Informed Decision: What You Need To Know About Shadow Complex
Shadow Complex and its connection to science fiction author Orson Scott Card has complicated the standard game release we're so used to for a variety of reasons. After seeing Dawdle's article on the subject last week and the response that it generated from our community and other spaces on the internet, I felt that it was important that we take some time to clarify some of the connections, ask its creators some questions and give them an opportunity to comment on the various reactions that we've seen to the game, the novel it is related to, its author, and his political ties to anti-gay organizations. With the help of my co-writers here at GayGamer, I believe that we have received all the key information on these issues that we are ever likely to see from these individuals.
With so many confusing aspects surrounding this subject, we felt it was necessary to compile a primer on Shadow Complex and the key figures that helped create it. While this situation can be confusing to understand at first, the following are essential facts of the matter as we have come to understand them....
- Chair Entertainment Group, based in Provo, Utah, was founded by the key design team behind Majesco's Advent Rising, a title that Orson Scott Card helped write.
- Shortly after its founding, Chair Entertainment Group licensed Orson Scott Card to create an original intellectual property based on an idea by Chair founders Donald and Geremy Mustard on which Chair would then base video games and a comic book series on. The IP's debut came in the form of a novel named Empire, which saw mixed reactions from fans and critics alike, with many negatively commenting on the book's right wing political themes.
- Shadow Complex is set in the Empire universe, reportedly lacking much of the political content seen in the previous novel. The game takes place before the events of Empire and ties into Card's next novel Hidden Empire, which is set to be published later this year.
- Shadow Complex's story was written by Peter David.
- In early 2008, Chair announced that they had secured the rights to develop video games based on Card's Ender's Game series. Later that year in May, the company is acquired by Epic Games, Inc. (makers of the Unreal Engine and developers of Gears of War).
Regarding the personnel involved with creating Shadow Complex...
- Card, a devout Mormon, has been an outspoken opponent of GLBT rights since the early 90's and published numerous articles and essays on the subject. As of April 2009 he has served as a member of the board of directors for the National Organization For Marriage, an active supporter of California's Proposition 8.
- The game's writer, Peter David, has featured prominent and positive GLBT characters and themes in his work in comics at Marvel, most notably penning the stories that "outed" two characters in the X-Force series.
- Some sites have reported that Chair's founders Donald and Geremy Mustard are members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (Mormon Church). While it is publicly known that Donald Mustard attended Brigham Young University, it seems as though they wish to keep their religious affiliation a private matter since there is no public records of either founder being Mormon. Additionally, the two have made no public statements on homosexuality or gay marriage.
One of the biggest questions that many readers have asked is if Card has received any money related to Shadow Complex through royalties based upon game sales or a work-for-hire payment. When we contacted Chair for a comment, we were pointed to Epic Games' CEO Mark Rein who stated that their "business relationships, including that with Orson Scott Card, are covered by confidentiality agreements." Until someone at Epic Games, Chair, or Card himself breaks these agreements, we are unlikely to hear a definitive answer on this front.
However, this doesn't mean that the parties involved with the game haven't been making statements on Card's involvement. Rein himself has been quoted as saying that "Card's political beliefs sure didn't come up during the game's development. Even if they had, we don't discriminate when hiring or choosing partners based on people's personal beliefs. Heck, Gears of War was made by Democrats, Republicans, Libertarians, and even a few Canadians like me. It takes all kinds to make great creative games."
Since the subject of Card's homophobia has come to the blogging forefront, the most vocal figure to comment has been Shadow Complex's writer Peter David, who has been seen commenting on various sites that have been covering the subject, including Dawdle's article last week. Responding to Dawdle's question of why David would agree to work with Card, David stated:
My disagreements with Orson's politics are hardly limited to his views on gays; we are at opposite ends of the political spectrum on pretty much everything. Why, then, did I agree to work on the game? Because among my most cherished beliefs is that , while I disagree with everything you have to say, I will defend to the death your right to say it. John Byrne has said no end of vicious things directed at me personally; I still buy his comic books because I like his work. I never, EVER, allow someone's stated opinions to impact on whether I support his work so long as those opinions don't transform the work itself into something that I have no desire to support."Shadow Complex" wasn't a huge paying gig for me because Chair is a pretty small outfit. But I took it because I thought Don and Laura Mustard of Chair were a nice couple of kids, and I found the story of a reluctant warrior being forced to find something worth fighting for to be a compelling narrative. By the same token, all the money in the world could not have gotten me to be involved if the story was something I personally found repellant.
