Red Mosquito

Green Habit wrote:

B wrote:Bruce Springsteen cancelled his show this weekend in Greensboro. I'd appreciate it if no one mentions this to Pearl Jam.

http://forums.theskyiscrape.com/viewtop ... =15&t=7604

I hope PJ realizes that the grand majority of the people attending their show are going to agree with their stance on this.

I should also say that it will take a fuckload of business leaving this state before the General Assembly backtracks. I'm pretty sure we'd have to be in Maze Runner territory.

B wrote:

Green Habit wrote:

B wrote:Bruce Springsteen cancelled his show this weekend in Greensboro. I'd appreciate it if no one mentions this to Pearl Jam.

http://forums.theskyiscrape.com/viewtop ... =15&t=7604

I hope PJ realizes that the grand majority of the people attending their show are going to agree with their stance on this.

I should also say that it will take a fuckload of business leaving this state before the General Assembly backtracks. I'm pretty sure we'd have to be in Maze Runner territory.

But Springsteen gets to look like a hero while literally doing nothing. Meanwhile the powers-that-be get to say "look at this asshole outsider! Fuck him and his beliefs!"

Maybe I'm ignorant about how these kinds of boycotts have worked out historically. Someone with the knowledge should chime in to correct me, because I feel like I'm probably about to say something very stupid.

I know this is about "showing zero tolerance to intolerance", and about embarrassing politicians, but here's my thinking: The kind of financial effects that come along with boycotts like what we're seeing in the case of North Carolina are often devastating. But the people who bear the brunt of that aren't usually the people in power. It's everyday people. It's the general populace, many of whom also support LGBT rights or ARE part of the LGBT community itself. The marginalized masses that all these well-meaning people are "standing up for" and "standing with" are dealt crippling financial blows because of this, and their lives get that much worse.

I think of Elton John and Elvis Costello and whoever else it was, a few years ago, cancelling their shows in Israel as a form of political protest... which, in effect, accomplished nothing, except for screwing over the (usually like-minded) fans.

What am I missing?

its sanctions, which practically never work, and usually divide people further.

theplatypus wrote:Maybe I'm ignorant about how these kinds of boycotts have worked out historically. Someone with the knowledge should chime in to correct me, because I feel like I'm probably about to say something very stupid.

I know this is about "showing zero tolerance to intolerance", and about embarrassing politicians, but here's my thinking: The kind of financial effects that come along with boycotts like what we're seeing in the case of North Carolina are often devastating. But the people who bear the brunt of that aren't usually the people in power. It's everyday people. It's the general populace, many of whom also support LGBT rights or ARE part of the LGBT community itself. The marginalized masses that all these well-meaning people are "standing up for" and "standing with" are dealt crippling financial blows because of this, and their lives get that much worse.

I think of Elton John and Elvis Costello and whoever else it was, a few years ago, cancelling their shows in Israel as a form of political protest... which, in effect, accomplished nothing, except for screwing over the (usually like-minded) fans.

What am I missing?

A rock concert here or there won't make much a difference, no. The two times where bills like this were vetoed or amended due to backlash (a few years ago in Indiana, and just last week in Georgia) seemed to have to do with entire industries getting ready to turn their backs on the states' economies, which would have an effect on everyone, the elites included (in Indiana, this mostly came from sports leagues; in Georgia, the film industry). A similar law passed last week in Mississippi and will probably stand for years, because there's no money to take away from there. It doesn't look like North Carolina is going to budge; my feeling is that it'll get tied up in the courts.

Pearl Jam has a history of going into the belly of the beast and speaking their minds. Remember Uniondale 2003? Even though that feels like forever ago, I really don't expect them to cancel their show.

Bruce is also playing a 63-show tour. He can afford to cancel 1.

seems like the courts throw most of this stuff out, right?

BurtReynolds wrote:seems like the courts throw most of this stuff out, right?

This, to me, is the most interesting aspect to Jorge's question. If the legislature refuses to repeal the law, and it gets struck down in the courts as unconstitutional, what should the boycotters do?

Green Habit wrote:

BurtReynolds wrote:seems like the courts throw most of this stuff out, right?

