Eagerly anticipated by people who are okay with sexual violence. cool.

Written by corrupt on 02.08.2024 at 19:34

Eagerly anticipated by people who are okay with sexual violence. cool.

Just like some people are okay with the knowledge that the members of Alcest used to be Nazis, playing in a Nazi/fascist band (Peste Noire). Also cool. But unlike Alcest, Manson seems quite marginalized these days because nobody seems to care about him anymore.

His most interesting albums in recent years have been related to love break-ups. "Eat Me Drink Me" - the departure of Dita von Teese, an affair with Wood. The psychedelic "The High End of Low" - an ugly breakup with Wood. Considering the last two years, the new album will be a masterpiece

Written by corrupt on 02.08.2024 at 19:34

Eagerly anticipated by people who are okay with sexual violence. cool.

So far there is no conviction in this regard though. Some lawsuits were dismissed, others were settled before reaching trial. Considering the current Western culture, where a woman consents at a given time and then 10-20-30-40 years later goes on social media or at TV talking shit about something she consented and blaming the guy, I am honestly not so moved. As far as I'm concerned, these are people washing their laundry in public, so I couldn't care less.

Written by corrupt on 02.08.2024 at 19:34

Eagerly anticipated by people who are okay with sexual violence. cool.

This is a rich comment coming from someone who uses as profile photo the symbol of a band with a member who murdered a person in a homophobic outrage. And we are talking about actual conviction. Not she said/he said internet drama.

Just saying

Well I'm not the biggiest MM fan but I liked the song. Maybe I'll like the album.

Written by Duck Dodgers on 02.08.2024 at 23:12
This is a rich comment coming from someone who uses as profile photo the symbol of a band with a member who murdered a person in a homophobic outrage.

Who confessed, did time, shows remorse, and is no longer in the band (the latter is not really an argument, as they unfortunately played with him in 2014). That's what accountability looks like. Not trying to weasel yourself out of all charges by playing legal tricks and maintaining your platform at the same time.

Edit: I guess it goes without saying that Faust still murdered someone and that is absolutely despicable and without excuse. I think you're misrepresenting his motives, but that's beside the point. If you draw your line for support there, then all power to you! Just why are we having this discussion in defense of Marilyn Manson, then?

Written by corrupt on 02.08.2024 at 19:34

Eagerly anticipated by people who are okay with sexual violence. cool.

Your previous history of shoutbox posts and politics make you in no position to judge anyone.

Written by corrupt on 03.08.2024 at 00:26

Written by Duck Dodgers on 02.08.2024 at 23:12
This is a rich comment coming from someone who uses as profile photo the symbol of a band with a member who murdered a person in a homophobic outrage.

Who confessed, did time, shows remorse, and is no longer in the band (the latter is not really an argument, as they unfortunately played with him in 2014). That's what accountability looks like. Not trying to weasel yourself out of all charges by playing legal tricks and maintaining your platform at the same time.

Edit: I guess it goes without saying that Faust still murdered someone and that is absolutely despicable and without excuse. I think you're misrepresenting his motives, but that's beside the point. If you draw your line for support there, then all power to you! Just why are we having this discussion in defense of Marilyn Manson, then?

All I see above is excuses for a convicted murderer.
Am I misrepresenting motives? Please educate us, what excuses :

“stabbed 37 times while also repeatedly stomping on the victim's head.” (Wikipedia)

Ah right! He said he is sorry!

Ok!

Written by Madlax9999 on 02.08.2024 at 23:02

Written by corrupt on 02.08.2024 at 19:34

Eagerly anticipated by people who are okay with sexual violence. cool.

So far there is no conviction in this regard though. Some lawsuits were dismissed, others were settled before reaching trial. Considering the current Western culture, where a woman consents at a given time and then 10-20-30-40 years later goes on social media or at TV talking shit about something she consented and blaming the guy, I am honestly not so moved. As far as I'm concerned, these are people washing their laundry in public, so I couldn't care less.

