NinjaFusion said:
the point you are missing is that - yes - people do hold this opinion and no one would argue that this freedom should be taken from them... as long as the don't harm others. but Card is a public figure who has actively campaigned to curry the opinion of opinion formers, etc and influence a political process that could impact on hundreds of thousands of decent people's lives.
Sure ... think what you like... but don't seek to harm anyone's civil liberty.
Well, in his mind, I imagine he wasn't trying to harm anyone's civil liberties. I don't agree with him, but at the same time, not only is he entitled to his point of view, he's also entitled to be engaged in the open and free political process in such a way as to work to pass legislation he supports. People are drawing a line in the sand between what he thinks and says, and what his actions are, as though there's something morally unseemly about using money to fund a political campaign the end result of which is extremely disagreeable. But his actions in this case are nothing more than an extension of his right to speech; there's nothing immoral about what he did, and in fact it's entirely appropriate for people to use their money (just as many activists with less extensive financial resources use their time in volunteering as a proxy for money, or many use their websites or any other megaphone they can) to express their viewpoints as long as they're engaged in a free civic process. Some of Card's other comments are more troubling and problematic, such as his belief that an armed revolt might at some point be necessary -- and hey, if he does cross the line from participating in the civic process to engaging in attempts to use violence to bring about his regressive and primitive views, I hope the feds bring him down like a dog. But that's not the step we're on right now. His actions, to this point, have been an appropriate and proper expression of speech.
Just as he's entitled to do what he did with regards to Proposition 8, yes, yes, as has been pointed out, people are entitled to not spend money that will in any fashion go to him to help support his political causes. And I really do get the impetus to think that way, and I have at times in my life also used my money (and the lack of spending it in certain ways) as a means of expressing disapproval for bad acts. But I still think it's silly in this case, and I still think it's not at all productive from a societal standpoint to divide artistic creations (something I lump video games into, alongside music and film and literature and actual art) into the categories of good art and bad art based solely on the political viewpoints of the art's creator. I don't think that at any point in history it would have been good to engage in that -- this would've resulted in the condemnation of all sorts of culturally worthwhile works during the Italian Renaissance, or the Third Reich, or Stalin's reign, all the way up through today. The art should always stand on its own merits.
If you're angry about the stuff that Card says, it would just be so much more productive to engage in counter-activism -- again, the suggestion of donating money to a better cause is a really good one, as is participating in the campaign to undo the bad acts Card helped foist on California... or, even better, participating in the campaigns to ensure that states like Iowa and Maine don't have the same thing happen. If you want to insist on not buying a video game because a fraction of the money you spent will benefit someone with repugnant political views, that's your right, no one's stopping you, you're fully entitled -- as long as you do so with the awareness that plenty of other games and movies and music and films that you consume are going to people who are just as bad. But I just think it's a bit silly and there are much better ways to direct your time and your energy.
NinjaFusion said:
I maintain that if most of the defenders in this thread were people who would have their rights taken away in a flash by hateful people like this, then they'd see it differently.
That's so not an appropriate retort. The claim seeks to disqualify people from even being able to take part in a good faith discussion based on something that they have no control over. You're right, I'm not at risk of losing my rights here, but I still donated my time during the Prop 8 campaign to make phone calls trying to encourage people to oppose it. No, I'm not gay, but I can still participate in a discussion on a topic like this without my lack of gayness being used against me as a talking point. And the fact is that yes, even if I were gay, I would still be defending Card's ability to engage in the political process and exercise his rights of speech, because I believe that is a fundamentally important right, and also because I believe that criticizing that kind of engagement and the act of speech is never, ever going to lead to a positive result -- it's never going to win over any conflicted minds or even opposed minds.
Dyno said:
There's a gay dude in off-topic who was beaten with a bat and spent his birthday in a hospital. The pictures of his face tell the whole story. I think you should run your apologist act by him before trying it on us.
When I was a 13 year old kid, I was attacked in an inner city and beaten pretty badly -- and the whole inside of my mouth was cut up by the impact of my skin hitting my braces. That has fuck all to do with whatever my rights are, though, and the fact that unfortunate incidents of anti-gay violence do occur on occasion doesn't alter whatever rights gay citizens in the US have. That's not an apologia, it's the reality. What that other guy was saying is true -- gay Americans are in a better place than people in a lot of other countries. That doesn't mean they're being given fully equal rights at the moment, however, and obviously people should work to change that. But personal anecdotes about violence aren't that relevant.
