Can you separate an author from his or her work?

[Dannyalcatraz]

Well, one can only hope. After all, there are enough stores of skinheads changing their ways.

I was going to post a link to a story I read a few years ago about a skinhead who had been harassing a particular rabbi. The rabbi met his hate with love and teaching. He eventually wound up with a Hispanic girlfriend...and living with the rabbi.

I didn't post the link because I couldn't find it quickly in the mass of stories about skinheads converting to Judaism.

 

[Umbran]

I'm not sure that's wholly true.

I didn't say it would be *easy* for him to do so.

it seems to be VERY difficult to get people to change their minds.

Sometimes yes. Especially in cases where the mindset isn't based on rational data or information.

in most cases, I think it's the person themselves evolving to change their viewpoint. Which is technically the same as what you meant, but I don't think it'll be rapid or dramatic.

I didn't ask for rapid or dramatic.

Given that he's espousing the same views as his church (as I am told, but could be wrong), he's inherently in an environment to maintain his current viewpoint.

All the more reason to send signals to him from outside his current environment, right? Clumsy, probably ineffective, sure. But, you take your chances where you can, right?

In practicality, he's not likely able to change his mind.

When considering ethical and moral action, we have to be very careful to differentiate between what one actually cannot do, and what one can do, but won't. We are responsible for what we can change, and not responsible for the things we cannot.

I *will not* accept the posit that he cannot change. That position validates hate crimes. "I'm sorry, officer, but I come from a culture that really believes this, and I can't change that, so I'm not really responsible..." Nope. Sorry. Not acceptable.

I will accept that Card is highly unlikely to change. He won't change. Confronting him with the wrongness of his ways will likely lead to him becoming defensive and entrenching and pushing back, sure. But, there's a point where he stops getting to use his environment and upbringing as an excuse for being a jerk.

In Card's case with Superman, there is a point beyond getting Card to change his mind.

Imagine a young boy, reading Superman - the character is an icon of Right Action. If the boy likes the comic, and goes looking by more from the author, and finds Card's personal blog? We now have Right Action associated with hateful messages. This is not DOOM! We can teach the young reader otherwise, with luck. But, why have that association possible in the first place? Why knowingly add to the burden?

Even if Card kept his more extreme ideology out of the comic book, maybe he has made himself an unacceptable role model. In the sports world, maybe there is too much money at stake to reliably weed out bad role models, but genre authorship? Not so much a problem.

 

[Elf Witch]

Maybe. But NFL teams also have the right to avoid hiring someone with an image that problematic, someone who will increase the negative press for the team.

The comic in question was Superman.

And, Gerrold's analogy breaks down. Gerrold did not choose to be gay, and cannot just change his mind about it and stop. Card can realize he's being a nozzle, and change his ways and his position.

The fact that he took part in dog fighting to begin with says something about the type of person he is. That alone is enough to shun the guy. What if he had raped someone, or murdered a child? Do you think that a rapist (or child murderer) is ever going to be a person you could trust or want to be around? Would you be arguing that the NFL should welcome him back with open arms?

Secondly, his punishment didn't fit the crime. He should have been thrown into the pit with some fighting dogs to experience what he put other living things through. That's not going to happen in our society, but his punishment should have been much, much more severe than it was, within the bounds of the types of punishments we use in our society.

Of course they do any business has that right. But it makes me wonder in today's plugged in world with the power of social media if the power of people's opinion can be a destructive thing when it comes to things like this. Say Vick was an electrician not a football player and people started petitions to stop anyone form hiring him is that right? Do we really want a society when someone had done a crime and fulfilled the punishment that that law gave them yet society does not want to let them go on with their life?

Dog fighting is not in the same league as child rape or child murder. I find it disgusting but I will point out that animal fighting is part of many cultures. Look at Spain and the bullfighting. Why is that different than dog fighting because dogs are pets? If you don't think the punishment was severe enough then that is a different issue than once someone has paid the debt that the law gave him having a right to move on with their life.

But yes a person who commits murder and goes to prison and then is released has a right and a need to earn money to live. People do change and people have a right to live and earn a living. I doubt a child rapist or child murderer would get out of prison in time to continue a football career.

Card very religion teaches that homosexuality is a sin. He truly believes that it is. Are you saying that in America he does not have the right to hold his religious beliefs? That is one of the issue if you want LGBT to have equal rights you will never get there telling religious people they can't believe it is a sin you need to to let them know that we have separation of church and state and that their belief that it is a sin does not give them the right to legally discriminate against an entire group.


Your argument about a young boy is the same argument that the people who want to deny gays rights uses in think of the children. It is up to the parents to teach their children if you have done your job well then a blog by a comic book writer is not going to have that much impact. Everyone has opinions on this and they don't fall into some kind of we are Borg collective thought. David Gerrold has his, I have mine and other people have theirs.

