Conquer Club

Just wondering if this has popped up on everyone's radar. It's not a big issue for me although I am obviously against any kind of discrimination unless it is against forum members I don't like.

Bruce Springsteen just cancelled a show in Greensboro over this and Paypal announced they were not going to plant a building in Charlotte and create 400 skilled jobs. There are others, but I want to focus on the artist thing... Some of you may know I was in a pretty serious (not famous) band for a lot of years, years ago, and I'm removed from that now, but I am hearing through friends that there are MANY other bands cancelling shows in North Carolina, which means that local venues lose money, and the local bands who were excited about opening for the cool indie band coming through their town gets a big old let down.

Which led me to this kinna depressing thought... that no one does anything if there isn't a personal gain to themselves. Republicans calls a special session to push this awful bill through to shore up support among their ignorant base, paypal gets 3 days of positive press by announcing a relocation, bruce has been getting the same (tho I doubt for him it's that calculated), and the semi famous indie bands who cancelled in north carolina get a SHIT ton of likes and comments on their page, when for them it really only amounts to a day off of the road and barely any lost money because trust me, you don't make money touring unless you are selling 2000+ in every city you go to.

I'm pretty sure I'm wrong on this and just getting old and jaded and I rarely trust anyone's good intentions unless it's just a random person going out of their way to be nice to someone they don't know. Thoughts?

What's North Carolina?

Ltrain wrote:Just wondering if this has popped up on everyone's radar. It's not a big issue for me although I am obviously against any kind of discrimination unless it is against forum members I don't like.

Bruce Springsteen just cancelled a show in Greensboro over this and Paypal announced they were not going to plant a building in Charlotte and create 400 skilled jobs. There are others, but I want to focus on the artist thing... Some of you may know I was in a pretty serious (not famous) band for a lot of years, years ago, and I'm removed from that now, but I am hearing through friends that there are MANY other bands cancelling shows in North Carolina, which means that local venues lose money, and the local bands who were excited about opening for the cool indie band coming through their town gets a big old let down.

Which led me to this kinna depressing thought... that no one does anything if there isn't a personal gain to themselves. Republicans calls a special session to push this awful bill through to shore up support among their ignorant base, paypal gets 3 days of positive press by announcing a relocation, bruce has been getting the same (tho I doubt for him it's that calculated), and the semi famous indie bands who cancelled in north carolina get a SHIT ton of likes and comments on their page, when for them it really only amounts to a day off of the road and barely any lost money because trust me, you don't make money touring unless you are selling 2000+ in every city you go to.

I'm pretty sure I'm wrong on this and just getting old and jaded and I rarely trust anyone's good intentions unless it's just a random person going out of their way to be nice to someone they don't know. Thoughts?

When a boycott is happening, people join for three reasons. Partly it's because they genuinely care about the issue and they want to do something. Partly it's because they get some free publicity and it's a mercenary move. Partly it's just wanting to be on the bandwagon with everyone else. And there's probably other motives besides those three, also. Very few people make decisions based on just one factor, so for most it's probably a combination of the four.

So, let's say Artist A is motivated by 40% Principle, 20% Mercenary, 20% Conformity, 20% Other. Then Artist B is motivated by 10% Principle, 60% Mercenary, 20% Conformity, and 10% Other. How would you know the difference? Without being a mind reader, you can't. You know everybody is motivated to some degree by all those things, but you just can never be sure what the percentage is.

The law in question is stupid to begin with. It's a stupid throwback to segregation, only it's a different group this time around.

I say live and let live. 400 jobs from PayPal is really a small number for a company of that magnitude. Bruce Springsteen takes advantage of tax codes through his so called farming/ ranch subsidies.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source= ... pPz74Z4-fg

Why does everyone have to conform according to another's view? If my religion believes that gays marriage is wrong must I go against my religion and marry gay couples because the State says I must? If I believe abortion is wrong must I perform abortions? May I suggest a Congregational Policy type of structure. Micro not macro.

This isn't good news for me as I'm a fan of girl on girl porn

dukasaur you're pretty much on the same page as me. Our minds are too analytical to be of any use in real world conversations. I actually went back to school for analytics. Hitting that shit up hard while working 2 part time jobs sucks a monkeys nut but it's better than sitting on ass which I did a whole lot of.

Some politicians pass a law so you punish a bunch of random fans and workers by cancelling their gig/job. Lame move.

I think the bigger problem is that large corporations will boycott states. If the corporation is large enough it can do some serious financial damage. Practically crippling an economy into submission. If millions of people can't get their favorite products riots will break out. Unfortunately civilizations aren't civilized nowadays. It then becomes a top down bottom up pressure on the political/religious ideology.

warmonger1981 wrote:I think the bigger problem is that large corporations will boycott states. If the corporation is large enough it can do some serious financial damage. Practically crippling an economy into submission. If millions of people can't get their favorite products riots will break out. Unfortunately civilizations aren't civilized nowadays. It then becomes a top down bottom up pressure on the political/religious ideology.