If anyone wants to boycott the game and thus damage me or Don and Laura 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 than he is.
Your choice.
While GayGamer's coverage of the subject has never called for a formalized boycott, a poster at NeoGAF started a thread posing the question "Should we boycott Shadow Complex?". Christian Nutt's coverage of the that community's thread and its response over at Gamasutra also appeared to rattle David's emotions on the subject...
...I believe the answer to free speech is always more free speech. If you believe that Orson Scott Card is saying things that are wrong at the top of his lungs, then you say so at the top of yours. If he's donating money to organizations dedicated to infringing gay rights, you donate money to organizations that support them.A society that embraces free expression depends on an unimpeded exchange of ideas.
The disconnect comes from those people who believe that boycotts are likewise a form of free expression. They're not. Boycotts are the opposite: They are designed to be punitive. To hurt someone financially. The message it sends is, "I dislike what you have to say and therefore am going to strike back at you in order to punish you for saying it." It has nothing to do with attacking the things the person says; it's about attacking the person...
...Do people have a "right" to do it? Of course. No one is saying they don't have that right. What's at issue is whether they SHOULD do something...
...What's the end game here? To try and send a message to as many sources as possible that if they hire Orson Scott Card to work for them, they're going to take a financial hit? To put Card out of business? To make sure that someone is going to face financial ruin because he has opinions that differ from yours?
That is intolerant. It's inelegant. It's cheap and vicious and small-minded.
David's opinion that a boycott is not an example of free expression runs afoul of some gamers who see denying profits to Card as a way to deny those whose political motivations may include suppressing gay rights, visibility, and legalities. For those consumers who do not want their money to end up in the coffers of organizations that actively persecute LGBT persons, a boycott is rooted in self-preservation.
A comment from JeffreyOSU on Dawdle's original post:
As many people, including myself, have pointed out in this thread, Card is not simply someone "whose own opinions differed from your own." He is someone who has used his wealth, position, and considerable influence to _enact laws_ against those who hold a difference of opinion from him.
I can't stress this point strongly enough: Card is NOT a garden-variety homophobe. Outside of elected officials, he is undoubtedly in the top tier of people working AGAINST gay rights in the United States. While it is correct that it's difficult to avoid buying things from people whose opinions differ from mine, it is considerably less difficult to avoid buying things from such outspoken and influential adversaries. As I've stated before, I find this particular case to be complex, but not because of how I feel about Card's positions -- he has made those abundantly clear.
So while Peter David's request for a society that hinges upon "unimpeded exchange of ideas" is a noble one, it may not take into account the unimpeded exchange of anti-gay rhetoric, funding, and action taking place in the world beyond video games.
That same "unimpeded exchange of ideas" also doesn't appear to be happening over at Chair's own forums. GayGamer received a tip from a reader that attempted to bring up the topic in an inoffensive manner on Chair's forums. However, instead of starting a dialog, forum moderators quickly deleted the thread without notice to the author. This has not been an isolated instance as our source says that other threads that bring up similar topics have been deleted in the same manner - also with no comment from forum moderators.
When contacted about these deleted messages, Dana Cowley at Epic Games told us that Chair's forums are run by the same moderators and rules as Epic's own forums, and as such have strict guidelines against political and religious discussions on their forums "as they're considered to be off-topic."
At the end of the day, whether someone chooses to purchase or not purchase the game based on Card's role is a very personal decision. We sincerely hope that this article provides all the information that any prospective buyer would want to know before making their choice, if Card's involvement is a concern to them. This is a choice that may be easy for some individuals and difficult for others, but regardless of the outcome it is a choice that everyone at GayGamer hopes gamers will make based on their own moral compasses and accurate information.
Game-Boy
Posted to Hot Stuff, Miscellany, Video Games on 26 August 2009
· Comments (26)
Other stuff like this: 360, chair entertainment, consumer rights, epic games, microsoft game studios, orson scott card, shadow complex, xbla
It's really simple. I don't like the fact that part of my money is going to go to Card, so I'm not buying the game. I feel the same way about EA and Exxon Mobile. I don't like the companies so I don't buy their products.
