Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[mainiac]

So OSC has a big ego. What else is new?

It's not just an ego, the man writes political editorials.  This is a thread about one of those editorials.  How could his political beliefs be anything but relavent?

[Servant Corps]

Well, it appeared that most of the criticism was directed at OSC because of his political views, mostly that he's a "right-wing hack".

OSC lives in a free country and can write whatever he so desires, but I don't think it is his editorals that gave him good old cash. It's his books and his sci-fi novels that made OSC what he is today, and I think that more attention should be paid towards the quality of the novels (or lack thereof) rather than his political editorals. His editorals are going to be forgotten...but it's his books that will remain behind.

[Bromor Neckbeard]

(edit:  Never mind, I'll repost this when I have scanned proof.)

[mainiac]

Well, it appeared that most of the criticism was directed at OSC because of his political views, mostly that he's a "right-wing hack".

OSC's right wing hack status is entirely reasonable to point out because several people, yourself included, appear to be taking his views as reasonable.  The opinions in question reveal nothing except an ignorance about the issues and ideologically guided blindness to any person familiar with the issue, regardless of political leanings.  If you intend to give these views credence then it is the least I can do to tell you that you are listening to a right wing hack out of the hope that you might learn the error of your ways.

[Strife26]

Well, he is right to some extent, although blaming it on the Dems isn't right.

Our crisis is pretty much completely cuased by Congress Dereging the banks. Then those banks making crappy loans. Then the defualts ect.

Funny note though, most of the money involved doesn't actually go away (although some probably trickled to the commis). Some people (in California probably)made some serious money off of this.

And you (if you are an American Tax-payer) are paying it!


The real problem is laize-fair (spelled wrong) economics. Capitalism must be regulated, or it fails almost as bad as authoritarian communism.

[Bromor Neckbeard]

I can agree with that.  I mean, I'm a conservative who's generally against more government regulation, but in this case it's necessary.

If you have kids, and your teenager promises to be responsible with his car, but then he gets drunk at a party and runs over a couple of mailboxes, it's perfectly reasonable to say, "You're clearly not responsible enough to own this car, you can ride the bus to school next year" and take away his car keys for a year.

Wall Street and the banking industry has done something a damn sight less responsible than drunk driving, and in my book, they need their metaphorical car keys taken away for awhile.  Obviously there's no one private citizen who can do this, so it falls to the government to do it.

That editorial is total tripe, and makes me lose a lot of respect for the man who wrote Ender's Game. 

'Alan Greenspan warned them four years ago.  So did the Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers to the President.  So did Bush's Secretary of the Treasury.'   These are facts.  This financial crisis was completely preventable.  The party that blocked any attempt to prevent it was the Democratic Party.

That's funny, here I thought that the Democrats were a minority in Congress four years ago.  You know, we've only had a Democratic majority for the last two years.  For the six years before that, the Democrats were an irrelevant, ineffective joke.  And may I remind everyone that the guy who wrote the legislation that deregulated the banks in the first place was a Republican?  The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act was written and sponsored by one Phil Gramm, who is not only a Republican, but currently John McCain's economic adviser, and until this current economic crisis, was on the short list to be McCain's Secretary of the Treasury.

Even though President Bush and his administration never said that Iraq sponsored or was linked to 9/11, you could not stand the fact that Americans had that misapprehension -- so you pounded us with the fact that there was no such link.

Regardless of what you might think of Olbermann (and I don't have much use for him personally), he's correct in this case.  Here we see Bush linking Iraq to 9/11.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7SUBGtRIiXo&feature=related

Here's a video of Dick Cheney linking Iraq to 9/11.  I also recommend reading the "more info" over on the right side, it has links to the actual documents regarding this issue.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RytxVNM0llQ&feature=related

Orson Scott Card is nothing more than a shameless partisan hack, and despite my enjoyment of some of his books, I find myself regretting the money that I spent on them before I knew better.

[Frelock]

Orson Scott Card is nothing more than a shameless partisan hack, and despite my enjoyment of some of his books, I find myself regretting the money that I spent on them before I knew better.

I would just like to say that I hope a person's political views don't influence what you think of their other work.  After all, the principle behind free speech is that you can say whatever you want, regardless of whether it's right or wrong.  And if we're going to assume that "all men are created equal" his ideas are just as valuable as yours (not saying they're right, though).  I personally liked many of Orson Scott Card's works, and still like them now, regardless of what I may think about his political and religious views.  When he starts putting those views into books (take Lost Boys for instance), then I don't enjoy those books, and hence, don't read them more than once.  I would do the same for any other product which I don't like.

