Boycott Ender's Game?

[jerome1232]

Oh, I get the confusion now. I was referring to the painting itself, not the event depicted (which gladly only exists as a dream in McNaughton's head). I was anticipating claims of "Photoshop!" or "Group X made that up to make Group Y look bad!", etc.

Huh? It's... clearly a ... painting....

[Soulsearcher]

There are agitators and loud-equals-right ranters on both sides. However, one tool has been used almost exclusively by the LEFT to destroy opponents--political correctness. Declare that someone's speech is racist, homophobic or intolerant, and that person ceases to be human, and can be eliminated (well...not literally). The closest the RIGHT has come to this is to question someone's patriotism because of foreign policy stances or lack of support for military spending. I would argue pc destroys 10 for every one that unpatriotic does.

I'm not sure I'd agree that's the closest the right has come. There's been more than a few comments about race and sexuality from the right that i think most level headed people would just shake their head over. One thing i think was mentioned is we tend to be more aware of things that clash with our ideals or we perceive as attacks vs what's being said about those we might not agree with or see eye to eye.

[prisonchaplain]

Soul...I had more in mind that a person's words were declared "racist/homophobic" and then they were all but disappeared. I'm not justifying racist or homo-hateful speech, but sometimes careers are ended and a person's contributions dismissed because of bad speech. Conservatives don't seem to have that power. The closest I could come up with is taking someone's words and accusing them of being America-haters. Billing Obama's European tour as an apology tour would be an example.

I would guess that even many liberals admit that political correctness is a powerful weapon (though probably not in the vacinity of an open microphone).

[Soulsearcher]

Soul...I had more in mind that a person's words were declared "racist/homophobic" and then they were all but disappeared. I'm not justifying racist or homo-hateful speech, but sometimes careers are ended and a person's contributions dismissed because of bad speech. Conservatives don't seem to have that power. The closest I could come up with is taking someone's words and accusing them of being America-haters. Billing Obama's European tour as an apology tour would be an example.

I would guess that even many liberals admit that political correctness is a powerful weapon (though probably not in the vacinity of an open microphone).

While i agree you have to remember the years and years being outed as a homosexual pretty much ended a persons public life. If you wanted to bring someone down in the public eye you just used their speech or action or made up things to paint them as a communist or a homosexual. I agree being PC has come too far, but again, it's not exactly new, it's just gotten worse and is just being felt by the other side for the first time on a larger scale.

[prisonchaplain]

I had forgotten about McCarthyism...and whisper campaigns ... it is ugly on both sides.

[carlimac]

There are agitators and loud-equals-right ranters on both sides. However, one tool has been used almost exclusively by the LEFT to destroy opponents--political correctness. Declare that someone's speech is racist, homophobic or intolerant, and that person ceases to be human, and can be eliminated (well...not literally). The closest the RIGHT has come to this is to question someone's patriotism because of foreign policy stances or lack of support for military spending. I would argue pc destroys 10 for every one that unpatriotic does.

Just one example of what you're talking about and what Conservatives are up against. This is a very thought provoking video. If you're not interested in the reparative therapy stuff, just skip to the last few minutes and especially the last statement he makes.

Interview With Dr. Nicholas Cummings on Vimeo

[Soulsearcher]

Just one example of what you're talking about and what Conservatives are up against. This is a very thought provoking video. If you're not interested in the reparative therapy stuff, just skip to the last few minutes and especially the last statement he makes.

Interview With Dr. Nicholas Cummings on Vimeo

Again I point out that it's what conservatives are up against now, years ago the shoe was on the other foot and i seem to remember conservatives singing a much different truth when they wielded the same hammer. As i've stated before people forget that people learn by example, all those years of being powerless and having these tactics used against them, you think they were never going to adapt and adopt. I agree it's a monster now, but it's a monster created by the conservatives of the past. I'd personally like to see the cycle of wipe out and suppress the other end and open talk and fellowship begin.