I think you covered this already. I honestly don't care about the political affiliations of writers and artists - as long as they don't run for office! If something is good, I buy it. I like Peter David. I think everyone is entitled to voice their opinion - and concern. thanks.
It's still unclear if Card is getting any money from sales of the game.
The bottom line, however, is that Chair thought it was acceptable to promote their game by linking it with Card. To me, this is no different than if they had asked David Duke to help promote their game.
I won't be giving them my money.
It seems as though there are many roads to having our voices heard. We can say it with speech, or say it with support (or lack of support). I believe that saying something through the action or inaction of our wallets is an equal voice in the world we live in. Monetary gain is like passing our influence to another so that thier hard work and influence can be carried by ourselves.
It may not always come from our mouths, so our influences may be passed and shared by other methods as well.
Fair game in my opinion.
I was a long time Card reader, and since he has actively been trying to prevent me from having civil rights, I have stopped all my moneys from ending up in his pocket. I wont buy his books any longer from second hand stores either. I love Sci-fi and would go as far to say that Ender's Game is likely to be my induction. An Outright Boycott of Card is well deserved and anything his wife touches too. Evil is the mormon church and it's desire to criminalize homosexuals. How quickly they forget why they were forced to living in UTAH.
Ah, another thread that quickly turns to falsehoods and slurs to make a one-sided point.
Just because Card has some personal views he's decided to speak about publicly doesn't mean we need to slam other individuals or religious organizations OR entire states in general. How...hypocritical.
Card didn't even work on this game so why don't you go boycott Card and his books instead? I am actually more willing to support Chair now that they were smart enough to license him the book rights and make money off of him!
I don't think the way we get more support is by doing the same thing to others that we wish not done to us!
MF7611: I agree with you...mostly.
But it's important to point out that a boycott is NOT doing to others what they would do to us. Anti-gay groups don't try to make us less rich, they try to make us less legal.
They don't make their voices heard by not giving money to people who want to hurt them, as with a boycott - they actively lobby to make homosexuality as much of a legal sin as a supposed religious one.
Also, and most importantly, there aren't any members of anti-gay groups who are being beaten up *in part* because of bigotry spread against them by the gay community. In this entire discussion, the only people whose physical safety and legal freedoms on the line are us, the LGBT community.
That changes things.
"I don't think the way we get more support is by doing the same thing to others that we wish not done to us!"
Excuse me? At what point did we try to take away their basic human rights? We're not doing "the same thing they did to us," we're making sure that we don't unintentionally support their effort to harm us.
I'm not going to be made to feel I'm putting someone in "financial ruin" by failing to buy their product. I think I feel even less inclined to buy Shadow Complex after reading Peter David's comments which, while eloquently expressed, essentially seem to want to guilt trip me into buying his game and making me feel like the intolerant one by failing to do so.
I'm tolerant of other people's opinions, even if I disagree with them. I am not tolerant of disrespect. Card referring to my QGBLT brothers and sisters as "genetic mixups" and saying that laws against us should remain so that we "cannot be permitted to remain as acceptable, equal citizens within that society" is so completely disrespectful that I don't even know entirely how to respond. I do know that I've personally never said anything nearly as disrespectful, hurtful, or hateful related to Mr. Card's own sexual identity, marriage, religion, or opinion.
If Card can somehow find it in himself to express his opinion in a way that isn't disrespectful to me, I'll start tolerating it.
As for the game itself? I won't be buying it. This issue goes beyond Card and well into Chair. The forum issue was enough for me to boycott the game.
Peter David needs to go back to elementary school and study American history, because boycotts are a fundamental right of consumers, and were a basic component of the civil rights movement.
MF7611, your characterization of this debate is so far off it's like you're on another planet. Card think gays are an abomination, he thinks we should all be locked up, and beyond just stating his opinions, he actively fights to deny us civil rights. How in the WORLD can you think a boycott of a consumer product even REMOTELY comes close to resembling what he is doing?
I don't really see how the financial agreement between Chair and Card is something that's confidential. I could see if we were asking for exact figures, but just asking whether Card gets money from the games or not doesn't seem to tread on any NDAs.
I kept my mouth shut after my post was deleted on the Chair forums, but after reading Peter David's responses on Gamasutra I felt the need to respond to some of the finger pointing going on. I think it's hypocritical of him to guilt trip "the opposition" with comments about the Mustard family; given all the stuff he said about a boycott being inelegant, unproductive and whatever other choice condescending buzzword. It's a cheap thing to pull in a serious conversation on the issue, and honestly his rhetoric only further cemented my personal (emphasis) decision not to buy this game.
