|
|
Post by adamwarlock2099 on Jun 5, 2014 18:56:16 GMT -5
But none of us are responsible for what the man does with his money. When you give him his money, you are. If it was your freedoms he was lobbying against, you'd probably feel differently on the subject. No you're not. When does he take responsibilities for his actions? Would he still be a hateful person if he had no money? His hate isn't at the root of his wealth it's in his heart. It's always been there. Before the internet and social media when he was praised for Ender's Game he was hateful and you (a general term) were buying his book, were you responsible for him using that money to spread hate? I understand that people choose to give people like this support through money. I am not asking anyone to justify their morals. I just can't accept the concept. I don't understand the model of guilt by monenitary means. How much money do you put out a day that in some way may end up funding fowl thinking and deeds? Yes money makes it easier to get the desired results he wants sure. But he can hollar as loud as he wants but people also have the choice to ignore him and his hate. That's what will curb the spread of his hate more than money. And I have no idea if he is lobbying against my rights because I don't listen to him, read about him or concern myself with him. I'm making my comment/asking my question as regards to any of the many people that these conversations are about; Card, Sim, Polanski or otherwise. |
|
|
|
Post by maddog1981 on Jun 5, 2014 18:59:57 GMT -5
It really doesn't bother me. If I didn't buy things from people I disagreed with or who were doing awful things, well I wouldn't buy very much. The only person I won't support is Roman Polanski and that goes without saying.
|
|
Crimebuster
CCF Podcast Guru
Making comics!
Posts: 3,958 
|
Post by Crimebuster on Jun 5, 2014 19:02:33 GMT -5
How much money do you put out a day that in some way may end up funding fowl thinking and deeds? But there's a difference between may and will. Which is the difference between the hypothetical and the real. All the money I spend may or may not go to do any number of things - I don't know where it's going. There's no way to know where most of my money goes, so there's really no moral impetus for me to spend it one way or another. I do know that money sent to Card, however, is going to fund what I consider to be hate groups. And since I do know where my money will be going if I send it to Card, there is a moral impetus for me anyway to send it somewhere else. |
|
|
|
Post by adamwarlock2099 on Jun 5, 2014 19:10:45 GMT -5
Except of course that there's no "guise" involved with Card's hateful beliefs. Fine by me, I suppose, if anyone wants to give money to, say, some White Power racist rock group that might exist to raise money for the Klan but happens to have a knack for writing a good song. (It's hardly unimaginable -- see some of Skrewdriver's early songs, like "You're So Dumb" or "Anti-Social" or "Government Action," though those did come out before the band went full-on Nazi.) But anyone doing so shouldn't pretend they're doing anything but giving money to the Klan. I suppose it would be interesting if some nutcase hate group like Card's were to offer otherwise unavailable work by him as a premium for donations to their coffers. Makes me wonder how many people would give them money, then somehow rationalize their complicity in funding such foulness. As I said above I don't know Cards agenda. Could frankly care less. But if I buy his book I'm not supporting his hate I'm supporting his fictional work. What he does with that money is beyond my control. What I do with my money is in my control. If I were doing nothing illegal and using my secular earnings to do hateful things is the company I work for now funding my hate? Whether they know or not? Does the liquor store clerk share responsibility for deteriorating health for selling my booze due to my alcoholism? The ice cream truck driver for letting someone he didn't know was a diabetic buy tons if ice cream and died? I know they're different situations but they're the same principal as I see it. Somewhere in this gray area your responsibility ends and his begins. Where do we seperate the service/product from the person? Can we with the knowledge we have available at our fingertips now that can bore right into the lives of anyone in the civilized world? |
|
|
|
Post by adamwarlock2099 on Jun 5, 2014 19:17:06 GMT -5
How much money do you put out a day that in some way may end up funding fowl thinking and deeds? But there's a difference between may and will. Which is the difference between the hypothetical and the real. All the money I spend may or may not go to do any number of things - I don't know where it's going. There's no way to know where most of my money goes, so there's really no moral impetus for me to spend it one way or another. I do know that money sent to Card, however, is going to fund what I consider to be hate groups. And since I do know where my money will be going if I send it to Card, there is a moral impetus for me anyway to send it somewhere else. My comment on might or could should have clarified a bit better, which I may have in my response to Dan. If before you didn't know Card was a bigot and bought his stuff, how does knowing make you feel more responsible? Or did you look backing thinking, " oh man all these years I've been giving money to this bigot"? It's not Cards deeds that I am questioning, it's the concept of knowing or unknowingly giving money to entertainers being the responsibility of the buyer. I just can't see it that way. And as I said but will again I'm not asking anyone to justify their morals just trying to understand them. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 5, 2014 19:18:16 GMT -5
