Separating the art from the artist

cheeba wrote:

My pointing out that people are being intolerant of others' opinions is an attempt at showing that tolerance goes both ways. If you want people whose religious beliefs say that homosexuality is a sin to be tolerant of gay marriage, then can you really not be tolerant of their beliefs, as impotent as they are?

Um... wow. Before I say anything are you sure that is the wording that best expresses your idea?

Bloo Driver wrote:

"I was just pointing out you were intolerant! I didn't mean anything by it, though." Sorry, no. Eventually you have to take ownership of your words and the obvious intent.

I do take ownership of the words. I wrote them and they represent my opinion exactly. As I've said before, where you run into trouble is with the "obvious intent" part. Considering you and I think VERY differently, I cannot comprehend why you would possibly think you could interpret any thoughts I have that I'm not expressly stating. You are welcome to keep failing at these attempts, however.

By intolerance I do not mean hypocrisy. We're all hypocrites, especially with our tolerances. See my example of myself with my tolerance for scientologists. My pointing out that people are being intolerant of others' opinions is an attempt at showing that tolerance goes both ways. If you want people whose religious beliefs say that homosexuality is a sin to be tolerant of gay marriage, then can you really not be tolerant of their beliefs, as impotent as they are?

This idea is, in short, "things take care of themselves, it'll all work itself out, don't worry about giving someone support even if they're the sort of person who is actively trying to harm you or those you don't want to see harmed". That's pretty silly.

Again with the horrible interpretations. The idea is, in short, that society is moving very quickly towards allowing gay marriage and this guy's beliefs and writings have no impact whatsoever on that movement. He's not actively trying to harm gays. He's writing opinion pieces for mormons. That's like advocating for gay rights in the San Francisco Chronicle.

FSeven wrote:

Recently came across this issue in the Everything Else forum when I inquired about where to get started with HP Lovecraft. Was graciously warned about Lovecrafts' rampant racism and decided to steer clear.

Life must be hell for you. There's got to be like 5 things you can consume that don't have ties to racism, misogyny, homophobia, etc, throughout their history.

realityhack wrote:
cheeba wrote:

My pointing out that people are being intolerant of others' opinions is an attempt at showing that tolerance goes both ways. If you want people whose religious beliefs say that homosexuality is a sin to be tolerant of gay marriage, then can you really not be tolerant of their beliefs, as impotent as they are?

Um... wow. Before I say anything are you sure that is the wording that best expresses your idea?

Before you say anything are you sure that's the question you want to ask me?

cheeba wrote:
Bloo Driver wrote:

"I was just pointing out you were intolerant! I didn't mean anything by it, though." Sorry, no. Eventually you have to take ownership of your words and the obvious intent.

I do take ownership of the words. I wrote them and they represent my opinion exactly. As I've said before, where you run into trouble is with the "obvious intent" part. Considering you and I think VERY differently, I cannot comprehend why you would possibly think you could interpret any thoughts I have that I'm not expressly stating. You are welcome to keep failing at these attempts, however.

But why rob you of your apparent entertainment of tut-tutting people when they make completely rational interpretations of your posts?

By intolerance I do not mean hypocrisy.

Good thing I didn't say you meant that. I was just stating the point of highlighting it was intolerance was to show it was hypocrisy (it was actually part of the post you strategically failed to quote), which you're kind enough to confirm:

We're all hypocrites, especially with our tolerances. See my example of myself with my tolerance for scientologists. My pointing out that people are being intolerant of others' opinions is an attempt at showing that tolerance goes both ways. If you want people whose religious beliefs say that homosexuality is a sin to be tolerant of gay marriage, then can you really not be tolerant of their beliefs, as impotent as they are?

But you're still just trying to reduce this down to an extremely poor line of reasoning: all opinions and actions are of equal worth and impact. And that's strictly not true. You keep trying to highlight that their beliefs are impotent, and that's certainly not true. If their beliefs were impotent, you wouldn't have study after study of the impact such large scale hatred has on a person's psyche. If their beliefs were impotent, you wouldn't have an entire major political party putting "We do not want gay people to get married" as a major plank in their party's philosophy.

You're trying to make a point that simply can't be defended - "It seems people are trending towards actively punishing those with different viewpoints just because those viewpoints are different, and that seems very immature to me." That is simply not true, no matter how many times you want to repeat it or ignore logic to the contrary. While you're creating a philosophical argument within a reality that doesn't exist, you're having some difficulty porting it over here to where things are actually happening.

This idea is, in short, "things take care of themselves, it'll all work itself out, don't worry about giving someone support even if they're the sort of person who is actively trying to harm you or those you don't want to see harmed". That's pretty silly.

