I posted this here, because I never go to the OSC discussion, and it seems pretty dead over there.
Posted by Bella Bee (Member # 7027) on :
Oh dear. (Is there anything else left to say?)
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
You get what you expect?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Wait, this is real?
quote:Here's the punch line: Old King Hamlet was an inadequate king because he was gay, an evil person because he was gay, and, ultimately, a demonic and ghostly father of lies who convinces young Hamlet to exact imaginary revenge on innocent people. The old king was actually murdered by Horatio, in revenge for molesting him as a young boy—along with Laertes, and Rosencrantz, and Guildenstern, thereby turning all of them gay. We learn that Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are now "as fusty and peculiar as an old married couple. I pity the woman who tries to wed her way into that house."
Hamlet is damned for all the needless death he inflicts, and Dead Gay Dad will now do gay things to him for the rest of eternity: "Welcome to Hell, my beautiful son. At last we'll be together as I always longed for us to be."
I just want to confirm here, this is a real thing he really did? Not a joke?
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
jesus. this is beyond absurd.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote: Hamlet is also secure in his religious faith, with absolute and unshakable beliefs about the nature of death and the afterlife. He isn't particularly hung up on Ophelia, either. Throughout the novella, Prince Hamlet displays the emotional depth of a blank sheet of paper.
Sadly, most of OSC's characters display these virtues these days. Unshakable faith in their ideas. The convenience of always being right, and thus no need for difficult and emotionally taxing reassessment of, well, anything.
I think this started to really take shape with the Shadow novels. These days, I expect OSC characters to be incapable of change. The only "change" they usually display is actually just a change in what we know about them. He trades narrative tricks for actual growth of the characters. "Oh, you didn't *know* Bean was half black? Tut Tut sir. You shouldn't have assumed he wasn't. I know it seems like the kind of thing that might have been important in some way when he was a street urchin who didn't know his parentage... Oh, you didn't realize that my main character could speak a dozen languages and dialects? Well, be more observant."
Anyway, his Romeo and Juliet update was ghastly. The urge to do this seems to me like just one more eff you to academia and intellectuals. Oh well.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Hamlet: To be, or not to be, that is the question: however, seeing as suicide is bad, I will not ponder it anymore.
:Exeunt:
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: Wait, this is real?
quote:Here's the punch line: Old King Hamlet was an inadequate king because he was gay, an evil person because he was gay, and, ultimately, a demonic and ghostly father of lies who convinces young Hamlet to exact imaginary revenge on innocent people. The old king was actually murdered by Horatio, in revenge for molesting him as a young boy—along with Laertes, and Rosencrantz, and Guildenstern, thereby turning all of them gay. We learn that Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are now "as fusty and peculiar as an old married couple. I pity the woman who tries to wed her way into that house."
Hamlet is damned for all the needless death he inflicts, and Dead Gay Dad will now do gay things to him for the rest of eternity: "Welcome to Hell, my beautiful son. At last we'll be together as I always longed for us to be."
I just want to confirm here, this is a real thing he really did? Not a joke?
Well, what do you mean? I don't think the reviewer's making up the "old king was actually murdered by Horatio, in revenge for molesting him as a young boy—along with Laertes" part, but the rest of it seems like it might well be somewhat distorted. The last part especially. (The part about the old king wanting to "do gay things" to Hamlet forever. That's not a fair reading of the quote used to substantiate that claim, and so it makes me suspect the preceding claims are similarly distorted. The review is full of this kind of thing; it doesn't seem trustworthy.)
I don't especially want to pay $25 just to figure out whether I agree with the way the story is described in this review, though.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
I thought his Romeo and Juliet update was pretty solid, as was his Taming of the Shrew. I haven't read the Merchant of Venice, though.
What was your specific complaint, Orincoro?
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
I agree with the reviewer's moral concerns, assuming they're accurate, but he/she also seems to have an instinctive revulsion to the idea of Shakespear fanfiction, which I don't think is warranted.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: I thought his Romeo and Juliet update was pretty solid, as was his Taming of the Shrew. I haven't read the Merchant of Venice, though.
What was your specific complaint, Orincoro?
I didn't do an in-depth reading f it, but the sections posted on this site were clunky, lacked any charm in the language, and as I recall, reduced the dramatic tension of the piece to that of a flaccid rubber band. I found it ghastly to behold, but that's my taste. That is to say, I have taste. Writing such a thing is a testament to having little.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Raymond Arnold: I agree with the reviewer's moral concerns, assuming they're accurate, but he/she also seems to have an instinctive revulsion to the idea of Shakespear fanfiction, which I don't think is warranted.
For my part, I have basic reservations about rewriting someone's work when it is not necessary to do so. And while it takes some practice, understanding Shakespeare in the original is possible, and it is an important experience that helps one to understand the language his works so heavily influenced.
I've also read a lot of Chaucer in the original, and though in That case I think the distance between us and the language warrants wholesale translations, again, I found the experience to be worthwhile.
The issue for me is: is it necessary? And in the case f Shakespeare, I just don't believe that it is. If you want to tell the stories yourself, do a wholesale rewrite. Nobody owns this material. But this kind of thing is sold as Shakespeare, when really it's using The bard as a kind of brand or franchise to sell something else. I feel much the same way about updates of classical and romantic symphonies that were popular in past decades, and enjoy some success today- sometimes a change is necessary to suit the new age of performers, or instruments, but seating 60 violinists in a concerto written for 20 is not quiet the same as rewriting the themes of that concerto to be more pleasing to a modern ear. The instruments do change, but the work is the work on some basic level.
It's an amorphous distinction, I realize, but we are not situated on any fine lines when it comes to OSC. This is not alban berg setting the Art of Fugue for orchestra- this s something anti-intellectual, anti-art, and sinister.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Raymond Arnold: I agree with the reviewer's moral concerns, assuming they're accurate, but he/she also seems to have an instinctive revulsion to the idea of Shakespear fanfiction, which I don't think is warranted.
Well when it's shakespeare rewrites for modern audiences that turns the scene where hamlet learns of ophelia's death into this ...
quote:Horatio brought him his sword. "Laertes is looking for you," he said. "I don't have time for Laertes. He must know I didn't mean to kill his father," Hamlet said. "It's not his father," said Horatio. "It's his sister." "Ophelia? I didn't touch her." "She killed herself. Walked out into the sea, dressed in her heaviest gown. A funeral gown. Two soldiers went in after her, and a boat was launched, but when they brought her body back, she was dead." "And for that he wants to kill me?"
Also: no soliloquizing on the nature of life, death and the afterlife. Just because, you know....boring, hard to understand moral contemplation. Which is better served by gutting out the bard's musing and hamfistedly hammering in the author's own mormonism-compatible moral assurances in the void left over.
ahhhhh this is all so bad. I need to find a few additional sources on this text and see if it's as bad as raintaxi makes it sound.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
And anyway, as with the performance of music, the original material provides SO MUCH to work with and to interpret in so many ways, a written update seems, again, to be unnecessary and an act of unmaking that is cruel to the original work.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:I didn't do an in-depth reading f it, but the sections posted on this site were clunky, lacked any charm in the language, and as I recall, reduced the dramatic tension of the piece to that of a flaccid rubber band. I found it ghastly to behold, but that's my taste. That is to say, I have taste. Writing such a thing is a testament to having little.
Ah! A gentlemen of taste.
Here's the link to Romeo and Juliet- those of you who are interested, I encourage you to go check it out.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
Nooooooooo! He probably took over a character to nag everyone about marriage and fidelity and monogamy being the best way to raise children! Posted by natural_mystic (Member # 11760) on :
quote: (The part about the old king wanting to "do gay things" to Hamlet forever. That's not a fair reading of the quote used to substantiate that claim, and so it makes me suspect the preceding claims are similarly distorted. The review is full of this kind of thing; it doesn't seem trustworthy.)
I'm curious whether it was an unfair reading. I thought it was probably fair if raintaxi is correct that it is clear that Hamlet himself was spared his father's attentions by his mother. With this in mind, my parsing of "Welcome to Hell, my beautiful son. At last we'll be together as I always longed for us to be." supports raintaxi's view. - it seems implausible that Hamlet's father always wanted them to be in Hell together. - presumably they were previously located in the same abode at some time prior to the father's murder, so the sense in which he wants them to be together is presumably different from the sense in which they were together. - 'being together' is not an uncommon euphemism
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
"Welcome to Hell, my beautiful son. At last we'll be together as I always longed for us to be." says the character rewritten by a boardmember of NOM to be an evil serial gay molester. In hell.
Yeah, I'm sure Hamlet's safe.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
For the record, I'm quite fond of OSC's rewrite of Romeo and Juliet; I think it's quite well-done, not least because it manages to resurrect the spirit of the puns and wordplay in the text for an intended audience who would otherwise need to interpret them through footnotes.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
So I guess it's time to bring up the fact that he wrote this when reviewing Airbender.
quote:It always baffles me that movie makers have such blind arrogance that they can take great works of art by other people and then add in their own "ideas" to "improve" them.
One thinks of some moron redoing the Mona Lisa with more cleavage, so she'll be "more attractive to the audience"; or turning the horns on Michelangelo's statue of Moses into flowers, thus removing the symbol of divine revelation; or adding a new "comic" motif now and then throughout Ravel's Bolero because the original is so "relentless" and "boring."
he's
i dont
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
I doubt OSC would ever say that he is "improving" any of these Shakespearean plays. Even a cursory look at his descriptions of Shakespeare makes it quite obvious he has nothing but the highest opinion of him. OSC was studying and writing theater long before he started writing novels, and continues to write for the stage today.
The idea that he believes himself qualified to fix Shakespeare is not borne up by evidence, it's almost ludicrous. His discussion of just how great the plays are, reveals a person who clearly understands the words, and what makes them so wonderful.
Further OSC was speaking to movie makers, not all artistic adaptations of any art. Were he doing that, he'd have to frown on all plays, since in essence they are interpretations of their original material. He'd have to despise musical covers of other musician's songs, something I've never heard anybody do.
His retelling of Hamlet is obviously not because he feels Hamlet is flawed, but because we as a society have drifted away from the material such that we can't appreciate it properly. I doubt he would ever say, "Read Hamlet's Father instead of the original Hamlet!" If anything, his writing is probably written in the hopes that readers will enjoy the text, and be curious to read the original.
I doubt OSC would be anything but thrilled if just one reader read one of his adaptations and went on to read Shakespeare in the original English.
Posted by Jonesy (Member # 12636) on :
In the next paragraph OSC writes
quote:If you're going to adapt a brilliant original into a different form or medium, treat it with respect. You may need to cut or combine incidents in order to make the film version fit within the allotted time, but there is no excuse for adding new material
He makes comparisons to painting, sculpture, and music, so it's not like he thinks this a mistake that only applies to filmmakers, and I think turning King Hamel into a gay rapist and using Shakespeare's work as an anti-gay mouthpiece certainly counts a "adding new material".
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
An interesting first post. Been a rash of those lately...
Posted by Jonesy (Member # 12636) on :
Hearing that your favorite author as a child is corrupting Hamlet to ridicule a part of your identity has that effect.
Posted by Parkour (Member # 12078) on :
I think this rewrite is less about making the work accessible to modern audiences and more about making it more religiously compatible with mormon views, taking out questions and philosophizing about the nature of the afterlife and replacing it with clearcut moralizing and "here is how it is". So you can "introduce" mormon kids to it because it has been made more appropriate for them. And his homophobic agenda gets in there too apparently.
Let me guess where copies of this are going and where they are going to be used. Let me just guess.
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
Hi Jonesy! Welcome to hatrack. You're wrong. Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
How does turning Hamlet's father into an incestuous man who also rapes young boys, have anything to do with homosexuality? Or should we similarly castigate Frank Herbert for having an antagonist who drugs, rapes, and then kills boys?
Bear in mind, if there are other aspects of the play I have missed, that speak more to an anti-homosexuality message, I've yet to be made aware of them. And I found review linked above to be obnoxious reading.
Again, he is speaking about taking one medium and adapting it to another. Specifically into the limited time constraints of film. He isn't talking about film remakes of films, or paintings of paintings. He himself wrote Enchantment which is a retelling of Sleeping Beauty, his Earthbound series is based on The Book of Mormon, Alvin Maker's bones are found in Joseph Smith's life. Women of Genesis is full of literary additions that add layers to the sparse Biblical account. Stone Tables is a play based on the story of Moses.
Film already must make sacrifices of its source material so as to fit it all into a two hour or so presentation. If you have such a limitation there is no excuse for adding new scenes, you rarely if ever please the audience with the additional cuts that make room for the new material, and the new material itself rarely fits properly with the original artists vision.
What OSC did with Hamlet is more akin to taking say The Marriage of Figaro by Mozart, itself an adaptation of a French play turned into an opera, and putting it to country music, bringing all the notes down an octave or so, and translating it into English.
Having said all that, I'm not sure why he felt it necessary to make Hamlet's father an evil man, who even in the afterlife was attempting to cause mayhem through deception. Maybe he wanted to make the tragic elements of Hamlet that much more deep, as it turns out his entire quest for revenge after all the agonizing over whether he should go through with it, was actually his father's final ploy to have a chance at committing the ultimate evil act he never managed to commit by his timely murder. And now having tricked his son into committing murder, he might get to.
Does Gertrude protecting Hamlet, and thus making her a stronger character garner brownie points for OSC being a feminist then?
[ September 08, 2011, 02:10 AM: Message edited by: BlackBlade ]
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Parkour: I think this rewrite is less about making the work accessible to modern audiences and more about making it more religiously compatible with mormon views, taking out questions and philosophizing about the nature of the afterlife and replacing it with clearcut moralizing and "here is how it is". So you can "introduce" mormon kids to it because it has been made more appropriate for them. And his homophobic agenda gets in there too apparently.
Let me guess where copies of this are going and where they are going to be used. Let me just guess.
I'd love to hear your guess. The church wouldn't buy materials like Hamlet's Father and use them in meetings. They don't use almost anything written unless the church itself publishes it. You can of course bring outside literature into Sunday School and use it as a reference, but the idea that somebody would write a play, with the intent of mass producing it for Mormons in their meetings is really untenable. For one thing you'd have to present the thing over the course of several weeks, and another Mormons are not particularly disposed to listening to the texts of plays in Sunday School. Where a teacher to use Hamlet's Father on any sort of regular basis, he'd probably be told to stick to the official material the church has already produced.
And what on earth does "Here is how it is" mean? The theology that is true in Hamlet's Father is not more compatible with Mormon belief than it is with Islamic ones. Mormons don't believe that evil men after they die can appear as ghosts and talk to us. If they were going to use homosexuality as a negative attribute of any character, why not change the character of Claudius? It fits much neater if that's the cheap shot you want to make. Finally why do you think a character who questions the nature of the afterlife is anymore troublesome for Mormons to process than say a character who can't decide whether to obey their mother or their father? Mormons ruminate on the afterlife all the time, there's hardly any consensus on what goes on in the next life. Why should a reworked Shakespearean play by OSC be the lens by which clarity is established? Most Mormons probably don't even know who OSC is, I've certainly found that tons of them in Utah don't have any idea who he is. This says nothing about the majority of Mormons who don't even live in the US.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:How does turning Hamlet's father into an incestuous man who also rapes young boys, have anything to do with homosexuality?
I'm pretty sure you can answer that for yourself?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:How does turning Hamlet's father into an incestuous man who also rapes young boys, have anything to do with homosexuality?
I'm pretty sure you can answer that for yourself?
No I can't, I don't see the relation. Incest is frowned on in our society, and pedophilia even more so. We also look down on those who equate pedophilia as being somehow related to homosexuality. Or more especially when opponents of homosexuality say, "What if we allow gay marriage, what's to stop pedophiles?!"
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
Homosexuality and pedophilia are not related and shouldn't be considered the same thing. The fact that they are often connected is disgraceful. That being said, however, it is something OSC has done in his essays so assuming that he is trying to connect the two is not completely unfair.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
If Hamlet was a woman, and Hamlet's father were doing all the exact same things, but with young girls, morally I doubt OSC would find it any less despicable.
So why then is it somehow a shot at homosexuality?
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: If Hamlet was a woman, and Hamlet's father were doing all the exact same things, but with young girls, morally I doubt OSC would find it any less despicable.
So why then is it somehow a shot at homosexuality?
Because the evil of homosexual pedophilia is often used to construe homosexuals as depraved perverts, by association. Essentially- the fact of being homosexual is claimed as the cause of being a pedophile, while heterosexual pedophilia is regarded as a different moral or psychological ill.
As Scholarette suggests, the implication that this is what is being done is only fair in light of other statements from the same source which conflate pedophilia and homosexuality.
quote: We also look down on those who equate pedophilia as being somehow related to homosexuality. Or more especially when opponents of homosexuality say, "What if we allow gay marriage, what's to stop pedophiles?!"
You and I look down on the people who equate the two. But I am quite sure the numbers of people who look down on incest and pedophilia in general are much higher than the numbers of people who look down on this kind of thing. I mean, the proof of that is contained in the statement itself: we express our disapproval at the people who do this. There are people who do this. And while we all (all functioning members of society) abhor sexual abuse and incest, we don't all abhor the notion of conflating homosexuality and pedophilia. Many people are okay with that kind of thing.
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
I think it is that Hamlet's father's victims become gay because of the experience.
Didn't OSC write a really disturbing short story once about a guy who has incestuous thoughts about his daughter?
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
OSC has written many disturbing accounts of abusive and dysfunctional families. Incest, spousal and sibling abuse, homosexuality, pedophilia- it often seems most of his characters are victims of one kind or another.
And yes, the story you're probably referring to appears in The Worthing Saga, and it is about Abner Dune's lover, who's crippled father makes pathetic attempts to initiate a sexual relationship with her, until he dies, and she loses her mind.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: So then why then is it somehow a shot at homosexuality?
Here, let me make a hypothetical scenario for you.
Let's say I'm a somewhat known artist, and I am by now well-known to write vitriolic screeds where I described Mormonism as a deviant lifestyle that we can not accept, that it should be purposefully kept illegal to protect society from exposure to it and force Mormons to keep their disgusting behavior discreet, and then I write this:
quote:"The dark secret of Mormon society — the one that dares not speak its name — is how many Mormons first entered into that world through a disturbing seduction or rape or molestation or abuse, and how many of them yearn to get out of the Mormon community and live normally.
It’s that desire for normality, that discontent with perpetual adolescent spirituality, that is at least partly behind this hunger for Mormon "spirituality."
Then I write a remake of Hamlet where Old King Horatio is a Mormon, and he molested four children and this molestation turned them into Mormons.
Would you really be asking others, in this situation, how this is 'supposed to be a shot against Mormons?"
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
The Publisher's Weekly review back from when this got released seems to confirm the interpretations of the raintaxi review:
quote:Hamlet's Father Orson Scott Card, Subterranean (www.subterraneanpress.com), $35 (96p) ISBN 978-1-59606-269-6
Hugo and Nebula–winner Card (Pathfinder) tinkers with the backstory of Shakespeare's play in this flimsy novella. When Hamlet is a boy, his father snubs him while doting on all his friends in a manner that the reader will immediately identify as perverse. After a blissful interlude at school, Hamlet returns to Elsinore for the events of the play. Card's Hamlet is more calculating, less dark, and almost completely isolated. He despises his father; his close relationship with his mother is only briefly shown; and even his closest friends, Horatio and Laertes, get little page time. The writing and pacing have the feel of a draft for a longer and more introspective work that might have fleshed out Hamlet's indecision and brooding; instead, the focus is primarily on linking homosexuality with the life-destroying horrors of pedophilia, a focus most fans of possibly bisexual Shakespeare are unlikely to appreciate. (Apr.)
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:And yes, the story you're probably referring to appears in The Worthing Saga, and it is about Abner Dune's lover, who's crippled father makes pathetic attempts to initiate a sexual relationship with her, until he dies, and she loses her mind.
More likely, the story scholarette is thinking of is Eumenides in the Fourth Floor Lavoratory.
Anyway, I found that story more disturbing that the one you referenced in the Worthing Saga.
quote:I think this rewrite is less about making the work accessible to modern audiences and more about making it more religiously compatible with mormon views
Let's back up a second:
1) What do you know about Mormon beliefs about the afterlife? 2) Have you read this story?
Posted by Bella Bee (Member # 7027) on :
Since it's apparently been in print for three years, has anyone here actually read this novella?
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
quote:Orson Scott Card has rewritten Hamlet. The back of this slim novella boasts that once we have read this "revelatory version of the Hamlet story, Shakespeare's play will be much more fun to watch—because now you'll know what's really going on." The author has previously updated other Shakespearean plays, rendering them more intelligible to modern audiences while supposedly retaining the “flavor” of the originals.
See, I have a problem with this basic premise - that someone needs to tell me what's "really going on" in another work when I can just read the original work myself and figure out "what's really going on."
Shakespeare is not that difficult to understand if you apply yourself, or perhaps with the help of a good English literature teacher. Not that I consider myself all that good, but I taught Julius Caesar to inner city kids who hate to read last year, and they truly enjoyed it. Once they got over their fear of the unusual language, they got into the story and were fascinated by Brutus' manipulation of the facts to suit his own interpretation of them, and got into the question of who is the hero in this play, if there is one. We studied Brutus and Antony's speeches and how they worked the crowds - and related it to how persuasive speakers can do the same today.
If, with a little guidance, kids like the ones I teach can figure out what's going on in a Shakespeare play and appreciate it for what it is, then why would we even need anything like these re-tellings? I just cringe at the thought of messing with classics - I feel it robs people of the chance to appreciate their brilliance and complexity without preconceived notions. I'd rather people read Hamlet without going into it thinking that Hamlet's father was a child molester.
Now, gotta go - my darling students are about to come in so we can talk about Mark Twain. Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
What Belle said . Not to mention the fact that there is often a level of ambiguity in most complex literature-- for example, who is the hero in Julius Caesar or is there one? What OSC has done is simply write his essay interpretation into fiction form. I just seems a little heavy handed, even aside from the appalling plot manipulation.
I love Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead. When I was a teenager, the movie was a revelation and I recently saw the play in London-- done very well. Aside from the relentless wordplay, which is all new and/or interactive with the text, it is actually telling a story that is at once harmonious with the original text and clearly quite separate from it. You don't watch Hamlet and see Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead-- usually you are fully focused on Hamlet.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Belle:
I don't like the idea of revelatory fiction either. I think of works like the "sequel" to Gone With the Wind, or Les Miserables, or the Phantom of the Opera and cringe.
As for updating the original work-- I see LOTS of value in that, for Shakespeare. Take the first scene of Romeo and Juliet-- Card's update, as Tom noted, makes it comprehensible to audiences without destroying the authenticity. Shakespeare's works are plays, not prose; they are meant, in my opinion, to be performed and understood in the moment that the words are spoken.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:If, with a little guidance, kids like the ones I teach can figure out what's going on in a Shakespeare play and appreciate it for what it is, then why would we even need anything like these re-tellings?
Because in order to love something, you can't really maintain an academic distance from it. It's one thing to know intellectually that when a teenager is snarking around the phrase, "I bite my thumb at you, sir," he's doing the rough equivalent of scratching his forehead with his middle finger, but it's another thing to be able to feel the way an audience steeped in that culture would actually feel in response. The way I look at it, any rewrite that brings the sense of the material closer to more people is a God-send, especially since the original material remains out there for people who want it.
Posted by AchillesHeel (Member # 11736) on :
quote: Shakespeare is not that difficult to understand if you apply yourself
Apparently not, while reading Hamlet myself I never caught on to the absolute fact that gay's are evil and they are everything wrong with everything. Maybe Shakespeare only wanted enlightened christians to be able understand that point so he hid it in a secret christian way, and being an atheist I do not have that particular decoder ring.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Bella Bee: Since it's apparently been in print for three years, has anyone here actually read this novella?
I have. I own a copy of the quartet in which it was originally published.
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
So, rivka, how is the story? Also ScottR got the story. Eumenides in the Fourth Floor Lavoratory- most disturbing OSC story I have read.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Samp: For one thing, in this Hamlet remake, the king's pedophilia doesn't turn them all gay. One of them is gay and struggles with that, and sure I'll grant one might speculate that that fits in with essays OSC has written on the subject. But even in the quote you cited OSC isn't saying that all gay people must have been sexually abused as children.
His literature has quite a few gay characters Anton/Zdorab and there is absolutely nothing about their being abused by a pedophile. In the latter's case there's actually quite a pretty lengthy discussion about the horrors of living in a society that is bigoted against homosexuals. Is Hamlet's father sin that he was churning out gay people with his sexual advances? No! It was because he was self-centered, child molesting, near son rapist.
There's no soliloquies where homosexuality as an institution is discussed, nor are there any lines about gay people being a blight on society. The hero isn't some champion for heterosexuality. There's isn't a history of villains in OSC's literature being homosexual.
We both know OSC has vocally expressed his opposition to same sex marriage, but if his fiction was conceived as a vehicle for teaching people that gays are evil or somehow deserving of scorn, it's doing a very poor job, and not because it's trying and not succeeding.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I am having a hard time envisioning this as anything more than a George Washington's ax* version of "Shakespeare". It seems that the plot has been altered, the characterizations have been distorted, the deep themes have been replaced with something else entirely, and the poetry has been excised. What of Shakespeare is left? I have no problem with people using Shakespeare as a springboard for their own works - Shakespeare did that himself more often than not; I do have a problem with touting this as a clarification, amplification, or worse, substitute for the original.
*Or Ship of Theseus. At least George and Theseus had their artifact replaces with similar pieces. Shakespeare was not granted this.
ETA: BlackBlade, any happy, well-adjusted gay people in OSC's fiction? He may not portray them as evil, but he does portray them as doomed except for that one sad character who has really bad sex in order to procreate in the Homecoming series.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
So true and depressing. Also that poor fellow in Songmaster. Someone should tell him that gay guys really typically go for MEN not boys.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
kmbboots: What does well-adjusted mean? Zdorab certainly is comfortable in his homosexuality, the rest of society is what has a problem. Is there a character who is comfortable gay who is just hopping along doing their own thing and happy? Perpetual happiness is not a hallmark for just about any OSC character. Further, there are no intellectual African Americans as far as I know, that doesn't mean OSC thinks the black race is mentally inferior. A lack of A is not evidence for a belief in B.
Posted by odouls268 (Member # 2145) on :
quote:Originally posted by Synesthesia: Nooooooooo! He probably took over a character to nag everyone about marriage and fidelity and monogamy being the best way to raise children!
Wait a minute. Marriage and fidelity and monogamy are... not good things, then? I am so confused now.
Posted by odouls268 (Member # 2145) on :
quote:Originally posted by scholarette: I think it is that Hamlet's father's victims become gay because of the experience.
Didn't OSC write a really disturbing short story once about a guy who has incestuous thoughts about his daughter?
You actually might be talking about a short story from the Changed Man in which a father actually has sex with his daughter and is thereafter haunted by a physical manifestation of his own guilt and shame. I think it was Eumenides in the Fourth FLoor Lavatory, maybe?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by odouls268:
quote:Originally posted by Synesthesia: Nooooooooo! He probably took over a character to nag everyone about marriage and fidelity and monogamy being the best way to raise children!
Wait a minute. Marriage and fidelity and monogamy are... not good things, then? I am so confused now.
They are not the only good things, nor the best things for everyone.
Posted by odouls268 (Member # 2145) on :
quote: They are not the only good things, nor the best things for everyone.
You are absolutely right that they are not the only good things. I myself think honesty is a good thing, and a nice mutton lettuce and tomato sandwich if the mutton is nice and lean...and cough drops. But none of this changes the fact that by and large, fidelity and monogamy in marriage are VERY good things and should be honored.
Posted by odouls268 (Member # 2145) on :
Has anyone here actually read this Hamlet rewrite? Because I'm reading a lot of whimpering and complaining about it.
It's eerily reminiscent of the uproar and online backlash concerning the movie Dogma before Kevin Smith had even completed the script.
Seems a little premature to decide ahead of time to hate something, and to write essays about why.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
quote:Well when it's shakespeare rewrites for modern audiences that turns the scene where hamlet learns of ophelia's death into this ...
quote:For my part, I have basic reservations about rewriting someone's work when it is not necessary to do so.
