# Boycott called for Orson Scott Card's Superman story due to his anti-gay bigotry



## Trism (Feb 24, 2013)

> Fans and retailers call for boycotts due to the acclaimed writer's stance on gay issues.
> 
> For many, award-winning sci-fi writer Orson Scott Card is too much of a wild card to be a creative force behind a new Superman comic book.
> 
> ...



This is a perplexing issue. Personally, I don't intend to buy a single issue from him. And it's disturbing that this man of all people will voice himself through the most iconic comic book character ever. Especially since DC has LGBT characters...

I guess as long as he doesn't use Superman to send homophobic messages, there won't any real problem. But still, I signed the petition against Orson.



There is the link for the petition. The number of people signing it is awe-inspiring.


----------



## Griever (Feb 24, 2013)

Well, he has a right to whatever belief he wants. His stance on gay rights really shouldn't be a factor in rather or not he's hired just as a persons sexual orientation or race or religion shouldn't be a factor.

Highly hypocritical, homosexuals want to live their lives one way, fine. But someone holds beliefs that conflict with theirs and they don't have a right to a job?. Hell no, fuck this boycott. 

My stance however may change depending on his *work* because that's what really matters here and *not* his *personal* life.


----------



## kazuri (Feb 24, 2013)

So youre saying he has the right to hate gays, but we dont have the right to hate/boycott him because he hates gays....? Make sure you aren't being a hypocrite before you call someone one.


----------



## santanico (Feb 24, 2013)

I dislike bigotry as much as the next person, but as long as he doesn't include that shit in his work, then there's not much that can be done. Not like I'm buying that stuff.


----------



## Griever (Feb 24, 2013)

kazuri said:


> So youre saying he has the right to hate gays, but we dont have the right to hate/boycott him because he hates gays....? Make sure you aren't being a hypocrite before you call someone one.



I did not say you didn't have the right, i said it's hypocritical.

"Live and let live" and all that.


----------



## PureWIN (Feb 24, 2013)

Orson Scott Card typically doesn't include his homophobia in his writings. There's no need to boycott him.


----------



## makeoutparadise (Feb 24, 2013)

So that'll be a no on the  pink kriptonite ??


----------



## Lightysnake (Feb 24, 2013)

Griever said:


> Well, he has a right to whatever belief he wants. His stance on gay rights really shouldn't be a factor in rather or not he's hired just as a persons sexual orientation or race or religion shouldn't be a factor.
> 
> Highly hypocritical, homosexuals want to live their lives one way, fine. But someone holds beliefs that conflict with theirs and they don't have a right to a job?. Hell no, fuck this boycott.
> 
> My stance however may change depending on his *work* because that's what really matters here and *not* his *personal* life.



"You're the *real bigots for hating bigotry!*

Yes, oppressed minorities should sit down and shut up at every opportunity. You know what? Most homosexuals would love to 'live and let live,' but it's kind of one-sided when the people with conflicting opinions insist on trying to have society treat them as second class citizens.

And 'not have the right to a job,' fucking PLEASE. card is aching for work? He is a well established writer with a major motion picture based on his famous novel. People just don't want him to right Superman. I doubt he'll starve for that

And anyone who uses such a stupid, insipid point as "Orson Scott Card doesn't write in bigotry?" Look at Hamlet's Father or Empire. And Card is a member of the board of the National Organization of Marriage. He's worse than your normal anti-homosexual writer. He is actively fighting to make life worse for homosexuals in almost every respect. Money in his pocket is money for hi cause


----------



## Cyphon (Feb 24, 2013)

starr said:


> I dislike bigotry as much as the next person, but as long as he doesn't include that shit in his work, then there's not much that can be done. Not like I'm buying that stuff.



Pretty much this.

Although, couldn't he include it in his work as well? Obviously DC could fire him or whatever but is there any laws or some such stopping him from writing what he wants?


----------



## Griever (Feb 24, 2013)

Lightysnake said:


> "You're the *real bigots for hating bigotry!*
> 
> Yes, oppressed minorities should sit down and shut up at every opportunity. You know what? Most homosexuals would love to 'live and let live,' but it's kind of one-sided when the people with conflicting opinions insist on trying to have society treat them as second class citizens.
> 
> ...



I'm simply saying that ones personal life and professional life are two separate things. Now if Card does write a homophobic version of Superman, by all means boycott away. But at this point it's all based on assumption or just the fact that he is homophobic.

Now i don't care if the person is Black, White, Hispanic, Asian, racist/Homophobic/sexist, gay or straight. If they can do the job they can do the job. If they can't, they can't.

At this point it's too early to make a judgment, that's all I'm saying.


----------



## Platinum (Feb 24, 2013)

Yeah sorry, petitions like this are the epitome of bullshit. Sure he has fucked up opinions, but he has the right to have those opinions as long as he doesn't put them forth in writing at his job (which would never get past editorial mind you). 

Doing the same thing to him that he wants to do to the lgbt community should be beneath everyone. Take the high road and just don't buy it.


----------



## ♠God♠ (Feb 24, 2013)

> Our manifest destiny [is] to overspread the continent allotted by Providence for the free development of our yearly multiplying millions.
> 
> John L. O'Sullivan, 1845




what is manifest destiny


----------



## Mider T (Feb 24, 2013)

^Are you not American?


----------



## wibisana (Feb 24, 2013)

is he have actually made story that anti Gay? or it just fear that he will do it.
we can convict someone for thing that he haven't done yet


----------



## Saufsoldat (Feb 24, 2013)

Griever said:


> Well, he has a right to whatever belief he wants. His stance on gay rights really shouldn't be a factor in rather or not he's hired just as a persons sexual orientation or race or religion shouldn't be a factor.
> 
> Highly hypocritical, homosexuals want to live their lives one way, fine. But someone holds beliefs that conflict with theirs and they don't have a right to a job?. Hell no, fuck this boycott.
> 
> My stance however may change depending on his *work* because that's what really matters here and *not* his *personal* life.



Wow, talk about idiocy.

You're right, homosexuals just want to live their lives, but they can't because of fucktards like him. How is it hypocritical not to tolerate hatred and intolerance?


----------



## Chaos Theory (Feb 24, 2013)

Rights get stepped on all the time, intentional or not. I don't see why they'd have a problem with Card. He's a good author IMO


----------



## Griever (Feb 24, 2013)

Saufsoldat said:


> Wow, talk about idiocy.
> 
> You're right, homosexuals just want to live their lives, but they can't because of fucktards like him. How is it hypocritical not to tolerate hatred and intolerance?



Jesus Christ....

I already explained this, but once more for Sauf i guess.

Because as of now, this and that have nothing to do with each other. as i said; if he makes a Homophobic version of Superman, then by all means fire his ass, but at this point it's just an attempt to deny him a job based on who he is. 

But, i don't really give a damn if you hate him for his opinion or not.


----------



## ♠God♠ (Feb 24, 2013)

> Voeg de gevonden bronnen bij:



no I am not american


----------



## Jin-E (Feb 24, 2013)

I could care less about a writers personal beliefs when reading a comic as long as he/she isnt using the medium to be overly preachy about said beliefs.


----------



## navy (Feb 24, 2013)

Cyphon said:


> but is there any laws or some such stopping him from writing what he wants?



Yes. He is an employee of DC.


----------



## Narcissus (Feb 24, 2013)

It's not just the LGBT community who is upset with  DC's decision, and the overwhelmingly negative response is understandable.

Card doesn't just have opinions,  has actually taken action against the LGBT community and attempted to interfere with their lives. His actions are worse than calling for a boycott of his comic.

Still, I'm in a ?wait and see" mode. As long as he doesn't voice his stupidity and bigotry through Superman, there'll be no real problem. But if he does, DC will have a whole lot more damage control to deal with.



Seems this controversy is also affecting his involvement with the film adaptation of Ender's Game.


----------



## Gino (Feb 24, 2013)

I'm not seing the problem here he doesn't like the LGBT coumminity tough shit.Fuck the guy don't buy his stuff.


----------



## Narcissus (Feb 24, 2013)

Gino said:


> I'm not seing the problem here he doesn't like the LGBT coumminity tough shit.Fuck the guy don't buy his stuff.



No, he doesn't just dislike them, he has tried to affect their lives. And they're not going to buy his matetial...


----------



## Mider T (Feb 24, 2013)

It's their loss.  If they complain later on about being lost in the story, then tough shit.  Should've read.


----------



## Roman (Feb 24, 2013)

kazuri said:


> So youre saying he has the right to hate gays, but we dont have the right to hate/boycott him because he hates gays....? Make sure you aren't being a hypocrite before you call someone one.



Everyone has a right to believe in what they want, just as everyone else has the right to criticize him for his beliefs and apparently his actions against the LGBT community. Granted, I don't know a whole lot about him except what I've read in this thread (given that I don't follow American comics). But that is a separate issue from his work for DC as of now. The writer's personal beliefs are one thing. If he attempts to to portray Superman as a bigoted anti-homosexual person, that's where the two matters become one and it is more than fair to boycott his work. For now, best thing to do is simply not buy it if you have a gripe against the author. I know I wouldn't if I were a fan of DC.



Cyphon said:


> Pretty much this.
> 
> Although, couldn't he include it in his work as well? Obviously DC could fire him or whatever but is there any laws or some such stopping him from writing what he wants?



As navy said, he's a DC employee. His writing reflects the views of the publisher as much as anyone else. DC has a strong pro-LGBT reputation thanks to the writers who created lesbian characters. Card could revert that if he portrays Superman as anti-gay. Depending on what DC wants, they could either support or fire him along with retconning his portrayal of Superman.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Feb 24, 2013)

Griever said:


> Well, he has a right to whatever belief he wants. His stance on gay rights really shouldn't be a factor in rather or not he's hired just as a persons sexual orientation or race or religion shouldn't be a factor.
> 
> Highly hypocritical, homosexuals want to live their lives one way, fine. But someone holds beliefs that conflict with theirs and they don't have a right to a job?. Hell no, fuck this boycott.
> 
> My stance however may change depending on his *work* because that's what really matters here and *not* his *personal* life.



Wow this was dumb.


----------



## Saufsoldat (Feb 24, 2013)

Griever said:


> Jesus Christ....
> 
> I already explained this, but once more for Sauf i guess.
> 
> ...



You didn't explain shit, you just keep repeating yourself. If the decisions of an employee negatively affect the company, then they can just not give him any major projects, it's that simple. This guy's choice to discriminate against and encourage discrimination against homosexuals means that he may very well hurt DC's sales.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Feb 24, 2013)

He's bad exposure, and like Narcissus stated it's not just homosexuals bothered by this, as this guy has done more than just express his opinion on the matter of orientation and LGBT rights.

DC Comics is trying to push the ideal of tolerance for LGBT individuals and a sympathetic stance for their rights, and he would only hurt that.


----------



## Petes12 (Feb 24, 2013)

Griever said:


> Well, he has a right to whatever belief he wants. His stance on gay rights really shouldn't be a factor in rather or not he's hired just as a persons sexual orientation or race or religion shouldn't be a factor.
> 
> Highly hypocritical, homosexuals want to live their lives one way, fine. But someone holds beliefs that conflict with theirs and they don't have a right to a job?. Hell no, fuck this boycott.
> 
> My stance however may change depending on his *work* because that's what really matters here and *not* his *personal* life.



first of all hes contributed a lot of money to preventing gay rights and is very active in organizations trying to prevent them.

second, you wouldn't expect someone to get hired to write if they're openly racist, or holocaust deniers, because omg its just an opinion!! that's dumb. his opinion is shitty and dehumanizing


----------



## Shizune (Feb 24, 2013)

Griever said:


> Well, he has a right to whatever belief he wants. His stance on gay rights really shouldn't be a factor in rather or not he's hired just as a persons sexual orientation or race or religion shouldn't be a factor.
> 
> Highly hypocritical, homosexuals want to live their lives one way, fine. But someone holds beliefs that conflict with theirs and they don't have a right to a job?. Hell no, fuck this boycott.



It's people like this that let people like Card continue oppressing minorities without ramifications.


----------



## Narcissus (Feb 24, 2013)

Hatifnatten said:


> lolmurikancomics



Superman will always be more iconic than Bleach.


----------



## Shiftiness (Feb 24, 2013)

Freedan said:


> As navy said, he's a DC employee. His writing reflects the views of the publisher as much as anyone else. DC has a strong pro-LGBT reputation thanks to the writers who created lesbian characters. *Card could revert that if he portrays Superman as anti-gay.* Depending on what DC wants, they could either support or fire him along with retconning his portrayal of Superman.



I think it's very unlikely that DC will let him do that. Now that it's dawned on them that hiring the man was a terrible idea, they'll want to make sure that their association with him can't do any more damage.

But it is dissapointing that they would hire him, comics have been gradually become more and more LGB (I wish I could add the T) friendly over the years; that clearly isn't going to happen to Superman with Orson as a writer. And of course, the fact that a sort-of-progressive company is choosing to associate themselves with a man infamous for his homophobia is another major dissapointment.


----------



## Gold Roger (Feb 24, 2013)

Where can I read the Batwoman Comic?


----------



## Stunna (Feb 24, 2013)

Hatifnatten said:


> lolmurikancomics


----------



## Roman (Feb 24, 2013)

Shiftiness said:


> I think it's very unlikely that DC will let him do that. Now that it's dawned on them that hiring the man was a terrible idea, they'll want to make sure that their association with him can't do any more damage.



I'm aware of that. Like I said, I don't know much about Card so I can't say if he will do that or not. It really depends on what DC wants him to do and what kind of image they want to build for themselves. I imagine they want to be consistent with their pro-LGBT views so they're gonna have to keep him on a tight leash before he does something to suggest DC has anti-gay views. I'm pretty sure they won't pull a Chick-Fil-A tho


----------



## Narcissus (Feb 24, 2013)

DC released a damage control statement saying that Card's personal views do not reflect the company's, so I doubt they'd allow him to actually use Superman as a medium for his bigotry and hatred.





Seto Kaiba said:


> He's bad exposure



Seriously, when producers start questioning whether or not the author of the book being adapted into a film should be involved in said adaptation, you know something is wrong...


----------



## Griever (Feb 24, 2013)

Seto Kaiba said:


> Wow this was dumb.



Actually yeah it was. Due to lack of sleep i made a very stupid mistake in confusing 'boycott' with 'protest' and only just realized it.....

My bad 

That might clear up some confusion. but my point still stands. the man shouldn't lose his job over his opinion.


----------



## Smiley (Feb 24, 2013)

> The Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender activist website AllOut.org has  collected more than 11,000 signatures on an online petition asking DC to  drop Card from the project.



Why is this kind of hatemongering and discrimination allowed?

You can't get someone fired just for their sexual preferences. This is no different to trying to get a gay man fired for not liking women.

Ignorant clowns and their ridiculous double standards.


----------



## Morgan (Feb 24, 2013)

> But I'm not sure why it's still
> OK to 'have an opinion' about gays.



Please tell me that I'm simply unintelligent and lacking in reading comprehension and this doesn't mean what I'm thinking it implies.


----------



## Daenerys Stormborn (Feb 24, 2013)

Hmm.  On the one hand, I strongly disagree with Card's stance on marriage equality.  OTOH, how would I feel if the situation was reversed?  What if a major comics company hired an openly gay writer and conservatives organized a boycott?  I don't think I'd want the company to fire the gay guy because conservatives were pitching a fit, so it seems like it would be hypocritical to want DC to fire Card.


----------



## Saufsoldat (Feb 24, 2013)

Smiley said:


> Why is this kind of hatemongering and discrimination allowed?
> 
> You can't get someone fired just for their sexual preferences. This is no different to trying to get a gay man fired for not liking women.
> 
> Ignorant clowns and their ridiculous double standards.





Daenerys Stormborn said:


> Hmm.  On the one hand, I strongly disagree with Card's stance on marriage equality.  OTOH, how would I feel if the situation was reversed?  What if a major comics company hired an openly gay writer and conservatives organized a boycott?  I don't think I'd want the company to fire the gay guy because conservatives were pitching a fit, so it seems like it would be hypocritical to want DC to fire Card.



Being gay hurts nobody. Being gay doesn't affect anyone except the person who is gay.

Being anti-gay hurts and affects a significant amount of all human beings on the planet.

See the difference? There is no reason to tolerate bigotry and hatemongering.


