What is Digg?364 Comments
- kubak, on 08/11/2008, -15/+155as good as his books were, he's a pretty ***** person
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orson_Card#Personal_v ... - amishterrarium, on 08/11/2008, -17/+122Excellent rant.
- EndersGame, on 08/12/2008, -19/+112I am now in search of a new User Name...***** you Orson Scott Card.
- larissa13, on 08/11/2008, -18/+105Nicely done. Unfortunately, religion is bad when it comes to turning the other cheek. Its highly professed but never implemented! Instead, its full of bigotry masked with intense dislike.
- Alegoo92, on 08/12/2008, -9/+70Seriously, me and my friend (both gay) read that book and assumed that the author was gay.
There is an awful lot of *****-eroticism from our pov. - maxgoedjen, on 08/12/2008, -1/+57The word is also used to refer to giant bugs.
- somnambulator, on 08/11/2008, -17/+70I think Cards homophobia has always been hidden in plain sight, right under our noses.
On the first page of Ender's Game it identifies the enemy - the BUGGERS. It then uses the word on nearly every page after that.
Not very subtle.
Not sure if it's the same in America, but 'bugger' has always been slang for homosexual in England/Australia. - sgiffy, on 08/11/2008, -14/+66Sorry but some things trump majority rule. The basic rights of gays and lesbians being one of them.
- kevin_qnn, on 08/11/2008, -6/+53the constitution is meant to prevent the tyranny of the majority. the whole "democracy is 2 wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner" thing. the judges did the right thing overturning the vote. this isn't "judicial tyranny" any more than brown v. board of education is, i'm sure the majority of kansans were opposed to integrating schools back then
- sgiffy, on 08/12/2008, -4/+47We do not live in a society solely based on majority rule. That's why we have the Constitution. Some things are outside the whims of the majority. For example a simple majority cannot restrict your right to free speech, or to practice your religion. I think that the similar right of equal protection means that gays and lesbians have the same rights ot marriage as heterosexuals.
- barktwiggs, on 08/11/2008, -1/+37You are of course assuming that the movie is ever going to be released!
- MadOgre, on 08/12/2008, -7/+41I know OSC, have met him personally on several occasions and I think he's a great writer. Arrogant to be sure, opinionated like everyone else... has a lot of qualities about him that I don't admire... but he's a great writer.
You gotta separate the actor/writer/ actress/director/artist from Politics or you stop enjoying the art. - Taciturn, on 08/11/2008, -3/+36Watch out queers, Falkon wants to "spear" you!
- bluepill2, on 08/11/2008, -13/+44Cracked deals with serious issues now, and performs public services to benefit culture and mankind in general! Whoah!
Keep this going guys, and in the spirit of progress, I predict a Cracked PAC by 2012! and count me in! - StaticThunder, on 08/11/2008, -4/+35Just because Card has one or two good and original sci-fi stories to his name doesn't mean he is a moral, or sane person.
- fluidfoundation, on 08/11/2008, -5/+34Most people are.
- thedragon4453, on 08/12/2008, -2/+28I don't have a citation, but aren't extreme homophobes often somewhat in the closet?
- barktwiggs, on 08/11/2008, -26/+50Orson Scott Card has 'seeming' contradictions: he is a lifelong Democrat on almost every policy except the War on Terror and social issues like gay marriage. This is a man who voted for Obama over the hawkish Hillary in the primaries though.
However, Card's animosity in this instance isn't towards gay marriage, it's against judicial activism of four judges overriding the votes of 4,618,673 citizens (the difference of Californians who voted Yes vs No on Prop 22 in 2000). Imagine if a state legally accepted gay marriage only to have it overturned by their state supreme court. How different would public and media reaction be in that instance, even though that is exactly the same principle: judicial tyranny.
To dismiss the author's works and conflate Mormons with the KKK and slave-owners over this issue is extremely juvenile (and par for the course for Cracked). Perhaps next time, Michael Swain can stop cherry-picking Card's talking points and talk to the man first to make sure he understands everything first. - malex, on 08/12/2008, -4/+28Are we even talking about the same subject?