I only have reservations about bad fiction, period. To some extent I think it's silly to, say, remake a movie that just came out 5 years ago, but ultimately it matters whether the remake is worth watching on its own merits.
And in Shakespear's case, I absolutely agree, both with OSC's description of why he rewrote Shrew, and Tom's explanation. If you want to actually experience what Shakespear's audience experienced, you cannot do so when you have to mentally translate every line.
There's value to mentally translating things and gaining an understanding a different culture, but that's not what Shakespear created his work for originally.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Shakespeare doesn't have to be "translated". It is written in modern English which, while it may be unfamiliar in syntax and occasionally require a stretch in vocabulary, is hardly a different language. My question is, what is the point of Shakespeare without the beauty of the language, the rich characters and the deep universal themes? If you take those away, why call it Shakespeare? Lift the plot, change the names and make it your own.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
I've been told that English is indeed a different language from American and that immigrants to the States should speak American.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Shakespeare doesn't have to be "translated". It is written in modern English which, while it may be unfamiliar in syntax and occasionally require a stretch in vocabulary, is hardly a different language.
Shakespeare often has to be translated. That's one of the main points of why people don't like to read it. The archaic language gets in the way of the story.
quote:My question is, what is the point of Shakespeare without the beauty of the language, the rich characters and the deep universal themes? If you take that away, why call it Shakespeare? Lift the plot, change the names and make it your own.
Hamlet's Father isn't a play. It's a novella. So...you know, apples, oranges.
As for OSC's adaptations, the adaptations succeeds in making the language better understood and thus capable of beauty; thus making characters richer to modern audiences; thus making the themes more distinguishable.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Shakespeare doesn't have to be "translated". It is written in modern English which, while it may be unfamiliar in syntax and occasionally require a stretch in vocabulary, is hardly a different language. My question is, what is the point of Shakespeare without the beauty of the language, the rich characters and the deep universal themes? If you take those away, why call it Shakespeare? Lift the plot, change the names and make it your own.
If you understood Shakespear the first time through with no mental stress and painful effort, then power to you. I did not, neither did many people I know.
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
Most Shakespeare dialog I have to read over and over again before I think I know what it means. Even then I am probably wrong most of the time.
When its performed on stage, I get the basics of what's going on from context, but the jokes and subtleties of the plot are lost on me if I hadn't already studied the play in school.
I doubt I am alone.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I didn't understand the written word at all before I learned to read. Nor did I understand all the big words grown ups used the first time I heard them. Learning them may have been effort but certainly not painful or stressful.
If you don't like Shakespeare, so what? Find something more to your taste. It isn't a crime. Read (or watch) what you do enjoy. Why dumb down Shakespeare until it isn't Shakespeare anymore? It feels like deciding to repaint Monet using only primary colors and getting rid of all those fuzzy parts.
Scott, it seems that if there is beauty in the language it is Card's not Shakespeare's, the themes and characters are enough changed to also be Card's rather than Shakespeare's.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
quote:Originally posted by odouls268:
quote:Originally posted by Synesthesia: Nooooooooo! He probably took over a character to nag everyone about marriage and fidelity and monogamy being the best way to raise children!
Wait a minute. Marriage and fidelity and monogamy are... not good things, then? I am so confused now.
They are good things, you just don't need every character in the book going on and on about how good they are when you already KNOW they are good.
Also, gay monogamy and marriage is nice too. So there. It's like, please put down the hammer. I GET THE POINT!
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:it seems that if there is beauty in the language it is Card's not Shakespeare's, the themes and characters are enough changed to also be Card's rather than Shakespeare's.
Are you talking about Hamlet's Father (in which case, I don't disagree, but I haven't read the book), or about OSC's adaptations?
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:Also, gay monogamy and marriage is nice too. So there. It's like, please put down the hammer. I GET THE POINT!
Syn, are you planning on buying any more OSC books? I thought you'd stopped after the Shadow books.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R:
quote:it seems that if there is beauty in the language it is Card's not Shakespeare's, the themes and characters are enough changed to also be Card's rather than Shakespeare's.
Are you talking about Hamlet's Father (in which case, I don't disagree, but I haven't read the book), or about OSC's adaptations?
As far as the language goes, all of them. As far as themes and characters, Hamlet's Father. I don't know if Card held true to the themes and characters in the other adaptations; it seems clear (unless all the reviews are false) that he warped both for the novella.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
As far as the adaptations go, you're wrong.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I am wrong about not knowing if Card changed the characters and themes?
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
My apologies-- I read and responded to something I didn't understand, which you weren't arguing anyway.
Have you read OSC's adaptations of Shakespeare's plays? They're in the Hatrack Library.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
quote:If you don't like Shakespeare, so what? Find something more to your taste. It isn't a crime. Read (or watch) what you do enjoy. Why dumb down Shakespeare until it isn't Shakespeare anymore? It feels like deciding to repaint Monet using only primary colors and getting rid of all those fuzzy parts.
No. You do not get to be a monopoly or authority on how to enjoy something.
Most of my favorite things are reimaginings of other things. I LIKE the deliberate contrast between the original and the new thing. I don't know if OSC's adaptations are any good, but their particular goodness isn't really the point.
I'm fine with venting steam about nonsensical things that artists have done with stuff you like, and if that's all you meant to do I apologize for taking you too seriously, but I'm not okay with straight faced "you are not allowed to like this."
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
No apologies necessary. Since I don't have a problem with Shakespeare and stopped enjoying Card's fiction when I discovered his essays I have not read them. I don't know if he stayed true to the characters and themes. I assume he held to the plot and just simplified the language. I don't find that particularly offensive just pointless (and perhaps a little sad). I suppose they are something like those Readers' Digest Best Loved Books for Young Readers. I enjoyed those as a child.
I am offended by the line, "because now you'll know what's really going on" in the product description of Hamlet's Father. There is no evidence that any of the particular depravity that Card superimposed on that story is "going on" anywhere except for in Card's mind.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Raymond Arnold:
quote:If you don't like Shakespeare, so what? Find something more to your taste. It isn't a crime. Read (or watch) what you do enjoy. Why dumb down Shakespeare until it isn't Shakespeare anymore? It feels like deciding to repaint Monet using only primary colors and getting rid of all those fuzzy parts.
No. You do not get to be a monopoly or authority on how to enjoy something.
Most of my favorite things are reimaginings of other things. I LIKE the deliberate contrast between the original and the new thing. I don't know if OSC's adaptations are any good, but their particular goodness isn't really the point.
I'm fine with venting steam about nonsensical things that artists have done with stuff you like, and if that's all you meant to do I apologize for taking you too seriously, but I'm not okay with straight faced "you are not allowed to like this."
I didn't say that you weren't allowed to enjoy the adaptations. (And, of course, Card is allowed to write them and make money off them as they are well out of copyright.) I said that it was wrong to call it Shakespeare and that, if you want Shakespeare, you should read Shakespeare. Of course, I also fail to see the point of decaf coffee, non-alcoholic beer and diet ice cream when the real think is actually better for you anyway.
I am offended by what appears to be a perversion of Hamlet rather than an adaptation. However, if it appeals to the tastes of some people, there is nothing I can or should do about it. I can voice an opinion about it, though.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
I don't think that line was meant to refer at all to Card's interpretation, I think it was meant to refer simply to the audience's ability to follow. (Could be wrong, but I don't think so)
This doesn't mean the language needs to be *simplified*, but it does mean (if I were to consider Card's work successful) that the puns and poetry need to be reworked to reflect modern english sensibilities.
If he simply REMOVED them (looks like in some cases he did), well yeah, that's just sad, from an artistic standpoint. But I take major issue with the opening point:
quote:Every new performance of the Bard is also an act of interpretation, sometimes a drastic and transformative one. We still have authoritative versions of the scripts afterwards, to be reedited and reinterpreted. However, Card's essay concludes with the following:
quote:The purpose is to present Taming of the Shrew in a way that recovers, not the original text of Shakespeare’s play, but the original experience of it—a fast-moving, instantly comprehensible, pun- and bawdy-filled, ironic, self-parodying comedy with a legitimate moral lesson about the relationship between man and woman in marriage.
Note that he considers it a virtue for a text to be "instantly comprehensible," as though it were a very bad thing to confront an audience with something they don't already know, understand, and believe
In this particular case, Card is not saying that. He's saying that his goal for the play is to capture the original sensation of experiencing Taming ot the Shrew, and one of the features of the original experience was that you didn't have to take a semester long class to understand it. That's a legitimate artistic goal.
Taking a semester long class to fully understand the beauty of the original is also a worthwhile way to experience it, but it shouldn't have to be the only way.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Which line?
If you need a class to understand Shakespeare and you want to watch plays that you don't have to take a class to understand there are tons of them out there. Good ones. Why not watch those in all their richness instead of watching a watered-down Card/Shakespeare hybrid? I am not saying you aren't allowed to do it; I am just saying that I don't get it.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
In all seriousness, Kate, it would probably help if you read the first scene of Card's translation of R&J, which will at least enable you to speak from some authority.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:Why not watch those in all their richness instead of watching a watered-down Card/Shakespeare hybrid?
Can you demonstrate why you think Card's adaptations are watered down?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I did read that much of it. I liked the prologue. Otherwise, I didn't see the point.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
You posted another comment shortly before I submitted. I was referring to:
quote:I am offended by the line, "because now you'll know what's really going on" in the product description of Hamlet's Father. There is no evidence that any of the particular depravity that Card superimposed on that story is "going on" anywhere except for in Card's mind.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Because few people outside of an academic setting understand what the deuce Samson and Gregory are going on about! Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Kate: The stated intent of Hamlet's Father is to encourage people to go see Hamlet, armed with knowledge so when they are watching, they don't have to devote so much energy to trying to keep up with the plot while struggling with the langauge. One would then already know the plot, the gist of the dialogue, and thus the language suddenly comes alive.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
BlackBlade, unless the reviews are false, Card has added a whole layer crap that is not at all what the play is about. There is no evidence that Horatio murdered the King or that the King was sexually abusing Hamlet's friends. Or that the Ghost was lying. Hamlet clearly looked up to and mourned his father in the play. Judging by the reviews, people unfamiliar with the play who read Hamlet's Father are going to be misled at best.
Scott, it isn't that complicated! Aside from having to know what a collier is instead of knowing what a sickle is, I don't see how it am improvement.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
A whole layer? What quantity can we measure that with? If there is a layer, a few plot adjustments is pretty paper thin. I watched an anime adaptation of Seven Samurai called, don't laugh, "Samurai Seven." They added large mechs, courtesan characters, steam punk elements, whole episodes in places that don't exist in the movie, and the samurai's themselves were the archetypes that were established in the movie, but other than that *very* different.
I saw that before I saw the classic movie, and surprise I had no trouble latching on to all the original material that was referenced in the anime. I immediately identified all seven personalities from the anime, and when they started having conversations, the scenes lifted from the movie in the anime immediately came to mind.
It's not as if Hamlet's Father has so so many liberties taken, that one cannot glean much benefit from having read it first before seeing Hamlet the first time.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I haven't read Hamlet's Father, myself, and have refrained from offering an opinion. But the review offered for our input here castigates the story for being a bowdlerized version of Shakespeare's play that then proceeds to seriously reinterpret it, which I think would be a fair criticism if a reworking of the play had been OSC's intent. Certainly that was the case with those of his versions of Shakespeare's plays that were themselves offered up as plays, but given that this is a novella I find it much more likely that his take on the plot here is simply a bit of "through the mirror" revision, similar to Maguire's take on Wicked and dozens of other works that've deliberately approached a classic story in the public domain and performed a simple "what if" role reversal.
Now, you can quibble that his take on it is facile, or that Card should make a conscious effort to avoid "gay panic" scenarios given his reputation, or that a version of Hamlet which removes the ambiguity of the protagonist's actions is like a version of the (newer) Battlestar Galactica in which all the Cylons are fully aware of their identities at the start of the show and, using their privileged positions, betray and destroy the human survivors within the first half-hour. I want to reiterate that I haven't read the story myself, but these all immediately spring to mind as hypothetical criticisms that would, were they accurate, seriously impact my enjoyment of the story.
But let's leave it at that. I mean, were you outraged when Glinda the Good Witch turned out to be a shallow, vain, manipulative bitch? Or Charlotte turned into a zombie?
(That said: if Card has indeed said that his hope is to make the themes of Hamlet more obvious to an audience through this retelling, that's a bit ridiculous. Maguire didn't pretend that his version was giving people a necessary introduction to The Wizard of OZ, and in fact it wouldn't've worked if people weren't already familiar with the story; in the same way, the take on Hamlet that's described here is unlikely to be a good introduction to the more traditional version of the play, and moreover is likely to lack any power at all for people who haven't already read it.)
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
BlackBlade, would you prefer "crapload" to "layer"? Changing the Ghost's motivation and the reasons for Hamlet's reluctance to act hits at the heart of the play. If Claudius didn't kill the King, why is he eager to get rid of Hamlet? What is the purpose of the play within a play?
Tom, if that is how it is being marketed - as a "new" Hamlet story in the line of Wicked that is different than making Hamlet more accessible and easier to understand. Is this supposed to be an adaptation or a new work?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:We both know OSC has vocally expressed his opposition to same sex marriage...
Just to be clear, I suspect that if all Card had done was express vocal opposition to SSM, these various criticisms might be less heated. He has, however, gone further than that. I think he would be strongly disagreed with and criticizes if he simply opposed SSM. It's when he continues his thoughts on the subject that he earns enmity.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Kate: If Card has changed a crap load, then the play has many more such loads he could cart away before it would be indistinguishable from Hamlet the original.
-----
Rakeesh:
quote:Just to be clear, I suspect that if all Card had done was express vocal opposition to SSM, these various criticisms might be less heated. He has, however, gone further than that.
What do you mean? Are you referring to his joining NOM?
Posted by natural_mystic (Member # 11760) on :
Peripheral to the direction of the discussion, I disagree with the following:
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Film already must make sacrifices of its source material so as to fit it all into a two hour or so presentation. If you have such a limitation there is no excuse for adding new scenes, you rarely if ever please the audience with the additional cuts that make room for the new material, and the new material itself rarely fits properly with the original artists vision.
The movie must still be coherent. If the adapter of the book regards scenes/events 15, 37 and 59 as fundamental to the spirit of the story, he/she must still make the appearance of these scenes/events plausible in the context of the movie. This might mean substituting scenes/events 16-36 with, say, 7 new scenes/events.
On the topic of movie adaptations of books, I read an interview of Christopher Priest in which he expresses some displeasure at Chris Nolan over the adaptation of the Prestige. Apparently in interviews Nolan discouraged people from reading the book as it would ruin the movie's twist (which is different from the book's twist). While Nolan's claim is true, I agree with Priest and find it poor form.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Kate: If Card has changed a crap load, then the play has many more such loads he could cart away before it would be indistinguishable from Hamlet the original.
I have no trouble with Hamlet but could someone please simplify that for me?
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Blackblade:I think it's in reference to his infamous Mrmon Times essay on homosexuality, which has been reference here several times. The one where he claims that homosexuality is often the result of abuse, that homosexual culture is exclusively focused on sex, and other tasty nuggets. It also seems to come up whenever Card is involved with a big new project, or gets an award. And it should too- he has never disowned the hateful nonsense it contains.
Then there was that bit he printed in the rhino times about violent opposition to the government as a response to pro gay legislation.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I was thinking mostly of the bit about jailing homosexuals periodically for homosexuality in order to remind them, and everyone else, that it's Bad Sex, but the things Orincoro mentioned are relevant too.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R:
quote:Also, gay monogamy and marriage is nice too. So there. It's like, please put down the hammer. I GET THE POINT!
Syn, are you planning on buying any more OSC books? I thought you'd stopped after the Shadow books.
I did. I kind of... gave up
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
quote:I have no trouble with Hamlet but could someone please simplify that for me?
The percentage of content that Card changed was relatively small compared to the amount of content in hamlet, total.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
If the reviews are correct, it changed the basic plot, characters, language, and theme. What is left?
If it is supposed to be a "spin off" retelling like Wicked that doesn't try to get passed off as a substitute or an introduction to the real Hamlet then my response is merely an eye roll to Card's increasing obsession with the gay. If, as the product description I quoted seems to indicate, it is supposed to clarify, replace, or make accessible Hamlet, it is a violation of the original. Let him keep retconning his own stuff.
ETA: BlackBlade, adding a whole new homosexual pedophilia undercurrent is a deep change. Making Claudius an innocent victim is a huge change. Making the King a child abuser is a huge change. Making Horatio a murderer and abuse victim is a huge change. Just to start.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: We both know OSC has vocally expressed his opposition to same sex marriage, but if his fiction was conceived as a vehicle for teaching people that gays are evil or somehow deserving of scorn, it's doing a very poor job, and not because it's trying and not succeeding.
I don't think the fiction was conceived as a vehicle for teaching people that gays are evil. That's not the point. It doesn't have to be that in order to have it be yet another shot at homosexuality from a virulently anti-gay author.
But even all this is not really a response to the hypothetical. I bet you that you wouldn't even really question for a second whether the linkage between pedophilia and mormonism is or is not my own bigoted anti-mormon beliefs burrowing blatantly into my work, but when the situation is reversed, you are confusingly ambiguous and coming up with very, very strange excuses for Card, including "even in the quote you cited OSC isn't saying that all gay people must have been sexually abused as children."
Because, no. He's directly linking pedophilia and homosexuality. It makes it so that when he is rewriting hamlet to turn old king hamlet into a serial gay pedophile molester and that his victims become gay, it's predictable, and it's offensive.
The internet has even gotten back to us on the issue; people are now reading it and giving us additional takes on the controversy:
quote:It's made pretty clear. A lot of energy in the revised storytelling is (not so subtly) focused on linking the gay pedophilia with homosexuality. We all know exactly why Horatio and Laertes are gay. Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are now "fusty and peculiar." Moreover, it is easy to read the intent in linkage because the prose has been turned excruciatingly dry and straightforward. It is pretty obvious that the heterosexist, anti-gay-rights campaign that has dominated a lot of Card's time, focus, and mental energy for many years now -- which has resulted in him saying a number of pronounced and inexcusably radical and hateful things about gays, as well as his being a boardmember for the also inexcusably radical and hateful National Organization of Marriage -- makes what is going on here profoundly clear. He could not help but let elements of his pronounced heterosexist crusade leech into the way he has rewritten Hamlet. I have often read that Hamlet is the quintessential rorschach blot of plays; the more definitive you create or produce an interpretation of it, the more it's really about you. It's easy to keep that in mind when you are listening to Hamlet's almost robotic interactions with his perverted gay dad that now haunts him as a looming demon.
quote:Pretty much all of the soliloquizing about spiritual/afterlife matters is gutted entirely, frequently replaced with much more concrete assertions about absolute nature and absolute morality. Ambiguous metaphysical affair (and agonizing over such) is replaced with certainty, especially in the case of robo-Hamlet. Knowing what I know about Mormon theology, this reads as if the intent of this was to make a version of Hamlet which is not only "accessible" language-wise (or to people with autism, given how emotionless the tone is) but has been treated specifically to make it spiritually 'safer' and more appropriate for young Mormon audiences. At times, it's blatant enough to almost be explicit.
I'm still welcome to alternate perspectives on the work, since this still really does seem way too hilariously, unbelievably tacky, but for now they all seem to be wallowing in postoperative defenses from people having no exposure to the source.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Samp, have you seen season 2 of Veronica Mars?
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:Scott, it isn't that complicated! Aside from having to know what a collier is instead of knowing what a sickle is, I don't see how it am improvement.
kmboots, it really IS that difficult for people to get the Bard. I'm glad you have an easy time of it-- how are you with things like Ellison's 'Repent, Harlequin! said the Tic Tock Man?' or Card's 'Dogwalker?'
quote:I was thinking mostly of the bit about jailing homosexuals periodically for homosexuality in order to remind them, and everyone else, that it's Bad Sex, but the things Orincoro mentioned are relevant too.
I don't think he said this-- I know the part you're talking about but this is specifically called out as something he intends to avoid in keeping the legislation.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:for now they all seem to be wallowing in postoperative defenses from people having no exposure to the source.
Have you read the work? I didn't get an answer when I asked before.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: Have you read the work? I didn't get an answer when I asked before.
Nope, I'm working off of the so far all sources that have read the work.
quote:I don't think he said this-- I know the part you're talking about but this is specifically called out as something he intends to avoid in keeping the legislation.
What is he intending to avoid?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R:
quote:Scott, it isn't that complicated! Aside from having to know what a collier is instead of knowing what a sickle is, I don't see how it am improvement.
kmboots, it really IS that difficult for people to get the Bard. I'm glad you have an easy time of it-- how are you with things like Ellison's 'Repent, Harlequin! said the Tic Tock Man?' or Card's 'Dogwalker?'
I haven't read either. And I am ok with that. If I really wanted to read them, I would either figure them out or decide it wasn't worth the bother. I would not want to read a dumbed down version. If I didn't enjoy reading them as they are why would I want to read a lesser version?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Samp:
quote:But even all this is not really a response to the hypothetical. I bet you that you wouldn't even really question for a second whether the linkage between pedophilia and mormonism is or is not my own bigoted anti-mormon beliefs burrowing blatantly into my work, but when the situation is reversed, you are confusingly ambiguous and coming up with very, very strange excuses for Card, including "even in the quote you cited OSC isn't saying that all gay people must have been sexually abused as children.
Ah, the old, your arguments are really a smoke screen for biases you aren't willing to own up to. Cute.
I completely understand that Mr. Card has taken up the cause of vigorously opposing same-sex marriage. I am also aware that a writer cannot completely divorce their personal feelings and beliefs from their writings. I'm further aware that when people write fiction and non-fiction it's common for their beliefs to leak into some of the details of their stories.
But your statement that I wouldn't be so apologetic if we were dealing with Mormons and Pedophiles cuts both ways. Perhaps you are looking too much into the fact OSC elected to make Hamlet's father a pedophile, as you don't hesitate to dig up homophobia in statements he makes. Perhaps he felt there were interesting plot possibilities with that change of character. I confess the idea of a father being kept from having sex with their own son, after their untimely murder, deceives that son into killing innocent people, as well as himself, thus getting himself sent to hell where his father is waiting, might be one of the most tragic and horrible concepts I can imagine. Hamlet being a tragedy, OSC loving Shakespeare, and being involved in at least two rewrites of his work, and walah...Hamlet's Father.
I confess I have not read much into it, but is there absolutely no evidence that pedophilia is correlated with problems in sexual identification development? Is it ridiculous to suggest that if one were victimized sexually by an older male or father figure that they might then come to believe they ought to be attracted to other men?
One of the central premises of the movie Farewell My Concubine is (spoilers) the young boy, routinely raped by his patron, and forced to play female character, and adopt a female voice, as well as refer to himself as a girl, drives him into falling in love with his best friend who plays the opposite male lead in productions.
It's a tragic tale, do we start looking into whether the writer hates gays? OSC has written so many stories where the characters say and do things he himself certainly doesn't believe, they also do and say things he himself believes. But just because we find a character or even characters that are something OSC has denounced, does not mean the character exists so as to make a value judgement on that particular aspect.
It's the same line of reasoning people have used to accuse OSC of being a Nazi sympathizer. Or a hater of women. It's all nonsense, it's amateur psychoanalysis at best, and useless speculation at worst.
quote:Because, no. He's directly linking pedophilia and homosexuality
No he isn't. Just because he personally believes pedophilia in even most cases (if that) leads to homosexuality, that does not mean every single time he portrays a homosexual he is saying they are a victim of pedophilia, again look at his other gay characters who have never indicated a history of child abuse.
So perhaps he didn't fomulate that opinion until later in his writing, so what? A pedophile is a perfectly suitable subject for villainry, the fact the writer believes that a pedophile by molesting people can create disturbed homosexuals, is not perpetuating homophobia or making a value statement on homosexuals. At worst he is saying some homosexuals would not be so if they were not victimized, is that patently false?
I know people who abused by their mothers find it hard to bond to women. I know homosexuals who were terribly abused by their fathers. The lack of a strong positive father figure, combined with the sexual exploratory development of a juvenile seems perfectly capable of leading to homosexuality. Heck, tear out my eyes, when I'm a boy, and I might become fascinated with the few images I can conjure in my memory. If my character becomes overcome with obsession over those images, am I then making a value judgement about the blind?
Explain to me how Hamlet's father, being a pedophile, molesting other boys in the court, and one of them definitely struggling with thoughts of homosexuality, perpetuates a fear, hatred, or negative impression of homosexuality?
Can we find a person who having read Hamlet's Father came away with the idea, "Man homosexuality is an awful thing"? So far I'm seeing tons of reviewers scream foul, but I'm not seeing folks who dislike homosexuality picking up copies and quoting it, or praising it.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
I saw Farewell My Concubine. Diyi (sp) falls for the fellow playing the king because he in a way WANTS to be the Concubine that is loyal to the end. Though a Chinese friend of mine said it was because his friend told him he was a girl and then he grew to believe that until at the end where
Spoiler
He realize he isn't a girl and his dream sort of shatters. I don't know. There's a lot of ways to look at a story.
I would say that it creates a negative impression just by using the offensive myths that-
Gay guys go for young boys. Young boys being molested by gay guys makes them gay.
Yeah, it pretty much speaks for itself in terms of being a negative impression of gays.
And I had to give up reading OSC because he really does use character that way. It's irritating even when someone I agree with does that!
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
Samp, you should keep in mind that outrage snowballs like "oh, I thought it was pretty good" never will. The few people here on Hatrack who have read the story themselves seem to feel either kind of neutral about it or like it, for the most part.
I doubt very many of the people castigating the novella have read it for themselves. You are willing to make claims like this from hearsay:
quote:Because, no. He's directly linking pedophilia and homosexuality. It makes it so that when he is rewriting hamlet to turn old king hamlet into a serial gay pedophile molester and that his victims become gay, it's predictable, and it's offensive.
I'd bet a lot of the others in the chorus are doing the same thing you're doing - taking other people's reactions at face value and then adopting the opinion for themselves.
Because, really, the actual evidence from the text for the specific claim you're repeating is rather lacking, so far.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Synesthesia: Whether Die Yi fall for his friend because of the ideal of the opera, or because his friend (practically a brother) helped him in so many ways, is not discussed. They can both be true.
Major Spoilers*
Die Yi killing himself at the end is an extremely complicated ending. On the one hand, he now has what he wants. Him and Xiao Lou are at brothers again, and nobody else is in the picture. On the other, Xiao Lou has for the first time just said, "I can't do this anymore, I'm too old." And Die Yi once again fudges the line that was so important in his becoming an opera singer, as well as his gender identity. Whether that means he no longer believes he is feminine, isn't really clear. Maybe he too was simply over the hill and from then on it could only be worse. And so, with both of them unable to continue in the sense that literally, it would never happen again and their characters were dead once and for all, he kills himself with the sword as a sort of culmination of truly adopting the concubine character, thus leaving the emperor "Xiao Lou" alone with his grief.
Again the movie does not perpetuate a myth that gay guys go for young boys. It has a character who is an old man with a taste for young boys, we *don't* have a character who loves other men, and ocassionaly makes a trip to boyland.
If we don't want pedophiles to be confused with homosexuals, then when we tell people they are wrong when they are conflated, we also have to hold off indignation for homosexuals when we are dealing with a pedophile in literature.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
OSC on laws against homosexual behavior:
quote:Laws against homosexual behavior should remain on the books, not to be indiscriminately enforced against anyone who happens to be caught violating them, but to be used when necessary to send a clear message that those whoflagrantly violate society's regulation of sexual behavior cannot be permitted to remain as acceptable, equal citizens within that society.
The goal of the polity is not to put homosexuals in jail. The goal is to discourage people from engaging in homosexual practices in the first place, and, when they nevertheless proceed in their homosexual behavior, to encourage them to do so discreetly, so as not to shake the confidence of the community in the polity's ability to provide rules for safe, stable, dependable marriage and family relationships.
I see contradictory claims being made. Jailing people is not "the goal", but the laws should be "used when necessary to send a clear message".
How else can the laws be used to send a clear message other than occasionally enforcing them?