On the other side of the argument, almost everything I've read has been either A) Card didn't make the game who cares, B) You have to separate the artist from the game, C) you guys are gay hypocritical intolerant liberals. It's absurd to say both A and B, and C is obviously just trolling so that's already brushed off. It's a totally different thing to say that I might play a game which had a contributor involved whose opinions I find detestable. There's only so much we can know about everyone in the world, and I'm way less concerned with contributing to the paycheck of someone that says "fag" on Xbox Live than I am dealing with someone who is top-tier homophobic and goes out of his way to publicly lambast and suppress the gay community.
There is a standard that people should hold themselves to when it comes to their opinions. While Card does have the right to say whatever he wants, there's absolutely nothing bad about choosing to do everything you can in a situation to not support him. To say I disagree with him and then go and line his pockets is beyond hypocritical; it's a crowbar to the kneecaps of my views on equal rights. "You think people should be able to marry whatever sex they want? You think the term marriage should not have any religious influence in regards to governmental definitions and national laws? Okay, well then why don't you donate money to someone who actively campaigns against same-sex marriage... someone who admits that his definition of marriage is faith and church based but still works to impose that definition on a national level outside of the realm of religion (further distorting the separation of church and state)... someone who calls any non-religious organization that supports a change to the definition of marriage his 'mortal enemy.'... someone who invests money into propaganda commercials about the constitution rights of Americans being infringed upon by genetic mixups." What world does that logic make sense in? I don't even think that would fly in one of Card's novels.
I wrote a longer entry about this subject on my personal site. On the one hand I think a boycott about this is misguided for a number of reasons:
1) This game was not made entirely and solely by Card.
2) He was contracted to do the work he did and to write the books and it's unclear what he's getting paid for it in return.
3) Other individuals attached to the project, like David, have spoken firmly in favor of gay rights.
That said I do understand people who feel they can't support this financially. I absolutely think it's disingenuous of the developers to be comfortable with using Card's name for their IP, then turn around and try and downplay his involvement when people took umbrage to it.
I also bristle at statements categorizing a boycott as something negative or intolerant, or comments like MF7611's above that suggest refusing to financially support someone who's made a career out of denying LGBT rights is anything similar to what Card has done. I don't really understand where the concept comes from that suggests one needs to respond to intolerance with hugs and rainbows or they're somehow equally as fault as the bigot.
Still, this is an extremely complicated issue. If it was the choice between not buying one of his books or not then it's simple, but sadly this isn't the case. I have to say I like the suggestion GayGamer made about this before: buy the game, and if you feel you need to atone for something, donate what you can to a LGBT charity instead.
"Also, and most importantly, there aren't any members of anti-gay groups who are being beaten up *in part* because of bigotry spread against them by the gay community. In this entire discussion, the only people whose physical safety and legal freedoms on the line are us, the LGBT community."
The LGBT community on this forum is doing to members of religious groups (and states!) *exactly* what they're upset is being done to them. Slandering people is unfair no matter who is doing it - not just when its someone you don't agree with.
We can't be taken seriously when we are guilty of the same behavior we accuse others. You're saying - take away his right to work just as he says take away our rights to live our life. Freedom of speech doesn't just apply to people saying things you agree with.
MF7611, you do realize that "slandering" is completely different from physically assaulting someone because they're gay, firing them from their job because they're gay, denying them the right to get married, donate blood, adopt children, serve in the military because they're gay, or a whole host of other stuff, right?
Where's the similarity?
And frankly there's no "slandering"-- though you mean libel, since this is text-- anywhere here. People are providing their opinions and perspective about this issue.
Freedom of speech only applies to protection from the government punishing you for speaking against *them.* Private companies and private individuals have no such right, nor are they obligated to provide one. A person is certainly free to decide "I don't like this, I will not give it money to continue to perpetuate," and tell their friends the same thing. People who support Card, and sadly there are more of them with deeper pockets, are certainly able to organize and buy the game to piss off the uppity homos if they want to.
If I didn't wonder whether or not you were gay in the first place I'd suspect this is trolling, or someone in high school who hasn't yet had a civics course.
