The Federal Prop. 8 Trial / Gay Marriage Catch-All

Tanglebones wrote:

Not saying anything new here, but I don't care what he does, or thinks in his private life; as soon as he crosses the line into public advocacy, and major donations in support of movements to deny rights to people, he loses my financial support.

It's definitely your right to vote with your wallet by whatever litmus test you want, but I don't understand what punishing past bad behavior/positions you don't agree with accomplishes when it comes to denying a sci fi author 20 cents (or whatever) of a $10 movie ticket. Would you financially support a Hillary Clinton run for the White House next election? She was a public supporter of DOMA, her husband signed it into law and would certainly stand to gain from her Presidency. "Voting with your wallet" or even voting with your vote seems much more effective when dealing with actual policy makers... doesn't it?

NormanTheIntern wrote:
Tanglebones wrote:

Not saying anything new here, but I don't care what he does, or thinks in his private life; as soon as he crosses the line into public advocacy, and major donations in support of movements to deny rights to people, he loses my financial support.

It's definitely your right to vote with your wallet by whatever litmus test you want, but I don't understand what punishing past bad behavior/positions you don't agree with accomplishes when it comes to denying a sci fi author 20 cents (or whatever) of a $10 movie ticket. Would you financially support a Hillary Clinton run for the White House next election? She was a public supporter of DOMA, her husband signed it into law and would certainly stand to gain from her Presidency. "Voting with your wallet" or even voting with your vote seems much more effective when dealing with actual policy makers... doesn't it?

I didn't support her for the last run

In any case, he's donated copious amounts of money to influence policy and sits on the board of NOM, so you're making an apples to oranges comparison there.

NormanTheIntern wrote:
Tanglebones wrote:

Not saying anything new here, but I don't care what he does, or thinks in his private life; as soon as he crosses the line into public advocacy, and major donations in support of movements to deny rights to people, he loses my financial support.

It's definitely your right to vote with your wallet by whatever litmus test you want, but I don't understand what punishing past bad behavior/positions you don't agree with accomplishes when it comes to denying a sci fi author 20 cents (or whatever) of a $10 movie ticket. Would you financially support a Hillary Clinton run for the White House next election? She was a public supporter of DOMA, her husband signed it into law and would certainly stand to gain from her Presidency. "Voting with your wallet" or even voting with your vote seems much more effective when dealing with actual policy makers... doesn't it?

I just wanted to point out this is not past behavior for Card. He's currently on the board of directors for NOM.

He hasn't apologized for any of his views or statements. He hasn't even left one of the primary organizations opposing marriage equality. He won't get a dime from me and I can only hope the movie does poorly enough that he can't get anyone to bankroll future projects.

He's a *current* major supporter of NOM, which has not by any means given up.

Tanglebones wrote:
NormanTheIntern wrote:

It's definitely your right to vote with your wallet by whatever litmus test you want, but I don't understand what punishing past bad behavior/positions you don't agree with accomplishes when it comes to denying a sci fi author 20 cents (or whatever) of a $10 movie ticket. Would you financially support a Hillary Clinton run for the White House next election? She was a public supporter of DOMA, her husband signed it into law and would certainly stand to gain from her Presidency. "Voting with your wallet" or even voting with your vote seems much more effective when dealing with actual policy makers... doesn't it?

I didn't support her for the last run

In any case, he's donated copious amounts of money to influence policy and sits on the board of NOM, so you're making an apples to oranges comparison there.

I agree that lobbying for something and signing/supporting a law that legally accomplishes something is an apples to oranges comparison.

Let's work from there and build a consensus...

Yes, but again, the difference is that she's changed, whereas he hasn't. You're making a cute argument, but it's not got anything to do with the current situation on the ground.

NormanTheIntern wrote:

I agree that lobbying for something and signing/supporting a law that legally accomplishes something is an apples to oranges comparison.

Let's work from there and build a consensus... :)

The irony of you making that argument in the Prop 8 thread is so sad it's hilarious.

I guess from my perspective, a politician running for president on a one woman/one man platform seems like it would have a much more direct affect on Rav/Ed's marriage than supporting or not supporting a sci fi movie, and therefore a more logical lever.

NormanTheIntern wrote:

I guess from my perspective, a politician running for president on a one woman/one man platform seems like it would have a much more direct affect on Rav/Ed's marriage than supporting or not supporting a sci fi movie, and therefore a more logical lever.

Are you trying to argue that this is Hillary Clinton's platform?

