- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Update: Wilco Indiana show back on
Posted on 4/1/15 at 9:02 am to Pettifogger
Posted on 4/1/15 at 9:02 am to Pettifogger
quote:Liberals understand something like this? kek
Does Wilco understand that? Does anyone? 20 states have these laws, and there is simply no measurable impact on the gay community to date.
1
Posted on 4/1/15 at 11:06 am to AlxTgr
Anyone/band canceling a show in Indiana because of this new law is retarded....just like all those holier than thou "artists" that cancelled FL shows because of the Stand Your Ground law; neither group knew that MULTIPLE states have the same laws.
Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.
Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.
Posted on 4/1/15 at 11:15 am to Pettifogger
quote:
don't even get why they're doing it. A state passes a law already passed by 19 states, some of which are in worse form. There is nothing novel about the Indiana law, and RFRA laws have not led to any measurable change in businesses dealing with gay people.
Does Wilco understand that? Does anyone? 20 states have these laws, and there is simply no measurable impact on the gay community to date.
A) This isn't the Poli board.
B) Your interpretation is wrong (this is not an opinion, this is a legal fact). They clearly added language to the RFRA in Indiana in the aftermath of Elane Photography v Willock. It is the 1st RFRA state statute that allows for a cause of action without the government as a party to the case. That's what activists are complaining about it, and it is unique to the IN law (right or wrong, if you want to get into the merits, there is another board for that). But to say it is the same as other RFRA statutes is just wrong.
C) Boycotts have been effective in the past (SEE the refusal of many bands to play Sun City). That sucks for the people who live there, but a boycott is perfectly legal and legitimate, and has a long history in entertainment.
D) It does seem to be working, as Indiana is pushing through a new law to be reviewed by the governor by the end of the week, making clear that the RFRA is not to be used to discriminate against gays. So, you can bitch about whether it is a band being too political, but the very public boycotts are certainly working.
E) It sucks for the Wilco fans in Indiana. To them, I say that Wilco sucks anyway, as does Indiana. Find a new state and a new band.
Posted on 4/1/15 at 11:37 am to Baloo
quote:
E) It sucks for the Wilco fans in Indiana. To them, I say that Wilco sucks anyway, as does Indiana. Find a new state and a new band.
and +1 for the rest of the post.
Posted on 4/1/15 at 11:52 am to Baloo
A) I don't really care about your preferences. This is a music and politics discussion in a single thread that bridges two topics.
B) My interpretation isn't wrong. I stated that Indiana passed a law passed by other states. It's an RFRA. This is objectively accurate.
Furthermore, the idea that it isn't novel is also correct, unless you're relying on the concept that the statute's private suit defense is distinct (it is, but it's already been read in to other RFRA's through Court decisions and is therefore far from novel).
C) Irrelevant to anything I said. Whether a boycott is ineffective or not doesn't render Wilco's decision any less childish or ill informed.
D) See C)
E) Endorsed without exception
B) My interpretation isn't wrong. I stated that Indiana passed a law passed by other states. It's an RFRA. This is objectively accurate.
Furthermore, the idea that it isn't novel is also correct, unless you're relying on the concept that the statute's private suit defense is distinct (it is, but it's already been read in to other RFRA's through Court decisions and is therefore far from novel).
C) Irrelevant to anything I said. Whether a boycott is ineffective or not doesn't render Wilco's decision any less childish or ill informed.
D) See C)
E) Endorsed without exception
Posted on 4/1/15 at 12:13 pm to LucasP
quote:
No, they cancelled in advance enough that traveling fans can catch another show nearby
And you know this how?
IMO it's dumb to cancel a show at the expense of your fans. It'd be wiser to announce that "we won't be touring in X state because we disagree with X."
Posted on 4/1/15 at 12:21 pm to SUB
I'd be interested in knowing the economic impact a concert has.