This, to me, is the most interesting aspect to Jorge's question. If the legislature refuses to repeal the law, and it gets struck down in the courts as unconstitutional, what should the boycotters do?

That's a good question, and I think it's worth it to remember that NC's law isn't the same as MS and GA--in NC, the law forbade municipalities from enacting their own laws to ban discrimination based on SO and SI. So if it gets overturned, really, the only real immediate result is that Charlotte's laws go back into effect, am I right?

I think it'd be a nice gesture, if they're going to donate something, to give it directly to an organization that works on suicide prevention for queer youth. 40% of trans men and women attempt suicide at some point in their lives--that's astronomically high, like 10x greater than the general population.

theplatypus wrote:Maybe I'm ignorant about how these kinds of boycotts have worked out historically. Someone with the knowledge should chime in to correct me, because I feel like I'm probably about to say something very stupid.

I know this is about "showing zero tolerance to intolerance", and about embarrassing politicians, but here's my thinking: The kind of financial effects that come along with boycotts like what we're seeing in the case of North Carolina are often devastating. But the people who bear the brunt of that aren't usually the people in power. It's everyday people. It's the general populace, many of whom also support LGBT rights or ARE part of the LGBT community itself. The marginalized masses that all these well-meaning people are "standing up for" and "standing with" are dealt crippling financial blows because of this, and their lives get that much worse.

I think of Elton John and Elvis Costello and whoever else it was, a few years ago, cancelling their shows in Israel as a form of political protest... which, in effect, accomplished nothing, except for screwing over the (usually like-minded) fans.

What am I missing?

If it is an isolated incident you are correct. If it is part of a sustained effort then it is probably among the more effective tactics you can use. This has been the case in the modern United States, at least.

But sustained efforts are built off of initial high profile acts.

tragabigzanda wrote:

Simple Torture wrote:I think it'd be a nice gesture, if they're going to donate something, to give it directly to an organization that works on suicide prevention for queer youth. 40% of trans men and women attempt suicide at some point in their lives--that's astronomically high, like 10x greater than the general population.

And considering that perhaps the most vulnerable people under this new law are teenagers, this could actually have a real impact.

that would be a nice gesture. It depends on whether or not you're actively working to push back against legislation or trying to ameliorate its effects.

Redemption wrote: Tom Gabel


Laura Jane Grace



Lead singer of Rise Against....songs he..er she played for the revival tour were pretty badass.

The band is actually Against Me!

But don't let facts get in the way of a good story.

theplatypus wrote:Maybe I'm ignorant about how these kinds of boycotts have worked out historically. Someone with the knowledge should chime in to correct me, because I feel like I'm probably about to say something very stupid.

I know this is about "showing zero tolerance to intolerance", and about embarrassing politicians, but here's my thinking: The kind of financial effects that come along with boycotts like what we're seeing in the case of North Carolina are often devastating. But the people who bear the brunt of that aren't usually the people in power. It's everyday people. It's the general populace, many of whom also support LGBT rights or ARE part of the LGBT community itself. The marginalized masses that all these well-meaning people are "standing up for" and "standing with" are dealt crippling financial blows because of this, and their lives get that much worse.

I think of Elton John and Elvis Costello and whoever else it was, a few years ago, cancelling their shows in Israel as a form of political protest... which, in effect, accomplished nothing, except for screwing over the (usually like-minded) fans.

What am I missing?

Is there an actual, functional boycott of people who would otherwise go to or do business in the south? New York prohibiting non-essential travel of state employees to wherever effects who, exactly? I dig the spirit of your post, but functionally, I wonder how it plays out.

I wonder if any of this would be a thing if there wasn't a sport of suing bakers and florists and whatnot for not wanting to serve gay weddings. I'm fairly certain that conservative christians* would tolerate gay marriage, transgenders using their children's restrooms (a concern I've seen) if they were allowed to do something less than celebrate it.

*And no, Westboro Baptist does not count, as they are professional trolls.

Tolerance is not acceptance. The law demands the former, and rights of conscience don't absolve you of that legal and moral obligation

stip wrote:Tolerance is not acceptance. The law demands the former, and rights of conscience don't absolve you of that legal and moral obligation

Legal AND moral?