----------



## Smiley (Feb 24, 2013)

Saufsoldat said:


> Being gay hurts nobody. Being gay doesn't affect anyone except the person who is gay.
> 
> Being anti-gay hurts and affects a significant amount of all human beings on the planet.
> 
> See the difference? There is no reason to tolerate bigotry and hatemongering.


Yes, let's be willfully ignorant of the fact that these hatemongers are _mongering hate_ against this man, and trying to make him lose his job.

This is certainly not as harmful as doing the exact same thing to gays, because only gays are susceptible to harm.


----------



## Morgan (Feb 24, 2013)

Daenerys Stormborn said:


> Hmm.  On the one hand, I strongly disagree with Card's stance on marriage equality.  OTOH, how would I feel if the situation was reversed? * What if a major comics company hired an openly gay writer and conservatives organized a boycott?  I don't think I'd want the company to fire the gay guy because conservatives were pitching a fit, so it seems like it would be hypocritical to want DC to fire Card.*



I was about to make this point.


----------



## Saufsoldat (Feb 24, 2013)

Smiley said:


> Yes, let's be willfully ignorant of the fact that these hatemongers are _mongering hate_ against this man, and trying to make him lose his job.
> 
> This is certainly not as harmful as doing the exact same thing to gays, because only gays are susceptible to harm.



You don't get it, do you? Homophobia is so ingrained in our society that people think the reverse scenario of not giving a man an important project because of his anti-gay stance would be not giving a gay man the job. If you'd think for one second, you'd realize that this isn't even close to the reverse scenario. A true reverse scenario would be a man being denied an important project because he's against heterosexual rights. Do you think that if you loads of money and actively lobby against heterosexual marriage, anyone would hire you?

Nobody is demanding that DC take action because of what the man is, just because of what he does.


----------



## Saufsoldat (Feb 24, 2013)

Morgan said:


> I was about to make this point.



Good thing you didn't, otherwise you would've looked just as stupid.


----------



## Vynjira (Feb 24, 2013)

No one is saying Card can't have his views or that he can't be hired for his views.
(or even that he should be fired specifically for his views)

What is being said, or rather the main point of the issue.. is that you cannot be oblivious to the ramifications of hiring an open member of the KKK to endorse you in a political ad (or represent you in some other way).

If Card uses Superman as an outlet for his personal views, DC would be insane not to fire him... *but here's the deal*.. even if he doesn't.. I'm not going to buy comics written by him. No more than I would buy something that would support Justin Beiber (and it's not hypocritical for me not to buy something I don't want to support).

..and that's specifically why DC shouldn't have hired him to write Superman.
(I admit they prolly didn't know what his views were before this).


----------



## Narcissus (Feb 24, 2013)

Smiley said:


> Why is this kind of hatemongering and discrimination allowed?
> 
> You can't get someone fired just for their sexual preferences. This is no different to trying to get a gay man fired for not liking women.
> 
> Ignorant clowns and their ridiculous double standards.


Nonsense, first of all, you're assuming this is being done out of hate, when it isn't. Card is a bigot who has actively tried to limit the rights of the LGBT community. This is being done out of fear of his opinion being voiced through one of the most iconic characters in fiction, who belongs to a gay-friendly company.

And yes, that is very different from firing someone for not liking the opposite gender.





Daenerys Stormborn said:


> Hmm.  On the one hand, I strongly disagree with Card's stance on marriage equality.  OTOH, how would I feel if the situation was reversed?  What if a major comics company hired an openly gay writer and conservatives organized a boycott?  I don't think I'd want the company to fire the gay guy because conservatives were pitching a fit, so it seems like it would be hypocritical to want DC to fire Card.


Well, a  conservative group already tried to protest a comic because it had a gay marriage in it. The protest backfired and helped the comic sell out.



The difference in your comparison is that Card spreads hate and bigotry, while the gay writer isn't.


----------



## Pilaf (Feb 24, 2013)

"How dare you suggest the guy who gave money to make gay families suffer is a bigot! You're the real bigots for not supporting bigotry!" 

^The logic of certain people in this thread.


----------



## Morgan (Feb 24, 2013)

Saufsoldat said:


> Good thing you didn't, otherwise you would've looked just as stupid.



I don't know much about Mr. Card, but I do believe one's personal opinions/views on sexuality, should not be grounds for having said person's contract terminated, which is what the LGBT community is petitioning for.


----------



## Vynjira (Feb 24, 2013)

Daenerys Stormborn said:


> Hmm.  On the one hand, I strongly disagree with Card's stance on marriage equality.


Then don't buy anything that he writes. (and for many people this isn't even an issue because they don't normally buy Superman comics)


> OTOH, how would I feel if the situation was reversed?


You mean if someone actively supported groups that attack Mormons?





> What if a major comics company hired an openly gay writer and conservatives organized a boycott?


That's not a reversed situation. If we were telling DC to fire Card because he was a Mormon, then you'd be right.





> I don't think I'd want the company to fire the gay guy because conservatives were pitching a fit, so it seems like it would be hypocritical to want DC to fire Card.


Firing a person for being Gay is substantially different from firing someone for advocating/supporting groups that often injure other human beings and vocally calls to take away or deny rights to a certain group of people.


----------



## Saufsoldat (Feb 24, 2013)

Morgan said:


> I don't know much about Mr. Card, but I do believe one's personal opinions/views on sexuality, should not be grounds for having said person's contract terminated, which is what the LGBT community is petitioning for.



So if JJ Abrams came out as a KKK member today and started lobbying for interracial marriage to be made illegal, it would be wrong if Disney denied him the chance to direct the new Star Wars movies...? It's just his personal opinions, right?


----------



## Shinigami Perv (Feb 24, 2013)

His religious views sometimes bleed through into his writing. In the Ender's Shadow series he started rants against abortion. Ran out of good ideas after Ender's Game and Speaker for the Dead IMO.

I seriously doubt he'd use a Superman comic to rant against gays, though. He doesn't own the rights to Superman like he does Ender.


----------



## Griever (Feb 24, 2013)

Petes12 said:


> first of all hes contributed a lot of money to preventing gay rights and is very active in organizations trying to prevent them.



I get that and i don't agree with it. But i can't really see how that means he can't write a comic. 



> second, you wouldn't expect someone to get hired to write if they're openly racist, or holocaust deniers, because omg its just an opinion!! that's dumb. his opinion is shitty and dehumanizing



There are plenty of actors and writers who's opinions i find disgusting to say the least but still enjoy their work. 

Like H.P. Lovecraft for example: i love his work but the man was racist as racist gets viewing other races as "sub-human" and "less intelligent." and yet he influenced so many writers around the world from everything from TV to Video Games. True some would dismiss it as simply being "a product of his time" but really, he was over the top and gone. 

Just because someone is racist or has less than agreeable opinions. Doesn't mean they cannot write wonderful works of art that endure and inspire.


----------



## Frostman (Feb 24, 2013)

Well if he is writing one of the most iconic characters in comics then he is not going to have a much liberty to write as much as people think. If he does, people will notice and react. The fans know the character just as well as any writer in this situation. But until he does mess with the character he shouldn't be fired for his thoughts.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Feb 24, 2013)

Daenerys Stormborn said:


> Hmm.  On the one hand, I strongly disagree with Card's stance on marriage equality.  OTOH, how would I feel if the situation was reversed?  What if a major comics company hired an openly gay writer and conservatives organized a boycott?  I don't think I'd want the company to fire the gay guy because conservatives were pitching a fit, so it seems like it would be hypocritical to want DC to fire Card.



Well if those gay people took active efforts to deny those conservatives to enjoy the rights granted to them and live the way they want to live then maybe you'd have a point.


----------



## Morgan (Feb 24, 2013)

Saufsoldat said:


> So if JJ Abrams came out as a KKK member today and started lobbying for interracial marriage to be made illegal, it would be wrong if Disney denied him the chance to direct the new Star Wars movies...? It's just his personal opinions, right?



Well Walt Disney holds the right to associate itself with/dissociate itself from any belief/idea/opinion. The same applies to DC. However, I don't agree with petitioning to have a supposed KKK JJ Abrams dismissed from directing the new Star Wars movie.


----------



## superattackpea (Feb 24, 2013)

kazuri said:


> So youre saying he has the right to hate gays, but we dont have the right to hate/boycott him because he hates gays....? Make sure you aren't being a hypocrite before you call someone one.



What if someone called for that same action against a person who supported gay marriage?

You are literally advocating that someone not be allowed to have a job based on their beliefs.

You are saying someone should not be free to pursue a career that would make them happy because of a stance they have on a SINGLE issue. 

That you would rather someone not be able to eat afford food at night than have feelings that differ from yours

Forget trying to come to an understanding on the issue. Forget reason and compassion and truth.

Just bully them into submission.

That is your stance dealing with people who hold different ideas.


----------



## Saufsoldat (Feb 24, 2013)

Morgan said:


> Well Walt Disney holds the right to associate itself with/dissociate itself from any belief/idea/opinion. The same applies to DC. However, I don't agree with petitioning to have a supposed KKK JJ Abrams dismissed from directing the new Star Wars movie.



So you don't draw a line anywhere? A guy calling for a new holocaust or someone who says all left-handed people should have their citizenship revoked...?



superattackpea said:


> What if someone called for that same action against a person who supported gay marriage?



That happens a lot, but it's just not successful because people are no longer as homophobic as a few decades ago.


----------



## superattackpea (Feb 24, 2013)

Saufsoldat said:


> Being gay hurts nobody. Being gay doesn't affect anyone except the person who is gay.
> 
> Being anti-gay hurts and affects a significant amount of all human beings on the planet.
> 
> See the difference? There is no reason to tolerate bigotry and hatemongering.



NO 

Being anti-gay does not hurt anybody.

Forming legislation that does not afford the same rights to homosexuals as heterosexuals hurts people.

But his job has nothing to do with that


----------



## Huey Freeman (Feb 24, 2013)

Vynjira said:


> No one is saying Card can't have his views or that he can't be hired for his views.
> (or even that he should be fired specifically for his views)
> 
> What is being said, or rather the main point of the issue.. is that you cannot be oblivious to the ramifications of hiring an open member of the KKK to endorse you in a political ad (or represent you in some other way).
> ...



This explains my viewpoint pretty much, however just to add I don't think DC ( who are very liberal and pro gay themselves ) will not screen through his work thoroughly so he doesn't try spread his nonsense in his work and he probably has that stipulated in his contract since this outburst.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Feb 24, 2013)

superattackpea said:


> What if someone called for that same action against a person who supported gay marriage?
> 
> You are literally advocating that someone not be allowed to have a job based on their beliefs.
> 
> ...





superattackpea said:


> NO
> 
> Being anti-gay does not hurt anybody.
> 
> ...



Your line of reasoning is absolutely moronic. He just doesn't believe he puts forth active efforts to legislate those beliefs.

No one says he can't pursue his passions, he can write all the comics he wants. *His own.* Free to spout all the crazy shit he wants. However DC is a company that holds a progressive policy, and hiring this writer is bad exposure for them. No one said he can't have an opinion or career, but the readers do have a right to object that a writer such as himself that holds such bigotry be hired to write for a character that DC often uses to express those socially progressive viewpoints.


----------



## Morgan (Feb 24, 2013)

Saufsoldat said:


> So you don't draw a line anywhere? A guy calling for a new holocaust or someone who says all left-handed people should have their citizenship revoked...?
> 
> 
> 
> That happens a lot, but it's just not successful because people are no longer as homophobic as a few decades ago.



I aim to take into consideration people's rights. All three parties have their rights: DC can hire whomever they see fit, the LGBT community can boycott/petition whatever they see fit, and Mr. Card can have his opinions. Punishing people because of their opinions defeats what we strive for in this 21st century does it not? Punishing people because of their opinions threatens liberty and freedom and the very essence of democracy.


----------



## Lightysnake (Feb 24, 2013)

Griever said:


> I'm simply saying that ones personal life and professional life are two separate things. Now if Card does write a homophobic version of Superman, by all means boycott away. But at this point it's all based on assumption or just the fact that he is homophobic.
> 
> Now i don't care if the person is Black, White, Hispanic, Asian, racist/Homophobic/sexist, gay or straight. If they can do the job they can do the job. If they can't, they can't.
> 
> At this point it's too early to make a judgment, that's all I'm saying.



Are you completely uneducated and unlearned? 'It's too early to make a judgment?' We have years' worth of behavior from Card. We have Card saying we ought overthrow the government if it legalizes homosexual marriage.

For many people, Superman is a symbol of equality, tolerance and justice and letting Card write that character goes so contrary to those ideals that it's plain offensive. That DC, a LBGT friendly company decided to hire one of the most anti-LBGT activists feels like a slap in the face



Platinum said:


> Yeah sorry, petitions like this are the epitome of bullshit. Sure he has fucked up opinions, but he has the right to have those opinions as long as he doesn't put them forth in writing at his job (which would never get past editorial mind you).
> 
> Doing the same thing to him that he wants to do to the lgbt community should be beneath everyone. Take the high road and just don't buy it.



Dear god, can you sound any worse?
What do you think boycotts are? Those are people who are 'taking the high road and just not buying it.' And guess what? Ethan Van Sciver, a major artist at DC, likely holds those same opinions. The difference is Van Sciver is no an active campaigner against LBGT rights. Card is. Card is someone who wants to remove rights from homosexuals. He doesn't want them to freely hold jobs if the employer doesn't like their sexuality, he doesn't want them to 
get married or to be able to adopt or hold positions as teachers.

'Doing the same thing to him?' Nobody is against him having a goddamn job, they just don't want DC comics to employ him. They don't want major publishers to stop releasing Ender's Game, the royalties of which he can live off of forever and ever. they don't want to boycott the major motion picture coming out that he'll bank on. 

They simply don't want him to write Superman, you annoying little milquetoast.



Chaos Theory said:


> Rights get stepped on all the time, intentional or not. I don't see why they'd have a problem with Card. He's a good author IMO



"Whyhave a problem with a guy ffor seeking to deny you civil rights? He's a good author!"

I can't believe you typed that with a straight face



Daenerys Stormborn said:


> Hmm.  On the one hand, I strongly disagree with Card's stance on marriage equality.  OTOH, how would I feel if the situation was reversed?  What if a major comics company hired an openly gay writer and conservatives organized a boycott?  I don't think I'd want the company to fire the gay guy because conservatives were pitching a fit, so it seems like it would be hypocritical to want DC to fire Card.



How would you feel? You don't have to look far, it happens all the damn time. Remember when Archie he;d a gay wedding? Bigots have a right to be bigots and boyscott for whatever reason. Archie's CEO took the high road and called them small minded people who nevertheless had a right to the decision.

I'm sick and tired of people like you trying to find parity in this. This isn't an equal debate of opinions.  This is a group of people trying to live their lives and be recognized with the rights you and I take for granted while the other side is a group of religiously driven bigots seeing to make them second class citizens.  



superattackpea said:


> What if someone called for that same action against a person who supported gay marriage?



You mean like they do all the time?



> You are literally advocating that someone not be allowed to have a job based on their beliefs.



Remember, folks! "Can the successful author please not write Superman?" = DENYING HIM A JOB.



> You are saying someone should not be free to pursue a career that would make them happy because of a stance they have on a SINGLE issue.



"Sure he actively campaigns to make life worth for every gay person in the country and routinely seeks to deny them their own happiness on issues far more relevant and importnant than comic books but DON'T INTERFERE WITH HIS HAPPINESS!"

Fuck that.  Not only has Card pursued a career for three decades, but he can get any books pubished whenever he wants. You think I give a damn if his underwear gets in a twist and he's upset because he's a bit unhappy he can't write Superman after he's sought to reduce gays to second class citizens?



> That you would rather someone not be able to eat afford food at night than have feelings that differ from yours



I'm sure he'll cry himself to sleep on the giant pile of money he gets from his book being adapted into a major motion picture coming out this year.



> Forget trying to come to an understanding on the issue. Forget reason and compassion and truth.



Apply this to the guy whose response to gay marriage being legal is "DOWN WITH THE US GOVERNMENT!"



> Just bully them into submission.
> 
> That is your stance dealing with people who hold different ideas.




Hahaha...

Haahahahaha....

Wow. You are so uninformed it's fucking SCARY


----------



## Lightysnake (Feb 24, 2013)

Morgan said:


> I aim to take into consideration people's rights. All three parties have their rights: DC can hire whomever they see fit, the LGBT community can boycott/petition whatever they see fit, and Mr. Card can have his opinions. Punishing people because of their opinions defeats what we strive for in this 21st century does it not? Punishing people because of their opinions threatens liberty and freedom and the very essence of democracy.



