TVTropes Now available in the app store!
Open

Follow TV Tropes

Following

Something that annoys me...

Go To

Journeyman Overlording the Underworld from On a throne in a vault overlooking the Wasteland Since: Nov, 2010
Overlording the Underworld
#51: May 20th 2012 at 11:19:09 AM

Society of Saints, which is what he mentioned in one of the snippets, is Mormon, if I recall correctly. Someone else in this thread also already stated he was.

ATC Was Aliroz the Confused from The Library of Kiev Since: Sep, 2011
Was Aliroz the Confused
#52: May 21st 2012 at 6:39:57 AM

Hey, not all of us Mormons are homophobes.

That's like saying that all catholic priests are child abusers.

If you want any of my avatars, just Pm me I'd truly appreciate any avatar of a reptile sleeping in a Nice Hat Read Elmer Kelton books
Nohbody "In distress", my ass. from Somewhere in Dixie Since: Jan, 2001 Relationship Status: Mu
"In distress", my ass.
#53: May 21st 2012 at 7:43:13 AM

^ But some do believe that ([edit]the pedophile priest thing, I mean[/edit]). Usually said with their next breath is "all religions are evil" or somesuch, if they hadn't already said it earlier. tongue

edited 21st May '12 8:10:00 AM by Nohbody

All your safe space are belong to Trump
whataboutme -_- from strange land, far away. Since: May, 2010
-_-
#54: May 21st 2012 at 8:08:56 AM

[up][up]Not saying that you are, but some Mormon writers (I'm looking at you, Stephenie Meyer) aren't exactly presenting themselves in a good way. Though in her case, it's not about homophobia, but other things. Unless she's made a statement about it too, I don't know.

edited 21st May '12 8:12:21 AM by whataboutme

Please don't feed the trolls!
Journeyman Overlording the Underworld from On a throne in a vault overlooking the Wasteland Since: Nov, 2010
Overlording the Underworld
#55: May 21st 2012 at 8:58:38 AM

[up][up][up]I doubt anyone here thinks every Mormon is a homophobe, or that every adherent to a religious sect at all is. MOST people are moderates at best/worst. Non-cult religions these days just get a serious rep for homophobia, whether it's true or not.

TamH70 Since: Nov, 2011 Relationship Status: Faithful to 2D
#56: May 21st 2012 at 9:04:13 AM

Heh, I am a (severely) lapsed Catholic and I have no trouble with saying religion is, at best, not as positive a force in human relations as it could be. I find all religious people a bit odd. And some more odd than others. Card is just one of the latter as far as I am concerned.

Jhimmibhob Since: Dec, 2010
#57: May 21st 2012 at 10:38:33 AM

The Card quotes are insensitively phrased and could stand to be put a LOT more charitably, but his societal views were par for the course at the beginning of his writing career. He seems to like going off half-cocked about matters outside his expertise, but that describes many writers of all political persuasions. And he doesn't seem to want to see his beliefs imposed with an iron fist; rather, he'd like to see the kind of societal consensus on the subject that was unremarkable only recently. There are several of these issues on which he & I would probably disagree, but it seems like a bit much to say he's beyond the moral pale.

Arguably, a guy like China Mieville believes far worse things, with far direr implications for the people who disagree with him, but I'm not moved to boycott him on political/religious grounds. Mutatis mutandis, I'd say the same about Card.

KnightofLsama Since: Sep, 2010
#58: May 21st 2012 at 5:19:21 PM

The Card quotes are insensitively phrased and could stand to be put a LOT more charitably, but his societal views were par for the course at the beginning of his writing career.

Except some of those statements were made just a couple of years ago.

Jhimmibhob Since: Dec, 2010
#59: May 21st 2012 at 6:13:55 PM

[up]Granted. I'm saying that, despite the truly weird speed with which prevailing societal mores have done a 180, it's not surprising that many individuals' views on the matter haven't. And one's free to disagree with those views, but they were nigh-universal so recently, and are still so widespread, that it's ridiculous to treat them if they were something outrageous and repellent.

Journeyman Overlording the Underworld from On a throne in a vault overlooking the Wasteland Since: Nov, 2010
Overlording the Underworld
#60: May 21st 2012 at 6:51:41 PM

It didn't really change all of a sudden, it's just that our generation just came of age recently, and we're a lot more open to this stuff than the previous one. Which, if you have parents and caring older folk who are willing to listen to reason, can contribute greatly to cutting down on oppression.

Only a maniac wants to see someone suffer.

basd Since: May, 2012
#61: May 21st 2012 at 7:49:44 PM

It's 2012, not 1950. Conservatives and the Christians need to stop imposing their morals and will upon everyone else.

Jhimmibhob Since: Dec, 2010
#62: May 21st 2012 at 8:07:11 PM

[up]In the first place, fashion is not germane to questions of this sort. If something is right in 2012, it was also right in 1950, 950, and 1950 B.C., and will be in A.D. 19,500. Same for goes for that which is wrong.

In the second place, I believe you've wandered in from a different argument, in a different thread, and might be a trifle lost. None of the principals here seem intent on imposing much of anything legally, though both Card and his detractors would like it if their respective moral worldviews had more de facto force. That's hardly surprising, and a little silly to deplore.

