# Orson Scott Card - Bigot & Bioware/EA **URL:** \ **Category:** The Game Room\ **Created:** [October 8, 2009, 11:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/orson-scott-card-bigot-bioware-ea/513038 "2009-10-08T11:29:12Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 10\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2009, 8:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/orson-scott-card-bigot-bioware-ea/513038/41 "2009-10-10T08:54:01Z")
> [@appleciders](#): > > But some in this thread (not you, **Revtim** , I’m not putting words in your mouth, but I’m responding to your post because it crystallized something for me) are stating that someone who views homosexuality in a negative light should be denied the chance to work on this sort of project on the basis of those beliefs, and that sort of discrimination bothers me. Who’s stating that? ---
**Author:** ![tumbleddown](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/e9bcb4/32.png) [@tumbleddown](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tumbleddown)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2009, 11:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/orson-scott-card-bigot-bioware-ea/513038/42 "2009-10-10T11:38:03Z")
> [@appleciders](#): > > Really? 'Cause honestly, I’m not sure I agree with your first statement there. I feel like the right thing to do, ethically, is to spend my money on the work or art that I enjoy, regardless of whether I agree with the artist’s personal views. I’d like, ideally, to live in a world where a person’s political, social, and personal opinions don’t affect their ability to hold down a job that’s unrelated to those opinions. Given the dedication of the self involved in making art, in what way could any true artist’s perspectives on the world in which they live and the other members of their society – the society for which they are creating their art – _not_ be related to the art that they’re creating? Even Jackson Pollock’s paint flinging is a reflection of his sociopolitical perspective. > [@](#): > > Yes, I think that OSC’s views on homosexuality are pretty odious, and I’ll speak out against those. But some in this thread (not you, **Revtim** , I’m not putting words in your mouth, but I’m responding to your post because it crystallized something for me) are stating that someone who views homosexuality in a negative light should be denied the chance to work on this sort of project on the basis of those beliefs, and that sort of discrimination bothers me. Let whoever wants to hire Card hire him. But let them suffer the consequences of throwing their lot in with the worst sort of bigot, is all I see anyone saying. If Bioware loses money because of this affiliation, they will end the affiliation. If it stops another company from hiring Card because they’re seeing that it’s a bad business decision because people will actively choose to avoid products that are associated with the man, so be it. It’s not as if this doesn’t go both ways. How many people _still_ boycott Jane Fonda, or avoid anything done by Tim Robbins, Susan Sarandon, Sean Penn and other liberals who, unlike Card, have never advocated the imprisonment of Americans on the basis of their personal identities? There will always be people taking a stance, one way or another. > [@](#): > > OSC’s tendency to spend his own money on views that I don’t support muddies the water, I’ll admit. But I certainly won’t wish that he shouldn’t be allowed to work for these major companies. So what _is_ an appropriate response to someone who is funneling money into hate groups, if not to avoid personally enriching him and enabling that funding? ---
**Author:** ![Ferret\_Herder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/e47774/32.png) [@Ferret\_Herder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ferret_Herder)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2009, 11:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/orson-scott-card-bigot-bioware-ea/513038/43 "2009-10-10T11:46:47Z")
> [@tumbleddown](#): > > Let whoever wants to hire Card hire him. But let them suffer the consequences of throwing their lot in with the worst sort of bigot, is all I see anyone saying. If Bioware loses money because of this affiliation, they will end the affiliation. If it stops another company from hiring Card because they’re seeing that it’s a bad business decision because people will actively choose to avoid products that are associated with the man, so be it. Right here. Bioware has every right to hire him, and other people have every right to tell them they think that’s a bad idea, and to choose freely whether or not to buy the work on that basis. People use so many factors to decide whether or not to buy something, whether it’s peanut butter or art. Hey, I end up “boycotting” peanut butter brands just because they can’t compete in cost or I hate stirring up the jar or it’s too sweet, which are far more trivial concerns than this. People can’t buy every piece of art they might potentially want, for money reasons as a starting factor. After that, they have other reasons to start filtering out one item or another. I think “the living creator of that piece of art is actively funneling his money into supporting causes that I find morally repugnant” is just fine as a potential reason, but again, not one that every person **must** include among their criteria. ---