No, it really isn't. Being punished for holding terrible and regressive opinions is kind of a proud American tradition, or was the Montgomery Bus Boycott trampling on the rights of those poor segregationists.

Get this: actions have consequences. Card's *actions* tend to be the problem here. he campaigns constantly, at the board of the National Organization of Marriage, a recognized hate group that campaigns againt gays at every level.

but try to hold him accountable and the hand wringing cowards will simper about democracy and try "Can't we all just get along!"


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Feb 24, 2013)

The thing some of these people do not understand clearly is that Card wants to take and/or deny rights from a group of people. The contrast to that is not petitioning against him, and boycotting him. That's not at all infringing on his rights. If DC listens to its reader base and decides not to hire him or hire him again, that is not infringing on his rights. He is still free to spout all the bigotry he wants and free to write comics on his own time however he wishes.

What some of you need to get through your heads is that one's views do hold ramifications and a company takes that into strong consideration. Being associated with particular individuals is not good publicity, but that is not denying them their rights to be who they are and express their thoughts.


----------



## Gino (Feb 24, 2013)

I think I'll just sit back and read.


----------



## Lightysnake (Feb 24, 2013)

God forbid anyone's actions have *consequences*. I'm sure Card's right to an opinion is of sound relief to the millions of homosexuals who are terrified of being fired from their job at any time fi their employer gets a case of the ickies


----------



## Bishop (Feb 24, 2013)

So the fuck what, the guy is against gays, he makes good comics, check him when he makes anti-gay remarks in his comics, otherwise quit the bitching. It's beginning be "Either you are for us or you are scum." Sheesh


----------



## Gino (Feb 24, 2013)

Lightysnake said:


> God forbid anyone's actions have *consequences*. I'm sure Card's right to an opinion is of sound relief to the millions of homosexuals who are terrified of being fired from their job at any time fi their employer gets a case of the ickies



What the fuck are you talking about?


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Feb 24, 2013)

Bishop said:


> So the fuck what, the guy is against gays, he makes good comics, check him when he makes anti-gay remarks in his comics, otherwise quit the bitching. It's beginning be "Either you are for us or you are scum." Sheesh



You came in here real ignorant. Although, considering the people pretty much throwing sympathy behind him shouldn't surprise me.


----------



## Narcissus (Feb 24, 2013)

Lightysnake, as soon as I get back to my actual computer, I'll be showing you with rep for that amazing post.





Gino said:


> This changes nothing the only way he'll affect their lives as if they let him fuck him.



Actually it changes the scale of his actions, because they are worse than you suggested.

The latter part of your post made no sense.


----------



## Morgan (Feb 24, 2013)

Lightysnake said:


> No, it really isn't. Being punished for holding terrible and regressive opinions is kind of a proud American tradition, or was the Montgomery Bus Boycott trampling on the rights of those poor segregationists.



I'm not an American. I have no idea what really goes on this country. 



> Get this: actions have consequences.



True.



> Card's *actions* tend to be the problem here. he campaigns constantly, at the board of the National Organization of Marriage, a recognized hate group that campaigns againt gays at every level.



Does he intend to campaign through the Superman comic? 



> but try to hold him accountable and the hand wringing cowards will simper about democracy and try "Can't we all just get along!"



Try to hold him accountable for what? In America, isn't it a right to campaign against same sex marriage?


----------



## Lightysnake (Feb 24, 2013)

Bishop said:


> So the fuck what, the guy is against gays, he makes good comics, check him when he makes anti-gay remarks in his comics, otherwise quit the bitching. It's beginning be "Either you are for us or you are scum." Sheesh



1. No, Card actually does not make good comics. They actually pretty much suck. Ultimate Iron Man is legendary in how bad it was.
2. Spoken like someone with all the privilege in the world who can't understand why those gosh darned minorities are just so upset. Why ever would they not like a man who tries to keep them as second class citizens



Gino said:


> What the fuck are you talking about?



Consequences. You know.  

The effect, result, or outcome of something occurring earlier.

card's actions (his vehement anti-gay activism) might have 'consequences' (not being employed at an LBGT friendly company. Boyscotts. That sort of thing)


----------



## Gino (Feb 24, 2013)

Narcissus said:


> Actually it changes the scale of his actions, because they are worse than you suggested.
> 
> The latter part of your post made no sense.



That's too bad .


----------



## Gino (Feb 24, 2013)

I'm pretty sure the guy won't be doing the superman comic now.


----------



## Stunna (Feb 24, 2013)

Gino said:


> That's too bad .


pffffffffft lol


----------



## Narcissus (Feb 24, 2013)

Gino said:


> That's too bad .



For you, yes.


----------



## Lightysnake (Feb 24, 2013)

Morgan said:


> I'm not an American. I have no idea what really goes on this country.
> 
> True.
> 
> ...



Does it matter? As stated before, Superman is for many, a symbol of equality and justice. Things Card has routinely opposed. Moreover, money Card gains is money he uses to campaign against LBGT rights.

Is this correlation truly not obvious?




> Try to hold him accountable for what? In America, isn't it a right to campaign against same sex marriage?



OH, good lord. 

Nobody is telling the government "censor this man!" That isn't how it works. Card has the right to his opinions and he has the right to campaign for whatever purpose he is. Doing so doesn't make him less an asshole, and actions have consequences. A 'consequence' to be a grade A bigot is sometimes, people won't buy your work. Ordinary people can use the free market to hold someone accountable.*That* is a very time honored American tradition.


----------



## Gino (Feb 24, 2013)

Narcissus said:


> For you, yes.



Not really.


----------



## Lightysnake (Feb 24, 2013)

DremolitoX said:


> This shouldn't be an issue.
> 
> Fucking lgbt ^ (not the meaning of the word "respect".). Babies and drones, all of them.



Stunning example of the people who champion Card


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Feb 24, 2013)

Some of you guys are really dense. The boycott isn't infringing upon his rights, and if DC listened to the readers protesting neither is that. However, Card's efforts and goals would infringe upon the rights of others. That's his goal. He has the right to express his bigotry, but the saying goes "Your rights end where mine's begin", he puts the effort to make his beliefs into legislation. It's amazing how thick some of you are that are unable to see the stark difference between his activity and this particular boycott.


----------



## Gino (Feb 24, 2013)

Seto Kaiba said:


> Some of you guys are really dense. The boycott isn't infringing upon his rights, and if DC listened to the readers protesting neither is that. However, Card's efforts and goals would infringe upon the rights of others. That's his goal.



with over 11,000 signatures I don't see this guy succeeding.


----------



## Lightysnake (Feb 24, 2013)

what *really* kills me?

Nerd logic 1: Refusing to buy a comic and encouraging others to do the same because of the writer's civil rights stance is WRONG WRONG WRONG

Nerd logic 2: Refusing to buy a comic because the writer broke up your OTP or is a bad writer and encouraging others to do the same? Is AWESOME


----------



## DremolitoX (Feb 24, 2013)

Lightysnake said:


> Stunning example of the people who champion Card





Seto Kaiba said:


> Some of you guys are really dense. The boycott isn't infringing upon his rights, and if DC listened to the readers protesting neither is that. However, Card's efforts and goals would infringe upon the rights of others. That's his goal.



I don't give a shit about card. I don't even know who he is.

*Does he have a history of pushing his beliefs on the material he produces*? My gut says no. If he does, I'll admit i'm wrong and a dumbass for jumping the gun like that.

Otherwise, you guys have no case.


----------



## Lightysnake (Feb 24, 2013)

DremolitoX said:


> I don't give a shit about card. I don't even know who he is.
> 
> *Does he have a history of pushing his beliefs on the material he produces*? My gut says no. If he does, I'll admit i'm wrong and a dumbass for jumping the gun like that.
> 
> Otherwise, you guys have no case.



Look up 'Hamlet's Father'

Moreover, you understand that people might be a *wee* bit more concerned about the fact he will use proceeds from his job to actively campaign against LGBT rights with the organization he's a board member of?


----------



## Gino (Feb 24, 2013)

DremolitoX said:


> I don't give a shit about card. I don't even know who he is.
> 
> *Does he have a history of pushing his beliefs on the material he produces*? My gut says no. If he does, I'll admit i'm wrong and a dumbass for jumping the gun like that.
> 
> Otherwise, you guys have no case.



I'm pretty sure Batman and Superman became Mormons and started calling people ^ (not the meaning of the word "respect".) and dyke for years now.


----------



## Cheeky (Feb 24, 2013)

Looking up on the guy, the stuff he writes looks pretty bad anyway.

I'm not surprised his fans would have a poor understanding of this sort of thing.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Feb 24, 2013)

> Does he have a history of pushing his beliefs on the material he produces? My gut says no. If he does, I'll admit i'm wrong and a dumbass for jumping the gun like that.



You, Bishop, and it seems the social conservatives here in general have done just that. Ignorantly jump the gun. He does push his beliefs in his material, and your gut has led you wrong. 

I think it's more than clear you guys are only jumping to his defense out of sympathy for his bigoted views given your past history on these matters, and your own clearly emotionally charged statements.


----------



## Gino (Feb 24, 2013)

Just calling it how I see it even if I'm wrong looks like pointless bitching to me but hey have fun.


----------



## Morgan (Feb 24, 2013)

Lightysnake said:


> Does it matter? As stated before, Superman is for many, a symbol of equality and justice. Things Card has routinely opposed. Moreover, money Card gains is money he uses to campaign against LBGT rights.
> 
> Is this correlation truly not obvious?



Yes, yes. People are upset and offended. 






> OH, good lord.
> 
> Nobody is telling the government "censor this man!" That isn't how it works. Card has the right to his opinions and he has the right to campaign for whatever purpose he is. Doing so doesn't make him less an asshole, and actions have consequences. A 'consequence' to be a grade A bigot is sometimes, people won't buy your work. Ordinary people can use the free market to hold someone accountable.*That* is a very time honored American tradition.



Did I not say the LGBT community has the right to boycott/petition whatever it is they want? However you said something along the lines of holding him accountable and I'm simply asking to be specific about what it is that you Americans are trying to hold him accountable for.


----------



## Narcissus (Feb 24, 2013)

DremolitoX said:


> I don't give a shit about card. I don't even know who he is.


Then I have no reason to take you seriously (not that I took you seriously to begin with).





> *Does he have a history of pushing his beliefs on the material he produces*? My gut says no.


As you just admitted to not knowing about Card, it's irrelevant what your gut says...

More importantly, it's obvious you haven't read the thread. Otherwise, you wouldn't be making such a fool of yourself.


----------



## Bishop (Feb 24, 2013)

Seto Kaiba said:


> You, Bishop, and it seems the social conservatives here in general have done just that. Ignorantly jump the gun. He does push his beliefs in his material, and your gut has led you wrong.
> 
> I think it's more than clear you guys are only jumping to his defense out of sympathy for his bigoted views given your past history on these matters, and your own clearly emotionally charged statements.



Oh shut the hell up with your constant bitching. He has yet to even write it and you're talking about jumping the gun? When he does it in this comic, THEN check him, til then, no need for all this. Sheesh, the guy's views have yet to come out on this comic yet, let us just be patient and wait.


----------



## Saufsoldat (Feb 24, 2013)

Morgan said:


> I aim to take into consideration people's rights. All three parties have their rights: DC can hire whomever they see fit, the LGBT community can boycott/petition whatever they see fit, and Mr. Card can have his opinions. Punishing people because of their opinions defeats what we strive for in this 21st century does it not? Punishing people because of their opinions threatens liberty and freedom and the very essence of democracy.



Either you're not taking the LGBT community or DC into consideration at all.

If all the following are true:

1) Card can believe what he wants
2) DC can hire who they want
3) The LGBT community can boycott/petition who or what they want

then what is your problem with the current situation...? It seems to me your want to ignore 2) and 3) in favor of 1).


----------



## Morgan (Feb 24, 2013)

Seto Kaiba said:


> Some of you guys are really dense. The boycott isn't infringing upon his rights, and if DC listened to the readers protesting neither is that. However, Card's efforts and goals would infringe upon the rights of others. That's his goal. He has the right to express his bigotry, but the saying goes "Your rights end where mine's begin", he puts the effort to make his beliefs into legislation. It's amazing how thick some of you are that are unable to see the stark difference between his activity and this particular boycott.



I think you should make use of the "Quote" button.


----------



## Lightysnake (Feb 24, 2013)

Bishop said:


> Oh shut the hell up with your constant bitching. He has yet to even write it and you're talking about jumping the gun? When he does it in this comic, THEN check him, til then, no need for all this. Sheesh, the guy's views have yet to come out on this comic yet, let us just be patient and wait.



Showing incredible lack of understanding of the issue? Check.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Feb 24, 2013)

Bishop said:


> Oh shut the hell up with your constant bitching. He has yet to even write it and you're talking about jumping the gun? When he does it in this comic, THEN check him, til then, no need for all this. Sheesh, the guy's views have yet to come out on this comic yet, let us just be patient and wait.



That's utterly moronic. It's the matter of associating with an individual that conflicts with DC's social policies. 

His history of expressing his views has set a precedent. Like I stated, your charged statements only gives me an impression that it his very views that you're sympathetic towards. Had it been bigotry under any other name, you probably wouldn't be so worked up. Any sensible person would see that these people are well justified in boycotting and petitioning against an individual that has a history in trying to push his bigotry.


----------



## Gino (Feb 24, 2013)

Boycotts Superman comic loses goes to make Batman comic.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Feb 24, 2013)

Morgan said:


> I think you should make use of the "Quote" button.



I see you don't have a retort, but you weren't the only ignorant person I was addressing in that statement.


----------



## Lightysnake (Feb 24, 2013)

You just know DC is thinking "Man, good thing we didn't have Lois Lane sleep with Lex Luthor. People would've been REALLY mad then!"

I've been in comics fandom a long time. When DC comics made Batwoman a lesbian, it reached national news and people were screeching and boycotting then. Now this happens and...practical silence. MAkes me sick.


----------



## Gino (Feb 24, 2013)

I didn't know Batwoman was lesbian in till today

my response.......... don't give a shit.


----------



## Bishop (Feb 24, 2013)

Seto Kaiba said:


> That's utterly moronic. It's the matter of associating with an individual that conflicts with DC's social policies.
> 
> His history of expressing his views has set a precedent. Like I stated, your charged statements only gives me an impression that it his very views that you're sympathetic towards. Had it been bigotry under any other name, you probably wouldn't be so worked up. Any sensible person would see that these people are well justified in boycotting and petitioning against an individual that has a history in trying to push his bigotry.



That guilt by association fallacy...

I am for gay rights, but this is crazy o jump he gun so fast and call others bigots. Until those comics come out, nothing can be said.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Feb 24, 2013)

Boycotts like these usually aren't a big deal, but the fact is that a lot of people sympathize with Card's views so of course this will gain more of a response.


----------



## Morgan (Feb 24, 2013)

Saufsoldat said:


> Either you're not taking the LGBT community or DC into consideration at all.
> 
> If all the following are true:
> 
> ...


 
The possibility of the petition succeeding and a man losing his job because people are offended by his opinions, opinions that have nothing to do with a Superman comic.


----------



## DremolitoX (Feb 24, 2013)

Lightysnake said:


> Look up 'Hamlet's Father'
> 
> Moreover, you understand that people might be a *wee* bit more concerned about the fact he will use proceeds from his job to actively campaign against LGBT rights with the organization he's a board member of?


The whole controversy was because the king was a p*d*p****, but he's supposed to be a homosexual? What does card do to equate the two, or demean the latter with the former?


Narcissus said:


> Then I have no reason to take you seriously (not that I took you seriously to begin with).As you just admitted to not knowing about Card, it's irrelevant what your gut says...
> 
> More importantly, it's obvious you haven't read the thread. Otherwise, you wouldn't be making such a fool of yourself.



Oh, some random ass I wasn't even talking to felt the need to tell me he doesn't care about what I think. I think i'm going to go cry now.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Feb 24, 2013)

Bishop said:


> That guilt by association fallacy...
> 
> I am for gay rights, but this is crazy o jump he gun so fast and call others bigots. Until those comics come out, nothing can be said.



No, it's your past statements on this, or maybe your husbands. Hard to tell, and more of your problem. 

He is a bigot genius. It's the fact that DC is associating with him that is the problem and him being used to right a socially progressive character.