Sorry for the double post, but I wanted to add:
"Dana Cowley at Epic Games told us that Chair's forums are run by the same moderators and rules as Epic's own forums, and as such have strict guidelines against political and religious discussions on their forums 'as they're considered to be off-topic.'"
This is stupid. Asking for non-privileged financial information about a game on the game creator's message board is very much on-topic, Dana! Nowhere in my thread there did I try to spark a political debate. I mentioned my concern with supporting Orson Scott Card only to outline why I was asking about the financials. If that's considered off-topic, then I don't really know what on-topic would be -- I mean besides the other threads that were there when I posted my thread, like "WHO HAS BEEN HERE THE LONGEST" and "WHO IS READING THE EMPIRE NOVEL."
Also, from their own rules section:
[03] Keep discussions on topic! Please refrain from discussions not pertaining to our games or company. There are plenty of other places in the vast Internet to discuss your political or social views.
-- Yeah, we use them. We use the Chair forums to try and discuss your games and your company; which was what we did.
[09] We look to our community to lead by example.
-- If deleting relevant threads that are hot button issues while playing them off as off-topic (instead of engaging in the discussion or even just answering with "we don't know" or "we can't say") is leading by example, then Chair and Epic lose more credibility just for being cowards.
I agree with Shawn about Peter David's guilt trip. The forum issue with ChAIR was enough for me to not buying the game.
I did downloaded the trial and checked out the game to see what's the hype was all about. Turn out that it's not a game that I am interested in anyway.
I took an opposing stance to Peter in the Gamasutra article. I disagree with some of his philosophies, and at times I felt he was quite hostile in his defense (something which I was later convinced was my misunderstanding). But I also respect him a great deal. The guy has been vocally pro-gay rights for a long time (check his wikipedia page), so I don't understand how one could boycott Shadow Complex due to the involvement of an anti-gay-rights activist, and simultaneously ignore the involvement of a pro-gay-rights activist. I'm not saying that Peter's involvement renders Card's toxicity null and void, but merely that ignoring this fact is hypocrisy.
I purchased the game, and have no regrets. And while I don't exactly agree with all of Peter's philosophies, I absolutely admire the selfless stance he takes in this argument.
For my part, I'll be anti-boycotting (quaint) Peter, and purchasing more of his works.
MF7611:
Again, you're incorrect and dangerously sloppy with your logic. There is simply no libel here.
Moreover, a boycott does absolutely NOT "take away his right to work." It ACTS upon a consumer's right not to make a purchase.
A boycott is a series of collective personal choices. Not a wholesale blacklisting of an individual. Not a murder. Not a repression of anyone's freedom of speech or freedom to work - or even the freedom to have that work sold.
It's simply a group of people who don't wish to support an individual or company. There is absolutely ZERO moral imperative that tells us we MUST buy products made by those who seek to harm us - to think so is to think in a wrong-headed, masochistic mindset. You're free to do so, but please don't expect others to share your willingly self-damaging attitude.
Being a gay man who doesn't hate himself, I'll refrain from buying products made by those who may hate me. Orson Scott Card's freedom of speech simply does not translate into your tyrannical suggestion that we MUST buy his works or consider ourselves part of a repression of anyone's freedoms.
This discussion proves the exact opposite point, in fact: that freedom of speech extends only so far as the speech itself. There is no such thing as "Freedom to have everyone buy your products no matter what, or else you can claim that they're oppressing you."
This game will not be getting my gay dollars.
Mostly because it's a game that doesn't interest me what-so-ever.
The video game business, is, in the end, exactly that, a business. Required to make money.
Which means selling as many games as possible.
The developers clearly believe that the Card connection will help them do that -- sell more games -- so they make the connection clear.
It seems that if the Card connection entices me to buy the game that I would have otherwise skipped, all is good. Should the reverse is true, then somehow I'm a bad person undermining freedom of expression.
WTF!?
Saying that we should simply donate to causes to cancel out Card's donations is so disingenuous. It is in my realm of possibility to NOT buy something in order to give him more disposable income to donate to Prop 8-like causes. It is NOT in my realm of possibility to out-donate him.
Sorry, David. My one copy of Shadow Complex not being bought will make NO difference to them. But it will to me. Just as my not buying Advent Rising didn't make it a bomb, or my not shopping at Walmart doesn't seem to bother them much.
It makes me feel at peace with me, though.
