Except that's not the "error" they spent two pages apologising for. Those two pages are all about how they were "wrong" to use the word 'homophobic' to describe self-professed homophobe, member of multiple homophobic organisations, and active worker towards homophobic ends Orson Scott Card.
Who is homophobic, and a homophobe. For the record.
They apologised for accurately and correctly describing Card.
They may, in fact, have made mistakes in the article. That's fine, but also irrelevant: they weren't correcting those mistakes or apologising for them.
Oh I get that. I just found it ironic that they made a real error, but are apologising for a fake one (and making the apology even more egregious.)
It is not clear whether Chris Sprouse actively rejects OSC's homophobia (from other reporting of the story) even though this particular story says he does.
Link to where he refers to himself using the word homophobic please?
I totally reckon he is, but I was under the impression that he thought it possible to disagree with people being gay and not be a homophobe. A contradiction in my view, but people have been known to hold internally inconsistent beliefs before.
He affirms that his positions are homophobic and that he really holds those homophobic positions.
I was under the impression that he thought it possible to disagree with people being gay and not be a homophobe.
He may believe that. If he does, he is wrong. And in the mean time, he has no qualms about repeating and reinforcing his homophobic positions. In the same way that someone who says "I'm not racist, I just think white people are better than non-white people" *is still racist*, and is confirming, openly, in their own words, that they are a racist? Card makes absolutely no question possible whether or not he's homophobic. He is, he says so over and over again, even if he doesn't like the correct term.
Is there a definition of professed that I'm not aware of?
If your racist said that would you call them a self professed racist? Or would you just say they *are* racist and wrong in their understanding of themselves and the word?
The issue I have is that you seem to be implying that he acknowledges what he is, and I don't think that's correct. I think the objection he's raised is consistant with an insanity further up his mental chain
Try "to declare openly; announce or affirm; avow or acknowledge"
If your racist said that would you call them a self professed racist?
Yes. This is not an accusation of subtle, hidden, or unconscious racism. It's not someone who avoids saying racist things while working towards racist goals. They make it clear that they are racist, in their own words, openly, repeatedly, as part of their explanation why they're not racist.
Like Card, and being homophobic.
The issue I have is that you seem to be implying that he acknowledges what he is, and I don't think that's correct.
Whereas I think he's 100% aware of and perfectly willing to acknowledge that he is a homophobe and holds homophobic positions, while maintaining that "homophobia" is not the right word for it.
To move back to the racial analogy, analogy-Card has no problem saying he thinks black people are lazy and stupid and their skin colour reflects the sins in their hearts, and that if they truly repented their evil they would become white. He will happily repeat that skin colour demonstrates virtue, and that white people are better. He will "profess" these things, over and over again. His own words, with his own clarifications to confirm that yes that's what he really meant, demonstrate that analogy-Card is truly, deeply racist.
Analogy-Card also insists that these positions are not racist and that he is not racist, and that his holding and publicly reiterating these positions does not make him racist. Analogy-Card is wrong about that.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2013-03-19 02:57 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2013-03-19 04:47 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2013-03-19 08:05 pm (UTC)"he news in Wednesday’s article was that the artist who was to illustrate Card’s story had withdrawn over the author’s views on gay marriage. "
If this is true, then they've scooped the comics blogs...
(no subject)
Date: 2013-03-19 09:32 pm (UTC)Who is homophobic, and a homophobe. For the record.
They apologised for accurately and correctly describing Card.
They may, in fact, have made mistakes in the article. That's fine, but also irrelevant: they weren't correcting those mistakes or apologising for them.
(no subject)
Date: 2013-03-19 09:36 pm (UTC)It is not clear whether Chris Sprouse actively rejects OSC's homophobia (from other reporting of the story) even though this particular story says he does.
(no subject)
Date: 2013-03-21 01:53 am (UTC)I totally reckon he is, but I was under the impression that he thought it possible to disagree with people being gay and not be a homophobe. A contradiction in my view, but people have been known to hold internally inconsistent beliefs before.
(no subject)
Date: 2013-03-21 02:58 am (UTC)He affirms that his positions are homophobic and that he really holds those homophobic positions.
I was under the impression that he thought it possible to disagree with people being gay and not be a homophobe.
He may believe that. If he does, he is wrong. And in the mean time, he has no qualms about repeating and reinforcing his homophobic positions. In the same way that someone who says "I'm not racist, I just think white people are better than non-white people" *is still racist*, and is confirming, openly, in their own words, that they are a racist? Card makes absolutely no question possible whether or not he's homophobic. He is, he says so over and over again, even if he doesn't like the correct term.
(no subject)
Date: 2013-03-21 03:46 am (UTC)Is there a definition of professed that I'm not aware of?
If your racist said that would you call them a self professed racist? Or would you just say they *are* racist and wrong in their understanding of themselves and the word?
The issue I have is that you seem to be implying that he acknowledges what he is, and I don't think that's correct.
I think the objection he's raised is consistant with an insanity further up his mental chain
(no subject)
Date: 2013-03-21 11:35 am (UTC)If your racist said that would you call them a self professed racist?
Yes. This is not an accusation of subtle, hidden, or unconscious racism. It's not someone who avoids saying racist things while working towards racist goals. They make it clear that they are racist, in their own words, openly, repeatedly, as part of their explanation why they're not racist.
Like Card, and being homophobic.
The issue I have is that you seem to be implying that he acknowledges what he is, and I don't think that's correct.
Whereas I think he's 100% aware of and perfectly willing to acknowledge that he is a homophobe and holds homophobic positions, while maintaining that "homophobia" is not the right word for it.
To move back to the racial analogy, analogy-Card has no problem saying he thinks black people are lazy and stupid and their skin colour reflects the sins in their hearts, and that if they truly repented their evil they would become white. He will happily repeat that skin colour demonstrates virtue, and that white people are better. He will "profess" these things, over and over again. His own words, with his own clarifications to confirm that yes that's what he really meant, demonstrate that analogy-Card is truly, deeply racist.
Analogy-Card also insists that these positions are not racist and that he is not racist, and that his holding and publicly reiterating these positions does not make him racist. Analogy-Card is wrong about that.
(no subject)
Date: 2013-03-21 01:36 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2013-03-21 01:40 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2013-03-21 02:58 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2013-03-21 03:09 am (UTC)