----------



## Morgan (Feb 24, 2013)

Seto Kaiba said:


> I see you don't have a retort, but you weren't the only ignorant person I was addressing in that statement.



I can only "retort" if you were addressing me and I can only know if you're addressing me if you employ the quote option, Mr. Seito Kaiba.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Feb 24, 2013)

Morgan said:


> I can only "retort" if you were addressing me and I can only know if you're addressing me if you employ the quote option, Mr. Seito Kaiba.



Refer to "you weren't the only ignorant person I was addressing".


----------



## Lightysnake (Feb 24, 2013)

Bishop said:


> That guilt by association fallacy...
> 
> I am for gay rights, but this is crazy o jump he gun so fast and call others bigots. Until those comics come out, nothing can be said.



How is this 'guilt by association?' This isn't "Card associates with these people," it's backlash on Card's own words and actions


----------



## Bishop (Feb 24, 2013)

Seto Kaiba said:


> No, it's your past statements on this, or maybe your husbands. Hard to tell, and more of your problem.
> 
> He is a bigot genius. It's the fact that DC is associating with him that is the problem and him being used to right a socially progressive character.



I mean guilt by association with your statements about DC and Scotty, as shown again in your second line.

I see what you're saying, but until the comic is written, we all of this is for nothing. If he writes with no intent to hate on gays and none is shown, then there is problem. That's why I feel we must wait and see.


----------



## Morgan (Feb 24, 2013)

Seto Kaiba said:


> Refer to "you weren't the only ignorant person I was addressing".



Let me rephrase, 
I could've only "retorted" if you were
addressing me, and I could've only known if
 you were addressing me if you had employed the
 quote option, Mr. Seito Kaiba.


----------



## Stunna (Feb 24, 2013)

It's not the fear of Card's writings being anti-homophobic, it's the principle of it. It is hypocritical of DC to enlist someone anti-LGBT when they are trying to promote a pro-LGBT image and character.


----------



## Gino (Feb 24, 2013)

You guys should have just let the guy make the comic then as soon as you saw the slightest hint of homophobia boycott and then get his ass fired problem solved......for now


----------



## Narcissus (Feb 24, 2013)

Bishop said:


> I am for gay rights, but this is crazy o jump he gun so fast and call others bigots.


Absolute Nonsense, no one is jumping the gun, because Card *IS* a bigot. Anyone who knows anything about him knows that.

And people are justified in their dissatisfaction with DC's decision, regardless of whether he uses Superman as an outlet for his idiocy or not.





DremolitoX said:


> Oh, some random ass I wasn't even talking to felt the need to tell me he doesn't care about what I think. I think i'm going to go cry now.


No, I told you your opinions were irrelevant, because of how misinformed and ignorant you are.


----------



## Saufsoldat (Feb 24, 2013)

Morgan said:


> The possibility of the petition succeeding and a man losing his job because people are offended by his opinions, opinions that have nothing to do with a Superman comic.



So it's as I said and you ignore either 2) or 3) and the only "rights" that you consider sacred are those of the bigot.


----------



## Gino (Feb 24, 2013)

Stunna said:


> It's not the fear of Card's writings being anti-homophobic, it's the principle of it. It is hypocritical of DC to enlist someone anti-LGBT when they are trying to promote a pro-LGBT image and character.



Happens a lot more then you think that money.


----------



## Morgan (Feb 24, 2013)

Saufsoldat said:


> So it's as I said and you ignore either 2) or 3) and the only "rights" that you consider sacred are those of the bigot.



1) The rights of Mr. Card to have his opinions is being threatened. 
2) The rights of the LGBT community to bycott/petition Mr. Cards contract is not being threatened. 
3) The rights of DC to hire Mr. Card is being questioned.

What do you suggest?


----------



## josh101 (Feb 24, 2013)

Do you people think DC comics are written in some guys basement who then runs down to the local newsagents with it to sell it when he's done? Jesus christ, do you really think a billion dollar pro-LGBT company who rely on their image are going to let this guy get use their, and the worlds, most popular comic book character spread hate for the LGBT community using their comic books as a medium? I mean it's not like comics go through mass amounts of editing and checks before they're published... this one especially now.  Not only that but he isn't even the sole writer of the comics, he's one of many. 

Guy's a dick, but you can hardly make him lose his job for it. If you don't like him for what he stands for, don't buy his comics.


----------



## Daxter (Feb 24, 2013)

Maaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaan, and I wanted to actually finish Ender's Game at some point, it came highly recommended. 

Motivation instantly curbed. I hope it sucks shit.

At first the argument that 'it's his opinion, free America' and all that noise seems fair enough, but as I continued to read the article, the stance against it expectedly makes more sense. Your employees do represent you - there is always a code of conduct coming into any job, there's a reason companies of all kinds expect certain behaviour from their employees. This man isn't just wary, or just a quiet bigot who leaves his opinions at the door when he goes to work. He's obviously a passionate, very much open hater, who would give up earnings to hate-fuelled movements than to the likes of a charity or something worthwhile. 

Why would DC want to associate their company with that kind of person? Superman is an icon across the globe, and this isn't going to be no small time project. I'm not really a comic book fan, but I would think they'd want Superman to represent good, acceptance, the best of the best in society, a champion of the people, and all that business. Knowing such a terribly hateful person is going to contribute to this is not going to do well for sales as is, but I also think morally it's a step backwards too.

As a gay person, this kind of thing is obviously always upsetting to hear, but I think any person of any background can sympathise with the need to see hatred and bigotry curbed. This should be a wakeup call to both big companies like DC, and angry persons like Card himself, that while they're free to do as they choose, their actions will impact them in grand ways and they should be wise from here on. You will never do well to alienate any part of your audience.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Feb 24, 2013)

josh101 said:


> Do you people think DC comics are written in some guys basement who then runs down to the local newsagents with it to sell it when he's done? Jesus christ, do you really think a billion dollar pro-LGBT company who rely on their image are going to let this guy get use their, and the worlds, most popular comic book character spread hate for the LGBT community using their comic books as a medium? I mean it's not like comics go through mass amounts of editing and checks before they're published... this one especially now.  Not only that but he isn't even the sole writer of the comics, he's one of many.
> 
> Guy's a dick, but you can hardly make him lose his job for it. If you don't like him for what he stands for, don't buy his comics.



Good job on not addressing anything at all.


----------



## Lightysnake (Feb 24, 2013)

Morgan said:


> 1) The rights of Mr. Card to have his opinions is being threatened.
> 2) The rights of the LGBT community to bycott/petition Mr. Cards contract is not being threatened.
> 3) The rights of DC to hire Mr. Card is being questioned.
> 
> What do you suggest?



We don't question DC's right to hire him. We don't think DC should make the choice to hire him for Superman.

I don't see the infringement of rights there.


----------



## Gino (Feb 24, 2013)

Seto Kaiba said:


> Good job on not addressing anything at all.



Explain to all us ignorant folk all the potential damage that can done if this boycott doesn't work I'm genuinely curious.


----------



## Lightysnake (Feb 24, 2013)

josh101 said:


> Do you people think DC comics are written in some guys basement who then runs down to the local newsagents with it to sell it when he's done? Jesus christ, do you really think a billion dollar pro-LGBT company who rely on their image are going to let this guy get use their, and the worlds, most popular comic book character spread hate for the LGBT community using their comic books as a medium? I mean it's not like comics go through mass amounts of editing and checks before they're published... this one especially now.  Not only that but he isn't even the sole writer of the comics, he's one of many.
> 
> Guy's a dick, but you can hardly make him lose his job for it. If you don't like him for what he stands for, don't buy his comics.



Ok.

*This is not his job*

He is not a full time comic writer. He is contracted freelance to write one comic. You can take him off Superman and pay him the same fee for the adventures of Captain Bigotpants McCrazy at another company for all I care.

The problem is a pro-LBGT company is hiring a man who will inevitably fight LBGT rights. This isn't hard


----------



## Gino (Feb 24, 2013)

Lightysnake said:


> Ok.
> 
> *This is not his job*
> 
> ...



There better be a better reason than that I'm not shitting with you.


----------



## josh101 (Feb 24, 2013)

Seto Kaiba said:


> Good job on not addressing anything at all.


There is nothing to address. I am neither homosexual nor homophobic, I don't care for the author or Superman comics. 

I just find it amusing that people really think DC would allow any of his personal views to shine through into their comics. Comical.


----------



## Saufsoldat (Feb 24, 2013)

Morgan said:


> 1) The rights of Mr. Card to have his opinions is being threatened.



No, it's not. He can have his opinion all day, every day, 24/7, 365 days a year. Nobody says he can't.



> 2) The rights of the LGBT community to bycott/petition Mr. Cards contract is not being threatened.



Except by you.



> 3) The rights of DC to hire Mr. Card is being questioned.



No, it's not. It's a simple "if you do X, we won't buy your stuff anymore". If I write a letter to Amazon and say "I won't buy anything off your website until you improve work conditions", am I questioning any of their rights? No, of course not.



> What do you suggest?



That you stop interfering with the free market.


----------



## Morgan (Feb 24, 2013)

Lightysnake said:


> We don't question DC's right to hire him. We don't think DC should make the choice to hire him for Superman.
> 
> I don't see the infringement of rights there.



The fact that DC had to make a public statement on the matter shows that their choice to hire Mr. Card is being questioned, and their right to hire whomever they see fit, threatened with boycotts and the likes. However as you've said there are consequences to every act.


----------



## stream (Feb 24, 2013)

If the guy's opinions does not spill over in what he writes, and if he does not use DC's name to further his views, I don't see the problem. The place I work leans liberal, and so do I, but I'd hate it if I was not allowed to express my opinions publicly because it is known I work for that company.

I certainly prefer that companies do not run prospective job candidates through a political filter to check if their thoughts align with the company's official line (though I can understand that companies prefer it if their employee do not use the company's name if they go on a political crusade). I would actually respect more a company that does not choose their employees according to political opinions, excepted if the goal of the company itself is political, but DC is clearly not in that case.


----------



## Saufsoldat (Feb 24, 2013)

Morgan said:


> The fact that DC had to make a public statement on the matter shows that their choice to hire Mr. Card is being questioned, and their right to hire whomever they see fit, threatened with boycotts and the likes. However as you've said there are consequences to every act.



You contradict yourself. As you say, their *choice* is questioned, not their right to make that choice. Nobody is saying that they had no right to hire him, just that there will be consequences from the customers if they do.


----------



## Morgan (Feb 24, 2013)

Saufsoldat said:


> No, it's not. He can have his opinion all day, every day, 24/7, 365 days a year. Nobody says he can't.



Threatened, 
:to cause to feel insecure or anxious

However, one is not going to have much of an opinion on gays and freely express  if it means losing your job. 





> Except by you.



You're entitled to your opinions. 





> No, it's not. It's a simple "if you do X, we won't buy your stuff anymore". If I write a letter to Amazon and say "I won't buy anything off your website until you improve work conditions", am I questioning any of their rights? No, of course not.



Note, I've never used the terms wrong nor right. That is a shallow approach. It still amounts to a threat. 





> That you stop interfering with the free market.



Entitled to your beliefs. 



Saufsoldat said:


> You contradict yourself. As you say, their *choice* is questioned, not their right to make that choice. Nobody is saying that they had no right to hire him, just that there will be consequences from the customers if they do.



It's my fault. I should've worded it carefully.


----------



## Saufsoldat (Feb 24, 2013)

Morgan said:


> Threatened,
> :to cause to feel insecure or anxious
> 
> However, one is not going to have much of an opinion on gays and freely express  if it means losing your job.



The operative word is *right*, not threatened. His job position might be threatened but his *right* to free thought and free speech is not.

Besides, how is it any different for racists? If you greet everyone at the office with a Hitler salute and shout "Sieg Heil", you won't have your job very long. Why not make a case for that, as discrimination of racists is far more widespread.



> Note, I've never used the terms wrong nor right. That is a shallow approach. It still amounts to a threat.



Of course, their sales are threatened. Their *RIGHTS* are not, which is what you claimed.


----------



## Chibason (Feb 24, 2013)

Gays have fought for acceptance for a long time, and now that they've achieved a level of acceptance they go after anyone who doesn't accept them.

It's no longer an option to retain biblical views on the matter. Everyone is being forced to conform.


----------



## Morgan (Feb 24, 2013)

Saufsoldat said:


> The operative word is *right*, not threatened. His job position might be threatened but his *right* to free thought and free speech is not.
> 
> Besides, how is it any different for racists? If you greet everyone at the office with a Hitler salute and shout "Sieg Heil", you won't have your job very long. Why not make a case for that, as discrimination of racists is far more widespread.
> 
> ...



Their rights are indirectly threatened via directly threatening their job positions and sales when they act upon said rights. 
Employers hold the right to associate with and dissociate from. I'll just leave this here:
?The only freedom which deserves the
name is that of pursuing our own good
in our own way, so long as we do not
attempt to deprive others of theirs, or
impede their efforts to obtain it. Each is
the proper guardian of his own health,
whether bodily, or mental or spiritual.
Mankind are greater gainers by
suffering each other to live as seems
good to themselves, than by compelling
each to live as seems good to the rest.?
― John Stuart Mill, On Liberty


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Feb 24, 2013)

Chibason said:


> Gays have fought for acceptance for a long time, and now that they've achieved a level of acceptance they go after anyone who doesn't accept them.
> 
> It's no longer an option to retain biblical views on the matter. Everyone is being forced to conform.



Wow. This is dumb. It's almost the exact same thing Griever said and it's just as ignorant.


----------



## Saufsoldat (Feb 24, 2013)

Morgan said:


> Their rights are indirectly threatened via directly threatening their job positions and sales when they act upon said rights.
> Employers hold the right to associate with and dissociate from. I'll just leave this here:



Wrong, their rights are threatened neither directly, nor indirectly. For any right to be even remotely threatened, the legislature would have to get involved, but it's not. There are no laws of any kind involved, just a company and its customers. If Walmart fires a greeter who greets everyone with "Heil Hitler", they're not threatening any of his rights, they're just firing him.



> ?The only freedom which deserves the
> name is that of pursuing our own good
> in our own way, *so long as we do not
> attempt to deprive others of theirs, or
> ...



And the bolded is exactly what Card does, so your quote defeats your own point.


----------



## Patchouli (Feb 24, 2013)

This thread is going full retard.


----------



## Gino (Feb 24, 2013)

Patchouli said:


> This thread is going full retard.



Beautiful isn't it.


----------



## Daxter (Feb 24, 2013)

Chibason said:


> Gays have fought for acceptance for a long time, and now that they've achieved a level of acceptance they go after anyone who doesn't accept them.
> 
> It's no longer an option to retain biblical views on the matter. Everyone is being forced to conform.



Wait - being discriminated against at every turn, not being able to marry, to work, to have kids, being bullied at school, being beaten as adults, many having to live their lives in secret out of fear...?

I truly wonder how this looks from the outside.


----------



## Morgan (Feb 24, 2013)

Saufsoldat said:


> Wrong, their rights are threatened neither directly, nor indirectly. For any right to be even remotely threatened, the legislature would have to get involved, but it's not. There are no laws of any kind involved, just a company and its customers. If Walmart fires a greeter who greets everyone with "Heil Hitler", they're not threatening any of his rights, they're just firing him.



It is being threatened on a *SOCIAL * level. If the law was what solely mattered in this thread, we wouldn't be having this conversation. 




> And the bolded is exactly what Card does, so your quote defeats your own point.



Is the bolded what Mr. Card does as regards the Superman comic? What is my point? Do you even know?  Have I defended Mr. Cards homophobic campaigns? He's not the only party who is guilty of that bolded section. I'll leave this last quote. 
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."- Voltaire


----------



## Lightysnake (Feb 24, 2013)

Morgan said:


> The fact that DC had to make a public statement on the matter shows that their choice to hire Mr. Card is being questioned, and their right to hire whomever they see fit, threatened with boycotts and the likes. However as you've said there are consequences to every act.



Actually, no. People are expressing their opinion and demonstrating is might not be in DC's best interest to retain Card. That's not censorship or the removal of rights. that's the free market and consumers making their beliefs known


----------



## Lightysnake (Feb 24, 2013)

Chibason said:


> Gays have fought for acceptance for a long time, and now that they've achieved a level of acceptance they go after anyone who doesn't accept them.
> 
> It's no longer an option to retain biblical views on the matter. Everyone is being forced to conform.



Oh, do shut up. Gays 'go after' people?

