>>24496187>So why does every country allow these types of pop stars to become common, no matter what the values of those countries are? Not necessarily literally EVERY country, although good post and interesting phenomenon here. But the ones who would be against it or explicitly limit it, would be ones we as Westerners (or in Westernized nations) would regard as authoritarian, maybe even authoritarian theocracies, like some Islamic Middle Eastern states, Afghanistan under the Taliban and the like. Then, interestingly, there’s even China, with a government initiative to “encourage masculinity among boys” through their control of various media, cultural outlets and education. Fuck NBC News but here’s the link just to show it’s something real:
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/china-proposes-teaching-masculinity-boys-state-alarmed-changing-gender-roles-n1258939
I’m not even saying this is a good thing, I just think it’s an interesting counterpoint to some of your examples. It’s tough to find the right balance between authoritarianism vs. libertarianism on various matters. The Western (and other increasingly Westernized) liberal nations seem to hold that it’s a better trade-off to allow some people to slide into degeneracy, with all the freedoms offered, for everyone to have more rights. The logic going, just because some people can’t hold their liquor well doesn’t mean everyone else can’t have it. Whereas a group like the Taliban, based on religious beliefs, will decide there shouldn’t be any alcohol at all, they don’t want to deal with the attendant degeneracy that can go with it, and at best people can get some on the black market or consume it privately, but with fear of being found out.
Simple example but I think you can apply it to cases like yours. If corporations or governments decide they don’t want various types of pop stars who promote “degeneracy”, then where do they draw the line? (liberal reasoning goes).
Another possibility is that, in fact, there still are many common people on the ground who hate such figures, and the culture they promote. Socially conservative small town folk. But the people who dominate in the corporations, banks, media, feel they can get a lot of money off such spectacles (after all, crude appeals to things like sex, violence, the pleasure of alcohol/drugs DO sell, which can also be in a filtered form through media like music or films and TV shows). This would be the semi-conspiracy model, that of a conspiracy of the wealthy wanting more money, and hence pushing the media events and stars that will be sensationalistic and controversial for such money, regardless of the malign influences it could have on the culture. Like themes of violence, drug abuse, promiscuity, and misogyny in rap music, for instance. It would at minimum be a conspiracy of greed. If you were to go deeper, it could also be a conspiracy with other elements in it; wanting to degrade a culture deliberately.