Boycott due to opposing view

Ray Palmer

There is currently a bit of a storm in the world of Superman. A very well known sci-fi writer is to write a mini series on superman. The problem is the guy is a Mormon and has expressed opposition to gay marriage. So now people are boycotting superman or threatening to.

Now I am happy to allow gay marriage. I also think boycotting companies is a good plan if it is the companies actions. But a hired writer being the target like this bothers me. It just seems very oppressive and even discriminatory. What are others views?

Angron

Once the guy doesn't try to force in some sort of an anti-gay marriage thing into Superman, I couldn't care less once the story is decent.

dlofnep

Ray Palmer wrote: »

Now I am happy to allow gay marriage. I also think boycotting companies is a good plan if it is the companies actions. But a hired writer being the target like this bothers me. It just seems very oppressive and even discriminatory. What are others views?

People are entitled to do whatever they want. I fail to see how consciously deciding not to watch a production in an act of a moral stand is "very oppressive and discriminatory".

Seriously - Who's oppressed? The rich mormon writer who is afforded freedom of speech to spew hatred, or two people in love who can't marry because they just so happen to be of the same sex?

kneemos

Americans give these headbangers way too much air time.

markfinn

When the view expressed is that certain people or classes of people are not entitled to equal treatment under the law, then boycotting is a remarkably moderate and (to my mind overly-) reasonable response.

Companies are just groups of people. If boycotting a company for their behaviour and/or politics is acceptable, then boycotting an individual for being a homophobic bigot should be too.

After all, it's not like anyone is saying he can't write and/or publish. They're just making it clear that they will not buy or read his work.

Pudders

How can you "boycott" Superman?

BizzyC

I think it's a fair reaction.
If he didn't want anyone to react to his views, then he could have kept them personal.
It's not as if someone hacked his computer, found out personal information and is now attacking him over it.

The fact is that we was outspoken on the matter and is even the member of an anti-gay organization.
Any company willing to make a high profile hiring of someone who goes out of his way to alienate or offend a large portion of the consumer base is going to see backlash.

Even the artist who was due to work with him quit over it.

Carlos Orange

dlofnep wrote: »

People are entitled to do whatever they want. I fail to see how consciously deciding not to watch a production in an act of a moral stand is "very oppressive and discriminatory".

Seriously - Who's oppressed? The rich mormon writer who is afforded freedom of speech to spew hatred, or two people in love who can't marry because they just so happen to be of the same sex?

Plenty of oppression to go around. It doesn't need to be one or the other.

20Cent

Bigots shouldn't be tolerated anywhere good thing boycotting this guy.

OldGoat

I'm going to protest the boycott by putting fingerprints all over my copy of Action Comics#2

Duckworth_Luas

Pudders wrote: »

How can you "boycott" Superman?

But the Daily Bugle instead of the Daily Planet

Angron

OldGoat wrote: »

I'm going to protest the boycott by putting fingerprints all over my copy of Action Comics#2

You fiend!

corktina

Amazing! It's not as if Superman is really camp is it!

Mickeroo

As long as he keeps it out of the comic I'm not bothered. I still watch Roman Polanski's films too.

twinQuins

I don't see how people peaceably voicing disagreement and being unwilling to purchase these comics is in any way oppressive.

markfinn

Just to be very clear here, the following is not my view, but rather a bit of Devils Advocation presented here for debate purposes (to help me clear up my own thought processes)...

Boycotting (and organising the boycott of) the work of an outspoken homophobic writer, in an effort to have the employer change writers/discontinue the writing contract : Acceptable, and good practise.

Boycotting the products sold by a company employing one or more homosexual folk, informing the company of the boycott and encouraging others to do likewise in an effort to have them fired : Presumably unacceptable.

But why?

Best I have is one is "ostracising" folk for their expressed opinions, while the other is ostracising folk for who they are.

---

To clarify : I am strictly and absolutely pro gay-marriage and anti-bigotry on this issue (save only bigotry against bigots, that I am 100% behind).

humanji

Isn't he the type of guy Superman usually tries to stop?

I dont know anything about this writer, OR his work, but what I do know is that somewhere down the line he will be found in a jacuzzi with about 10 other lads and a bag of meth - claiming the devil made him do it.

Tiddlypeeps

markfinn wrote: »

Just to be very clear here, the following is not my view, but rather a bit of Devils Advocation presented here for debate purposes (to help me clear up my own thought processes)...

Boycotting (and organising the boycott of) the work of an outspoken homophobic writer, in an effort to have the employer change writers/discontinue the writing contract : Acceptable, and good practise.