Again with the horrible interpretations. The idea is, in short, that society is moving very quickly towards allowing gay marriage and this guy's beliefs and writings have no impact whatsoever on that movement.

But that's not what you said:

Let's be honest here, gay marriage will soon be legal in all 50 states. There's nothing Card can do about it. Supporting him will not do any harm.

How is my "interpretation" out of line with that? You are literally saying supporting him will do no harm, despite the fact he is actively working against a cause someone might believe in.

realityhack wrote:
cheeba wrote:

My pointing out that people are being intolerant of others' opinions is an attempt at showing that tolerance goes both ways. If you want people whose religious beliefs say that homosexuality is a sin to be tolerant of gay marriage, then can you really not be tolerant of their beliefs, as impotent as they are?

Um... wow. Before I say anything are you sure that is the wording that best expresses your idea?

Did you read anything he wrote in the Rape Culture thread? This should not be surprising.

cheeba wrote:

Life must be hell for you.

Only when I read your posts.

I think its harder with living artists than dead ones. Lovecraft had hugely problematic racial attitudes, which I think you have to be aware of going in. But he's been long dead. Card is a alive right now, in 2013, and still has problematic outlooks.

Personally, I wouldn't characterize anyone who read Lovecraft as being complicit in his racism, any more than I would fault someone for voting Democrat despite Jefferson owning slaves. At this point, that's all history. Each person who engages with material from the past does have a responsibility to contextualize it as they absorb and process everything. But I don't see anyone playing Call of Cthulhu and think "racism apologist."

It is harder, however (but not impossible) to do that with Card. He is alive and actively putting resources towards problematic causes. If someone is making a decision to look past that, then though they certainly aren't the equivalent of Card, they are someone who has opted to put time and money into something created by a bigot.

There could be all manor of valid reasons, pending on the individual's personal issues. You have analysis paralysis, so it totally makes sense to me that you will go and see it. Its easy to start seeing problems in everything, and you have to put lines somewhere. I do think that most people shouldn't see it, even as I understand plenty of reasonable, well-informed people will. I actually have less an issue with someone watching the movie than with someone spending money on one of his books (largely because he's already gotten his payday from the movie.)

I do actually fault Harrison Ford and Ben Kingsley for appearing in his work. It doesn't diminish my respect for them as actors, but it is a blemish on my respect for them as people. At the same time, I get it. They're making bank, and I'm sure I'd say yes if I were in their shoes. So its not necessarily a big blemish, but its there. Its new information.

There's an excellent movie called MEPHISTO about an actor in Germany prior to and then during the rise of the Third Reich. You basically watch a left leaning, socially responsible artist compromise on his values piece by piece in order to keep his career afloat. Its a gem of a film, with a powerhouse performance by Klaus Maria Brandaeur in it. Definitely worth watching, and very much related to that aspect of this thread.

cheeba wrote:

Before you say anything are you sure that's the question you want to ask me?

Just trying for clarification because I am not sure what you said (or what I am seeing in it) is what you meant to say.

I really don't think your response is helpful. Do you honestly think that my question is a bad thing or otherwise deserves a flippant response? The alternative is for me to just go off what you said (my reading of it) and I thought I had reason to suspect some misinterpretation might take place.

realityhack wrote:

Do you honestly think that my question is a bad thing or otherwise deserves a flippant response? The alternative is for me to just go off what you said (my reading of it) and I thought I had reason to suspect some misinterpretation might take place.

Oh I'm sure some misinterpretation is going to take place, regardless :).

Edwin wrote:

Did you read anything he wrote in the Rape Culture thread? This should not be surprising.

Yeah I did. A lot of it. So no, no surprise, I thought I would try to indicate it might not be the best communication ever. Looks like that went over um... badly.

cheeba wrote:
realityhack wrote:

Do you honestly think that my question is a bad thing or otherwise deserves a flippant response? The alternative is for me to just go off what you said (my reading of it) and I thought I had reason to suspect some misinterpretation might take place.

Oh I'm sure some misinterpretation is going to take place, regardless :).

Thank you for taking the time to reword your opinion and clarify it so we all have the best possible chance of understanding your viewpoint and engaging with you.

I think I shall follow the lead of many others and stop talking to you for a while.

TheHarpoMarxist wrote:

Personally, I wouldn't characterize anyone who read Lovecraft as being complicit in his racism, any more than I would fault someone for voting Democrat despite Jefferson owning slaves. At this point, that's all history. Each person who engages with material from the past does have a responsibility to contextualize it as they absorb and process everything. But I don't see anyone playing Call of Cthulhu and think "racism apologist."