Show me a country where bigots can be put to death. SHow me a country where the legislature consists of a majority of gays who routinely rail against straights and say they can't marry or be teachers.

Because anti-homosexual rhetoric is a mainstay of one of the two major political parties of the US..

I wonder how this is for LGBT people, who are turned into the oppressors


----------



## Saufsoldat (Feb 24, 2013)

Morgan said:


> It is being threatened on a *SOCIAL * level. If the law was what solely mattered in this thread, we wouldn't be having this conversation.



"Rights" are a legal construct, you cannot just transfer them to the social level. Racists *will* suffer social consequences. Sexist people *will* suffer social consequences. Homophobes *will* suffer social consequences. There is no right that protects you from these consequences, assholes do not have the right to be treated like decent members of society.



> Is the bolded what Mr. Card does as regards the Superman comic? What is my point? Do you even know?  Have I defended Mr. Cards homophobic campaigns? He's not the only party who is guilty of that bolded section. I'll leave this last quote.



What does that have to do with anything? He has the right to be a bigot and he can write any comic he likes. The thing is that he wants to be a bigot and write comics for other people using IP that other people own, so there's a conflict here.



> "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."- Voltaire



Just when I thought you'd learn the difference, you start going on about rights again. His freedom of speech is guaranteed, nobody wants to make his hatemongering illegal.


----------



## Daxter (Feb 24, 2013)

I'll create an anti straight marriage fund, protest straight adoptions and so help me god if they discuss openly that straight relationship of theirs in the workplace.... 

/le oppressor extrodinaire


----------



## Narcissus (Feb 24, 2013)

Chibason said:


> Gays have fought for acceptance for a long time, and now that they've achieved a level of acceptance they go after anyone who doesn't accept them.
> 
> It's no longer an option to retain biblical views on the matter. Everyone is being forced to conform.



Hokum and claptrap.

First, it's not only the LGBT community who is mad about this. Second, it isn't just about Card's views, but the fact that he has actively tried to interfere with the lives and rights of others.

You can keep your Biblical views, but the Bible is not an excuse to deny happiness to others. Especially when the Bible is a focal point of ignorance and hate, based on unsupported claims.


----------



## Lightysnake (Feb 24, 2013)

I find it hysterical any straight person can DARE speak about oppression when American evangelicals are literally going to African nations to convince them to have laws on the books against homosexuals and spread anti-gay propaganda that results in severe social consequences


----------



## Vynjira (Feb 24, 2013)

What is so hard to understand? You don't like Justin Beiber so you don't buy any of his music.. and then you hear he's going to be on a show you like, so you don't want to watch it (or more specifically the episode he's in).. and that's hypocritical?

Having him on a show that is aimed towards a different audience, is a bad move.. and it's hypocritical to say that?

Now if they said that Justin Beiber was gonna be doing all the music for say Doctor Who, and people petitioned to have him dropped.. that would be hypocritical how?


----------



## Mintaka (Feb 24, 2013)

What an amusing parallel to right wing nutters.


Truth, Justice, and the American way:  Except for them ^ (not the meaning of the word "respect".).


----------



## Frostman (Feb 24, 2013)

The ironic thing about this isn't DC, an openly LGBT supporting company hiring Card, an openly homophobic. Its an openly homophobic like Card working for an openly LGBT supporting company like DC. He should now full well that DC would not allow him to project that kind of propaganda through superman.


----------



## Morgan (Feb 24, 2013)

Saufsoldat said:


> "Rights" are a legal construct, you cannot just transfer them to the social level.



How you can dismiss the "social" and imply that the law and society are exclusive of each other, I don't know. Laws were created to bring about and regulate social cohesion. The law evolves along with society. 



> Racists *will* suffer social consequences. Sexist people *will* suffer social consequences. Homophobes *will* suffer social consequences. There is no right that protects you from these consequences,



True. 



> assholes do not have the right to be treated like decent members of society.



And you're determining what rights "assholes" should and should not have. 




> What does that have to do with anything? He has the right to be a bigot and he can write any comic he likes. The thing is that he wants to be a bigot and write comics for other people using IP that other people own, so there's a conflict here.





> Comic-writer Jim McCann, who is openly
> gay, says, "A company has the right to
> hire whomever they choose ... and Mr.
> Card has the right under the First
> ...





> "Petitioning to
> have writer Orson Scott Card fired for
> his social views is as fascistic as
> politicians condemning a sexual
> ...






> Just when I thought you'd learn the difference, you start going on about rights again. His freedom of speech is guaranteed, nobody wants to make his hatemongering illegal.





> But I'm not sure why it's still
> OK to 'have an opinion' about gays.


----------



## Narcissus (Feb 24, 2013)

It's not just the great of him portraying Superman as homophobic, since the probability of that is indeed low. It's also the principle of the matter, that DC would hire someone like Card when they're a pro-gay company, that has people upset.





Vynjira said:


> Now if they said that Justin Beiber was gonna be doing all the music for say Doctor Who, and people petitioned to have him dropped.. that would be hypocritical how?


Oh lord, anyone would be insane NOT to petition such a horrid thing.


----------



## Saufsoldat (Feb 24, 2013)

Morgan said:


> How you imply that the law and society are exclusive of each other, I don't know. Laws were created to bring about and regulate social cohesion. The law evolves along with society.



There are a myriad of social norms that are not in the law. For example cheating on your partner is legal is pretty much every country on the planet, but at the same time it's frowned upon in just about every society on the planet.

A person has the "right" to cheat, if you will, since he has the right to have consensual sex with whomever he wants to. Chances are, however, that someone who regularly cheats will suffer social repercussions, as he should.



> And you're determining what rights "assholes" should and should not have.



Are you dim? For the last fucking time: Nobody is arguing that assholes don't have the right to be assholes. Freedom of speech means you're protected from legal persecution for whatever you say, it doesn't protect you from social repercussions.


----------



## TheCupOfBrew (Feb 24, 2013)

I can see why DC fired him, if he ever got away with putting his own agendas into it that would really hurt DC.


----------



## Chibason (Feb 24, 2013)

@posters who quoted me- If a guy writes comic book stories I don't see why being anti gay should cause him this job, especially since DC is 'pro-gay' and chose to hire him. Those are his personal opinions and, right or wrong, he's supposed to be able to have them, provided that they don't cross over into his work. 

Personally, I have no problem with gay people. To each his own, I say. But, I don't like the way I see the issue being used to persecute people. It's no different than people being punished for being gay.


----------



## stream (Feb 24, 2013)

Frostman said:


> The ironic thing about this isn't DC, an openly LGBT supporting company hiring Card, an openly homophobic. Its an openly homophobic like Card working for an openly LGBT supporting company like DC. He should now full well that DC would not allow him to project that kind of propaganda through superman.



I would venture to guess that Card knows, but that he would not dream of attempting to use DC as propaganda tool for whatever anti-homophobic view he has. In fact, I understand that his works are largely free of anti-homophobic views, though he was accused of linking pedophilia and homosexuality last year? in a book which nobody had looked at twice in 2008.

Remember: The guy has been writing since the 80s. At that time, gays were a much more socially acceptable target than now. He could have bashed them with total impunity, but as far as I know, he did not write anything about homosexuality.

I think it is going to far to assume that, because Card is actively against gay marriage, that he is unable to function as a human being and as an author without randomly inserting crap about homosexuality. In fact, I am sure that DC knows about his views, but also know about his work, and would not have hired him if they thought he was unable to write a story without inserting his political views inside.


----------



## Lightysnake (Feb 24, 2013)

Chibason said:


> @posters who quoted me- If a guy writes comic book stories I don't see why being anti gay should cause him this job, especially since DC is 'pro-gay' and chose to hire him. Those are his personal opinions and, right or wrong, he's supposed to be able to have them, provided that they don't cross over into his work.
> 
> Personally, I have no problem with gay people. To each his own, I say. But, I don't like the way I see the issue being used to persecute people. It's no different than people being punished for being gay.



"Persecute" *RIGHT*. Card is being persecuted. That poor man's multi million dollar movie adaptation is being blocked! Superman is a very small thing. Saying "Hey, maybe the homophobic asshole shouldn't write a symbol of equality" is not persecution."

How are anti-gay people persecuted? What gays fight for?
The right to marry

The right to have children

The right to have a fucking JOB

In some countries? They have to fight for the right to *live*

Card is fighting for the right to write a fucking comic book. You think this is the same thing?

*shut the fuck up.*


----------



## Saufsoldat (Feb 24, 2013)

Chibason said:


> Personally, I have no problem with gay people. To each his own, I say. But, I don't like the way I see the issue being used to persecute people. It's no different than people being punished for being gay.



Wrong, it's no different than being punished for being anti-hetero.

The reverse of punishing someone for being gay would be punishing someone for being straight.

Work on your analogies.


----------



## Morgan (Feb 24, 2013)

Saufsoldat said:


> There are a myriad of social norms that are not in the law. For example cheating on your partner is legal is pretty much every country on the planet, but at the same time it's frowned upon in just about every society on the planet.
> 
> A person has the "right" to cheat, if you will, since he has the right to have consensual sex with whomever he wants to. Chances are, however, that someone who regularly cheats will suffer social repercussions, as he should.



Pardon me, but you don't know as much you believe. Cheating/Adultery is illegal/criminalised in a significant number of countries and is even illegal in some American states. 
Of course the law doesn't cover every aspect of social life and interaction, but, that's simply because it's not perfect and the legal system is still developing. The law changes everyday to meet new social, economical and political demands. It will never be perfect as it will never mutually satisfy every group, idea, institution etc. 





> Are you dim? For the last fucking time: Nobody is arguing that assholes don't have the right to be assholes. Freedom of speech means you're protected from legal persecution for whatever you say, it doesn't protect you from social repercussions.



Calm down. The moment you start your personal attacks and with the use of expletives, is when we are no longer simply exchanging ideas, but you're starting an argument which leads to nowhere positive and one I don't want to be a part of. 



> assholes do not have the
> right to be treated like decent members
> of society.



What you should have said, is that they don't have the legal right to be treated like decent members of society. I can only assume you're speaking your personal opinions when you're using the term "assholes".


----------



## Grep (Feb 24, 2013)

There is nothing wrong with the boycott. 

People are entirely in their right to boycott. 

However, if DC fires him over his personal beliefs alone regardless of how much he campaigns against the gays that is bullshit but I really wouldn't care either way.

If DC fires him for the regular reasons, or fires him for expressing his person beliefs through something he does not own the rights to, then that is totally fine. 

It is generally hypocritical of the LGBT community to be critical of someone for having a different opinion than they do though. I totally get the response and everything though, but it is without a doubt hypocritical. This guy has actively done things to make their lives worse so I get not being able to rise above it all.

People in this thread arguing for Card's firing need to calm down though and stop being so incredibly rude and insulting to people who think a bit differently than them. You don't do the LGBT movement any benefit by responding to people the same way someone like Card does when they have different opinions than them. I get that Card pisses you off but you don't have to take that out on people who are pro LGBT but who feel it isn't cool to fire someone STRICTLY based on what they believe in.


----------



## Pilaf (Feb 24, 2013)

Would you be arguing the same if he was openly anti-black or anti-jew?


----------



## Elim Rawne (Feb 24, 2013)

> It is generally hypocritical of the LGBT community to be critical of someone for having a different opinion than they do though.



Its not just his opinion. He actively campaigns against LGBT causes and donates money against them.


----------



## Morgan (Feb 24, 2013)

Lightysnake said:


> Actually, no. People are expressing their opinion and demonstrating is might not be in DC's best interest to retain Card. That's not censorship or the removal of rights. that's the free market and consumers making their beliefs known



I agree with you and believe they do have that right. However, I'm just also looking at their intentions in doing what they're doing; to punish DC for their choice in contracting Mr. Card- which is DC simply exercising their rights- via a boycott, and to punish Mr. Card for his opinions that offends them, via a petition to have his contract terminated. In the end, it makes DC and Mr. Card feel insecure about contracting with just any comic writers/artist and expressing personal opinions, respectively, which is a right both parties hold.


----------



## Lightysnake (Feb 24, 2013)

BGtymin said:


> There is nothing wrong with the boycott.
> 
> People are entirely in their right to boycott.
> 
> ...



Look up 'tone argument' please



Morgan said:


> I agree with you and believe they do have that right. However, I'm just also looking at their intentions in doing what they're doing; to punish DC for their choice in contracting Mr. Card- which is DC simply exercising their rights- via a boycott, and to punish Mr. Card for his opinions that offends them, via a petition to have his contract terminated. In the end, it makes DC and Mr. Card feel insecure about contracting with just any comic writers/artist and expressing personal opinions, respectively, which is a right both parties hold.



And round and round the free market goes! Yes! Sometimes companies can reconsider based on publicity and what people actually want!

What is your point besides worthless hand wringing?


----------



## Morgan (Feb 24, 2013)

Lightysnake said:


> And round and round the free market goes! Yes! Sometimes companies can reconsider based on publicity and what people actually want!
> 
> What is your point besides worthless hand wringing?



Not so much a point, but an opinion, a humble one that was initially stated.


----------



## Lightysnake (Feb 24, 2013)

Morgan said:


> Not so much a point, but an opinion, a humble one that was initially stated.



Your whole points here seem to be complaining the rights to have an opinion and contract are in jeopardy because of other people complaining about them. It's absurd


----------



## Morgan (Feb 24, 2013)

Lightysnake said:


> Your whole points here seem to be complaining the rights to have an opinion and contract are in jeopardy because of other people complaining about them. It's absurd



Complaining? Is that how you see it? I was made to explain myself which I did. It contradicts your views, so naturally, its absurd.


----------



## Vynjira (Feb 24, 2013)

*Spoiler*: _John Gholson_ 



I support Card’s right as an artist to create and have the work be judged on its own merit. But, at the same time, I admonish DC for inviting Card to create that work for them. Card can, and has, created his own material for most of his career. *He’s not artistically censored by being denied two issues of a work-for-hire Superman comic*, and DC could say, “we don’t want to put money in the pocket of someone who thinks gay people should be jailed if they’re too gay.”


----------



## WT (Feb 24, 2013)

Not really sure what the fuss is.

Anyone has the right to boycott anyone else. From the point of view of LGBT, it makes sense to do so. Whether or not DC succumb to the boycott and remove the guy is with them. 

Don't really see this as news tbh.


----------



## Chibason (Feb 24, 2013)

Lightysnake said:


> "Persecute" *RIGHT*. Card is being persecuted. That poor man's multi million dollar movie adaptation is being blocked! Superman is a very small thing. Saying "Hey, maybe the homophobic asshole shouldn't write a symbol of equality" is not persecution."
> 
> How are anti-gay people persecuted? What gays fight for?
> The right to marry
> ...



Gay people have all that shit now, what the fuck are you talking about? Countries that kill people for being gay are obviously fucked up. That isn't the point. He should be allowed his opinion, which btw, is an opinion shared by 95% percent of humans since the beginning of civilization. 

He's dumb for openly speaking against gay marriage, being that he is in the entertainment field... but, that shouldn't cost him a job writing a comic about fucking Superman. Get it?

It's not even this specific boycott that bothers me, come to think of it. It's all of the whiny bitch and moan attempts of organizations who abuse this method to get what they want. 

He shouldn't lose a job writing a comic book because he's against gay marriage.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Feb 24, 2013)

Just a bunch of idiots jumping at the opportunity to try and make it out as if homophobes are the persecuted party here. Or that the LGBT community at large is anything like individuals such as Card.



> that shouldn't cost him a job writing a comic about fucking Superman. Get it?



No. This is stupid, do you not have any business sense at all? Everything one publicly says and does, especially with such notoriety will be judged. Everything one says and does can and will often be considered whether or not they get a certain job or a particular company wishes to make a business deal with them. Publicity, principle, and exposure are just as important as skill and talent. If you are a master of a certain craft, but a complete and open bigot then you will not see as much business as others that too are masters yet do not share those same sentiments. That is the way the cookie crumbles, because such associations and giving bigots business is tantamount to validating their bigoted views. You enable them to perpetuate those views, be it giving them a medium to express them in, or giving them exposure, or simply giving them money.


----------



## kazuri (Feb 24, 2013)

> He shouldn't lose a job writing a comic book because he's against gay marriage.



a company shouldnt give money to a person who spends money fighting gays, and say they don't support it. They know he actively does this, they know at least some of the money they gave him will go towards it. Saying they don't support it is just a lie for damage control. Its not hard to understand.