[Windseeker]

I'm coming to realize the worst thing we do is polorize each other.

[Lakumi]

I won't boycott an author for their opinions, JRR Tolkien had opinions I don't agree with.

I don't even really see myself on the Conservative or Liberal side, there are things I am Conservative about and there are things I am Liberal about

(And on that note there are things I agree with the NDP -Canada's Socialist Party- about)

I am not a cookie cutter human being, and cannot simply fit into a "lump all beliefs into one side"

[carlimac]

Again I point out that it's what conservatives are up against now, years ago the shoe was on the other foot and i seem to remember conservatives singing a much different truth when they wielded the same hammer. As i've stated before people forget that people learn by example, all those years of being powerless and having these tactics used against them, you think they were never going to adapt and adopt. I agree it's a monster now, but it's a monster created by the conservatives of the past. I'd personally like to see the cycle of wipe out and suppress the other end and open talk and fellowship begin.

Not a great excuse. It doesn't sound at all like what Christ taught. But then...

[Soulsearcher]

Not a great excuse. It doesn't sound at all like what Christ taught. But then...

But..... lol it's what the right was doing for years and years. as I've said before if the right actually did now and had practiced what it preached things might be different but witch hunts tend not to go well no matter who does them.

[carlimac]

But..... lol it's what the right was doing for years and years. as I've said before if the right actually did now and had practiced what it preached things might be different but witch hunts tend not to go well no matter who does them.

You do realize that Dr. Cummings is pro-gay marriage don't you? I'd say he's pretty objective, level headed and has a handle on what's gone on over the years. He was involved in the first movement to redefine homosexuality in the APA handbook. He was pro gay. He still is but he has a really mature and realistic outlook on the issue. He- a pro-gay marriage therapist is the one saying that the APA members are leaving the association in droves. That APA is dysfunctional and nearly irrelevant (my interpretation of his words) now because they ignore science and only pay attention to politics. Did you even watch the video?

It really has nothing to do with what conservative/religious types did in the past. It has everything to do with the association being controlled by the liberal agenda.

[Soulsearcher]

You do realize that Dr. Cummings is pro-gay marriage don't you? I'd say he's pretty objective, level headed and has a handle on what's gone on over the years. He was involved in the first movement to redefine homosexuality in the APA handbook. He was pro gay. He still is but he has a really mature and realistic outlook on the issue. He- a pro-gay marriage therapist is the one saying that the APA members are leaving the association in droves. That APA is dysfunctional and nearly irrelevant (my interpretation of his words) now because they ignore science and only pay attention to politics. Did you even watch the video?

It really has nothing to do with what conservative/religious types did in the past. It has everything to do with the association being controlled by the liberal agenda.

But what about when everything was controlled by the other side? That's what people seem to miss. For a long time the right/religion had the control and power you don't like being used right now by the left/liberals. That's what my point is. As much as people want to think the association has changed, what about the years and years no one wanted to even think that being gay wasn't a mental disorder because of the religious view on it? If you think it's changed a great deal it hasn't, it's just answering to different masters now. Or maybe a better look at it. before late 60's-80's it was more controled by the moral code of conservative and answered more to those who held those values and bowed to them for support. then they kind of met in the middle and now it's flipped to the exact opposite of what it once was. I do agree it should never be answerable to anything but pure science, but to make it sound like this is the only time and the liberals/left are the only people to take advantage is just silly and short sighted.

[bytor2112]

What some see as conservative/religious right...many others see as the moral foundation of society. Just because those who are most shrill and pitch the biggest fits get there way doesn't mean acceptance to the norm of society. Most people will never view homosexuality, same sex marriage as any thing other than an oddity and the natural inclination for most will be to feel inward revulsion. Tolerance and kindness is one thing....real acceptance is quite another.

[Soulsearcher]

What some see as conservative/religious right...many others see as the moral foundation of society. Just because those who are most shrill and pitch the biggest fits get there way doesn't mean acceptance to the norm of society. Most people will never view homosexuality, same sex marriage as any thing other than an oddity and the natural inclination for most will be to feel inward revulsion. Tolerance and kindness is one thing....real acceptance is quite another.

