I disagree with who you are as a person, and on that basis, I think you should be denied rights that are routinely given to the rest of the population. Additionally, I find you personally foul and repulsive, and your very nature disgusts me. But it's nothing personal!
Wait, what? You're upset? You want to fight back? You think that just because you're a human being you should be given the same basic consideration under the law as anyone else? HOW DARE YOU PERSECUTE ME BECAUSE OF MY BELIEFS!
Just so you know, this is what you - and Orson Scott Card - sound like when you try to use this "argument."
Is "don't buy from Nazis" really the same as "don't buy from Jews"? It's not about attacking people who disagree, it's about withdrawing support from those who attack others.
Let's say, someone beats their wife brutally, but they're very good at bowling, and always treat you respectfully. Would you feel good about going bowling with them, regardless of how much objectively correct things about bowling they could teach you? Or would you realize the world is full of people who know as much and more, who don't come with quite such a bad aftertase?
It sounds equivalent to "don't buy scripts or other moviemaking services from Communists."
The distinction you are attempting to draw about attacking others makes little sense given the examples I cited. Opponents of polygamy, supporters of Obamacare and opponents of privacy all favor attacking others (polygamists, people who don't buy health insurance, and people who don't cooperate with spying). Most public policies involve attacking someone - all laws are ultimately enforced at the point of a gun.
There is still a difference between bigoted, chauvinistic superstitions and scapegoating, and disagreements about public policy happening in good faith.
You haven't answered my second question. Have you at least thought about it?
It's just music! Why can't people "just listen to the music" which itself has nothing to do with antisemitism? Oh, but that's different, because it strikes close to home for them, right? Well no, the same goes for any homosexuals or those having empathy for them. Or people who just don't like the idea of the US sinking into chaos (violent revolution) because some truly believe that what homosexuals do in their bedrooms or marriages is to blame for their own abysmal performance in both.
You could argue that you personally don't mind listening to Wagner, but that's not an argument for what others should do - surely you understand that. Likewise, the person that started this subthread didn't say everybody should not listen to OSC, but simply asked if anyone else has the same reaction as them. That's perfectly legit, and making such a fuss about is just silly.
Is the article really that good? It seems like the only good thing anyone has to say about this article, is that what someone else said in alleged attack of it is fallacious...? I found it cringeworthy personally.
Lastly, it's not like someone said OSC made good points with X and Y, and then someone else replied "but he's a homophobe!". The ad-hominem complaints are silly anyway: the post itself is only on here because of who wrote it, not because it's that good, and a negative ad-hominem is kind of a valid response to a positive ad-hominem.
I don't actually have a good answer for your second question. It's a tricky one, which is why I wrote nothing. In the specific circumstance you describe I probably wouldn't bowl with the guy - heck, I've cut people off for far less (e.g., slut shaming in my presence). On the other hand, my cofounder is a big proponent of all sorts of things I oppose (Obamacare, basic income, extreme feminism) and I have no plans to cut her off.
I suspect the reason this jumped out at me is that it's literally an attempt to ostracize a hollywood writer for his other views, and being the good liberal that I am (culturally speaking) this jumps out at me.
So I guess at this point I'm walking away with far less certainty of my views than I started with.
As for the article, you are right that it's not position #1 good. It's a well written version of the same sort of fluff that HN has way too much of, nothing more.
The problem with this logic is that by characterizing preferring one lifestyle to another as an "anti-X position" and therefore something that is by default wrong, we encourage the dismantling of our entire culture.
If we are to say that the only acceptable view is that being gay is as good as being straight, then we must logically do the same for the following
* Being transgender
* Being a sex worker
* Eating shit for sexual gratification (no chance of AIDS!)
* Having sex with animals (without harming them)
I'm not sure that any of the above are very immoral, but I'm not comfortable with teaching that they are ideal, or advisable. I'm also not comfortable with teaching children that becoming a sex worker is as good a career path as any other.
We as a society need to maintain a balance between protecting everyone's rights, and allowing people to have their own personal tastes and opinions. This balance should be based on enforcing the most basic laws that guarantee a person's right to life and safety. Gay people should be free from threats of violence. But so should everyone else, including groups who will never be considered as oppressed by liberals, like nerds in high school. As for tastes and preferences, this isn't something we can decide in a top down way.
The entire anti-bullying push is based on a narrative in which bullying results from our society being insufficiently inclusive. If people were more tolerant of differences, we are told, the motivation for bullying would go away.
However this reasoning only applies to certain kinds of bullying, such as bullying of gays (and [1] argues it doesn't even apply in this case). Nerds are bullied because of their actual weakness, not because they are different per se. The sub-culture is a response to bullying, not vice versa.
In order to deal with this kind of bullying, we would need a new narrative in which people have an innate tendency towards picking on other people, and that if not kept in check, this can reach to physical violence and other extremes.
"The time has come now to the point where anyone who holds an anti-black position is criticized and/or boycotted."
"The time has come now to the point where anyone who holds an anti-woman position is criticized and/or boycotted."
"The time has come now to the point where anyone who holds an anti-Jew position is criticized and/or boycotted."
Yes. Yes it has.