Hear, hear. I didn't find anything in this interview that identifies him as a "terrible person". Yes, things he says are unpopular on the internet, given the internet's demographics - young, liberal, etc. But I think someone who calls him a "terrible person" based only on views he expressed hasn't met many terrible people in their lifetime.
And before I get accused of being his fanboy, I can't stand Ender's Game. I think it's the most overrated piece of garbage in history of sci-fi.. sometimes it reads like a work of a 12 year old. Terrible writing, worse, incredibly naive plot, I have no idea how it can be considered a "classic" and works by far better sci-fi authors like Clifford Simak, Robert Sheckley, Henry Kuttner, Alfred Bester, etc are unfairly forgotten.
Having said that, I think the Card's masterpiece is the insults he wrote for Monkey Island game... now that's a great piece of writing!
But where do you draw the line between "Opinions with which I disagree" and "Opinions which make you a bad person if you hold them"?
I tend to classify really silly opinions as "loopy" rather than "evil", as long as they don't actually advocate violence or similar. OSC has loopy opinions, not immoral ones.
Hateful and discriminatory seems like a decent line to me
To me, you sound like the thought police.
In my moral code, we're entitled to think what we want, and nobody has any business condemning us based on our thoughts. The line is our actions: if we do something to someone as a result of our thoughts, that crosses the line.
I've said to a few gay friends that I personally think that homosexuality is gross; but I also think that broccoli is gross. The fact that I feel that way doesn't have anything to do with the way I view them as people, and certainly not how I treat them -- not any more than my distaste for broccoli affects my relationship with eaters of broccoli. And everyone I've talked about this attitude with seems to think it's a perfectly reasonable one to hold.
You and Scott Card are both entitled to your own opinions and moral beliefs. And I am entitled to call people who spout anti-homosexual hate speech homophobes on the internet.
Furthermore: if Scott Card's stated opinions on homosexuality were as.. mellow.. as yours, then you wouldn't see me caring quite so much. I'm not sure why you're defending yourself when I'm talking about Scott Card...
You don't want this recursion to apply to you too. Saying a person who says someone is terrible is terrible puts you next in line. Fortunately for both of us I don't think you're terrible, just a little too excited to dislike someone.
Okay, then follow the recursion back the other way. You should expect them to care as little about what you think as you care about what I think.
It seems either you believe your opposites have a more open mind than you do (so you can convince them despite your unconcern about being perceived as being like them), or you are writing opinions you hope your intended audience will like so they will like you. Perhaps you are writing for a judging God or people you consider to be your social superiors (people who can upvote.) You might reply that you write your opinions only for yourself, but because you wrote them here instead of a desktop text editor I think you want some other benefit.
I am not "open minded" towards homophobia, nor do I want to be, or believe anybody should be. I similarly don't think people should be open minded towards racism or genocide.
If this is close mindedness, then your statement "you believe your opposites have a more open mind than you do" does not concern me in the slightest. This is exactly the sentiment I was expressing earlier.
Is that because you are willing to fight it out? Or because you think you've got the people with the "wrong" opinions well out-numbered?
Use your imagination and consider circumstances where people with the "right" opinions are outnumbered, and considered dangerous. I _hope_ that I'd be saying the right things in Berlin 1935, or Richmond 1855, or Birmingham 1958, or Moscow 1920 - 1985. But I'm damn sure I'd be _concerned_ about the reaction to those remarks.
I mean I am not going to lose sleep over people thinking less of me for disliking homophobes. I won't be persuaded to modify my opinions by warnings that the people I dislike (homophobes) will dislike me in return.
And you've already dismissed the possibility that they actually have reasons for their opinions, or you wouldn't refer to them with a pejorative. So it looks like nothing could persuade to change your mind.
The problem with these "homophobes" is their closed minds, right?
I generally agree, so long as you remember that talk is cheap. If you shouldn't respect someone too much for talking about the great things they'll do, you shouldn't hold it too hard against someone for talking about terrible positions.