Even the "moral foundation" people have to accept that they aren't sure where homosexuality comes from and if it is a clear mental defect. For years they blocked any and all attempts to even investigate anything different. So now that the polar opposite is happening are you just as willing to admit the errors and closed mindedness of the past and the abuse of popular power or just keep saying the liberals are the only ones to abuse power? hard to find peaceful solutions when the answer is always " we've never done anything wrong, it's all those guys". I know people tended not to see it, but in reality what the right feels now happened in just the extreme before to the other side and they reveled in it. Was it ok then, and if it was how can you complain about the same behaviors with out sounding hypocritical?

[bytor2112]

Society as a whole is in rapid moral decay. Sin and sinful lifestyles finds broad based acceptance. As our ancient Prophetic friend Isaiah records:

Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!

Or a quote from a late Apostle:

Amid tears of sorrow—our hearts heavy with forebodings—we see evil and crime and carnality covering the earth. Liars and thieves and adulterers and homosexuals and murderers scarcely seek to hide their abominations from our view. Iniquity abounds. There is no peace on earth.-Elder Bruce r. McConkie

The world is increasingly wicked as we near the time before the return of Christ and I am firmly in the above camp. This is a discussion forum and I will not relinquish or bend my beliefs and values to the pressure of popular culture as so many do in life. I do not believe in treating anyone rudely or disrespectfully or scornfully...although I tend to be very direct in my posts.

I believe as Dallin Oaks said:

Our doctrines obviously condemn those who engage in so-called “gay bashing”—physical or verbal attacks on persons thought to be involved in homosexual or lesbian behavior.

And as the first Presidency said: (1995ish)

“We are asked to be kinder with one another, more gentle and forgiving. We are asked to be slower to anger and more prompt to help. We are asked to extend the hand of friendship and resist the hand of retribution. We are called upon to be true disciples of Christ, to love one another with genuine compassion, for that is the way Christ loved us.”

But I believe as Elder Oaks said also:

We should note that the words homosexual, lesbian, and gay are adjectives to describe particular thoughts, feelings, or behaviors. We should refrain from using these words as nouns to identify particular conditions or specific persons. Our religious doctrine dictates this usage. It is wrong to use these words to denote a condition, because this implies that a person is consigned by birth to a circumstance in which he or she has no choice in respect to the critically important matter of sexual behavior.

Edited July 13, 2013 by bytor2112

[carlimac]

Soul, can you give us some specific example where the "conservatives" as a political enitity suppressed the voice of homosexuals before the late 70's? Back then, hardly anyone knew anything about homosexuality. Gay marriage had never even been heard of or considered an option. It was just a really far out idea that no one ever guessed would ever make sense. Homosexuality was considered by probably 95% (my guess) of the population and in both conservative and liberal ideology as an aberration. It wasn't socially accepted by conservatives OR liberals. There may have been a small percentage of academic types or fringe free thinkers that saw nothing wrong it. But it wasn't just political conservatives trying to wield power over gays. And I don't even believe it was only the very religious conservative crowd that was anti-gay. For what it's worth, this country was founded on religious principles and a very high percentage of folks, conservative and liberal, at least acknowledged deity of some kind, even if they weren't strictly following commandments or going to church. Having religious beliefs was the norm for the majority, even liberals.

So I really think your blame is misplaced. I admit to not really researching the rise of liberalism to know when it all started, and granted I grew up in Salt Lake City and went to BYU so I didn't run into the "dark side" very often. But the friends that I had in high school ( in the 70s) who weren't religious, (and if there were any who leaned left it would have been them), never even mentioned homosexuality, yay or nay. I don't know if anyone ever even knew who was gay (besides our drama teacher- a great guy but oh how he stank of cigarette breath!!) We just didn't discuss it. It wasn't because conservatives were trying to suppress gays. It just wasn't "out" yet. We wouldn't have even known who to suppress.