The lawsuits that were dismissed were dismissed for technical reasons, not for lack of merit (one because the statute of limitations had expired, another because the plaintiff failed to retain counsel after splitting with a lawyer), and the former case was reinstated on appeal and is once again ongoing. A suit being settled before trial proves nothing, since our conjecture can't be confirmed; whether the plaintiff recanted her testimony or Manson offered her an irresistible amount of hush money or she simply wanted to avoid further distress, we'll never know, so we can't use that as proof of anything.

Likewise, the lack of a conviction thus far doesn't mean that he isn't guilty. It doesn't mean that he is guilty either, but the fact that the cases are still being processed does not mean that we should feel free to ignore them without considering how we treat Manson right now. In at least one case, the jury trial won't be occurring until next spring. The legal system moves very slowly. Until then, you may decide for yourself, as I will, how much you choose to engage with Manson's art knowing what he has been accused of, but it is incorrect to assume that a lack of a conviction means that it will never happen or that there is not legitimacy to the accusations.

Many of the allegations against Manson involve situations where consent could not be obtained, either legally or practically - these include sexual acts committed with people who were asleep, intoxicated, drugged, or underage. In none of those situations can consent be considered to have been given in the first place, never mind rescinded later. Some accusers allege patterns of physical abuse, emotional manipulation, threats of bodily harm or public humiliation, and other behaviors that throw the concept of "consent" into doubt: you can imagine a situation in which someone feels coerced into consenting while in physical proximity or a long-term relationship and feels capable of exposing the abusive behavior for what it was only after achieving a safe distance, which may be after some time has passed. That is not the same situation as a legitimately consensual encounter that one person later decides to characterize as nonconsensual for personal gain, which, while it does happen, does not represent the majority of these cases, and claiming that that kind of scam characterizes the current state of Western culture is absurd. It is just ludicrous to say that there is some kind of epidemic of women revoking consent ex post facto and then using this as grounds for legal aggression; it is at the least inappropriate to approach a discussion about an accused rapist with this kind of comment, and moreover it is sexist and wrong to go about with the attitude that all cases should be treated with lazy stereotyping because "in our society women are lying drama queens."

In the first place, to enter this kind of conversation assuming fraud is harmful, as it contributes to societal expectations that any such accusers are merely lying for their own advantage. This is the kind of attitude that pressures people into keeping silent against their abusers and discourages them from seeking help for themselves. Perhaps you just don't care, as you say you are not so moved. Perhaps you should make an effort to understand what people go through in these situations and why it may be difficult for them to speak publicly for such a long time. But if you really cannot bring yourself to empathize with people who say that they have undergone traumatic experiences, and if you are willing to dismiss that as "washing their dirty laundry" as if this were some kind of lurid daytime soap, then the least you could do would be to keep your indifference to yourself so that nobody reading this would ever feel that other people are waiting out there to discredit and dismiss them if they ever had need of voicing their distress.

I will also point out, for what it is worth, that going back several decades Marilyn Manson has been accused of or charged with physical assault and battery against both men and women, cutting and whipping partners outside the context of consensual sexual encounters, abusing partners with racist, anti-Semitic, or threatening language, and all kinds of other behaviors ranging from the inappropriate to the illegal, some violent, some sexual, some simply demented. There is a lengthy and well-established pattern of actions and attitudes surrounding Manson and the company he keeps - there's a lot of information from many people across many places going back many years. Obviously being a creep, a punk, and an asshole does not by definition make him a rapist and that's not reason to presume his guilt - I think people hanging around in this subculture of ours should know that well enough already - but it should be enough for you to assume that the allegations are at least credible. If you're not already going to take such accusations seriously, which you should, and if you're going to make an ill-informed judgment about which party is lying before the court system completes its process, which you shouldn't, you could at least consider how silly it might be to express complete skepticism that Marilyn Manson could ever do such a thing.

You're free to not care or carry on listening to Manson as you like, but at the very least don't feel so free to peddle that hogwash about how "the state of Western culture is that women are bad."

