IcedCanuck Posted April 12, 2016 Posted April 12, 2016 Some corporations have gone on record to say they are reconsidering plans for projects in the state and others have flat out said they are cancelling them.
Akela3rd Posted April 12, 2016 Posted April 12, 2016 a) Springsteen has highlighted the debate. Job done. If he, or anyone else did this again it would have diminished impact. He'd be cancelling every show for one reason or another and people would ignore it. No media impact:no point. c) Who'd have thought that NC had such a thriving transgender community that they need laws passed to piss? d) who's going to check on each visit? Excuse me sir, can I see your penis? And how long have you had this alleged penis? Seems to me that no-one has thought their part in this through - NC nor BS. But hell, it's out there now and for that - well done to all involved. 1
Mattygukas Posted April 12, 2016 Posted April 12, 2016 Sorry about your niece but I don't think this argument holds much water. For one I don't believe a trans gendered person is any more likely to be a predator than a non trans gender. (I'm guessing the creep that you're referring to wasn't trans gendered?) Secondly there are plenty of sickos who prefer young boys so how do we protect against them as it pertains to public rest rooms? A sign saying Men or Women on a bathroom door unfortunately isn't enough to stop a predator. As far as Mother Nature goes I'm afraid to say that we've corrupted her enough to this point as to diagnose her as schizophrenic at best. My point is it gives us, the general public, less reason to question when a predator enters said bathroom. At one point the US Phyc ass stated that gender identity issues was a mental disorder...maybe it isn't anymore? Either way, why create an acceptance of something that is as black and white as it gets. I'm a white dude but if I "identify" as a black dude, I can't mark that down on my eeoc application... I am what I am. Not a *** thing nor is it a transgender person being a predator.
Popular Post Ryan Posted April 12, 2016 Popular Post Posted April 12, 2016 20 or 30 years ago many business owners complained about having to install facilities for the disabled, wheelchair-bound for example. Business owners I'm sure still bemoan the cost of installation, but since it's taken for granted now that wheelchair bound people should have the same rights as the rest of us to go out and enjoy public facilities, or go to a workplace, only the truly stupid complain publicly about it. For transgender people, like the wheelchair-bound, It's who they happen to be. Since it's not illegal anymore, in most countries, to be transgender, they deserve equal rights of access to facilities as the rest of us. Which means accommodating differences. I don't think it's that complicated. Nobody in their right mind would think of introducing a law insisting that disabled people use the same restrooms as the rest of us.. 6
Fugu Posted April 12, 2016 Posted April 12, 2016 At one point the US Phyc ass stated that gender identity issues was a mental disorder...maybe it isn't anymore? Nope. And never has been. Sociologically and politically perhaps and quite tragically, but not in a biological sense (with some crucial consequences to newborns and kids up until the 70s and beyond, when parents had to "decide" upon or medical personell simply decided for them...). Its not just the x- and y-chromosomes that determine phenotypic gender-expression.
Mattygukas Posted April 12, 2016 Posted April 12, 2016 20 or 30 years ago many business owners complained about having to install facilities for the disabled, wheelchair-bound for example. Business owners I'm sure still bemoan the cost of installation, but since it's taken for granted now that wheelchair bound people should have the same rights as the rest of us to go out and enjoy public facilities, or go to a workplace, only the truly stupid complain publicly about it. For transgender people, like the wheelchair-bound, It's who they happen to be. Since it's not illegal anymore, in most countries, to be transgender, they deserve equal rights of access to facilities as the rest of us. Which means accommodating differences. I don't think it's that complicated. Nobody in their right mind would think of introducing a law insisting that disabled people use the same restrooms as the rest of us.. The law as I read it allowed anyone to go into any bathroom, not that there were separate bathrooms. Two very different things.
Mattygukas Posted April 12, 2016 Posted April 12, 2016 Nope. And never has been. Sociologically and politically perhaps and quite tragically, but not in a biological sense (with some crucial consequences to newborns and kids up until the 70s and beyond, when parents had to "decide" upon or medical personell simply decided for them...). Its not just the x- and y-chromosomes that determine phenotypic gender-expression. Gender dysphoria or gender identity disorder (GID) is what it is/was called...you can decide what category you want to put it in. I just know I have read about it.