For example, it makes sense (theoretically) for the NCAA not to put the final four somewhere in order not to give them the economic benefits that come with the event. A lot of that is premised on the idea that outside visitors and money will flow into an area with the event.
While I'm sure there is some of that with a concert, I'm guessing the majority of the money is Indiana money staying in Indiana (or going to Wilco, as the case may be). Perhaps it motivates Wilco supporters to take action (albeit perhaps for the wrong reasons), but I don't think it makes a lot of sense for anything but symbolism.
For example, it makes sense (theoretically) for the NCAA not to put the final four somewhere in order not to give them the economic benefits that come with the event. A lot of that is premised on the idea that outside visitors and money will flow into an area with the event.
While I'm sure there is some of that with a concert, I'm guessing the majority of the money is Indiana money staying in Indiana (or going to Wilco, as the case may be). Perhaps it motivates Wilco supporters to take action (albeit perhaps for the wrong reasons), but I don't think it makes a lot of sense for anything but symbolism.
Posted on 4/1/15 at 12:26 pm to Pettifogger
quote:
I'd be interested in knowing the economic impact a concert has.
The impact isn't just from lost revenue from tourism for people that would be travelling to a concert. You have to take into account how others perceive this message and if others follow suit. It's hard to measure.
The same could be said for the NCAA if they made a similar statement.
Posted on 4/1/15 at 12:32 pm to SUB
quote:
The impact isn't just from lost revenue from tourism for people that would be travelling to a concert. You have to take into account how others perceive this message and if others follow suit. It's hard to measure.
The same could be said for the NCAA if they made a similar statement.
I mentioned in my post that it appears merely symbolic, by which I meant what you're referring to (non-economic, societal impact).
The NCAA would be similar, but the advantage there is that the economic impact drives the societal/non-economic impact. The pressure posed from losing something like the Final Four would rally business interests in a way that Wilco or some other entertainer skipping a tour date couldn't.
Anyway, my point is that I still fail to see how this is a very effective tool on Wilco's part. The non-economic impact could be made in another way that doesn't deprive your in-state fans of the show, perhaps in a more noteworthy fashion.
Posted on 4/1/15 at 12:35 pm to Pettifogger
quote:
I'd be interested in knowing the economic impact a concert has.
In a couple of days, the only people who will remember this, or be affected by this are the Wilco fans who were going to the concert.
Posted on 4/1/15 at 12:53 pm to Pettifogger
quote:
I stated that Indiana passed a law passed by other states. It's an RFRA. This is objectively accurate.
well, it's actually not because while indiana passed the RFRA law, it does have it's differences.
also my opinion is that if wilco really wanted to make a statement, do the show and donate the proceeds to LGBT organizations or something beneficial. make a real statement.
the boycott to me just seems so "the terrorists have won!"-ish
This post was edited on 4/1/15 at 12:57 pm
Posted on 4/1/15 at 1:07 pm to monsterballads
quote:
well, it's actually not because while indiana passed the RFRA law, it does have it's differences.
My point isn't that the RFRA in Indiana and the RFRA at the federal level or from other states are purely identical. My post originally stated that other states have RFRAs, and that nothing in the Indiana RFRA is novel. I still believe that to be pretty objectively true, with the caveat I mentioned above (Indiana is the first to incorporate decisions from the Courts of Appeal regarding private suits into the text of the statute).
Posted on 4/1/15 at 1:10 pm to Pettifogger
quote:
A) I don't really care about your preferences. This is a music and politics discussion in a single thread that bridges two topics.
B) My interpretation isn't wrong. I stated that Indiana passed a law passed by other states. It's an RFRA. This is objectively accurate.
Furthermore, the idea that it isn't novel is also correct, unless you're relying on the concept that the statute's private suit defense is distinct (it is, but it's already been read in to other RFRA's through Court decisions and is therefore far from novel).
C) Irrelevant to anything I said. Whether a boycott is ineffective or not doesn't render Wilco's decision any less childish or ill informed.