Tanglebones wrote:

Yes, but again, the difference is that she's changed, whereas he hasn't. You're making a cute argument, but it's not got anything to do with the current situation on the ground.

NormanTheIntern wrote:

I guess from my perspective, a politician running for president on a one woman/one man platform seems like it would have a much more direct affect on Rav/Ed's marriage than supporting or not supporting a sci fi movie, and therefore a more logical lever.

Tanglebones wrote:

Yes, but again, the difference is that she's changed, whereas he hasn't. You're making a cute argument, but it's not got anything to do with the current situation on the ground.

NormanTheIntern wrote:

I guess from my perspective, a politician running for president on a one woman/one man platform seems like it would have a much more direct affect on Rav/Ed's marriage than supporting or not supporting a sci fi movie, and therefore a more logical lever.

I think I see where this thread is going.

NormanTheIntern wrote:

I guess from my perspective, a politician running for president on a one woman/one man platform seems like it would have a much more direct affect on Rav/Ed's marriage than supporting or not supporting a sci fi movie, and therefore a more logical lever.

I would agree. And that's why I won't be voting for a republican candidate anytime in the foreseeable future. I also won't support those that are going to use any money I've given them to lobby against me. Your statement here only makes sense if I was an advocate for Mitt Romney while boycotting Ender's Game.

NormanTheIntern wrote:
Tanglebones wrote:

In any case, he's donated copious amounts of money to influence policy and sits on the board of NOM, so you're making an apples to oranges comparison there.

I agree that lobbying for something and signing/supporting a law that legally accomplishes something is an apples to oranges comparison.

Let's work from there and build a consensus... :)

It's an apple cider to oranges comparison:

NormanTheIntern wrote:

Would you financially support a Hillary Clinton run for the White House next election? She was a public supporter of DOMA, her husband signed it into law and would certainly stand to gain from her Presidency.

The important words there being "next" and "was". If a person "was" doing something bad, and the "next" time they get a chance to make a difference, they'll do something good, I see no intellectual inconsistency in adding a carrot to the bag of tools along side the stick.

My guess is that if Card turned his oranges into orange juice and changed in his position to the same degree Hillary has, the people now boycotting Card would actually go out of their way to funnel their consumer dollars towards him.

DP

I wouldn't go out of my way, he'd just be on level ground with everyone else at that point.

RoughneckGeek wrote:
NormanTheIntern wrote:

I guess from my perspective, a politician running for president on a one woman/one man platform seems like it would have a much more direct affect on Rav/Ed's marriage than supporting or not supporting a sci fi movie, and therefore a more logical lever.

I would agree. And that's why I won't be voting for a republican candidate anytime in the foreseeable future. I also won't support those that are going to use any money I've given them to lobby against me. Your statement here only makes sense if I was an advocate for Mitt Romney while boycotting Ender's Game.

I assume some people here either voted for/donated to Bill Clinton, Obama, Gore, or Kerry when they held anti-gay marriage beliefs.

NormanTheIntern wrote:
RoughneckGeek wrote:
NormanTheIntern wrote:

I guess from my perspective, a politician running for president on a one woman/one man platform seems like it would have a much more direct affect on Rav/Ed's marriage than supporting or not supporting a sci fi movie, and therefore a more logical lever.

I would agree. And that's why I won't be voting for a republican candidate anytime in the foreseeable future. I also won't support those that are going to use any money I've given them to lobby against me. Your statement here only makes sense if I was an advocate for Mitt Romney while boycotting Ender's Game.

I assume some people here either voted for/donated to Bill Clinton, Obama, Gore, or Kerry when they held anti-gay marriage beliefs.

In every instance you list there was not a marriage equality alternate choice. How is that the same as the current political landscape?

RoughneckGeek wrote:
NormanTheIntern wrote:
RoughneckGeek wrote:
NormanTheIntern wrote:

I guess from my perspective, a politician running for president on a one woman/one man platform seems like it would have a much more direct affect on Rav/Ed's marriage than supporting or not supporting a sci fi movie, and therefore a more logical lever.

I would agree. And that's why I won't be voting for a republican candidate anytime in the foreseeable future. I also won't support those that are going to use any money I've given them to lobby against me. Your statement here only makes sense if I was an advocate for Mitt Romney while boycotting Ender's Game.

I assume some people here either voted for/donated to Bill Clinton, Obama, Gore, or Kerry when they held anti-gay marriage beliefs.

In every instance you list there was not a marriage equality alternate choice. How is that the same as the current political landscape?

But I don't have any other options in films or entertainment!