 

[Umbran]

Card very religion teaches that homosexuality is a sin. He truly believes that it is. Are you saying that in America he does not have the right to hold his religious beliefs?

Constitutional rights are between the citizen and the government. Not between citizens.

He certainly has the right to have those beliefs in private. He even has a right to state them in public. He has a personal blog in which he does so quite regularly. Nobody is stopping him.

I have the right to have a belief that he's hurtful and wrong, and to say so. I didn't in this case - I don't follow DC comics much, and it was pretty much all over before I saw it in the news - but it is my right to speak against his position, if I see fit.

DC has the right to listen to both, and decide what to do with Superman what they see fit.

Everyone's rights were upheld here.

Your argument about a young boy is the same argument that the people who want to deny gays rights uses in think of the children.

There are two major differences. And my apologies if this edges on politics, but they are important to be clear:

1) Those who want to deny gay rights have frequently attempted to do so through legislation. Nobody has tried to legislate against Card of his beliefs. The Superman issue was between a business and its fans/customers. There was no governmental involvement.

2) Sexual orientation is, for the most part, a private matter that goes on in your own home. If Card had kept his beliefs in his personal life, there would not have been an issue. Instead, he's made himself a public figure and activist on certain subjects, and taken paid speaking engagements at politically-oriented gatherings. In making himself a public figure, he opens himself up to public scrutiny and criticism.

 

[Homicidal_Squirrel]

Of course they do any business has that right. But it makes me wonder in today's plugged in world with the power of social media if the power of people's opinion can be a destructive thing when it comes to things like this. Say Vick was an electrician not a football player and people started petitions to stop anyone form hiring him is that right? Do we really want a society when someone had done a crime and fulfilled the punishment that that law gave them yet society does not want to let them go on with their life?

Sometimes the punishment given by the law does not fit the crime. There are instances in which the punishment required by law are far too harsh. There are also instances where they are far too lenient.

Dog fighting is not in the same league as child rape or child murder. I find it disgusting but I will point out that animal fighting is part of many cultures. Look at Spain and the bullfighting. Why is that different than dog fighting because dogs are pets? If you don't think the punishment was severe enough then that is a different issue than once someone has paid the debt that the law gave him having a right to move on with their life.

You're assuming people don't view the running of the bulls or bull fighting in Spain the same or worse than the dog fighting Vicks participated in.

But yes a person who commits murder and goes to prison and then is released has a right and a need to earn money to live. People do change and people have a right to live and earn a living. I doubt a child rapist or child murderer would get out of prison in time to continue a football career.

Some people change. Some people don't; however, the fact they committed a particular crime doesn't. I for one think Vicks got off far too easily, and in all honesty, I think he should not have been allowed to continue to play football. A lifetime ban would have been more appropriate for the scumbag.

Card very religion teaches that homosexuality is a sin. He truly believes that it is. Are you saying that in America he does not have the right to hold his religious beliefs? That is one of the issue if you want LGBT to have equal rights you will never get there telling religious people they can't believe it is a sin you need to to let them know that we have separation of church and state and that their belief that it is a sin does not give them the right to legally discriminate against an entire group.


Your argument about a young boy is the same argument that the people who want to deny gays rights uses in think of the children. It is up to the parents to teach their children if you have done your job well then a blog by a comic book writer is not going to have that much impact. Everyone has opinions on this and they don't fall into some kind of we are Borg collective thought. David Gerrold has his, I have mine and other people have theirs.

Card has the ability to reach a large audience. The idea that "a blog by a comic book writer is not going to have that much impact," is a bit short sighted. Maybe it won't have an impact with a particular individual, but let's face it, kids don't really matter. They are used as pawns to get a message across. You don't like something? Say it affects kids. The blog isn't really meant for the kids. It's meant for the adults that can, and do, vote.
Also, card is far more than a comic book writer. He is also a university professor and a political activist.His influence if farther reaching than just comic book fans. His activities are not limited to just writing about his hateful ideas.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Constitutional rights are between the citizen and the government. Not between citizens.

Small but important correction: Constitutional rights are human rights guaranteed to all under the jurisdiction of the USA- one need not be a citizen for most of them.

 

[Janx]

When considering ethical and moral action, we have to be very careful to differentiate between what one actually cannot do, and what one can do, but won't. We are responsible for what we can change, and not responsible for the things we cannot.

I *will not* accept the posit that he cannot change. That position validates hate crimes. "I'm sorry, officer, but I come from a culture that really believes this, and I can't change that, so I'm not really responsible..." Nope. Sorry. Not acceptable.

This is where we may differ in opinion. Humans are moist robots. If a robot has bad code, I still blame the robot, and more importantly, I still take the robot off the factory floor.

