Pissed off at Comcast
09. Sep, 2009 
20 Comments
Well, yesterday was a wash.
My personal weekly schedule sucks, to put it bluntly. One day a week I work a (‘real’) job from 3 pm till 10 pm. Three more days of the week I’m up at 3 am to see Karen off to work (make lunch, wish her well, etc., etc., yawn…); then there’s the three day weekend (Fri – Sun) during which the day usually begins at around 4 am and ends whenever, repeat.
My default setting is something like 11 am to 2 am during the winter and as little as 3 hours of sleep a “night” during the longer months.
Which clashes terribly with my actual schedule right now, and the result is that Tuesdays are usually one of those days that has me getting just about nothing done. Followed by slow recovery and increasing productivity through the week, until Mondays come around and screw me up all over again.
Anyway. I’d intended to mention THIS piece by Yonmei over at Feminist Blog yesterday, which I thought EXCELLENT. It reminds us very pointedly of how (idiotic) belief-systems can and do have real world consequences.
It also makes a pretty good case for demonstrating that had it not been for practicing homosexuals, OSC would have had no career.
On a wider scope, Yonmei illuminates the “Boycott Debate” and links through to several gaming sites discussing the same – all of which are supportive of the idea of boycotting product produced by bigots – if said bigotry bothers one sufficiently.
(Recap: is it right to boycot works or derivative works of artists/authors who publicly espouse views that are distasteful to one’s own beliefs? In this case, the works of OS Card, the SF author of several execrable novels that many folks nevertheless find “entertaining”. Answer: Yes – particularly if: A: the author/artist uses their popularity/platform to further their agenda and B: if producers of derivative works use the association to further their promotion/sales.)
A Boycot of an individual and their works serves three purposes. It makes the participant feel as if they are doing something, however minor that something may be; it registers the protest in what is potentially the most direct way possible – the wallet, and, it just may make those on the periphery uncomfortable – which is perhaps the most important objective in the long run.
At least in the gaming world and so far as the newly released Shadow Complex game is concerned, the latter effect seems to be in full force. Sales of the game have been good, according to what I’ve read. On the other hand, folks involved with the game’s development have been made to feel uncomfortable enough to speak up about it: Peter David, the comic artist who scripted SC (based on OSC’s novel) offers the lame defense that
“If anyone wants to boycott the game and thus damage me or Chair while doing nothing to change Orson’s opinions, that’s naturally their right. Or…They can display the sort of tolerance for someone who is different from them that they feel is lacking in Orson and thus prove they’re better. Your choice.”
First, the point isn’t about changing OSC’s opinion. It is about making people like Peter David think twice the next time they’re offered an opportunity to work on something that is OSC related. Which, I’ll stress, has obviously worked in this particular case, otherwise David would not be trying to deflect his association.
Second. Taken at face value, the statement implies that individuals who aren’t tolerant of intolerance aren’t being tolerant. We’re supposed to prove we’re “better” than OSC by supporting him. Using that logic, anyone who makes campaign contributions really ought to be giving equal amounts to BOTH parties.
Read Yonmei’s piece and make sure to visit the sites that are linked to.
~~~
One thing the piece brought home (yet again) was how much religion influences these kinds of moral debates. For example – Card disavows the homophobe label, opting instead for cloaking himself with religious righteousness. Homophobe means wrong/bad which can’t be. God said it was right to think that way.
This got me off on an aside, thinking about one of the primary differences between those who believe in a god and those who don’t. Non-believers don’t have anyone but themselves to ask forgiveness from. One less level of blame-shifting.
~~~
Over on Tor, K Tempest Bradford compiles the list of “Mind Blowing” non-mainstream authors (assuming that white, male, hetero authors are the mainstream).
Quite a few authors over there that I like, quite a few I’ve never read, some I’ve never heard of, some I don’t like. My experience with the list is probably pretty typical.
What did strike me about it was how utterly impossible it is to tell what some of the authors are just from their names. As one of the comments pointed out, I don’t know about Raphael Carter’s ethnic identity, but if you were listing him under “women” you might want to reassess. She doesn’t identify as a woman. He doesn’t identify as a man either, incidentally.
The only Raphe I’m even passingly familiar with is the Mutant Turtle (other than the artist the turtle is named for). Comic book characters are not all that good a baseline for determining gender.