Boycotting the products sold by a company employing one or more homosexual folk, informing the company of the boycott and encouraging others to do likewise in an effort to have them fired : Presumably unacceptable.

But why?

Best I have is one is "ostracising" folk for their expressed opinions, while the other is ostracising folk for who they are.

---

To clarify : I am strictly and absolutely pro gay-marriage and anti-bigotry on this issue (save only bigotry against bigots, that I am 100% behind).

It's much easier to understand if replace the homophobic writer with a racist in the first example and the homosexual with a black person in the second example.

Gay people don't choose to be gay, hateful people choose to be hateful.

Madam_X

Opposition to same-sex marriage, as part of his religion, doesn't automatically mean homophobic.

Tiddlypeeps

Madam_X wrote: »

Opposition to same-sex marriage, as part of his religion, doesn't automatically mean homophobic.

Saying somebody is only a bigot because their religion says they should be doesn't make them any less of a bigot.

markfinn

Madam_X wrote: »

Opposition to same-sex marriage, as part of his religion, doesn't automatically mean homophobic.

If the entire belief structure is homophobic (Oh noez! The gayz are not being persecuted sufficiently! By being allowed to exist and have equal rights as us real troo [religion of choice] they will anger the sky-fairy! Oppress them quick!) then I would say anyone honestly and faithfully following that religion is honestly and faithfully homophobic by choice or indoctrination.

(And also, probably not all that bright, but that's just my narrow-minded meanness.)

BizzyC

Madam_X wrote: »

Opposition to same-sex marriage, as part of his religion, doesn't automatically mean homophobic.

He's an active member of an anti-gay organisation and has been outspoken on the topic in the past.

It's not just a case of his personal beliefs, he openly targets people.

starlings

markfinn wrote: »

Just to be very clear here, the following is not my view, but rather a bit of Devils Advocation presented here for debate purposes (to help me clear up my own thought processes)...

Boycotting (and organising the boycott of) the work of an outspoken homophobic writer, in an effort to have the employer change writers/discontinue the writing contract : Acceptable, and good practise.

Boycotting the products sold by a company employing one or more homosexual folk, informing the company of the boycott and encouraging others to do likewise in an effort to have them fired : Presumably unacceptable.

But why?

Best I have is one is "ostracising" folk for their expressed opinions, while the other is ostracising folk for who they are.

---

To clarify : I am strictly and absolutely pro gay-marriage and anti-bigotry on this issue (save only bigotry against bigots, that I am 100% behind).

Boycotting is a tactic that can be employed by any group. As such, the moral acceptability is down to the target in each case.

The original Boycott (Up Mayo! ) was successful because it was a direct action, more akin to a general strike than a consumer preference, and was directed against the actions of Captain Boycott and the system he upheld, not the opinions of some freelancer he hired. This is how it gained momentum and made more of an impact, IMO, than the dispersed refusal to view material because of the opinions of the writer ever can.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Boycott

Mickeroo

Tiddlypeeps wrote: »

Gay people don't choose to be gay, hateful people choose to be hateful.

I kind of disagree with that, everyone's a product of their up bringing/society/whatever else to an extent, even bigots. That's why it's so hard to get them to change their views. I don't think anyone wakes up and decides they're going to hate homosexuals one day, people have these views because they believe they are right in much the same way I believe I'm right in calling them bigots.

I'm not trying to justify it just pointing out that it's not so black and white as making a concious choice or being a bit dim.

Benny_Cake

The writer in question is Orson Scott Card, he's a very good writer and quite well known. I dunno, I fully support gay marriage but I think a boycott is a bit OTT in this case unless he is writing an anti gay marriage storyline into the comic. Where do you draw the line at this type of thing, and what is it designed to achieve? Because I don't think it will help change anyone's mind on the issue, and will probably force them back into more entrenched positions.

Of course people are perfectly free to choose not to buy the comic if they wish, I can't see that it will affect Orson Scott Card though.

Benny_Cake

Mickeroo wrote: »

I kind of disagree with that, everyone's a product of their up bringing/society/whatever else to an extent, even bigots. That's why it's so hard to get them to change their views. I don't think anyone wakes up and decides they're going to hate homosexuals one day, people have these views because they believe they are right in much the same way I believe I'm right in calling them bigots.

I'm not trying to justify it just pointing out that it's not so black and white as making a concious choice or being a bit dim.

Agreed, plenty of decent people, particularly of my parents generation have changed their minds on this issue. I think that if someone had just written them off as ignorant bigots that would never have happened.

markfinn

Benny_Cake wrote: »

Where do you draw the line at this type of thing, and what is it designed to achieve? Because I don't think it will help change anyone's mind on the issue, and will probably force them back into more entrenched positions.