That's kind of funny, you forgot to mention the information about whether or not the game is good which, I dunno, might also be important in regards to whether or not it should be bought. Oh and you also forgot about this quote from Peter David:
"I believe it's not a complex (nice pun) question at all. I believe the answer to free speech is always more free speech. If you believe that Orson Scott Card is saying things that are wrong at the top of his lungs, then you say so at the top of yours. If he's donating money to organizations dedicated to infringing gay rights, you donate money to organizations that support them."
But please, by all means, go shoot your boycott shotgun off. You'll make sure the good people who made the game itself take most the bullet, in hopes that a little bit of the scatter might scratch the car of the guy whose view you disapprove of, and by the way, he's not even in the car. Real fucking smart. Shows the world how rational and intelligent gamers are, doesn't it.
Randy:
It seems like most of the people here who are in favor of a boycott feel that way out of a personal moral imperative, not any actual expectation of financial damage to anyone. I think the "damage" of the boycott "shotgun bullets" is mostly in your head.
The primary "impact" of any act of boycott is to make heard a voice that would otherwise go unheard.
But more importantly, simply refraining from participating in an Orson Scott Card project isn't an act of violence. To compare it thus is grossly inaccurate. (Somehow some folks have got it into their heads that buying consumer products is an obligation rather than a discretion.)
But even MORE importantly, I think you have the wrong demographic priorities: this is not an issue about proving what gamers are or aren't, it's about communicating a message concerning the level of anti-gay activism LGBT consumers will tolerate. Not only is that message valid to any member of the LGBT community, gamer or not, but it's important information on its own merit.
Nicely researched article consisting of "just the facts". In the gaming world there aren't that many points a gay gaming website can make a mark in, but this is a great example.
I've had problems with Card for a while now. Friends have reccomended his books for years, and I at one point decided to google him before I made the purchase, only to come to a series of condesending, inflamatory essays talking about how vile and conflicted I was. I don't understand how people are so willing to be disconnected about WHY this topic has come up. It is entirely against one's self interests to willingly throw money at someone who is activley trying to disempower you with it. Shadow Complex might be the second coming of Zelda for all its worth, but it'll be a cold day in Hell before I put a cent towards anything with Orson Scott Card's name on it. Its too bad about Peter David, a writer I generally love, thinking that me opting not to buy something I probably wouldn't have bought in the first place is such an "inelegant" act. I'm sorry, but at the end of the day Orson Scott Card isn't sitting on a board trying to destroy his relationship and politically disempower him because he's some sort of abomination before the eyes of the Lord. This might be a matter of money for some, but its a matter of principle for me. I'd rather be "inelegant" and feel good about my personal choice to avoid perpetuating a (however indirect) hate machine, than to beg the aproval of anyone else.
*looks like I'm a little late to the post here but I still would like to say some things*
Let's be honest, whether we buy the game or not, it will have such a miniscule effect on either community (pro- or anit- gay# that there is almost no point in arguing it.
Now, as a gamer, who's been one for as long as I could hold a controler, I'll be buying the game without question. For multiple reasons; one, most summer games suck, two, most games, especially good ones, cost ALOT of money. For this one to come out in the middle of summer, I don't have to leave my house to get it, it's cheap, and above all, It's pretty damn good.
Now as a gay gamer, it does upset me a little to learn that the creator of the universe that the game is set in, is an avid anti-gay activist. But there is no gay bashing, no gay slurs, nothing even closely related to homophobia in the game at all.
If O.S.C. wants to use the money he has made from his writing to fund his homophobic 'cause' then, whether we like it or not, he has the right. We just have to use our money, our determination, and our strength in numbers to be stronger. Threds on a message board are NOT going to make a diffrence.
We need to GET OUT, protest, be in the STREETS! Show the world that we are not a minority. That we are people, we are somebody that everybody knows. Not just groups who flood our nearby cites once a year dressed in stupid outfits or wear just nothing at all. When people see that on tv they see debauchery and all the sterotyps that set us back in the fight for equal rights.
GLADD will not help us. When/if equal rights happen, they will be out of a job and money. Guerilla tactis will help us achieve our goals. And I'm not just sitting here typing and doing nothing.
In the next few days I'll be making a statement in downtown Dallas #where I live# watch for it, I'm shooting for 24 hour cable news shows. If I do it right you should be able to just turn on CNN and see progress being made.