- Phyraxus, on 08/12/2008, -4/+27"Etymologically, a "Bugger" was a "Bulgre" (French Bougre). Originally, it was derived from the French word "Bouggerie" ("of Bulgaria"), meaning the medieval Bulgarian clerical sect of the Bogomils, which facing severe persecution in Bulgaria spread into Western Europe and was branded by the established church as particularly devoted to the practice of sodomy"
- Wikipedia (with a citation from the Oxford English Dictionary)
Wow, I didn't know that. - Phyltre, on 08/12/2008, -1/+23Your argument can be used word for word without loss of meaning if you substitute religion for other constructs like government, culture, schooling, and so on. Humans are the problem, they're the one creating/enforcing the constructs.
- TVarmy, on 08/12/2008, -3/+23I have to say, I sorta agree with some of his points. Gay characters shouldn't be caricatures to be laughed at. What message does that send to somebody growing up gay or who is debating coming out of the closet? That they'll be something amusing for mainstream society to look at while everyone else advances, gets married, settles down, etc? Kevin Smith once said in an interview that he includes gay characters in his movies to show that they can be normal people who lead relatively normal lives. It was the fact that his gay brother was unhappy with the portrayal of gays in films that encouraged him to do so.
Seems like Orson Scott Card religiously objects to gay marriage, but empathizes with gays as people. This doesn't make his statement right, but I think it shows he isn't 100% homophobic. - StaticThunder, on 08/11/2008, -6/+26Why on earth should the state give marriage benefits to one particular class of people? How can you be opposed to simple equity unless you have an anti-gay bias.
You either prefer straight marriages because they sometimes result in children, or you prefer them because you think they are somehow more "natural" or you prefer them because your religious beliefs demand it. But there is no actual REASON that the state should reward heterosexuals for coupling up and not give the same reward to anyone else who asks for it.
Its not the states job to decide who can get married and who can't. Its also not the states job to promote the bearing of children, or any other number of things that couples might or might not do.
Ultimately this is the state deciding which sex acts it likes to give tax breaks to. It has no place in a just and secular society, and to be opposed to making the law blind and making all people equal under the law, is revealing an ingrained bias. - AsSubtleAsABrik, on 08/11/2008, -16/+36I always wonder how bigots are still be able to defend their points of view after reading something like that. As much as it is laced with humor, I don't understand how anyone could argue against the points he makes.
- thedragon4453, on 08/12/2008, -3/+22I'm digging this with sadness. I just read Ender's Game for the first time last week, and just finished Speaker yesterday. Starting on Xenocide today. Obviously, I love the books.
The ***** thing about this is that I just can't separate the books from the author. I have the same problem with actors (can't watch Tom Cruise movies anymore with the scam that is scientology dragging it down.) I'll probably still read the books, but its going to nag me in the back of my mind. - StaticThunder, on 08/11/2008, -15/+34One cannot oppose the legalization of gay marriage and NOT be a homophobe or at the very least an irrational zealot. There is no earthly reason to oppose extending state recognition of marriage to ANY consenting adults - a just, secular state can not have such a bias to certain classes of couples. No matter how respectful you are to nonexistent gays in your books. He is stating quite plainly that characters in stories are more important and real to him than actual people -- which also explains his Mormonism.
- Marcatto, on 08/11/2008, -5/+23I wonder if he's gonna try to use the upcoming movie as a soapbox?
- chiliwilli, on 08/12/2008, -2/+20I thought the thumbnail was the box art for Mega Man 9
- Hangly, on 08/12/2008, -1/+18Orson Scott Card grew up down the street from my dad. My dad wasn't allowed to play with him because he had a treehouse full of porn.
True story. Orem, Utah. Late 50's. - dronf23, on 08/12/2008, -10/+27Agreed. I loved ender's game when i was a lot younger(and the sequels were crap), but this guy is a total douche.
