How Software Companies Die by Orson Scott Card (1995)

Re:How Software Companies Die by Orson Scott Card (1995) by Udo on Friday November 29, 2013 @05:43AM (#6818825)

Nobody disputes that. The question is, I believe, if we should enable them and elevate them. Giving Card a platform and indulging him validates his entire personal concept, not just the good parts. It's not only a matter of giving credit, it's about choosing where your content comes from.

This person is still alive and relevant and subject to social acceptance. And even with dead people, we are reluctant to cite them if they have a bad reputation - it's only that we make certain historical allowances based on the perceived historical distance to us.

Especially in this day and age, it's easy to find alternative authors on pretty much any subject who convey the same ideas without the amoral baggage. Let's recognize them instead.

Do you think this essay contains unique insights? No way. It's here because it's written by Orson Scott Card.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:How Software Companies Die by Orson Scott Card (1995) by nashashmi on Friday November 29, 2013 @05:59AM (#6818877)

You know if we practiced the same methodology a long time back, many prominent people may never have gained credence even if they came up with some amazing stuff simply because they were gay. Case in point: Alan Turing.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:How Software Companies Die by Orson Scott Card (1995) by Udo on Friday November 29, 2013 @06:16AM (#6818931)

You could argue that "we" always practiced the methodology of penalizing people with beliefs that were perceived as abnormal. Case in point: Alan Turing.

However, this is not the level I want this considered at. Instead, I invite you to look at what you're comparing here. There is OSC's philosophy of hatred on one side, and Alan Turing's sexuality on the other (which was never about harming anyone and hence could always be considered ethically neutral). You can't meaningfully argue that the two are similar. Yes, they share the trait of being socially unaccepted at the time, but that's also where the similarities end.

I'm not proposing we shun people because their beliefs are unpopular. I'm talking about making a choice not to elevate people who are unethical.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:How Software Companies Die by Orson Scott Card (1995) by adamnemecek on Friday November 29, 2013 @06:32AM (#6818981)

You are trying to retrofit current sense of morality onto the sense held by people in the past. What if people during Turing's time actually thought that homosexual behavior was unethical (which I think is not too far from the truth)?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:How Software Companies Die by Orson Scott Card (1995) by Udo on Friday November 29, 2013 @06:47AM (#6819028)

> What if people during Turing's time actually thought that homosexual behavior was unethical (which I think is not too far from the truth)?

First of all, I assert being gay is not unethical. And it never was. Sure, it was considered amoral, but that's not the same. Could you elaborate on why you think an ethical argument could be constructed in favor of being militantly anti-gay?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:How Software Companies Die by Orson Scott Card (1995) by xmonkee on Friday November 29, 2013 @10:33AM (#6819731)

It seems like you're purposely misinterpreting his point. He's not saying what should be, he's saying what probably was. You might have been saying that homosexuality is unethical a hundred years ago with the same certainty with which you denounce Card. I'm sure nobody here actually thinks that being gay is unethical.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:How Software Companies Die by Orson Scott Card (1995) by Udo on Friday November 29, 2013 @12:02PM (#6820111)

While we're accusing people of purposeful misinterpretation, let me pass that right back at you. I wanted to hear the rationale for calling being gay unethical. I wasn't about to allege anything. But if someone asserts that there might be an ethics argument against homosexuality, I'd really like to hear it.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:How Software Companies Die by Orson Scott Card (1995) by xmonkee on Friday November 29, 2013 @01:02PM (#6820336)

Okay, I apologize about implying that you're being intentionally obtuse. About the ethics argument, you (or maybe someone else above) said that anti-homosexuality is a violent hateful position, and the homosexuality is just a sexual preference. I'm not disagreeing with you, but an opponent might claim that your arguments regarding both are extremely ad-hoc. You could just as easily claim that homosexuality is unnatural or that it's against god's will or that it goes against our national interests or any other bullshit. Why I didn't want to make these arguments is because I'm not interesting in debating this side. I don't think homosexuality is unethical, and hence carrying on this debate isn't pleasant to me. I'm just saying that thinking that both positions had the same ethical value in any time is presentism.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:How Software Companies Die by Orson Scott Card (1995) by aaronem on Friday November 29, 2013 @11:38AM (#6819997)

I've found presentism to be an all but impossible concept for those whose ideology drives their historiography.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:How Software Companies Die by Orson Scott Card (1995) by Udo on Friday November 29, 2013 @11:56AM (#6820077)

So you guys are calling me either stupid or malevolent, thanks for that. Aaron, there really isn't a lot of ideology in my posts - but how about yours? I've tried, patiently, explaining why I think homosexuality is not unethical in any historical context, and why I believe militant homophobia is. One is behavior which is deemed unacceptable but doesn't negatively affect anyone, and the other one is about harming and denigrating people who are not like you. There is no contest. If you really believe this is "presentism", there is not a lot left to talk about.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:How Software Companies Die by Orson Scott Card (1995) by adamnemecek on Friday November 29, 2013 @03:06PM (#6820812)

I mean, I don't know the arguments, but I imagine that some sort of argument comparing homosexuality to pedophilia could be made. Just to make it clear, this is not what I believe.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:How Software Companies Die by Orson Scott Card (1995) by dasil003 on Friday November 29, 2013 @08:16AM (#6819267)

It's not about ethics, it's about beliefs vs qualities. Being gay is a genetic trait, it's not a formed belief system. Whether that was generally understood 70 years ago is neither here nor there. Furthermore, there is the question of liberty. Being gay and performing homosexual acts is a personal choice, it does not hurt anyone else the way bigotry does.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:How Software Companies Die by Orson Scott Card (1995) by adamnemecek on Friday November 29, 2013 @03:08PM (#6820816)

> Whether that was generally understood 70 years ago is neither here nor there.

That's some handwaving.

Again, your argument looks at it with present eyes.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:How Software Companies Die by Orson Scott Card (1995) by dasil003 on Friday November 29, 2013 @04:37PM (#6821117)

So does yours. It's impossible for us to have any non-modern perspective. It's a moot point to argue. My point is that there is a difference between a belief and biological trait. That distinction is timeless regardless of what contemporary morality says about various beliefs and actions.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:How Software Companies Die by Orson Scott Card (1995) by adamnemecek on Friday November 29, 2013 @05:07PM (#6821206)

> So does yours.

How so?

> It's impossible for us to have any non-modern perspective.

Sure, but we can try.

> My point is that there is a difference between a belief and biological trait.

I mean, I get your point and I agree with it but again, that does not really tell us anything about ethics in the past.

[ Parent | on HN ]