NormanTheIntern wrote:
RoughneckGeek wrote:
NormanTheIntern wrote:

I guess from my perspective, a politician running for president on a one woman/one man platform seems like it would have a much more direct affect on Rav/Ed's marriage than supporting or not supporting a sci fi movie, and therefore a more logical lever.

I would agree. And that's why I won't be voting for a republican candidate anytime in the foreseeable future. I also won't support those that are going to use any money I've given them to lobby against me. Your statement here only makes sense if I was an advocate for Mitt Romney while boycotting Ender's Game.

I assume some people here either voted for/donated to Bill Clinton, Obama, Gore, or Kerry when they held anti-gay marriage beliefs.

Is every thread just an opportunity for you to take the conversation to, "Aren't Democrats and/or you just a bunch of hypocrites everyone gives a free pass"?

If you are, isn't it relevant?

But, no more than every thread is an opportunity for you to metapost about someone's true intentions or posting style.

I'll just throw this out there: I'm not the same person I was in 2008, 2004, 2000, 1996, etc. So...yeah...my views on things have changed too. Am I supposed to not do anything about that because I might have made a bad decision in the past? That's such a ridiculous argument I can't believe we're even bothering to respond.

I would argue that voting with your wallet to cut a lobbyist of at the knees is way more effective than voting with your votes. A politician that pisses off 49% of their constituents wins everything. A corporation or businessman that pisses off 49% of their clientele loses half their income and stops paying the politicians to keep pissing off their customers.

It's a ripple affect too, step 1 is denying Card $(X times .2). Step 2 is a later artist self-censoring his homophobic thoughts. Step 3 is the continuing learning of those thoughts being public and acceptable leading to fewer people having fewer of them.

This sort of social change is a long effort that needs to be focused on every part of society. Not just Hillary Clinton, or Dick Cheney, or any other politician who has already come to our side on this issue.
Edit: also step 1b, where the other people who lost the remaining $(X times 9.80) apply their own pressure.

NormanTheIntern wrote:

If you are, isn't it relevant?

But, no more than every thread is an opportunity for you to metapost about someone's true intentions or posting style.

I knew which of those responses you would reply to - the one you felt you could be snappy about rather than the ones pointing out your logical shortcomings. Roughneck is right, though, you're trying to hard to be cute and pithy when you're not making logical connections. About both the issue at hand or my posting, incidentally. While I do point out people's posting style now and again, I like to think I contribute more to this and other threads than just banging the same drum over and over while trollfacing everyone.

Back to the actual topic, my uncle sent me an article doing a bit of interesting prediction - 12 States That Will Probably Legalize Gay Marriage in 2013-2014. Makes an interesting note of where opposition towards same sex marriage still sits.

edit: (the article was written in March, btw)

Yonder wrote:

I would argue that voting with your wallet to cut a lobbyist of at the knees is way more effective than voting with your votes. A politician that pisses off 49% of their constituents wins everything. A corporation or businessman that pisses off 49% of their clientele loses half their income and stops paying the politicians to keep pissing off their customers.

It's a ripple affect too, step 1 is denying Card $(X times .2). Step 2 is a later artist self-censoring his homophobic thoughts. Step 3 is the continuing learning of those thoughts being public and acceptable leading to fewer people having fewer of them.

But that creates a system where artists should only express popular opinions or face economic penury. Put aside for a moment where you stand on this particular issue - shouldn't the artist's work (or anyone's, really) stand separate from their political beliefs or motivations? Unless the subject of that work is inherently political. This bleeds into the facebook/twitter retribution discussion we had awhile back for me.

NormanTheIntern wrote:
Yonder wrote:

I would argue that voting with your wallet to cut a lobbyist of at the knees is way more effective than voting with your votes. A politician that pisses off 49% of their constituents wins everything. A corporation or businessman that pisses off 49% of their clientele loses half their income and stops paying the politicians to keep pissing off their customers.

It's a ripple affect too, step 1 is denying Card $(X times .2). Step 2 is a later artist self-censoring his homophobic thoughts. Step 3 is the continuing learning of those thoughts being public and acceptable leading to fewer people having fewer of them.

But that creates a system where artists should only express popular opinions or face economic penury. Put aside for a moment where you stand on this particular issue - shouldn't the artist's work (or anyone's, really) stand separate from their political beliefs or motivations? Unless the subject of that work is inherently political. This bleeds into the facebook/twitter retribution discussion we had awhile back for me.

That sounds like a topic better covered in its own thread.

NormanTheIntern wrote:

But that creates a system where artists should only express popular opinions or face economic penury.