- StaticThunder, on 08/11/2008, -1/+17Its not the government's job to keep your society from collapsing. Its the governments job to protect your individual rights. What you are saying in essence is that people have a right to mates. Or, that if people are not carefully managed by the government, they will build societies that fail, so instead, we should institute "we know best" laws that tell people how they should live.
Nope, I can't agree with that. If polygamist societies are removing people of their rights, those are actionable, but merely creating a dearth of marriageable females is well within their rights. No one has an intrinsic right to a bride. The same argument can be used against lesbians - they are removing potential wives from the pool, and unbalancing the sex ratios.
The only problem is when people are being coerced. Simply allowing polygamy doesn't create coercion. Make the coercion illegal instead.
Not to mention that we have the technology to adjust sex ratios. If people really want to have harems (which I doubt, in the absence of religions insanifying influence), we could start adjusting gender ratios to compensate. - Phyraxus, on 08/12/2008, -6/+22Yeah, I'd really like to hear some arguments against legalizing homosexual marriage that aren't rooted in mythology.
- regeya, on 08/12/2008, -0/+15Totally coming out. Release date is during the same week Duke Nukem Forever hits the streets.
- regeya, on 08/12/2008, -1/+16It's funny; I'm straight, and as I pointed out above, a church-going fella, but I also thought that Ender's Game was a bit gay. Maybe it's the locker-room mentality that makes us think it's gay? I dunno; whatever. :->
- eir574, on 08/11/2008, -0/+15"Its the governments job to protect your individual rights."
Yes, but a conflict can arise if the net effect of people exercising their individual rights is to place an undue burden on others. I suppose it comes down to what you think society's obligation is to young people in the type of situation created by the FLDS. It's not the dearth of brides I'm concerned about since you're right that no one is guaranteed the right to marry, but the effects of the competition for those brides.
If we think government and society in general has absolutely no obligation to help those whose lives are completely upended by that competition, then there's no problem because there's no burden on society. Even if no one is shunned by a polygamous community before the age of 18, it's still problematic to have them thrown onto the streets without the support networks they've had their whole lives. We see the same problem with foster care as kids age out of the system. Technically, they're adults and they're responsible for themselves, but on average, they're not as prepared to fend for themselves as others. They don't have the safety nets that the rest of us have. While my parents certainly wanted me to be independent and to make my own mistakes when I left home, I also knew in the back of my mind that I could count on them if I were truly in trouble, just as they can count on me.
Families and communities do take some of the pressure off of the government to help the less fortunate among us. (I'm not saying that the government should fully support anyone who needs or wants help, but I also don't want to see people dying on the streets.) When families and communities expel people, they place a greater burden on society. While no one family or community has the responsibility to take care of its own no matter what (e.g. some families reach the difficult decision not to continue to provide a safety net to someone who continually makes bad choices), if polygamy did lead to a greater number of these family-less and community-less people, then that's potentially a concern.
Again, I'm just musing here. I don't have a solid opinion on this. I do agree that we shouldn't just construct slippery slopes as Nannybell does and then proclaim that there are certain things we can never allow because we think they might lead to bad outcomes. - sysop073, on 08/12/2008, -1/+16Seriously, Digg should check if you actually clicked the link, and if not it should just auto-bury your comment
- inactive, on 08/11/2008, -3/+17To the lions with you bigots.
- eir574, on 08/11/2008, -1/+15"I am curious, what are your thoughts regarding legalized polygamous marriages? Do they deserve the same equity that is being fought for homosexual marriage?"
Just to jump in here, I can find no reason to condemn polygamous marriages on a moral level so long as all involved parties consent. But, problems occur on a societal level. If a relatively small number of people want to be involved in polygamous relationships, that's their business and it doesn't affect me. But, when a whole community decides to practice polygamy -- and specifically when it's always a one man to multiple women situation (or vice versa) -- then problems arise at a societal level. To take the example of polygamous communities in which one man marries multiple women, the numbers just don't work out and there won't be enough women to go around. Men with more power in the community will have to seek to marginalize others so that they don't snap up any of the available brides. In some cases, this results in the expulsion of young men from the community, and at that point it's society's problem. Even if the community doesn't shun some of its men, denying the opportunity for marriage and children to a proportion of men who would have otherwise wanted those things becomes destabilizing for society.
