To Tolerate The Intolerable?

A few weeks ago, I wrote about the self-inflicted wounds of Paula Deen, and suggested that no good consequence could come out of media outlets cancelling her contracts with her, and consumers  boycotting her shows and publications.  It merely creates a martyr out of someone who doesn't deserve the status.

Much the same can be said of Orson Scott Card, the science-fiction writer and opponent of gay rights.  A film version of his book, "Ender's Game," is about to be released, and gay rights activists are urging an across-the-board boycott of the film in all of its distribution channels.  Rather than be chastened by this, Card has come out and challenged his opponents to see the film and thereby respect his right to be a bigot.  My words, not his.  But the same thought is there.  You can read more about it here.

This is a variation of the same basic "idea" behind all conservative rhetoric of the past 30 years or so:  not only must you respect our right to exist, but also our privilege to destroy you.  Apparently, conservatism is so feeble a political force that it can't withstand a defense from anyone willing to fight back.  And, to make this philosophical jujitsu work, conservatives use a tactic as evil as the idea behind it:  confusing the right of the believer to believe with the right of the belief to be accepted.  People have civil liberties; ideas do not.  Ideas, like commodities, sink or swim in the marketplace depending on their absolute quality, which is another way of describing their relationship to the truth.

Deen and Card have a right to exist, to make a living, to hold in their heads and hearts whatever ugly ideas appeal to them.  But they don't have a right to express their views that somehow supersedes the rights of others to not only hold contrary views, but also to fight back against ideas they reject.

Which brings me back to my earlier point about Deen, also applicable to the Card kerfuffle.  I don't think boycotts are morally wrong.  History has shown, time and again, that they can be a very effective non-violent tool for political action.  Just as freedom of speech is also the freedom not to speak, the right to assemble is also the right not to assemble.  But it's completely fair to think about this situation from a tactical perspective and ask whether a boycott is really the best solution.

Why not choose voice over silence?  Why not organize protests in front of theaters showing the movie, or stores selling the DVDs, that don't stop people from seeing the film but make them more award of Card's bigotry?  Why not even announce "Gay Card" nights, where gay rights advocates and their supporters show up at showings of the film and make everyone aware that they're here and queer?  Why not host fundraising parties showing the DVDs in which the proceeds are given to gay-related charities and political action groups?

Let's see Orson Scott Card try to tolerate that.  At the very least, it might shut him up.  At the very most, beyond him, it might turn a few enemies into friends.