Transgender Rights

[stip]

I'd be prepared to defend that, as it is basically the value that makes society possible. You don't have to like, approve, or celebrate something, but you need allow for others to make autonomous choices without risk of civil penalty beyond your approbation

[simple schoolboy]

I'd be prepared to defend that, as it is basically the value that makes society possible. You don't have to like, approve, or celebrate something, but you need allow for others to make autonomous choices without risk of civil penalty beyond your approbation

I like that language, but I suspect in practice that it works far differently than I'd prefer.

[stip]

Without a doubt

[stip]

But the bleed from theory to practice is a lot less noxious there then with most alternatives

[B]

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.

There is some. Google has ceased investing in Fiber for NC. Paypal took a 400 job building project elsewhere. A&E/Lionsgate are relocating future projects. None of this affects the rural communities from which our Republicans hail, so even if it were a large financial impact, which I think it is not, it won't hurt their chances of being re-elected.

Hell, they may celebrate A&E's decision b/c one of their first actions when they took over the General Assembly was to eliminate incentive packages for film making.

[b_i_revisited]

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.

There is some. Google has ceased investing in Fiber for NC. Paypal took a 400 job building project elsewhere. A&E/Lionsgate are relocating future projects. None of this affects the rural communities from which our Republicans hail, so even if it were a large financial impact, which I think it is not, it won't hurt their chances of being re-elected.

Hell, they may celebrate A&E's decision b/c one of their first actions when they took over the General Assembly was to eliminate incentive packages for film making.

I do wish activists would consider the collateral damage when they setup these boycotts. Boycotting an entire state is not like boycotting Nike or BP where everyone has to drink from the same trough. They are going to cause lasting damage to middle and lower income people across the political spectrum and the people they are claiming to support (as the Platypus wisely pointed out) when what they should be doing to increasing support to those in the state fighting for this important cause.

[Norah]

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.

There is some. Google has ceased investing in Fiber for NC. Paypal took a 400 job building project elsewhere. A&E/Lionsgate are relocating future projects. None of this affects the rural communities from which our Republicans hail, so even if it were a large financial impact, which I think it is not, it won't hurt their chances of being re-elected.

Hell, they may celebrate A&E's decision b/c one of their first actions when they took over the General Assembly was to eliminate incentive packages for film making.

I do wish activists would consider the collateral damage when they setup these boycotts. Boycotting an entire state is not like boycotting Nike or BP where everyone has to drink from the same trough. They are going to cause lasting damage to middle and lower income people across the political spectrum and the people they are claiming to support (as the Platypus wisely pointed out) when what they should be doing to increasing support to those in the state fighting for this important cause.

I don't know, when big businesses or industries move to a specific state they do so on negotiated terms. (currently thinking of GE moving their headquarters to Boston). If they can negotiate favorable tax rates and incentives, why can't they also negotiate or demand certain social qualifications as well, as it would benefit their employees?

[b_i_revisited]

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.

There is some. Google has ceased investing in Fiber for NC. Paypal took a 400 job building project elsewhere. A&E/Lionsgate are relocating future projects. None of this affects the rural communities from which our Republicans hail, so even if it were a large financial impact, which I think it is not, it won't hurt their chances of being re-elected.

Hell, they may celebrate A&E's decision b/c one of their first actions when they took over the General Assembly was to eliminate incentive packages for film making.

I do wish activists would consider the collateral damage when they setup these boycotts. Boycotting an entire state is not like boycotting Nike or BP where everyone has to drink from the same trough. They are going to cause lasting damage to middle and lower income people across the political spectrum and the people they are claiming to support (as the Platypus wisely pointed out) when what they should be doing to increasing support to those in the state fighting for this important cause.

I don't know, when big businesses or industries move to a specific state they do so on negotiated terms. (currently thinking of GE moving their headquarters to Boston). If they can negotiate favorable tax rates and incentives, why can't they also negotiate or demand certain social qualifications as well, as it would benefit their employees?

They can, should, and I believe already do that, but it needs to be a balancing act between achieving your social goals and not causing undeserved stress on vulnerable portions (low income, lesser privileged) of the population. It would be interesting to hear feedback from the LBGTQ community and service industry workers in North Carolina since this is really an issue for them.

[Mine]

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.