Of course people are perfectly free to choose not to buy the comic if they wish, I can't see that it will affect Orson Scott Card though.

Some people you just can't reach. Anyone that devoted to their beliefs and dedicated enough to their hatred is, as you say, unlikely to change or back down in the face of widespread dislike of their actions.

However, it may discourage the more casual bigots from going along with the core bigots reducing the volume of the hatred.

If publicised enough it has the potential to alert younger generations that, actually, despite what Daddy Racist and Pastor Homophobe claim, hating on people for being what they are is not a good idea, and certainly not the only way to live.

monkeypants

Pudders wrote: »

How can you "boycott" Superman?

Easy. Next time you're a victim of crime/stuck up a tree/hanging off a bridge or ledge and a fella flies up wearing his underpants over his trousers, tell him you don't want his help, thank you very much.

crockholm

Anyone interested in a sort of "opression top trumps" , all kind of cards can be played. It could be the new pokemon......Gay trumps Muslim, Black trumps Catholic, Jew trumps Transgendered etc etc, and with so many groups to choose from, the fun could last hours.

Links234

BizzyC wrote: »

He's an active member of an anti-gay organisation and has been outspoken on the topic in the past.

It's not just a case of his personal beliefs, he openly targets people.

Exactly this, he's not just being boycotted because of his views, he's one of the big-wigs in the anti-gay movement.

Crooked Jack

OP has a point here.
This man is entitled to his own personal opinions, regardless of how unpalatable they are.
Boycotting the product because one of the people involved happens to hold anti-gay marriage opinions is no better than boycotting the product because one of the people involved happens to be gay.
Once they are personally held opinions and not being shoehorned into the product itself in some way then it's really none of anybody's business

Benny_Cake

Links234 wrote: »

Exactly this, he's not just being boycotted because of his views, he's one of the big-wigs in the anti-gay movement.

If that's the case, it's a different matter, if you make yourself a spokesperson on either side of this debate some people will get upset, it comes with the territory. I was under the impression he had just expressed his personal opinion.

Carlos Orange

Benny_Cake wrote: »

If that's the case, it's a different matter, if you make yourself a spokesperson on either side of this debate some people will get upset, it comes with the territory. I was under the impression he had just expressed his personal opinion.

Is that basically don't ask don't tell for people who don't support gay marriage?

starlings

psinno wrote: »

Is that basically don't ask don't tell for people who don't support gay marriage?

I think it's actually don't ask don't marry someone of the same sex. :pac:

sbsquarepants

Pudders wrote: »

How can you "boycott" Superman?

You'd definitely need to start with kryptonite, after that who knows?

I have to say, i couldn't care less what his personaly beliefs are, i don't care if he's sexist, racist, homophobic or whatever - so long as he doesn't try incorporate them in the script.

Although it could be a good scene - 2 men, just about to tie the knot when the registrar asks, does any one know of any reason why these two men can not........ Off comes the roof and there's superman, setting things right with his anti homo laser eye beams of godliness. Fúck yeah.

Also it's quite ironic, i mean super man is gayer than louis spence bumming elton:D

krudler

I don't get it, unless the guy writes in some anti-gay marriage into the comic whats the difference? If you were to boycott any form of entertainment because someone involved had conflicting personal opinions to yours you'd never watch a film or listen to music again.

starlings

krudler wrote: »

I don't get it, unless the guy writes in some anti-gay marriage into the comic whats the difference? If you were to boycott any form of entertainment because someone involved had conflicting personal opinions to yours you'd never watch a film or listen to music again.

Broadly, I agree. I still like TS Eliot, despite the accusations that he was anti-semitic, and there are those who won't listen to Wagner for the same reason. I think any art should be above the opinions of the artist.

But what we have here is a new employee on a much loved franchise, a pen-for-hire who is also a publicly known organiser against gay marriage. The fans are invested in the ongoing Superman theme - not an original and unique work- and are thus more of a consumer force when it comes to the direction it takes.

Mr. CooL ICE

Meh. I'm sure there are US democrat supporters out there who appreciate Michael Bay movies

Ray Palmer

No matter what his views are he is a great writer. The organisation he is a memeber of has a particular view but simply calling it an anti-gay organisation is a half truth. Their stance is against gay marriage and adoption which is a view many people have. I disagree but it isn't like they are trying to kill or target gay people. They don't believe it is right which is a different view to mine. It is part of his religious view that he was raised with no different to Dana.

