Hurtful Whedonesque Thread
POSTED BY: CaliforniaKaylee
UPDATED: Sunday, March 4, 2007 01:17
VIEWED: 11238
PAGE 3 of 6
Wait--are you saying that some hatred is justified and not others? Or that to hate someone back for hating you is "the reciprocity of a reaver wanna-be?"
________________________________________________________________________
Grand High Poobah of the Mythical Land of Iowa, and Keeper of State Secrets
Captain, FFF.net Grammar Police
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I post this tentatively, because I hope not to offend - I truly do not understand. Maybe it's because I'm not Mormon, or have a higher threshold for bullshit (the duck in water metaphor comes to mind, but I don't think my threshold is that high), or interpret their criticisms differently... but I don't think that they're bashing his Mormonism. I did notice some editing had been done, so I may have been too late to see the offending post(s) (they could have been deleted, too); but from what is left on the site, nothing came to my awareness that was overtly anti-Mormon. I saw stuff about how his Mormonism affected his books (which actually makes sense... that one with the tree (?) people on the other side of the wall, and the other one with that girl and her dad weirded me out) and people didn't like that, or about how his views on homosexuality and acadamia were offensive, but nothing that was "I hate Mormons; stupid homophobes!"
<.< >.>
Um... so, yeah. That's it for now, from me. Gonna walk that way now.
::points her arms like the Scarecrow::
Rules and voting: http://www.fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=2&t=22892
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
It's a sadly frustrating thing to witness the downside of sharing a certain mindset when it comes to how to view things in this work, CK
However, I think the shift in the thread's topic is more about how OSC is on the more zealous end of Mormonism by promoting the need to use violent force to inter and modfiy homosexuals because of their life choices. It's like while I am nominally Protestant (United Church of Canada, to be specific), I don't agree with my church stance on denying anyone from the GLBTQ community from joining their priestly ranks. Or the church's stance on non-heterosexual behaviour in general.
I guess it comes down to the issue people struggling rather obviously and vocally with the idea that a smart fella like OSC, who has written seminal works like Ender's Game can hold beliefs that appear to be counter to what Joss Whedon has promoted in his works. Personally, I think my comment - short as it was - sums up the point that should be made to end the argument: that one can write material that is personally counter-intuitive and one's religious beliefs shouldn't taint the fact one loves Firefly and Serenity
Literature has shown us some of humanity's greatest achievements; history, some of our greatest failures -- Alun Lewis
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
It's important to quote within context. This comes from http://www.nauvoo.com/library/card-hypocrites.html
Quote:
Within the Church, the young person who experiments with homosexual behavior should be counseled with, not excommunicated. But as the adolescent moves into adulthood and continues to engage in sinful practices far beyond the level of experimentation, then the consequences within the Church must grow more severe and more long-lasting; unfortunately, they may also be more public as well.
This applies also to the polity, the citizens at large. Laws against homosexual behavior should remain on the books, not to be indiscriminately enforced against anyone who happens to be caught violating them, but to be used when necessary to send a clear message that those who flagrantly violate society's regulation of sexual behavior cannot be permitted to remain as acceptable, equal citizens within that society.
The goal of the polity is not to put homosexuals in jail. The goal is to discourage people from engaging in homosexual practices in the first place, and, when they nevertheless proceed in their homosexual behavior, to encourage them to do so discreetly, so as not to shake the confidence of the community in the polity's ability to provide rules for safe, stable, dependable marriage and family relationships.
Check the copyright at the bottom of the page -- 1990. Please also note that this was written for an LDS publication, not for the public at large, or for a political party, or anything of the sort.
I do not agree with OSC's 17 year old stance that the laws of the state should be used to discourage homosexuality, or encourage homosexuality to stay "out of sight, out of mind". But I don't think that makes him a bad person, much less a bad Browncoat.