I guess the specific nature of the laws he's talking about is unclear...maybe some of them would just result in fines or something, not jail. But by saying - broadly - the laws should stay in place, and sometimes be used, it seems rather likely that he'd approve of the occasional jailing if that happened to be the law somewhere where gay people weren't being discreet enough for him.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
The movie ends differently than the book.
You just have to be accurate though. Most pedophiles are heterosexual, but that old myth about gay guys and boys still persists and it's pretty insidious.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: I completely understand that Mr. Card has taken up the cause of vigorously opposing same-sex marriage. I am also aware that a writer cannot completely divorce their personal feelings and beliefs from their writings. I'm further aware that when people write fiction and non-fiction it's common for their beliefs to leak into some of the details of their stories.
So let him continue to leak on his own work instead of polluting a masterpiece.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Has he done so? As others have noted, you haven't read it or spoken directly about it in detail with those who have, so far as you've mentioned.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Has he done so? As others have noted, you haven't read it or spoken directly about it in detail with those who have, so far as you've mentioned.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by scifibum: Because, really, the actual evidence from the text for the specific claim you're repeating is rather lacking, so far.
Like I said, i'm perfectly open to contradicting viewpoints from others who have already read the text, and can judge based on that. Some people started reading it based on the outrage grenade going off, and so far there has been unanimous consent about what is suspected. The number of positions opposing this interpretation that have come from reading the source work currently stands at zero.
Furthermore, the word for the motivations involved when a remarkably radical anti-homo crusader like Card, who has said the things that he has about homosexuality and the ways in which he has pseudopsychologically explained it and also jumped on board the let's-tie-it-to-pedophilia train, rewrites a character to be a demonic villain who is also gay and a pedophile molester, is "predictable."
But since this is a new standard I can aspire to, sure. I'll read it and let you know what I think afterwards. I'm not going to pay for it, though.
Posted by natural_mystic (Member # 11760) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: It's a tragic tale, do we start looking into whether the writer hates gays? OSC has written so many stories where the characters say and do things he himself certainly doesn't believe, they also do and say things he himself believes. But just because we find a character or even characters that are something OSC has denounced, does not mean the character exists so as to make a value judgement on that particular aspect.
It's the same line of reasoning people have used to accuse OSC of being a Nazi sympathizer. Or a hater of women. It's all nonsense, it's amateur psychoanalysis at best, and useless speculation at worst.
Your position is that it is wrong to infer from some ambiguously anti-homosexual content that an author who is on the record as holding anti-homosexual views in fact holds anti-homosexual views? Or is it wrong to infer that the ambiguously anti-homosexual content was inserted as a result of the anti-homosexual views held by the author instead of as a result of artistic considerations? Or both?
Whether these inferences are right or wrong, they are certainly predictable.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Ah, the old, your arguments are really a smoke screen for biases you aren't willing to own up to. Cute.
Well, I mean, answer the question honestly! Not in the 'oh sam is trying to score Points' sense, but in the 'maybe there's some partiality at work here, honestly' sense.
quote:I confess I have not read much into it, but is there absolutely no evidence that pedophilia is correlated with problems in sexual identification development? Is it ridiculous to suggest that if one were victimized sexually by an older male or father figure that they might then come to believe they ought to be attracted to other men?
APA: "[N]o specific psychosocial or family dynamic cause for homosexuality has been identified, including histories of childhood sexual abuse.
Sexual abuse does not appear to be more prevalent in children who grow up to identify as gay, lesbian, or bisexual, than in children who identify as heterosexual."
quote:
quote:Because, no. He's directly linking pedophilia and homosexuality
No he isn't. Just because he personally believes pedophilia in even most cases (if that) leads to homosexuality, that does not mean every single time he portrays a homosexual he is saying they are a victim of pedophilia, again look at his other gay characters who have never indicated a history of child abuse.
Please read this. Just .. look at it. I'm a little bit in disbelief at it, I don't want to insinuate you haven't thought this through, but .. can you see what I see in it?
quote:Explain to me how Hamlet's father, being a pedophile, molesting other boys in the court, and one of them definitely struggling with thoughts of homosexuality, perpetuates a fear, hatred, or negative impression of homosexuality?
This too
[ September 09, 2011, 01:17 AM: Message edited by: Samprimary ]
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Um...I don't fear, hate or have a negative impression about victims of childhood sexual abuse.
I'm interested to hear what you think of it, Samp. I'll be honest though: my first post on this topic applies heavily to you.
[EDIT] I expect you're going to see what you expect to see. [/EDIT
[ September 09, 2011, 08:11 AM: Message edited by: Scott R ]
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: I expect you're going to see what you expect to see.
BINGO.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
That is just as likely to indicate that Samp has very good reason for his expectations.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
True. It's hard to see what's not ALREADY THERE. It's written in big giant flashing neon letters to me.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Synesthesia: It's hard to see what's not ALREADY THERE.
Patently false.
And have you actually read the novella?
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Syn, if it's not already there, it is IMPOSSIBLE to see it.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Rivka, you have read the novella, did Card write that Hamlet's father is a homosexual that preys on children and deceives Hamlet about his death or didn't he? Have the reviews been false about the changes made?
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
Not yet. I really do not have the money for it.
Also, GAH it's just in so many books of his! I can't bear it. My semi-lesbianic soul just wilts.
Then again, I could be wrong. I haven't read this particular book, but it's oozing out of his current books.
Such... inaccuracy.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
I have no interest in discussing a work with someone who has prejudged it without reading it.
But since a pedophile is not the same as a homosexual, the answer to your first question, Kate, is no.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
I really have to get around to watching Farewell My Concubine, but mainland Chinese movies seem to go whole hog into tragedy and suffering a bit too much for my tastes. The lead actor doesn't help much in that regard either.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka: I have no interest in discussing a work with someone who has prejudged it without reading it.
But since a pedophile is not the same as a homosexual, the answer to your first question, Kate, is no.
I did not suggest that they were the same thing. So he is one or the other but not both? I think that there is plenty of evidence to make judgments. I was offering you the opportunity to present evidence to the contrary. None of that has come forward so far.
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
quote:But since a pedophile is not the same as a homosexual, the answer to your first question, Kate, is no.
This is one aspect of the current conversation that puzzles me a bit.
Obviously homosexual != pedophile, but wouldn't "homosexual pedophile" distinguish between a pedophile that is sexually attracted to same-sex children as opposed to one that is attracted to opposite sex ones? From what I've read or seen in movies/TV, it seems most pedophiles stick to one particular gender.
But besides this, presumably Hamlet is post-pubescent by the time the play takes place. If his father was trying to set it up so that he'd be able to molest his son in hell (or whatever), wouldn't he then be necessarily attracted to the adult Hamlet?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
True pedophilia is a different animal altogether and different from pederasty which is what it sounds like Card has decided to thrust onto the King.
Pedophiles often abuse either gender. Pederasts not so much.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
What evidence? Reviews by someone whose accuracy and objectivity you don't know about a story you haven't read?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Several reviews. And no one has disputed the insertion of either homosexuality or pederasty or pedophilia or all three into the story. No one yet has disputed that Card changed the identity and motivation of the King's murder. No one has disputed any of the things listed in the reviews. Once again, I invite those who have read it to dispute any of it. So far, all we have to counter those reviews are some pretty feeble tantrums from people who I already know are biased.
One makes decisions about what art to spend time and money on based on what they know about the artist and the opinions of other people. That is why we have reviews. Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
I'm sorry to say that when you go out of your way to alienate and discriminate against a group of people as OSC has against gays, then when you then make your villain into one of said group you are asking for strife and judgement, whether warranted or not.
It's like when Mel Gibson does a biopic of a famous Jew and people get up in arms about it.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: I really have to get around to watching Farewell My Concubine, but mainland Chinese movies seem to go whole hog into tragedy and suffering a bit too much for my tastes. The lead actor doesn't help much in that regard either.
Yeah. Farewell My Concubine is a beautiful, good movie but I can never watch it again because I'm so sad that Leslie Cheung is dead and so many Chinese movies are depressing. Not as depressing and von Trier movies though. His movies make me MISERABLE. I want to see Melancholia due to nude Kristen Dunst but I'm not sure if it's worth the MISERY. But, yet, FMC will depress the hell out of you.
Also, rewriting brilliant plays sucks. I should rewrite Ender in Exile and cut all of the nagging about monogamy. See how he likes that! I'm already rewriting those stupid this Marine punched an atheist memes.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
On one hand, I think rivka is quietly and non-specifically disputing at least one of the changes. Also,
quote:Hamlet's Father seems ever-so-familiar . . . until it is terribly, horribly, and all-too-believably NOT familiar. 4 stars
seems to indicate that the changes weren't noticeable/offensive except for one twist (which I'm assuming, isn't what is being discussed, otherwise this has been one pointless debate).
On the other hand, I think it should be pointed out that the Publisher's Weekly review which indicates that the focus is "primarily on linking homosexuality with the life-destroying horrors of pedophilia" pre-dates the current instance of the controversy.
Personally, I find myself wondering if both are true actually.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Inoffensive to Rivka is not necessarily inoffensive to me. This is probably true regarding both homosexuality and Shakespeare.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Yep, that is basically one of the ways that that would resolve both without anyone lying.
It is not without precedent that members of the majority can miss an offensive portrayal of a minority.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I don't think anyone here is lying.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
I haven't decided Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: Um...I don't fear, hate or have a negative impression about victims of childhood sexual abuse.
Good? I'm not saying anyone here does!
quote:I'm interested to hear what you think of it, Samp. I'll be honest though: my first post on this topic applies heavily to you.
[EDIT] I expect you're going to see what you expect to see. [/EDIT]
That's an appropriately ironic judgment.
Posted by Zotto! (Member # 4689) on :
This thread is utterly surreal. Three pages of people making judgments about things they haven't bothered to read for themselves.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Zotto!, how do you decide what TV programs to watch, what books to buy, what plays to see? Do you buy, watch, see them all? Or do you rely on reviews and what you already know about the artist?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Thank god there's finally a useful counterpoint I can run on.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: I was offering you the opportunity to present evidence to the contrary.
If you truly wish to know what the focus of the novella is, you would read it.
My dispute is not primarily with what elements are or are not included, but with themes, focus, emphasis. All of which it is beyond ridiculous to discuss with anyone who hasn't actually READ the piece!
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Zotto!: Three pages of people making judgments about things they haven't bothered to read for themselves.
Since I am pretty invested in cinema, and even occasionally moonlight as a reviewer and blurb-writer about film festivals and obscure cinema, I have to rely on, analyze, and make judgment based on not actually seeing a work, but mining the information and perspectives of those who have seen the work. And if you think it's surreal, well, I dunno what to tell you!
quote:If you truly wish to know what the focus of the novella is, you would read it.
It's not silly for someone to be intrigued enough in this controversy to ask people who have read it whether or not the allegations made in the OP's link are true (which is what I've explicitly done from the beginning) while having no desire to procure the work for themselves. Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
I'm so glad the statement I made again and again, that Hamlet's father was a pedophile, not a homosexual is supported by the author himself.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Is Hamlet supposed to be a child in this?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Is Hamlet supposed to be a child in this?
What age do you surmise Hamlet is Kate?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: I was offering you the opportunity to present evidence to the contrary.
If you truly wish to know what the focus of the novella is, you would read it.
My dispute is not primarily with what elements are or are not included, but with themes, focus, emphasis. All of which it is beyond ridiculous to discuss with anyone who hasn't actually READ the piece!
According to the response from Card just linked, he wasn't interested in the theme, focus, or emphasis of Hamlet to begin with. Perverting what he dislikes is certainly his right but I object even more vigorously to the novella being advertises as an introduction, clarification, or replacement for the real thing.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Is Hamlet supposed to be a child in this?
What age do you surmise Hamlet is Kate?
Old enough to have gone away to college unless Card changes that, too. Which would mean that the Ghost wants to "be with him" in hell as an adult not as a child.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Man, I wish they made the book searchable on Amazon or Google Books.
Edit to add: Actually, while Hamlet's Father isn't searchable, Ghost Quartet is on Amazon.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: I'm so glad the statement I made again and again, that Hamlet's father was a pedophile, not a homosexual is supported by the author himself.
I guess I have to ask, when there's controversy here about linking pedophilia to homosexuality, did you think that to be primarily about old king hamlet being a pedo AND being gay, or did you think it was primarily about elder hamlet's pedo molestation being followed by the victims of that molestation ending up gay?
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
The excerpt from the forward in the link that BB posted makes it clear (IMO, at least) that OSC was envisioning this particular piece as a re-telling along the lines of Wicked or The True Story of the Three Little Pigs or other twist of perspective style stories, not as a clarification of what Shakespeare was really saying.
So the problem is with the marketing, if it is being marketed as something that makes Hamlet accessible rather than as a spin-off story.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by dkw: So the problem is with the marketing, if it is being marketed as something that makes Hamlet accessible rather than as a spin-off story.
Which makes this earlier part more important to dissect, because it's what it was all going off of:
quote:The back of this slim novella boasts that once we have read this "revelatory version of the Hamlet story, Shakespeare's play will be much more fun to watch—because now you'll know what's really going on."
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
So I guess my whole gay/pedophile confusion comes from this in the review:
quote:Hamlet is damned for all the needless death he inflicts, and Dead Gay Dad will now do gay things to him for the rest of eternity: "Welcome to Hell, my beautiful son. At last we'll be together as I always longed for us to be."
I'm wondering if that line is a direct quote, paraphrased, or if its just the reviewer's interpretation of the scene.
If Hamlet's father is lusting after his fully grown son from the beyond (as ridiculous as that sounds), then I don't buy the "he's not gay he's a pedophile" angle. If that quote is pulled from the reviewer's rear end, then nevermind.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots:
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Is Hamlet supposed to be a child in this?
What age do you surmise Hamlet is Kate?
Old enough to have gone away to college unless Card changes that, too. Which would mean that the Ghost wants to "be with him" in hell as an adult not as a child.
It also means his father wants to be with him because he never had the chance to as a child, and more than likely that forbidden fruit element makes him all the more desireable even if he does not normally go for men.
Prisoners who rape other inmates often insist they are not gay, they don't have access to the sexual object they prefer, and so they take what they can get. When I was a electronic print reader, I was in charge of gay publications, and I remember a column where a reader insisted she was gay, was in a happy relationship with her partner, but that her best friend was a male. She indicated that her friend had been hurt repeatedly by bad girls, and that he was now terrified about having sex with a girl, because he had had only terrible experiences with women, but he was not attracted to men.
She talked it over with her partner and apparently they agreed it would be fine if she helped him have his first positive sexual experience. She wasn't attracted to him in that way, she insisted, but she cared about him that she wanted to give him that gift. She was writing the columnist to ask if there was some moral problem with her plan she hadn't considered.
I recall Dan Savage (the prominent gay columnist) indicating that he once had sex with a girl just because he wanted to see if he was truly gay, or because he wanted to see if he could enjoy it. He indicated it was not, and that he was.
Without even discussing those moral issues, it left me with the impression that some people *will* actually engage in sexual activities, including copulation with the gender they are not attracted to.
Hamlet's father deciding he wanted to have sex with Hamlet, remember he still managed to father Hamlet in the first place, when his usual preference is young boys, could easily be an instance of him being curious to try it out, or again him being more attracted to the novelty of sex with Hamlet, than with men in general.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: I'm so glad the statement I made again and again, that Hamlet's father was a pedophile, not a homosexual is supported by the author himself.
I guess I have to ask, when there's controversy here about linking pedophilia to homosexuality, did you think that to be primarily about old king hamlet being a pedo AND being gay, or did you think it was primarily about elder hamlet's pedo molestation being followed by the victims of that molestation ending up gay?
I'll be honest I'm not parsing this with enough confidence to answer. Could you rephrase?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Right. Sooooo not gay.
dkw, if it is only the marketing then I go back to my earlier:
quote: If it is supposed to be a "spin off" retelling like Wicked that doesn't try to get passed off as a substitute or an introduction to the real Hamlet then my response is merely an eye roll to Card's increasing obsession with the gay. If, as the product description I quoted seems to indicate, it is supposed to clarify, replace, or make accessible Hamlet, it is a violation of the original. Let him keep retconning his own stuff.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Xavier: So I guess my whole gay/pedophile confusion comes from this in the review:
quote:Hamlet is damned for all the needless death he inflicts, and Dead Gay Dad will now do gay things to him for the rest of eternity: "Welcome to Hell, my beautiful son. At last we'll be together as I always longed for us to be."
I'm wondering if that line is a direct quote, paraphrased, or if its just the reviewer's interpretation of the scene.
The paragraph in the book is
quote:And finally to the dark shadowy corner where his father's spirit stood, laughing, laughing, laughing. "Welcome to Hell, my beautiful son. At last we'll be together as I always longed for us to be."
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: I'll be honest I'm not parsing this with enough confidence to answer. Could you rephrase?
Ok, um, I'll try a question. When it was talked about how the book seemed to be 'linking pedophilia with homosexuality,' what do you think that charge relates to, and do you think the charge requires old king hamlet being gay himself?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Right. Sooooo not gay.
Cool, since to you I'm sputtering nonsense, I'll be happy to stop.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Right. Sooooo not gay.
Cool, since to you I'm sputtering nonsense, I'll be happy to stop.
was that post a response to you?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Right. Sooooo not gay.
Cool, since to you I'm sputtering nonsense, I'll be happy to stop.
was that post a response to you?
It's right after mine, it doesn't synch with any other post on the page, she then goes on to address other posters. So I believe yes.
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
quote:Hamlet's father deciding he wanted to have sex with Hamlet, remember he still managed to father Hamlet in the first place, when his usual preference is young boys, could easily be an instance of him being curious to try it out, or again him being more attracted to the novelty of sex with Hamlet, than with men in general.
Whoa. Whoa. Slow down.
He didn't get drunk and make a half-hearted pass at Hamlet. He came back from the friggen dead and arranged an elaborate plot to bed his grown son in the afterlife. He wasn't "curious".
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote:And finally to the dark shadowy corner where his father's spirit stood, laughing, laughing, laughing. "Welcome to Hell, my beautiful son. At last we'll be together as I always longed for us to be."
I can see this meaning something other then "together", but if it does mean anything but the hip thrusty kind of together, then it is poor writing.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Right. Sooooo not gay.
Cool, since to you I'm sputtering nonsense, I'll be happy to stop.
was that post a response to you?
It was. I consider BlackBlade's conjecture about how the King is and (shouldn't be construed as!) gay to be a bit of a stretch.
The BlackBlade doth protest too much, methinks.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Xavier: Who said anything about half-hearted? I gave several examples of very deliberate sex that does really tell you whether the person is in fact one way or the other. Bear in mind there is no male adult character who Hamlet's father is sleeping with. We know that Hamlet's father wanted to have sex with him a long time but was blocked as it were by his wife.
The fascination could have of course phased out, but it could also vamp up once he died and it would never happen outside an elaborate plot.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots:
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Right. Sooooo not gay.
Cool, since to you I'm sputtering nonsense, I'll be happy to stop.
was that post a response to you?
It was. I consider BlackBlade's conjecture about how the King is and (shouldn't be construed as!) gay to be a bit of a stretch.
The BlackBlade doth protest too much, methinks.
While I think you dismiss too much. I'm trying to adequately explain why I believe what I do, I don't appreciate being condescended to, or being told I'm just being wilfully blind.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
BB, I do find it a strain to believe that you (or Card) would expect the reader to assume your "straight but with lingering curiosity from when Hamlet was a child" explanation for the Ghost to want to "be with" an adult Hamlet instead of assuming that he is gay. I think that you are reaching.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
BB, do you read the "Welcome to Hell, my beautiful son. At last we'll be together as I always longed for us to be." line as Hamy's daddy wanting to have sex with him?
Cause, wanting (longing) to have sex with members of your own gender kinda makes you gay.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
I don't think that I am, I think you are clinging to the less complicated, easier, yet incorrect explanation.
So I guess this is where we leave it.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
ok, but
quote: When it was talked about how the book seemed to be 'linking pedophilia with homosexuality,' what do you think that charge relates to, and do you think the charge requires old king hamlet being gay himself?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: I don't think that I am, I think you are clinging to the less complicated, easier, yet incorrect explanation.
So I guess this is where we leave it.
You are not quite getting my point. Even if your explanation is correct, do you believe that an accomplished author like Card would be unaware of the simpler explanation or that his readers would assume it?
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
Uh, why am I a member of a hate group because I don't agree with OSC?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Synesthesia: Uh, why am I a member of a hate group because I don't agree with OSC?
where are you getting that?
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
I think the reference is to OSC
quote: However, since I have become a target of vilification by the hate groups of the Left ... I underestimated the willingness of the haters to manufacture evidence to convict their supposed enemies.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
that's not saying that anyone who disagrees with him is part of those hate groups. predictably, though, he isn't understanding or is purposefully ignoring the reasons why all these (unnamed) groups consider him a homophobic activist. I'd also like to see (but won't see) a list of what he's considering hate groups, because they're probably most or nearly all of them not hate groups.
amused he's literally calling his critics 'haters' though. biggie and tupac send their daps, i'm sure
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
I think he may be in denial. I admit, I have a liberal bias, but.... It's just... DOES HE READ WHAT HE WRITES WHILE WRITING IT?
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Originally posted by dkw: So the problem is with the marketing, if it is being marketed as something that makes Hamlet accessible rather than as a spin-off story.
Which makes this earlier part more important to dissect, because it's what it was all going off of:
quote:The back of this slim novella boasts that once we have read this "revelatory version of the Hamlet story, Shakespeare's play will be much more fun to watch—because now you'll know what's really going on."
It's worth considering that the back of a book is only slightly more reliable than a random reviewer's interpretation. Unlike the forward, there's a significant chance OSC had no hand in the jacket description at all.
If OSC had said nothing to contradict it, then fine, we assume it is accurate. But since it contradicts his forward, I would say we should logically put more faith in the forward.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:It's worth considering that the back of a book is only slightly more reliable than a random reviewer's interpretation. Unlike the forward, there's a significant chance OSC had no hand in the jacket description at all.
preeeeeetty much
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
I've read OSC's clarification and fair enough, perhaps the reviewer came to it far more biased than he/she needed to be but I'm a little nonplussed by this:
quote:I have little interest in a dithering hero; nor am I much inspired by revenge plots. Yet I keep hearing that this is the greatest of them all... So I analyzed the story to see what it would take to make me care about it. "Hamlet's Father" is what I came up with.
Bewildering! Let me find that Rosencrantz and Guildenstern quote (for the uninitiated, Guildenstern is pretending to be Hamlet).
quote:Rosencrantz: Let me get it straight. Your father was king. You were his only son. Your father dies. You are of age. Your uncle becomes king. Guildenstern: Yes. Rosencrantz: Unusual. Guildenstern: Undid me. Rosencrantz: Undeniably. Guildenstern: He slipped in. Rosencrantz: Which reminds me... Guildenstern: Well, it would. Rosencrantz: I don't want to be personal. Guildenstern: Common knowledge. Rosencrantz: Your mother's marriage. Guildenstern: He slipped in. Rosencrantz: His body was still warm! Guildenstern: So was hers. Rosencrantz: Extraordinarily... Guildenstern: Indecent. Rosencrantz: Hasty. Guildenstern: Suspicious. Rosencrantz: Makes you think. Guildenstern: Don't think I haven't. Rosencrantz: And with her husband's brother! Guildenstern: They *were* close. Rosencrantz: She went to him... Guildenstern: Too close. Rosencrantz: For comfort. Guildenstern: It looks bad. Rosencrantz: Adds up. Guildenstern: Incest to adultery. Rosencrantz: Would you go so far? Guildenstern: Never! Rosencrantz: To sum up: your father, whom you love, dies. You are his heir. You come back to find that hardly was the corpse cold before his young brother pops onto his throne and into his sheets, thereby offending both legal and natural practice. Now... why exactly are you behaving in this extraordinary manner? Guildenstern: I can't imagine.
And this doesn't even mention the fact that Hamlet's father was murdered or his immmature infatuation with Ophelia.
OSC says that Hamlet should mean something to him and doesn't, and this is his personal way of getting into the play. But I'm bewildered because what he's written isn't the play. It's as if Romeo and Juliet were murdered, rather than committed suicide. Or Ender actually destroyed the human race instead (wouldn't that be a twist?). Or Harry Potter's parents were alive and well and actually turned out to be Ron and Hermione (a. mazing.). These are stories, and they are certainly related to the originals because they would contain the same events, but they wouldn't really be a way of coming to terms with the original character's motivations.
But that's okay. No rules against it. Just a little bit bewildering that this is what he came out with, of all those possible ways of interacting with the play.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
Tell you what, if anybody owns the Nook version of Ghost Quartet, share it with me and I'll give y'all my unbiased opinion. Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
I got it, I'm reading it now.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
This should be interesting
(I'm in no position to really comment one way or another based on the brief snippets from Amazon)
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
So far it appears that not only is it distinctly homophobic, but it is actually covertly homoerotic. It was probably also largely ghostwritten and is in fact a sympathetic analogy to hitler.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: So far it appears that not only is it distinctly homophobic, but it is actually covertly homoerotic. It was probably also largely ghostwritten and is in fact a sympathetic analogy to hitler.
Are you being serious Samp?
Posted by Parkour (Member # 12078) on :
Its obviously not serious? Those were the outlandish controversies surrounding Ender's Game.
Posted by Parkour (Member # 12078) on :
Today I get to be a messenger, we are out on the town in a mexican bar called oscars pub. Let me relay his words?
"To dissect the frog and kill it dead, these words are in solidarity with the author, as it appears as the initial (op) estimation of the work is in error? Oh god tell me at least blackblade understands the sarcasm."
Posted by millernumber1 (Member # 9894) on :
I have the original publication as well - bought since I read about the Subterranean reprint and had never heard of the work. I thought it wasn't as enthralling as work as Card's science fiction and fantasy work - but then, it was Shakespearean (which didn't work for me in Magic Street), a rewrite of Hamlet (which is my favorite Shakespeare play), and in the horror genre (which is one of my least favorite genres). But when I read it, I was surprised I hadn't heard people using it against Card before.
That being said, I don't enjoy the result being Card's wikipedia page being edited to add "homophobe" to the very first sentence. That seems more than a little rude.
I thought the story was "Inventing Lovers on the Phone." This seems to be kind of a theme...
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Advocating the periodic imprisonment of homosexuals who refuse to stay closeted as a guideline to society...frankly I'm not sure if the man is homophobic, but I'm pretty sure the label isn't unfair. It's in the range of rational labels in this case.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Man, I remember the good old days when I had time to care about edit wars on Wikipedia Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
I got you Samp, but others didn't and at their behest I asked.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Advocating the periodic imprisonment of homosexuals who refuse to stay closeted as a guideline to society...frankly I'm not sure if the man is homophobic, but I'm pretty sure the label isn't unfair. It's in the range of rational labels in this case.
You do recognize that Card wrote that essay decades ago don't you? You do recognize that at the time, the attitude he expressed toward gays in that article was more liberal and less "homophobic" than the mean for society. Take those comments out of that cultural context and reading them as though they were written yesterday is unfair and rather intellectually dishonest.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
Considering that he STILL has that attitude, compared gays to children playing dress up, used that stereotype stating gays are coerced into gayness by molestation and such, I'd say it's not really unfair or intellectually dishonest at all. I'd say folks' disgust with him is rather justified. Plus culture is no excuse for pure ignorance. If folks said stuff like that about Mormons he'd be breathing fire. If he dissed blacks, folks would be crying for him to lose his awards. I'm sorry, but I must politely protest that he really is actually homophobic...
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:You do recognize that at the time, the attitude he expressed toward gays in that article was more liberal and less "homophobic" than the mean for society.
