Mediaboss Marketing

Serious allegations of abuse seem to have ended the career of Satanic rocker Marilyn Manson conclusive proof that the church of woke and its feminist denomination are way more influential than the so-called moral majority.

Marilyn Manson, who rose to stardom as a self-proclaimed shock rock anti-Christ in the 1990s, has long had a target on his back.

Ever since the minimally talented Manson hit it big with his cover of the Eurythmics Sweet Dreams (Are Made of This) off his EP Smells Like Children in 1995, fundamentalist Christians have tried to cancel him for his devoutly anti-Christian attitudes and occult antics.

In a brilliant piece of cultural jiu-jitsu, Manson masterfully used his position as a public foil to puritanical Christians to promote himself to great wealth and fame with his smash hit follow-up albums Antichrist Superstar (1996) and Mechanical Animals (1998).

It seemed back then that the more outrageously anti-Christian Manson got, the more MTV and Rolling Stone and the rest of the pop culture establishment embraced him, and it drove conservative Christians absolutely crazy.

For his rather derivative satanic rock star pose, Manson inflamed a Christian hysteria that led to him being blamed for everything from teen suicide to the Columbine Massacre. But none of those charges ever actually harmed Mansons career, only enhanced it.

Mansons success in the 90s and conservative Christians impotence in the face of it was a clear indicator of the religions waning social power and a forewarning of its precipitous demise and near disappearance from American culture.

But where conservative Christians miserably failed to bring down Manson in the 90s, the new dominant puritanical moral force in our culture, wokeness, with its powerful feminist denomination #MeToo, has succeeded spectacularly.

This week, numerous women, including Mansons former fiance, actress Evan Rachel Wood, have come forward with allegations of sexual assault, psychological abuse and/or various forms of coercion, violence and intimidation.

Wood, who was 18 when she met the then 36 year-old Manson, said of the relationship, He started grooming me when I was a teenager and horrifically abused me for years. I was brainwashed and manipulated into submission.

Another former fiance of Mansons, actress Rose McGowan, released a statement in support of Wood and the other accusers. I stand with Evan Rachel Wood and the other brave women who have come forwardLet the truth be revealed. Let the healing begin.

In response to the cavalcade of allegations, Loma Vista Recordings, which distributes Mansons albums, said it would cease promoting his current album and refused to work with him again in the future, and the powerhouse Creative Artists Agency quickly dropped him as a client.

In response, Manson released a statement.

Obviously, my art and my life have long been magnets for controversy, but these recent claims about me are horrible distortions of reality. My intimate relationships have always been entirely consensual with like-minded partners. Regardless of how and why others are now choosing to misrepresent the past, that is the truth.

Manson is right; his rather pedestrian art and performative life have been magnets for controversy. But that is because they were built upon being intentionally provocative, particularly against Christianity.

He repeatedly stuck his thumb in the eye of Christians in order to draw attention to himself, with shocking yet predictable actions like proclaiming himself to be a minister in the Church of Satan (inducted by none other than Anton LaVey), and quoting famed occultist Aleister Crowleys dictum, Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law.

It would seem, according to his accusers, that Manson actually lived that morally grotesque motto to the fullest, but the women on the allegedly unpleasant receiving end of it are now publicly exacting their revenge and ending his career.

Its a testament to the enormous cultural power of wokeness, with its two dominant denominations, #MeToo and Black Lives Matter, that its ability to cancel heretics and blasphemers far exceeds anything conservative Christians were able to accomplish over the last 40 years.

That Manson thrived for so long in opposition to the old religion of Christianity, but has been utterly obliterated in no time at all by the new religion of wokeness, is revealing of the tectonic shift that has taken place in just the last four years in American culture.

Further proof of this is that the pop culture establishment, which so dutifully defended Manson when he was offending Christians back in the 90s, will not even contemplate tolerating his alleged sins against women now.

It is also striking that puritanical Christianity has been so soundly defeated in the culture wars by the entertainment industry, but that the puritanical impulse is still alive and well and thriving in Hollywood of all places, in the form of #MeToo feminism and BLM.

