Lady Gaga Flouts Arizona Boycott, Makes Complete Sense

Emily K August 1, 2010 at 7:54 pm -

yeah, and all those pop-stars who boycotted South Africa were f**k-ups too.

Xaocoh August 2, 2010 at 2:37 am -

You just compared SB 1070 to Apartheid, Emily K. Did you really intend such a glib comparison?

Reg825 August 2, 2010 at 4:44 am -

This is of particular significance because Lady Gaga is more known for her support of gay rights. While the LGBTQ community as a whole tends to be supportive of other groups’ civil rights struggles, sometimes it is not always the case on the individual level. Mutual education on tolerance needs to be accentuated with both sets of immigrant rights supporters and LGBTQ rights supporters. Read more: http://www.economicrefugee.net/lady-gaga-comes-out-against-arizonas-sb-1070-immigration-law/

SkepticalCicada August 2, 2010 at 5:32 am -

I’m more cynical about this. She made a speech instead of boycotting. That allowed her to still rake in receipts from her concert in Arizona. It sounds like a major cop out to me. I’ll think differently when she donates her Phoenix concert receipts to the forces opposing SB1070.

Evan Hurst August 2, 2010 at 5:53 am -

Emily, are you f*****g kidding?

Melo

Dra

Matic!

You could probably chain yourself to the border fence a hundred times, though. That would teach Jan Brewer.

And SkepticalCicada, I see what you’re saying, EXCEPT that Lady Gaga’s audience isn’t likely to have much overlap with the bigots who support Arizona’s SB1070. So it seems to me that a boycott, for her, would be the actual cop-out move, when her fans are more likely to OPPOSE the law in the first place, and she might be able to help nudge them into a more active role opposing it.

Just wait. My Wonkette piece tomorrow is about how hilariously stupid most boycotts are.

Emily K August 2, 2010 at 11:24 am -

Sometimes a boycott is more about the principal than the effect. And yes, I did mean such a glib comparison. Of course, glib deserves glib. “Melo Dra Matic?” seriously? Wow. Good to know such eloquent writers are representing the gay blogosphere. I thought TWO was about fighting the ex-gay industry, not meaningless pop culture blurbs relating to topics that aren’t in any way ex-gay. And if you think gay people can’t support SB1070 just because gays have typically supported “socially liberal” causes in the past, think again. We’re more diverse than that. I wouldn’t brush off the audience so quickly.

Priya Lynn August 2, 2010 at 11:33 am -

And if you think gay people can’t support SB1070 just because gays have typically supported “socially liberal” causes in the past, think again. We’re more diverse than that. I wouldn’t brush off the audience so quickly.

Emily’s right about that I know one prominent LGBT ally who supports this law and I’ve seen quite a number of LGBTs support it as well.

Xaocoh August 2, 2010 at 11:40 am -

Emily K- if you actually studied apartheid I don’t think you would make such casual comparisons. You come across as an uppity, shrill child of privilege and should do more research on issues before offering such thoughtless commentary.

Wayne Besen August 2, 2010 at 12:44 pm -

Emily:

About 1/3 of our work is ex-gay. For the past two years we have fought the broader realm of religious extremism as the core of our work.

As for the pop blurbs – we like to pepper the site with interesting stories that are not directly ties to the serious biz of ex-gay or anti-gay stories. That is why readership is u 150% in the past year. We want to keep the site as interesting as possible.

However, I think Emily does make a point that pop singers boycotting a country can have an impact. It does create headlines and draws attention to a situation.

In terms of gays supporting the bill, well of course. We represent every part of the political spectrum. The only reason we are more liberal is because of the empathy many of us have from having suffered discrimination. Absent this experience, I suspect our voting patterns would mirror the general populations.

Emily K August 2, 2010 at 2:13 pm -

Wayne, I appreciate the work you guys do, I really do. In fact your book “Anything But Straight” is the reason I’m involved with XGW. Your work deconstructing JONAH has been great lately and is especially meaningful to me as a gay Jew. But your reader statistics are beside the point. You could probably make your stats jump 300% if you started posting shirtless, pants-less musclebound “Hunk of the Week” pix or provided posts about gay erotica, as other “activist” blogs sometimes do. But it would detract from the seriousness and sincerity of your work. I’m certain you already know all this. It just feels like it’s been heavily tilted toward the “fluff” end of the spectrum lately.

Naturally, everyone is absolutely free to think I’m way off base. I’m fine with that. These are just my impressions.

Since “Xaocoh” doesn’t know me and feels completely comfortable making blanket statements about me based on faceless blog comments, I don’t feel the need to respond to their accusations, except to say that they can assume and imagine whatever they want if it makes them feel better about themselves.

Wayne Besen August 2, 2010 at 4:41 pm -

Emily:

I’m not sure “heavily tilted” towards fluff is fair. If you look at the last ten blog posts 9 are serious. And the News and opinion sections all have hard news/opinion.

So, it is clearly NOT heavily tilted towards fluff, as you say.

It seems you would prefer no fun items, but most of our readers are telling us that they enjoy the mix.

Xaocoh August 2, 2010 at 4:56 pm -

“Emily K”- I assume nothing and focus only on your commentary. There are many protests against 1070 here in Arizona that allude directly and indirectly to the Holocaust. This is no less appropriate than your vacuous comparisons to Apartheid. Exploding the rhetoric to compare this measure to some of the most horrendous atrocities in human history does nothing to win people to your side and makes your arguments seem whiny and hollow.

Mike A. August 2, 2010 at 5:46 pm -

IMHO, SB1070 is less heinous than HB 2281 which bans ethnic studies courses, and new Arizona Education Department policy which prohibit teachers with heavy accents from teaching language courses.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703572504575213883276427528.html?mod=WSJ_WSJ_US_News_5

http://azstarnet.com/news/local/education/precollegiate/article_c1f53405-acab-5f21-a580-a199a68ff76c.html