Written by ScreamingSteelUS on 03.08.2024 at 02:45

TL;DR

I wrote 2 lines and summed up my points without having to write a novel. If you want to make your point, make it in a manner that doesn't bore the reader. Firstly. Secondly, there is such a thing called the presumption of innocence. Unless it is proven in a trial that he actually is responsible for acts of sexual violence, then the guy is innocent until proven guilty. The fact that some lawsuits were dismissed for technical reason (i.e. statute of limitation expired) doesn't mean he is guilty of the said deed. I always viewed accusation coming decades after the deed was committed with a raised eyebrow, especially in regards to sexual violence. Precisely because this falls into a he said/she said game. Many couples who had falling offs had washed their laundry in public.

Verbal consent is hard to prove in a trial though. Especially if the deed was committed many years ago. One can give consent or feign consent, only to reconsider or outright trick the guy. God knows how many men were accused of false sexual violence or rape by women who were in just to do some evil. Also, if you take drugs or alcohol, that does not mean you are excused for behavior that you don't remember if you consented or not. As long as you were not forced to take them. I am not an adherent of Western pussy-footed justice system where sentences are far smaller if you consumed drugs or alcohol. If you took those willingly, then you are responsible for the outcome.

I am not saying that the state of Western culture is that women are bad. I am saying that the current state of Western culture aligns with the phrase 'believe all women' and the justice system is thoroughly feminized. Women get smaller convictions than men for the same deed. Women win 90%+ of child custody trials. Women get better prison conditions and better facilities than men do, even preferential treatment. When as a man, you can get convicted over allegations going back many decades, which in any court is impossible to prove, then I rest my case. As a man, if you are accused of sexual violence or worse, your career and social life is pretty much over. Whether you are guilty or not. Even if proven not guilty, the reputational damage can never be repaired. You will carry on the stigma for your entire life. But as a woman, if you make a false allegation and it is proven as such, 99% of the times nothing happens. Business as usual. Men are expendable. Women are not. This is the truth.

Written by Madlax9999 on 03.08.2024 at 11:12

I am saying that the current state of Western culture aligns with the phrase 'believe all women' and the justice system is thoroughly feminized.

You clearly have never been into a court where any of these sexual abuse cases are being trialed. Anyway, it doesn't matter.

ManiacBlasphemer, you have been permanently banned from this website so many times, it makes me wonder what urges you to come back with new user names again and again. Until next time, then, I guess.

For what it's worth, Madlax9999 is now banned not because of what he wrote here, but for his previous behaviour with various user names that have him banned from the website permanently.

Written by Duck Dodgers on 03.08.2024 at 02:25

Written by corrupt on 03.08.2024 at 00:26

Written by Duck Dodgers on 02.08.2024 at 23:12
This is a rich comment coming from someone who uses as profile photo the symbol of a band with a member who murdered a person in a homophobic outrage.

Who confessed, did time, shows remorse, and is no longer in the band (the latter is not really an argument, as they unfortunately played with him in 2014). That's what accountability looks like. Not trying to weasel yourself out of all charges by playing legal tricks and maintaining your platform at the same time.

Edit: I guess it goes without saying that Faust still murdered someone and that is absolutely despicable and without excuse. I think you're misrepresenting his motives, but that's beside the point. If you draw your line for support there, then all power to you! Just why are we having this discussion in defense of Marilyn Manson, then?

All I see above is excuses for a convicted murderer.
Am I misrepresenting motives? Please educate us, what excuses :

“stabbed 37 times while also repeatedly stomping on the victim's head.” (Wikipedia)

Ah right! He said he is sorry!

Ok!

Not only is your entire initial post an ad hominem attempt to distract from the original topic, but you're also bending your own arguments at this point just to end up on top.

But okay, I'll bite. Let's examine together:

You originally called Faust's deed a homophobic act, to which I responded that I think you're misrepresenting his motives. I said this because I recall from my own research that Faust never had a reputation for being homophobic, nor was he convicted of a hate crime. He confessed to acting on impulse (a fact you conveniently ignored when quoting a Wikipedia article), and the source on which the Wikipedia article is based quotes him as saying it was "impulsive and senseless".
You also quote a description of the act itself and try to pass it off as a motive, which I assume you do on purpose, as it serves the deflecting nature of the original post and puts me further on the defensive.