**Author:** ![Shalmanese](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/45deac/32.png) [@Shalmanese](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shalmanese)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2009, 11:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/orson-scott-card-bigot-bioware-ea/513038/44 "2009-10-10T23:10:45Z")
> [@Miller](#): > > Doesn’t that character end up marrying a woman and having kids with her? Josef had a gay lover who treated him horribly, married a woman and then fell in love with a 18 year old boy, Annset and came close to consummating the relationship. Annset, the main protagonist of the novel was the initiator and could also be classed as bisexual insofar as he didn’t seem to regard gender as relevant to love. ---
**Author:** ![Shalmanese](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/45deac/32.png) [@Shalmanese](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shalmanese)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2009, 11:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/orson-scott-card-bigot-bioware-ea/513038/45 "2009-10-10T23:43:56Z")
When I say he’s not a reflexive fag hater, I don’t mean that he doesn’t hate homosexuals, I mean that his view is at least nuanced, well thought out and internally consistent, even if it doesn’t jibe with yours on a fundamental level. You believe that homosexuality is not a sin and he believes that it is. You and he will never see eye to eye but if you want to truly understand where he’s coming from, you need to at least make the effort to see how the world looks from his eyes. > [@Miller](#): > > Pardon me for harping on this, but let’s make one thing clear: > > In the essay **Shalanese** linked to, Card makes the following point: > > Homosexuals are loyal to the “homosexual community” above all other associations, specifically including their church. By implication, this may also include the state. Explicitly, based on what he says later in the essay, this includes “society” as a whole. Insofar as gays side with the homosexual community on issues in which it disagrees with the state such as gay marriage, I would say this is true and relatively uncontentious. It’s not a value judgment but a statement of fact. > [@Miller](#): > > Homosexuals are immature. Insofar as the LDS church teaches us that we are all immature when we give in to sin. Remember, Mormons regard masturbation as a sin and every straight Mormon has to fight _their_ ingrained urges to masturbate. It’s a sign of maturity to overcome your body’s natural urges. I certainly don’t agree with it but his meaning is clear. > [@Miller](#): > > Sorry, apparently I was wrong in the second point above: _all_ homosexuals are hypocrites, unless they’re completely chaste and properly ashamed of their sexuality. Also, they are fools and deceivers. The mormon position is that all men live with temptation & sin and the lord will forgive all that repent but have no sympathy for those who are unrepentant. The sin is irrelevant, they would be hypocrites if they were homosexuals, adulterers or proud coffee drinkers. > [@Miller](#): > > They are, further, “wolves in sheep’s clothing,” who are “attempting to devour the flock.” > > Homosexuals who are not properly ashamed of their orientation should be prosecuted by the law, to serve as an example to other homosexuals of their proper place on the outside of society. As would anybody who, in his view, is promoting a dangerously false belief which is leading even more people into sin. > [@Miller](#): > > Homosexuals are, explicitly, not equal members of society. This is a premise for the entire article. You need to accept this provisionally to even engage with the article. > [@Miller](#): > > Supporting gay rights is tantamount to overthrowing democracy and instituting a tyranny. > [@Miller](#): > > He is, however, magnanimous enough to allow homosexuals to stay in the closet. It’s just the “flagrant” queers who should be locked up. If you accept that the premise, then the conclusion must naturally follow. > [@Miller](#): > > Homosexuals are liars. I couldn’t find where you pulled this from but I’m assuming the point he’s making is that homosexuals lie to themselves primarily and lying to others is a natural byproduct. > [@Miller](#): > > Homosexuals are joyless. I can’t find where you pulled this from. > [@Miller](#): > > The concept of equal treatment of homosexuals under the law is inherently destructive to society. Same premise as above. > [@Miller](#): > > Against that, we have two minor character from his novels that are not depicted as utterly craven monsters, despite being labeled as gay (and, at least in the case of the one from a book I’ve actually read, is at no point depicted as engaging in any homosexual activity). So, clearly, Card’s got a nuanced and accepting view of homosexuals, right? > > Bullshit. It’s interesting, after having participated in the pedophilia thread in the pit that, if you replaced homosexuality with pedophilia in OSC’s essay, he would count as one of the more tolerant people in that pit thread. Pedophilia & homosexuality are emphatically **not** equivalent morally. But the degree of certainty that each position holds is similar. If you believed that homosexuality was an evil on par with pedophilia and you were rock certain on that viewpoint, how would you propose to deal with the homosexual problem? From everything I read, OSC’s instinct is to be far more tolerant than the majority of the people who posted in the pit thread and that’s what I mean when I say he’s not a reflexive fag hater. ---