Edited July 13, 2013 by carlimac

[Windseeker]

I know people tended not to see it, but in reality what the right feels now happened in just the extreme before to the other side and they reveled in it. Was it ok then, and if it was how can you complain about the same behaviors with out sounding hypocritical?

How can you who have experienced discrimination justify discrimination without sounding hypocritical?

(Reminds me of V for Vendetta where he justified torturing a girl so she could sympathize with him…a movie by the way my two hacker anarchist friends found disgusting and recognized it for the left wing garbage it was).

Do you believe White people (I assume your white) ought to be made slaves and be thrown onto plantations for the next hundred years because at one point in our history we perpetrated those evil things on others in the name of progress?

This is why history is valued by conservatives. Our language we use is lie anyway. Conservatives don’t want to conserve the evils that have been done by mankind, we learn from those mistakes and want the best of what we have learned for all mankind. Namely freedom, justice (not social justice (mob justice)..a lie created by Al Sharpton) and responsibility.

[Soulsearcher]

How can you who have experienced discrimination justify discrimination without sounding hypocritical?

(Reminds me of V for Vendetta where he justified torturing a girl so she could sympathize with him…a movie by the way my two hacker anarchist friends found disgusting and recognized it for the left wing garbage it was).

Do you believe White people (I assume your white) ought to be made slaves and be thrown onto plantations for the next hundred years because at one point in our history we perpetrated those evil things on others in the name of progress?

This is why history is valued by conservatives. Our language we use is lie anyway. Conservatives don’t want to conserve the evils that have been done by mankind, we learn from those mistakes and want the best of what we have learned for all mankind. Namely freedom, justice (not social justice (mob justice)..a lie created by Al Sharpton) and responsibility.

I think you missed my point. I don't like how far PC has come and how it's used as a club. I just have issues with the people it's being used against now forgetting they used it and complaining so loudly while not saying " wow so this is what we were doing to people, this is wrong and we shouldn't have and never will do this again, no lets see if we can't make sure neither side ever goes this far"

[Soulsearcher]

Soul, can you give us some specific example where the "conservatives" as a political enitity suppressed the voice of homosexuals before the late 70's? Back then, hardly anyone knew anything about homosexuality. Gay marriage had never even been heard of or considered an option. It was just a really far out idea that no one ever guessed would ever make sense. Homosexuality was considered by probably 95% (my guess) of the population and in both conservative and liberal ideology as an aberration. It wasn't socially accepted by conservatives OR liberals. There may have been a small percentage of academic types or fringe free thinkers that saw nothing wrong it. But it wasn't just political conservatives trying to wield power over gays. And I don't even believe it was only the very religious conservative crowd that was anti-gay. For what it's worth, this country was founded on religious principles and a very high percentage of folks, conservative and liberal, at least acknowledged deity of some kind, even if they weren't strictly following commandments or going to church. Having religious beliefs was the norm for the majority, even liberals.

So I really think your blame is misplaced. I admit to not really researching the rise of liberalism to know when it all started, and granted I grew up in Salt Lake City and went to BYU so I didn't run into the "dark side" very often. But the friends that I had in high school ( in the 70s) who weren't religious, (and if there were any who leaned left it would have been them), never even mentioned homosexuality, yay or nay. I don't know if anyone ever even knew who was gay (besides our drama teacher- a great guy but oh how he stank of cigarette breath!!) We just didn't discuss it. It wasn't because conservatives were trying to suppress gays. It just wasn't "out" yet. We wouldn't have even known who to suppress.

I think you've given the examples mostly yourself. Why do you think homosexuality and homosexuals weren't out. Do you think all of a sudden there was just a massive increase in their numbers out of the blue. Do your research and find out what was said and what happened to many people who came out. Here's one example that covers a lot of the 20th century.