I also said that all of this is beside the point, specifically because I'm not going to defend his actions. We're on the same page there.

However, the societies in which you and I live have agreed on a system of punishment and rehabilitation for what they consider crimes. Faust confessed to his crime, was formally convicted, served his time, and is now a free man. Whether or not you agree with this approach is irrelevant. I certainly have my own feelings about it.
But in terms of accountability - the very thing Marilyn Manson is trying to avoid for himself - this is how our justice systems work. There is an interesting (and increasingly necessary) conversation to be had here about whether or not people who have committed crimes as serious as Faust's or Tim Lambesis' have the right to regain their old platform and reach. I have an opinion on that as well. But in terms of what society considers just and moral, this is where we are.

Which brings us back to Marilyn Manson. ScreamingSteelUS has already eloquently explained the situation with him to everyone here. I assumed it was common knowledge at this point, which was my mistake. But his situation differs from Faust's in a couple of important ways. One is that sexual violence is extremely difficult to prove, and its victims need all the support they can get. This is a key way in which our justice system is objectively failing the people it is supposed to protect. Another is the fact that Manson - in the face of extremely credible allegations - is doing his best to avoid accountability and to further harm his alleged victims. And he is doing so with all the power and money at his disposal. This is my original point. Marilyn Manson doesn't need your support. His victims do. And anyone who supports such an artist needs to be prepared to answer the question of how they view people in need and the power dynamics that exploit them. This is my original point. And apparently one that still needs to be explained to people in 2024.

And finally, the ad hominem.
I know it's easier to attack people personally than to stay on topic, especially when the facts are inconvenient and you're grasping at straws. But even if your moral standards and mine regarding Faust are not the same, I don't have to do right to be right. You can consider me a hypocrite when it comes to Emperor. I can even see and appreciate that perspective. It has certainly caused me to question my own ethics. But that does not automatically invalidate my points in another discussion. Bringing whataboutism into such a topic can only help to derail the conversation and cause confusion. Brandolini's Law states that it takes an order of magnitude more energy to refute bullshit than it does to produce it. This is certainly true of ManiacBlasphemer/madlax's misogyny, and is also evident in the length of this post in relation to yours. There is nothing to be won by doing this.

Written by corrupt on 04.08.2024 at 18:09

...

Have you thought about that not all people want to think about morals and ethics or what a musician has done/is accused of when listening to music they like? Marilyn Manson most certainly is guilty, but that doesn't mean that people won't listen to his music because of it, simply because not all people care, as sad as that may be. And the list can be made very long if everyone is to boycott an artist or a band because of convictions and/or accusations of different kinds. On top of my head I can think of Rammstein (Lindemann, sexual predator), everything Tim Lambesis is involved in (Incitement to commit murder), Decapitated (accusations of rape), Emperor (Faust, murder), Burzum/Mayhem (Varg Vikernes, murder/church burning), Dissection (Jon Nödtveidt, murder), Falling In Reverse (Ronnie Radke, battery while charges for murder dropped, domestic abuse charge dropped, assault onstage settled and sexual assault which was dropped because there were no evidence) and Lostprophets (Ian Watkins, paedophilia). Where do we draw the line for what is acceptable or not?

I definitely draw the line at Lostprophets since Ian Watkins was charged with six child sex offenses, including conspiracy to engage in sexual activity with a female under 13 and the possession and distribution of "indecent images of children". He had apparently been committing heinous sexual acts with children as early as 2008. I never listened to Lostprophets to begin with but had I been a fan I would've stopped immediately. But I won't stop listening to Rammstein, Dissection or Decapitated for example. And I still like Manson's "The Beautiful People" and have been doing so for 28 years now since its release.