***
Since I lost the remainder of this post because the idiots at Comcast decided to interrupt my service for non-payment of the bill (even though I’ve paid the bill, well in advance and etc) and since I can’t remember the rest of it and am just to damned pissed off right now to bother trying to reconstruct what I remember as an absolutely brilliant piece of writing, I’ll summarize and then get back to wrestling with the de facto monopoly that is comcast:
I speculated on a bunch of different ways that author names might be displayed that would render them most genderless/raceless and etc., determined that most of them would be invasions of privacy and concluded by stating that the point is to get us to read good stuff and ask questions afterwards, rather than making potentially biased decisions beforehand.
I also mentioned that the other day when I commented on the CNN piece on Dragon*Con, my pingback to CNN ended up in their comments and generated a good number of new look-sees at the blog. This has made me add “check CNN for relevant articles” to my task list.
~~~
When the hell are we going to break the cable company’s monopoly? “Satellite” is NOT a competitive option, nor is the “right” to pay three times as much for individual service for phone, internet and other services…
PLEASE SUBSCRIBE TO MY FEED
“over at Feminist Blog”
YM “Feminist SF – The Blog!”
“Recap: is it right to boycot works or derivative works of artists/authors who publicly espouse views that are distasteful to one’s own beliefs?”
It’s a choice, not a “right” or “wrong” thing. Everyone gets to decide for themselves.
Also, “boycott” is from Charles Boycott”; it’s not “boycot.”
I, after you expressed your wishes, avoid noting simple spelling errors, but getting people’s names right is important.
Also, you might want to know where “boycott” got its name from.
“Peter David, the comic artist who scripted SC (based on OSC’s novel) offers the lame defense….”
Yes. Nobody is obligated to “tolerate” opinions offensive to them, opinions which damage people’s lives, and everyone is, in fact, free to boycott whomever they wish to, for any reason good or bad, just as everyone is free to associate themselves with someone who might be boycotted for any reason, good or bad.
PD: “Your choice.”
Indeed.
On other fronts, you might find Graham Sleight’s review of Mike Ashley’s Mindblowing, etc., of interest.
I’ve been pointing out Raphael’s Androgyny RAQ since Raphael first posted it. You also must read The Fortunate Fall, which although OOP, you can buy for a dollar plus shipping. It’s fantastic, speaking of mind-blowing sf.
“…the de facto monopoly that is comcast”
You probably can get a package of DSL, tv, and phone, from your local major phone company, as well; it tends to be a duopoly more than a monopoly; your area may be an exception, of course.
I really really really really wish you’d add “preview.”
The Fortunate Fall.
Graham Sleight.
Gary,
if I cared enough about the spelling of things in a blog entry written early in the morning, or while I was pissed off, or a blog entry period, you’d not be seeing the errors.
It’s a frickin blog entry. There are all kinds of reasons for mispellings, incorrect grammar and improper sentences: a sticky keyboard, carpal tunnel, not caring enough to be bothered, not wanting to waste more time than is necessary to get the thought down because there are 50 gazillion other things to do.
Just because I don’t do, does not mean that I don’t know.
There are, of course, endless reasons to make errors; we all make errors. There are fewer reasons to not, hours, or days, later, find a minute to fix the errors.
“It’s a frickin blog entry.”
It’s something you want us to read, and it’s presented in writing. Either you want us to judge you by your writing, or you don’t, but if you don’t want us to judge you by your blog entries, then it’s contradictory with blogging.
If “it’s a frickin blog entry” means “go away, you shouldn’t read it, because I think it’s a bunch of crap, and I can’t be bothered to spend even ten seconds three days later to fix even the most important errors, well, then, that’s fine, but why you’d expect anyone want to read anything put forward that way, I’m not sure.
I’d put forward fewer errors in my comments if I had the ability to preview them. I wouldn’t work for hours over them, because they’re only blog comments, but I’d take the extra two minutes effort it would take to greatly reduce the efforts, given my increased ability to spot them.
YMMV. And if you don’t mind if I refer to you from now on with your name misspelled, well, ok.
Refer away, any way you’d like.
I don’t comment on other folks blogs by mentioning things that have little or nothing to do with the subject.
Important errors are errors of fact and those I correct. And no, I don’t have time two or three days from now to correct a blog entry – except for factual errors.
I’m sorry that Wordpress doesn’t provide the feature you’re looking for, but you’ll have to take that up with them.