And where in there does he advocate the use of force to dissuade homosexual behavior?!? He outright says: "The goal of the polity is not to put homosexuals in jail." His goal (17 years ago!!) seems to be a desire to keep homosexuality in the closet, so that the flagrant breaking of laws still on the books (no matter how unconstitutional those laws may be) does not show the law of the state as a whole to be an unenforceable sham. I actually agree with him on this point -- laws should be applied fairly or done away with entirely -- but I come to the opposite conclusion that laws regulating the sexual behavior of consenting adults in private should be stricken from the books entirely.
The problem I had with the posts criticizing OSC over on Whedonesque was not that the posters disagree with OSC's religious/political views. Unlike a recent comment on that thread, I do not think that his political views on homosexuality can be separated from his religious beliefs. People who hold conservative, orthodox religious beliefs, be they Mormons or Evangelical Christians, often apply those beliefs directly to their political views. OSC isn't a Mormon and against gay rights, he's against gay rights (to the extent that he is at all) because he is Mormon.
The problem I have with the Whedonesque posters that they feel that OSC is such a "monster", his views so "wrong", that they want nothing to do with him. They were hanging a sign on the clubhouse door clearly stating "NO MORMONS ALLOWED". And even if it wasn't aimed at Mormonism in particular, the message was still quite clearly: "if you don't agree with our politics, you don't deserve to be a Browncoat."
I'm offended by the idea that a person's religion or political leanings could make them unacceptable to the rest of the group. All I'm looking for is a little respect of views that differ from your own, and a recognition that we are all here because of one thing: a love for Firefly, not a love of a specific political viewpoint. There are political message boards for that, thank you very much.
(Couple of edits.)
~CK
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Also wanted to mention, OSC is a professor at Southern Virginia University, so I don't think he's really anti-academia at all. Being that I knew that before I read the article Whedonesque linked to ( http://www.hatrack.com/osc/reviews/everything/2007-02-18.shtml ), when I read this:
Quote:I didn't read it as anti-academia, anti-university, or anti-establishment. I read that as praise of a subculture of highly intelligent people, whose literary prowess has been largely overlooked by everyone outside the subculture. Personally, participating in various fandoms has introduced me to more ideas than all but the best of my college courses did, and has forced me to become a better writer.
For it is within science fiction fandom that an entirely new system of critical thought emerged, and even though nowadays the ludicrously inappropriate university-born critical theories are being force-fit onto science fiction, the fact remains that science fiction grew up as a genre in a vibrant critical community consisting of the convention-going, fanzine-publishing readers who shaped the many views of what made this story good and that one bad.
Largely ignored by nonparticipants, science fiction fandom became a self-aware literary community that was far more adaptive, effective, and creative than the one that ossified in the universities during the same period.
In any case, I don't think OSC was trying to put down academia, but rather was trying to complement us as a group, by saying that our level of discourse is on par with, if not better than what was taught in universities in years past.
~CK
You can't take the sky from me...
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
It's alway easier ingnore GOD than it is to find him, even for someone like Mal. He had faith but found it easier to loose it then to keep it.
I guess it's a challenge that some people cant take on without destroying it. People alway fear what they dont understand.
Keep your faith, help those you can and for the rest I quote Duke Nukem "Let God sort'em out!"
hehe
Keep Flying!!
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Thank You for taking the time to write out your thoughts. And I do agree with what you are saying.
I also wanted to point out something else I saw a few days ago on the Whedonesque.
Someone posted a link to an "Open Letter" to Nathan Fillion. Some points in the letter were funny, but overall I thought it was very offensive to us Browncoats. It called the huge Nathan fans "crazy" and the like. And it made fun the posters on his myspace page. Finally, the mods deleted the Post. And hopefully, the mods will delete the inappropriate comments soon on this topic.
Browncoats are people from many walks of life. And we all share the same love. That is what makes us so special.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"But the thread on Whedonesque quickly turned to why OSC is a "monster" because of his religious beliefs, with many posters -- including several of the moderators!! -- saying they would not buy any product produced by a Mormon-homophobe like OSC."