A Brief History of Homosexuality in America - Allies & Advocates - Grand Valley State University

History News Network

(read under section 2 for most of the information)

Edited July 13, 2013 by Soulsearcher
added new link

[carlimac]

OK, those were some good examples, educational (although I don't know if it's completely trustworthy and without bias since it was written by gays themselves.) But still not clearly what I was asking for. I'm no expert on this but from my life experience (which was pretty sheltered but not completely so) it wasn't this "us against them" mentality of political Conservatives- the way we define them today against gays. From what I read, it was society in general vs gays. That lifestyle was mysterious and foreign to 97% of the population- political conservatives and liberals alike. There were things going on that struck fear in the hearts of straight people. Stonewall arose out of fear of AIDS...and probably for good reason. How many gay men died of AIDS? How many innocent non-gays ended up being affected? It was a scary deal.

I'm not excusing inhumane actions taken by law enforcement or anyone else against gay individuals or community. That kind of treatment of people is never OK unless there is some kind of violent uprising. But I am saying that gays need to realize that their minority, out of mainstream behavior is still going to be misunderstood by many. In the case of religious folks, it will never be accepted. They are entitled to their beliefs. So rather than this angry "storm the castle" approach, it would be nice if the LGBT community would take a lesson from history themselves and admit that getting even never really feels right and isn't going to bring about the best results. It's NOT going to make people like them or accept them any better. There is no excuse for the now LGBT community to be punishing and victimizing people who don't agree with their lifestyle. (Preachers beaten in the park) You really have to admit that many who are the most outspoken from that community demonstrate the most crude, antisocial behavior and use the most disgusting language. They are only perpetuating the negative stereotype. It's like the stereotype of black men. In order to break and dissolve it, they need to step up to their responsibilities and be more productive and take care of the children they sire rather than forever hailing back to the days of slavery and holding a grudge.. (Now don't call me a racist because I know many many fine, upstanding Black men whom I love and appreciate.)

I'm always sorry when I hear of people being mistreated or discriminated against. It's unfair and un-Christlike- if that matters to you at all. True we don't understand all there is to know about same sex attraction, about what is going through the minds of gay people. We should have compassion and give everyone the benefit of the doubt as we seek information. But is it really helping the case of the LGBT community to take on this victim mentality and to run ramshod over peoples personal and sacredly held beliefs, to punish them unnecessarily (I'm talking about the discrimination lawsuits) to destroy someone's livelihood simply because for centuries homosexuality has been a mystery? I don't think so. If gays were also giving back the same dignity and respect they are asking for, they would take the high road, leave well enough alone and just not go to the movie if it offends you, find a different photographer or baker, allow science to go forward, be honest in their assessments of what's best for children, etc., ad nauseum. Maybe that's simply too much to ask. But it would be nice.

The other little "it would be nice if" is not bashing reparative therapy and allowing those who really and truly don't want to be gay or live that lifestyle to change. Let them be. Even the APA recognizes they went too far with their little handbook in not allowing people to self determine what outcome they want to aim for.

[carlimac]

I think you've given the examples mostly yourself. Why do you think homosexuality and homosexuals weren't out. Do you think all of a sudden there was just a massive increase in their numbers out of the blue.

I really don't know. Is it mine and my ilk's fault that we didn't understand? Seriously, I was probably in my early 20's before I even knew or could imagine that gays actually had sex with each other. I knew that some guys were effeminate and took some grief and I knew that some girls were more on the masculine side. That's what I thought gay meant. I knew they liked to hang out with each other but in my naivete, that's all I knew. The information just wasn't available because no one talked about it. I don't think you can blame the general public for the fact that people weren't coming out.

[prisonchaplain]

I have memories of some of the sermons that used to be preached against homosexuals and "the gay agenda." The nuances we've learned "love the sinner hate the sin" "homosexual behavior vs. orientation/or temptation" etc. were largely missing. "They" were out to destroy "us." America was a Judeo-Christian country and them folks were going to destroy our morals from within.

One song went "Fools who march to win the right to justify their sin...Every nation that has fallen has fallen from within."