I’ve never used Wordpress, but this was findable in about 20 seconds. I just went to their site and put “comment preview” into the search field. I only mention this in case you wish to make use if it in future, or otherwise want to find out how install whatever features you like on your blog.
Other comment widgits.
Let it suffice that people are expressing themselves when Card says something offensive.
I disrespect yet another attempt to hijack fandom for political ends. Especially because I’m not convinced anybody needs saving from Card.
Let me tell you about a real example of Card interacting with gay fans.
Orson Scott Card was made GoH of a Mythcon in the 90s. (I worked on that concom.) The chair of that con was Glen GoodKnight, Mythopoeic Society founder, who has lived with his partner Ken for many years.
Card had nothing to say about homosexuality at any event I attended. He was entertaining, civil and in good spirits when engaged by people who disagreed with some of his other views.
So when I remember that a gay fan made Card the GoH of a con, and people had a good time, seems to me there’s a better choice than trying to nuke him.
Gordon Brown has apologized.
“I disrespect yet another attempt to hijack fandom for political ends.”
Mike, fandom can’t be hijacked. Specific organizations could, perhaps, be, but as you know, fandom isn’t one of them.
All that there is are people expressing individual opinions. Which is, of course, the right of every individual.
“So when I remember that a gay fan made Card the GoH of a con, and people had a good time, seems to me there’s a better choice than trying to nuke him.”
A better choice to what end?
Neither is someone choosing to either say what they think, or not make a commercial purchase, “nuking” anyone. No one is obliged to agree with anyone else, and no one is obliged to buy their work, or any work or product of any sort. There’s nothing else involved here beyond such choices. Is there?
“Card had nothing to say about homosexuality at any event I attended.”
He’s had plenty to say in articles he’s written in which he’s advocated his views quite emphatically.
And those views are that the power of the state should be used to that people should be locked up in accord with his personal sense of morality: “”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.”
He’s free to advocate such views, and people are free to respond negatively to them.
When you actively write and seek publication of your political views, it’s not reasonable for anyone to suggest that reacting to that choice is unreasonable. If Card doesn’t want people to consider his views, he should quit writing about them. If he wants to keep writing about them, fine, but people will keep reacting to them.
Gary: The usual blogly job of pretending a person’s arguments were something else you find easier to reply to. Congratulations. Your years of experience are paying off.
“Let it suffice that people are expressing themselves when Card says something offensive.” That’s my first line. So you agree with me. Surprise.
A) people quote the parts they’re responding to. I didn’t quote your first line because I wasn’t responding to it.
But: “So you agree with me. Surprise.”
But your first line doesn’t seem to say that you think it’s fine and sufficient that people continue to have all ther responses they have to Orson Scott Card’s words.
It reads to me, and this may not have been your intent, but merely a misreading by me, as an injunction that people shouldn’t do anything else beyond “express themselves.”
And the entire rest of your comment seems to be an elaboration on the idea that you believe and are saying that other people are doing Things Wrong as to how they’re expressing themselves.
Again, perhaps I’m misreading you, in which case I ask that you please correct me as to where I’m going wrong.
You go on to say that “I disrespect yet another attempt to hijack fandom for political ends.”
Well, what attempt are you referring to? I’m completely not following what you’re trying to say, if your point is that you’re fine with all the responses people make to Card.
As I wrote, I don’t understand how anyone can “hijack fandom,” so I don’t even understand the accusation. It’s a metaphor that doesn’t seem to have a grounding in reality; if it does, please do concretize the metaphor, if you’d be so kind, by explaining what you mean by it.
The anecdote you told demonstrates that Scott Card can come to a con and be a polite man; I’ve never had any doubts of that, and it’s nice to know. It doesn’t make his views any less offensive, and doesn’t give anyone any less reason to not, say, boycott his work, write angry responses to his words, or be angry with him. That you advocate that it be illegal for people to be different than you, because your religion says that kind of difference is one society should discourage, and that you’re polite about not going up to people’s faces to announce your views, doesn’t change the fact that you are, elsewhere, advocating those views.
If I were advocating that we have laws on the books that would allow us to lock up Jews, just so they know we don’t approve of them, but I made a point of politely never bringing this issue up to the face of a Jew, or in place where I knew my views would be controversial, that would make me politic, but it wouldn’t make my views less offensive or wrong.