You also seem to take the women's part without questioning, with Manson and Lindemann I don't question that because it's pretty obvious that they're both as guilty as can be. But do you honestly think that there aren't women who lie to get attention or trying to earn a quick buck by coming with false accusations? It's not all black and white where the men are always guilty of what they're accused of and where women always tell the truth. Men are innocent and women lie for whatever reason they might have. There are morally despicable people of both genders.

I think the problem is that you only comment on topics like this and discuss politics in the shoutbox very one-sidedly and narrow-mindedly where left is good and right is bad, with no room for accepting that there are people who don't always agree with you, me included. People are here for the music, not you pointing your finger saying what people should think and what is morally correct or not. We all know your standpoint by now so just a friendly advise, give it a rest, because I know for a fact that people don't like being lectured. Start commenting on music instead, it would be interesting to know what you think about albums and bands. This is a music community and forum after all.

Written by corrupt on 04.08.2024 at 18:09

Written by Duck Dodgers on 03.08.2024 at 02:25

Written by corrupt on 03.08.2024 at 00:26

Written by Duck Dodgers on 02.08.2024 at 23:12
This is a rich comment coming from someone who uses as profile photo the symbol of a band with a member who murdered a person in a homophobic outrage.

Who confessed, did time, shows remorse, and is no longer in the band (the latter is not really an argument, as they unfortunately played with him in 2014). That's what accountability looks like. Not trying to weasel yourself out of all charges by playing legal tricks and maintaining your platform at the same time.

Edit: I guess it goes without saying that Faust still murdered someone and that is absolutely despicable and without excuse. I think you're misrepresenting his motives, but that's beside the point. If you draw your line for support there, then all power to you! Just why are we having this discussion in defense of Marilyn Manson, then?

All I see above is excuses for a convicted murderer.
Am I misrepresenting motives? Please educate us, what excuses :

“stabbed 37 times while also repeatedly stomping on the victim's head.” (Wikipedia)

Ah right! He said he is sorry!

Ok!

Not only is your entire initial post an ad hominem attempt to distract from the original topic, but you're also bending your own arguments at this point just to end up on top.

But okay, I'll bite. Let's examine together:

You originally called Faust's deed a homophobic act, to which I responded that I think you're misrepresenting his motives. I said this because I recall from my own research that Faust never had a reputation for being homophobic, nor was he convicted of a hate crime. He confessed to acting on impulse (a fact you conveniently ignored when quoting a Wikipedia article), and the source on which the Wikipedia article is based quotes him as saying it was "impulsive and senseless".
You also quote a description of the act itself and try to pass it off as a motive, which I assume you do on purpose, as it serves the deflecting nature of the original post and puts me further on the defensive.

I also said that all of this is beside the point, specifically because I'm not going to defend his actions. We're on the same page there.

However, the societies in which you and I live have agreed on a system of punishment and rehabilitation for what they consider crimes. Faust confessed to his crime, was formally convicted, served his time, and is now a free man. Whether or not you agree with this approach is irrelevant. I certainly have my own feelings about it.
But in terms of accountability - the very thing Marilyn Manson is trying to avoid for himself - this is how our justice systems work. There is an interesting (and increasingly necessary) conversation to be had here about whether or not people who have committed crimes as serious as Faust's or Tim Lambesis' have the right to regain their old platform and reach. I have an opinion on that as well. But in terms of what society considers just and moral, this is where we are.

Which brings us back to Marilyn Manson. ScreamingSteelUS has already eloquently explained the situation with him to everyone here. I assumed it was common knowledge at this point, which was my mistake. But his situation differs from Faust's in a couple of important ways. One is that sexual violence is extremely difficult to prove, and its victims need all the support they can get. This is a key way in which our justice system is objectively failing the people it is supposed to protect. Another is the fact that Manson - in the face of extremely credible allegations - is doing his best to avoid accountability and to further harm his alleged victims. And he is doing so with all the power and money at his disposal. This is my original point. Marilyn Manson doesn't need your support. His victims do. And anyone who supports such an artist needs to be prepared to answer the question of how they view people in need and the power dynamics that exploit them. This is my original point. And apparently one that still needs to be explained to people in 2024.