Benny_Cake

psinno wrote: »

Is that basically don't ask don't tell for people who don't support gay marriage?

I suppose it kind of is!

It cuts both ways, you can be pretty sure that if an activist who was in favour of gay marriage was in Card's position you'd probably have some organisation related to the religious right calling for a boycott too. It's what passes for activism these days, and the best thing is that you don't actually have to do anything. Probably achieves very little though aside from preventing an honest conversation.

markfinn

krudler wrote: »

I don't get it, unless the guy writes in some anti-gay marriage into the comic whats the difference? If you were to boycott any form of entertainment because someone involved had conflicting personal opinions to yours you'd never watch a film or listen to music again.

There's a sizable difference between "someone involved had conflicting personal opinions to yours" and "someone involved is a powerful and wealthy activist who spends their time and wealth attempting to deny basic human rights to a large minority of the human race".

hooradiation

On the plus side, we've already got a good idea of what the opening page of Orson Scott Cards superman run is going to be like.

Ray Palmer

markfinn wrote: »

There's a sizable difference between "someone involved had conflicting personal opinions to yours" and "someone involved is a powerful and wealthy activist who spends their time and wealth attempting to deny basic human rights to a large minority of the human race".

The claim it is a basic human right seems really starnge to me. It isn't and hasn't been a basic human right for many people through history. It has only been recently touted as this. Many people all around the world do not have this right of choice and it is insulting to suggest that only gay people in the western world have a special persecusion.

It is a new and understandable change to culture and I welcome it but it is not a human right. It sounds very like the right for men to have baby's from the Holy Grail when described as that. It is a major change.

starlings

Ray Palmer wrote: »

The claim it is a basic human right seems really starnge to me. It isn't and hasn't been a basic human right for many people through history. It has only been recently touted as this. Many people all around the world do not have this right of choice and it is insulting to suggest that only gay people in the western world have a special persecusion.

It is a new and understandable change to culture and I welcome it but it is not a human right. It sounds very like the right for men to have baby's from the Holy Grail when described as that. It is a major change.

All established human rights are abstract; the idea of a right is a human construct, so tradition doesn't really come into it.

The UDHR is only in existence since 1948. It builds on historical advances in social justice and sets a framework for future applications of those rights - gay marriage being one of these developments. Human Rights are painstakingly established and appealed to in cases of injustice, not simply set up because one group feels like it, as you seem to suggest. Though I can't really blame you, given the way many people throw the word around.

It's also important to remember that rights do not exist in isolation; they must be argued and balanced against each other, e.g. freedom of conscience vs (potential) right to marry in the case of homophobia.

johnr1

So the conclusion here appears to be that people are right to boycott this guy's work because he is anti-gay marriage?

Yet, a couple of weeks ago, I was told here that I was taking 'needless offence' - (thats a paraphrased distillation) when I said I'd be boycotting Django Unchained because its lead actor Jsmie Foxx is a racist.

The difference here appears to me to be that gay marriage is "in" and that racism unless by a white person is "out"

DeanAustin

The fella is entitled to an opinion. His Superman work has nothing to do with it. Nonsense boycotting his work over this.

Mickeroo

I only just realised why his name was familiar to me, he wrote Ender's Game too. Have that sitting in my room next on my reading list.

hooradiation

johnr1 wrote: »

So the conclusion here appears to be that people are right to boycott this guy's work because he is anti-gay marriage?

No, the conclusion is that people place different emphasis on different things and some people don't find Jamie Foxxs opinion in the same league as the man who has called for the overthrowing of the US government if they dare to legalise gay marriage.

But please, you were feeling put upon and i'd hate to ruin your pity party.

Ray Palmer

Mickeroo wrote: »

I only just realised why his name was familiar to me, he wrote Ender's Game too. Have that sitting in my room next on my reading list.

It's really good, I am on Ender's Shadow at the moment

Shenshen

Ray Palmer wrote: »

There is currently a bit of a storm in the world of Superman. A very well known sci-fi writer is to write a mini series on superman. The problem is the guy is a Mormon and has expressed opposition to gay marriage. So now people are boycotting superman or threatening to.

Now I am happy to allow gay marriage. I also think boycotting companies is a good plan if it is the companies actions. But a hired writer being the target like this bothers me. It just seems very oppressive and even discriminatory. What are others views?

He's free to write whatever he likes, and to hold any opinion he likes.

Everybody else is free to make their own decisions on where and how to spend their money.
People getting hounded out of business over their convictions is one of the darker sides of capitalism, unfortunately.