Sat April 09, 2016 1:29 am
This isn't just Bruce; many musicians and filmmakers are vowing not to do business in NC until this law is repealed
Sat April 09, 2016 1:37 am
Strat wrote:If nobody does anything, nothing happens, if a few people do a few things and make a statement, things can build and change can happen.
Sat April 09, 2016 1:58 am
theplatypus wrote:Strat wrote:If nobody does anything, nothing happens, if a few people do a few things and make a statement, things can build and change can happen.
Activism and speaking up and agitating for causes is great. I just question the logic behind state boycotts of this kind as they affect the lifelihood of the state's general populace INCLUDING members of the marginalized communities that people are ostensibly standing up for. As I said in the Transgender Rights thread.
Sat April 09, 2016 2:06 am
Sat April 09, 2016 2:12 am
Strat wrote:If nobody does anything, nothing happens, if a few people do a few things and make a statement, things can build and change can happen.
Sat April 09, 2016 2:31 am
LoathedVermin72 wrote:The only thing these dumbshit politicians are likely to respond to is money. This isn't just Bruce; many musicians and filmmakers are vowing not to do business in NC until this law is repealed. That's gonna cost the state a lot in lost revenue. In the long run, as a group, I could see this kind of protest having a legitimate chance of making a difference.
Sat April 09, 2016 2:32 am
Sat April 09, 2016 2:32 am
Sat April 09, 2016 2:33 am
Sat April 09, 2016 2:46 am
BurtReynolds wrote:Strat wrote:If nobody does anything, nothing happens, if a few people do a few things and make a statement, things can build and change can happen.
If only we lived in a world that had several options of varying degrees of effectiveness from which we could choose from. But no, we only live in a world where people either do nothing or cancel rock concerts. Thank you for making this clear.
Sat April 09, 2016 2:52 am
Strat wrote:BurtReynolds wrote:Strat wrote:If nobody does anything, nothing happens, if a few people do a few things and make a statement, things can build and change can happen.
If only we lived in a world that had several options of varying degrees of effectiveness from which we could choose from. But no, we only live in a world where people either do nothing or cancel rock concerts. Thank you for making this clear.
This makes no point nor has anything negative against what Bruce chose to do
Sat April 09, 2016 3:04 am
BurtReynolds wrote:Strat wrote:BurtReynolds wrote:Strat wrote:If nobody does anything, nothing happens, if a few people do a few things and make a statement, things can build and change can happen.
If only we lived in a world that had several options of varying degrees of effectiveness from which we could choose from. But no, we only live in a world where people either do nothing or cancel rock concerts. Thank you for making this clear.
This makes no point nor has anything negative against what Bruce chose to do
go do yoga.
Sat April 09, 2016 3:20 am
Sat April 09, 2016 11:43 am
I respect and support Bruce Springsteen's efforts to lend his weight to efforts to overturn HB2. But that bill passed two weeks ago and he waits until two days before his Greensboro show to boycott NC? At this moment people are flying and driving to now-nonrefundable hotel rooms. Arena workers and parking attendants had shifts scheduled. Wait staff were counting on extra business. Springsteen should have taken this stand a week ago when he could have made just as strong a statement but not caused as much financial harm to people who have nothing to do with our looney legislature.
Sat April 09, 2016 12:58 pm
BurtReynolds wrote:why cancel when you could browbeat a captive audience for 2 hours?
Sat April 09, 2016 1:03 pm
Sat April 09, 2016 1:07 pm
Sat April 09, 2016 4:18 pm
Kevin Davis wrote:*Though even this seems silly to me -- surely every state has some law on the books that any given performer would find objectionable, so in theory the consistent version of this method of protest would have no artist performing anywhere, ever. I don't mean to suggest that an artist shouldn't use his power to advocate for those he feels need a voice, but it also seems like at some point a cooperative version of this world is going to have to involve occasionally transacting with individuals who differ from you, even in profound capacities, on sensitive issues. Refusing to play concerts on the same block as their government building or buy their chicken sandwiches or whatever else, in my opinion, sends a message that is ultimately very similar to the one being protested: "I can only interact with you in a professional capacity if you agree with me on all sensitive social and political issues."
Sat April 09, 2016 4:23 pm
Birds in Hell wrote:Cancelling shows for reasons like this is so monumentally stupid. It has no practical effect, other than to flatter the artist's sense of smug self-satisfaction, and only serves to disappoint and frustrate their fans - most of whom probably already agree with the artist's point of view anyway.
Sat April 09, 2016 6:23 pm
digster wrote:Kevin Davis wrote:*Though even this seems silly to me -- surely every state has some law on the books that any given performer would find objectionable, so in theory the consistent version of this method of protest would have no artist performing anywhere, ever. I don't mean to suggest that an artist shouldn't use his power to advocate for those he feels need a voice, but it also seems like at some point a cooperative version of this world is going to have to involve occasionally transacting with individuals who differ from you, even in profound capacities, on sensitive issues. Refusing to play concerts on the same block as their government building or buy their chicken sandwiches or whatever else, in my opinion, sends a message that is ultimately very similar to the one being protested: "I can only interact with you in a professional capacity if you agree with me on all sensitive social and political issues."
I'm not really sure how an action such as this one sends that message, precisely for the reason you indicated earlier in the paragraph. Springsteen hasn't applied such a response across the board to every single state that's created legislation or voted into office someone or something he disagreed with. He's played for states that voted for Bush, that at the time had fairly onerous same-sex marriage statutes, etc. Agree with the position or not, he felt that this issue was important enough to cancel the concert over; I don't see how that is therefore asserting that a state has to check every box in correlation with Bruce's ideology before he comes to town.
I see both sides of this; I totally understand the band that, even if it disagrees with the law on the books, decides that it's still better to come play the show, and perhaps use the show as some kind of mobilizing platform against the things they dislike. However, looking at the reaction to Bruce's cancellation, if the intent is to simultaneously be a small part of broader economic boycott to put pressure on the state government, and to draw attention to the issue through your actions, than canceling the show has an impact that putting it on could never have.