I hope that's not how I came off. I would never assume that someone would be of like mind with Lovecraft in regards to race just because they read his books. Those thoughts are Lovecrafts and Lovecrafts alone. To me, the decision not to forsake the art based on the mind of the artist is a personal thing and I would never begrudge someone the right to do so.

TheHarpoMarxist wrote:

I do actually fault Harrison Ford and Ben Kingsley for appearing in his work. It doesn't diminish my respect for them as actors, but it is a blemish on my respect for them as people. At the same time, I get it. They're making bank, and I'm sure I'd say yes if I were in their shoes. So its not necessarily a big blemish, but its there. Its new information.

Agreed. The best analogy I can come up with is the decision on the part of a great many athletes to participate in the Sochi Olympics despite Russia's recent legislation and attitude regarding homosexuals. To me, there is no argument that can be made for their actions and it comes down to caring more about their individual careers than using their position to stand up for equality. However they do make their money by jumping, running, and swimming and ones' need to provide for self and family quite often supercedes the desire to stand up for equality at the detriment to oneself.

TheHarpoMarxist wrote:

There's an excellent movie called MEPHISTO about an actor in Germany prior to and then during the rise of the Third Reich. You basically watch a left leaning, socially responsible artist compromise on his values piece by piece in order to keep his career afloat. Its a gem of a film, with a powerhouse performance by Klaus Maria Brandaeur in it. Definitely worth watching, and very much related to that aspect of this thread.

Absolutely going to check this out.

FSeven wrote:

Agreed. The best analogy I can come up with is the decision on the part of a great many athletes to participate in the Sochi Olympics despite Russia's recent legislation and attitude regarding homosexuals. To me, there is no argument that can be made for their actions and it comes down to caring more about their individual careers than using their position to stand up for equality. However they do make their money by jumping, running, and swimming and ones' need to provide for self and family quite often supercedes the desire to stand up for equality at the detriment to oneself.

To be fair, Olympic athletes aren't doing it for the money since they are all amateurs and, by definition, can't get paid for jumping, running, and swimming. They are simply people who have given up four or more years of their lives to training so they can represent their country in a single sporting event. They've made tremendous sacrifices as have their families.

I'm certainly not going to ask them to throw away years and years of training and the hard work and effort it took for them to get on the Olympic team because the Russian legislature are big poopy heads. That's entirely unfair to them.

Doubly so when the 2014 Olympics is going to be the last time some of those athletes can compete because of their age or the one shot they have to get a sponsorship deal that will make their lifetime of work finally pay off. Again, that's unfair to them.

Besides, we need color version of the following picture and that will only happen when there's a gay athlete standing on the Sochi Olympic podium.

IMAGE(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/55/Bundesarchiv_Bild_183-G00630,_Sommerolympiade,_Siegerehrung_Weitsprung.jpg)

OG_slinger wrote:

Doubly so when the 2014 Olympics is going to be the last time some of those athletes can compete because of their age or the one shot they have to get a sponsorship deal that will make their lifetime of work finally pay off. Again, that's unfair to them.

That was what I mean by getting paid. Sean White, Picabo Street (so hot!), the big pot smoking swimmer guy, etc. These folks are rich due to the sponsorships resulting from their performances.

In fact, are there any US athletes that won medals who haven't been given a sponsorship of some sorts in recent years?

I don't see it as fair or unfair, just the state of affairs. It's why we have words like martyr. I absolutely do not expect any of them to sacrifice their careers and ability to put food on the table to make a principled stand in support of equality. Ultimately though it does come down to a choice and the choice is self-preservation over equality. I have the luxury of regarding the situation in black and white terms because I still do the doggie paddle. If I were in their shoes I would most likely make the same choice. But it is a choice that I would be making once the situation in Russia was made aware to me. That's all I'm saying.

Regarding this being easier when the artists are dead: It absolutely is, primarily because it's hard to take a leadership role in an active hate organization as a corpse.

What never fails to amuse me whenever the Paradox of Tolerance get's dragged out, is how the dragger seems to believe they have come down from the mountain with unique insight carved in stone, when really they're just the latest in a long line who have rolled down the hill with the same drunken scrawl on a battered napkin several decades of others brought.

cheeba wrote:

My pointing out that people are being intolerant of others' opinions is an attempt at showing that tolerance goes both ways. If you want people whose religious beliefs say that homosexuality is a sin to be tolerant of gay marriage, then can you really not be tolerant of their beliefs, as impotent as they are?

Yep. False equivalence on your part.