You'll excuse me, but NONE of the moderators or admins said any such thing. They said things like:
"You know, it's perfectly possible to discuss someone's work or political views without resorting to name calling. Which is what rjl did early on in the thread. That's not cool. That's what makes threads derail. Talk in a civil way, please."
"The comments about OSC and his personal views have overstepped the mark again.
So post about his views on Firefly or don't. It's as simple as that."
"If I didn't buy things from people I disagreed with I would most certainly be homeless and naked. Don't get me wrong, that has its upsides, but... I think its important that if we consider ourselves to be tolerant folks, we need to also tolerate the intolerant - in fact you get no points for being tolerant of people you agree with, its all about how you react to folks with whom you disagree."
And while some posters said they wouldn't buy anything from someone with whom they disagreed that much (which is certainly their right, but you'll miss a lot of great books/shows that way), there was not much at all made about his Mormon-ness (is that a word?). In the few cases it was specifically brought up it was said by one poster that he sometimes got too preachy and messagey in a specific book and:
"If a Mormon writer whose world view includes a negative opinion of homosexuality can repeatedly offer glowing public praise for the work of an avowed atheist who has made a very strong effort to portray homosexual characters in a positive light, I honestly don't see him as being ALL that close-minded."
I understand having an emotional reaction to something you read/see, but please, take a deep breath and read the thread again. And for anyone reading this thread, please read the thread for yourself and see what was actually said and by whom. OSC is welcome in any clubhouse I hang out in any time.
p.s. - Embers you are SOOOOOOOOOO banned... ;) For the humor-impaired that was a joke.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Tholo:
It's alway easier ingnore GOD than it is to find him, even for someone like Mal. He had faith but found it easier to loose it then to keep it.
I guess it's a challenge that some people cant take on without destroying it. People alway fear what they dont understand.
Keep your faith, help those you can and for the rest I quote Duke Nukem "Let God sort'em out!"
hehe
Keep Flying!!
Hey now, no call to be attributing their intolerance to their lack of belief. Their intolerance is 'cos they're intolerant, it's not a product of denying any particular faith.
It was probably not your intent to suggest this, but I thought I'd mention it, on the off-chance it was.
edit: Oh, and edited, 'cos I wanted to say about what Causal said, I might not object to seeing Christians burnt at the stake, if there's nothing on the telly, but I'd settle for any other religion too, hell you can burn Atheist's if it's a choice between that or countdown
Do you like bread?
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by CaliforniaKaylee:
Why can't the Whedonesquers respect Orson Scott Card for his contributions to modern science fiction, even if they disagree with his view on homosexuality?
Some scientific researchers have found evidence that belief in religion is tied to a particular gene - a predisposition to faith if you like.
Now imagine how you would feel if I, purely on the basis that you had a mental illness, you were sick, you were a devient and should be forcibly treated for this sickness against your will. I think you'd be pretty offended.
Racists listen to music performed by black people, anti-semites go to films made by Jews, homophobes watch TV shows written by and starring gay men and women. They can take this little hateful corner of their mind and put it aside and enjoy the song, the movie, the TV show and then they switch back to their beliefs.
I don't think many of us are that different - I think Chinatown is a masterpiece even though I know it's directed by a paedophile rapist. I support a football team that has someone who I'm pretty sure is a racist thug. These are two entirely different things - the art itself and those who made it.
It's perfectly possible to think Ender's Game is the best sci-fi novel ever written and yet to think OSC is a hateful bigot.
I'm not sure what you're really looking for here CaliforniaKaylee. The same right to freedom of speech that allows OSC, rightly or wrongly, to condemn gays as mentally substandard sinners also allows the people of the Whedonesque board to call him a vile pompous bigot. Do you think freedom of speech should only be allowed to those you think suitable?
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME