Mediaboss Marketing

Prior to 2016, people had a pretty good sense that things that purported to be true should be supported by facts and evidence.

Trump and Brexit changed the landscape to one of alternative facts and post-truth, in which truth is contingent on what you feel it to be, not on what the facts and evidence say about it.

Of course, 2016 was no such watershed. Debates and controversies about the nature of facts and truth have raged for years, and the culture wars they engender can get personal and vitriolic (you might know about the Sokal hoax).

Philosopher Lee McIntyre describes post-truth as ideological supremacy, whereby its practitioners try to compel someone to believe in something whether there is good evidence or not.

You might be forgiven for thinking that we in fundraising are immune to such ideological supremacy. Dont kid yourself. Fundraisings own culture wars over whether fundraising is a science or an art; whether passion or knowledge are the right qualities of a fundraiser; whether donor-centred or transactional is the right way to run donor relationships have been simmering for a long time. They might be about to boil over.

The evidence is firmly on the side of donor-centred fundraising. Yet there are a few fundraisers who wilfully disregard this evidence and argue for (and practise) what is effectively churn and burn. But science/art and passion/knowledge havent been empirically tested (they can be if you frame the right research questions). In the absence of evidence, adherents take the side they feel best represents their truth.

Beth Breeze has analysed the science vs art' culture war in her book The New Fundraisers, finding that authors of fundraising as art books are often contemptuous of fundraising as science authors.

If, when the research is done, the facts the evidence point towards the scientific approach making for better fundraising, how will adherents of fundraising-as-art (those who are contemptuous of science) receive this information? Will they change their minds because the facts arent on their side? I have my doubts.

There are emerging culture wars in fundraising where evidence is absent and may not even be considered relevant.

One is the community-centric alternative to donor-centred fundraising. Theres wish-fulfilment among some donor-centred fundraisers that the two approaches are perfectly compatible. But they are not they represent a clash of worldviews about how philanthropy and fundraising ought to be practised, and evidence that donor-centred fundraising works will be of little weight with a viewpoint that argues such an approach is inherently unjust; and they have alternative facts about the harm (as they see it) donor-centred fundraising can do.

Another emerging conflict is over the professionalisation of fundraising, encompassing the debate about whether fundraisers ought to be graduates. One argument is that professionalisation will lead to a more knowledgeable, more competent workforce with clear entry pathways open to anyone. A different take is that professionalisation is elitist and will be unjust and inequitable because it erects barriers to entry.

Pluralism of views and ideas is absolutely a good thing. We need to constantly challenge what we know, or what we think we know.

In doing this, facts are not everything. We have to weigh them, discriminate between them, and interpret them in support of the narrative or position that we favour; and doing so may lead us to change our minds.

But neither are facts nothing. Without evidence, we have ideology or faith: we believe passion is more important than knowledge to being a good fundraiser, but we dont have any evidence to suggest that it is. And you know what? We dont care, because our belief is enough.

And this is where it gets problematic.

For a profession that likes to boast (kid itself?) about how friendly and collaborative it is, some of these debates, particularly recently, have spilled over into personal abuse.

Ive written in Third Sector previously about the need to give people with whom you disagree the benefit of intellectual doubt and to treat both them and their arguments with respect.

Pluralism doesnt have to lead to a culture war. If someone on one side of a debate asks to see the other sides evidence or challenges their theory, that doesnt make them a cultural or ideological enemy, and they ought not be besmirched and attacked for being on a different side, especially not in a profession that prides itself on its amiability.

Ian MacQuillin is director of the think tank Rogare

Read this article:
Ian MacQuillin: Fundraisers must rise above the culture wars there's work to do - Third Sector

IN retrospect, I think a Malaysianised version of one of the most lasting legacies of Donald Trump could be surmised as: Saya white supremacist, saya ok.

Im not going to write a rant about how and why white supremacy is bad, though it obviously is.

Instead, Id like to try and reflect a little on what is sometimes termed the "culture wars" in America, and the evolving dynamics of what is often termed "political correctness".

Moral history is quite interesting. Americas founding fathers featured many slaveowners. A hundred years later, a civil war was fought to end slavery. Some hundred years later after that, Martin Luther King Jr. was at the forefront of a civil rights movement.

And today (or until quite recently at least), the word "racist" is one that seems to be universally reviled. Even the most right-wing Republican might admit to all sorts of bigoted views, but its almost impossible that even the most racist of them would openly say: Im a racist.

Here at home, someone comically tried to prove that the Kedah Menteri Besar was not racist by posting a photo of him being on a badminton doubles team with what was presumably a Chinese gentleman.

The internet has been the dominant platform for public discourse for some time now - a replacement, some saw, for the mainstream media.

Somewhat ironically, it turns out that there is now probably such a thing as the "mainstream Internet" - and man, it is a warzone out there.

This mainstream Internet has helped bring down many giants. Harvey Weinstein is a good example of someone who the facts showed 100% deserved to be brought down.

There were many others like him. Then there were more ambiguous cases, one example being perhaps the case of former US senator Al Franken (https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2019/07/29/the-case-of-al-franken).

In my research for this article, I came across this list of "10 biggest celebrity cancellations of 2020" (https://www.thethings.com/cancelled-celebrities-2020/). Theres nothing scientific about this list, but it was interesting to note how some cases were deeply rooted in established facts, while others may have been the exact opposite.

I imagine there will be multiple books eventually published about "cancel culture".

Im not qualified or equipped to go into it in detail, but in the context of Trump and America, I get the sense that while a culture of political correctness has had a profound effect on what is considered acceptable to say out loud in public, it has not had a similarly profound effect on what people feel in their hearts and minds.

I dont imagine this to be a novel or wholly original observation, but I feel we should pay careful attention to the manner in which Trump likely recognised that deep undercurrents of racism still existed in the hearts of those who would never in a million years dream of describing themselves as racists.

He likely recognised that there were perhaps millions of Americans who were tired of being scolded because airing their true views in public would get them all sorts of public backlash.

The internetisation of public discourse has meant that such scoldings are becoming an increasingly embedded part of our culture.

Many on the far ends of each spectrum cheer when one of their own delivers what is perceived to be some sort of scathing "smackdown" to the other side.

These "smackdowns" are usually filled with self-righteous anger, positioned as representing an oppressed group, and are generally composed (consciously or subconsciously) with ones supporters as the intended audience.

People scold other people to consolidate their own tribe, and in the hopes of shaming others in public.

I would venture to guess that those who study education may feel that an education process that is centred on shaming a child is unlikely to end well.

Adults are no different. Sometimes, public shaming works - especially against those in high positions of power and influence, when the clearly demonstrable, proven facts are against them.

Other times however, those who feel publicly shamed merely retreat into their own enclaves, where they can surround themselves with others who are "just like them", and where they can form their own silo of a mutually supportive community where they plot their revenge - in extreme cases, in very violent ways.

As one of the points of this article is that self-righteously lecturing people online is not effective, I of course am not seeking to lecture any individual over what to do or how they should talk.

I am only writing in hopes that amidst all the shouting coming from the extreme ends of the spectrum, there are others who do value civilised, genuine discourse and who believe in carefully ascertaining facts and always hearing every side are important things.

Those of us in this space can often feel like a minority silo of our own. After all, by nature we do not shout, so we are often less heard.

My own beliefs would probably be generally described as left-leaning and progressive. That said, the way I see some right-wingers being attacked suggests that sometimes, extremists on either side have more in common with each other than they do with the moderates on either side.

There are undoubtedly times in this world where we need to bang the tables, face the tear gas, and rise up in protest. Many of us have been there and done that.

But if we truly want to convince others, and spread values we believe in and/or build on common ground, then we should be aware of how screaming at others or constantly trying to shame them is counterproductive.

I often feel like the pendulum of history is liable to swing violently from one extreme to another. Some may have expected the amplitudes of those swings to reduce, while others may be observing that they are increasing.

Im not wise enough to predict how it will play out, but I do believe that if we collectively want to badly enough, we can work on shaping our culture and institutions in such a way as to manage our differences positively, and encourage discourse that is productive rather than divisive.

Its a tall order, and wed have to fight against a lot of entrenched cultures, resistance to innovation, as well as a lot of vested interests, but I refuse to believe it is beyond our capabilities.

NATHANIEL TAN works with Projek Wawasan Rakyat (POWR). He tweets @NatAsasi and can be reached at nat@engage.my.

Originally posted here:
'Culture wars': The Trump effect - The Star Online

SINGAPORE: Gender identity issues have become bitterly contested sources of divisionin some Western societies, and Singapore should not import these culture wars, said Minister for Education Lawrence Wong on Monday (Feb 1).

Mr Wong was responding to a parliamentary question from Sengkang MP He Tingru of the Workers' Party about the Ministry of Educations (MOE) policies and guidelines on students with gender dysphoria;how often the policies and approaches are reviewed;and the level of autonomy schools have over setting these policies and approaches.

This comes after an 18-year-old student said in a Reddit post on Jan 14 that the Education Ministry had intervened with her treatment, preventing her from obtaining a doctor's referral letter to begin hormone therapy.

MOE denied these claims two days later, saying that it was "not true" that it interfered with the students hormonal treatment.

On Jan 26, three individuals, aged between 19 and 32, were arrested after a protest against transphobia was held outside the MOE building.Police said the three were arrested for allegedly taking part in a public assembly without a permit.

I recognise how strongly some people feel about this issue. We welcome continued dialogue and feedback, and will strive to provide a supportive environment in schools to support our students holistically, said Mr Wong in Parliament.

Issues of gender identity have become bitterly contested sources of division in the culture wars in some Western countries and societies. We should not import these culture wars into Singapore, or allow issues of gender identity to divide our society.

Mr Wong also reiterated MOEs previous statement that all medical treatment decisions, including the use of hormone replacement therapy, ultimately rest with medical professionals, the person with gender dysphoria and their family.

Where anyone below 21 is concerned, parental consent is also required before any hormonal treatment can commence, he added.

Such medical decisions are beyond the purview of MOE or any educational institution.

The Education Ministrys focus is on the school environment and the students involved, said Mr Wong.

Schools are a common space for all students regardless of their backgrounds and circumstances. We have a duty of care to every student.

For students with gender dysphoria, MOEs main focus isproviding them with a conducive learning environment and to support their overall well-being, he added.

Recognising that the issues are complex, and that there are diverse opinions amongstudents and their parents, we strive to deal with these situations sensitively and with compassion.

School rules are a particularly difficult issue, said Mr Wong.

"They are in place to help students cultivate self-discipline and a sense of responsibility. But we recognise that students diagnosed with gender dysphoria and undergoing hormone therapy could face difficulties with certain school rules," he said.

"Where there are valid medical grounds, schools can exercise flexibility and work out practical arrangements for these students. The schools will consult and work closely with different stakeholders, including the relevant medical professionals, the students concerned and their parents, in putting in place these arrangements."

Mr Wong added thatsince each students situation is unique, these matters must be dealt with individually.

He said: Our guiding principles are to treat these students with dignity and respect, and to provide as much support as we can to help them.

In her question, Ms He also suggested that MOE consider presenting a public report on these matters to Parliament on a regular basis.

In response, Mr Wong said that family members, especially parents of such students, are very uncomfortable with their situation being aired publicly.

We ought to respect their requests for privacy, and avoid putting out information that will compromise any student or family confidentiality," he said.

"Let us give the students and their families time and space to resolve matters among themselves, in consultation with their doctors and counsellors.

Read this article:
Gender identity issues 'bitterly contested sources of division'; Singapore 'should not import these culture wars': Lawrence Wong - CNA

A school student who sparked soul searching nationwide over the treatment of queer students this morning rejected comments made by the education minister and revealed more details about her school experience since she went public.

Identified only as Ashlee, the transgender student returned to Reddit, where her original post drew wide attention, to refute Minister Lawrence Wong, saying that her desire to obtain hormone treatment would not have blown up or sparked culture wars in Singapore if her wish had simply been respected in the first place. Her new post came one day after Wong told parliament that while schools should show more flexibility, critics should not import what he described as Western LGBT issues.

I note that Mr Wong wishes to not import these culture wars into Singapore, or allow issues of gender identity to divide our society. My personal dressing, which would even conform to the female dress code, does not affect others in the classroom, Ashlee wrote. Had the MOE and the school respected proper medical advice and scientific research, this would not have happened to me.

She went on to disclose more details about what happened at her school, including her principal taking objection to cross-dressing as a result of her doctor-advised hormone treatment.

In his first public comments since the controversy erupted last month, Wong told parliament yesterday that schools can be more flexible with trans students needs where there are valid medical grounds. But he also called on the public to avoid igniting culture wars and allowing gender identity issues to divide the nation with what he dismissed as Western concerns.

Ashlees original complaint was focused on the intervention of her school and the ministry in thwarting her plans to undergo hormonal replacement therapy despite the advice of her doctor and consent of her parents, which is required since she is under 21. The ministry has denied it blocked her from receiving treatment.

A coalition of Singaporean LGBT groups identified the school as Millennia Institute on Bukit Batok West Avenue. Millennia has made no public statement on the issue and has not responded to messages seeking comment.

Ashlees case led to a protest outside the ministry that resulted in three being arrested. An online petition calling for clearer policies to support trans students has gotten over 500 signatories, including some teachers.

Reacting to Wongs statement on medical advice, Ashlee said he was being inconsistent.

You do not allow anti-maskers to go about without masking up due to the scientifically-accepted risks and dangers of Covid Why is the MOE contradicting and denying proper medical advice, treatment and quality education? she wrote.

The student also pointed out that the school was not flexible despite Wongs appeal. The ministry stirred the pot further last month by suggesting Ashlee no longer attend classes and study from home.

If Mr Wong thinks that home-based learning is as good as physical classroom lessons, why have physical classes in the first place? I come to this school to study in the classroom environment; if I wanted to do [home-based learning] Id sign up for online courses and do private A-levels instead, she said.

Since going public about her story, Ashlee said that the principal has denied any form of discrimination and continues to insist that Ashlee wanted to crossdress in school, which is not allowed.

The doctors letter already stated that I have a diagnosis and that I identify as female; cross-dressing would in this sense not only be an ignorant, but outright discriminatory way to put it, unless I was wearing the male uniform (i.e. dressing in boys uniform as I identify as female), she wrote.

[Rant] An update to Transgender Discrimination in Singapore Schools from r/SGExams

Other stories you should check out:

Singapores schools should show flexibility for trans students: minister

We are all well, say LGBT rights defenders nabbed for MOE protest

Writer, ally to Singapores trans youth, on why he protested the MOE

LGBT rights defenders arrested protesting Education Ministrys treatment of trans student

Singapores ed ministry suggests trans student learn at home, not school

Join COCO+ and get ad-free browsing experience on Coconuts, and more juicy perks.

See the rest here:
If there's any 'culture war,' system is to blame, trans student refutes minister - Coconuts Singapore

It was difficult watching Lisa Nandys difficulties earlier this month when she was caught facing in two opposite directions over a pamphlet produced by Labour Party members that called for a gender-balanced human security force to replace the British Army in overseas manoeuvres. In December, at the time of the launch, she welcomed the publication as inspirational and based on the beliefs I also share. But when challenged on this by Andrew Marr last week, the shadow foreign secretary chose to deny she had ever welcomed the pamphlet.

A video also emerged this week of Nandy being drawn into the Winston Churchill controversy. Following vandalism on the late prime ministers statue in Parliament Square during a Black Lives Matter demonstration, she declined to offer her opinion as to whether our wartime leader was a national hero or not.

I have two reasons for not enjoying this spectacle. The first is that Nandy is a formidable and talented politician. Had I been allowed a vote in last years leadership election, I would certainly have voted for her. She has a genuine connection with her own working class background and, unlike many of her Labour colleagues in the Commons, understands why so many people in the north voted to leave the European Union. She merits the ultimate accolade among Labour politicians of being sound.

The other reason I was sad to see this strange little story play out is that it is so utterly unnecessary. Clearly Nandy is trying to conform to her leaders orders not to inflame the culture wars; Keir Starmer has taken to heart advice he has received from those close to President Joe Biden not to get drawn into arguments about trans rights, critical race theory or free speech on campuses. And you can see why. There is nothing to be gained for Labour in fanning these particular flames, and potentially a great deal to lose.

The problem with refusing to be drawn into these debates, however, is that they continue anyway, with or without you. And that means that whenever journalists want a helpful quote from a parliamentarian about the latest expression of post-logic, anti-scientific wokeness, they know they will get nothing from a Labour MP. So inevitably, the voice of reason condemning a decision by a local council to name a street Equality Road or a university expunging the name of a great philosopher because he wasnt suitably anti-racist in the 1700s, comes from the political right. Eventually, voters are going to reach the conclusion that the only people making a stand for freedom of speech and against being entirely unhinged are Conservatives.

And yet I happen to know dozens well, okay, four or five, maybe Labour MPs who hold sensible, mainstream views on these issues but who fear expressing them. And no wonder. When Canterbury MP Rosie Duffield dared to express the heretical view that only women have a cervix, it brought down upon her the wrath of trans campaigners who view science and biological facts as hate speech. Instead of making a robust defence of Duffields right to express an opinion God forbid that politicians express an opinion! her party leadership chose to keep its head down, neither acceding to hysterical demands for her to be suspended from the Labour whip nor offering her solidarity.

Labour needs to take a step back and view this issue more dispassionately than it has up until now. What would happen if just a handful of Labour MPs were to break cover and say that trans rights and their impact on womens rights should be openly and freely debated? What would be the public reaction if one or two Labour MPs were quoted in the media as praising Churchill for what he was a national hero who deserves every honour he has received and who should be respected by every generation and every race? What would happen if a Labour MP scoffed at the very notion that a local council can fight racism by emulating the sitcom character David Brent?

Such views would not even have to represent the views of the entire party (which is a pity); but at last ordinary voters concerned about the woke-driven, mostly public funded campaigns against common sense would be able to identify allies in the main opposition party. Naturally, there would be the usual outrage, demands that they be deselected, de-whipped, defenestrated, humiliated and generally cast into the wilderness. Some party members would post videos of them resigning their membership, expressed as performative art.

But so what? I mean, seriously, so what?

There are too few such individuals to make a difference to the partys national support, Starmer would not have to change policy by as much as a comma, and the public might start to restore its confidence in Labour as a party that has not, after all, become a mere tool of minority interest, self-interested lobby groups.

And talented politicians like Lisa Nandy would no longer have to tie themselves in knots for fear of offending those who will in any case always find new ways to be offended anyway.

Continued here:
In the culture wars, Labour MPs must not be muzzled - Telegraph.co.uk