So, if polygamous marriage doesn't work if too many of us are interested in it, then can we allow it for anyone? How would that work? Do the first x% of people applying for polygamous marriage licenses in a community get to have their polygamous unions, whereas all subsequent applicants are denied in order to avoid problems at a societal level? That clearly doesn't work, so I'm not sure if we can provide that right to anyone.
I'm musing here, of course. While the expulsion of young men has been documented in the FLDS community, I'm not as certain about by statement that denying men the opportunity to marry and have children is a destabilizing force in society. I vaguely remember reading some opinions to that effect, but I'm not sure how well backed up it is. - StaticThunder, on 08/11/2008, -3/+17You assume I haven't read a lot more than that. I've read Card's editorials and I'm ashamed I ever bought Ender's game. It wasn't worth rewarding the religious bigot that wrote it.
- StaticThunder, on 08/11/2008, -2/+16The state is also not responsible for engineering a particular type of society. If women are *willing* to be put into harems that is entirely their problem.
I would sooner abolish state sanctioned marriages entirely, and get rid of the anti-singles bias in the tax law, then say polygamous marriages should not be allowed. Marriage is ultimately a contract between consenting adults, the state has no business regulating it (or promoting it) except in cases of tangible harm to public health and welfare (such as cases of incest).
If polygamous societies are less stable, they won't last. And if polygamy was instituted equitably, you might well see women with harems of men, too. - soulpiercer7, on 08/12/2008, -0/+14he never talks about overthrowing the government in his article. the cracked article is based on the false summary of card's article. it's a blatant lie. buried as inaccurate
- Phyraxus, on 08/11/2008, -2/+16I LOLed
- Asabaseah, on 08/12/2008, -4/+18@JettaMan
our government might be out of control, but to say you want to start a civil war because two people want to get married is a bit on the edge. - satanguy, on 08/12/2008, -3/+17amazingly? it's a rant written by one guy!
- Pittance, on 08/12/2008, -0/+14soulpiercer, he does want to overthrow the government: "Card writes that "giving legal recognition to gay marriage ... marks the end of democracy in America."[23] and asserts "Regardless of law, marriage has only one definition, and any government that attempts to change it is my mortal enemy. I will act to destroy that government and bring it down, so it can be replaced with a government that will respect and support marriage, and help me raise my children in a society where they will expect to marry in their turn.""
From wikipedia. - jtinz, on 08/12/2008, -0/+13Easy to find:
"Is homophobia associated with homosexual arousal?"
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8772014?dopt=Ab ... - einrobstein, on 08/12/2008, -3/+16So get them from the library. Problem solved.
- Suricou, on 08/12/2008, -2/+15You just don't understand bigots. Card isn't going to make the effort to respond, but if he were, I am quite confident it would be with an appeal to religion - Card would use this to present *himself* as the force for good, talking about how society is decaying and God's standard for morality has been lost, mention the need for the faithful to restore it, and sprinkle in a generous helping of lies about how homosexuality has been medically proven to be dangerous. Finishing off with the classic 'protect the children' and a subtle attempt to equate homosexuality with pedophilia.
That's the standard fundamentalist response. Mormon response may differ, but not by much. - inactive, on 08/12/2008, -1/+13No, it was far broader than that, stating that we have the right to marry the person we love, the person of our choice. At the time, it was taken to mean that interracial marriages could not be banned, and today, it is taken to mean that homosexual marriages must enjoy that same protection.
- TheShad0w, on 08/12/2008, -1/+13I don't quite get your rant about J.K. Rowling and Dumbledore. I think the point she made by not including a blatant statement in her books was that it didn't matter. He was still a good person and a human being. Knowing that he was gay would have only done one thing. Painted the character with the bias that has been washed into society. Which would have been a horrible thing to do.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 368 discussions
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is