Sure it's reasonable. But do I judge Steve Jobs by what toppings he likes on his pizza or what kind of rap he listens to? No. I may agree or disagree with him, but his opinions on those matters have no bearing whatsoever on my primary relationship with him, which is as a purchaser of the hardware and software he designs.
Similarly with Card, I am a reader of his fiction and so I don't care what color socks he wears, how often he showers, or whether he has a framed picture of Ronald McDonald on his wall.
Perhaps a better comparison would be with Bobby Fischer.
Fischer idolized Hitler, denied the Holocaust, was antisemitic and wrote fanmail to Osama bin Laden[1].
But the same Bobby Fischer played beautiful chess that it's impossible not to admire.
I don't have a good philosophical framework to process how I can admire the beauty of Fischer's play (and Card's writing) and yet disagree incredibly strongly with their other views. None the less, it is possible.
Excellent point. I chose Jobs and bland opinions b/c I give equally low weight to someone's non-expert opinions no matter what domain they are in.
Do I want to ask Jobs or Card or Fischer for voting advice? No thanks. For advice on what sexual partner to pick? No thanks. It's the premise that we should somehow look to these achievers for wisdom outside their domains that is absurd.
He does not want to give you advice on which sexual partner to pick. He thinks that it should be forbidden by law to be homosexual. There is nothing about this in "Ender's Game", to get back to the topic. So, while I think it is right to criticize Card for his views on sexuality, I don't think it should color one's reading of the book too much.
I don't believe its all that hard to respect Bobby Fischer's chess (while despising everything else about him), while at the same time failing to respect Scott Card in general.
Unlike chessplayers, authors play an important role in society by creating literature for that society to consume. They therefore, in my opinion, should be examined with more scrutiny.^ The fact that people hold up Ender's Game as a work with particular ethical/moral significance only strengthens my belief that we must hold Scott Card to a higher level.
But hey, this is just how I operate. For each their own I suppose.
^particularly when they start using their talent to spread their hate, and start letting it seep into their other 'manstream' work.
Many would say the same about athletes... What professions do you think play such an important role that they should be judged for their personal political views rather than for the biproduct of their professional work?
While I agree that Card's views on homosexuality are disturbing, stupid, and quite shocking considering the considerable depth with which he appears (from his fiction writing) to understand difficult moral issues around demonizing members of a group, I think this is a dangerous precedent to set. Sure it'd be nice, but I think the consequence is inevitably that we are disillusioned b/c of some skeleton that is revealed (Tiger woods) or we prop up untalented hacks who happen to express all the right views (like Stephen Colbert, whose comedy is at best a crude sort of clowning).
I think we agree, although I don't find your point about authors needing more scrutiny convincing. I think any public person creates an example for their society, and that can be just as damaging.
However, my feelings regarding Card are more nuanced than just "respect/disrespect". For example, he has a blog where he gives information to aspiring writers. If I was an author should I ignore that useful information because I don't respect his moral views?
My current feeling is that information on it's own doesn't have a moral stance, and so I can respect his advice in one area but not in others. Yes, I agree this is a slippery slope, but I don't know what the solution is. Should I reject Fischer's advice on chess? Card's on writing? PG's on startups (because I don't agree that Lisp is a silver bullet? :))
particularly when they start using their talent to spread their hate, and start letting it seep into their other 'manstream' [sic] work.
I don't think Ender's Game showed any particular homophobia. There is some moral ambiguity in the book (which is kind of the point), but I didn't see anything very hateful in it.
I think they are equivalent b/c both are simply aesthetic preferences. Neither is trying to persuade others to adopt his aesthetic preference. Neither is an expert on the topic being opined about.
At best one might claim that such a statement is ignorant. I think we start to get into trouble when we assume that an expert in one narrow area (such as fiction writing) should be/act non-ignorant in other areas of life. That is wishful thinking. It also suggests that we ought to expect "more" from someone with a narrow talent. Should a NFL player have perfect spelling? Should an olympic pole vaulter have a nuanced understanding of morality?
Human aptitude is very narrow and we should appreciate it where we find it and not look to put anyone on a broad pedestal.