----------



## Chibason (Feb 24, 2013)

Seto Kaiba said:


> No. This is stupid, do you not have any business sense at all? Everything one publicly says and does, especially with such notoriety will be judged. Everything one says and does can and will often be considered whether or not they get a certain job or a particular company wishes to make a business deal with them. Publicity, principle, and exposure are just as important as skill and talent. If you are a master of a certain craft, but a complete and open bigot then you will not see as much business as others that too are masters yet do not share those same sentiments. That is the way the cookie crumbles, because such associations and giving bigots business is tantamount to validating their bigoted views. You enable them to perpetuate those views, be it giving them a medium to express them in, or giving them exposure, or simply giving them money.



Blah blah blah you forgot to notice that I said he was dumb for saying it since he's in the entertainment field. You act like he could publish his story without DC's input or final approval lol. We all know his story wouldn't be anti-gay.


----------



## Chibason (Feb 24, 2013)

kazuri said:


> a company shouldnt give money to a person who spends money fighting gays, and say they don't support it. They know he actively does this, they know at least some of the money they gave him will go towards it. Saying they don't support it is just a lie for damage control. Its not hard to understand.



A company is in business to make money, and they believe he writes good stories. His personal beliefs shouldn't have to come in the way. They decided to hire him so it must not really bother them...


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Feb 24, 2013)

Chibason said:


> A company is in business to make money, and they believe he writes good stories. His personal beliefs shouldn't have to come in the way. They decided to hire him so it must not really bother them...



His personal beliefs will always come into account with business deals because money talks, and Orson Scott Wells like to talk a lot of bigotry.



> Blah blah blah you forgot to notice that I said he was dumb for saying it since he's in the entertainment field. You act like he could publish his story without DC's input or final approval lol. We all know his story wouldn't be anti-gay.



blahblahblah learn to read.


----------



## hammer (Feb 24, 2013)

should fire him for sucking at writing.


----------



## kazuri (Feb 24, 2013)

> A company is in business to make money, and they believe he writes good stories. His personal beliefs shouldn't have to come in the way. They decided to hire him so it must not really bother them...


How many times do people have to tell you its not just his beliefs? It's his personal -actions-

and you cant just guess it doesn't bother them, think about what you said 'they are in it to make money' you really think they thought it was going to get this much bad press?


----------



## hammer (Feb 24, 2013)

holy shit this dude is a democrat.


----------



## Chibason (Feb 24, 2013)

Seto Kaiba said:


> His personal beliefs will always come into account with business deals because money talks, and Orson Scott Wells like to talk a lot of bigotry.



Orson Scott Wells?



Seto Kaiba said:


> blahblahblah learn to read.



Yugioh solos


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Feb 24, 2013)

Chibason said:


> Orson Scott Wells?
> 
> 
> 
> Yugioh solos



Force of habit. That's still dodging my point however. Most modern businesses have a code of ethics and a code of behavior that they expect employees to abide by, or those they contract to. Which is why you see individuals like Card have their endorsements or business deals dropped because they provide poor exposure and publicity for the company, and contradict the standards the consumer holds those companies to. A company is in the business to make money, but not indiscriminately. Publicity and exposure are just as important as they can influence future business.


----------



## hammer (Feb 24, 2013)

someone explain to me how he is a democrat?


----------



## Atem (Feb 24, 2013)

Ryan Sohmer should be writing it instead.


----------



## Chibason (Feb 24, 2013)

kazuri said:


> How many times do people have to tell you its not just his beliefs? It's his personal -actions-



Do you not understand that ones actions are motivated by their beliefs? 



			
				kazuri said:
			
		

> and you cant just guess it doesn't bother them, think about what you said 'they are in it to make money' you really think they thought it was going to get this much bad press?



Don't expect me to speak on their behalf, I can only assume. Maybe it's just bad press that bothers them, and not his personal beliefs.


----------



## kazuri (Feb 24, 2013)

> Do you not understand that ones actions are motivated by their beliefs?



So are you saying DC's actions in hiring him are motivated by their beliefs in enabling someone to help further oppress gays?


----------



## Chibason (Feb 24, 2013)

Seto Kaiba said:


> Force of habit. That's still dodging my point however. Most modern businesses have a code of ethics and a code of behavior that they expect employees to abide by, or those they contract to. Which is why you see individuals like Card have their endorsements or business deals dropped because they provide poor exposure and publicity for the company, and contradict the standards the consumer holds those companies to. A company is in the business to make money, but not indiscriminately. Publicity and exposure are just as important as they can influence future business.



Which is why they'll probably end up not publishing his story...


----------



## Chibason (Feb 24, 2013)

kazuri said:


> So are you saying DC's actions in hiring him are motivated by their beliefs in enabling someone to help further oppress gays?



No, I didn't say that. You garbled it out of your own ass. I'm saying Superman has nothing to do with gay rights.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Feb 24, 2013)

Chibason said:


> Which is why they'll probably end up not publishing his story...



So what was your initial bullshit about "the gays" for then? The whole point of the boycott is because people don't think DC should associate with Card because he stands for something contrary to what the company is trying to represent.


----------



## kazuri (Feb 24, 2013)

> No, I didn't say that. You garbled it out of your own ass.



No, you did. You said ones actions are directly because of their beliefs. Make up your mind.


----------



## Lightysnake (Feb 24, 2013)

Chibason said:


> Gay people have all that shit now, what the fuck are you talking about? Countries that kill people for being gay are obviously fucked up. That isn't the point. He should be allowed his opinion, which btw, is an opinion shared by 95% percent of humans since the beginning of civilization.



Gay people have all that shit? Marriage isn't even legal in ten percent of the United States yet. Homosexuality isn't a protected class in the vast majority of states, meaning you can be fired at any time. Gay adoption isn't legal in most states and plenty states have laws against it. 

Btw, humanity has held a lot of terrible opinions. For a vast period of time? Slavery was fine. For centuries, killing someone because they worshiped differently than you was also fine and dandy.

this isn't an excuse anymore. "Well, it was always that way" is not only, y'know, *wrong* when you gain a knowledge of history, but not a good reason. Human history is filled with royally fucked up things for tradition sake that we don't adhere to anymore. 

Card can have his opinion. People are allowed to strike back with their opinions. Their opinions are "We wont buy your comic because you actively seek to hurt us" or if you prefer "We won't buy your comic because you actively seek to oppress a minority"


And countries that criminalize homosexuality? That's still a lot of nations. That they're 'fucked up' in your quaint words is no comfort to the people living there who have to fear being beaten to death with hammers. A problem Mr. Card doesn't really have to deal with.



> He's dumb for openly speaking against gay marriage, being that he is in the entertainment field... but, that shouldn't cost him a job writing a comic about fucking Superman. Get it?
> 
> It's not even this specific boycott that bothers me, come to think of it. It's all of the whiny bitch and moan attempts of organizations who abuse this method to get what they want.



You mean "People who use the free market?" Again, if this was a bunch of fanboys who revolted because he had Lois Lane fuck Lex Luthor you'd bitch not one scond about it.



> He shouldn't lose a job writing a comic book because he's against gay marriage.



Fuck him. He made a choice to hurt others. hat bites him in the ass and he can't write his favorite comic, boo goddamn hoo.

It's amazing how you whine and screech for the rights (btw, writing comics is not a civil right) of a man who makes it his mission to insure gays cannot hold employment freely, adopt children, marry freely or have access to health care (btw, those are civil rights)

No, the GAYS are oppressors for saying "Hey, DC, you guys have always liked to say you're an ally to us. But now you hire a guy who makes it his mission to make our lives harder and helps run an organization narrowly tailored to fuck us over to write a character many of us see as a symbol of equality and justice? The fuck, DC? That's kind of a slap in the face to us. We refuse to buy this comic and we ask others to do the same. We won't buy this comic unless you remove Card, who we're sure will be fine with his zillion-odd bestselling novels and movie adaptations. We just don't want him to write our comics."

You: OPPRESSION! OPPRESSION! YOU MONSTERS! RAAAAAAH!

God forbid consumers use the *free fucking market* to get their way, which now that I think about it, is the *opposite of oppression and censorship*


----------



## Gino (Feb 24, 2013)

Thread managed to get dumber in two pages.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Feb 24, 2013)

Gino said:


> Thread managed to get dumber in two pages.



You posting only brings it further down.


----------



## Chibason (Feb 24, 2013)

@lighty snake- dude, try to calm down, you write too much. All those CAPS and bolded words don't make me want to read all of that shit...anyway, I'm sure you had a great point. See ya in the funny papers


----------



## Gino (Feb 24, 2013)

Seto Kaiba said:


> You posting only brings it further down.



Hmm is that right?


----------



## Frostman (Feb 24, 2013)

DC being a comic book company, you'd think freedom of expression would be their greatest view. So you got to hand it to them for hiring a writer that contradicts one of their views. Even though his view is different from the company, he is still expressing himself. And DC should support that. If they appeasing this petition they are saying you are free to express yourself except for things we disagree with.

And like i said, he can't do what he wants. Even if Dc lets him write what ever propaganda he wants, if he ruins superman he will only ruin himself. He has that to think about.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Feb 24, 2013)

Frostman said:


> DC being a comic book company, you'd think freedom of expression would be their greatest view. So you got to hand it to them for hiring a writer that contradicts one of their views. Even though his view is different from the company, he is still expressing himself. And DC should support that. By appeasing this petition they are saying you are free to express yourself except for things we disagree with.



I take back what I stated to Griever. *This* is stupid.


----------



## Chibason (Feb 24, 2013)

Seto Kaiba said:


> So what was your initial bullshit about "the gays" for then? The whole point of the boycott is because people don't think DC should associate with Card because he stands for something contrary to what the company is trying to represent.



Yeah, that's obvious..but they knew who he was and they already hired him. That's their bad and they'll probably correct it.


----------



## Gino (Feb 24, 2013)

Seto Kaiba said:


> I take back what I stated to Griever. *This* is stupid.



Go sit down somewhere.

And I'm still waiting on that response from a couple pages back.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Feb 24, 2013)

Chibason said:


> Yeah, that's obvious..but they knew who he was and they already hired him. That's their bad and they'll probably correct it.



So what is your problem then?


----------



## Frostman (Feb 24, 2013)

Seto Kaiba said:


> I take back what I stated to Griever. *This* is stupid.



Then i guess Dc is stupid because.


> A statement released Wednesday by DC said: "As content creators we steadfastly support freedom of expression, however the personal views of individuals associated with DC Comics are just that ? personal views ? and not those of the company itself."


----------



## dummy plug (Feb 24, 2013)

if his works doesnt voice out his personal beliefs then it shuould be fine


----------



## Gino (Feb 24, 2013)

dummy plug said:


> if his works doesnt voice out his personal beliefs then it shuould be fine


 Shouldn't have said that bro now you're stupid.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Feb 24, 2013)

Frostman said:


> Then i guess Dc is stupid because.



DC also responded to consumer objections, considering that one's personal views can affect business, especially if they actively engage in efforts to put those beliefs into legislation. If you were following, which is clear you were not, then you'd be made aware that a business values exposure as much as profit. DC has a stand on the social policies that run contrary to this writer, as do their readers. Refusing to do any business or future business with him is not taking away his freedom of expression as you so ignorantly put.

It's amazing the sheer lack of comprehension you guys trying to throw some sympathy behind this guy have behind this situation and how businesses work in general.


----------



## dummy plug (Feb 24, 2013)

Gino said:


> Shouldn't have said that bro now you're stupid.



ah, because you're the epitome of being intelligent eh? whatever floats your boat


----------



## Gino (Feb 24, 2013)

dummy plug said:


> ah, because you're the epitome of being intelligent eh? whatever floats your boat



sarcasm has failed me once again.


----------



## dummy plug (Feb 24, 2013)

Gino said:


> sarcasm has failed me once again.



proper use of smileys helps a lot in forum sarcasm


----------



## Gino (Feb 24, 2013)

dummy plug said:


> proper use of smileys helps a lot in forum sarcasm



I forgot the pimp smiley no longer works.


----------



## Saufsoldat (Feb 24, 2013)

Frostman said:


> DC being a comic book company, you'd think freedom of expression would be their greatest view. So you got to hand it to them for hiring a writer that contradicts one of their views. Even though his view is different from the company, he is still expressing himself. And DC should support that. If they appeasing this petition they are saying you are free to express yourself except for things we disagree with.
> 
> And like i said, he can't do what he wants. Even if Dc lets him write what ever propaganda he wants, if he ruins superman he will only ruin himself. He has that to think about.



This is what freedom of expression means: You can say what you want without being legally prosecuted for it.

This is what you think it means: You can say what you want and nobody is allowed to judge you based on it.

The latter is just completely inane. Homophobes, like racists, enjoy freedom of speech but they must expect other people to judge them as the bigotted shitheads they are.


----------



## Banhammer (Feb 24, 2013)

so much revolving around comics sales is publicity
this is just another one of those
unimpressed.

Card, you're a fat stupid bastard, but you've done a decent scribble or two in your time, so if DC likes your pitches I don't see why you should not write for them
Besides, writers thrive in misery, and I don't to feed your ego


----------



## Banhammer (Feb 24, 2013)




----------



## Gino (Feb 24, 2013)

already posted big dog.


----------



## wibisana (Feb 24, 2013)

dummy plug said:


> proper use of smileys helps a lot in forum sarcasm



lol dude, I thought the same thing about him. as long he haven't express it in his work, he dont have to lose his job.

but Seto and other guy made a point. He already well known as Anti-gay and support anti-gay movement openly. (spend his money on anti-gay movement, also in his previous work that anti gay)

so he didn't deserve that job from the begin with.

before seto said you are stupid. this Gino guy sarcastically said you are stupid.


----------



## Atem (Feb 24, 2013)

Gino said:


> already posted big dog.



Something that glorious should be posted twice. 

Three times even.


----------



## Frostman (Feb 24, 2013)

Saufsoldat said:


> This is what freedom of expression means: You can say what you want without being legally prosecuted for it.
> 
> This is what you think it means: You can say what you want and nobody is allowed to judge you based on it.
> 
> The latter is just completely inane. Homophobes, like racists, enjoy freedom of speech but they must expect other people to judge them as the bigotted shitheads they are.



Wouldn't being fired for his political views be considered a prosecution.  At least from DCs point of view. Or does it only apply in a court of law. Because, as a company they believe in freedom of expression, as a company. If you fire him for his political view, it would be the same as a Christan organization firing a homosexual for his sexual orientation.  Its discrimination. 

The reason I complement DC for this is because they look like the bigger man. They gave someone work despite the contrast of personal beliefs. And by protecting him, they are not dropping to his level. They are not resorting to discrimination.

I don't know if Card could sue for that sort of discrimination, but i do know he could use it to further whatever anti gay agenda he is on. If this was a fuck up on DC's part the petition just makes it all the more harder to get rid of him quietly. Appeasing the petition would look bad for their image. I really don't like petitions that call for a sort of execution. The best thing they can do is let him write the comic, let the sales drop, then axe him for that. Use fact rather then fear to get rid of him.  That way they can stick to their "personal views of individuals associated with DC Comics are just that — personal views — and not those of the company itself." stance.


----------



## Trism (Feb 24, 2013)

I come back to find my thread has turned into a shitstorm. Big surprise I guess.

Anyone saying that the gay community is being hypocritical or bigoted doesn't know what the hell they are talking about. Card is the only bigot here. The anger expressed is fine, because people have the right to read whatever the fuck they want, as well as prefer certain writers taking part in characters they relate with, even if Card doesn't voice himself through Superman.

Superman is a character of tolerance and equality, and it's stupid to have someone who is the total opposite write him. Which is why I said I won't be buying a single issue he writes.

Also, ignore Gino people. He's trolling and he isn't worth wasting your time on.


----------



## TheGreatOne (Feb 24, 2013)

> *Card is no stranger to the comics industry, having written books such as Ultimate Iron Man for Marvel Comics*



If he's already written comics before and there was no problem why is there an issue now? Because it's Superman?


----------



## Megaharrison (Feb 24, 2013)

DC comics can remedy the problem by showing how gay-friendly they are. They'll do what they did last time: take out a dartboard with names on it and say THOSE CHARACTERS ARE GAY NOW.

Anyway, right of the guy to say homophobic shit, right of DC to hire who they want, right of the gays to organize boycotts.


----------



## Trism (Feb 24, 2013)

TheGreatOne said:


> If he's already written comics before and there was no problem why is there an issue now? Because it's Superman?