Popular Post ShortFatHokie Posted April 12, 2016 Popular Post Posted April 12, 2016 Next time I get arrested for public urination, I'll just tell the Judge that I "identify" as a dog and that's why I was pissing on the bushes... My wife can be a witness as I spend tons of time in her doghouse... 10
Ryan Posted April 12, 2016 Posted April 12, 2016 The law as I read it allowed anyone to go into any bathroom, not that there were separate bathrooms. Two very different things. I know this wasn't about separate bathrooms for transgender people. I suppose my point was about accommodating for differences.
Mattygukas Posted April 12, 2016 Posted April 12, 2016 I know this wasn't about separate bathrooms for transgender people. I suppose my point was about accommodating for differences. I got ya, I would agree closer to that idea vs sharing all bathrooms... I still want in the Dallas cheerleader locker room
Warren Posted April 12, 2016 Posted April 12, 2016 A lady, bearded or not, wouldn't need to use a urinal... unless she carries a Shewee. You seem to know an awful lot about this Fuzz
PapaDisco Posted April 12, 2016 Posted April 12, 2016 You seem to know an awful lot about this Fuzz Nah . . . he's just fantasizing . . .
Ken Gargett Posted April 12, 2016 Posted April 12, 2016 Refund tickets maybe, but what about non refundable costs such as travel, hotels maybe, hell how many people turned up not knowing it had been cancelled? And as per wabashcr's post, it's a pretty indiscriminate action, his audience could have been from all over. And even those from Nc surely don't all agree with it?! Couldn't he just have got on a soapbox for a few minutes at the start,said his piece, then got on with the show? Either way I can say from experience that pissing people off is not an effective way of changing their opinions! my original thought was that it would be to the detriment of many people who probably support his views but i may have put it poorly and the response suggested otherwise. his view was as stated - this is something bigger than a concert. there would have been some costs for sure - if i had one criticism of his action, it would be that he should have given more notice. that would have made it more convenient for his fans. it would have got the message across just was well. but i think that there would have been very very few planning to go who had not heard. it got considerable coverage over here. hard to think it would not have received saturation coverage over there. my comments have purely been in relation to him taking this action, rather than any support, or lack thereof, for the issue. i have very little idea as to it and not really interested in getting involved. i would suggest that he has pissed off some of his fans but i suspect that the vast majority will understand, if they are genuine, whether they support the issue or not. but it was not done for the small number at the concert, rather to get the message out there. i'd agree with the thought expressed here that he has done it once. that should be enough. for me, i saw this thread as a serious discussion about his actions - rather than the ambush it turned out to be in the early stage. it has gone on to the issue itself, which is fine. the reason i got irate was not in relation to the issue itself but because it was an ambush and for what i saw as really shortsighted, offensive and ignorant claims about him out there "stiffing" people and a few more comments. whether you like his music or not is a purely subjective matter (as is the nonsense about pompous fools, etc) - for those that do not, fair enough, even if i think you are missing out on great music. to say he is overpaid (i assume that was what was meant), i would strongly dispute that. never met anyone who has been to one of his concerts who has come away feeling they did not get value. the bloke has done thousands of concerts and they all run 3 1/2 to 4 hours. he really gives everything he can. his last concert in brizzy ran four hours and he did not leave the stage for a minute. not sure many other performers giving that effort. if you want overpaid, compare that to a ray charles concert i went to years ago. the tickets cost way more than any bruce concert i had been to at that stage. he kept us waiting over 2 1/2 hours and then played for 35 minutes. he was roundly and loudly boo'd from the stage. it was a complete ripoff and i have had nothing but contempt for the bloke ever since. as for bruce, this is a bloke who supports a local charity with every concert, everywhere he goes. usually the homeless. these are hardly the actions of someone trying to stiff his audience. as for the actual issue, happy to leave that to others. Like This Quote MultiQuote
Fuzz AI Posted April 12, 2016 Posted April 12, 2016 You seem to know an awful lot about this Fuzz Nah . . . he's just fantasizing . . . Research. 1
forgop Posted April 13, 2016 Posted April 13, 2016 Looks like we won't have to worry about his whiney a$$ coming to Indiana either. Good riddance. Sent from my SM-G935T using Tapatalk 2
soutso Posted April 13, 2016 Posted April 13, 2016 Next time I get arrested for public urination, I'll just tell the Judge that I "identify" as a dog and that's why I was pissing on the bushes... My wife can be a witness as I spend tons of time in her doghouse... "Next time" - LOL 1
stigmata Posted April 13, 2016 Posted April 13, 2016 Collective punishment from Springsteen on all his fans because they are stuck between city Hall's by laws and jihadist artists that wasn't to prove a point. I did what every freedom loving person should do in the situation and give Bruces music a taste of his own collective punishment. I deleted every file and threw out every album and CD..I kid you not! Had it with artists proving points on the very people who supported his act just for holier than thou attitude. He could have made his point in a myriad of other ways than collective punishment on his fans. Poor form and says it all about these people.