Finally, you conclude by saying that “seems to me there’s a better choice than trying to nuke him.”
Well, setting aside that no one is trying to “nuke him,” but merely are being angry with his political views and expressions, and are responding to those, including those who advocate boycotts both primary and secondary, what, then, are the “better choices” you wish to advocate instead? You don’t say. Specifying some of these better choices might help the conversation along.
I’m very sorry that you find something offensive in my response, and I’m very sorry that you feel I’ve been “pretending a person’s arguments were something else you find easier to reply to, because I’m not “pretending” anything; I certainly may be misunderstanding you, but that’s why I asking if you might clarify any such misunderstanding. I’m not calling you names; I’m merely either disagreeing with you politely, or asking where I’m misunderstanding you, and asking for elaboration/clarification. If I’ve written something offensive here that I’ve not noticed, please do call it to my attention, and I’ll apologize for it, because I have no desire to be offensive to you. In turn, I’m startled that I seem to have somehow offended you.
Gary, this is quite simple. You are responding to my points with fallacious inductive arguments. I don’t need to explain that to you.
Have you forgotten the proposition advanced in this blog post, the one your comments are appended to, but are only remotely relevant to?
It is not that individuals may take offense at Card’s views.
It is not even that individuals should express the offense they have taken.
It is that by the use of our fannish social network people should organize economic sanctions against Card. And not only against Card, but apparently, anybody who does business with him.
It’s one thing for you individuals who feel so strongly about this to stop buying Card’s books (an example you should find easy to set, because when did you ever?) or anything based on them.
But is that what this post advocates? No, it advocates collective action by the readers of the post who have not already adopted the plan.
And here I am, a reader who has not already adopted this plan.
I agree it’s too bad that Card says some of the things he does. But again, that’s not the end to which this post attempts to lead fans, it’s to a collective response because some of you feel Card’s opinions are so egregious they must be punished by something much stronger than your personal censure.
But the collective assumption breaks down when I consider the real-world interaction of gay fans and Orson Scott Card. Two different gay fans (one I mentioned, the other co-chaired Loscon 27) each invited Card to be the guest of honor at their con.
The collectivity breaks down because there is evidently a diversity of feeling about Card even among gay fans.
Some of them don’t see him as a person who has to be excommunicated from the field of science fiction whatever his opinions may be.
This call to take economic action against Card and others involved in business with him on the presumed authority of a community opinion about Card among gay fans which I know from personal experience isn’t at all unanimous.
I see it as just another of the frequent attempts to use the internet to compel a political orthodoxy among fans, with the added feature this time that not all the people it allegedly helps feel that they need to be saved from Card.
“I see it as just another of the frequent attempts to use the internet to compel a political orthodoxy among fans”
No, I’m not following, Mike. How can the internet be used to “compel” anyone?
This seems to be a basic premise to your argument, and I don’t understand it at all. Nor do I understand what’s wrong with a bunch of individuals agreeing with each other. If that’s “collective” by virtue of people agreeing to do something, what’s wrong with that? No one is “compelling” anyone else to agree with them?
Do you think there’s something inherently wrong with people freely choosing to engage in a boycott, if that’s what they feel like doing? If so, why? If not, than what’s your problem here?
“Have you forgotten the proposition advanced in this blog post,”
Perhaps it would help if you quote the specific lines you have a problem with?
Also, might I suggest that a bit of good faith with one’s interlocuter goes a long way towards preventing a pleasant discussing from becoming unpleasant? There’s no need to assume bad faith and accuse anyone of “pretending” anything, rather than simply presuming that they simply aren’t following your argument, or might disagree on legitimate grounds. Let’s keep this friendly, please?
You seem to summarize your statement as: “It is that by the use of our fannish social network people should organize economic sanctions against Card. And not only against Card, but apparently, anybody who does business with him.”
And my response is: and? So what? Why shouldn’t people be free to make these individual choices? Would you have them constrained somehow? I’m not following what anyone is doing wrong here, or why they shouldn’t engage in these actions if they like. The cause is irrelevant: everyone is free to spend their money as they wish, engage in speech as they wish, and attempt to persuade others of their views. What’s wrong with any of this? One is equally free to disagree back, and also attempt to persuade anyone you like that anyone else is wrong, etc., and that’s fine too. But what’s the wrong act that anyone is doing that is somehow wrong?