Here are the two beliefs that you are putting forth as deserving the same amount of tolerance:
- Homosexuality is a sin and gays shouldn't be allowed to marry
- Gay people should be allowed to marry

One of these is negative towards others, one is not. One is imposing on others, one is not. They are not equivalent. Intolerance of one and tolerance of the other isn't hypocritical because they are not equal things.

Oh, and I'm sure that "as impotent as they are" is one of the other fallacies, where you mislead by invalidly dismissing an argument.

EDIT: Judgmental language, maybe?

Interesting interview from way back with OSC. What a colossal prick.

Chumpy_McChump wrote:

[Here are the two beliefs that you are putting forth as deserving the same amount of tolerance:
- Homosexuality is a sin and gays shouldn't be allowed to marry
- Gay people should be allowed to marry

One of these is negative towards others, one is not.

This is a pretty good illustration of the problem. For some, gay marriage is an affront to nature and/or their religion and/or the institution of marriage. It's all a matter of perspective. To them, gay marriage is inherently negative towards others and/or towards their God(s). You believe it's a false equivalent because you cannot grok that perspective.

Oh, and I'm sure that "as impotent as they are" is one of the other fallacies, where you mislead by invalidly dismissing an argument.

OK, you guys need to stop thinking about these logical fallacies, because 9 times out of 10, y'all get them totally wrong. It's a fact that people are increasingly in favor of gay marriage. It's not just old people dying off, either. The rate of increase is much faster than the rate of death. Gay marriage is inevitable. Anti-gay marriage people have lost. A guy writing an anti-gay article in a mormon publication is as impotent and useful as Perez Hilton in the Dallas Cowboy Cheerleader locker room. That's not dismissive of his argument, that's just a realization of the inevitable.

Gay marriage isn't inevitable. In some areas the opposite is happening with laws becoming codified against it and support rallying it against to a great fervor than ever before, like over here. Things don't always progress forward. Afghanistan is a good picture of what happens when fantastic progress is made, then halted, and subsequently then taken back a few centuries.

MrDeVil909 wrote:

Interesting interview from way back with OSC. What a colossal prick.

WOW. That is some hard core crazy on display.

MrDeVil909 wrote:

Interesting interview from way back with OSC. What a colossal prick.

Thanks for the link - really interesting. And wow... He is a serious prick!

Chumpy_McChump wrote:
cheeba wrote:

My pointing out that people are being intolerant of others' opinions is an attempt at showing that tolerance goes both ways. If you want people whose religious beliefs say that homosexuality is a sin to be tolerant of gay marriage, then can you really not be tolerant of their beliefs, as impotent as they are?

Yep. False equivalence on your part.

Here are the two beliefs that you are putting forth as deserving the same amount of tolerance:
- Homosexuality is a sin and gays shouldn't be allowed to marry
- Gay people should be allowed to marry

One of these is negative towards others, one is not. One is imposing on others, one is not. They are not equivalent. Intolerance of one and tolerance of the other isn't hypocritical because they are not equal things.

Oh, and I'm sure that "as impotent as they are" is one of the other fallacies, where you mislead by invalidly dismissing an argument.

EDIT: Judgmental language, maybe?

Winston Churchill wrote:

I refuse to be impartial between the fire brigade and the fire.

cheeba wrote:

OK, you guys need to stop thinking about these logical fallacies, because 9 times out of 10, y'all get them totally wrong. It's a fact that people are increasingly in favor of gay marriage. It's not just old people dying off, either. The rate of increase is much faster than the rate of death. Gay marriage is inevitable. Anti-gay marriage people have lost. A guy writing an anti-gay article in a mormon publication is as impotent and useful as Perez Hilton in the Dallas Cowboy Cheerleader locker room. That's not dismissive of his argument, that's just a realization of the inevitable.

It could also be argued that it's a fact that you are a colossal prick, and that it's inevitable that you'll pop up in a hot topic thread with some "Well, actually..." semantical bullsh*t.

No one gives a sh*t about being 'hypocritical' in regards to being 'intolerant' towards Orson Scott Card's beliefs on gay marriage, because his particular brand of 'intolerance' is not constructive or positive.

I'm sure many people of the LGBT community of California would disagree with you that gay marriage is a sure thing.

And yet I'm not the one doing the insulting. Perhaps it's time to take a look in the mirror, nel.

Just as an FYI, Card was on the Board of NOM from 2009 until July of this year when he quietly stepped down after making his "please be tolerant of me" quote.