Basically, the bad robot's tailing phrase of " so I'm not really responsible..." is irrelevant to me because I accept that the bulk of bad acting was decided by screwy parts of the brain long before any rational thought engaged. As long as the bad robot gets carted away, the problem is solved.

 

[Umbran]

Small but important correction: Constitutional rights are human rights guaranteed to all under the jurisdiction of the USA- one need not be a citizen for most of them.

Good point. They are between the government and the people, more generally.

They are not, however, a protection from other private individuals. You do not have a freedom to practice your religion in *my* home, for example. If you come waltzing in and hold a religious ceremony in my dining room, I have the right to stop you and expel you. You are protected by law in certain ways - I cannot discriminate based on race or gender in my hiring practices, for example, but the general rights from the Constitution do not apply between private individuals.

Basically, the bad robot's tailing phrase of " so I'm not really responsible..." is irrelevant to me because I accept that the bulk of bad acting was decided by screwy parts of the brain long before any rational thought engaged. As long as the bad robot gets carted away, the problem is solved.

I see two problems with that.

First, the logic of that breaks down when the robot is self-aware, and large chunks of it are run by self-modifying code. Mr. Gerrold's condition is buried deep in the factory defaults of his operating system, but Mr. Card's are in after-market, third party software. He could update that application to a less buggy version that is more cross-compatible.

Second, and perhaps more importantly, bad action can be expected in moments of surprise. If you have the Village People pop out of a birthday cake for Mr. Card, yeah, maybe he'll react with disgust. But when one has *time* to think about it (say, when taking a day or two to write a blog post) in a basically healthy person, that screwy brain can be overridden by the rational mind. And, while I disagree with Mr. Card's ideals, I don't have any evidence that he's unhealthy. He's just wrong about a lot of things.

Yes, humans have some very deep drives, but we are not, in fact, meat robots. Heck, even my house cat isn't a meat robot. I find the belief that humans lack free will to be extremely nihilistic, and leads to more harm than good when applied in practice.

 

[Janx]

note: this will seem controversial if the reader can't separate my point from what I may or may not believe.

I see two problems with that.

First, the logic of that breaks down when the robot is self-aware, and large chunks of it are run by self-modifying code. Mr. Gerrold's condition is buried deep in the factory defaults of his operating system, but Mr. Card's are in after-market, third party software. He could update that application to a less buggy version that is more cross-compatible.

If Mr. Card doesn't think he's wrong, he's not going to update his software. I've seen enough examples in "normal people" to see they don't change their minds readily about deeply held positions, and in "crazy" people who can't see they are speaking/acting crazy. I'm not qualified to root cause it, but I know something's funky in that area.

Second, and perhaps more importantly, bad action can be expected in moments of surprise. If you have the Village People pop out of a birthday cake for Mr. Card, yeah, maybe he'll react with disgust. But when one has *time* to think about it (say, when taking a day or two to write a blog post) in a basically healthy person, that screwy brain can be overridden by the rational mind. And, while I disagree with Mr. Card's ideals, I don't have any evidence that he's unhealthy. He's just wrong about a lot of things.

One of the problems here (and again, I do not hold Mr. Cards position to be correct), is that Mr Card believes his view is correct. And just as importantly, if we are to insist that we are RIGHT and he is WRONG, then we are potentially making the same mistake he is.

It is entirely possible that there exists one deity that founded Mr. Card's religion and that it defines certain behaviors as a Sin. Now aside from the initial response of "I don't respect a superior entity that defines behavior in a way I disagree with", lets consider the holy crap, nobody allowed for that possibility and here it is actually.

I don't think we need to carry 20 or so different holy symbols like Benny from The Mummy did, just in case. I do think Card would be better served keeping his ideas to himself, in that he is free to believe them, but doesn't need to be pushing it on other people. When I am feeling wiser, I don't need to say his ideas are wrong, even if I disagree with them. I don't feel that broadcasting those ideas is a good strategy for getting along with other people, but that's because like this site's rules, talking about religion and politics is divisive, not unifying.

Yes, humans have some very deep drives, but we are not, in fact, meat robots. Heck, even my house cat isn't a meat robot. I find the belief that humans lack free will to be extremely nihilistic, and leads to more harm than good when applied in practice.

Though we disagree on how roboty the meat is, you may be right in the actual application of it. I don't doubt that you were free to post this. What I simply acknowledge is that deeper under the hood, a chain of chemical and electric reactions engaged for you to make that decision and that you don't have full control over that chain.

 

[billd91]

Though we disagree on how roboty the meat is, you may be right in the actual application of it. I don't doubt that you were free to post this. What I simply acknowledge is that deeper under the hood, a chain of chemical and electric reactions engaged for you to make that decision and that you don't have full control over that chain.

Indeed, you have a point. Studies have even indicated that evidence contrary to held beliefs seems to have either no effect on those beliefs or intensifies them. This is one reason internet arguments and political arguments almost never convince anyone to change their views.