mean game companies cannot employ any author who admits to being a church-goer ?

[Ethical Scabs]

I just want to say that this was fun. too bad there will likely be a lockdown headed this way.

[Mummolus]

Are you ****ing serious? We are not talking about a technological revolution, or even a shift in paradigm. We're talking about anti-homosexual activists OVERTHROWING THE GOVERNMENT over letting gay people have the same rights as everyone else. If you can't tell the difference between the Industrial Revolution and the Bolshevik revolution, I don't know why I'm wasiting my time. Actually, I just... don't know why I'm wasting my time. You're obviously trolling, even if you don't know it.

I don't know where you're from, but in Canadian politics recently there's been some drama. The Conservative party rules with a minority government, and are strongly opposed in many things by the second-place Liberal party. In several of his speeches, the Liberal party leader made reference to 'overthrowing the government' - he wasn't advocating violence, merely a vote of no-confidence which he attempted (and failed) to force through parliament. The effect would have been governmental change without destroying the government itself. OSC as a political activist no doubt uses similar terminology in a similar way - the word 'revolution' does not imply violence, nor does he at any point advocate taking up literal arms against the state.

It's been over 10 years since he said something like that publicly. So to answer you succinctly, no I don't have a quote of him saying that and I doubt there are any.

So... Your argument is predicated on a statement he never provably made?

The Internet has taught the man many harsh lessons. You'll have to catch him in person some time for a real dose of his insanity.

Unlikely, but I certainly wouldn't avoid doing so.

Seriously, go to a signing or Con appereance, talk to him for 20 minutes, see if you still want to waste your time defending him.

It's not him I'm defending so much as attacking the general principle that it's okay to harass someone for being opposed to gay rights. I've never said "OSC is a great man" or anything of the sort, merely that the premises of certain posts in this thread have been flawed.

[Mummolus]

Sorry for the double-post, there are a good number of people replying and a lot of it happens while I'm typing responses.

Which would be all well and good if his opinions were indeed private. Alas, they are not. As a relatively famous author, he is in the public eye, and he uses that publicity to push his views.

Most of the articles being quoted are from religious websites targeted at specific audiences who in all likelihood already agree with him. He's not advertising on television, he's not preaching from a pulpit (at least not outside Mormon churches, I don't know for certain about inside), and he's not shutting down major thoroughfares for parades, he's expressing his views in an already-religious context. It's not strictly private, true, but it's not exactly being forced down our throats either.

If the new Dragon Age content were to express OSC's beliefs, either explicitly or implicitly, there would be a strong case for the arguments against him in this thread, but as pointed out above he doesn't generally express his views within his own work, let alone in a collaborative effort.

[El-Destructo]

Tassiaw wrote...

Yes, I suppose those are more inflammatory views. Actually, I was wondering how I missed them in the article but they must have come from a different article/articles than the one I read, which Rylor posted. I don't really know anything more about the man than I have seen in this thread, so, it is mostly curiosity on my part as to why he is so disliked.