Unfortunately for Manson, the only difference between the old irrational, hypocritical and sex-obsessed religion of Christianity that he so brazenly defined himself in opposition to, and the new irrational, hypocritical and sex-obsessed religion of #MeToo wokeness that is currently crucifying him, is that Christianity at least offers the opportunity for redemption.

The truth is that Marilyn Manson danced with the devil to great success, but, as always, the bill comes due. Its the height of irony that it wasnt the puritans of conservative Christianity that took him down, but rather the witches of wokeness whove succeeded in burning him at the pop culture stake.

Think your friends would be interested? Share this story!

The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of RT.

Originally posted here:
The swift cancellation of Marilyn Manson proves #MeToo is a more powerful cultural force than conservative Christianity ever was - RT

Buena Vista County is doing okay, considering. Our economy is in relatively decent shape with low unemployment. But the virus continues to ravage us with BV topping the 4,000-case mark last weekend. The schools are doing welllocally, the frontline workers have been heroes, and we at least are assured that effective vaccines are in production. The overriding and urgent goal of Iowa should be getting through this pandemic and recovering as quickly as possible.

Instead, the legislature controlled by the Republican Party is playing political games by ramming through a right-wing legislative agenda. No better illustration can be made than in education.

The governor and legislature are pushing school vouchers for students in underperforming districts. That is not the solution for Sac City. The solution is trying to help families and children succeed through stronger schools. That means money. Figure out why the district is not achieving, and design programs that make the public school more effective.

The same is true for an urban school district with a disadvantaged enrollment.

The brothers who own this newspaper are proud graduates of St. Marys High School and Catholic universities. We are strong supporters of the Iowa Tuition Grant, which supports Buena Vista University. Pell Grants support private institutions of higher education for students of limited means. Government funds support reading and school lunch programs. It is all good. St. Marys School is important to Storm Lakes social fabric. So is Buena Vista. They receive and deserve public support to the extent that they satisfy public goods by meeting state and federal education requirements.

But this is not the year to be pushing vouchers.

We are for grants that help private schools survive the pandemic. We would like to see the Iowa Tuition Grant increased in size. Support the existing tuition assistance tax credit set up for parochial schools. Discussion of vouchers can wait for another day, when we are past our current state of emergency. We must keep schools whole and not decide to refashion our public education system in the middle of a national crisis.

We have been chipping away at the foundations of education for years. State appropriations to public universities have declined while private corporate donations and tuition leading to enormous student debt loads have replaced them. Community colleges are increasing tuition and local property taxes. K-12 public school districts suffered during the economic recession of 2008-10 that drove Gov. Chet Culver out of office, and have since been starved further by the Branstad/Reynolds tenure with state aid that seldom keeps pace with inflation. The state took away the ability of teachers to bargain with the school board. We should leave bad enough alone. But the culture wars call. Vouchers have animated public school educators across the state.

Republicans would do well to slow down and just get through this emergency. Pass a standpat budget, help bail out public health agencies and schools, and get out of Des Moines. That is the best political strategy, too. The public generally supports open enrollment among school districts but not direct vouchers. The public supports the unique sharing arrangement that goes on between St. Marys, Buena Vista, Iowa Central and Storm Lake High School. There are all sorts of creative ways to support private and public schools, to provide a bit of competition to keep everyone sharp, that involve steady state investment and partnerships with private philanthropy. Vouchers are not the best way to achieve better academic performance for every student unless the state is prepared to give public schools what they need. They have been on an austerity budget for a decade, all of them, public and private, as Iowa conducts this great experiment in allowing education funding to lag economic performance. And that is precisely why Iowas economic performance is subpar, because we are short-changing education.

Right now, we dont need huge tax cuts or shifts in tax load. We dont need a debate over abortion, which actually is not a pressing problem in Buena Vista County. We dont need a hollering match over vouchers when so many of us are simply emotionally exhausted. The pandemic is the problem. Period. Use your heads. Get after it. Leave everything else alone.

Continued here:
Editorial: Quit culture wars, fight the pandemic - The Storm Lake Times

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