Even as I think back I can defend some of what was said. However, ask someone with SSA to understand that it was largely rhetoric, that there was always love--oh and then to sympathize with rich media people who get sidelined a bit for hateful verbage...I can see why Soulsearcher finds some of our vision to be unbalanced. It really does depend on who's ox is getting gored.

I further appreciate that in spite of the history and that most of us continue to see this sexual behavior as sin, Soulsearcher agrees that PC has gone too far. If most people could separate people's beliefs from their hearts and see the good in ideological opponents common sense just might reign. :-)

[carlimac]

I have memories of some of the sermons that used to be preached against homosexuals and "the gay agenda." The nuances we've learned "love the sinner hate the sin" "homosexual behavior vs. orientation/or temptation" etc. were largely missing. "They" were out to destroy "us." America was a Judeo-Christian country and them folks were going to destroy our morals from within.

One song went "Fools who march to win the right to justify their sin...Every nation that has fallen has fallen from within."

Even as I think back I can defend some of what was said. However, ask someone with SSA to understand that it was largely rhetoric, that there was always love--oh and then to sympathize with rich media people who get sidelined a bit for hateful verbage...I can see why Soulsearcher finds some of our vision to be unbalanced. It really does depend on who's ox is getting gored.

I further appreciate that in spite of the history and that most of us continue to see this sexual behavior as sin, Soulsearcher agrees that PC has gone too far. If most people could separate people's beliefs from their hearts and see the good in ideological opponents common sense just might reign. :-)

I don't remember any of that. I don't believe I ever heard anything as direct as "homosexuals are out to destroy us." I only remember hearing it's a sin to engage in homosexual relations. The LDS Church's wording has changed over the years to make a clear distinction between the impulse and the act. There may be some out there who have taken personally or internalized something a general authority has said and gotten offended, but to this day, I don't believe any have said anything that merits the backlash that the church has gotten from the LGBT community.

Help me see the good that comes from Pride parades, forcing elementary kids- some as young as 5 who don't even know what sex is yet to participate in Gay Pride Week in their schools, business owners losing their livelihood because some gays got their pride bruised by being rebuffed, horrible profanity on gay websites I've been directed to by Soul to "learn" more about them, gays urinating on LDS temple grounds in CA after Prop 8, calm and nonviolent street preachers getting physically beat up as well as verbally abused with profanity for merely standing there. Really- where is the good in any of this? Actually, this boycott of Card's movie is the least of my worries. It's a peaceful protest and isn't directly hurting anyone but making a strong statement.

Now I have had some good civil conversations with a gay friend of mine from high school ( he never let on in the slightest in hs that he was gay. I had no idea!) and I've learned more from his simple, non confrontational, matter of fact attitude than from any of this civil unrest. He's never pulled the victim card. He's always only remained hopeful that he and his partner may be able to marry in the future. He's been completely respectful. But in the meantime, the lack of a marriage license isn't holding him back at all from enjoying his life. And no one is telling him he can't live with and enjoy his partner's company. They are simply partners instead of spouses. I'm sad that he never got to father children and he'll never become a grandpa like his friends are but those are the choices he made and that's his business, his free agency.

Edited July 13, 2013 by carlimac

[LittleWyvern]

Help me see the good that comes from Pride parades, forcing elementary kids- some as young as 5 who don't even know what sex is yet to participate in Gay Pride Week in their schools, business owners losing their livelihood because some gays got their pride bruised by being rebuffed, horrible profanity on gay websites I've been directed to by Soul to "learn" more about them, gays urinating on LDS temple grounds in CA after Prop 8, calm and nonviolent street preachers getting physically beat up as well as verbally abused with profanity for merely standing there. Really- where is the good in any of this? Actually, this boycott of Card's movie is the least of my worries. It's a peaceful protest and isn't directly hurting anyone but making a strong statement.

If you're looking for the good that comes from the worst examples of a particular group that you can find, don't be surprised when you don't find it.