So don’t agree. What’s the problem? Is anyone coming to threaten you for not agreeing with them?
I’m not following what your argument is beyond that people disagree with you, and you seem to be saying that, well, they shouldn’t. Which just leaves me scratching my head, so surely I must be misunderstanding you, because you must have some other point than that. I apologize that I’m not, as yet, understanding what it is.
Personally, I don’t feel moved to help organize any campaigns against Scott Card, but I don’t see why I should object to those who do feel so moved so doing. I’m fine with everyone expressing their opinions as they like, including advocating boycotts of whatever they like. People have lots of boycotts that I think are silly, or are against things I support. So what? People have opinions. Either I argue with them, or I don’t.
To give a concrete example: some fans organized a boycott of Iguanacon because the GOH took a stand supporting the ERA, and supporting NOW’s boycott of Arizona as one of three states not voting for the ERA, and the committee supported the right of the GOH to use his free speech to do so.
Now, I happened to fully support the ERA, and the boycott, myself, but I never thought that the people who were counter-boycotting the convention were doing anything wrong, or that they didn’t have the perfect right to demonstrate their opinions that way, and agitate in favor of their opinions. I don’t understand why I would object to anyone engaging in free speech: I certainly wouldn’t object to it simply because I think it’s silly speech, or wrongheaded.
A bunch of groups boycotted Disney because Disney had Gay Days (unofficially, that is, but Disney didn’t, I dunno, beat up the gay people, or whatever). I thought that was a silly and wrongheaded boycott, but I have no objection to those people expressing their views by trying to organize a boycott.
I just don’t understand what’s wrong with people trying to boycott whatever they want, and voice their opinion about it, and persuade others: it’s all free speech, and I support free speech. (Strongly.)
If you can help me understand where we’re disagreeing, I’d appreciate it. Thanks.
Maybe you were born too late Gary. In Classical times there were fellows who made a living out of simultaneously arguing opposite sides of a topic.
You’re “strongly” in support of free speech. You’re also defending the advocacy of a boycott against Peter David who was exercising his First Amendment rights in authoring this game. Or are you? Maybe you’re just dancing around scoring meaningless points.
Regardless of what anyone else is doing, thinking or responding to:
I’m not aware that this blog has so much influence that it is going to sway one person, let along fandom, to do anything.
I do think that it is ok to advocate for political action in a blog, regardless of the audience it is pointed at, but I also think that it someone else’s right to advocate for the opposite viewpoint and for someone else to decide that it is an issue they’d rather not get involved in.
I also think that most, if not all of us here, are capable of understanding that each of us is made up of more than one view on more than one issue, and I hope that we remember more of the commonalities than we do the differences when discussing things.
“You’re ’strongly’ in support of free speech. You’re also defending the advocacy of a boycott against Peter David who was exercising his First Amendment rights in authoring this game.”
Mike, you seem to be confused as to what free speech is. Free speech is the right to say what you want. It’s not the right not to be disagreed with.
A boycott is free speech. I’m not following what you don’t understand about this. What makes you think a boycott is somehow anti-free-speech? Boycotts have historically been some of the most effective exercises of free speech ever used: in the era of the fight for African-American civil rights, segregated facilities were boycotted in numerous boycotts. I don’t understand what you think is wrong with a voluntary boycott, or how it’s in any way an act against free speech.
No one subjected to a boycott is having their free speech limited; they’re merely being met with other free speech.
“Maybe you’re just dancing around scoring meaningless points.”
It’s really not necessary to make these sort of personal accusations, Mike. I’m not making original points in a topic no one has ever discussed before, and I don’t understand why you’re responding as if you’re being personally attacked. Is there some reason we can’t have a perfectly civil and friendly conversation about these issues?
“You’re also defending the advocacy of a boycott against Peter David who was exercising his First Amendment rights in authoring this game.”
I’m just baffled at what you think is wrong with this. Peter David has first amendment rights to say whatever he wants, and so does everyone else who has anything to say in regard to what he says. No one is acting against the First Amendment. No one is calling for government censorship of anyone. Everyone is using their first amendment rights to speak, and disagree: what’s the problem with this?
At the end of the day the problem is I have spent too much time rewarding your behavior with attention.
Good night, Mrs. Calabash.
Well, that was one of the more confusing exchanges I’ve ever been in. Baffling from start to finish.
Hello from Russia!
Can I quote a post in your blog with the link to you?