Yes. Superman is a worldwide icon, while Iron Man's popularity only recently increased, so it didn't gather any real attention. And from what I hear, his run on Iron Man wasn't overly impressive anyway.

I think it was a poor choice on Marvel's part too, since they're every bit as pro-gay as DC, and possibly have even more LGBT characters.


----------



## Eskimo (Feb 24, 2013)

If Card's anti-LGBT views don't become apparent in his writing of the series, I don't see how DC can or should hold them against him. His views are basically a non-factor in the matter. He's a writer, and he writes comics. Endorsing his comics is different to endorsing a tabloid of his bigotry.

On the other hand, if a group of readers don't want to buy the comic because they dislike the author, sure. I don't consider it rational or sensible of them, but that's their freedom. In the same way that I would read a textbook on differential equations by a neo-Nazi author, I would read a Superman comic by a <insert view here> author. 

As long as the medium isn't used as a platform for his views (and you can bet that it won't be, because DC are going to have something to say about it), that is.


----------



## TheGreatOne (Feb 24, 2013)

Trism said:


> Yes. Superman is a worldwide icon, while Iron Man's popularity only recently increased, so it didn't gather any real attention. And from what I hear, his run on Iron Man wasn't overly impressive anyway.
> 
> I think it was a poor choice on Marvel's part too, since they're every bit as pro-gay as DC, and possibly have even more LGBT characters.



So were there problems with the Iron Man comic? Did he spread homophobic messages in the Iron Man comic?


----------



## The Space Cowboy (Feb 24, 2013)

Smacks of McCarthyism this does


----------



## TheGreatOne (Feb 24, 2013)

Pilaf said:


> Would you be arguing the same if he was openly anti-black or anti-jew?



Anti-jew? Probably yes. No one would care if he was anti-black.


----------



## Trism (Feb 24, 2013)

Eskimo said:


> On the other hand, if a group of readers don't want to buy the comic because they dislike the author, sure. I don't consider it rational or sensible of them



Bullshit. There is plenty of rationality and logic behind someone not buying something because they dislike the author. Vynjira specifically makes an excellent comparison to Justin Beiber earlier in this thread.

Why should they spend their money supporting a man they don't like?



TheGreatOne said:


> So were there problems with the Iron Man comic? Did he spread homophobic messages in the Iron Man comic?





Read the thread. As several people in it have said, it isn't just about him using the comic to spread homophobic messages.


----------



## Gino (Feb 24, 2013)

Mega put my reply back bruh.......


----------



## Sunuvmann (Feb 24, 2013)

Its probably because he's mormon. And that religion is more homophobic than most.

I was extremely disappointed when I found out he was. Such a good writer who I enjoyed so many years, very sad to hear he's in that cult.


----------



## TheGreatOne (Feb 24, 2013)

@Trism I have read the thread dude, but the fact remains that he hasn't done anything negative in the comic book world so far and he is entitled to his own opinions on certain matters whether or not some people agree with those views. He shouldn't not be allowed to do his job because of his opinion on something.


----------



## Trism (Feb 24, 2013)

TheGreatOne said:


> @Trism I have read the thread dude,


If you had, then you would know that the possibility of him using the comic as a medium for his idiotic opinion isn't the only problem people have with him writing Superman.



> he is entitled to his own opinions


And if you had read the thread, you would also know that people have been saying that his opinion isn't the problem, but the fact that he has taken it much further than personal opinion is the problem.



> He shouldn't not be allowed to do his job because of his opinion on something.



No one is saying that. They're saying they don't want him to write a character they identify with, because his ideals are the opposite of that character's. And as the readers, they have every right not to want him on the project.


----------



## Syed (Feb 24, 2013)

Sunuvmann said:


> Its probably because he's mormon. And that religion is more homophobic than most.
> 
> I was extremely disappointed when I found out he was. Such a good writer who I enjoyed so many years, very sad to hear he's in that cult.



He's really deep into Mormonism. I thought he was Catholic at first myself.


About the issue. The main problem I see with Card writing the Superman comic is that with the resulting money he'll get from DC he could then use to fund anti-gay organizations. Gay people and supporters have every right to boycott DC and or his comic. 

Regardless though I personally think he won't reflect his political views into the comic. Very small chance considering DC is pro-Gay and will obviously keep him in check. Also it is his right to write the comic. 

Basically I say let him write. Anyone who disagrees with him, boycott his comic and DC will never use him to write comics ever again.

BTW one of his works, The Worthing Saga, is still awesome even though I don't see eye to eye with many of his political views and beliefs.


----------



## Eskimo (Feb 24, 2013)

Trism said:


> Bullshit. There is plenty of rationality and logic behind someone not buying something because they dislike the author. Vynjira specifically makes an excellent comparison to Justin Beiber earlier in this thread.
> 
> Why should they spend their money supporting a man they don't like?



Because if he is a good comic book writer, then you are buying a good comic book. Not a good comic book by a person you don't like, just a good comic book. Your involvement with that comic doesn't extend to an analysis of its author's beliefs, it begins at the first page and ends at the last. 

Card's anti-LGBT views probably come into play with his comic book writing as much as they do with his weekly grocery trip - absolutely jack shit. By your standards of not wanting to support him because of his views, you wouldn't let him into a store you owned. You know what that would be called? Irrational bigotry. That's why the word hypocrisy has been flying around this thread, because the standards you're applying now have been applied to minorities many times, as a reason for removing their rights.

As far as the whole identifying with Superman thing goes, it's not like an author imposes their own persona onto a character. That would make for pretty terrible writing to be honest.


----------



## Lightysnake (Feb 25, 2013)

The Space Cowboy said:


> Smacks of McCarthyism this does



Yeah. The govenrment is telling him what he can and can't do and trying to persecute him.

Idiot.


----------



## Trism (Feb 25, 2013)

Eskimo said:


> Because if he is a good comic book writer,


Not always. His Iron Man series apparently wasn't anything to write home about.

And being a good writer is not a reason to buy something. By that logic, everyone should buy anything and everything that is good.



> Card's anti-LGBT views probably come into play with his comic book writing as much as they do with his weekly grocery trip - absolutely jack shit.


Fucking bullshit comparison. A weekly grocery trip results in Card spending his own money. Employment by DC and people buying his comic, gives him money. People have the right not to give him their money if there is the possibility he'll use it to further his anti-gay agenda.



> By your standards of not wanting to support him because of his views, you wouldn't let him into a store you owned. You know what that would be called? Irrational bigotry.


No, you are not about to reverse the role of bigot to my side, when Card is the one actively trying to destroy the lives of others. 

Besides which, this is another stupid comparison. Of course I would let Card into a store I owned, because he would be spending money to support MY establishment.



> That's why the word hypocrisy has been flying around this thread


And has been promptly refuted and corrected just as quickly.



> As far as the whole identifying with Superman thing goes, it's not like an author imposes their own persona onto a character. That would make for pretty terrible writing to be honest.



It would be terrible writing, because his views are moronic.

And that isn't the only problem, as others have also pointed out. Take your head out of your ass for a second, and pay attention instead of spouting crap that you should be embarrassed to.


----------



## Lightysnake (Feb 25, 2013)

Trism said:


> Yes. Superman is a worldwide icon, while Iron Man's popularity only recently increased, so it didn't gather any real attention. And from what I hear, his run on Iron Man wasn't overly impressive anyway.
> 
> I think it was a poor choice on Marvel's part too, since they're every bit as pro-gay as DC, and possibly have even more LGBT characters.



Actually, back then, Card wasn't on the NOM's board I believe, so it was less an issue. He was hardly the visible anti-gay crusader he's become.


----------



## Trism (Feb 25, 2013)

Lightysnake said:


> Actually, back then, Card wasn't on the NOM's board I believe, so it was less an issue. He was hardly the visible anti-gay crusader he's become.



Ah, well that would explain it then...


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Feb 25, 2013)

The Space Cowboy said:


> Smacks of McCarthyism this does



Well this was startlingly absent-minded of you. You clearly have no idea of what McCarthyism is I take it. Surprised you just didn't call it socialist or communist.



			
				Eskimo said:
			
		

> Card's anti-LGBT views probably come into play with his comic book writing as much as they do with his weekly grocery trip - absolutely jack shit. By your standards of not wanting to support him because of his views, you wouldn't let him into a store you owned. You know what that would be called? Irrational bigotry. That's why the word hypocrisy has been flying around this thread, because the standards you're applying now have been applied to minorities many times, as a reason for removing their rights.



How thick are some of you people? Really. He is actively putting money and pushing forth efforts to get his beliefs legislated. A person that owns a business has a right to not serve individuals like himself that spout bigotry very openly as he has or perform any business transactions with him. That is not at all infringing on his rights, nor is the intention there to infringe in contrast to his own actions. It's moronic to even try to compare the two or paint the LGBT activists in this situation as hypocritical. 

Like so many people trying to come to his defense, you came ignorant of the situation and ignorant of what it means to have freedom of expression.

How hard is it to understand? He can say whatever he wants, but that is not the same as being free from judgment for those statements. A saying I kinda like to repeat to individuals like yourself is "You have the right to your opinion, and I have the right to tell you how stupid it is".


----------



## Narcissus (Feb 25, 2013)

...and the backlash continues.


----------



## Roman (Feb 25, 2013)

I have to take back my original comments in this thread. Card being a board of director, not merely a member, of the National Organization for Marriage is no small issue here. It's one thing to have a set of (outdated and uninformed) beliefs, but it's another when you're more than simply actively supporting movements that encourage the restriction of rights to a specific group of people as tho they were lower-class, if not unwanted citizens. 

I'm not one to say he should be denied a job to write about one of the most iconic superheroes that ever existed, notwithstanding my passionate distaste for Superman, on the grounds of him being anti-gay, but I am one to say that someone with beliefs that are hurtful to others should be kept at a close watch. When one such person is leading a movement to ban gay marriage, that's treading on thin ice.



Narcissus said:


> ...and the backlash continues.



This might be good. DC needs to know that nothing good can come from being associated with a guy leading an anti-gay organization. I wouldn't think they were too happy to find out about what Card is involved with when they hired him either.


----------



## Daxter (Feb 25, 2013)

> “We refuse to give money to someone who will then turn around and use that money to fund more anti-gay hatred,” Whatever Store wrote on its Facebook page.


()

That's the argument in the simplest, most pattern-free nutshell ever, folks.


----------



## Sunuvmann (Feb 25, 2013)

I fully intend to download the comic.

That way I get the best of both worlds. I don't deny myself (hopefully) good writing and I don't help fund bigotry.


----------



## Vynjira (Feb 25, 2013)

Sunuvmann said:


> I fully intend to download the comic.
> 
> That way I get the best of both worlds. I don't deny myself (hopefully) good writing and I don't help fund bigotry.


Don't forget, it's because of his bigotry that you've BECOME a criminal. So one more negative for him and you're blame free.


----------



## Narcissus (Feb 25, 2013)

Even if he stays on the project, the message has been sent and the point has been made. 

And I'm glad that he at least isn't writing for the New 52.


----------



## baconbits (Feb 25, 2013)

This:



BGtymin said:


> There is nothing wrong with the boycott.
> 
> People are entirely in their right to boycott.
> 
> ...



There's nothing illegal about the boycott and they aren't suppressing Card's rights - they are free individuals and they are free to do as they will - but many people have been right to point out that this is highly hypocritical of those supporting this boycott.

Others have drastically overstated their case.  To pretend that Card is hurting people is to pretend that this isn't a political issue on which there are two sides.  Card doesn't agree with gay marriage - half of America agrees with him.  But presuming that his opinions will have an effect on the comic book is a little premature in my opinion.  Why not wait and see if you can see a discernible difference?  Plus Card is a good author.  You might be pleasantly surprised by what he comes up with.


----------



## Onomatopoeia (Feb 25, 2013)

Speaking as a gay man myself, as long as his views on homosexuality et al stay out of his work Card can write for whomever he pleases. He's an accomplished writer and he's worked in the comics industry before without causing problems.

I don't remember any "DIE ^ (not the meaning of the word "respect".)!"s in Ender's Game, so he's probably at least capable of separating his work from his personal views.

It's silly to get worked up over this.


----------



## Roman (Feb 25, 2013)

baconbits said:


> There's nothing illegal about the boycott and they aren't suppressing Card's rights - they are free individuals and they are free to do as they will - but many people have been right to point out that this is highly hypocritical of those supporting this boycott.
> 
> Others have drastically overstated their case.  To pretend that Card is hurting people is to pretend that this isn't a political issue on which there are two sides.  Card doesn't agree with gay marriage - half of America agrees with him.  But presuming that his opinions will have an effect on the comic book is a little premature in my opinion.  Why not wait and see if you can see a discernible difference?  Plus Card is a good author.  You might be pleasantly surprised by what he comes up with.



But here's the thing: he's a board of director for an organization which is actively pushing for legislation banning gay marriage, and thus equal rights as any other citizen for homosexuals. It's one thing to say he has the right to express an anti-gay opinion, wrongful as it may be. It's another to actively call for the denial of rights everyone else enjoys on grounds of their sexuality and paying for this denial to come through. What I find hypocritical here is how people deem it fair that he has the right to promote unequal rights for citizens.


----------



## baconbits (Feb 25, 2013)

Freedan said:


> But here's the thing: he's a board of director for an organization which is actively pushing for legislation banning gay marriage, and thus equal rights as any other citizen for homosexuals. It's one thing to say he has the right to express an anti-gay opinion, wrongful as it may be. It's another to actively call for the denial of rights everyone else enjoys on grounds of their sexuality and paying for this denial to come through. What I find hypocritical here is how people deem it fair that he has the right to promote unequal rights for citizens.



I don't have a problem with you disagreeing with his stance, just realize that any characterization of it as a "denial of rights" is simply an opinion, not a fact, and a biased one at that.  My main problem with people who seem to be raging against Card is that they are overcharacterizing him as hateful/against human rights, as if any opinion but their own is hateful/against human rights.


----------



## Roman (Feb 25, 2013)

baconbits said:


> I don't have a problem with you disagreeing with his stance, just realize that any characterization of it as a "denial of rights" is simply an opinion, not a fact, and a biased one at that.  My main problem with people who seem to be raging against Card is that they are overcharacterizing him as hateful/against human rights, as if any opinion but their own is hateful/against human rights.



Dude. No. When he's the leader for the National Organization for Marriage, it's not simply him taking a stance. It's him taking a stance and funding for legislation that bans gay marriage, thus restricting the lifestyle of a specific group of citizens because he thinks he's right without regard for how others would think or feel about it. If it was him just expressing an opinion, the only gripe I'd have with him is I disagree with him, but there's more to it than that.


----------



## Puppetry (Feb 25, 2013)

Not sure what to think on this issue. As a gay adolescent I obviously don't agree with Scott Card; he's trying to strip away my rights. But he can think whatever he wants, I suppose. His beliefs haven't impacted Superman yet, so I don't think you can just fire him. Still, this doesn't sit well with me at all.

Meh. Even before I knew this, I found _Ender's Game_ incredibly dull, nor do I have any interest in Superman. (Not like it really matters here, but I'm just saying....)


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Feb 25, 2013)

baconbits said:


> This:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I figured you'd post here sooner or later.


----------



## Lightysnake (Feb 25, 2013)

Puppetry said:


> Not sure what to think on this issue. As a gay adolescent I obviously don't agree with Scott Card; he's trying to strip away my rights. But he can think whatever he wants, I suppose. His beliefs haven't impacted Superman yet, so I don't think you can just fire him. Still, this doesn't sit well with me at all.
> 
> Meh. Even before I knew this, I found _Ender's Game_ incredibly dull, nor do I have any interest in Superman. (Not like it really matters here, but I'm just saying....)



This is comics. You can be taken off a book for literally any reason. If they view him as more trouble than he's worth, that's a valid reason.

Believe me, mate, I've heard fucked up stories about DC editorials


----------



## Daxter (Feb 25, 2013)

baconbits said:


> I don't have a problem with you disagreeing with his stance, just realize that any characterization of it as a "denial of rights" is simply an opinion, not a fact, and a biased one at that.  My main problem with people who seem to be raging against Card is that they are overcharacterizing him as hateful/against human rights, as if any opinion but their own is hateful/against human rights.



Freedan's got this but I just want to say... yeah no, it being hurtful is _not_ an opinion. Being hurt is an expression, and people have repeatedly, well, expressed the pain that comes with being actively discriminated against.