Jhimmibhob Since: Dec, 2010
#63: May 21st 2012 at 8:12:19 PM

[up][up][up]I take your point, Journeyman, but my observations suggest that no one in these arguments has a monopoly on reason. And as certain stretches of this thread will demonstrate, no one has a monopoly on ill-will and repressiveness either.

Journeyman Overlording the Underworld from On a throne in a vault overlooking the Wasteland Since: Nov, 2010
Overlording the Underworld
#64: May 22nd 2012 at 2:13:21 AM

Repressiveness isn't oppressiveness, it's holding down the self where outright oppression is holding others down. It's less ill will and more "I grew up in a place where certain principles were forced upon me, I adapted, and came to like them. Therefore, I can't really understand what you like, and as I've learned you're going to Hell for doing it, please, please, please stop for your own sake."

Some people just can't express this without mockery, because what's not understood or even accepted by others winds up completely "self evident" to the mockers.

edited 22nd May '12 2:14:15 AM by Journeyman

MrAHR Ahr river from ಠ_ಠ Since: Oct, 2010 Relationship Status: A cockroach, nothing can kill it.
Ahr river
#65: May 22nd 2012 at 6:14:42 AM

In the first place, fashion is not germane to questions of this sort. If something is right in 2012, it was also right in 1950, 950, and 1950 B.C., and will be in A.D. 19, 500. Same for goes for that which is wrong.
That hardly seems true. They might be wrong from our perspective, but you can't fault people for having what we see as an incorrect opinion, when EVERYONE at the time held the opinion.

Read my stories!
Jhimmibhob Since: Dec, 2010
#66: May 22nd 2012 at 6:46:11 AM

[up]I don't want to get too far out in the weeds, but I wasn't saying that in order to blame anybody. I was just saying that "it's 2012, not 1950" is a fatuous kind of argument: it implies that ethics & morals change like hemlines, and that what's right is a function of what year it is.

It also implies that this year's moral fashions are inevitably superior to last year's, and that each generation is necessarily more enlightened than the one preceding—an assumption that history couldn't possibly refute more forcibly.

MrAHR Ahr river from ಠ_ಠ Since: Oct, 2010 Relationship Status: A cockroach, nothing can kill it.
Ahr river
#67: May 22nd 2012 at 11:46:03 AM

True, but the fact is, an opinion was more POPULAR in the 1950s. Thus, you're more likely to have it. I can say the same thing if someone wore 1950s clothing, which is a cultural phenomenon within itself (—studied history of fashion—). I think it was more of a statement of the popularity of the opinion, and the general acceptance of it.

Read my stories!
majoraoftime (4 Score & 7 Years Ago)
#68: May 22nd 2012 at 12:13:39 PM

What's considered right definitely changes, whether you agree with it or not.

Jhimmibhob Since: Dec, 2010
#69: May 22nd 2012 at 1:02:27 PM

[up]Precisely, which is why I'm inclined to cut a pass to someone who hasn't modified his opinions just to keep up with fashion. There's little reason to think that by so doing, your views are ipso facto better than when you started.

Sessalisk from Wheeeeeeeee Since: Sep, 2011
#70: May 22nd 2012 at 4:19:25 PM

In the first place, fashion is not germane to questions of this sort. If something is right in 2012, it was also right in 1950, 950, and 1950 B.C., and will be in A.D. 19, 500. Same for goes for that which is wrong.

This conclusion necessitates that there is an absolute and universal definition of right and wrong and good and evil.

Caaan anybody find me... Somebody to ♠
Moth13 Since: Sep, 2010
Sessalisk from Wheeeeeeeee Since: Sep, 2011
#72: May 22nd 2012 at 4:48:20 PM

Maybe.

Caaan anybody find me... Somebody to ♠
ChocolateCotton Xkcd Since: Dec, 2010
#73: May 22nd 2012 at 7:03:19 PM

The fact of the matter is, though, that just because morals change over time, it doesn't mean that more modern-minded individuals are necessarily going to be comfortable with more old-fashioned morals, particularly when said morals necessitate discrimination against a specific group of people

ATC Was Aliroz the Confused from The Library of Kiev Since: Sep, 2011
Was Aliroz the Confused
#74: May 22nd 2012 at 8:05:58 PM

There is such a thing as a definite and absolute definition of right and wrong. Our moral sense is an imperfect imitation for an imperfect observer with non-flawless perception in an imperfect world.

But there is such a thing as absolute true right and wrong. We, as observers, cannot comprehend such ideals; so we have what works for us.

Nobody should be defined by their opinions, but nobody should be excused for their views either. People have opinions based in what they think is true. Yes, OSC is not responsible, perhaps, for the context of his bigotry, but he is responsible for the content.

If you want any of my avatars, just Pm me I'd truly appreciate any avatar of a reptile sleeping in a Nice Hat Read Elmer Kelton books
Jhimmibhob Since: Dec, 2010
#75: May 23rd 2012 at 7:16:27 AM

Even if we grant all this, the point is that however out of step with current fashion OSC's views might be, they're scarcely in pre-modern "burn the witch" territory. Disagreeing with him is fine, but I'd submit that anyone who thinks his views are weird or worthy of pariah-hood is, frankly, a little sheltered.

Writers can be a capricious bunch, with opinions that are all over the map. I assure you that many authors—maybe even most authors—have social or political hobbyhorses at least as noxious or potentially harmful as Card's. If OSC is worth boycotting, you can't just stop with him.


Total posts: 141
Top