**Author:** ![Cullain](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/d26b3c/32.png) [@Cullain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cullain)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2009, 5:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/orson-scott-card-bigot-bioware-ea/513038/46 "2009-10-11T05:53:46Z")
> [@Miller](#): > > I don’t have a problem separating an artist from his work. I love HP Lovecraft, despite his racist views. _Chinatown_ is an amazing movie, and I’ve seen it a dozen times. But I won’t buy anything with Card’s name on it. > > What’s the difference? > > It comes down to harm. Orson Scott Card is using his money and influence to actively hurt people. If I buy one of his books, I’ve given him that much more money to hurt people. (The fact that I’m among the people he hates obviously plays into this.) HP Lovecraft, on the other hand, is dead. He can’t hurt anyone. And while Roman Polanski is still alive, whether I buy a ticket to _The Pianist_ or not is not going to have any bearing on him raping another girl. > > So, while I can separate Card’s books from Card’s beliefs, and judge them on their own merits, the question of aiding and abetting his campaign to maliciously damage innocent people supercedes any concern over the quality of his prose. Art is separate from morality, but it is not _above_ morality. If supporting his art requires supporting harming other people, then I can’t support his art. > > Once he is no longer in a position to cause harm, then the equation changes, and I may start consuming works associated with him. Let’s say, for example, that a long dead artist we love has a grandchild that believes, and spends money on, causes we don’t believe in. Do we have an obligation to not buy this long dead artists works? Do we always need to know where our money is going? I ask this out of genuine curiosity - I feel conflicted about supporting OSC. I really disagree with him, but I thought Shadow Complex was the best XBLA game so far, for example. ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Amazing](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@Captain\_Amazing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Amazing)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2009, 6:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/orson-scott-card-bigot-bioware-ea/513038/47 "2009-10-11T06:55:49Z")
> [@Miller](#): > > It comes down to harm. Orson Scott Card is using his money and influence to actively hurt people. If I buy one of his books, I’ve given him that much more money to hurt people. (The fact that I’m among the people he hates obviously plays into this.) HP Lovecraft, on the other hand, is dead. He can’t hurt anyone. And while Roman Polanski is still alive, whether I buy a ticket to _The Pianist_ or not is not going to have any bearing on him raping another girl. The thing to think about with that, though, is, and here’s the way I see it. The average cost of a hardcover book, for instance is, let’s say $25 dollars, and the royalty rate is 10%. So, if I buy his book, I’m giving him $2.50 that he could turn around and go to some organization that could hurt gay people. So, for me, it comes down to the question of whether or not the benefits of buying the book (mostly, my pleasure in enjoying the book) outweigh the harm that buying the book brings (in that another $2.50 goes into Americans for Marriage, or maybe he just supersizes his meal at McDonalds.) Now, in my case, it’s not, because I’m not a big fan of his writing, but if I were a big fan of OSC, I could definitely see myself deciding the other way. ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2009, 5:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/orson-scott-card-bigot-bioware-ea/513038/48 "2009-10-11T17:17:08Z")
> [@Shalmanese](#): > > When I say he’s not a reflexive fag hater, I don’t mean that he doesn’t hate homosexuals, I mean that his view is at least nuanced, well thought out and internally consistent, even if it doesn’t jibe with yours on a fundamental level. Actually, there’s quite a few inconsistencies in his argument. I really don’t want to go back through his article again to get specifics, because I don’t like wading through sewage if I can help it, but one I recall off the top of my head is where he excuses his unreasonable expectations of lifelong celibacy for gays by comparing them to unwed heterosexuals, who are also expected to abstain from sex. The glaring omission, of course, being that unwed heterosexuals can (and are expected to) wed at some point. Homosexuals are expected to remain alone for their entire lives, which for most people is a huge, and wholly unreasonable, burden. One that Card does not expect of straight people. > [@](#): > > You believe that homosexuality is not a sin and he believes that it is. You and he will never see eye to eye but if you want to truly understand where he’s coming from, you need to at least make the effort to see how the world looks from his eyes. I do see where he’s coming from. Card’s smart enough to justify his bigotry, but that doesn’t make his position nuanced. Nobody is a bigot “just because.” Every racist, sexist, religious zealot, and homophobe can give you a lengthy list of justifications for why they’re correct to hate on whichever group they target. Quite a few can twist their arguments up so that they can tell themselves that they don’t really hate the other group, they’re just doing what’s “best” for them. Regardless of how much damage their attitudes and actions actually cause. In that light, I’m going to skip the point-by-point rebuttal of Card’s manifest homophobia. I’m not interested in the excuses - Card’s already provided them, and at more length and detail than you have. It doesn’t disguise the fact that he plainly, manifestly, hates gay people. Whether he started with the hate and built up a structure to excuse it, or started with the structure and reasoned his way into the hatred isn’t really important. NB: > [@](#): > > Josef had a gay lover who treated him horribly, married a woman and then fell in love with a 18 year old boy… I was referring to the character from _Memory of Earth_. ---
