Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

"Ender's Game" movie faces a boycott

wired.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 117 posts

Re: "Ender's Game" movie faces a boycott

#101

Post by whiddershins »

laumars wrote: post #96
whiddershins wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actually, yes, free speech includes the right to say dumb things just because you can. The responsibility is entirely optional. Otherwise it wouldn't be free speech. It would be called "responsible speech."

> Actually, yes, free speech includes the right to say dumb things just because you can. The responsibility is entirely optional. Otherwise it wouldn't be free speech. It would be called "responsible speech." Actually no. There's defamation laws and such like that trump free speech. People need to learn that free speech isn't an excuse for trolls and bigots to post unfounded and hateful remarks. "Free speech" doesn't…

No, defamation laws "and such" are extremely limited in scope, for a reason. None of them stops people from "saying dumb things." It specifically DOES allow, protect, end entitle someone to "act like a dick and intentionally piss off whole subsections of society." There could be no discourse otherwise.

You may be confusing United States law with many European nations, which have very different interpretations of speech rights. For example, in Germany it is illegal to advocate for NeoNazism. In the United States, it is perfectly legal, even though it fits all of your "disallowed" criteria.

Re: "Ender's Game" movie faces a boycott

#102

Post by e12e »

EnderMB wrote: post #16

It seems like a terrible thing to do to the hundreds of potentially nice people that worked hard on this movie. People will boycott this because of peer pressure, and to follow the crowd. People don't boycott the countless movies based on Roald Dahl books, even though it's very common knowledge that he held strong anti-semitic views. Yes, I think his views are terrible, but that's not going to stop me enjoying his wo…

> People don't boycott the countless movies based on Roald Dahl books, even though it's very common knowledge that he held strong anti-Semitic views.

From what I can find, it is common knowledge that he would make outrageous, sometimes hurtful and insensitive statements -- and that he (especially after reviewing a book on Israel's invasion of Lebanon) considered himself to be anti-Israel and an anti-Zionist.

That's hardly the same thing as being an anti-Semite.

If you know of any sources I've missed, please let me know -- but as far as I can tell it isn't "common knowledge that he held anti-Semitic views".

Re: "Ender's Game" movie faces a boycott

#103

Post by e12e »

ajdecon wrote: post #98
_b8r0 wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Rather than argue about whether or not he's one of (not the top one) the best living sci-fi authors, how about you post some sci-fi authors that are better than or as good as him? The only criteria is: They must be primarily known for sci-fi They must be alive today That way everyone on HN can benefit. I'll start with: * William Gibson * Ursula K. LeGuin * Charlie Stross * Margaret Atwood Anyone else care to add to t…

* Lois Bujold * Connie Willis * Vernor Vinge * Kim Stanley Robinson * Neal Stephenson * Larry Niven * Hell, even John Scalzi If it weren't for the "alive" requirement, I'd include Iain M. Banks. :-( Regardless, I highly recommend anything Banks has written over anything of Card's. If we're willing to include fantasy... * Brandon Sanderson * Patrick Rothfuss * George R. R. Martin * Terry Pratchett * Mira Grant * Jim B…

* Samuel R. Delany * Bruce Sterling

Re: "Ender's Game" movie faces a boycott

#104

Post by e12e »

arethuza wrote: post #14
theorique wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can't self-righteously BitTorrent oil, so I would say probably not. (On the other hand, American natural gas and Canadian tar sands may break us free from dependence on the Saudis and their deplorable political and social system.)

I just finished a rather excellent (if slightly depressing) book on the links between the US government and Saudi Arabia that suggests those links are rather deeper than you might suspect: http://www.amazon.com/Sleeping-Devil-Washington-Saudi-Crude/... [NB: From what I can tell the author, Bob Baer, is fairly credible - he is a former CIA field officer with a lot of experience in the Middle East.]

He's autobiography on his time in the CIA, "See No Evil" is also interesting (and depressing).

edit: While we're on the subject of sci-fi and capitalism; I highly recommend Bruce Sterling's latest book, the Zenith Angle: http://www.amazon.com/The-Zenith-Angle-Bruce-Sterling/dp/034...

Re: "Ender's Game" movie faces a boycott

#105

Post by e12e »

adaml_623 wrote: post #13
ZirconCode wrote: post #8

I really loved the book, and I would really love to see the movie adaption, especially since OSC waited so long to personally pick a director he though would portray it well. It's interesting because I remember in a later book in the series (Xenocide?), there were many off-planet colonies, and on those homosexuality was the norm and heterosexuals were seen as "weird". I don't recall any aggressive stance against gays…

"I remember in a later book in the series (Xenocide?), there were many off-planet colonies, and on those homosexuality was the norm and heterosexuals were seen as "weird"." I don't have a copy of Xenocide at the moment to check but are sure you're not thinking of 'The Forever War' by Joe Haldeman?

Sounds more like Haldeman to me as well (alas I don't have either book on hand at the moment).

Re: "Ender's Game" movie faces a boycott

#106

Post by jlgreco »

dllthomas wrote: post #59
dsr_ wrote: post #37

I liked Ender's Game when I first read it. Then I thought about it. Ignore anything else the author has done: in this particular story, he poses a conflict between survival and ethical behavior, and illustrates it repeatedly... by having characters choose survival over ethics. He makes them heroes for it. Well. That's a brave stance. Except... that every time a character is given that decision, it is also clear, whet…

Did you ever read the sequels? Society only judges Ender favorably in the short term.