If a coffee company's CEO hires militants in Central America to keep the coffee farmers from complaining, that's a reason not to buy his coffee.  If he happens to be against abortion, so what?  So long as his coffee's good...

[Bromor Neckbeard]

It's not that I think his work is somehow lessened by his other views, no matter how repulsive they may be.  (Godwin alert!  Incoming!) I mean, Adolf Hitler was ten times the painter I'll ever be, and anything he did later doesn't change that.

When I said that, it was because I resent the fact that my dollars supported somebody like Card.  His views don't change how I feel about his books, but they do make me regret contributing money to him.  There are plenty of other authors who write books as good or better than Ender's Game who AREN'T repulsive lunatic homophobe partisan hacks, and I should have been supporting them instead.

Heck, now I'm curious what you didn't like about Lost Boys!  I rather liked it myself.  As somebody who grew up a non-Mormon in small-town Utah, I could appreciate better than most the problems the main character faced in that novel, and sympathize with him quite well.  I didn't see anything particularly morally offensive in that book.  I think it's perfectly acceptable for a parent to threaten violence to a child molester, or tape-record a teacher that persecutes a child for no reason and ask for her to apologize to the child and treat him fairly.

The only issue that I have with Lost Boys is that, well, I'm not going to say it without proof, as Wikipedia seems to contradict my memory, and nobody in their right mind would believe me without evidence.  Two years ago, my local library had a copy of Maps in a Mirror.  I'll check that book out today when the library opens and if what I remember is true, post a scan of the relevant information in this topic.  If it's not true, I'll delete any references to it.

In the mean time, all I'm going to say is, if Card tells you the sky is blue, you better look out the window instead of taking his word for it.

[Earthquake Damage]

And if we're going to assume that "all men are created equal" his ideas are just as valuable as yours (not saying they're right, though).

"You keep using that phrase.  I don't think it means what you think it means."

If he happens to be against abortion, so what?  So long as his coffee's good...

Assume for a moment that you're pro-choice.  If you buy his coffee, you're giving him money.  Suppose he then makes campaign donations in support of pro-life politicians.  Therein lies a problem.  If you're passionate about the issue, it might make sense not to buy his coffee.

[Servant Corps]

OSC's right wing hack status is entirely reasonable to point out because several people, yourself included, appear to be taking his views as reasonable.

1) They're political views. Opinons. Beliefs. Whatever. I don't think I prefer to state which ones are reasonable and which ones are not because that's just ad homien. I may have my own personal views on what beliefs are 'valid' and 'reasonable', but I don't utter them because they're my own political views, which may also be unreasonable by your standards...while I may view your own views as unreasonable.

Yes, he's right-wing. He's a hack? Prove it by showing me his works are terrible.

2) I've read other rants that are similar to his rant. And I've seen much more crazier people, maniac. Forgive me if I display a level of tolerance.

The opinions in question reveal nothing except an ignorance about the issues and ideologically guided blindness to any person familiar with the issue, regardless of political leanings.

Um...

Listen, the reason I'm not desiring to read this rant at all is because it's a rant. It's ugly, it's horrifying, it's a big old wall of text. That's why I'm not reading it.

He could be ranting about the heroism of drawves and I still wouldn't like it. Ranting is ugly and despiciable. It's basically a sign of impotence, that all you can do is just whine.

If OSC decided, you know, to NOT rant, and wrote his opinons out neatly and consciely, maybe I would read it, and maybe later, I'd determine if his opinons fit your beliefs about OSC having an "ideologically guided blindness to any person familiar with the issue".

But I think lots of people are ideologically guided blindness, and it is especially to those 'familiar with the issues'...because how else are they familar other than checking up on the ideological resources and framing his knowledge based on the same ideologically blindness.

Basically, I don't want to call anybody an idiot behind their backs. OSC may be a hack, but he is a hack based on his WORKS, not based on his ideology.

When he starts putting those views into books (take Lost Boys for instance), then I don't enjoy those books, and hence, don't read them more than once. 

Amen. No writer should promote his ideology within a book.

Assume for a moment that you're pro-choice.  If you buy his coffee, you're giving him money.  Suppose he then makes campaign donations in support of pro-life politicians.

And then...what? Those pro-life politicans wold run for office anyway if they didn't get his donations. Those pro-life politicans would still get the same votes they always have been due to demographics.