**Author:** ![Robin\_Goodfellow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/b9e5f3/32.png) [@Robin\_Goodfellow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Robin_Goodfellow)\ **Post date:** [October 12, 2009, 5:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/orson-scott-card-bigot-bioware-ea/513038/49 "2009-10-12T05:57:18Z")
It’s been a few days, but since this thread is still going… > [@Justin\_Bailey](#): > > True, but the argument could be made that boycotting Shadow Complex (or Dragon Age) because of Card’s involvement is hurting innocent bystanders at Chair and BioWare. As I said, even the developers at Chair don’t much care for his politics, but should his minimal involvement result in a boycott? As has been mentioned by **tumbleddown** , secondary involvement is still (in the case of the BioWare and Chair execs, at least) a matter of choice. Do I feel bad for the people below them - the programmers and artists who just want a steady paycheck and a decent CV at the end of the day? Of course. But I feel bad for them in the same way I feel bad for an artist-cum-janitor who has this great idea for an installation piece but can’t find a sponsor or an exhibit because no town in a hundred mile radius wants his art, and he can’t travel to get it exposed. There are natural limits to the meritocracy we try to make out of our world, and those tend to end up with people being “punished” for decisions they didn’t make, whether it’s where they were born or on what game project they have to work next. So, yes, there are innocent bystanders, and as much as it can, my heart goes out to them. But in the end, buying a product for which Card was paid to contribute literally involves rewarding a company for choosing to use Card’s services as a writer (or, in the case of _Shadow Complex_, which is a prequel to _Empire_, paying royalties to use a work he’s already published). It’s not as though anyone were literally forced into making a game based off a work by Orson Scott Card. And, in reality, it’s not as though not buying the game is “punishing” anybody at all. No one has a right to have their product purchased - as has been mentioned, the reasons for not wanting to purchase something can range anywhere from the political to the absurd, and no one actually needs to defend their decisions with regards to their own money. > [@Cullain](#): > > Do we always need to know where our money is going? Naturally, no one’s actually \*requiring \*any gamer to think about these sorts of things, nor is anyone suggesting actually banning artists of a certain political affiliation from being allowed to practice their art. The reason it’s coming up is because the gamers who know want to give other gamers the tools with which to make an informed choice. If that means pointing out things that Chair or BioWare would rather not have pointed out, then, well… maybe they underestimated the political hunger of videogame journalists. ---
**Author:** ![Justin\_Bailey](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/justin_bailey/32/8792_2.png) [@Justin\_Bailey](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Justin_Bailey)\ **Post date:** [October 12, 2009, 12:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/orson-scott-card-bigot-bioware-ea/513038/50 "2009-10-12T12:08:33Z")
> [@Robin\_Goodfellow](#): > > So, yes, there are innocent bystanders, and as much as it can, my heart goes out to them. But in the end, buying a product for which Card was paid to contribute literally involves rewarding a company for choosing to use Card’s services as a writer (or, in the case of _Shadow Complex_, which is a prequel to _Empire_, paying royalties to use a work he’s already published). It’s not as though anyone were literally forced into making a game based off a work by Orson Scott Card. And, in reality, it’s not as though not buying the game is “punishing” anybody at all. No one has a right to have their product purchased - as has been mentioned, the reasons for not wanting to purchase something can range anywhere from the political to the absurd, and no one actually needs to defend their decisions with regards to their own money. Actually, Empire and Shadow Complex aren’t even works by Orson Scott Card. Chair went to him with the idea for Empire with the intention of creating a game based on that idea as well. But somehow, the development process being what it is, Empire came out in 2006 while Shadow Complex wasn’t ready until 2009. Card essentially wrote a tie-in novel both times, no more, no less. Boycotting these extraneous materials makes sense, but going after the actual games that Card was uninvolved with doesn’t make any sense in my mind. ETA: I also think the thought process behind something like this involves an executive trying to come up with a big name to create the tie-in materials and Card is likely just the biggest that will say yes. When the Shadow Complex thing first hit, most of the comments on articles relating to it were gamers expressing shock that Card held those opinions. How many executives had no idea as well? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/orson-scott-card-bigot-bioware-ea/513038.md?page=2)