This is a paper-thin defense that reeks of desperation.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Quick note: I think the rain taxi reviewer mentioned it, and so did Samp, that the story could be a means of bowdlerizing Hamlet for Mormon audiences. The idea fails on several levels:
1) Mormons don't generally believe that the wicked dead haunt the living the way that Hamlet's father haunts him as described in the passages made public. While the righteous dead are occasionally permitted to visit the living, according to Mormon theology, the evil dead do not. (Take that, Ash!) Or at least, not as far as I know. 1a) Fallen angels, on the other hand... 2) I've read bowdlerizations done by Mormons; they don't deal with heavy subjects like pedophilia or homosexuality, and certainly do not seek those topics out. 3) According to Mormon theology, the dead do not have bodies in the afterlife (at least not until the resurrection). Without a body, they are only desire and thought-- they can take no action. The ideas that Hamlet's father is going to bang Hamlet post-mortem AND that the story is a consistent reflection of Mormon beliefs are mutually exclusive. 4) Further, as far as we know of what the afterlife is like for the wicked, they will not be tortured by anything other than a sense of their own guilt, and how far they've fallen short of the glory of God. (And even that is able to ameliorated) The notes of despair and misery evident in the closing paragraph of Hamlet's Father are pretty much in direct contradiction to what we believe regarding the afterlife.
So...put the thought that this is somehow a disguise for Mormon Sunday School out of your heads. (Hm...actually, no-- I've been to Sunday School recently...)
Put the thought that this somehow represents Mormon theology out of your heads-- it doesn't. Your average Mo would likely be much more comfortable, theologically speaking, with the issues raised in the non-OSC edition.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit:
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Advocating the periodic imprisonment of homosexuals who refuse to stay closeted as a guideline to society...frankly I'm not sure if the man is homophobic, but I'm pretty sure the label isn't unfair. It's in the range of rational labels in this case.
You do recognize that Card wrote that essay decades ago don't you? You do recognize that at the time, the attitude he expressed toward gays in that article was more liberal and less "homophobic" than the mean for society. Take those comments out of that cultural context and reading them as though they were written yesterday is unfair and rather intellectually dishonest.
If he had not written a defense of anti-gay laws in recent years, it might be dishonest to link him to articles he wrote decades ago. If he had even ever indicated that he regretted or had revised these past expressed views in recent years, it might be dishonest. I'm not aware that he has ever eaten these words in any way, and so I find it more than a little unfair that he can allow them to stand after all these years, and yet should not be held accountable for them now, as if they are still an effective representation of his views.
You are allowed to change your mind, and not have what you have said held against you any longer. But you are not simply allowed to let the horrible things you have said "expire," for the purposes of impeaching your character today, simply because it is no longer acceptable to say the things you once said with impunity. Were he to repudiate these words, I would accept that. I am not aware that he has done so, and to me, that is as good as saying them today.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: Were he to repudiate these words, I would accept that. I am not aware that he has done so, and to me, that is as good as saying them today.
+1
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
I think that, whether or not considering Card a homophobe is legitimate, the wiki edit seems pretty absurd. It's listed between public speaker and essayist, for goodness sake. They should leave it in the section about his personal views.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
"They" looks like one user with an anonymous account. *shrug*
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
That's fair.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:I'm not aware that he has ever eaten these words in any way
I've read his addendum where he states why it's ridiculous to still judge him based on those words, and that's fair to say.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: I think that, whether or not considering Card a homophobe is legitimate, the wiki edit seems pretty absurd. It's listed between public speaker and essayist, for goodness sake. They should leave it in the section about his personal views.
I don't think the edit lasted very long? It was just some random guy.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:I'm not aware that he has ever eaten these words in any way
I've read his addendum where he states why it's ridiculous to still judge him based on those words, and that's fair to say.
Which addendum are you referring to, and when was it written.
And your language is unclear here. Is it fair of him to say that, or of me?
ETA: Ah, I have found it. I had read this before, and had dismissed it as a non-repudiation.
quote:
This essay was published in February of 1990, in the following context: The Supreme Court had declared in 1986 (Bowers v. Hardwick) that a Georgia law prohibiting sodomy even in the privacy of one's own home was constitutional. I was also writing this essay to a conservative Mormon audience that at the time would have felt no interest in decriminalizing homosexual acts. In that context, my call to "leave the laws on the books" was simply recognizing the law at that time, and my call to not enforce it except in flagrant cases was actually, within that context, a liberal and tolerant view -- for which I was roundly criticized in conservative Mormon circles as being "pro-gay." Those who now use this essay to attack me as a "homophobe" deceptively ignore the context and treat the essay as if I had written it yesterday afternoon. That is absurd -- now that the law has changed (the decision was overturned in 2003) I have no interest in criminalizing homosexual acts and would never call for such a thing, any more than I wanted such laws enforced back when they were still on the books. But I stand by the main points of this essay, which concerns matters internal to the Mormon Church.
This floats between: "It wasn't my fault, I was doing it for the audience," to "I was right to do it for some reason because it was the law" (how *changing* the law is somehow not compatible with upholding the law is beyond me), to "I would never do the thing that I did," to "What I was calling for was actually not so bad considering the times," to "I don't believe in the things that I was saying should be done," to "I believe in everything I said."
My real problem with this, and it is the same problem I had upon first reading it, is that it does whatever it can to dance around the issue of what is *right* and what is not. It is everything to do with context, and what he really wanted, despite what he may have said, and whom he may have said it to- but it dances softly away from what he thinks is right. It says: "I would never advocate this," but not "it was wrong to have even gotten close to advocating this, even in this context, even then." He can't do that- and that tells me it's because he would rather have his cake and eat it too- not be called a bigot, and still get to own hateful acts.
But I mean, that's what you get for being a really smart and agile minded individual who happens to believe in something embarrassingly stupid. It's almost worse.
[ September 12, 2011, 01:24 AM: Message edited by: Orincoro ]
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: I think that, whether or not considering Card a homophobe is legitimate, the wiki edit seems pretty absurd. It's listed between public speaker and essayist, for goodness sake. They should leave it in the section about his personal views.
I don't think the edit lasted very long? It was just some random guy.
Indeed! That's cool. When I commented here I hadn't checked the talk pages or anything, I just glanced at the entry to confirm it had been edited. Glad to see it was just some guy, and not an overall consensus among the wiki editors.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Rabbit, I'm pretty surprised to hear you endorse such a cynical and practical-minded approach to politics. And it's strange how, now, Card edges more and more towards *not* respecting the law-as it becomes less intolerant of homosexuality, that is. We must, apparently, grudgingly accept the law only enforcing it sometimes when it's on our side of the fence, leaning deeper into our field. But as time passes, and society changes, and it becomes likely that the law will gradually be on the *other* side of the fence, and deeper into *that* field...why, suddenly it's an attack on America, it's the kind of thing that would provoke a violent uprising, it's going to destroy the family, etc.
I look forward to reading, as laws continue to be passed bringing homosexuality nearer and nearer parity with heterosexuality, essays from Card talking about how we need to respect the law.
Posted by millernumber1 (Member # 9894) on :
Re: wiki - I've been monitoring the page, and the anonymous editor seems to be interested in starting a flame-and-edit war over the word. Particularly annoying since they remain anonymous.
I would like to say, though I don't fully agree with how Card formulates and reacts with regards to homosexuality, that I think it's unfair to act as if heteronormative views are mustache-twirlingly evil from the point of view of the heteronormative. I don't think a heteronormative advocate wakes up thinking "I know homosexuality is normal and right and I must fight that out of the perversion of my heart," in the same way that I don't imagine advocates of homosexual rights wake up thinking "I know heteronormativity is the right way to go and I must oppose that in the perversion of my heart." I think assumption of bad faith on the part of either party is not a helpful starting point.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Millernumber1, people don't have to have malicious intent - certainly not deliberate malicious intent - to be wrong and harmful.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
...and anyway, trying to figure out people's intent is a murky sorcery at best. Let's stick to what we know from what they've written.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Applying what humans know about human nature is hardly sorcery.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I agree, actually. Initially, I looked at Card's politics and said to myself, "Well some of the political statements he's made sound pretty bad to me. But I must be reading too much into it, because...(look at his fiction, his homosexual characters and how they behave and are treated)."
As time has passed, though, I've come to think I was seeing what I wished to see on the basis of my love of so many of his stories. I think I was guessing at his motives, and now I look to his explicitly political writing, rather than what I wish his motives were.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Applying what humans know about human nature is hardly sorcery.
Au contraire- guessing at others' intentions (and then discussing them) is potentially the darkest and most destructive sorcery to be had.
I can't believe you're unaware of the dangers. I've been crowing about them for YEARS.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
I've heard you crowing about it, but I'm still trying to figure out your intent Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
You wouldn't believe me if I told you. Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
If you are trying to have a useful discussion then yes, I agree, speculating on people's motivations can definitely derail things into a scratch fight. But when you look at people trying to defend their moralities which are bed rock to their lives, I doubt useful discussion is likely. More like, unmovable object + unstoppable force = catastrophic something or other.
That Card and others like him truly believe that homosexuality and SSM are an evil sin which is bad for this country as a whole is undeniable.
That many many same gender couples are happy and good productive members of our society and will (and should) defend their ability to live as they choose in freedom and without being persecuted is also, undeniable.
The difference between these two beliefs is that the latter does not require anything from anyone. You do not like homosexuality, you feel it is a sin, then teach your children that and hate the sin and not the sinner. There are a lot of sins out there that are equally "damning" to society, but are actually harmful, such as substance abuse, domestic abuse, theft, murder, rape, etc, ad nausium. That this particular "sin" doesn't directly harm anyone (spin up the debate on that one) where as the others I listed have direct and real victims leads me to say, pick you battles! I don't expect people who object to SSM on a religious/moral ground to change their minds, but I do expect them to embrace the founding ideal of this country: freedom. We do not live in a theocracy, we live in a democracy and that means some times having to accept that the thing that is not right for you is right for someone else.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:I do expect them to embrace the founding ideal of this country: freedom. We do not live in a theocracy
Note that OSC does not use religious arguments to justify his stance against same sex marriage.
His sources and reasons may be mistaken, but they cannot be called "religious."
quote:we live in a democracy and that means some times having to accept that the thing that is not right for you is right for someone else.
That is not what democracy means.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote:de·moc·ra·cy [dih-mok-ruh-see] noun, plural -cies. 1. Whatever Stone_Wolf_ says it is, don't argue.
Seriously though, sure having to accept that not everything that is for you will still be legal may not be the definition of "democracy", but it sure is part of the reality of living in one.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Rabbit, I'm pretty surprised to hear you endorse such a cynical and practical-minded approach to politics.
What did I say about politics? I was talking about whether its fair to judge a person based on something they said decades ago which has been stripped from its social, cultural and textural context. I stand by that assessment which I don't see as either cynical or pragmatic. Its about fairness to a person.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
It isn't like Card wrote that article in 1890. 1990 was certainly recent enough to be aware of gay people as human beings. Nor does the audience matter unless he was pandering rather than expressing his own honest views. And he has had ample opportunity to make public any changes of heart or mind he has had since then.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
Kate, You're wrong. First, People change and their views change. Card has stated his view on this has changed, so its unfair to keep claiming that this is his view. It WAS his view. It isn't any more.
Second, there is a differences between "pandering to an audience" and presenting your arguments in a way that reaches your audience. The audience Card was writing to was extremely anti-gay. The objective of the article(based on what Card has said) was to persuade those people to be less anti-gay not more. He wasn't writing to people who were trying to abolish laws against sodomy laws. He was writing to people who wanted those laws enforced. Presenting a "compromise" position that you think a hostile audience might accept even though you personally don't consider ideal, isn't the same as pandering to an audience. This is what Card said he was doing.
Look, I don't approve of most of Card's political opinions or his position on Gay marriage. I'm not trying to defend his work to prevent Gay marriage. But pointing to this decades old essay as evidence that he hates gays is not rationally defensible or just.
You are unlikely to persuade people that they should treat gays fairly and justly, by treating those people unfairly and injustly. You certainly know enough conservative religious people to be aware that they are human beings and that most of them are pretty decent human beings. You are unlikely to reduce the hatred, misunderstanding, and fear people have of gays but returning it with hatred, misunderstanding and fear.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
As far as I can tell this statement is not true:
quote:The objective of the article(based on what Card has said) was to persuade those people to be less anti-gay not more. He wasn't writing to people who were trying to abolish laws against sodomy laws. He was writing to people who wanted those laws enforced. Presenting a "compromise" position that you think a hostile audience might accept even though you personally don't consider ideal, isn't the same as pandering to an audience. This is what Card said he was doing.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: As far as I can tell this statement is not true:
quote:The objective of the article(based on what Card has said) was to persuade those people to be less anti-gay not more. He wasn't writing to people who were trying to abolish laws against sodomy laws. He was writing to people who wanted those laws enforced. Presenting a "compromise" position that you think a hostile audience might accept even though you personally don't consider ideal, isn't the same as pandering to an audience. This is what Card said he was doing.
Card said
quote:I was also writing this essay to a conservative Mormon audience that at the time would have felt no interest in decriminalizing homosexual acts. In that context, my call to "leave the laws on the books" was simply recognizing the law at that time, and my call to not enforce it except in flagrant cases was actually, within that context, a liberal and tolerant view -- for which I was roundly criticized in conservative Mormon circles as being "pro-gay."
My assessment may have been too generous, but from where I'm sitting it is at least reasonable interpretation of what Card actually said. If you have evidence that this is not a reasonable interpretation -- please share.
Out of curiousity, are you disagreeing just to be disagreeable or do you disagree with the point I was trying to make. There are reason for a speaker to tailor a message to a particular audience that don't amount to "pandering". There are reasons a speaker might argue in support of a situation they consider "non-ideal" that don't amount to dissembling. When reading something that was prepared for a specific audience at a specific time, it behooves one to understand how that audience at that time would have perceived the message rather than superimposing ones own perspective on it.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
What in the quoted paragraph points to the idea that the goal of 'The Hypocrites of Homosexuality' was to make people "less anti-gay?"
quote:are you disagreeing just to be disagreeable or do you disagree with the point I was trying to make.
I question kmboots when I feel she's wrong; I question you when I feel you're wrong. I do the same to TomDavidson, Samprimary, Orincoro, and Stone_Wolf.
And that's just in this thread. Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Ooo, wait-- I haven't questioned TomDavidson in this thread.
Tom, come in here and say something I can question you about.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
*sniff* Sometimes it just feels good to be mentioned!
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R:
quote:I do expect them to embrace the founding ideal of this country: freedom. We do not live in a theocracy
Note that OSC does not use religious arguments to justify his stance against same sex marriage.
His sources and reasons may be mistaken, but they cannot be called "religious."
He doesn't use religious arguments because they wouldn't gain him any traction, not because religious beliefs are not the basis of his ideology. His claims not-withstanding.
In this case, particularly, I will not take him at his word that his views are based on his understanding of sociology and psychology. I simply find that claim unlikely to be true. I think he starts with the assumption taught in his religion, and finds justification for that in some view of science. He can then convince himself, and attempt to convince us, that his views are somehow divorced from his religion. I just don't think it's true.
I think you're going way too far in saying that his reasons "can't" be called religious. They can, and with good reason.
I can't prove that- I can't use it to impeach his arguments. But I don't need to. His arguments are impeachable on their own. I just don't think he gets to say: "my views are not dictated by my religion," and have us just take that for granted. Considering that his views line up rather neatly with his religion, we would be foolish to do so.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: Kate, You're wrong. First, People change and their views change. Card has stated his view on this has changed, so its unfair to keep claiming that this is his view. It WAS his view. It isn't any more.
Actually the addendum clearly states that he continues to support the "main point" of this essay.
And as I said, I am willing to allow him to have changed his mind. I have just never been convinced by that particular addendum- it is full of self-justification, and little to no detail on what he actually regrets having said. If he regrets nothing he said, then really this addendum is just a clarification that these were statements made of a purpose he still believes in (even if he never believed in the statements themselves, or no longer does).
And the "main point," of the essay is that society should use whatever tools it has to discourage homosexual behavior. Right? When the law was a tool to be used, Card wanted it used. When it stopped being a tool, he was "not interested." When violent uprising and overthrow (or more importantly the invocation of the right to rebellion) became a tool, he wanted that used too.
It's all horribly mercenary, really. He hasn't changed his mind at all- just acknowledged that the fight has changed shape. That isn't changing your views. It's changing your strategy.
Again, it seems people want to let him divorce himself from these statements simply because he *wants to*. Never mind that he refused to actually acknowledge that there is *anything wrong with them in the first place*. Show me where he does that. Show me where he has said that these things he advocated, these words he spoke, were wrong. He doesn't do that, he just disowns them- as if it never happened. As if it is not important that he said them, and that somehow he can't be held responsible for them because they no longer serve a purpose for him. Again, that isn't changing your mind. Actually, he claims that his mind *never* changed- that what he said then was somehow both right, and not what he believed. it simply MAKES NO SENSE.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro:
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: Kate, You're wrong. First, People change and their views change. Card has stated his view on this has changed, so its unfair to keep claiming that this is his view. It WAS his view. It isn't any more.
Actually the addendum clearly states that he continues to support the "main point" of this essay.
Another strip quote. He states
quote:But I stand by the main points of this essay, which concerns matters internal to the Mormon Church.
You are free to dislike him if you please. But if you misrepresent what he has said, expect to be corrected.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
I don't buy it. When a public figure makes statements in the public, they must be aware that "matters internal" to whatever just don't apply. I'm not saying that context doesn't matter, but you can't simply say whatever you want and then come along and say, "Well, that was not for your ears, so disregard it."
I'm with Orincoro (shocker, eh?) that I'd love to hear him say this isn't his stance or beliefs any more, but that isn't what he's saying.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit:
Actually the addendum clearly states that he continues to support the "main point" of this essay.[/qb][/QUOTE]Another strip quote. He states
quote:But I stand by the main points of this essay, which concerns matters internal to the Mormon Church.
You are free to dislike him if you please. But if you misrepresent what he has said, expect to be corrected. [/QB][/QUOTE]
I stand corrected on that point. However, I am not clear as to whether he means that the main points *are* those about the church, or whether the main points (those that I believe are the main points) are simply *for* the church's digestion.
I still don't believe this addendum is a repudiation of his essay- I think it is a justification.
Posted by odouls268 (Member # 2145) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Rabbit, I'm pretty surprised to hear you endorse such a cynical and practical-minded approach to politics. And it's strange how, now, Card edges more and more towards *not* respecting the law-as it becomes less intolerant of homosexuality, that is. We must, apparently, grudgingly accept the law only enforcing it sometimes when it's on our side of the fence, leaning deeper into our field. But as time passes, and society changes, and it becomes likely that the law will gradually be on the *other* side of the fence, and deeper into *that* field...why, suddenly it's an attack on America, it's the kind of thing that would provoke a violent uprising, it's going to destroy the family, etc.
I look forward to reading, as laws continue to be passed bringing homosexuality nearer and nearer parity with heterosexuality, essays from Card talking about how we need to respect the law.
Um...is there really any question whatsoever that the changes in society have eroded the traditional family?
I'll go ahead and answer that: No. No there is no question whatsoever. The changes of what is accepted behavior in society have all but completely destroyed the traditional family.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Wow. What do you know about the "traditional family" odouls? Because I've studied sociology, anthropology, and history, and everything I have learned has led me to question the notion that what I am told is "traditional" and "normal" must be so.
Traditional in what tradition? In the traditions of 19th century America? In what segment of society?
The only "traditional family" I am aware of in history was an invention of 20th century marketing that appealed to Americans who craved a sense of stability and normality in a consumer-driven lifestyle. Many people need to be told that what they are doing is ok- that the choices they are making are "normal" and "traditional." I'm sorry, but that's Bollocks. And it doesn't stand the test of any actual history I'm aware of- even the limited scope of American history, among just the white middle classes.
I guess you must have been talking about the "traditional family" that sent the kids off to work in factories at the age of 8. Oh no, you were talking about the "traditional family" in which the mother could expect to die in childbirth and be replaced by a second wife. Or the "traditional family" that could expect half of its children to survive to adulthood, or of course the "traditional family" that sold its daughters off as soon as possible to husbands who needed them to produce sons to work on a farm.
No wait, you meant the "traditional family" where it was acceptable to marry your first cousin. The "traditional family" where the wife was treated as the property of a husband, and was of course not given the right to vote, because in a "traditional family," the man is responsible for those kinds of decisions.
Traditional family my ass. It's a product you bought, and you just don't realize it. And you couch it in terms of "the destruction of the traditional family," as if there was some cherished institution where all of these things went on and everybody was just so satisfied and morally fulfilled by it all, and now it's *DESTROYED* because we are more permissive of different behaviors.
How has society become *more* permissive anyway? You can't beat your wife or sell your kids for labor, or own slaves, or buy politicians outright anymore. Seems society has gotten a little touchy on the subject. You can't even lynch fags anymore. What is the world coming to??? I would say as a straight, white, middle class male, society has become a little less permissive for me. No marrying my cousins for me no matter how attractive. DAMN you liberals and your destruction of my traditions.
[ September 13, 2011, 06:18 AM: Message edited by: Orincoro ]
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote: But pointing to this decades old essay as evidence that he hates gays is not rationally defensible or just.
Do you think homophobe = hates gays?
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:The changes of what is accepted behavior in society have all but completely destroyed the traditional family.
I wouldn't say it's quite so dire, odouls. But I agree that changes in society have made it easier to get along without the "traditional" family structure, and thus more likely that more people will choose a different lifestyle model.
Not all the changes are inherently bad for the traditional family. For example: when women entered the workplace and began gaining social and financial independence that was a GOOD thing for the family-- it meant a opening of opportunities for girls.
What was BAD for the family is that there was no cultural impetus for men to step up and meet increased responsibilities for childcare and homemaking. Women joined men in the workplace, but men were not pushed to join women's work at home. I think that created a sort of social vacuum that we still suffer from. The solution is not to legislate against gender equality, but to encourage men to see homemaking as a legitimate, manly pursuit, and one that adult males need to be responsible for.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:Do you think homophobe = hates gays?
Yes, that's generally how it's used.
quote:How has society become *more* permissive anyway?
1) Increased acceptance of divorce paralleled by fewer social and cultural supports to avoid it. 2) Increased acceptance of sexual behavior that was previously considered deviant. (NOTE: "Acceptance," not necessarily "incidents.") 3) Less emphasis on personal excellence and personal responsibility. (I realize this might be contentious-- I'll point to the recent study done on how colleges are lowering their standards in order to make sure that the percentage of students getting high marks remains stable). Grade inflation. Also, note any post where rivka talks about her job. Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote: But pointing to this decades old essay as evidence that he hates gays is not rationally defensible or just.
Do you think homophobe = hates gays?
I think that's a commonly accepted definition. From the Collin's English dictionary
quote:homophobia [ˌhəʊməʊˈfəʊbɪə] n (Psychology) intense hatred or fear of homosexuals or homosexuality
What do you think it means?
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
I don't exactly agree with that. If you ask me, it's kind of good that what equals a traditional family has changed. And it wasn't always the nuclear family OSC harps about either. That's a recent invention. Traditional families were usually extended families. Marriage was more about commerce than love and women had no power. I'm kind of glad we have questioned that. Even if people do divorce and not nearly as much as folks think they do, it's good to have that option instead of being stuck in a violent marriage. I wish people spent half as much energy looking at things that REALLY destroy families: domestic abuse, child abuse, alcoholism, strict gender roles. Those are way worse than gay marriage.
Posted by Shan (Member # 4550) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: Not all the changes are inherently bad for the traditional family. For example: when women entered the workplace and began gaining social and financial independence that was a GOOD thing for the family-- it meant a opening of opportunities for girls.
What was BAD for the family is that there was no cultural impetus for men to step up and meet increased responsibilities for childcare and homemaking. Women joined men in the workplace, but men were not pushed to join women's work at home. I think that created a sort of social vacuum that we still suffer from. The solution is not to legislate against gender equality, but to encourage men to see homemaking as a legitimate, manly pursuit, and one that adult males need to be responsible for.
Hear! Hear! I have no questions for you on the above statements -- just appreciation.. .(Am I allowed to say so? )
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
I guess I'm just livin' "the solution".
The real trick is to wait for nap time to clean the guns...
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit:
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote: But pointing to this decades old essay as evidence that he hates gays is not rationally defensible or just.
Do you think homophobe = hates gays?
I think that's a commonly accepted definition. From the Collin's English dictionary
quote:homophobia [ˌhəʊməʊˈfəʊbɪə] n (Psychology) intense hatred or fear of homosexuals or homosexuality
What do you think it means?
Those don't match though, under the latter definition, someone that intensely fears homosexuals (or homosexuality) would match the definition. Under the former, only hatred applies.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Those don't match though, under the latter definition, someone that intensely fears homosexuals (or homosexuality) would match the definition. Under the former, only hatred applies.
I think that qualifies as splitting hairs.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I don't agree. I think that there is a world of difference between, for example, hating homosexuals and being very afraid of what homosexuality might do to society. Both of those would qualify as homophobia.
It is not a very useful word.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
The Rabbit: I don't agree. It's actually interesting because normally, if I intensely fear spiders, I'm an arachnophobe regardless of whether I actually hate spiders or not. Alternatively, I can hate pigeons and want to kill all of them without having any fear of them at all.
The emphasis with arachnophobe is on the fear whereas with homophobe, if the "commonly accepted" definition has truly prevailed then the emphasis is on the hate (whereas the definition you linked allows for both).
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
Kate and Mucus, Are you denying that "Homophobe" has become routinely used as a pejorative that implies hate, contempt, prejudice, and fear of individuals. You might as well be arguing that "niger" is a perfectly legitimate spanish word.
I don't for a minute believe that the people who are editing OSC's website to add "homophobe" are simply saying that he fears what legalizing gay marriage would do to society with no intent to denigrate him as a bigot. Since the word is so commonly used as an epithet, people who don't want it to be interpreted as and epithet had best choose another word.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:It's actually interesting because normally, if I intensely fear spiders, I'm an arachnophobe regardless of whether I actually hate spiders or not.
Everyone I've ever known who had a intense fear of spiders, also hated them. It's not a very persuasive argument.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: Kate and Mucus, Are you denying that "Homophobe" has become routinely used as a pejorative that implies hate, contempt, prejudice, and fear of individuals. You might as well be arguing that "niger" is a perfectly legitimate spanish word.
I don't for a minute believe that the people who are editing OSC's website to add "homophobe" are simply saying that he fears what legalizing gay marriage would do to society with no intent to denigrate him as a bigot. Since the word is so commonly used as an epithet, people who don't want it to be interpreted as and epithet had best choose another word.
No. I am saying that people use the word in different ways to mean a range of things and that because of that it is not a very useful word.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
Fearing the impact a group or an idea might have on society is not equivalent psychologically to a phobia.
I'm afraid of what the Tea Party is doing to America. I'm afraid of what political conservatives are doing to the Christian religion. I'm afraid of what the big oil is doing to cause people to doubt climate science. I'm afraid that the wealthy are buying the US government. All of the those fears inform the way I vote and my political activities yet I wouldn't call any of them "phobias".
A lot of people fear the influence of the Mormon Church on politics, particular regarding Gay marriage. Does that make you "Mormonophobes"?
A phobia is not synonymous with fear, even intense fear of irrational fear. A phobia is a type of anxiety disorder. People with phobia's go to great lengths to avoid the situations that cause them anxiety. When they can't, they experience a sense of panic including rapid heart beat, shortness of breath, trembling, anger, and an intense desire to flee. Do you have reason to believe that Card experiences those kinds of symptoms when he thinks about gay marriage or comes in contract with gays? Do you think that's what people typically mean when they say Card is a "homophobe"?
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
The Rabbit: I think you're running quickly over a whole bunch of different things.
a) You're simply wrong on "everyone." I intensely fear spiders in my personal space, I certainly don't hate them. I don't think that is a rare attitude.
b) Whether "homophobe" is routinely used as a pejorative is a completely separate discussion from whether we use it to designate hate or fear.
For example, there are loads of self-hating gay Republicans, they could be classified as homophobes using the hate definition, but they don't necessarily fear gays (they may even go out of their way to hire them). OSC fears open homosexual behaviour, he could be classified as a homophobe under the fear definition.
Arguably both aren't very flattering and could be categorised as pejoratives. That is a separate issue.
c) There are no "people" that are editing OSC's website because AFAIK there is only one person (as opposed to people) that is editing Wikipedia (no ownership by OSC).
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: A phobia is not synonymous with fear, even intense fear of irrational fear.
Eh?