stigmata Posted April 13, 2016 Posted April 13, 2016 Oh and I deleted his stuff because I'm the boss not him;
Ken Gargett Posted April 13, 2016 Posted April 13, 2016 so you threw away stuff you'd already paid for? not certain that is going to punish bruce too much. but i actually do understand that and i'm sure i have done similar things in different circumstances. i do think that there should have been a bit more notice but all the stuff in the comments sections of various reports and stuff here and so on, about how he is punishing his fans and has hurt them and so on is a bit baffling. he has agreed to refund all the tickets - he would be losing a considerable amount of money himself - loss of revenue (and perhaps not just from the concert but from people who strongly disagree with him), all the costs of the setting up, which would be massive, and all the admin costs - just to refund the money would be expensive. what the fans have lost is the chance to go to a concert. that is a shame but that is all. he does hundreds of concerts, mostly in the states (many years, he does more than a 100 concerts and has even done over 200 in a year), so if they are keen, they will probably get another chance (perhaps not). as far as i can see from those comments sections etc, the vast majority (not all, of course) of those complaining were not going anyway, do not like him or his music in the first place and would never go to one of his concerts or support the laws put in place. and worth noting that from what i have seen in those comments sections, the majority support his actions.
Corylax18 Posted April 13, 2016 Posted April 13, 2016 Collective punishment from Springsteen on all his fans because they are stuck between city Hall's by laws and jihadist artists that wasn't to prove a point. I did what every freedom loving person should do in the situation and give Bruces music a taste of his own collective punishment. I deleted every file and threw out every album and CD..I kid you not! Had it with artists proving points on the very people who supported his act just for holier than thou attitude. He could have made his point in a myriad of other ways than collective punishment on his fans. Poor form and says it all about these people. Jihadi seems a bit extreme. Maybe turn Fox news off for like 2 hours a day, being alone with your own thoughts isn't as scary as it seems. Jihadi definition, an Islamic fundamentalist who participates in or supports jihad, especially armed and violent confrontation. The article below is from yesterday, the governor has already signed an executive order outlining "changes" meant to make businesses more comfortable. Businesses, not people. Spineless. "We don't support the LGBT community until it hurts our wallet, then we're all for reasonable accommodations", what a great message, even better then the original if you ask me. http://qz.com/660620/faced-with-boycotts-north-carolinas-governor-backtracks-on-an-anti-lgbt-law/ Weather you or I agree/disagree with the law is inconsequential. People and corporations have a right to make decisions based on a myriad of issues. You and I have the right to react how we see fit, welcome to Freedom. Calling someone a violent Islamic terrorist because they are acting on their freedom is tasteless at best. Let me guess, Trump supporter?
TomF Posted April 13, 2016 Posted April 13, 2016 Weather you or I agree/disagree with the law is inconsequential. People and corporations have a right to make decisions based on a myriad of issues. You and I have the right to react how we see fit, welcome to Freedom. Calling someone a violent Islamic terrorist because they are acting on their freedom is tasteless at best. Let me guess, Trump supporter? Amen. This thread has been useful. It's good to know who the bigots are around here. 3
Maxismoke Posted April 13, 2016 Posted April 13, 2016 I got on an airplane and travelled 12 hours from Sweden to LA to see Bruce in the dump that jumps. Even if i at the entrance got wind that he cancelled for the reason in this thread i'd still be ok with it. You gotta see the bigger picture. (and i would have been an asshat for not checking it before i stepped on the plane) :-) 1
JohnInCleveland Posted April 13, 2016 Posted April 13, 2016 He played 3.5 hrs last night and my dad and I were lucky enough to get into the pit, the tickets were my birthday present for him. The Boss gave him a high five. It was an incredible show. Everyone is entitled to not like the Boss's politics and/or his music, it's just if you don't like his music I don't respect your opinion on music anymore. This includes my wife (and yet she loves Journey, smh)
TCContender Posted April 13, 2016 Posted April 13, 2016 Amen. This thread has been useful. It's good to know who the bigots are around here. For those that are unfamiliar with the definition: big·ot ˈbiɡət/ noun a person who is intolerant toward those holding different opinions. 1
Recommended Posts