The thing is they tend to justify their stance as part of their religious beliefs as something that is an integral part of what makes them good christians.
On the other hand if it wasn't so convenient to use those kind of views to get votes and feed pseudo conspiracy theories in the process and make those positions even more extreme while doing, all this may be largely a non issue in the western world.

[Mine]

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.

There is some. Google has ceased investing in Fiber for NC. Paypal took a 400 job building project elsewhere. A&E/Lionsgate are relocating future projects. None of this affects the rural communities from which our Republicans hail, so even if it were a large financial impact, which I think it is not, it won't hurt their chances of being re-elected.

Hell, they may celebrate A&E's decision b/c one of their first actions when they took over the General Assembly was to eliminate incentive packages for film making.

I do wish activists would consider the collateral damage when they setup these boycotts. Boycotting an entire state is not like boycotting Nike or BP where everyone has to drink from the same trough. They are going to cause lasting damage to middle and lower income people across the political spectrum and the people they are claiming to support (as the Platypus wisely pointed out) when what they should be doing to increasing support to those in the state fighting for this important cause.

I don't know, when big businesses or industries move to a specific state they do so on negotiated terms. (currently thinking of GE moving their headquarters to Boston). If they can negotiate favorable tax rates and incentives, why can't they also negotiate or demand certain social qualifications as well, as it would benefit their employees?

They can, should, and I believe already do that, but it needs to be a balancing act between achieving your social goals and not causing undeserved stress on vulnerable portions (low income, lesser privileged) of the population. It would be interesting to hear feedback from the LBGTQ community and service industry workers in North Carolina since this is really an issue for them.

I'm guessing the LGBTQ community would tell you they move out of the areas intolerant of them if they can. Unemployment is one of the biggest issues the trans community faces anyway so i guess it doesn't make much of a difference for them.

[stip]

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.

There is some. Google has ceased investing in Fiber for NC. Paypal took a 400 job building project elsewhere. A&E/Lionsgate are relocating future projects. None of this affects the rural communities from which our Republicans hail, so even if it were a large financial impact, which I think it is not, it won't hurt their chances of being re-elected.

Hell, they may celebrate A&E's decision b/c one of their first actions when they took over the General Assembly was to eliminate incentive packages for film making.

I do wish activists would consider the collateral damage when they setup these boycotts. Boycotting an entire state is not like boycotting Nike or BP where everyone has to drink from the same trough. They are going to cause lasting damage to middle and lower income people across the political spectrum and the people they are claiming to support (as the Platypus wisely pointed out) when what they should be doing to increasing support to those in the state fighting for this important cause.

I don't know, when big businesses or industries move to a specific state they do so on negotiated terms. (currently thinking of GE moving their headquarters to Boston). If they can negotiate favorable tax rates and incentives, why can't they also negotiate or demand certain social qualifications as well, as it would benefit their employees?

They can, should, and I believe already do that, but it needs to be a balancing act between achieving your social goals and not causing undeserved stress on vulnerable portions (low income, lesser privileged) of the population. It would be interesting to hear feedback from the LBGTQ community and service industry workers in North Carolina since this is really an issue for them.

What you're describing is probably impossible. It's like a smart bomb approach to activism--if only there was some mechanism available that only inflicted pain on the people who deserve it. No political tool is that precise, just like the idea of collateral free war.

This is where the storytelling elements come into play. When pain is being inflicted upon a population (which is the point) do they dig in their heels and blame the person inflicting the pain (as often happens with things like int'l sanctions) or does it mobilize the population to demand the sorts of internal reforms that will end it.

[stip]

Also, it's not like these are mutually exclusive options (extra support for targeted communities in NC alongside economic boycotts that are designed to lead to policy change).



Keep in mind that in many cases the goal of these actions is to mobilize voters. B, what is the percentage of voters turning out for the election of statewide officials? If NC mirrors most states it's a small percentage of the population. Even in conservative districts you may well have a majority of voters who, preferences aside, do not see the transgender issue as a hill on which to die, and can be roused to do something about it if they are becoming impacted by policy

[B]

NBA is giving NC 30 days to repeal before they move the 2017 All-Star game.

http://abcnews.com.co/nba-cancels-all-s ... -lgbt-hb2/

[Simple Torture]

NBA is giving NC 30 days to repeal before they move the 2017 All-Star game.

http://abcnews.com.co/nba-cancels-all-s ... -lgbt-hb2/

This could actually be a good litmus test for how and if money can change the situation:

...by not hosting the 2017 NBA All-Star game, the state stands to lose even more. It is uncertain the exact figure, but in 2014, the All-Star game in New Orleans generated $106.1 Million and in 2015, New York generated approximately $195 million in economic activity.