And finally, the ad hominem.
I know it's easier to attack people personally than to stay on topic, especially when the facts are inconvenient and you're grasping at straws. But even if your moral standards and mine regarding Faust are not the same, I don't have to do right to be right. You can consider me a hypocrite when it comes to Emperor. I can even see and appreciate that perspective. It has certainly caused me to question my own ethics. But that does not automatically invalidate my points in another discussion. Bringing whataboutism into such a topic can only help to derail the conversation and cause confusion. Brandolini's Law states that it takes an order of magnitude more energy to refute bullshit than it does to produce it. This is certainly true of ManiacBlasphemer/madlax's misogyny, and is also evident in the length of this post in relation to yours. There is nothing to be won by doing this.

My response is because you insulted a group of people including me. And we are not talking about a small group. Read your initial comment. I as many people out there anticipate Manson’s music. And many of us do not share your point of view.
And then you get triggered because someone talks to you about the band you obviously like (and I like too) the same way you talk about Manson. This has nothing to do with Emperor but about generalising situations that are complicated.

Your comment was wrong and you can not “novel” your way out of it.

Written by Duck Dodgers on 04.08.2024 at 22:19
My response is because you insulted a group of people including me. And we are not talking about a small group. Read your initial comment. I as many people out there anticipate Manson’s music. And many of us do not share your point of view.
And then you get triggered because someone talks to you about the band you obviously like (and I like too) the same way you talk about Manson. This has nothing to do with Emperor but about generalising situations that are complicated.

Your comment was wrong and you can not “novel” your way out of it.

My OP creates a frame. And it is the right and a very necessary frame. If someone supports Manson, they support a sexual predator and contribute to making the lives of his victims worse. That is a fact and cannot be denied. People can choose to be okay with that, but if they are offended by someone pointing it out, that says more about those people than anything else. No one is above criticism. Especially not just because it is inconvenient.
I gave you the benefit of the doubt that you were actually interested in having this conversation and not just trying to deflect. I guess I was wrong.

Written by corrupt on 04.08.2024 at 23:32

My OP creates a frame. And it is the right and a very necessary frame. If someone supports Manson, they support a sexual predator and contribute to making the lives of his victims worse. That is a fact and cannot be denied. People can choose to be okay with that, but if they are offended by someone pointing it out, that says more about those people than anything else. No one is above criticism. Especially not just because it is inconvenient.
I gave you the benefit of the doubt that you were actually interested in having this conversation and not just trying to deflect. I guess I was wrong.

How is listening to his music making the lives of his victims worse? Please do elaborate. Are you supporting murder and making the lives of the parents of the guy Faust killed worse then by listening to Emperor? You know that Faust, like all other members of the band, past and present, still get royalties whenever their music is played through streaming, on radio or is used commercially. Like I wrote in my previous post which you ignored, not everyone cares about moral and ethics. Maybe they choose to stay ignorant for a million different reasons. That still doesn't mean that they support sexual violence or whatever. You listen to Alcest and even own a t-shirt. Does that mean you support fascism since they were in Peste Noire or do you choose to stay ignorant to that fact?

I have a very simple opinion on this: listening to Marilyn Manson does not make someone a sexual violence supporter, just like listening to As I Lay Dying does not make someone a murder-your-wife supporter (in both cases, it means that someone just has very bad taste in music ). I enjoy listening to Burzum and Spectral Lore equally, and the political views of Varg and Ayloss are as far apart as they can be. I also enjoy listening to Transgressive and Manowar, with the first being a thrash band promoting trans rights, and the second being... you know, oiled men promoting macho attitude (and being ridiculous, of course). I honestly have no detailed knowledge of what Manson is accused of, and I am not really interested to know more because there is nothing I can do about these people. There are active and tangible ways to support victims of sexual violence, and, in my opinion, not listening to Manson is not one of them.

Because this is indeed a music forum, I played two minutes of the new song, and it sucks donkey balls as I expected.