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: I think that's a commonly accepted definition. From the Collin's English dictionary
quote:homophobia [ˌhəʊməʊˈfəʊbɪə] n (Psychology) intense hatred or fear of homosexuals or homosexuality
(My italics)
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
So I think the dictionary definition supports fear alone. And I think in card's case, it is reasonable to argue it is a phobia. It may not be, however.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
"Individually, I love you all with affection unspeakable; but, collectively, I look upon you with a disgust that amounts to absolute detestation. Oh! pity me, my beloved friends, for such is my sense of duty that, once out of my indentures, I shall feel myself bound to devote myself heart and soul to your extermination!"
quote:And it wasn't always the nuclear family OSC harps about either. That's a recent invention
1) OSC harps on the nuclear family? Can you show evidence for this? Have you read his essays about being a grandparent? 2) Define "recent."
quote:Even if people do divorce and not nearly as much as folks think they do
What number do you imagine folks have in their heads, Syn?
quote:it's good to have that option instead of being stuck in a violent marriage.
It's better to have children who grow up knowing how to treat their future spouses, and having role models they can look to for examples. It's also better to have a support and sounding system that will permit people to honestly discuss their problems and get help for them.
quote:I wish people spent half as much energy looking at things that REALLY destroy families: domestic abuse, child abuse, alcoholism, strict gender roles. Those are way worse than gay marriage.
Those things destroy individual families, and perhaps affect families closely linked to the ones destroyed; but the current idea of homosexual marriage is a sea change in terms of how family is defined.
I think we've had this conversation before-- do you have anything new to bring to it? Here was the latest iteration. Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote: I think in card's case, it is reasonable to argue it is a phobia.
It's never a good idea to argue without evidence.
Haven't you learned anything from the YECs?
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
:sigh: Right. I have no evidence. Of course Scott. Let's start at Zero, because it's better for you.
I'm not making the argument, and with you I really don't care to. Personally I believe it. I also believe the argument *could* be made, if somebody had the patience to cut through your blindly happy devotion to a vision of the world in which one gets to say bigoted things all day long, and somehow not be a bigot. Why would I want to waste my time dealing with you on this? I don't.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
That didn't last long (my agreeing with Orincoro).
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: :sigh: Right. I have no evidence. Of course Scott. Let's start at Zero, because it's better for you.
I'm not making the argument, and with you I really don't care to. Personally I believe it. I also believe the argument *could* be made, if somebody had the patience to cut through your blindly happy devotion to a vision of the world in which one gets to say bigoted things all day long, and somehow not be a bigot. Why would I want to waste my time dealing with you on this? I don't.
All right.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Evidence of harping. This is only a small selection and only from WorldWatch. Honestly, it was just to distressing to wade through those columns for very long.
quote:We really are forcing a shocking number of children to grow up in fatherless homes, by the choice of one or the other or both biological parents -- and it is considered "wrong" to criticize people who make that decision. (Remember Dan Quayle and Murphy Brown?)
Our culture really does promote pushing our children into day care even though it is obvious that children grow up happier and more civilized in a home where they have constant contact with parents who love them and spend time with them and care about helping them learn to make right choices.
We really do close our eyes to the fact that marriage has become almost meaningless, with couples living together without any respect for the right of society to expect them to make binding commitments, while those who have married are able to break that covenant at will, regardless of the cost to their own and other people's children.
edited to make it clear that I was quoting in case I wasn't.
[ September 13, 2011, 02:57 PM: Message edited by: kmbboots ]
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Hm...I wouldn't consider those harping.
What would you argue against in those essays kmboots?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit:
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote: But pointing to this decades old essay as evidence that he hates gays is not rationally defensible or just.
Do you think homophobe = hates gays?
I think that's a commonly accepted definition. From the Collin's English dictionary
quote:homophobia [ˌhəʊməʊˈfəʊbɪə] n (Psychology) intense hatred or fear of homosexuals or homosexuality
What do you think it means?
If you want to talk about the 'commonly accepted definition,' look at wikipedia's article on the word.
Hatred of gay individuals is not a prerequisite for being what people generally term a homophobe. Self-declaring that you are tolerant of gay individuals is also a very poor method of indemnification, because the vast, vast majority of very obvious homophobes return time and time again to rely on that defense, in the 'don't get me wrong, I have gay friends / jamaican neighbors' vein.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: Hm...I wouldn't consider those harping.
...mostly because the frequency isn't high enough to rate on my harping-o-meter, when compared with the other articles he's written. 4 articles over a space of...ten years isn't "harping." (And one of the articles isn't directly about nuclear families, but about whether America can win the culture war with Islam.)
I admit, though, I mostly agree with the first two statements that kmboots quoted.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Four articles from one site out of the first six I skimmed. And one wasn't even about nuclear families yet he still harped on them!
I wasn't reading the whole columns. Honestly, they were just too unpleasant for the most part. I don't need the extra indigestion.
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
I never realized my civility and happiness were so negatively impacted by my having gone to child care. Huh.
I better remember to tell my mom how obviously scarred I am next time I call her.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
The reason I personally feel it is harping is that OSC didn't present it as, "I feel this is the better way." or "If the situation allows, this is preferred." he presented the argument that as "This does harm to society."
Is being a millionaire better then being poor? Hell yes it is. Some of us parents don't have the luxury of not both working. I myself am about to be in that situation.
If he feels so strongly about it, he can donate some funds to the well being of my children so I don't have to put them in day care and work.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
For me, it is more the gall of the notion that unless someone unhappily crams themselves into a specific gender and family model that they are necessarily a detriment to society.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Oh, no, kate, it's not that. It's just that if you don't engage in profoundly biblical sex and act like a good mormon wife, then you won't "weave in" to society and you will be an outcast with a hole where your heart should be, that will only ever be filled if you get married and have lots of babies.
And you should take this from the person who married at a very young age who grew up in a subculture where that was the only accepted course of action, and who has never known anything else. For some reason.
Posted by Aris Katsaris (Member # 4596) on :
If OSC only supported homosexual acts being illegal because he was addressing a particular audience at a particular time, at which audience and at which time do we need to bring him in front of so that OSC ends up stating his support for same-sex marriage?
Perhaps he can say something like "Same-sex marriage needs to be made legal, not because we want to encourage sin, but in order to discourage irresponsibility and lack of commitment in the gay population."
Then, given a particular audience, he can then explain to the LDS church that he just didn't believe that particular audience would be interested to hear the opinion in a person that didn't want to support same-sex marriage.
Posted by odouls268 (Member # 2145) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: Wow. What do you know about the "traditional family" odouls? Because I've studied sociology, anthropology, and history, and everything I have learned has led me to question the notion that what I am told is "traditional" and "normal" must be so.
Traditional in what tradition? In the traditions of 19th century America? In what segment of society?
The only "traditional family" I am aware of in history was an invention of 20th century marketing that appealed to Americans who craved a sense of stability and normality in a consumer-driven lifestyle. Many people need to be told that what they are doing is ok- that the choices they are making are "normal" and "traditional." I'm sorry, but that's Bollocks. And it doesn't stand the test of any actual history I'm aware of- even the limited scope of American history, among just the white middle classes.
I guess you must have been talking about the "traditional family" that sent the kids off to work in factories at the age of 8. Oh no, you were talking about the "traditional family" in which the mother could expect to die in childbirth and be replaced by a second wife. Or the "traditional family" that could expect half of its children to survive to adulthood, or of course the "traditional family" that sold its daughters off as soon as possible to husbands who needed them to produce sons to work on a farm.
No wait, you meant the "traditional family" where it was acceptable to marry your first cousin. The "traditional family" where the wife was treated as the property of a husband, and was of course not given the right to vote, because in a "traditional family," the man is responsible for those kinds of decisions.
Traditional family my ass. It's a product you bought, and you just don't realize it. And you couch it in terms of "the destruction of the traditional family," as if there was some cherished institution where all of these things went on and everybody was just so satisfied and morally fulfilled by it all, and now it's *DESTROYED* because we are more permissive of different behaviors.
How has society become *more* permissive anyway? You can't beat your wife or sell your kids for labor, or own slaves, or buy politicians outright anymore. Seems society has gotten a little touchy on the subject. You can't even lynch fags anymore. What is the world coming to??? I would say as a straight, white, middle class male, society has become a little less permissive for me. No marrying my cousins for me no matter how attractive. DAMN you liberals and your destruction of my traditions.
I also hear that many of them cause impotence as a side effect, so that should help keep you from pitching a tent over your cousin anymore.
Don't bother to thank me, I solve problems. It's what I do.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
So you admit you were full of crap, then. Good. Posted by odouls268 (Member # 2145) on :
quote:Originally posted by Icarus: So you admit you were full of crap, then. Good.
If that's what it takes to make ya feel better, sure. Like I said, I solve problems. I'm here for you guys (no homo)
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:it is more the gall of the notion that unless someone unhappily crams themselves into a specific gender and family model that they are necessarily a detriment to society.
You know, I can see where you think that he's making judgments against individuals; in my opinion his arguments definitely work better applied to general practices.
I think, for the most part, that's the intention of his essays.
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
Okay, then.
It is wrong to say that, as a general practice, child care leads to worse outcomes than stay-at-home parenting. The truth is a great deal more nuanced. Factors like socioeconomic status have a more significant and consistent effect.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Icarus: So you admit you were full of crap, then. Good.
Yeah, that's what I got from it. I'm satisfied.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Check the second part of OSC's statement regarding childcare, Juxtapose. It's an important element, too.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R:
quote:it is more the gall of the notion that unless someone unhappily crams themselves into a specific gender and family model that they are necessarily a detriment to society.
You know, I can see where you think that he's making judgments against individuals; in my opinion his arguments definitely work better applied to general practices.
I think, for the most part, that's the intention of his essays.
Yeah, definitely. He's too much of a good person, deep down, and far too politic, to look into an individual's face, and actually say the things he says about them as a part of a group. He can stand himself as long as the vitriol is generic and cast upon the unseen backs of imagined terrors.
But hey, that's a form of cowardice that is not uncommon.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:that's a form of cowardice that is not uncommon.
Maybe you see more of it than I do? You're a man of the world, after all: experienced, debonair, sophisticated. I expect you know lots of things I don't.
I'm glad to see that we agree that OSC is a good person. I'll disagree that you have to look deep down for it: it's fairly evident on the surface, in the way that he treats people. While his essays get heated-- more than I'm comfortable with-- he is more than gracious in person. OSC is the kind of man who, no matter where he is, he seems at ease, comfortable; and more than that, he puts OTHERS at ease. I've met lots of writers and publishers and editors in my time; there are few as entertaining, and wholly enjoyable as OSC.
So it's not just that he's a good person-- he makes other people feel good, too. That counts for a lot, in my book.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R:
quote:that's a form of cowardice that is not uncommon.
Maybe you see more of it than I do? You're a man of the world, after all: experienced, debonair, sophisticated. I expect you know lots of things I don't.
I expect I do. For one thing, I know petulance doesn't suit you.
quote: So it's not just that he's a good person-- he makes other people feel good, too. That counts for a lot, in my book.
It would certainly have to in order to excuse the words of a bigot. I'm sure he's a very nice man. Many people who know me in daily life often refer to me as a teddy bear. As I said, he's far too politic to let the cowardly things he does in writing come out around other people, where he would feel responsible for having said them to *Real People*.
Posted by DustinDopps (Member # 12640) on :
I agree. I have found OSC to be nothing but kind and gracious.
What some of you are failing to realize is this: an opinion on a topic (homosexuality, for example) doesn't equate to an oppression of a people.
If I think families should be one husband, one wife, and the kids, then that is my opinion. I will find a wife who believes the same and we will raise our kids with that morality. That *doesn't* mean that I am trying to oust gay people (or single parents, or orphans, or any other type of family) from society. I am simply saying "I believe that this is the type of family God intended."
If Mr. Card's opinions really bother you that much - if you put so much stock in something someone says that you haven't even ever met or talked to - then I'd say the problem lies in YOU. You think you are a victim. You want social acceptance, NOT moral equality.
And you are a whiny baby.
Posted by DustinDopps (Member # 12640) on :
Orincoro: the word "bigot" is easy to throw around when you are personally offended. But just because someone disagrees with you on a moral issue, that doesn't mean they are a bigot.
Disagreeing with somebody does NOT equal oppression or hatred.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote: If Mr. Card's opinions really bother you that much - if you put so much stock in something someone says that you haven't even ever met or talked to - then I'd say the problem lies in YOU. You think you are a victim.
Another first post?? How charming! How many alts do you have anyway?
I don't really know how to respond to this in a way that will make sense to you. You are wrong. I don't put stock in what OSC says about gays, but he has a public profile and a voice. His words are published and read. I have a right, and in my opinion, a moral duty, to voice my opposition to those words, and to show solidarity for those that OSC speaks out against. In the sense that this concerns my obligations to my own ethical values and the people in my country and my life who I care about and wish to see given the rights that I believe they deserve, then yes, this is about me. But the problem lies with me? I feel like a victim? Why? I'm not the subject of much of OSC's bigotry. Some, I think, but most is not directed at people like me, not in the way that I see myself, so it's hard to feel victimized. But still, this is my problem? Because I disagree with someone, and have the temerity to say so? This is something I need to work out? I shouldn't disagree with people?
So the fact that you have a problem with what I'm saying is actually *your* problem? How does this logic work exactly? Or are you one of those people who just says things that sound good to you without actually logically parsing it out and deciding what you actually think any of it means? What the hell do you mean?
No, the fact that OSC is bigoted against homosexuals and those who advocate for the rights of homosexuals and their security in our society makes me call him a bigot. The fact that he personally offends me wit these opinions does not make him a bigot.
And yes, disagreeing does not equal oppression. However, *advocating oppression* does, to a degree, equal oppression.OSC advocates, and has continually advocated the oppression of homosexuals. The fact that he disagrees with the ideas of homosexuals is one thing- the fact that he actively stumps for laws that oppress them and limit the rights that they deserve, in order to serve his vision of the makings of a moral society, is another.
He would LOVE to convince everyone that it's "just a disagreement!" And that calling him a bigot is unfair, and that actually, we all have the right to our opinions. We do. But advocate the overthow of the government to stop gays from marrying, and I will call you a bigot.
Posted by DustinDopps (Member # 12640) on :
But that's where you're mistaken. If society - as a majority - decides that homosexual marriage is illegal, then it ISN'T bigoted. It is reality.
And guess what? In most of the states it has been offered, the idea of homosexual union has been defeated handily for the same reason OSC proposes.
I, for one, voted against it in Oregon. Oregon is very liberal (in some parts) but if FAILED here.
What you call bigotry, I call the minority complaining *because* their views aren't accepted as normal or moral.
Posted by DustinDopps (Member # 12640) on :
Further, I will teach my children (all five of them) that homosexuality is wrong. It hurts society and, more importantly, the God I worship hates it.
They'll know that I don't hate any person for what they do or what they believe. It is personal choice. But as for me and *my* house, we will do what God commands until they are old enough to move out.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I wasn't aware that Card had confined his speech on homosexuality to simply expressing opinions, Dustin. Here I thought he was some sort of...*activist* or something.
Oh, and really-expressing an opinion doesn't make one a bigot. Expressing a bigoted opinion, however, if truly stated-well in itself that doesn't either. But it's a solid indicator of what's there.
---
Scott, everything I've heard of Card in person is similar to what you say. But then again...well, for the purposes of this discussion, you're almost exactly Card's personal demographic, aren't you? Mormon, father, writer, heterosexual, committed family man, etc. I'd be surprised if he *wasn't* gracious to you.
I'm not at all sure, however, how gracious he would be to an open homosexual in a long-term, committed relationship who, say, wishes to marry and adopt or have a child together. I'm not sure what his reaction would be if they were to say, politely, "You've said some very hurtful, untrue things about me-not directly, but as a member of a group-and I wish you'd stop."
Would he tailor his remarks for a socially liberal, openly homosexual monogamous person? Would he be the 'for the Mormons' Card? Or, worst of all, would be be the World Watch Card, and reply with something along the lines that as soon as the liberal stopped working to destroy America and the family, he'd stop saying so?
I don't know why we ought to give him a pass or continually excuse or qualify public political words he says. Does he *mean* them? Is he working to see that public policy reflects them? The answer to the former I suspect is true, but the latter is a question of fact.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote: But that's where you're mistaken. If society - as a majority - decides that homosexual marriage is illegal, then it ISN'T bigoted. It is reality.
Google the phrase "might is right." Some interesting reading there I'm sure you'll enjoy. It certainly had a big influence on some European politicians in the early 20th century.
quote:Originally posted by DustinDopps: What you call bigotry, I call the minority complaining *because* their views aren't accepted as normal or moral.
Oh, you're a gem. You are. I bet you're a "patriot" too. I bet you go on and on about freedom and democracy. Never mind those stupid "founding principles" like avoiding "oppression of the masses." Not when we're talking about f**s.
quote: Further, I will teach my children (all five of them) that homosexuality is wrong. It hurts society and, more importantly, the God I worship hates it.
And you worship a God of hate. Well that's nice for you, I hope you enjoy that.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Wait a second, if something is illegal, supporting its continued illegality *cannot* be bigoted, Dustin? Am I understanding you correctly? Because that is a baffling stance to take.
quote:And guess what? In most of the states it has been offered, the idea of homosexual union has been defeated handily for the same reason OSC proposes.
It'd be neat if we were both on this forum in ten, twenty years to see what your thoughts on this will be. Twenty years ago, the idea of homosexuals marrying wouldn't have passed muster *anywhere* on the state level. It wouldn't even have been a contentious political issue. Now we're at the 'in most states' stage. I think you know what comes after that, and I wonder-in light of your 'God hates it but I don't hate them!' rhetoric-how strong your respect for our representative system will be then.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
[Redacted. I felt a point that was made needed to be addressed, but I didn't feel good about doing something to swing this thread more into the personal, and really regretted wading into this thread period. Since nobody's responded to what I said yet, I don't feel bad for removing the text of my post.]
[ September 13, 2011, 11:50 PM: Message edited by: Noemon ]
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Rakeesh:
My purpose in posting that isn't what you seem to think it is; I'm not advocating you give him and his ideas a pass. I'm balancing Orincoro's uninformed evaluation of the man's character with truth.
When we get back to discussing his ideas, rather than his character, I'll happily do so. It should not be a difficult thing to do-- we've got 10 years of World Watch to look to for evidence.
Speaking of EVIDENCE, by the way: Janice Ian.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
On that note, I need to leave the convo for a little while, I'm afraid.
Other things on my mind that need more attention.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
My point is that for this conversation, I'm simply wondering how relevant your personal experience is. I'm not questioning your interpretation, rather the application. You are, after all, on many levels in the general sense quite unlikely to be the person he would treat unjustly, if there was anyone he would.
Straining for an example here, a member of the Nation of Islam might say Louis Farrakan is the soul of courtesy and kindliness, but we wouldn't consider that very conclusive as to how he behaves personally with Jews. That takes the comparison further than it should, but it's accurate to my meaning in type but not degree.
As for World Watch...well, yes we could but I'm wondering what he could say, at this point, that wouldn't get overturned by his personal courtesy and niceness or rejected as only a small sample or dismissed as out of context.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: My purpose in posting that isn't what you seem to think it is; I'm not advocating you give him and his ideas a pass. I'm balancing Orincoro's uninformed evaluation of the man's character with truth.
With opinion. With *your* opinion. Based on a different set of facts, but still your opinion. Let's be clear.
Don't call what I have to say uninformed. I am very well informed on the man's character. I ought to be, I've studied him enough. I've corresponded with him almost as much as you have. You met him a couple of times and you're the expert, why? Because I don't live close enough and am too young to have had time in my professional life to meet him? Because we aren't members of the same church? Why exactly do you know better about his character because he was nice to you when you talked to him?
And you make sarcastic implications that *I* put on airs of personal experience others don't have?
At least i know the difference between what my opinions are, and what the facts may be. You haven't got a clue, obviously.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Orincoro, I may be entirely wrong, but I didn't read Scott's comments as sarcastic nor implications, but giving you credit for possibly knowing something he does not. What leads you to believe that his comment was not sincere?
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: Check the second part of OSC's statement regarding childcare, Juxtapose. It's an important element, too.
I did. He makes it sound like day care and loving parenting are mutually exclusive. It's just the one part of the worldview he's espousing that I find personally grating, especially because he rather goes out of his way to make the statement into an absolute.
Anyway, it sounds like you'really busy, and you've got plenty of people directing posts at you, so I'm willing to drop it. Thanks for your civility.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: Orincoro, I may be entirely wrong, but I didn't read Scott's comments as sarcastic nor implications, but giving you credit for possibly knowing something he does not. What leads you to believe that his comment was not sincere?
quote: You're a man of the world, after all: experienced, debonair, sophisticated. I expect you know lots of things I don't.
It fits a pattern I've experienced with him. He rides a line between sarcasm, sincerity, and criticism that is unique to him.
Here he reminds me of my relative age and lack of certain experiences by falsely noting my worldliness, as if I am a constant braggart about my travels.
These qualities, particularly "debonair" and "sophisticated," could only be mocking the image of myself that I project, since he hasn't met me. So by mocking the image that I am responsible for, he implies that I consider myself to be debonaire and sophisticated, implies that I project that image (and poorly) and that I am therefore, falsely, of the belief that I understand the subject we are discussing better than he does, and moreover, am attempting to appeal to my own authority as a "man of the world," to win an argument I can't win on merit. And in contrasting us, he portrays himself as humble, eminently wiser, and more patient than I.
And he does this all in such a way as to get the effect, which is to insult me, and to avoid the consequence, which is to be seen as provocative rather than reasonable. He never wants to be seen as the provocateur. He's the calm rational center of the universe about which chaos reigns. That's his role.
And stop before you accuse me of making assumptions. I'm voicing my thought process. If that's wrong, he can say so. If he didn't mean to be sarcastic, he greatly misjudged my tolerance for wan praise.
Posted by millernumber1 (Member # 9894) on :
Thanks for the link, Scott. I found it quite moving, actually.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by DustinDopps: Further, I will teach my children (all five of them) that homosexuality is wrong. It hurts society and, more importantly, the God I worship hates it.
And you're not a homophobe, I'm sure.
quote:They'll know that I don't hate any person for what they do or what they believe. It is personal choice. But as for me and *my* house, we will do what God commands until they are old enough to move out.
And if your child comes out as gay when they're 15 or so? Says there's no way around it? What do you do then?
Posted by Aris Katsaris (Member # 4596) on :
quote:If society - as a majority - decides that homosexual marriage is illegal, then it ISN'T bigoted.
It seems your definition for bigotry is just "a minority opinion", and therefore bigotry can't be bigotry if it's a majority opinion.
If society - as a majority - decides that gay people should be executed -- is *that* not bigoted either?
If society - as a majority - decides that Mormonism or Judaism is illegal, is that not bigotry either?
Mind you, I'm not interested in *debating* your definitions, I just want to understand if said definitions are consistent in your own mind.
quote:And you're not a homophobe, I'm sure
It seems some people just dislike the word "homophobe" while fully and freely admitting to every single characteristic which we consider part of that category.
Posted by odouls268 (Member # 2145) on :
quote:Wow. What do you know about the "traditional family" odouls? Because I've studied sociology, anthropology, and history,
quote: Don't call what I have to say uninformed. I am very well informed on the man's character. I ought to be, I've studied him enough. I've corresponded with him almost as much as you have.
Orincoro,
I love it when someone summarizes their academic resume' as a preamble to their posts. It's totally bolsters their credibility. And it definitely doesn't make them seem hopelessly insecure or desperate for approval at all
Posted by odouls268 (Member # 2145) on :
quote: Yeah, definitely. He's too much of a good person, deep down, and far too politic, to look into an individual's face, and actually say the things he says about them as a part of a group. He can stand himself as long as the vitriol is generic and cast upon the unseen backs of imagined terrors.
But hey, that's a form of cowardice that is not uncommon.
quote:Many people who know me in daily life often refer to me as a teddy bear.
Look on the bright side buddy. At least being a "teddy bear" in person, but a scathing and acrid commentator when insulated by the anonymity of an internet forum could never be interpreted as the exact same cowardice.
I mean, keyboard commandos never hypocritically accuse people of engaging in the same behaviors in which they themselves are neck deep.
Posted by Aris Katsaris (Member # 4596) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: Speaking of EVIDENCE, by the way: Janice Ian.
I noticed she calls OSC a Republican in that post.
For shame, doesn't she know OSC is a Democrat? Despite the fact that he doesn't seem to have voted for any Democrat ever, his whole life.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
What impresses me about her response is that she wrote it after he wrote the bit below, which he wrote just a few months after choosing to attend her same-sex marriage in Canada (and which is the same infamous article in which he hints at armed revolution should courts in this country find that same-sex marriage is a fundamental right):
quote:The sex life of the people around me is none of my business; the homosexuality of some of my friends and associates has made no barrier between us, and as far as I know, my heterosexuality hasn't bothered them. That's what tolerance looks like.
But homosexual "marriage" is an act of intolerance. It is an attempt to eliminate any special preference for marriage in society -- to erase the protected status of marriage in the constant balancing act between civilization and individual reproduction.
So if my friends insist on calling what they do "marriage," they are not turning their relationship into what my wife and I have created, because no court has the power to change what their relationship actually is. Instead they are attempting to strike a death blow against the well-earned protected status of our, and every other, real marriage. They steal from me what I treasure most, and gain for themselves nothing at all. They won't be married. They'll just be playing dress-up in their parents' clothes.
Note that she held the wedding in Canada, she writes, precisely because she could: because it was the first opportunity she had to legally marry her partner. But in Card's view, this ceremony he attended is an attempt to strike a "death blow" against his own "real" marriage. And either she's cool with that, or isn't particularly introspective.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Hmmm, another article to consider after looking through the older World Watch articles. I think the objection to same-sex marriage is implicit, but noticeablely not emphasized.
quote:As monogamy collapses, as marriage becomes an afterthought to reproduction, as young people delay marriage, as men are pushed or drawn out of any meaningful role in more and more households, as philandering Alpha males and opportunistic Loser males face no penalty for their actions and are encouraged in some of them, the role of women becomes less and less secure, children lose faith in everything, and the net national happiness plummets.
The old rules promoted sexual fidelity and universal lifetime monogamy, rearing children in stable families headed by role model fathers and mothers. The fact that no marriage was perfect does not change the fact that the model was worth aspiring to and measuring ourselves against. The replacement rules do the opposite. Who is happier?
quote:A Strong, Good Culture can tolerate a certain amount of deviance -- as long as it is marked as deviant behavior. A few rapacious businessmen, a few adulterous Alpha males, a few secret alcoholics, a few atheists on the faculty -- these don't damage the Stories of the Strong, Good Culture, in part because they prove the culture's self-story of tolerance.
But when the deviancy from the norms becomes the norm, and the people who keep to the rules of stability, decency, fairness, fidelity, loyalty, faith, honor, generosity, courage, respect, conformity, and consistency are depicted as deviant in the replacement stories, then you're looking at a society that has decided to die.
Uh.... How exactly is homosexuality immoral anyway? There are places where gays can get KILLED for being gay. Is that actually more moral than being gay? I don't even get it. That kind of makes Janis Ian a bit better than OSC to be honest. That she can still be his friend despite how downright mean he gets in his articles. Very nice of her because how the heck is homosexual marriage an act of intolerance? I will have children and teach them that it's OK to be gay, to be compassionate towards everyone really because despite being a heathen that's what I believe in!
Dress up in their parents' clothes? How is that not homophobic?
That article bugs me so much. It's just... I just do not agree with it. How is this culture strong and good when so much screwed up stuff went down? Does pointing it out really destroy the culture or expose it for what it is? An unstable lie? And who needs a culture built on lies?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Syne, is this really still a thing for you? I mean, how many times over the years have you asked these same questions?
It seems to boil down to this: "That article bugs me so much. It's just... I just do not agree with it."
You need to get past that. There are people out there who will do things with which you disagree. And you may not think their reasons for doing those things are sufficient. But while it's fine to point out what you think are the flaws in their reasoning, or the negative consequences of those actions, you should really stop acting like you're astonished that contrary opinions exist.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I just assumed that DustinDoops is a fake. Too much of a caricature to be real.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
It's not a matter of contrary opinions it's more. I don't really understand that point of view at all. I don't understand thinking that homosexuality is immoral. I genuinely do not get some people's points of view. Racism comes to mind. I think I chalk that up to autism and certain things just NOT making sense at all.