That's like saying denying rights to people of a different skin colour is an opinion. No it isn't, the targeted group live and suffer with those consequences. One might be (stupid, morally backward, terrible) and not agree with this group of human beings getting this right or that, but keep that to yourself and don't get involved - have an opinion, but it is not your place to let that opinion affect those peoples' lives. It's not an opinion any more when it's an action, and Card doesn't only hold an opinion _he acts on it and in turn causes hurt and damage to others_.

Wanting rights is not the same thing as wanting to deny rights, which is the core of the marriage debate, and essentially either side of it. The result of one side 'winning' takes nothing away from anyone, whilst the other actually takes from a select group of people.

Not that that matters here in its entirety persay, but I think that's something to remember, especially when you say the one side is acting like every opinion but their own causes hurt.


----------



## .44 (Feb 25, 2013)

Why is this thread so painful to read?

Does Card actively try to make the lives of those in the LGBT community worse? Yes. 

Should people be allowed to boycott him? Yes. 

Should people be allowed to complain to DC about his hiring? Yes. 

Is that infringing upon his rights? Nope. 

Still, so much BS from all sides of the spectrum ITT.


----------



## Narcissus (Feb 26, 2013)

Seto Kaiba said:


> I figured you'd post here sooner or later.


And naturally, with an overwhelming amount of bullshit. I find it likely the people he accuses of "overstating their case" are the same people who recently steamrolled him. You know the thread, Seto.





baconbits said:


> but many people have been right to point out that this is highly hypocritical of those supporting this boycott.


Bullshit, the underlining difference has been pointed out multiple times. Card actively tries to interfere with the lives and rights of others. There isn't any hypocrisy in petitioning against him writing Superman, a character who stands for the very ideals Card is against.

And it isn't just the LGBT communtiy who is outraged by this.





> To pretend that Card is hurting people is to pretend that this isn't a political issue on which there are two sides.


Nonsense. Multiple people have outright said that he can have his opinion, despite how stupid and bigoted it is. It is the fact that he has actually taken action that people are responding to.





> Card doesn't agree with gay marriage - half of America agrees with him.


And? rather than make irrelevant points, maybe you should use some common sense for once and realize that it wouldn't matter if 99% of America agreed with him. That wouldn't make him any more right.





> But presuming that his opinions will have an effect on the comic book is a little premature in my opinion.


No, it is one of the many problems people have with him writing Superman. There are other problems. And that is why so many people have signed the petition and will not buy his comic, and why more comic book stores refuse to sell it.

Side note: I'd rep you twice if I could Freedan. Wonderful job breaking down bacon's ignorant drivel.


----------



## Roman (Feb 26, 2013)

Since the bigots in here are so quick to jump to his defense, here's exactly what the NOM (National Organization for Marriage) does.



> Founded in 2007 in response to the growing need for an *organized opposition to same-sex marriage* in *state legislatures*, NOM serves as *a national resource for marriage-related initiatives at the state and local level*. For decades, pro-family organizations have educated the public about the importance of marriage and the family, but *have lacked the organized, national presence needed to impact state and local politics in a coordinated and sustained fashion*. NOM seeks to fill that void, organizing as a 501(c)(4) nonprofit organization, giving it the flexibility *to lobby and support marriage initiatives across the nation*.





This is clearly more than just having an opinion. NOM is set up specifically to educate and fund what truly educated people would call discrimination and even segregation. They even accept donations from people. This is the organization for which Card is part of the board of directors, not merely a member. And I highly doubt DC would like to be associated with this.


----------



## Shock Therapy (Feb 26, 2013)

OSC, writing good sci-fi and hating on the gays since whenever


----------



## Tranquil Fury (Feb 26, 2013)

starr said:


> I dislike bigotry as much as the next person, but as long as he doesn't include that shit in his work, then there's not much that can be done. Not like I'm buying that stuff.



Seconded. DC should however make sure he does include such content in his comic.


----------



## NanashiSilver (Feb 26, 2013)

Freedan said:


> Since the bigots in here are so quick to jump to his defense, here's exactly what the NOM (National Organization for Marriage) does.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Ironically, they're also going after the jobs of legislators who don't hold their same beliefs:


----------



## baconbits (Feb 26, 2013)

Freedan said:


> Dude. No. When he's the leader for the National Organization for Marriage, it's not simply him taking a stance. It's him taking a stance and funding for legislation that bans gay marriage, thus restricting the lifestyle of a specific group of citizens because he thinks he's right without regard for how others would think or feel about it. If it was him just expressing an opinion, the only gripe I'd have with him is I disagree with him, but there's more to it than that.



You're missing my point and making several bad arguments.

First, you're mislabeling his argument by pretending his sole goal is to restrict rights.  You would never label your own positions that way.  Are you trying to restrict the rights of gun owners because you think you're right without regard for how others think or feel about it?  Are you restricting religious rights by forcing churches to give out things they morally oppose, despite how they feel or think about it?

Calling labeling Card as "restricting rights" is a misunderstanding of his position.  In fact it is merely an argument in favor of your own position, not an unbiased view of the argument.

Second, pretending that advocacy is worse than having a position is irrational.  It ought not matter if he is president of an organization or just a person who has a strong opinion - your view of him ought not change.

Part of my disgust with politics itself comes from this need to characterize a position and personalize an argument.  Since one side disagree's with Card's position they believe that he therefore hates gays.  Why must that be the case?  Can a person not disagree with an act without hating the actor?  Pretending that the position against gay marriage is equal to the hatred of gays is irrational; there is no reason to assume this is true in every case - all it does is introduce emotion into the discussion.

Thus we have many in this thread who claim to "hate Card".  Have you ever met him?  I find it difficult to love or hate a person I've not met.  It is irrational to hate a person that merely disagrees with you (within reason), yet this is precisely the reason that our discussions and politics become so polarized.  Rather than saying "I disagree strongly with Bush/Obama" people claim to hate a person they've never met merely because they hold a different point of view.  Is that rational?

I think we ought to remove the emotion from the argument.  There is no reason to assume that I will necessarily like only people who agree with me; it is conceivable that I will intensely dislike some conservatives and Christians I come in contact with, just as it is conceivable that I will like some liberals and secularists that I come into contact with.  Stop personalizing the discussion.

I'm not speaking just to FD but to others.  If all you can do is lash out with rage at a post you disagree with, either through a neg, flaming or an insult, you're not presenting a rational argument; you're just being a jerk.  As I've read Card's work he is not anti-gay in his literature; if anything sexuality is not truly explored in many of his works.  His personal position is to be against same-sex marriage; his creative position doesn't even explore the issue.

I personally read many authors - I've found that those who support gay marriage usually put that into their writings and those that don't simply leave that issue out.  Thus the practical difference between the one who simply chooses not to explore that issue creatively and the one who is against gay marriage doesn't exist.  Those boycotting this comic are boycotting something they'll probably have no problem with.  They're just betraying their biases.

If you want to be "hurt" by Card's position that is your reaction to the position, not a definition of the position itself.  A position can be stated in a hurtful way, but the position itself is not hurtful.

Those pretending that his position is not a problem but his advocacy is are betraying some autocratic leanings.  This isn't a logical position; its an emotional one.  Any acceptable position is an acceptable advocacy.  The fact that you feel strongly about something doesn't make advocacy less acceptable.


----------



## baconbits (Feb 26, 2013)

NanashiSilver said:


> Ironically, they're also going after the jobs of legislators who don't hold their same beliefs:



I'm not sure what's wrong with that.  That's political advocacy.


----------



## Roman (Feb 26, 2013)

baconbits said:


> First, you're mislabeling his argument by pretending his sole goal is to restrict rights.  You would never label your own positions that way.  Are you trying to restrict the rights of gun owners because you think you're right without regard for how others think or feel about it?  Are you restricting religious rights by forcing churches to give out things they morally oppose, despite how they feel or think about it?



Derailing much? But sure, I'll play with you. They're not the same thing. Gun restrictions ought to be in place because unlike gay marriage, guns kill people. When Card is talking about banning gay marriage and funding movements that help to further the cause of banning gay marriage, he's actively attempting to restrict a lifestyle he knows nothing about. When I talk about banning guns, I'm doing so because you and I both know guns contribute to a large majority of murders in the country. So you see, where one is hurtful, the other is concerned for people's safety. They're entirely different things. I understand people will feel sour about it, but no one can deny guns are meant exclusively for the purpose of killing people. Gay marriage does not have that effect on people.



baconbits said:


> Second, pretending that advocacy is worse than having a position is irrational.  It ought not matter if he is president of an organization or just a person who has a strong opinion - your view of him ought not change.



That's where you're wrong. Having an opinion is one thing. He has the right to his opinion just like anyone else because it's not inherently harmful. However, he's acting on his opinion, and that opinion encourages him to damage and discriminate a group of people he knows nothing about. Someone can preach hate for black people all he wants but if he's never going to hurt a black person and ignores them on the street, acts professionally with them in his place of work, his opinion alone isn't hurting anyone. It would be a lot different if he were pushing legislation advocating racial segregation, calls them out on the street and/or refuses to work with them in his working environment.

And I'm just going to ignore the rest of your post because as much as you're saying you're relying on rational, objective, unemotional arguments, you seem pretty emotional to me


----------



## NanashiSilver (Feb 26, 2013)

baconbits said:


> I'm not sure what's wrong with that.  That's political advocacy.



Trying to get someone who shares your beliefs elected is advocacy. Trying to get someone who votes against your beliefs removed is just spiteful.


----------



## Frostman (Feb 26, 2013)

Freedan said:


> That's where you're wrong. Having an opinion is one thing. He has the right to his opinion just like anyone else because it's not inherently harmful. However, he's acting on his opinion, and that opinion encourages him to damage and discriminate a group of people he knows nothing about. Someone can preach hate for black people all he wants but if he's never going to hurt a black person and ignores them on the street, acts professionally with them in his place of work, his opinion alone isn't hurting anyone. It would be a lot different if he were pushing legislation advocating racial segregation, calls them out on the street and/or *refuses to work with them in his working environment*.
> 
> And I'm just going to ignore the rest of your post because as much as you're saying you're relying on rational, objective, unemotional arguments, you seem pretty emotional to me



This right here is why people are calling it hypocrisy. The protesters want DC to stop working with him because of something that has nothing to do with writing comic books. That is discrimination. 

Pushing legislation is not illegal, thus its not good enough grounds to fire him.


----------



## Narcissus (Feb 26, 2013)

baconbits said:


> You're missing my point and making several bad arguments.


The irony is staggering.

Keep it up Freedan, you're doing fine.





Frostman said:


> This right here is why people are calling it hypocrisy. The protesters want DC to stop working with him because of something that has nothing to do with writing comic books. That is discrimination.
> 
> Pushing legislation is not illegal, thus its not good enough grounds to fire him.


No it isn't.

The protesters do not want him to write for a character they love, who represents everything Card is against. Furthermore, the boycott is not illegal, and the readers have every right to say who they want to write what they read. It is also in response to what he does, not his mere beliefs or his race or religion.

Your comparison fails.


----------



## Buskuv (Feb 26, 2013)

Why does anyone even care?

Supes is such a boring character.


----------



## Euraj (Feb 26, 2013)

Probably already noted, but Card is an LDS guy. Marriage/family according to the Bible is a pretty big deal, so his stances don't surprise me at all. Needless to say, I don't recall him every having stuff in his fiction novels that have reflected that. The closest thing to God in the Ender Series, for example, was a feminine, sarcastic, computer entity. Hardly Mormon-sounding at all.

Since I don't foresee Superman killing gay supervillains because of his involvement, I think this protest is retarded.


----------



## Frostman (Feb 26, 2013)

Narcissus said:


> The irony is staggering.
> 
> Keep it up Freedan, you're doing fine.No it isn't.
> 
> ...



So what you and the protesters are saying is... He does not have the right to write this comic book for DC because he is anti-gay marriage and how he supports it(by pushing legislation)?

What i am saying is... Pushing legislation is not illegal and thus it is not considered hurtful. At least not hurtful enough to fire him. So even though he is a hateful bigoted asshole, and his beliefs are wrong, he still deserves a chance to write that comic book.

And according to what ive read in this thread about his work he is capable of acting professionally in those works. 

I never commented on the legality of the boycott or the rights of the readers. They can do whatever they want as long as they are within the law. *My grip is him getting fired over it.*


----------



## Gino (Feb 26, 2013)

This bitch ass thread still here damn man.........


----------



## ovanz (Feb 26, 2013)

Since he will be in the center of the storm, this will make great publicity for DC. Even those that don't like this guy, will buy lots of his Superman comics, to see if there's some secret anti-gay menssages in his writings. LOL.

Dat marketing strategy


----------



## Narcissus (Feb 27, 2013)

Frostman said:


> So what you and the protesters are saying is... He does not have the right to write this comic book for DC because he is anti-gay marriage and how he supports it(by pushing legislation)?


No, people are saying they don't want him to write a character they love because of his actions and bigotry, and they have every right to say that when they are the customers.





> What i am saying is... Pushing legislation is not illegal and thus it is not considered hurtful.


Absolute nonsense. Ignoring that there have been plenty of corrupt laws in our past, there are laws some consider harmful today. bacon, for example, disagrees with abortion being legal.

What Card pushes for is limitation of rights, and yes, that is harmful.





> And according to what ive read in this thread about his work he is capable of acting professionally in those works.


As it has been pointed out numerous times, voicing his stupidity through Superman is not the only concern people have with this.





> I never commented on the legality of the boycott or the rights of the readers. They can do whatever they want as long as they are within the law. *My grip is him getting fired over it.*


No, you didn't. You just spouted some ignorant tripe about it being hypocritical. But I never said you commentedonthe boycott's legality, I only brought it up in contrast to your comment about pushing legislation.

People have the right to not want him writing Superman as much as they wouldn't wand DC to hire a member of the KKK to write him. Their reaction is justified.

And even if he isn't taken off the project, the message has been sent loud and clear, evidenced by the thousands who signed the petition, and have said they will not buy his comic, and the comic stores who refuse to sell it.


----------



## Cax (Feb 27, 2013)

Why give a darn? It's not like he'll be putting anti-gay propaganda in the comic. He has the right to his opinions, just like anyone else, including people with their opinions going against his. What he thinks about homosexuality and what he can offer to a comic are completely irrelevant. Anyone boycotting this shit is a fucking loser going the wrong way about defending homosexuality.


----------



## Roman (Feb 27, 2013)

Frostman said:


> This right here is why people are calling it hypocrisy. The protesters want DC to stop working with him because of something that has nothing to do with writing comic books. That is discrimination.
> 
> Pushing legislation is not illegal, thus its not good enough grounds to fire him.



People want DC to stop him from writing Superman because it would look like DC is associated with an organization that pushes for anti-gay legislation. It would do DC no good when they've historically been in support of LGBT rights and the community. Also, DC is not working *with* Card. Card is working *for* DC. Tho it may look like semantics, it makes a massive difference. Typically, work contracts require the employee not to be involved in outside businesses. Card isn't simply involved with the NOM, he's part of its board of directors. He's part of its leadership. But as an employee of DC, he has the duty to respect DC's political/social views (this can be read as respectfully disagreeing). His pushing for anti-gay legislation does the exact opposite.


----------



## Vynjira (Feb 27, 2013)

Frostman said:


> *My grip is him getting fired over it.*


Only he's not getting "fired".. He was tasked with writing 2 issues..

Assuming DC drops him, that doesn't mean that he "lost a paid position of regular employment". For that matter it also doesn't mean he won't get paid anyway.

Not for nothing, but he had to know that his position would translate into a lost costumer base... and with that any company looking to sell products has to factor this into their bottom line.

Which they have every right to take him off a project, if they decide it's not going to be as profitable as they had thought it was going to be.


----------



## Narcissus (Feb 27, 2013)

Cax said:


> Why give a darn? It's not like he'll be putting anti-gay propaganda in the comic. He has the right to his opinions, just like anyone else, including people with their opinions going against his. What he thinks about homosexuality and what he can offer to a comic are completely irrelevant. Anyone boycotting this shit is a fucking loser going the wrong way about defending homosexuality.



Ignorant rubbish. Besides the fact that you clearly haven't read the thread, him using Superman to voice his nonsense isn't the only reason people don't want him writing the character. It's also the principle of the matter, especially when he's working for a pro-gay company.

People refuse to support someone who actively tries to make life worse for others.

It's obvious that you have no where near the credibility to try and say how anyone should defend homosexuality. Thus, you are not to be taken seriously.


----------