And we need to know how MUCH money is being donated to the pro-life politicans that was taken out of my coffee. If $0.01 of the price of your coffee is being donated to pro-life politicans, well...

And what's the alternative? Buy only coffee from pro-choice activists, even if they happen to be low-quality junk? Do tons of research to ensure that everyone believes in exactly your view on pro-lifeness? You have to stop worrying about ideology.

EDIT: Anyway, erm. This thread raised a little bit too much emotion within me concerning the idea of freedom of speech. I'm just going to step away from this thread for a long while.

[mainiac]

Wait, I'm sorry but is this thread titled "Orson Scott Card's fine earlier works and how they relate to politics." or is this thread titled "Orson Scott Card's take on recent politics."  This is a discussion on his political views, namely the views he chose to put out front by recently publishing them.  Why the hell does freedom of speech preclude us from freely pointing out that this is a biased, under informed ignorant piece of rubbish which contains poorly masked racism>

[Earthquake Damage]

1) They're political views. Opinons. Beliefs. Whatever. I don't think I prefer to state which ones are reasonable and which ones are not because that's just ad homien. I may have my own personal views on what beliefs are 'valid' and 'reasonable', but I don't utter them because they're my own political views, which may also be unreasonable by your standards...while I may view your own views as unreasonable.

Fun fact:  You're participating in a political discussion, wherein people are bound to show their political views (though they may not always be directly stated) and comment on others' views.  If you find such discussion silly/worthless/unreasonable/[insert word here], then perhaps you should rethink posting in this thread.

But I think lots of people are ideologically guided blindness, and it is especially to those 'familiar with the issues'...because how else are they familar other than checking up on the ideological resources and framing his knowledge based on the same ideologically blindness.

lolwut?
Becoming knowledgeable on a subject necessarily renders you an unreasonable ideologue?

Amen. No writer should promote his ideology within a book.

Yeah!  Fuck Voltaire!  Fuck Marx!  Fuck [published philosopher or equivalent]!

Those pro-life politicans would still get the same votes they always have been due to demographics.

It's damned hard to get votes if nobody knows who you are.  Campaign money buys, among other things, advertising.

And we need to know how MUCH money is being donated to the pro-life politicans that was taken out of my coffee. If $0.01 of the price of your coffee is being donated to pro-life politicans, well...

"How much" is irrelevant to my point.  I merely illustrated why someone might find it perfectly reasonable to boycott Card's books on account of his politics.  The effect of your $20 may be negligible, but some people value principles more than strict pragmatism.

And what's the alternative? Buy only coffee from pro-choice activists, even if they happen to be low-quality junk?

Or perhaps find someone who doesn't care about the issue.

This thread raised a little bit too much emotion within me concerning the idea of freedom of speech.

I didn't see anyone advocating censorship.  Freedom of speech refers to the right to speak your mind, regardless of what your views may be.  It does not suggest that all views are equally valid, nor does it suggest that no view may be analyzed, refuted, or disdained.

I'm just going to step away from this thread for a long while.

Ohhh, I see.  Runnin' away, eh?  Come back here, you yellow bastard, and get what's coming to you!  I'll bite your legs off! 

[Virroken]

Amen. No writer should promote his ideology within a book.

Yeah!  Fuck Voltaire!  Fuck Marx!  Fuck [published philosopher or equivalent]!

Pretty sure he meant "within a novel", considering he was referring to OSC's LB. I'm sure you just wanted to point out his less than perfect word choice, but it still comes off as quote mining.

[lumin]

Amen. No writer should promote his ideology within a book.

Yeah!  Fuck Voltaire!  Fuck Marx!  Fuck [published philosopher or equivalent]!

Pretty sure he meant "within a novel", considering he was referring to OSC's LB. I'm sure you just wanted to point out his less than perfect word choice, but it still comes off as quote mining.

What's wrong with putting your ideology in a novel or book (or any art medium)?  Didn't Tolkien do some of that concerning his feelings about WW2 in LotR?

Hollywood movies are like novels, and I see political propaganda in them all the time (mostly from the left).

[Demetrious]

I mean, I knew he was a totally crazy, homophobic right-winger, but this...

Ad hominem attack #4729174.

I see a lot of people in this thread calling Card a homophobic right-wing hack, but almost nobody backing it up by disproving his points...

Also, he's not blaming Democrats soley for the problem (though it's clear he doesn't like them.) He's just royally cheesed off that his local newspaper isn't giving the Democrats their due blame, too.