Plus, no, the stories didn't change. It's just we realized the stories we were being told were bull and questioned them which is a healthy thing to do if you ask me. It's like folks don't even NOTICE how unhealthy some of this stuff is even if it's staring them in the face. People do not make any sense. I think I'll get into just what is wrong with this article later because I should not be on the internet but it keeps me from falling into a black out sleep.
Also, we wouldn't be questioning the stories if they really were good and strong stories as I point out what started this topic in the first place.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: Here he reminds me of my relative age and lack of certain experiences by falsely noting my worldliness, as if I am a constant braggart about my travels.
Thank you for your thoughtful reply. I can not speak with authority to Scott's intentions, but I can say that what little I know of your travels impressed me. And further it doesn't strike me as any huge admission to acknowledge the possibility in a discussion that someone else might know something that you yourself do not.
While I acknowledge that not everyone is gong to be honest all the time, I wonder, what do you gain by not taking them at their word? If they are indeed sincere, much is lost. If they are not, you may have made it clear to others that it is a possibility of their duality, but since it is unprovable and rather rude it still detracts from the conversation and since it is only a possibility and not a certainty, it reflects poorly on you (at least by my standards).
I say this not as an accusation nor a damnation, but only as a question and an observation. The question being, "What do you gain by assuming a lack of sincerity?"
Posted by Aris Katsaris (Member # 4596) on :
quote:"I don't understand thinking that homosexuality is immoral."
That position is hardly difficult to understand. Some people have faith in certain religions, and those religions in turn told them that homosexuality is immoral, therefore these people must also believe that homosexuality is immoral.
In some few cases opposition to homosexuality is instead because of "cultural" or "traditional" reasons, instead of explicitly religious ones. These people just confuse what is *normal* with what is *moral*.
What of the above do you fail to understand; tell me and I'll explain it further to you.
Failure of understanding is something that can be fixed.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: I just assumed that DustinDoops is a fake. Too much of a caricature to be real.
quote:"I don't understand thinking that homosexuality is immoral."
That position is hardly difficult to understand. Some people have faith in certain religions, and those religions in turn told them that homosexuality is immoral, therefore these people must also believe that homosexuality is immoral.
In some few cases opposition to homosexuality is instead because of "cultural" or "traditional" reasons, instead of explicitly religious ones. These people just confuse what is *normal* with what is *moral*.
What of the above do you fail to understand; tell me and I'll explain it further to you.
Failure of understanding is something that can be fixed.
I reckon. I grew up thinking it was wrong and thought, WHY though? So i didn't believe it was wrong anymore. Especially when you think on the list of things that are horrible and hurt people, being gay or gay sex is no where on that list, at least to me.
Also some swans are gay. I don't understand believing something because it's traditional when if i think hard enough, I wonder why it's wrong in the first place. It doesn't help that I'm bi too.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Original posted by Synesthesia
Uh.... How exactly is homosexuality immoral anyway?
Since I'm sure you know why people consider homosexuality immoral, I presume this is a rhetorical questions. As such its begging the question (i.e. you start off by declaring that homosexuality is OBVIOUSLY NOT immoral when in fact that is the central question under debate). The idea that "morality" constitutes adherence to a set of rules dictated by a benevolent God is hardly something new and radical. It's been widely accepted for thousands of years. That doesn't make it right. It just makes it pathetic to pretend it doesn't exist and can't even be imagined.
Morality isn't something that can be measured objectively, there are as dozens of moral theories. In a multicultural society where people are granted freedoms of conscience, you have to expect that there will be a lots of different perspectives on moral living. If you want to enjoy those freedoms yourself, it behooves you to learn to tolerate moral views that differ from your own. If you get outraged every time you read an opinion on what's moral that differs from your own, you are setting yourself up for misery.
quote:There are places where gays can get KILLED for being gay. Is that actually more moral than being gay?
There are so many logical fallacies in this statement its hard to know where to start.
It constitutes an appeal to consequences. The fact that gays are sometimes killed because of their sexual orientation has no relevance on whether or not homosexuality is or is not moral. Neo-Nazi's are also sometimes beaten up for their political beliefs. Does that make it moral to be a white supremacist?
It constitutes a false dichotomy. It's possible that both killing gays and being gay are immoral. The fact the A is worse than B does not imply that B is good.
It's a strawman argument. Neither OSC nor anyone on this site has argued that killing gays is OK. No one has even argued that its an acceptable consquence justified by the importance of teaching people that homosexuality is a sin.
It's a red herring and an appeal to emotion. It's horrifying when Gays get brutally beaten and killed. But its also basically irrelevant to the discussion of whether or not homosexuality is immoral, a heterosexual monogamous marriage is the best route to true happiness or OSC is a homophobe. Its basically equivalent to pointing to pedophilia or as evidence that homosexuality needs to be suppressed. Pedophilia is pretty horrifying (to most people), but that's completely irrelevant to the discussion of whether or not homosexual relations between consenting adults is moral.
It's a fallacy of cause. It presumes that religious beliefs that homosexuality are a sin are a direct cause of attacks on homosexuals. I am unaware of any reliable studies that have found a causal relationship between religiosity and assaulting gays. If you want to make that kind of claim, you need to back it up with evidence.
[ September 14, 2011, 12:09 PM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]
Posted by DustinDopps (Member # 12640) on :
^ What The Rabbit said.
I'm sorry to tell you, but I'm not a caricature. I'm not a fake person, created to troll the internet and stir up trouble. And even though you may disagree with my opinions, I'm not crazy, bigoted, or any other pejorative you might want to throw at me.
This whole discussion basically boils down to one fundamental, crucial idea: some people believe that homosexuality is a moral issue while others don't.
If you believe that the issue is not an absolute - or a moral issue at all, for that matter - then it is likely impossible for you to understand the other side. "He thinks it is wrong, so he must either be stupid or uninformed. An intelligent person cannot possibly believe that."
I completely understand how and why you would feel that way. To someone on that side of the argument, the issue is no different than race, age, sex, or any other descriptive term used to group humans together. You can't see how someone can call another person's behavior "wrong" - especially if they have no choice in the matter (i.e. they are born that way).
If, however, this issue is a moral one to you, then the framing necessarily changes. If I believe *any* behavior is wrong (or immoral), then it is wrong. Period.
Let's say, for example, that I think lying is immoral (I do). Does that make me a bigot? Am I unfairly prejudiced against people who lie? If I refuse to lie to other people, and if I teach my children not to lie, does that mean I am oppressing people who lie? Not at all! I am just living out my own belief system. It won't affect you, because I am not trying to tell you *you* can't lie, I'm just making that choice for myself.
For those of us who approach this from a moral standpoint, the issue is analogous. I really don't expect you to follow the rules I follow in life. I have my own understanding of religion and God and it's not my place to tell you that you're wrong or you're going to burn in hell (as some religious people are wont to do on the web). In fact, my personal belief is that we're not supposed to judge other people (unless they go to the same church as us, in which case they are held to judgment by church leadership - another topic for another day).
To put it another way: I don't care if you're gay, straight, black, white, young, old, male or female. All humans deserve the same respect and love. I wish you genuine happiness and I'll do what I can in my daily life to help you out.
What I DO have a problem with is when society - be it the media, the schools, or whatever - insists upon teaching my children that something I consider a moral issue isn't really one at all. "There's nothing wrong with it and if your parents think there is, they're just old fashioned. You're smarter and progressive and if they can't accept you, they are bigots." Once you try to indoctrinate my family with an idea I consider immoral, then I've got a dog in the fight.
One last thing: I do things almost every day that I consider immoral. Part of the human condition is trying to stop doing things that are selfish, prideful, and harmful to others. I don't have time to worry about what *you* are doing in your personal life because I'm so busy trying to keep myself from doing things I shouldn't do - or cleaning up from mistakes I've made.
Posted by Aris Katsaris (Member # 4596) on :
quote:I grew up thinking it was wrong and thought, WHY though?
And you've heard nobody ever explain to you that the answer is supposed to be: "Because God says so, and God knows best." ?
quote:I don't understand believing something because it's traditional when if i think hard enough, I wonder why it's wrong in the first place.
Think *harder* and figure that out too. It's a very typical cognitive bias to privilege the status quo, to fear change, etc, etc.
I don't like your rhetorical tactics because they seem to try to present ignorance "I don't understand how" as evidence for the ridiculousness of other people's positions.
But it's *not*: Failure to understand something is not evidence for its ridiculousness, it's evidence for an incapacity to properly evaluate its ridiculousness or lack thereof either way.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by DustinDopps: If society - as a majority - decides that homosexual marriage is illegal, then it ISN'T bigoted. It is reality. ... I, for one, voted against it in Oregon. Oregon is very liberal (in some parts) but if FAILED here.
quote:Originally posted by DustinDopps: ... I really don't expect you to follow the rules I follow in life. I have my own understanding of religion and God and it's not my place to tell you that you're wrong ...
Ok then.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Of course homosexuality and gay rights are a moral issue. And, DustinDoggs, your position on this (and Card's) is immoral.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:But it's *not*: Failure to understand something is not evidence for its ridiculousness, it's evidence for an incapacity to properly evaluate its ridiculousness or lack thereof either way.
It's pretty common to use the phrase "I can't understand it" to mean "its ridiculous". Interpreted as such, it constitutes another common logical fallacy: the appeal to ridicule.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
How about if it genuinely doesn't make sense to me anymore than judging people on skin colour? It really does not make sense.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Dustin,
So are you now dropping your insistence that an opinion cannot be bigoted if it's the majority opinion?
quote:...I'm not crazy, bigoted, or any other pejorative you might want to throw at me.
I'm not saying you are, but someone reassuring other people they're not crazy or bigoted...well, isn't really very persuasive. Those aren't things that are judged by someone saying they are or aren't. And anyway, what bigot self-labels as a bigot?
quote:This whole discussion basically boils down to one fundamental, crucial idea: some people believe that homosexuality is a moral issue while others don't.
Well, you may call it that all you like, but that doesn't make it true. The relevant issue to this discussion is that, here in this secular representative government, we're supposed to need more than 'it's just morally wrong' to say 'ya can't do it', The only reason that's been good enough to prohibit gay marriage in the past, and keep the homosexuals deeply closeted, is because not enough people realized, "Hey, wait a second, I'm not supposed to care what kind of sex two consenting adults have with each other!" That's changing, though-as it has for other issues such as race, gender, and religion. This one will change as well, your smug triumph in Oregon's decision notwithstanding, and then in four or five generations we'll look back and say, "We wouldn't let homosexuals marry? Really? How on Earth did we reconcile that with American ideals of freedom and minimum government interference?" I can say that with quite a lot of certainty because, hey, how likely was it that Oregon would've voted on such a thing twenty years ago?
quote:If you believe that the issue is not an absolute - or a moral issue at all, for that matter - then it is likely impossible for you to understand the other side. "He thinks it is wrong, so he must either be stupid or uninformed. An intelligent person cannot possibly believe that."
Oh, no, it's not impossible at all. It's actually very easy to understand. "It's morally wrong, so the government shouldn't let people do it and/or endorse it." Pretty straightforward. It's not an impassible divide of thought. What I suspect many people on my side of the argument have trouble understanding is what comes next: "OK, so it's morally wrong...why does that mean government needs to step in and prohibit?"
Anti-SSM advocates never have a good answer to this question. This being a secular society, any invocation of God-as far as deciding what our laws should be-simply doesn't cut it. In fact it's quite unAmerican, to impose one's religious views at the ballot box for that reason alone, however popular it may be at a given time. And when such advocates attempt to make secular, sociological or scientific arguments...well, they're lackluster at best or downright ridiculous at worst.
quote:Let's say, for example, that I think lying is immoral (I do). Does that make me a bigot? Am I unfairly prejudiced against people who lie? If I refuse to lie to other people, and if I teach my children not to lie, does that mean I am oppressing people who lie? Not at all! I am just living out my own belief system. It won't affect you, because I am not trying to tell you *you* can't lie, I'm just making that choice for myself.
This is an invalid comparison. Lying has direct, observable consequences that we can notice with our own senses here in the physical world. Homosexuality doesn't. Anyway, according to the strict definition of the word 'bigot', well, if you're utterly intolerant of lying then you might be considered bigoted towards lying. But in any case, I think you know that's not how the word is generally used: it's used to describe irrational intolerance. Intolerance of lying isn't irrational. Intolerance of homosexuality is.
quote:For those of us who approach this from a moral standpoint, the issue is analogous. I really don't expect you to follow the rules I follow in life. I have my own understanding of religion and God and it's not my place to tell you that you're wrong or you're going to burn in hell (as some religious people are wont to do on the web). In fact, my personal belief is that we're not supposed to judge other people (unless they go to the same church as us, in which case they are held to judgment by church leadership - another topic for another day).
Well, yeah you do. If they're gay, you expect them to live certain parts of their life as you say and not as they'd like. Your statement that you don't expect other people to follow your life rules is simply untrue, by your own words. It's just...OK to have that contradiction somehow, in this case, because it's about homosexuals and God hates them (or is it God hates homosexuality?).
quote:To put it another way: I don't care if you're gay, straight, black, white, young, old, male or female. All humans deserve the same respect and love. I wish you genuine happiness and I'll do what I can in my daily life to help you out.
But you don't feel that gays deserve the same respect and happiness as other people. Do you think a homosexual feels respected as a citizen of his/her country, when they're told they cannot settle down with their partner and have it afforded the same recognitions and responsibilities their straight co-citizens have? Do you think homosexuals don't want marriage, or something?
quote:What I DO have a problem with is when society - be it the media, the schools, or whatever - insists upon teaching my children that something I consider a moral issue isn't really one at all. "There's nothing wrong with it and if your parents think there is, they're just old fashioned. You're smarter and progressive and if they can't accept you, they are bigots." Once you try to indoctrinate my family with an idea I consider immoral, then I've got a dog in the fight.
That has nothing whatsoever to do with the question of marriage at hand, first of all. Second, when this kind of things happens, yeah, it's regrettable. Happens frequently at places all over the country, it's true. Where you're just flat-out wrong, though, is your suggestion that somehow the 'gay agenda' (or liberal agenda, or whatever) is somehow dominant. That's always seemed a strange idea for people to cling to, to me, because of the demographic background of our country. We've been majority white Christians in the USA for, well, our entire history. You'll be lucky to get to federal office if you're an open Muslim, and we're not so far removed from times when it was pretty damn tough if you were Jewish or Catholic. But somehow, all of us millions of white Christians were asleep at the switch, and some perfidious liberals got in control of our kids.
quote:One last thing: I do things almost every day that I consider immoral. Part of the human condition is trying to stop doing things that are selfish, prideful, and harmful to others. I don't have time to worry about what *you* are doing in your personal life because I'm so busy trying to keep myself from doing things I shouldn't do - or cleaning up from mistakes I've made.
But you do have time in your personal life to worry about what harm other people are doing in theirs. You've said so. You took the time to vote that way-you specifically went out of your way to say to other people, "Nope! Not gonna have it in your lives."
I didn't think you were a false alt before, but with the two or three rather glaring contradictions in this post I have to admit-I'm wondering. It's just very strange.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Synesthesia: How about if it genuinely doesn't make sense to me anymore than judging people on skin colour? It really does not make sense.
Of course it doesn't make sense. And I get your outrage. But people often don't make sense and believe outrageous things. We have to balance our response to this in a way that keeps out motivation to fight against it without overwhelming us. Not always easy!
Posted by DustinDopps (Member # 12640) on :
Rakeesh - I can say this: you seem a lot more rational and tolerant on this issue than many people I've dealt with. I appreciate the respectful back-and-forth and I did read every comment you made.
And you have good points.
I'd love to go point-by-point and discuss each topic, but I don't have time currently. Hopefully this evening I can.
The reason I say "out of the gate" that I'm not a bigot is because that's the easiest form of response from your side of the aisle. "You're a bigot" seems to be the same as "your opinion is invalid" so I was trying to be pre-emptive.
If you read the definition of bigotry, it is an irrational animosity toward an idea. There are a lot of wackos who simply hate gay people, but most of the conservatives I know aren't like that. They are rational and definitely not antagonistic; they just disagree with the basic idea. Thus they aren't bigots, they just have a different opinion than you. Honestly, if you are so adamant that your side is correct, you are also bigoted toward my point of view. But that is socially acceptable, so you get a free pass.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
DustinDopps, it is an imperfect analogy but just as an intellectual exercise, try replacing homosexual with black or Jewish in any of your posts. Just to get a feel of how others might be perceiving your "I'm not bigoted" statements.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Synesthesia: How about if it genuinely doesn't make sense to me anymore than judging people on skin colour? It really does not make sense.
Appeal to ridicule is still a logical fallacy. The fact that you find it ridiculous, is not an argument against it. It doesn't matter how genuine you are about finding it ridiculous.
Consider the following:
"How could any one seriously propose that CO2 is a pollutant, we exhale CO2?" Is that a legitimate argument against the greenhouse effect.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:They are rational and definitely not antagonistic...
If they're voting like you are, I'm afraid they are antagonistic. There's simply no other word for it: they're antagonistic towards the idea of homosexuals being accepted as fully recognized, equal citizens able to make a go at monogamous long-term relationships with the same safeguards and responsibilities as heterosexuals. You are as well. It cannot be said that people who oppose SSM are not antagonistic towards homosexuals, unless we're somehow going to divorce (no pun intended) the issue of gay rights from gays themselves.
If someone were to say, "White male Oregon married men who are conservative shouldn't be allowed to have tax breaks according to marriage anymore," I suspect you wouldn't say those people weren't antagonistic towards you.
And anyway, I'm not bigoted towards your point of view-I accept that you have a right to have it, but I don't accept-and vote and speak accordingly-you have the (moral) right to enforce it at the ballot box. The only reason I don't suggest you shouldn't be allowed to do that-vote your morality, make your moral rules binding for other people-is that, well, it can get pretty problematic for a democracy when that kind of thing starts happening.
Thinking something is wrong isn't the same as being bigoted against it. And anyway, my opposition to your stance on homosexuality isn't irrational. Your opposition to homosexuality, however, is. I'm not saying you shouldn't be opposed to it because it's irrational. I'm saying that 'because God says so' is only a reason if both people believe in the same God and think He said the same thing.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:It seems some people just dislike the word "homophobe" while fully and freely admitting to every single characteristic which we consider part of that category.
Gee, Let's take a term that originally referred to people with a serious underlying anxiety disorder and start using as an epithet to insult anyone whose attitude toward homosexuality is less liberal than ours. Why would anyone take offense at that?
I have yet to see a case, outside clinical psychiatry, where the term "homophobe" wasn't intended as a slur.
You might as well be asking "Why would anyone who's openly homosexual object to being called a faggot?" Why would anyone who's Jewish object to being called a kyke. Why would anyone wearing a kafia object to being called a raghead?
Calling someone a "homophobe" implies that their political or moral opinion on homosexuality is motivated by a serious underlying psychological disorder. That's why its consider a slur by both those who use it and those who hear it.
If you are seeking a society where all kinds of people are tolerated and respected, starting out with the assumption that anyone who disagrees with you must be either psychologically disturbed or just plain mean, is not productive.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: If you are seeking a society where all kinds of people are tolerated and respected, starting out with the assumption that anyone who disagrees with you must be either psychologically disturbed or just plain mean, is not productive.
Assumption 1) People seek a society in which all kinds of people are respected.
Assumption 2) OSC and DustinDoops => anyone
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus:
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: If you are seeking a society where all kinds of people are tolerated and respected, starting out with the assumption that anyone who disagrees with you must be either psychologically disturbed or just plain mean, is not productive.
Assumption 1) People seek a society in which all kinds of people are respected.
I wasn't assuming, I was hoping.
quote:Assumption 2) OSC and DustinDoops => anyone [/QB]
The quote I was responding to wasn't referring to OSC or DustinDoops but to "some people" which from the context implied anyone who held opinions regarding homosexuality contrary to those of the poster and yet didn't like being called a "homophobe".
Posted by Aris Katsaris (Member # 4596) on :
quote:Gee, Let's take a term that originally referred to people with a serious underlying anxiety disorder
If you're referring just to the suffix "phobe" and "phobia", the words "xenophobic" and "xenophobia" have long been used not to describe anxiety disorders but attitudes towards foreigners.
But if you still don't like it, you just need to offer a different term for the people who fear and/or hate homosexuality, one more to your liking. "Homosexuality-fearers-and-haters" is too long for us.
quote:I have yet to see a case, outside clinical psychiatry, where the term "homophobe" wasn't intended as a slur.
What term do you prefer to describe people who hate and fear homosexuality? Give me an alternative here.
quote:You might as well be asking "Why would anyone who's openly homosexual object to being called a faggot?" Why would anyone who's Jewish object to being called a kyke? Why would anyone wearing a kafia object to being called a raghead?
"Faggots" currently prefer being called "gay". Jewish people prefer being called "Jewish people". And I don't know what kafia is, but I suspect those people also prefer being called something else.
How do people who fear-and-hate-homosexuality prefer to be called? If they don't have an alternative, they ought stop whining about the terms other people use for them.
quote:Calling someone a "homophobe" implies that their political or moral opinion on homosexuality is motivated by a serious underlying psychological disorder.
No it doesn't, same way that Islamophobic, Europhobic, or Xenophobic doesn't imply anything about serious underlying psychological conditions.
quote: That's why its consider a slur by both those who use it and those who hear it.
As I said, give me a non-slur word to use.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Generally those who are, even incorrectly, referred to as "homophobic" are not those who "seek a society in which all kinds of people are respected". In other words, if they are truly seeking that kind of society, they are unlikely to be doing or writing things that would prompt the use of the word.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: I wasn't assuming, I was hoping.
Ok, I'm just pointing out that there's certainly a vigorous debate about whether one should "tolerate the intolerant" when it comes to Christian extremists, so prefacing your post with this wish in an "if" clause potentially makes the whole thing irrelevant.
quote:The quote I was responding to wasn't referring to OSC or DustinDoops but to "some people" which from the context implied anyone who held opinions regarding homosexuality contrary to those of the poster and yet didn't like being called a "homophobe".
The quote is "It seems some people just dislike the word "homophobe" while fully and freely admitting to every single characteristic which we consider part of that category" and is a response to a reply to DustinDoops.
This reads to me that there are many people who would never admit to the characteristics of being a homophobe nor would they necessarily match every characteristic.
However, there are a special extremist few that do match them all and proudly display that fact (to the extent that they may be confused with satire or a fake poster). We just happen to be discussing them.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by odouls268:
quote:Wow. What do you know about the "traditional family" odouls? Because I've studied sociology, anthropology, and history,
quote: Don't call what I have to say uninformed. I am very well informed on the man's character. I ought to be, I've studied him enough. I've corresponded with him almost as much as you have.
Orincoro,
I love it when someone summarizes their academic resume' as a preamble to their posts. It's totally bolsters their credibility. And it definitely doesn't make them seem hopelessly insecure or desperate for approval at all
Eh, Really? Who hasn't studied these topics? They're required in virtually every university in the first year. And everyone here has studied OSC, right? Claiming special knowledge about either topic is foolish in this context. Besides, if I actually summarized my academic resume, these subjects would not appear in the highlights. I'm a specialist, just not that kind of specialist.
And that's a piss-poor appeal to authority. I would have come up with something better if I was actually trying to establish authority. And I could too- but that wasn't the objective.
If you knew more about me, you'd know where my vanity is concentrated. A basic knowledge of history just doesn't make me feel like a god among men. Granted, though, it does make me better informed than you are. But who isn't?
Posted by Aris Katsaris (Member # 4596) on :
Let me reiterate -- since for me it's the *meaning* that counts, I just need be given a kinder word with the same meaning, and I'm quite willing to change to using that one instead.
But I've not heard of one.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Anti-gay.
Posted by Aris Katsaris (Member # 4596) on :
I meant I've not heard of one being used by the anti-gay people to describe themselves. I don't remember OSC (or in this thread DustinDopps) calling himself anti-gay.
But if the formerly-named-homophobes prefer the term "anti-gay", I promise to use it whereever I might have used the word "homophobe" or "homophobic" instead.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
They would call themselves "pro-family," however, this is obfuscation around the negativist nature of most "pro-family" movements and individual proponents. They are not as much "for" things as "against" other things, but they would rather portray themselves in support of some set of traditional values, even if those can only be defined by what they do *not* include.
Posted by Aris Katsaris (Member # 4596) on :
Pro-family is too imprecise, a mere propaganda term; we need a term for those people who may find absolutely nothing wrong with divorcing or cheating their wives, but nonetheless might serious-faced claim that Hurricane Irene is a punishment from God for New York's homosexual ways. A word for the Westboro Baptist Church. Or the people like Ahmadinejad that argue that there are no gays in Iran; but would kill them if they found any.
Rabbit, do you prefer (if I can't use "homophobic" for those people) that I use the label "anti-gay" or the label "pro-family" for these?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Pro-family won't work because they are specifically against many kinds of families.
Posted by ambyr (Member # 7616) on :
Pro-heterosexuality?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Pro-traditional gender roles maybe although "traditional" is mushy. Where do we decide "traditional" lives? 1950? 1850? 50? Not all of them want to go back to when women were chattel.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Orincoro: People who call themselves "pro-family" often *are* operating under the assumption that ultimately that is what they feel they are accomplishing. They don't want to identify by the things they are opposed to, they want to stick with the things they are attempting to accomplish.
When same-sex marriage supporters are called, "anti-traditional values" or "anti-religion" it stings, and it's a terrible device. And you could just as often snidely make the case they are still accurate even if they do hurt.
"I'm sorry I'm not going to shy away from calling you whatever name I think fits." is rarely said with any sort of real authority, or true desire for telling the truth, even when it hurts.
People who are "blunt" aren't generally also "disciples of honesty".
Posted by ambyr (Member # 7616) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: When same-sex marriage supporters are called, "anti-traditional values" or "anti-religion" it stings, and it's a terrible device.
. . . but I am anti-traditional values, or at least a decent subset of them when it comes to marriage and family. I think they're wrong and harmful, and I will freely own that label.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
I must say, I'm pretty happy to be called "anti-traditional values" or "anti-religion", and I'm not even all that invested in supporting same-sex marriage Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
While I can totally see where you are coming from BB, I have to say that "anti-gay" still fits really well and is still way better then "homophobe" or "bigot".
There is a difference between what we call ourselves (seeing our best intentions) and what our opponents call us.
For a word for opponents to use in conversation that isn't automatically a slur, "anti-gay" seems to fit the bill.
Posted by Aris Katsaris (Member # 4596) on :
quote:When same-sex marriage supporters are called, "anti-traditional values" or "anti-religion" it stings, and it's a terrible device.
I *am* anti-religion, Black Blade, and I don't mind you calling me such when you need a word to group together all those people who oppose religion (even if that includes bad people like Stalin).
So it doesn't always sting.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I am pro-religion and pro certain traditional values and because of those things pro-gay rights. So anti-religion won't work either.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Orincoro: People who call themselves "pro-family" often *are* operating under the assumption that ultimately that is what they feel they are accomplishing. They don't want to identify by the things they are opposed to, they want to stick with the things they are attempting to accomplish.
Of course they operate under that assumption. But their actually values related to that goal are far more exclusionary than inclusionary. You can only really define the "traditional family values" set as an exclusive set, because it is not constructed out of whole cloth- it is reactionary. Reactionary movements only exist because there is something *not* to be. There never was a traditional family in any way similar to the "traditional family values" family, but you can construct one out of the exclusion of various negatively cast elements.
The reason I say this is that the "traditional family values" set exists only as a model to defend against any negatively viewed incursion, which is deemed aberrant. That the "traditional family," existed in a time of social injustice and racial injustice is immaterial. That the traditional family was constructed as it was *because* of the times in which it existed is also, apparently, immaterial. For a positivist approach to these "tradional values" to actually work, you would have to argue that they worked and were just in the time in which you claim or believe that they existed- because clearly you believe that at one time, they did. But the fact that they existed or were followed in times of injustice, and by injust people, shatters the notion that the traditional family is a haven of moral and ethical righteousness. So, the traditional family has to be divorced from history completely to make any sense. It has to react *against* development, and not be seen *as* a development itself.