D) See C)
E) Endorsed without exception
Posted on 4/1/15 at 1:29 pm to PurpleNGoldFan
quote:
Good for them
i sure hope they don't play in the other states that have similar laws and better not play anywhere outside where real discrimination occurs and not OMG, so baker won't do our wedding cake faux discrimination.
Posted on 4/1/15 at 2:11 pm to Pettifogger
quote:
My point isn't that the RFRA in Indiana and the RFRA at the federal level or from other states are purely identical. My post originally stated that other states have RFRAs, and that nothing in the Indiana RFRA is novel. I still believe that to be pretty objectively true,
its not, and that is the problem with the law.
LINK
Explains the differences
Outlines the differences, and has supporters/opponents section
I found the defense of it relatively weak. I am not a lawyer, but its pretty clear there are differences.
And I found the defense of this difference to be particularly weak.
quote:
The bill appears to allow using exercise of religion as a defense in judicial or administrative proceedings between private parties.
When you result to "religious side always loses" as your defense, you have no defense. Only siths deal in absolutes, and based on the hobby lobby decision this is clearly incorrect.
Posted on 4/1/15 at 2:13 pm to SUB
quote:
I'd be interested in knowing the economic impact a concert has.
The impact isn't just from lost revenue from tourism for people that would be travelling to a concert. You have to take into account how others perceive this message and if others follow suit. It's hard to measure.
The same could be said for the NCAA if they made a similar statement.
There will be minimal economic impact IMHO. And the symbolism will be quickly forgotten. But it probably mobilized some apatheic wilco fans to get involved, and that is a good things.
I generally don't like artists sticking their toe into politics, but I liked this - b.c it has a clear action from wilco - we aren't playing there b.c of your laws, why don't you get those laws changed? It has a clear consequence, and action for participants. As opposed to some long winded speech at a concert with a reason to get involved, but no real action afterwards.
Posted on 4/1/15 at 3:06 pm to Hawkeye95
I fail to see how it isn't, but I don't want to have this whacked for political talk. Anyway, as I mentioned earlier, the primary distinctive feature of the law (private suit application) has already been "read in" to state laws and the original RFRA at the Court of Appeals level.
I am a lawyer, so perhaps that's why the difference doesn't seem noteworthy to me.
I don't understand your Hobby Lobby point, but maybe I'm just misreading it. Anyway, on PB, I mentioned one of the weaknesses I felt the Indiana law had was a lack of clarity regarding applications to corporate entities in the aftermath of Hobby Lobby.
I am a lawyer, so perhaps that's why the difference doesn't seem noteworthy to me.
I don't understand your Hobby Lobby point, but maybe I'm just misreading it. Anyway, on PB, I mentioned one of the weaknesses I felt the Indiana law had was a lack of clarity regarding applications to corporate entities in the aftermath of Hobby Lobby.
Posted on 4/3/15 at 3:02 pm to monsterballads
bump
Posted on 4/3/15 at 4:04 pm to Elvis Parsley
I am very open when it comes to music styles and genres.
For the life of me, I just can't get into Wilco.
I have 3 of their first 4 LPs (no Foxtrot--and I understand that is their masterpiece) and have given them multiple listens (didn't give up on the first effort). I find them to be "meh"--just doesn't get me going. I didn't get Foxtrot because I figured if I didn't like the other 3, chances were I wouldn't like that one either.
...and, oh yeah, Tweedy's a douche.
For the life of me, I just can't get into Wilco.
I have 3 of their first 4 LPs (no Foxtrot--and I understand that is their masterpiece) and have given them multiple listens (didn't give up on the first effort). I find them to be "meh"--just doesn't get me going. I didn't get Foxtrot because I figured if I didn't like the other 3, chances were I wouldn't like that one either.
...and, oh yeah, Tweedy's a douche.
Posted on 4/3/15 at 4:07 pm to Marco Esquandolas
yankee hotel foxtrot is great
Page 3 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News