Is that really so terrible? It's certainly not new; it's always been that way. People boycott Polanski films. The Dixie Chicks suffered from conservative boycotts when they talked smack about W.

Am I supposed to feel bad that a bigot will face economic repercussions for his bigotry? Because I don't. I don't want him to have legal repercussions for his beliefs but I sure as hell don't worry about his ability to survive as an artist.

There is another thread where that whole conversation of the ethics of voting with your dollars is hashed out, and ironically it's about the same guy and a different product:

http://www.gamerswithjobs.com/node/4...

NormanTheIntern wrote:

But that creates a system where artists should only express popular opinions or face economic penury.

What's the alternative, I should be forced to buy Card's work?

People can choose to buy or not buy art on any criteria they choose. If I can choose to not buy Ender's Game because I think the cover is ugly, that's an even more arbitrary criteria.

NormanTheIntern wrote:
Yonder wrote:

I would argue that voting with your wallet to cut a lobbyist of at the knees is way more effective than voting with your votes. A politician that pisses off 49% of their constituents wins everything. A corporation or businessman that pisses off 49% of their clientele loses half their income and stops paying the politicians to keep pissing off their customers.

It's a ripple affect too, step 1 is denying Card $(X times .2). Step 2 is a later artist self-censoring his homophobic thoughts. Step 3 is the continuing learning of those thoughts being public and acceptable leading to fewer people having fewer of them.

But that creates a system where artists should only express popular opinions or face economic penury. Put aside for a moment where you stand on this particular issue - shouldn't the artist's work (or anyone's, really) stand separate from their political beliefs or motivations? Unless the subject of that work is inherently political. This bleeds into the facebook/twitter retribution discussion we had awhile back for me.

It's hard to separate this in some cases. Card, specifically, in the case of this movie? Well, it's likely he got the bulk of his payment on this already, and may or may not stand to make significant money afterward. There's certainly a bit of a tangle in here. Let's assume a boycott has some real impact on the movie's gross, who does that affect? The studio, the producer, the actors (assuming any of them get kickback from how well the movie does, I honestly have zero idea on this one), many of which may be very sympathetic to the cause of marriage equality. So there's collateral damage to consider on top of what you're stating.

But let's look at the other part - what are you asking people to do by saying, "Let's not set up this scenario"? It really seems like an either-or situation when we talk about buying things or spending money and considering political beliefs. You either spend the money or don't. You can't say "I'm buying this book, but please don't let any of the profit go to the jerk at the publishing house who edited it, I hear he has a sweatshop somewhere." So it assumes that people shouldn't be considering where their money is going.

I'm with you on the point where I would hate to live in a society where every artist, author, or any sort of vendor who has their name tied to someone is effectively forced, through economics, to voice popular opinions or keep silent. But let's be clear about something, here, we're not talking about something in this specific instance that is or isn't really popular opinion. We have a society right now where people are very happy to line up and have their pictures posted to facebook in support of Paula Deen and Chik-Fil-A because they feel like they're supporting someone who is being unfairly persecuted. And these are not small numbers of people. In general, though, there are other examples - people use their political stances to gain popularity all the time. And, on top of that, what about universally reviled things - what if someone wanted to set up a Regional Office Headquarters for NAMBLA? Should we just say, "well, I don't want my politics to taint where my money is going"? I think it's honestly more about levels of offense than anything.

On top of that, the issue here really is that as we get deeper and deeper into the communication age, a lot of folks are making brands of themselves, for good or ill. In OSC's case, he is the author of his books. His name and face are the "brand". He needs to understand that it's not a company, nor is he some cog in a great machine. If he wants to take what he believes is a strong, principled stand, he's doing that as an act of resolve or bravery or however he wants to see it. In his case specifically, it shows an extreme amount of cowardice and lack of actual resolve when he wants to play off things as if they didn't matter. Effectively, "This is what I believe and stand for, but I'd rather not it have any effect on my bottom line." He's the one really mixing the money and politics, there. I mean, there's a difference between saying, "I don't think homosexuals should be able to be married," and supporting that at the voting booth. It's another thing entirely to throw stacks of cash at the problem and sit on the board of a major entity with that as their goal.

I guess what I'm rambling about is that it's not really a universal up-or-down, "every situation is the same," sort of problem. So it's difficult to universally say "shouldn't we act like X in all cases of Y".

Bloo Driver wrote:

So it's difficult to universally say "shouldn't we act like X in all cases of Y".

Especially when someone of the cases are 10-20 years ago.