That's why in the 60's "traditional family values." included the prohibition of interracial marriage, and today, when that element of family values is nearly universally accepted, it includes the prohibition of same-sex marriage- once a non-issue because it was not a serious social development. Now that it is, it can be reacted *against.* The family can be defined as *not* being that.
Tell me, do you think there is anything about "pro-family" that is based on positivist attitudes? I don't see it.
[ September 14, 2011, 05:17 PM: Message edited by: Orincoro ]
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Aris Katsaris:
quote:When same-sex marriage supporters are called, "anti-traditional values" or "anti-religion" it stings, and it's a terrible device.
I *am* anti-religion, Black Blade, and I don't mind you calling me such when you need a word to group together all those people who oppose religion (even if that includes bad people like Stalin).
So it doesn't always sting.
I am also anti-religion, but not afraid of religious people. So phobia wouldn't fit me either. Anti is more appropriate.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by ambyr:
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: When same-sex marriage supporters are called, "anti-traditional values" or "anti-religion" it stings, and it's a terrible device.
. . . but I am anti-traditional values, or at least a decent subset of them when it comes to marriage and family. I think they're wrong and harmful, and I will freely own that label.
If you aren't against every single traditional value, then you can't very well be properly "anti-traditional values". It's an absolute term, just like homophobe apparently is used to describe anybody who oppose a single aspect of same sex agendas. The term anti-traditional values is so broad it could be used to describe somebody who thinks society is an evil concept as well as somebody who disagrees that same sex couples are inferior parents. It's not a label anybody can "own" unless you are freely agreeing that you hate every idea that has been current for a long enough time to be labeled traditional.
----- Mucus:
quote:I must say, I'm pretty happy to be called "anti-traditional values" or "anti-religion", and I'm not even all that invested in supporting same-sex marriage
. That's unfortunate. I never figured you for either.
----
quote:I *am* anti-religion, Black Blade, and I don't mind you calling me such when you need a word to group together all those people who oppose religion (even if that includes bad people like Stalin).
So it doesn't always sting.
Anti-religion doesn't seem to be the right word then. Do you feel religion in all its varieties needs to be blocked and erradicated, so long as it's done ethically?
I've certainly fought against atheism insofar as I have spent copious amounts of time convincing others to believe in God, but I would not self identify as "anti-atheist". I don't agree with atheism, but that does not mean I feel an impetus to arm myself and contend with them in anyway, so long as they are affording me the same courtesy.
Posted by ambyr (Member # 7616) on :
Okay, how about this: I frequently refer to myself as anti-traditional values and am very happy to have others refer to me in the same way. It doesn't sting in the slightest. I don't understand why you think it should? I mean, of course it's a shorthand, in the same way that when I say I'm pro-choice I mean I'm in favor of a woman's right to decide to end her own pregnancy and not, say, in favor of someone's right to choose to shoot their wife in the head. In context, the subset of choice I'm talking about is understood--and so is the subset of traditional values.
Posted by Aris Katsaris (Member # 4596) on :
quote:"Do you feel religion in all its varieties needs to be blocked and erradicated, so long as it's done ethically?"
Not sure I understand the question. It doesn't 'need' to be done. If, however, people were to become smart enough to voluntarily turn away from religion, and other forms of superstition and cached mysterious answers, then I would certainly consider it a net positive thing.
quote: I don't agree with atheism, but that does not mean I feel an impetus to arm myself and contend with them in anyway,
Well, no, I don't have such an impetus either -- same way that I don't have an impetus to contend with people who believe in homeopathy, or astrology, or the prophecies of Nostradamus, or any other silliness. Anti-religion isn't my chief *priority*, if that's what you mean.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Orincoro:
quote: But the fact that they existed or were followed in times of injustice, and by injust people, shatters the notion that the traditional family is a haven of moral and ethical righteousness
It does? For that to be true you would first have to prove that "traditional family" norms prevailed to such an extent that abberations from that norm were rare. I don't think that has ever been true in any history book generally accepted to be accurate.
I'm with you insofar as I do believe that "One father, one mother, dad at work, mom at home, kids out at 18 forever, causes problems, serious ones.
But that model still has some positive elements to it. Commitment to each other is an essential ingredient for family units, and by extension society to survive. Further, we do in fact need men and women to have sex so as to ensure our species continues to exist. So we then need to foster practices and instutions that ensure that when men and women reproduce that their offspring are protected.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:But that model still has some positive elements to it.
So does the 'multiculturalism is a failed experiment' model; doesn't make it a good thing, or something we shouldn't rally specifically against.
They also bear similarities in the sense that their premises (and desired laws) have an unignorable disconnect from the supposed conclusions, and when you follow the logic of the model out, the holes are large enough to sink it.
By the by, the word that most comes up as a potential replacement to homophobe is 'heterosexist,' but it's not really catching on because of the often prevailing true mentalities of people who put a significant amount of effort into trying to keep homosexuals as second-class people.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
ambyr: It hurts me when I vote against marriage definition ammendments, after agonizing over the decision, and trying so hard to remain true to myself and to God, even when a flury of voices from every side are telling me I'm wrong. It hurts even more when one side calls you an apostate, and the other calls you a homophobe.
I, like many human beings, have a need to belong. People who I care about matter to me, and when they cut themselves off from me it hurts, especially if it was preventable.
I'm quite capable of maintaining friendships with people who don't believe in certain things I do. If those disagreements extend to such a point that either of us seriously feel the other is morally bankrupt, or insane, then of course that relationship falls apart.
This to a lesser extend applies to conversation. It's fine if one side thinks religion is all bogus, but if they keep trying to press the point that religion is all bogus and therefore adherents are themselves fools or liars or both, well then how can we converse?
I don't like lables like anti-this or pro-that. I feel that generally they are simplistic and incorrect. And it's too easy to get hungup on trying to clarify all those incorrect assumptions implicit in the label.
"I'm Pro-life!" "Well I'm pro-choice!" "Ah so you think killing babies is just fine!" "Ah so you think forcing rape victims to suffer trama is fine!" "NO I don't!" "Yes you do!" No I don't, but you do!" So on ad nauseum.
Usually the terms are used as a simplisitc way to dismiss or ostracize others who don't agree. "I should have expected such idiocy from a gay-lover."
The majority of my family are Republicans, and often they sound off on political issues, I generally keep my peace and politely shut up, because I can't stand people always looking to get into arguments. Further I doubt most of them are really looking to change their minds, they just want to gripe and make noise. But guess what, they all know I don't tow their party line, and often I'm called out in some way like, "Oh but BlackBlade over there voted for Obama, so he probably thinks stealing from the talented and giving it to the lazy is OK! He's just like all those Democrats, who are anti-American and pro-apologizing."
One it's idiocy because there are leaders of my church who are Democrats, who I doubt they would ever in their wildest dreams say those things to. Further, Christians absolutely believe in repenting and forgiveness and so saying that one is pro-apologizing and saying that is a negative, is just stupid. But there you have it.
Labels are a lazy person's way of conversing. This isn't to say they are completely useless. I very often say, "In many ways I'm pro-religion." or "I have pro-life and pro-choice leanings." I might without reservation say, "I am pro-virtue!" But generally speaking, I just don't find labels useful, they distort as much as they clarify.
----
Aris:
quote:Not sure I understand the question. It doesn't 'need' to be done. If, however, people were to become smart enough to voluntarily turn away from religion, and other forms of superstition and cached mysterious answers, then I would certainly consider it a net positive thing.
Understood.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: While I can totally see where you are coming from BB, I have to say that "anti-gay" still fits really well and is still way better then "homophobe" or "bigot".
I think "anti-homosexuality" would preferable since it refers to a behavior/proclivity rather than to people. I recognize that distinction seems meaningless to a lot of gays, but it is very meaningful to lots of those who are think homosexuality is immoral.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Not sure I understand the question. It doesn't 'need' to be done. If, however, people were to become smart enough to voluntarily turn away from religion, and other forms of superstition and cached mysterious answers, then I would certainly consider it a net positive thing.
What gives you the right to presume that people are religious because they aren't "smart enough". Have you considered that people might be plenty smart enough yet their differing life experiences have lead them to a different conclusion than you have? Your unwarranted arrogance and condescension sicken me.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Aris Katsaris: Pro-family is too imprecise, a mere propaganda term; we need a term for those people who may find absolutely nothing wrong with divorcing or cheating their wives, but nonetheless might serious-faced claim that Hurricane Irene is a punishment from God for New York's homosexual ways. A word for the Westboro Baptist Church. Or the people like Ahmadinejad that argue that there are no gays in Iran; but would kill them if they found any.
Rabbit, do you prefer (if I can't use "homophobic" for those people) that I use the label "anti-gay" or the label "pro-family" for these?
Nobody's gonna call this out? People in this thread object to being called homophobes, and Aris essentially compares them to Fred Phelps and/or Ahmadinejad? Really?
I'm on your side in this discussion, Aris, and I still think that went so far over the line you need a telescope to even see the line. And not a cheap telescope, either. A nice one.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Orincoro:
quote: But the fact that they existed or were followed in times of injustice, and by injust people, shatters the notion that the traditional family is a haven of moral and ethical righteousness
It does? For that to be true you would first have to prove that "traditional family" norms prevailed to such an extent that abberations from that norm were rare. I don't think that has ever been true in any history book generally accepted to be accurate.
I'm with you insofar as I do believe that "One father, one mother, dad at work, mom at home, kids out at 18 forever, causes problems, serious ones.
But that model still has some positive elements to it. Commitment to each other is an essential ingredient for family units, and by extension society to survive. Further, we do in fact need men and women to have sex so as to ensure our species continues to exist. So we then need to foster practices and instutions that ensure that when men and women reproduce that their offspring are protected.
I agree. But you're arguing from a fairly rational, non-reactionary standpoint as if I am criticizing any attention to decent family values.
Family values, and I agree with you here, are important, and positive ones are good. What I'm talking about (and actually you seem to agree with me in saying that it never really existed as a representation of the majority of families), is the idea of "traditional family values," as having once been a ubiquitous and commonly understood state, and that being regarded as a "natural" state. When in fact, "traditional family values," as a set are constructed as a reaction against change. The "original" set never existed (and I don't claim it did)- it is a fiction constructed to offset a shift in values from the perceived "good."
So when I say that the fact that people lived in something like "traditional families" in injust times and were themselves injust, I am just pointing out that even where a "traditional family" model exists or existed, it is not a haven of righteousness, and is not itself a vehicle for moral and ethical behavior necessarily. Especially ethical and moral behaviors as we define them today.
So I think we are closer on this issue than you think. I'm not attacking the idea of having family values or valuing certain views of community- I'm battling the idea that there is or ever was a state of perfection that is being or has been destroyed. That is in many ways the central fiction of American Conservatism- that we once had something that is now gone, and that social change is responsible for our lack of control over our own lives.
Posted by Aris Katsaris (Member # 4596) on :
quote:What gives you the right to presume that people are religious because they aren't "smart enough
Oh, I see how it goes: religious people have the right to call homosexuality a sin -- but non-religious people don't have the right to call religion a moronic idiocy.
What a privileged little bugger you are.
quote: Your unwarranted arrogance and condescension sicken me.
Your hypocrisy sickens me, so I guess we're even.
quote:People in this thread object to being called homophobes, and Aris essentially compares them to Fred Phelps and/or Ahmadinejad? Really?
Dan, when I mentioned I didn't mind being called anti-religious, I stated clearly that this label would also apply to monsters like Stalin. And that I don't mind applying the same label on this issue to me and Stalin because it's a *correct* label.
So abandon the moral outrage, IF YOU PLEASE. The purpose of my words was clear: I wanted a *precise* term, and a *complete* term, I wasn't seeking a propagandish fluffy-bunny term that you could only apply to nice decent people you want to have on your team.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Mucus:
quote:I must say, I'm pretty happy to be called "anti-traditional values" or "anti-religion", and I'm not even all that invested in supporting same-sex marriage
. That's unfortunate. I never figured you for either.
Hi, I'm Mucus, nice to meet you. But seriously, I'm Canadian and I also follow what some would call "new atheist" news, I don't think by any stretch of the imagination I could be called traditionalist or pro-religion by US standards. (Or even by Chinese standards in the first case)
Maybe we're not communicating properly ....
quote:If you aren't against every single traditional value, then you can't very well be properly "anti-traditional values". It's an absolute term, just like homophobe apparently is used to describe anybody who oppose a single aspect of same sex agendas.
This might be part of it, I don't think anybody who opposes any aspect of same sex agendas is a homophobe, only those that are particularly extremist and tip over into near-satire. Nor do I think "anti-traditional values" should be an absolute term. If you're "pro-choice", you're not necessarily pro every single choice that could ever exist (say mandatory schooling) and you're not "pro-life" only if you're pro every single life (say brown foreigners). These are terms that are rooted in our current discussion. In the American context, "traditional values" reads to me to be things like abstinence before marriage, rejection of family planning, a dose of Puritanism against alcohol and good food, rejection of same-sex marriage (used to be rejection of interracial even), etc. These are agendas that I cannot support.
quote:Do you feel religion in all its varieties needs to be blocked and erradicated, so long as it's done ethically?
I think it is fairly inevitable that religion will decline to a much less dangerous level given a free marketplace of ideas, free of indoctrination and with ready access to information on world religions and different ways of life. Acting in an unethical way would probably backfire anyways given these conditions.
quote:I've certainly fought against atheism insofar as I have spent copious amounts of time convincing others to believe in God, but I would not self identify as "anti-atheist".
But given the former, you're certainly "anti-non-mormon", you're just not explicitly "anti-atheist" (the way I see it anyways) Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Mucus:
quote:In the American context, "traditional values" reads to me to be things like abstinence before marriage, rejection of family planning, a dose of Puritanism against alcohol and good food, rejection of same-sex marriage (used to be rejection of interracial even), etc. These are agendas that I cannot support.
Do you believe in abstinence before any general level of maturity, could you codify it by age? Do you believe people who have sex must accept responsibility (responsibility meaning accept the that there are consequences) for any pregnencies that might result? Puritans were big drinkers, but would you say you support responsible consumptions of alcohol? As for good food, I wasn't aware tradition stated you must eat gross food. But would you support the idea that people should eat according to their own body chemistry, and that if one is allergic, or overweight, they ought to consider controls on foods that are harming them?
Traditional views might be extreme on these issues, but they are merely attempting to address the spirit of these principles, and codify them. No easy task. Do certain cultures go too far in institutionalizing those controls? I certainly think so, my own religion was blugeoned into dropping a belief they thought came from God as sure as the belief that same-sex relationships ought not to be condoned by the church.
quote:I think it is fairly inevitable that religion will decline to a much less dangerous level given a free marketplace of ideas, free of indoctrination and with ready access to information on world religions and different ways of life. Acting in an unethical way would probably backfire anyways given these conditions.
Agreed, but I think you will find that when religion disappears, you will see the same sins under a different name rise up. You will also lose another institution that teaches people to put aside their own selfish interests, and hence you will see people grow cold towards each other.
quote:But given the former, you're certainly "anti-non-mormon", you're just not explicitly "anti-atheist" (the way I see it anyways)
Not really, I have advised people who wanted to join the church but for reasons outside of, "I believe it is God's will" not to join the church. If somebody did not support certain doctrines of the church, I would advise them not to join either. I further support all people's entry into heaven God sees fit to grant, Mormon or non-Mormon, and I believe many people will fall into the latter category.
I do believe that God is ultimately pro-Jesus, and that he will be involved in all our destinies if we want to be happy. But maybe that still fits "anti-non-mormon?"
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Aris Katsaris:
quote:People in this thread object to being called homophobes, and Aris essentially compares them to Fred Phelps and/or Ahmadinejad? Really?
Dan, when I mentioned I didn't mind being called anti-religious, I stated clearly that this label would also apply to monsters like Stalin. And that I don't mind applying the same label on this issue to me and Stalin because it's a *correct* label.
So abandon the moral outrage, IF YOU PLEASE. The purpose of my words was clear: I wanted a *precise* term, and a *complete* term, I wasn't seeking a propagandish fluffy-bunny term that you could only apply to nice decent people you want to have on your team.
Hey, glad to see I misunderstood you and you weren't drawing equivalence between Ahmadinejad and BlackBlade. That's... that's good.
But I think you mean you want the opposite of a "precise" term, then. "Anti-religious" is so nonspecific it has any of a hundred meanings, and yes, could easily include a number of monsters as well as really decent chaps.
So, you want a term that is vague enough to include anyone with any conceivable problem with homosexuality? Good luck with your search.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: It hurts even more when one side calls you an apostate, and the other calls you a homophobe.
If I'm reading this right, you're called an apostate by members of your own church for voting against marriage definition amendments?
Posted by millernumber1 (Member # 9894) on :
I personally have come to the opinion that despite its origins, I think "heteronormative" is the label I would be most comfortable with. It is both a positive affirmation as well as a negation.
However, my understandings of its origins place in similar context with "homophobe," so I don't insist upon it. But it's something I wouldn't mind being called. Give or take a tone of voice (and rotten tomatoes, which I'm sure I deserved anyway) :-)
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: It hurts even more when one side calls you an apostate, and the other calls you a homophobe.
If I'm reading this right, you're called an apostate by members of your own church for voting against marriage definition amendments?
I've been called an apostate by members of my church for voting that way yes. It isn't a common occurance or a general church label thankfully.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
Hurm. Way I see it is some folks religions forbid things. But they don't have the right to tell other folks they can't do those things. Like I can eat bacon and have a lovely cup of tea. Just not at the same time.
I think it's cool that you are voting against those amendments, Blackblade because I don't really think it's constitutional or right to ban gays from marrying like that. You don't see gays trying to make straights gay and ban straight marriage. Except maybe the small handful of weirdos...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PlL-edhMILw Also what do you folks think of this video of my friend ZJ? (Well, net acquaintance.) I think that lady should move to Iran and learn to deal with the gay swans.
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: It hurts even more when one side calls you an apostate, and the other calls you a homophobe.
If I'm reading this right, you're called an apostate by members of your own church for voting against marriage definition amendments?
I've been called an apostate by members of my church for voting that way yes. It isn't a common occurance or a general church label thankfully.
You should be proud of yourself. Seriously.
Posted by Aris Katsaris (Member # 4596) on :
Dan, you confuse vagueness and completeness. If I say "the set of all integers" that's a complete definition of a huge and expansive set, but it's not a vaguely defined set. And the smaller and more to the point the definition, the larger and yet more well-defined the set can be. (The "set of all people who oppose homosexuality, except ones whose tactics mainstream Republicans don't approve" is both a smaller and a vaguer and a harder to define set than "the set of all people who oppose homosexuality".)
Still, perhaps the technical term I should have used is accuracy, not precision.
Why am I not interested in a term for the former ("Those people who oppose homosexuality, but do so without picketing funeral, or saying that gays should be hanged") ? Because I'm not someone who thinks that terms in the Internet should be used based on current and parochial American political fads. When I discuss religious opposition to homosexuality, the prime example that springs to your mind may be some Republican saying that marriage is between man and women, but the prime example that springs to MY mind is Shariah governments executing gay people.
The purpose of the term "anti-religion" wasn't to categorize me as a decent chap or a monster, it was to indicate whether I felt religion was a good or a bad thing. Therefore it's a *positive* that the terms can include monsters. Because it *shouldn't* exclude them. Because if it excluded them, the set it defined would be *incomplete* for the purpose of just talking about "how do you feel about religion".
As for the "search", which you (sarcastically I believe) wish me good luck on, it has concluded with "anti-gay".
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro:
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: It hurts even more when one side calls you an apostate, and the other calls you a homophobe.
If I'm reading this right, you're called an apostate by members of your own church for voting against marriage definition amendments?
I've been called an apostate by members of my church for voting that way yes. It isn't a common occurance or a general church label thankfully.
You should be proud of yourself. Seriously.
I appreciate the sentiment.
Posted by millernumber1 (Member # 9894) on :
quote:Originally posted by Aris Katsaris: As for the "search", which you (sarcastically I believe) wish me good luck on, it has concluded with "anti-gay".
Again, I think "heteronormative" is much more appropriate than "anti-gay."
Posted by Aris Katsaris (Member # 4596) on :
millernumber, I've known "heteronormative" to be used mainly in reference to unconscious bias in favour of heterosexuality (e.g. treating mentions of gay relationship as something which people only do for purposes of "exhibitionism" while not holding mentions of straight relationships to the same standard) -- or e.g. the lack of awareness for one's position of straight privilege.
So, as an example, a kid raised without even knowledge that such a thing as homosexuality exists would be "heteronormative" -- but would NOT be "anti-gay".
The *conscious* opposition to homosexuality is something different from the unconscious bias against it, and so I think requires a different word.
Posted by millernumber1 (Member # 9894) on :
That's a decent point, but I think it can be extended to conscious decisions and attitudes. Both Wikipedia and the OED make no distinction between unconscious and conscious heteronormativity, so I think denotatively it works.
Additionally, it has the merit (depending on your point of view) of not being only a negation.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
I think part of the point is that this term we are looking for should encompass the idea that the position it is supposed to represent is -against- something. I suggested "anti-gay" because in simple, easy to understand words it is appropriate and communicates the position without any added suggestion of condemnation.
"Heteronormative" first off all is confusing, and while it suggests that by contrast homoabnormative it doesn't actually state that and thus fails to represent the main idea...of being against homosexuality.
As to Rabbit's suggestion of "anti-homosexuality"...it works, certainly, but since "gay" is a behavior/proclivity as well, and is much much shorter to type, I'd let's stick to "anti-gay". I think people will understand that it is not, as a phrase, anti-gay people, that would be "anti-gays".
Posted by millernumber1 (Member # 9894) on :
As someone who dislikes the term "anti-abortion" and "anti-choice," I tend to dislike "anti-gay" and "anti-homosexual" for the same reasons. Heteronormative is less common, true, but I don't think that it's less confusing that "anti-gay," which edges on accusation of personal animosity (in my mind). Though I believe I understand the distinction, it's very hard for me to hear a distinction between "anti-gay" and "homophobe."
I also think there's a significant element of poisoning the well in terming your opponent's position as "anti" your own. I don't believe that Card takes the positions he does merely because he's against something or some people - I think there is a positive ideal - in this case, heteronormativity, which is by definition in opposition, but is not preceeded or caused by that opposition.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
How do hetero-normative people advanced their agenda other than by opposing the idea that gay people are normal and should have rights as well?
Edited to add:
Let me expand a bit. If hetero-normative folks were only participating in positive support for hetero couple - going to hetero-weddings, having hetero-marriages, writing about how great it is to be married to someone of the opposite sex, and so forth - they would not be an issue. But their actions - at least the problematic, public, political actions - are about who they are excluding. Who they are against. Hence the "anti".
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by millernumber1: I also think there's a significant element of poisoning the well in terming your opponent's position as "anti" your own. I don't believe that Card takes the positions he does merely because he's against something or some people - I think there is a positive ideal - in this case, heteronormativity, which is by definition in opposition, but is not preceeded or caused by that opposition.
How do you suppose "heteronormative" ideals are non-reactionary? If they are "by definition" an opposition to change in gender roles, then they only exist because of challenges to those roles.
And if you're going to say that, well, the roles existed before, think again. "Heteronormative" works from a fiction of gender relations that ignores any of the inherent complexity. It is a fantasy.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Thank you Boots, I couldn't have said it better myself.
millernumber1: This is not about what we call ourselves...when it comes to that title it will of course be in the best light, what we are for. The question at hand is what should the other side call people who believe that homosexuality is dangerous to the moral fiber of this country? It has been pointed out that "homophobe" and "bigot" have deeply negative connotations akin to slurs. "Anti-gay" is much less prejudicial and yet conveys the needed concept handily.
Feel free to call your stance (assuming you feel that way, that is) heteronormative. Don't expect the people who really think that stance is one of bigotry and intolerance to ever utter that phrase.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:As to Rabbit's suggestion of "anti-homosexuality"...it works, certainly, but since "gay" is a behavior/proclivity as well, and is much much shorter to type, I'd let's stick to "anti-gay". I think people will understand that it is not, as a phrase, anti-gay people, that would be "anti-gays".
Obviously, I can't speak for anyone but myself but I would feel offended by "anti-gay" but would find "anti-homosexuality" a reasonable discription of some of my beliefs.
I was going to suggest "anti same sex marriage" but overall I think any label at all gets to be problematic because it reduces the complexity of the issues and peoples position. I for example am in favor of of same sex marriage and full legal protections of gays, yet think homosexual acts are a sin. How would you label me?
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote:I for example am in favor of of same sex marriage and full legal protections of gays, yet think homosexual acts are a sin. How would you label me?
A responsible American Christian.
I don't have any problem with people who think homosexuality (or any other victim less crime) is a sin...I have a lot of problems with people trying to legislate against (victimless) sinning.
Keep your religion out of my county's law books!
Posted by millernumber1 (Member # 9894) on :
That does indeed make sense - and I am grateful that the prejudicial connotations of "homophobe" and "bigot" have led to a search for a less inflammatory term. ETA: I share TheRabbit's discomfort with "anti-gay," though for the reasons stated above I'm similarly (but significantly less) uncomfortable with "anti-homosexuality". I do understand what we call ourselves and what we call those we disagree with is a vexed one.
The issue of reactionaries and progressives is certainly a complex one, and I don't wish to claim undue authority at all. I do think the idea of the Butlerian pastiche is flawed, however (given my implied beliefs, that's probably no surprise), and thus believe that indeed, the roles did exist before, and had to, for non-heterosexual performances to develop and oppose.
Which, naturally, only works if you grant that there is a norm. Since that is basically the issue in contention, I'm not quite sure where to proceed from there.
Additionally, I find it a bit humorous that a term developed by queer theorists to attack the very concept of heteronormativity is being treated as something positive by both sides. :-)
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote:That does indeed make sense - and I am grateful that the prejudicial connotations of "homophobe" and "bigot" have led to a search for a less inflammatory term.
How dare you be so courteous and allow that the other side of this argument are decent human beings! The sheer nerve!
quote:I do think the idea of the Butlerian pastiche is flawed...
Is that Dune talk? No grok.
quote:Additionally, I find it a bit humorous that a term developed by queer theorists to attack the very concept of heteronormativity is being treated as something positive by both sides. :-)
I don't follow you, could you please explain? "Queer theorists" doesn't sound very nice.
Posted by millernumber1 (Member # 9894) on :
...er...I hope they are decent human beings? Did that change while I was out?
Oooops, sorry. "Butlerian pastiche" and "queer theorists" are neither scifinal stuff nor offensive (at least, I am not aware that they are used as such). Judith Butler is a famous cultural studies theorist/writer who proposed/argued the idea that heteronormativity is a pastiche - a copy without an original - and that no such thing as a norm exists (particularly when it comes to sexuality). Queer theory/theorists are those who approach texts (literary, filmic, behavioral) from the perspective of the sexually marginalized - primarily (from my understanding as someone on the margins of queer theory) homosexual/transsexual/asexual, - probably any non-heteronormative perspective would fit into the umbrella of "queer."
No offense is meant by either term. The results of a misspent education in literature...
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
You do know that no matter what we call it denying people their rights - the rights enjoyed by other people - is still a nasty thing to do.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
Haaaang oon.
Are there people on this thread trying to avoid being called homophobes but being okay with being 'anti-homosexuality'?
When you respond irrationally to a group or a thing, you have a phobia. You may not have a particularly virulent phobia, but you have a phobia none the less. I don't think we should keep the word "racist" for someone willing to mass murder, or the word "homophobe" for someone who's willing to legislate against homosexual people.
We'd all like to sit just above the label. "I'm not homophobic, but..."
Phobias rely on irrationality. I have a phobia of flight. Even though I'm much more likely to die in a car crash or crossing a road, I fear flying. I don't panic, I don't refuse to fly. I just irrationally fear it.
That doesn't make me not afraid of flying, it just means I manage my fear. I have a mild phobia of flight.
Just because you are friends with homosexual people doesn't make you not homophobic any more than being friends with black people doesn't make you not racist.