Manson thrives on the controversy stirred by forum discussions like these. This kind of attention significantly boosts his marketing, often benefiting him more than the music itself.

Written by Cynic Metalhead on 06.08.2024 at 06:38

Manson thrives on the controversy stirred by forum discussions like these. This kind of attention significantly boosts his marketing, often benefiting him more than the music itself.

Exactly, hadn't corrupt posted his initial comment this news piece might've passed by more or less unnoticed. Instead his comment drew full attention to Manson and his new single and this news post has almost 1800 views. So I'd say it had the exact opposite effect of what corrupt tried to do here by giving Manson a lot more exposure than he would've gotten otherwise.

Written by Nejde on 06.08.2024 at 13:27

Written by Cynic Metalhead on 06.08.2024 at 06:38

Manson thrives on the controversy stirred by forum discussions like these. This kind of attention significantly boosts his marketing, often benefiting him more than the music itself.

Exactly, hadn't corrupt posted his initial comment this news piece might've passed by more or less unnoticed. Instead his comment drew full attention to Manson and his new single and this news post has almost 1800 views. So I'd say it had the exact opposite effect of what corrupt tried to do here by giving Manson a lot more exposure than he would've gotten otherwise.

Much more than that, how it drifts to the offtopic carrying no significance at all. Manson must be garnering attention(look at social handles) due to his personality much least to the quality of his music and then he gonna pull another interview claiming how fans drool over him to see him performing live and meeting on entourage.

Written by Nejde on 06.08.2024 at 13:27

Written by Cynic Metalhead on 06.08.2024 at 06:38

Manson thrives on the controversy stirred by forum discussions like these. This kind of attention significantly boosts his marketing, often benefiting him more than the music itself.

Exactly, hadn't corrupt posted his initial comment this news piece might've passed by more or less unnoticed. Instead his comment drew full attention to Manson and his new single and this news post has almost 1800 views. So I'd say it had the exact opposite effect of what corrupt tried to do here by giving Manson a lot more exposure than he would've gotten otherwise.

... maybe corrupt was paid by Marilyn Manson for all of this?!?!? Genius! ) Hahaha! jk

Politics and drama aside, I would like to express my opinion about this song as the post got sidetracked.

It is probably his best song for a while. Not sure who is writing the music at this point but sounds a bit refreshing compared the the past couple of albums.
Intro sounds generic Manson then the verses have that Mechanical Animal ballad-y atmosphere, his vocals though sound like Dave Grohl trying to sound like David Bowie. Some guitars give Holy wood vibes and the synths that Golden Age era electro sound.
I was hoping for a Skold-era guitar solo, but we can't have everything.

Only weak spot is that he does not (or can not anymore) scream but this has been a given for like a decade now.
Lyrics, as always, need decoding and it can all be guessing until the full album comes out.

From what I see there will be a second single in a few days too so looking forward it too.

Written by nikarg on 06.08.2024 at 02:11

I have a very simple opinion on this: listening to Marilyn Manson does not make someone a sexual violence supporter, just like listening to As I Lay Dying does not make someone a murder-your-wife supporter (in both cases, it means that someone just has very bad taste in music ). I enjoy listening to Burzum and Spectral Lore equally, and the political views of Varg and Ayloss are as far apart as they can be. I also enjoy listening to Transgressive and Manowar, with the first being a thrash band promoting trans rights, and the second being... you know, oiled men promoting macho attitude (and being ridiculous, of course). I honestly have no detailed knowledge of what Manson is accused of, and I am not really interested to know more because there is nothing I can do about these people. There are active and tangible ways to support victims of sexual violence, and, in my opinion, not listening to Manson is not one of them.

Because this is indeed a music forum, I played two minutes of the new song, and it sucks donkey balls as I expected.

A good perspective to take/have, in my opinion. The only part I disagree with has to do with the donkeys. The songs sucks, I agree, but donkeys are wonderful creatures and I wish we could leave them out this. After all, according one particular 90s rumor/meme, MM is actually capable of sucking his own balls, so donkeys should be safely excluded from the process.

^ Touché 🤘