[B]

Keep in mind, Charlotte is the town that took action against transgender bullying. That's what started this whole thing.

If the lawmakers gave a shit about the citizens of Charlotte, House Bill 2 wouldn't exist.

[Simple Torture]

Your perspective has added a lot to the hot takes I've read around the internet, B.

[B]

[b_i_revisited]

*snip*.

There is some. Google has ceased investing in Fiber for NC. Paypal took a 400 job building project elsewhere. A&E/Lionsgate are relocating future projects. None of this affects the rural communities from which our Republicans hail, so even if it were a large financial impact, which I think it is not, it won't hurt their chances of being re-elected.

Hell, they may celebrate A&E's decision b/c one of their first actions when they took over the General Assembly was to eliminate incentive packages for film making.

I do wish activists would consider the collateral damage when they setup these boycotts. Boycotting an entire state is not like boycotting Nike or BP where everyone has to drink from the same trough. They are going to cause lasting damage to middle and lower income people across the political spectrum and the people they are claiming to support (as the Platypus wisely pointed out) when what they should be doing to increasing support to those in the state fighting for this important cause.

I don't know, when big businesses or industries move to a specific state they do so on negotiated terms. (currently thinking of GE moving their headquarters to Boston). If they can negotiate favorable tax rates and incentives, why can't they also negotiate or demand certain social qualifications as well, as it would benefit their employees?

They can, should, and I believe already do that, but it needs to be a balancing act between achieving your social goals and not causing undeserved stress on vulnerable portions (low income, lesser privileged) of the population. It would be interesting to hear feedback from the LBGTQ community and service industry workers in North Carolina since this is really an issue for them.

What you're describing is probably impossible. It's like a smart bomb approach to activism--if only there was some mechanism available that only inflicted pain on the people who deserve it. No political tool is that precise, just like the idea of collateral free war.

This is where the storytelling elements come into play. When pain is being inflicted upon a population (which is the point) do they dig in their heels and blame the person inflicting the pain (as often happens with things like int'l sanctions) or does it mobilize the population to demand the sorts of internal reforms that will end it.

I think HB2 is just about the worst law I have seen in a decade, going far beyond squashing the civil rights of the trans community it legalizes all sorts of discrimination, so please don't construe anything I say as supporting the law, those who passed it, or the spirit behind it. My issues here is that I see this type of boycott as a form of collective punishment and I have a problem with doing that to so many people in my own damn country. This is the straight to the stick, no carrot was offered. Recent polls say only 51% of the state supports the law, with support in cities like Charlotte and Raleigh where the economic effects of the boycott would be felt being even lower, so it seems like the wrong people are being hurt here. And the idea that this is OK because we cannot target individuals to change their minds is both technically wrong, as the entire social media business model is doing exactly that, and a bit of strawman.

[stip]

It s a collective punishment for sure, and it is a broad and indiscriminate stick. The goal is in part to turn NC into a pariah state that will embarrass its own citizens (it is easy to support a consequence free law), and you don't need to target citizens directly with economic pain to do that.

The question in politics is always 'what is the alternative?' What strategy do you adopt instead?

It's worth nationalizing the context as well. Consistent reactions like this do send messages to other bodies considering similar laws

[b_i_revisited]

It s a collective punishment for sure, and it is a broad and indiscriminate stick. The goal is in part to turn NC into a pariah state that will embarrass its own citizens (it is easy to support a consequence free law), and you don't need to target citizens directly with economic pain to do that.

The question in politics is always 'what is the alternative?' What strategy do you adopt instead?

It's worth nationalizing the context as well. Consistent reactions like this do send messages to other bodies considering similar laws

Honestly, I don't know. Civil disobedience, a few arrests, then a quick move of the cases to federal court from the Obama admin to overturn might work. That way the governor doesn't look like he folded to "teh gheys" but the law is removed. He's up for reelection this year, maybe funneling millions upon millions into opponents. Maybe some of these big dollar companies start sending their lawyers down there to attack versus pulling their business out (check out newegg.com's history against patent trolls for examples of this strategy). None of this would be a fast as a successful boycott, but none of it would do what is likely irreparable damage the poor in the state like an unsuccessful boycott or dragged out would.