After giving in and reading Ender's Game for the first time, I didn't like it. I thought that Card was using children as main characters as an excuse to avoid character development (just having your child character learn something is a way to fake it, the character remains one dimensional while learning something concrete about the world.)

I told people this and they told me to read Ender's Shadow instead. Same complaint, the characters are shallow, no matter how vivid on the surface.

So then I decided to pick up a Card book outside that series, and read The Memory of Earth. Stunningly bad. Seriously hack work. A few years later I looked it up, turns out all he did was plagiarize The Book of Mormon and add a nominally sci-fi theme. What the hell?

Every time I complain about Card I am told that I just need to read more Card. No, not anymore.

Re: "Ender's Game" movie faces a boycott

#107

Post by dllthomas »

jlgreco wrote: post #106
dllthomas wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Did you ever read the sequels? Society only judges Ender favorably in the short term.

After giving in and reading Ender's Game for the first time, I didn't like it. I thought that Card was using children as main characters as an excuse to avoid character development (just having your child character learn something is a way to fake it, the character remains one dimensional while learning something concrete about the world.) I told people this and they told me to read Ender's Shadow instead. Same compl…

I wasn't advocating anything. I was just saying that the grandparent was odd presented as a critique of the book, when the author spends the next three books examining those issues.

Re: "Ender's Game" movie faces a boycott

#108

Post by jlgreco »

steve19 wrote: post #2

I wonder if the people signing this would also boycott anything run or owned by Middle Eastern royalty where laws that Card promotes both exist and are enforced.

When I am aware of a connection, you are damn straight I make a point of avoiding giving them my money. There are a number of places that have been stricken from my vacation checklist for this reason.

Re: "Ender's Game" movie faces a boycott

#109

Post by jlgreco »

Symmetry wrote: post #61
smoyer wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Card is a Mormon and I have no problem with his belief that homosexual behaviors are wrong. Tolerance is different from belief though and if he doesn't practice tolerance, why should he expect people to tolerate his religion-based beliefs? One problem I see is that so many times, beliefs are also linked to hatred. There's really no place for hatred when two parties are trying to practice tolerance.

There's a big difference between saying "Gay marriage is bad and people who support it should feel bad" and "A government which allows gay marriage must be overthrown by any means necessary." The former I can ignore, the later not so much.

I don't think so.

Using another picked on minority, I don't consider a "casual" neo-nazi skinhead and a dedicated one to be on particularly different levels. They both disgust me fairly equally (if for no other reason, then because the former incubate and insulate the later.)

Re: "Ender's Game" movie faces a boycott

#110

Post by laumars »

whiddershins wrote: post #101
laumars wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Actually, yes, free speech includes the right to say dumb things just because you can. The responsibility is entirely optional. Otherwise it wouldn't be free speech. It would be called "responsible speech." Actually no. There's defamation laws and such like that trump free speech. People need to learn that free speech isn't an excuse for trolls and bigots to post unfounded and hateful remarks. "Free speech" doesn't…

No, defamation laws "and such" are extremely limited in scope, for a reason. None of them stops people from "saying dumb things." It specifically DOES allow, protect, end entitle someone to "act like a dick and intentionally piss off whole subsections of society." There could be no discourse otherwise. You may be confusing United States law with many European nations, which have very different interpretations of spee…

> No, defamation laws "and such" are extremely limited in scope, for a reason. None of them stops people from "saying dumb things." It specifically DOES allow, protect, end entitle someone to "act like a dick and intentionally piss off whole subsections of society." There could be no discourse otherwise.

That doesn't make the slightest bit of sense. If I was to make up some rubbish about you (eg selling drugs to school kids), then you'd be able to take me to court over those things that I said. Thus there are limitations on freedom of speech as those laws are there to protect people like you from in situations like the aforementioned. They're not there to protect people from /SAYING/ dumb things - like you stated. The laws are there to protect the subject /AGAINST/ dumb things being said.

However that's a tangent as it was never my original point. As I'll explain next:

> You may be confusing United States law with many European nations, which have very different interpretations of speech rights. For example, in Germany it is illegal to advocate for NeoNazism. In the United States, it is perfectly legal, even though it fits all of your "disallowed" criteria.

I'm not confusing any laws here. You're misunderstanding me as you're talking purely from a legal perspective where as I'm talking about social obligation. A rather crude example would be gun laws in the US. A large number of people are calling for guns to be banned because a small minority chose to abuse their right to own a gun. Sure, they broke other laws (just as people who abuse their free speech might break defamation (et al) laws). And just like with free speech, we have a moral obligation not to dilute our freedom of speech with mindless hatred as otherwise we might see such rights taken away "for our own benefit". In fact we are seeing this already with idiots who post dumb comments on Twitter getting arrested. They set a precedence where the police can intervene, which makes it easier for police and "do gooders" to take action in future times when circumstances might not be so extreme. And we've seen it with the pressure that Facebook face to sensor the messages left on there because of a meme going out of hand.

Sometimes having freedoms is as much about knowing when not to abuse it as it is about knowing when to exercise your freedoms. Which is why I say great power comes great responsibility. Just because someone legally can do something, it doesn't mean that they should.

Post reply on HN