Boycott due to opposing view

Ray Palmer · 07-03-2013 12:27PM #1

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 · 07-03-2013 12:31PM

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 · 07-03-2013 12:32PM

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 · 07-03-2013 12:32PM

Americans give these headbangers way too much air time.

markfinn · 07-03-2013 12:33PM

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 · 07-03-2013 12:34PM

How can you "boycott" Superman?

BizzyC · 07-03-2013 12:34PM

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 · 07-03-2013 12:35PM

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 · 07-03-2013 12:35PM

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

OldGoat · 07-03-2013 12:36PM

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

Duckworth_Luas · 07-03-2013 12:36PM

Pudders wrote: »

How can you "boycott" Superman?

But the Daily Bugle instead of the Daily Planet

Angron · 07-03-2013 12:36PM

OldGoat wrote: »

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

You fiend!

corktina · 07-03-2013 12:40PM

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

Mickeroo · 07-03-2013 12:41PM

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

twinQuins · 07-03-2013 12:44PM

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

markfinn · 07-03-2013 12:54PM

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 · 07-03-2013 12:57PM

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

07-03-2013 01:00PM

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 · 07-03-2013 01:07PM

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 · 07-03-2013 01:08PM

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

Tiddlypeeps · 07-03-2013 01:09PM

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 · 07-03-2013 01:12PM

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 · 07-03-2013 01:22PM

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 · 07-03-2013 01:23PM

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 · 07-03-2013 01:26PM

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 · 07-03-2013 01:27PM

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 · 07-03-2013 01:29PM

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 · 07-03-2013 01:36PM

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 · 07-03-2013 01:40PM

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 · 07-03-2013 01:40PM

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 · 07-03-2013 02:01PM

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.

Boycott due to opposing view

Comments