Insisting that you are not homophobic but then allowing the label "anti-homosexuality" is you being dishonest with yourself. Gay people probably don't make a distinction: they're not fooled by your wordplay.
Nobody would say that someone denying Jewish people or black people rights wasn't racist just because you felt that Jewish people should otherwise be able to live openly and without persecution. It doesn't matter what it says in your religious texts or whether Jewish people simply give you the creeps. It doesn't matter that you know and like Jewish people. If you still think that they shouldn't deserve the rights afforded to the mainstream, you are racist.
In the same way, this quibbling over the label you chose to describe yourself with is meaningless and and, frankly, contemptible. Nobody believes it except for you and the people like you.
You may be fine with that. After all, you have chosen your beliefs whether you picked them individuality as ingredients or as a package deal through a faith or religion. If the Bible says be homophobic, it is in your interest to be homophobic. But please, don't try to dress it up as something it is not.
If you fear or oppose homosexual people or what they do, or if you wish to legislate against it, then you are homophobic. I'm not sure I see the problem.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
Added: Since when is "homophobic" a specific slur any more than "racist" or "sexist" is? They're factual descriptions.
There was probably a time when racist people sat around arguing that they weren't racist or sexist, they were simply "anti-black" or "anti-woman".
What?! How is this better?!
And then the positive word, "heteronormative".
"I'm not racist, I'm pro-white." "I'm not sexist, I'm pro-man."
Again, how is that better?! I think most people would accept that anyone who insists on calling themselves "pro-white" is kidding themselves that the phrase makes them sound better.
That's how these euphemisms sound to my ears: far worse than the original term.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: You do know that no matter what we call it denying people their rights - the rights enjoyed by other people - is still a nasty thing to do.
Kate, You are begging the question. Is Marrying the person of your choice a privelege that should be reserved for those who choose "appropriate" partners or a right all should enjoy? That is the question and it isn't fair to start the debate by declaring it over.
Marrying any person of your choosing isn't a right we currently enjoy or that has been enjoyed historically by any group. Its unarguable that the current restriction on who one can marry impact disproportionately in gays and lesbians, and reasonable to propose that they should be changed for that reason.
But it isn't reasonable to start off by occusing people of depriving people of "rights" when this issue at hand is whether or not it should be a right.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Added: Since when is "homophobic" a specific slur any more than "racist" or "sexist" is? They're factual descriptions.
I'm sorry but that simply isn't true. Racist and Sexist are terms which were invented to describe a particular behavior. "Homophobic" was originally a psychological term for an anxiety disorder. It implies that the person is psychological disturbed, that, no matter what their reasoning, their disapproval of homosexual behavior is really because of a serious psychological problem. Its a slur and an insult. I really can't believe people are even arguing that it isn't.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Here are two maps, one of where same gender marriages are allowed/prohibited and another where marrying your first cousin is allowed/prohibited.
Any guesses which is more common?
Other then marriage to family members and underage people, what other restriction on who you can marry are there Rabbit?
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Teshi, if the word was (sexual) orientationist then I doubt the other side would be calling for a better term, but "homophobic" isn't nice and when you are trying to have a civil conversation a little kindness in our word choices can help grease the wheels and keep courteous discussion from degenerating into a fight.
If they are more comfortable with "anti-homosexuality" or "anti-gay" then what's the problem?
Posted by millernumber1 (Member # 9894) on :
To add to The Rabbit's comment, it hasn't been very long, historically, since homosexuality itself was declassified as a mental illness. I'm curious to know if those who wish to continue using "homophobe" to describe Card's position would consider people using "homosexual" in the older sense of "psychological disease causing sexual attraction to members of the same sex" offensive.
I would imagine so - and I would also find this kind of labelling of homosexual/asexual/transgender beliefs and practices as a "disease" offensive. I'm hoping the same courtesy would be extended to those who express thoughtful disagreement/opposition to homosexuality/same sex marriage. This is not to discount those who might superficially agree with such positions, but do indeed do so out of irrationality, anger, hatred, and fear - but I think that a distinction can and should be made.
ETA: Thanks again, Stone Wolf.
[ September 15, 2011, 06:45 PM: Message edited by: millernumber1 ]
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
I suppose what Rabbit is saying is that there are such things as Rights which are the things that everyone gets no matter what. Priviledges, even if apparently afforded to all as a matter of course, are not "rights" unless someone makes them a right.
quote:No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States;
So this "priviledge" of two consenting adults being able to marry which, without further definition, to everyone, is not a right.
This is surely a language-argument as opposed to a substantive one. When Kate says "right" she means something that is afforded to all. Marriage is a priviledge something that is afforded to all consenting pairs of adults.
The until recently unwritten "between a man and a woman", as Rabbit says, abridges the priviledge when that language does not define that it has been abridged anywhere, or that it can be abridged by anyone.
I do not think it's unfair to informally call the formally defined "priviledge" of marriage a "right".
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote:...not to discount those who might superficially agree with such positions, but do indeed do so out of irrationality, anger, hatred, and fear - but I think that a distinction can and should be made.
+1
The idea of being kind and courteous to those who disagree with you about moral issues is vital to the hope of resolving anything. Moral issues are so very hard to resolve at all because morality itself is so very deep and personal a belief that it is hard not to identify anyone who disagrees as "other" and treat them with contempt and anger.
But the way to win an argument of ethics, to convince people to treat others with tolerance and understanding is -not- to dehumanize them or treat them as monstrous oppressors who only are reacting out of hatred and fear.
That there is a fundamental disagreement is beyond question, but to truly come to any meeting of minds we must above all else treat each other with respect and decency.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
quote:Its a slur and an insult. I really can't believe people are even arguing that it isn't.
I've never heard anyone use the term homophobic to refer to the original psychiatric sense and I think it's a bit pedantic to insist that most people, either on the giving or recieving end, are thinking of that sense.
As for whether it's a slur and an insult, while "racist" and "sexist" are factual, for me personally they are pretty insulting. If I call someone racist, I am condemning their actions pretty severely.
I always thoght that's why people say, 'I'm not racist, but...'
Because they dislike the label, not because they aren't racist or sexist.
I didn't realise we were specifically talking about Orson Scott Card as being homophobic or not. He belongs to the NOM, correct? One word or another, that makes him-- in my eyes-- a person with a pretty large problem akin to being racist or sexist.
I have never used the word homophobic to mean an old fashioned medical sense but I consider fear of homosexuality or gayness or whatever you want to call it pretty irrational and based on misinformation no matter what you call it. Sure, people aren't runnning away in fear or locking people up any more, but the meaning and virulence of words can soften over time-- and I believe the word homophobia has popularly done that.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
While I agree that the word "homophobe" isn't on par with some other slurs, the kind that have their own letter name (the n-word for example), that it is derogatory and unpleasant to be called is, I feel, without question. If one's intent is to be insulting or judgmental, then go for it, but if one is instead searching for a phrase that lacks the negative connotation, then "anti-gay/homosexuality" is probably the better choice.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit:
quote:Added: Since when is "homophobic" a specific slur any more than "racist" or "sexist" is? They're factual descriptions.
I'm sorry but that simply isn't true. Racist and Sexist are terms which were invented to describe a particular behavior. .
I disagree on this detail. Racism and sexism describe belief systems (or rather a set of erroneous beliefs). While the behavior aspect is a commonly accepted meaning of racism/sexism, as in "doing something racist," that is not the only meaning.
One problem with homophobic, is, as you pointed out, borrowed from psychological terminology. However, you yourself are employing the commonly accepted meaning of "sexist" and "racist" (a meaning not found in my dictionary), and so I think you need to be able to see reason on applying "homophobe" outside of a merely psychological definition as well. Words change as we use them, and they are pejorative for a reason. Any word you pick will become pejorative, because what you believe in incenses a lot of people. That's just how it's going to be.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by millernumber1: To add to The Rabbit's comment, it hasn't been very long, historically, since homosexuality itself was declassified as a mental illness. I'm curious to know if those who wish to continue using "homophobe" to describe Card's position would consider people using "homosexual" in the older sense of "psychological disease causing sexual attraction to members of the same sex" offensive.
That is a patently absurd analogy. Homosexuality as a term dates back to the 19th century, and its use as a clinical term was co-opted by mainstream culture over a century ago. Homosexuality was removed from the DSM long after it had lost any traction as a serious and widespread belief that it was a specific treatable mental illness. Homophobia was introduced as a clinical term in the 1960s, and it still is one. Different words, different histories. The cases are not comparable for a variety of reasons.
Posted by jebus202 (Member # 2524) on :
quote:Originally posted by Teshi: Nobody would say that someone denying Jewish people or black people rights wasn't racist just because you felt that Jewish people should otherwise be able to live openly and without persecution. It doesn't matter what it says in your religious texts or whether Jewish people simply give you the creeps. It doesn't matter that you know and like Jewish people. If you still think that they shouldn't deserve the rights afforded to the mainstream, you are racist.
The thing is though, I'm not antisemitic, I'm anti-Jewishness.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit:
quote:Added: Since when is "homophobic" a specific slur any more than "racist" or "sexist" is? They're factual descriptions.
I'm sorry but that simply isn't true.
No, it really is. If another word supplants homophobe to become the new common word used to describe the people who are today called homophobes for the reasons they're considered homophobes, it's going to be a "slur and an insult" just as readily as sexist and racist. There's a point to noting the origins of the term and how we ended up with a more vicious sounding descriptor coming into common use to describe homophobes, but you've decided to get firmly, hopelessly mired in prescriptivism over the issue of the word. You could also do it with the word 'antisocial,' which now no longer means anything related to sociopathy when not used in a distinctly, academically psychological sense.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
It's just... You get these folks campaigning to make life harder for gay people who have already been historically tormented enough. None of them would read books like Stone Butch Blues and such to see how much gays have been tormented because they've got to focus on a handful of bible verses and use them to CONTINUE to torment people and somehow I'd supposed to feel sorry for folks being upset over being called "homophobe"? No, you're not the victim here. You're not the ones being discriminated against. You don't have to worry about being bullied over your sexual orientation to the point of suicide, or being beat up for no reason other than wanting to be with someone of the same sex. It's ridiculous. It's like folks don't get how horrible these handful of bible verses make it for gay people to just LIVE.
I'd say, if you don't like being called homophobic, learn more about gay people and stop being homophobic. I used to be scared of spiders at one time, now I walk right up to them and try to touch them. Which would be a bit rude to do to random gay people, but yeah... Homosexuality just isn't the problem folks like OSC are making it out to be. It makes me insane that folks are so obsessed with it. We live in a country where people should have rights, even if you don't like it such as gays marrying people of the same sex.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote: It makes me insane that folks are so obsessed with it.
which is ironic, because you absolutely can't help yourself and obsess over it too until it drives you crazy. Like most everything else that makes you upset.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
Well, if folks stopped harping on gay people all the time, I'd be less upset!
But until then I need an island. With spiders. Lots of spiders.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: Teshi, if the word was (sexual) orientationist then I doubt the other side would be calling for a better term, but "homophobic" isn't nice and when you are trying to have a civil conversation a little kindness in our word choices can help grease the wheels and keep courteous discussion from degenerating into a fight.
If they are more comfortable with "anti-homosexuality" or "anti-gay" then what's the problem?
I do not think it is a good thing to make them more comfortable about what they do. I want them to bear the discomfort of it.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots:
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: Teshi, if the word was (sexual) orientationist then I doubt the other side would be calling for a better term, but "homophobic" isn't nice and when you are trying to have a civil conversation a little kindness in our word choices can help grease the wheels and keep courteous discussion from degenerating into a fight.
If they are more comfortable with "anti-homosexuality" or "anti-gay" then what's the problem?
I do not think it is a good thing to make them more comfortable about what they do. I want them to bear the discomfort of it.
Me too. Realize you're not the one being hung like a scarecrow GAY PEOPLE ARE! And your HOMOPHOBIAIS not HELPING! It really can't be tolerated. Also I am intolerant.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: Its a slur and an insult. I really can't believe people are even arguing that it isn't.
Meh.
The fact that you find it ridiculous, is not an argument against it. It doesn't matter how genuine you are about finding it ridiculous.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Aris Katsaris: Dan, you confuse vagueness and completeness. If I say "the set of all integers" that's a complete definition of a huge and expansive set, but it's not a vaguely defined set. And the smaller and more to the point the definition, the larger and yet more well-defined the set can be. (The "set of all people who oppose homosexuality, except ones whose tactics mainstream Republicans don't approve" is both a smaller and a vaguer and a harder to define set than "the set of all people who oppose homosexuality".)
Still, perhaps the technical term I should have used is accuracy, not precision.
That's an interesting take. I see where you're going now.
quote:Why am I not interested in a term for the former ("Those people who oppose homosexuality, but do so without picketing funeral, or saying that gays should be hanged") ? Because I'm not someone who thinks that terms in the Internet should be used based on current and parochial American political fads. When I discuss religious opposition to homosexuality, the prime example that springs to your mind may be some Republican saying that marriage is between man and women, but the prime example that springs to MY mind is Shariah governments executing gay people.
Actually no that's exactly what springs to my mind too. It's why, despite being a bisexual man, I'm not terribly hurt by OSC or other heteronormative ( ) Christians.
quote:The purpose of the term "anti-religion" wasn't to categorize me as a decent chap or a monster, it was to indicate whether I felt religion was a good or a bad thing. Therefore it's a *positive* that the terms can include monsters. Because it *shouldn't* exclude them. Because if it excluded them, the set it defined would be *incomplete* for the purpose of just talking about "how do you feel about religion".
As for the "search", which you (sarcastically I believe) wish me good luck on, it has concluded with "anti-gay".
Glad to see you have a functional sarcasm-meter. I am also glad you have concluded your search! Was that also sarcasm? Who knows!
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: I do not think it is a good thing to make them more comfortable about what they do. I want them to bear the discomfort of it.
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: If one's intent is to be insulting or judgmental, then go for it...
I strongly doubt your making people uncomfortable will cause them to reevaluate their beliefs, but if changing their minds isn't as important to you personally as making sure that they know that you are judging them, then you are on the right track.
Human beings: teaching tolerance through intolerance since...well, forever.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Because changing one's mind about personal beliefs about sexuality is generally a comfortable process...? (Or many other things, really.)
It's one of the tools of the trade, and a very effective one of some of the most famous and successful human rights campaigns of the past century. 'Intolerant of intolerance...hypocrite!' is a common barb leveled at people advocating tolerance, and a strange one. Few people have ever suggested universal tolerance of all ways of thought and behavior.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
I think that's why we call it social "change" and not a social "shift." The idea is that people change their attitudes over time, not that people with different attitudes gain more or less power. American conservatism is (especially right now) focusing on concentrating a diminishing base of political support amongst those who are more or less unwilling to change.
I find the next 20 years interesting to contemplate from this perspective. Many who are now incapable of change will die off, and many more who have completely adapted to new realities will enter the voting public. I mean, I can't *imagine* prop. 9 passing a vote amongst Californians under 30, and in 30 years, that is going to be the majority of voters- and a view like that seems unlikely to change in 30 years. Then we'll be dealing with a whole new basket of issues those people won't be prepared to accept and adapt to, and on it goes.
I will say, I am comforted to think that realistically, the anti-gay segment of our society stands about as much chance as pro-segregationists did in the 60's. In 20 years, it will be widely seen as an expression of profound ignorance to voice anti-gay ideals. Intolerance of anti-gay sentiment is like intolerance of flat-earth sentiment. It's inevitable.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:I strongly doubt your making people uncomfortable will cause them to reevaluate their beliefs, but if changing their minds isn't as important to you personally as making sure that they know that you are judging them, then you are on the right track.
Things are a little different when we are talking about a campaign like the one that NOM runs. It's distressingly intent on maintaining discriminatory policy that, in the view of people who want to end these discriminations, actively harms those who are being discriminated against.
The advancement of rights of the oppressed party take precedence over the comfort level of its opposition when we are talking about real laws with no legitimate purpose that are actively discriminating against people and denying them rights that there's no reason they shouldn't have. This creates situations in which people should actively be judged for not changing their minds, and continuing to vote for these discriminations. I'm very intolerant towards anti-homosexuality laws and bigotry, and the many guises and wafer-thin excuses for legitimacy it makes. As in, I do not tolerate them. I call them out for what they are, and I fight them, and I fight the people who try to advance these prejudices and maintain discrimination via law, and I work to ensure that future generations abandon them and move forward. Everyone should be intolerant of things that they consider harmfully wrong. I'm also intolerant of slavery, in pretty much exactly the same way. I bet you are too, and you'd have a very, very hard time demonstrating how being pointedly intolerant in such a way is poor form in and of itself.
It is also strategically sound. It's working in pretty much the exact same way that the war was won against another almost identically unfair social and marriage discrimination: anti-miscegenation laws, where older generations dug in their heels and rallied against the Sinful and Society Destroying threat of allowing the races to intermarry. The same thing will happen here. The old view is uselessly discriminatory, and it has to be forcefully challenged on those grounds. You challenge it as being prejudicial, rooted in bigotry as well as old fears and hatreds (as was the case then, as is the case now), the product of an older generation that — bless their hearts, were raised to think that, and are mostly just a product of their times. You're not going to change most of their minds, but you can change the message of the times. And by doing that, and making the environment very rightfully judgmental of old prejudices and worthless discriminations, you ensure that those discriminations and the views that maintained them essentially die with that generation.
That's the way it worked then; and today it's a dead issue. It's over, they lost, and there's no more miscegenation debate. It goes from the public discourse to the history books, and we can read back about it and say it was an ignorant, hateful policy that we evolved out of, and we're all the better for it, despite the doomsayers who came up with all kinds of quaint rationalizations about why the institution of marriage NEEDED to have these discriminations enforced.
And I'm sure, if you're going to go back in time, the people who fought to maintain such a policy would object to being called out for being ignorant or hateful.
That's too bad.
And the same thing will happen here. The anti-homosexuality crusade will lose, and it will also go from the public discourse to the history books. We will be able to read back about it and say it was an ignorant, hateful policy that we evolved out of, and we're all the better for it, despite the doomsayers who still come up with all kinds of quaint rationalizations of the same desperate, angling-for-legitimacy-in-secular-policy arguments, about why the institution of marriage NEEDS to have these discriminations enforced.
And I'm sure, the people who fight to maintain these anti-gay policies quite fiercely object to being called out for being ignorant or hateful.
That's too bad.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
As for the reading, It's pretty slow, because at least one part of the reviews has it dead-on — about the dryness of the writing, specifically.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Hmmm, I'm not 100% sure, but in the amazon preview it only looked like 150 pages or so Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Samp: I agree with most everything you said. My point isn't be kind to the anti-gay movement, it is to be courteous to posters and individuals in meat space for the purposes of discussion. Rabbit's take on the matter is one I think other's who are currently deeply rooted in the anti-homosexuality movement can achieve, that is, the understanding that the religious belief that something is a "sin" is in itself acceptable as long as it is separate from the very discriminatory political movement to make laws which infringe on the civil rights of homosexuals.
I am intolerant of discrimination, but I still say the way to change the minds of individuals is with respect and logical argument and not disdain and condemnation.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
for what its worth, I don't sling these terms about towards groups, or define people as such based solely on their support for marriage amendments, but rather save it for invididuals. I rarely even ever use terms approaching 'homophobe' or 'anti-homosexual extremist' unless someone has gone above and beyond the call of duty to provide a track record that clearly shows them as such. In this particular situation, we're not really dealing with a very ambiguous case.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: Hmmm, I'm not 100% sure, but in the amazon preview it only looked like 150 pages or so
I've been 'working' at game of thrones for about three months now, and I'm still only about halfway through. My attention span for books has shot straight through the floor in favor of practically anything else (the internet! smartphone games! staring at wall next to bed!) and I'll be the first to tell you that it's a mildly distressing trend.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: Hmmm, I'm not 100% sure, but in the amazon preview it only looked like 150 pages or so
I've been 'working' at game of thrones for about three months now, and I'm still only about halfway through. My attention span for books has shot straight through the floor in favor of practically anything else (the internet! smartphone games! staring at wall next to bed!) and I'll be the first to tell you that it's a mildly distressing trend.
Man. That sucks. Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: Hmmm, I'm not 100% sure, but in the amazon preview it only looked like 150 pages or so
I've been 'working' at game of thrones for about three months now, and I'm still only about halfway through. My attention span for books has shot straight through the floor in favor of practically anything else (the internet! smartphone games! staring at wall next to bed!) and I'll be the first to tell you that it's a mildly distressing trend.
You know what, I know what you're talking about. It's the strangest thing. I still read voraciously online, but it's all periodicals, meme sites, reviews, etc. No fiction, and when I sit down to read novels that just a year or so ago would have kept me glued to my seat, instead I read a few pages and think, "I don't want to read this."
I'm not sure what is going on with my brain.
Posted by millernumber1 (Member # 9894) on :
I hear you - for me, it's that I have stuck myself with a book I have little interest in, but I refuse to give up on it. Not sure if that makes me stupid or stubborn. But tis very frustrating, since I know I can read much, much faster than this...
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
Wow! You guys are making me so sad.
I certainly have that experience when reading books that fail to grab me... for example, I've heard so many good things about Thomas Covenant that I'm finally trying to read it, and so far it feels like a slog. Keep hoping it will snag my interest. But that feels like an isolated incident. Plenty of other books still manage to seize me just fine.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: Hmmm, I'm not 100% sure, but in the amazon preview it only looked like 150 pages or so
I've been 'working' at game of thrones for about three months now, and I'm still only about halfway through. My attention span for books has shot straight through the floor in favor of practically anything else (the internet! smartphone games! staring at wall next to bed!) and I'll be the first to tell you that it's a mildly distressing trend.
You know what, I know what you're talking about. It's the strangest thing. I still read voraciously online, but it's all periodicals, meme sites, reviews, etc. No fiction, and when I sit down to read novels that just a year or so ago would have kept me glued to my seat, instead I read a few pages and think, "I don't want to read this."
I'm not sure what is going on with my brain.
Same thing here, lately. Except I just read a novel that blew me away and I finished in two days. Girl in Landscape (Lethem). But it's become so rare...
Posted by Ginol_Enam (Member # 7070) on :
I go through moods, personally. There will be a period of time (weeks or month, depends) where I will read constantly. New things. Old things. I'll go through a whole series or books or more in hardly any time at all.
Then, one day, I'll find I'm not interested. Instead I'll start watching some TV show or playing a game. Something else. I'll be fixated on that in the same way I was fixated on reading just a little while ago.
And then, eventually, I'll get back to reading. Its a cycle.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
I have a theory on it, but I don't know how representative of other people it is, totally.
Posted by Jake (Member # 206) on :
Is it a secret theory?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
until typed out, yes!
Posted by Jake (Member # 206) on :
Egads!
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Ok, I finished Hamlet's father. For the crowd assuming I'm just going to read what I want to see, I also had another person read it as an unprimed and unsuggested 'control' — she's a perfect candidate for it, doesn't know or care a bit about OSC's politics or stance on homosexuality and molestation. For the most part, we came to the same conclusions: that the PW review was accurate, and the Raintaxi review makes some sweeping generalizations/assumptions about the work that makes it mostly disregardable. So it's odd that card responded in protest of the PW review as opposed to the Raintaxi article that uncorked all this.
But there's a noticeable association made; PW was right. OSC reads this as haters 'manufacturing evidence,' but it's really just from reading the text. It's difficult to read in a way which makes you not think this is the case. And dear old king hamlet is very much so lusting for his adult, male, son. Pedophilia has very much so caused confused sexualities. In light of his articles specifically providing his view on molestation and homosexuality, it's mighty difficult to claim that these associations are purely accidental.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Thanks for reading through it, Samp, and posting your opinion here.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
There is one particular series of passages which show beyond any reasonable doubt that a number of charges made by the critics are true, Raintaxi included. Homosexuality and homosexual urges are linked to pedophilia, and it's kind of the core of the drama. Hamlet sr.'s pederasty gives characters homosexual and/or pederastic desires. Part of OSC's response to the controversy is to say that there are no homosexual characters in the play, but that's indefensible. Rosencrantz and Guildenstern end up as gay lovers. Not bisexual or confused — Horatio explains that neither one could even look at women after their molestation, and that they have remained together as a gay couple. And the ghost of elder hamlet is engaging in an intentional plot to get at his adult male son for gay molestation in hell.
Since I think I'm probably not allowed to post whole sections of the text here, you can PM me if you want the relevant passages as evidence. I want to be able to show that none of this is ambiguous at all to the extent that it really, really calls into question the honesty of OSC's response.
Posted by kacard (Member # 200) on :
I was never going to comment on this thread – but don’t think that means I haven’t been reading. I actually, for some insane reason, had high hopes that Sam would give the book a fair read. How silly of me.
Sam does not quote passages (I give him credit for thinking maybe it would not be allowed), but I will quote the passages that I believe he is referring to. His interpretation of them is completely incorrect – so I don’t think this thread should be left with only that. And I doubt anyone else will actually read the story after Sam’s lies about it.
Sam says that the text says Rosencrantz and Guildenstern end up as gay lovers. It says nothing of the kind. Here are the quotes from the text:
“Of all Hamlet’s companions, only Horatio sought him out when he returned. This was hardly surprising – while Hamlet was in Heidelberg, Guildenstern had inherited his father’s estates, and Rosencrantz had gone to live with him and help spend his money while waiting for his own father to die.”
So – Rosencrantz moves in with Guildenstern for financial reasons – and the fact, of course, that they are friends.
Later it says about them:
“Things changed in the four years you were gone. When the Companions were dissolved at your parting, they decided not to dissolve themselves. Living four years together on Guildenstern’s estates had made them as fusty and peculiar as an old married couple. I pity the woman who tries to wed her way into that house.”
OK – “as fusty and peculiar as an old married couple” does not say “gay lovers.” In fact it implies people who have lived together so long they are annoying each other and everyone around them and definitely NOT having sex. And the fact that Horatio thinks a woman might try to marry one of them, means he thinks it’s a possibility.
I guess, according to Sam, men can only live together for one reason – a sexual relationship (which Sam assumes, but is not in the text.) Neither financial need nor the fact that they were friends who understood each other’s painful past is good enough.
And were they all sexually affected? Duh – they were terribly sexually abused. In fact, none of the four who are discussed (and there were many more companions than four) had any relationships with anyone after their abuse. It was just too difficult to put behind them. Though Horatio does have hope, not only for Rosencrantz and Guildenstern, but for himself – he speaks of grandchildren. And he has this conversation with Hamlet.
“I have to see my mother,” said Hamlet. “And I have to look for the mother of my children,” said Horatio. “Do you have someone in mind?” “As always, I ask for volunteers, and then choose the best.”
Another quote Sam refers to:
“It twisted us. I saw it in the others. Rosencrantz and Guildenstern, they could never look at women. Laertes – he told me, even before he left for France, that his stick was broken and would never grown again. And me – I thought I was all right. I thought ...”
The “never look at women”, for the time period this was set in, meant no sex with anyone – sex was not interesting to them. Laertes, no sex with anybody. Horatio, who is speaking, also has no relationships – but later says he catches himself thinking maybe what Hamlet’s father did was actually how things should be, but he stopped himself, recognized the evil, and went out and killed Hamlet’s father instead.
Last quote – after Hamlet sees the souls of everyone else being taken to heaven:
“And finally to the dark shadowy corner where his father’s spirit stood, laughing, laughing, laughing. “Welcome to Hell, my beautiful son. At last we’ll be together as I always longed for us to be.”
Sam says that the ghost of Hamlet’s father is engaged in an intentional plot to get at his adult male son for gay molestation in hell. It says nothing of the kind. Hamlet’s father is unleashing his vengeance on everyone he hated, and making his son do the dirty work with his lies. And then laughs at him, makes fun of him, because Hamlet – who was protected by everyone – now has to have his soul rot in hell (not his youthful body – not even his adult body, which will rot in a grave). There will be no molestation – just an evil father’s final revenge.
So, I’m tired of the lies being told on this thread. It is now closed. I don’t have to host a thread on OSC’s website that continues to lie about him and his work. I’ll decide later if it will be deleted.
![[Cry]](graemlins/cry.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[No No]](graemlins/nono.gif)
![[Evil]](graemlins/evil.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)