That worked great in North Korea and Cuba and Iran and even some false states like Palestine.

We need to send in General Sherman and teach those Confederates a lesson again.

Why do these idiots keep getting elected? Fuck the people are stupid there.

notyou2 wrote:Why do these idiots keep getting elected? Fuck the people are stupid there.

my b

It's all stupid. The law is stupid, the reactions to it are stupid. It's all nonsense and meaningless.

Bollocks.

warmonger1981 wrote:I think the bigger problem is that large corporations will boycott states. If the corporation is large enough it can do some serious financial damage. Practically crippling an economy into submission. If millions of people can't get their favorite products riots will break out. Unfortunately civilizations aren't civilized nowadays. It then becomes a top down bottom up pressure on the political/religious ideology.

Top down bottom up? Wat? This phrase makes no sense to me. Like, is it supposed to mean "very thorough?"

-TG

I use it in the context of large corporations with big money is the Top. They have huge financial pull on economics. The Bottom would represent the lower class civilians that need products. If the bottom can't get products due to large corporations boycotting a states right to pass law. The state is in the middle with corporate America on top and the poor/bottom putting pressure on the state/middle. It then looks like corporation can essentially force states to adopt the corporation view.

The story has turned up pretty regularly on BBC news here in the UK. It's gotten kind of a mixed reaction from those that I've spoken to who've followed it.

TA1LGUNN3R wrote:Top down bottom up? Wat? This phrase makes no sense to me. Like, is it supposed to mean "very thorough?"

You forgot "inside out."

When people like Springsteen boycott a locality because they find its laws objectionable, does that mean it can be assumed they support all the laws of the places in which they agree to play?

no, don't be stupid.

But if Springsteen responds to laws he disapproves of by boycotting the lawmakers' locality, would he not do that for every locality which has laws he disapproves? Surely we are not suggesting that the only reason he is boycotting North Carolina is because he is jumping on the bandwagon for a bit of publicity ;_; I was so sure he was doing it as a principled stand against injustice.

Seriously thought, what's up with all these celebs peacocking around sticking it to politicians who enact silly stupid laws that they don't like? Has Joe Boehner ever rung Sting telling him what tempo his new single out to be?

mrswdk wrote:But if Springsteen responds to laws he disapproves of by boycotting the lawmakers' locality, would he not do that for every locality which has laws he disapproves? Surely we are not suggesting that the only reason he is boycotting North Carolina is because he is jumping on the bandwagon for a bit of publicity ;_; I was so sure he was doing it as a principled stand against injustice.

Seriously thought, what's up with all these celebs peacocking around sticking it to politicians who enact silly stupid laws that they don't like? Has Joe Boehner ever rung Sting telling him what tempo his new single out to be?

Or in short;

mrswdk wrote:I hate it when other people have opinions. They should just do whatever they are told!

mrswdk wrote:But if Springsteen responds to laws he disapproves of by boycotting the lawmakers' locality, would he not do that for every locality which has laws he disapproves? Surely we are not suggesting that the only reason he is boycotting North Carolina is because he is jumping on the bandwagon for a bit of publicity ;_; I was so sure he was doing it as a principled stand against injustice.

Seriously thought, what's up with all these celebs peacocking around sticking it to politicians who enact silly stupid laws that they don't like? Has Joe Boehner ever rung Sting telling him what tempo his new single out to be?

When you get to the level of celebrity like Springsteen, suddenly you're more important than regular people and your opinion more valid. Also, enhancing or maintaining that celebrity becomes a full time job. If you can get some free press, it's worth it.

-TG

TA1LGUNN3R wrote:

mrswdk wrote:But if Springsteen responds to laws he disapproves of by boycotting the lawmakers' locality, would he not do that for every locality which has laws he disapproves? Surely we are not suggesting that the only reason he is boycotting North Carolina is because he is jumping on the bandwagon for a bit of publicity ;_; I was so sure he was doing it as a principled stand against injustice.

Seriously thought, what's up with all these celebs peacocking around sticking it to politicians who enact silly stupid laws that they don't like? Has Joe Boehner ever rung Sting telling him what tempo his new single out to be?

When you get to the level of celebrity like Springsteen, suddenly you're more important than regular people and your opinion more valid. Also, enhancing or maintaining that celebrity becomes a full time job. If you can get some free press, it's worth it.

-TG

Sorry TG, your right of course, so what the state needs to do is ban him from ever playing there again, maybe citing civil disturbance as a reason for the ban same goes for PayPal, use wire fraud as a reason to lock them out,make it illegal to use in that state