It should be noted that during that time frame, the Board of NOM decided to help fund the companion lawsuit to the Prop. 8 appeal before the CA Supreme Court. That companion litigation asked the CASC to forcibly divorce/annul the marriages of all 18,000 couples that had been married before Prop. 8 took effect. In the appeal, the CASC - in a split vote - voted to uphold Prop. 8 as binding. However, they unanimously kicked the companion suit to the curb saying that all 18,000 same-sex marriages were perfectly valid and there was no legal basis to terminate those marriages.

So, you will have to forgive me, but I take it bit personal when someone wants to storm into my relationship with my husband and force us to divorce against our wills.

OSC and his "art" can go pound sand because I will never look at or purchase anything he has to offer.

cheeba wrote:

And yet I'm not the one doing the insulting.

This is laughably false in every thread you post in, including the very bit nel posted which prompted this feigned umbrage.

Phoenix Rev wrote:

It should be noted that during that time frame, the Board of NOM decided to help fund the companion lawsuit to the Prop. 8 appeal before the CA Supreme Court.

Remind me--was this effort also heavily funded by the LDS Church, or was it just the initial passage? Because if it's the former, it makes me wonder how key Card was in bringing all that cash.

cheeba wrote:
Chumpy_McChump wrote:

[Here are the two beliefs that you are putting forth as deserving the same amount of tolerance:
- Homosexuality is a sin and gays shouldn't be allowed to marry
- Gay people should be allowed to marry

One of these is negative towards others, one is not.

This is a pretty good illustration of the problem. For some, gay marriage is an affront to nature and/or their religion and/or the institution of marriage. It's all a matter of perspective. To them, gay marriage is inherently negative towards others and/or towards their God(s). You believe it's a false equivalent because you cannot grok that perspective.

That's crap. I grok their perspective just fine. I don't agree with it, but I understand it. I also understand that one position attempts to dictate other people's actions and the other doesn't. That's why they aren't equivalent.

cheeba wrote:
Oh, and I'm sure that "as impotent as they are" is one of the other fallacies, where you mislead by invalidly dismissing an argument.

OK, you guys need to stop thinking about these logical fallacies, because 9 times out of 10, y'all get them totally wrong. It's a fact that people are increasingly in favor of gay marriage. It's not just old people dying off, either. The rate of increase is much faster than the rate of death. Gay marriage is inevitable. Anti-gay marriage people have lost. A guy writing an anti-gay article in a mormon publication is as impotent and useful as Perez Hilton in the Dallas Cowboy Cheerleader locker room. That's not dismissive of his argument, that's just a realization of the inevitable.

There's another false equivalence. "People are increasingly in favor of gay marriage" =/= "people who are opposed to gay marriage are impotent", unless you're taking a geologic view of time (and even then it's not necessarily accurate). The writer you reference isn't the person writing anti-gay legislation, and putting forth the idea that he is the template for anti-gay sentiment is disingenuous at best.

SpacePPoliceman wrote:
cheeba wrote:

And yet I'm not the one doing the insulting.

This is laughably false in every thread you post in, including the very bit nel posted which prompted this feigned umbrage.

Why would I feign umbrage at being insulted? I assure you, I would rather not be insulted. I would much rather you guys be capable of presenting an intelligent discussion (and some here have been able to do so, with my thanks) rather than falling back on the now familiar whine of, "oh my god he is arguing against us and that is insulting me!" Calling someone a prick is insulting, arguing against you is not.

SpacePPoliceman wrote:
Phoenix Rev wrote:

It should be noted that during that time frame, the Board of NOM decided to help fund the companion lawsuit to the Prop. 8 appeal before the CA Supreme Court.

Remind me--was this effort also heavily funded by the LDS Church, or was it just the initial passage? Because if it's the former, it makes me wonder how key Card was in bringing all that cash.

I have no knowledge of the LDS being involved with the companion lawsuit. ProtectMarriage.com and NOM were the two main backers. The initial passage for Prop. 8 was in 2008, before Card joined the NOM Board. I suppose that Card could have donated directly to ProtectMarriage.com and NOM. I will try to see if his name popped up in the donor lists that NOM was forced to released.

Yeah, the idea that folks like Card have no power or influence is laughably uninformed at best, a blatant and willful lie at worst. Now, do people like Card feel like they're helpless against the tide of history and change? Possibly, but only people who misunderstand influence think that "influence" equates to "getting what I want done every time". Whether Card (or those in his similar situation of influence) honestly feel that way or not, though, everyone seems to understand that claiming the martyr's mantle is a good way to win sympathy and garner even further influence. So you see a lot of bad faith arguments put forth for people in that position trying to paint them as victims, hands to their head and under assault helplessly. It'd be laughable if it wasn't so depressingly effective.