When you give him his money, you are. If it was your freedoms he was lobbying against, you'd probably feel differently on the subject. No you're not. When does he take responsibilities for his actions? Would he still be a hateful person if he had no money? His hate isn't at the root of his wealth it's in his heart. It's always been there. Before the internet and social media when he was praised for Ender's Game he was hateful and you (a general term) were buying his book, were you responsible for him using that money to spread hate? I understand that people choose to give people like this support through money. I am not asking anyone to justify their morals. I just can't accept the concept. I don't understand the model of guilt by monenitary means. How much money do you put out a day that in some way may end up funding fowl thinking and deeds? Yes money makes it easier to get the desired results he wants sure. But he can hollar as loud as he wants but people also have the choice to ignore him and his hate. That's what will curb the spread of his hate more than money. And I have no idea if he is lobbying against my rights because I don't listen to him, read about him or concern myself with him. I'm making my comment/asking my question as regards to any of the many people that these conversations are about; Card, Sim, Polanski or otherwise. He's a political lobbyist. His money is what denies people equal rights. Giving him money helps him fulfill his agenda. When you fund him, you are absolutely responsible for what he does with his money, considering you've been told what he does with it. If you didn't know, that's one thing. But knowing your purchase is helping make a discriminated minority a second class in the legal system, you're responsible. People don't have the choice to ignore the law, and buying his comic helps him shape the law. I don't know how much of my discretionary spending funds discrimination, but zero percent of it does knowingly. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 5, 2014 19:19:09 GMT -5
But there's a difference between may and will. Which is the difference between the hypothetical and the real. All the money I spend may or may not go to do any number of things - I don't know where it's going. There's no way to know where most of my money goes, so there's really no moral impetus for me to spend it one way or another. I do know that money sent to Card, however, is going to fund what I consider to be hate groups. And since I do know where my money will be going if I send it to Card, there is a moral impetus for me anyway to send it somewhere else. My comment on might or could should have clarified a bit better, which I may have in my response to Dan. If before you didn't know Card was a bigot and bought his stuff, how does knowing make you feel more responsible? Or did you look backing thinking, " oh man all these years I've been giving money to this bigot"? It's not Cards deeds that I am questioning, it's the concept of knowing or unknowingly giving money to entertainers being the responsibility of the buyer. I just can't see it that way. And as I said but will again I'm not asking anyone to justify their morals just trying to understand them. Not knowing is one thing. I don't judge people who are unaware of what their purchase is doing. Knowing and not caring is another thing entirely. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 5, 2014 19:19:57 GMT -5
Except of course that there's no "guise" involved with Card's hateful beliefs. Fine by me, I suppose, if anyone wants to give money to, say, some White Power racist rock group that might exist to raise money for the Klan but happens to have a knack for writing a good song. (It's hardly unimaginable -- see some of Skrewdriver's early songs, like "You're So Dumb" or "Anti-Social" or "Government Action," though those did come out before the band went full-on Nazi.) But anyone doing so shouldn't pretend they're doing anything but giving money to the Klan. I suppose it would be interesting if some nutcase hate group like Card's were to offer otherwise unavailable work by him as a premium for donations to their coffers. Makes me wonder how many people would give them money, then somehow rationalize their complicity in funding such foulness. As I said above I don't know Cards agenda. But you do, we told you. Now you know. |
|
|
|
Post by Hoosier X on Jun 5, 2014 21:37:05 GMT -5
I boycott Orson Scott Card because he's just not that great a writer. Since I don't read him anyway, does that mean I'm forcing his children to starve?
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 5, 2014 21:42:08 GMT -5
Nobody pays me to write Superman comics, how will I pay the rent?
|
|
|
|
Post by Action Ace on Jun 5, 2014 21:55:12 GMT -5
Nobody pays me to write Superman comics, how will I pay the rent? Even worse, nobody pays me to write message board posts lambasting Dupont2005's horrible Superman comics. How will I buy my next set of golf clubs? |
|
|
|
Post by wildfire2099 on Jun 5, 2014 21:56:45 GMT -5
I was sad about the Superman thing, that's so out of his usual comfort zone I was interested to read it. All his stories are about a little boy who turns out to be some sort of messiah/leader/hero, more or less. He managed to turn Iron Man into that when he wrote that. IMO, he writes that particular story really well. Other stuff he's wrote that I've read is pretty blah... but none of it is remotely similar to Superman. I've also always found it interesting that many, many comic fans exploded in rage when he was announced for a Superman project, but no one batted an eyelash about Ultimate Iron Man. Personally, I'm pretty much done with him as a writer, because he recent stuff just isn't that good. I'll always love Ender's Game, though  |
|
|
|
Post by Ish Kabbible on Jun 5, 2014 22:07:58 GMT -5
I bought Ender's Game 20 years ago or something like that and still haven't read it. But if you start going down the road of boycotting particular people,then how do you feel about doing business with banks,multinational corporations and paying your taxes.There's alot of your money going to purposes you would oppose whether it be exploiting workers,polluting air and water,funding war and armaments. If it makes you feel better boycotting someone fine, but the vast majority of your money is going to activities as bad or worse
|
|
|
|
Post by Hoosier X on Jun 5, 2014 22:08:01 GMT -5
(I also got over PAD a long time ago. I re-read some of his Supergirl issues a few years ago and I found it kind of boring and pretentious and way too impressed with its own alleged cleverness. Same with Hulk.)
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 5, 2014 22:09:58 GMT -5
I've also always found it interesting that many, many comic fans exploded in rage when he was announced for a Superman project, but no one batted an eyelash about Ultimate Iron Man. Because he didn't join the board of directors of a hate group until 2009. |
|
