Why can't people give up Michael Jackson?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Because he is dead and the money does not go to him.

Think for a second.

It goes to his estate, which has denied all wrongdoing and vilified the victims.

Wouldn't his money go to his innocent children? "The Estate" is just a bunch of paperwork and lawyers. If at some time in the future his children decide to donate or otherwise refuse his income, they can (I don't think they should feel like they have to, but they can make that decision).

The fact is, he's dead. Our money is no longer supporting a child molester.

I'm a new poster. I was never a superfan, but I'm in my 40s and still love some of his songs. I believe he is guilty. Recently in my car, an MJ song came on and I turned it off. But not because I'm concerned about where the money goes. More because it just felt wrong to introduce this whole thing to my kid. My 7 year old likes to ask questions about musicians. He'd file away the name and the fact that I have Thriller on vinyl from my childhood and next you know, he'd ask Alexa to play Michael Jackson at a birthday party, where another parent would give us the side eye and my son would ask "why isn't Larla allowed to listen to Thriller?" I'd rather not have to tell him why, at age 7. I'm guessing some day I will either remove all traces of his music from my home... Or I'll just drop my feelings and allow myself to enjoy the music separate from the pedophile. I'm not there yet.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I believe Wade Robson and James Safechuck. I think Michael was a pedophile. But even I have a hard time letting go of the music I grew up with. No one wants to admit the man responsible for the soundtrack of their childhood raped little boys. I don't buy his music and I don't purposefully play it, but when it comes on the radio, my instinct is to sing and dance along. I have to remind myself of what he was because for so long, he was king.

Maybe it's because I didn't grow up during the height of his fame, but I honestly never understood the absolute obsession with him. He manipulated his body to the point where he was absolutely creepy looking. Yes, he was a great dancer and singer, but why the complete obsession? He wrote pop songs that really lacked substance. I don't have an issue with pop songs (I love Motown), but why the complete obsession over him?

I did grow up during the height of his fame and I never really understood the obsession with him either. Honestly, after Thriller, none of his records were extremely popular. Somehow he just got annointed as the King of Pop in 1982 and it stuck.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I HAVE seen the documentary and, when placed in the context of everything else which has happened, did not find the two men who spoke particularly compelling. It was clearly edited and made no attempt to be unbiased. You are a fool if you think they will not get any financial or other benefits from this. Not saying MJ isn't guilty, I don't think his trial proved things one way or another, but neither does this documentary.

I agree. Really don't understand why people are using this as "proof" when it's clearly biased??

There's plenty of other "proof" including the $23 million settlement.

[Anonymous]

Where do guys draw the line on who is suitable to like and either listen to or watch for entertainers?

Alcohol?
Drugs?
Theft?
Jail Time?
Language?

[Anonymous]

The fact that children were able to describe MJs genitalia in accurate detail should appall anyone with morals, yet it does not, sadly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Because he went through a heavily publicized trial and was found not guilty?

This. This works for me.

'I was compelled by a documentary supporting his alleged victims and I always found him creepy' works for you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I HAVE seen the documentary and, when placed in the context of everything else which has happened, did not find the two men who spoke particularly compelling. It was clearly edited and made no attempt to be unbiased. You are a fool if you think they will not get any financial or other benefits from this. Not saying MJ isn't guilty, I don't think his trial proved things one way or another, but neither does this documentary.

I agree. Really don't understand why people are using this as "proof" when it's clearly biased??

There's plenty of other "proof" including the $23 million settlement.

Are settlements proof?

[Anonymous]

Same people that still support R Kelly. Disgusting.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I turn off MJ songs now.

But do you make sure you treat everything you consume as diligently? Make sure the restaurants you eat at don't support causes you oppose? Don't watch Woody allen or Roman Polanski movies? Don't support any politician who does things that are morally reprehensibly per your value system?

I think it's a bit nuts to focus on MJ's purported offenses unless you are prepared to take the same hard line against everything tainted by evil in our society. Crooked foreclosing banks? The Catholic Church? Heck, the Epsicopal and Jehovah's Witnesses have had sex scandals too....

Don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good, is a useful adage here. We all make informed choices where we can. This is a case where 1) the behavior is egregious/damage is profound and 2) the choice to avoid his music is easy to make and carry out, and it’s cost-free.

Exactly. Avoiding MJ's music does nothing. It doesn't stop child abuse from occurring and it doesn't stop the financial support of child abuse. Boycotting R Kelly is a much better use of my energy.

Yes. This is virtue signaling at its most profound. But there's at least one PP who is very invested in this - it's east! and the estate denies the crimes! (And I can't be bothered to take actions that might really matter.) What nonsense.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The fact that children were able to describe MJs genitalia in accurate detail should appall anyone with morals, yet it does not, sadly.

It does appall me. But explain how being appalled should translate into not listening to the music.

[Anonymous]

His children are innocent in the sense that they didn't commit the crime, but they are complicit in the sense that they have been vilifying the victims. That's the problem with giving them money by streaming his music.

[Anonymous]

Here is Chris Rock's take on Michael Jackson from 15 years ago. Very timely

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tArmHN4j3qQ

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Here is Chris Rock's take on Michael Jackson from 15 years ago. Very timely

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tArmHN4j3qQ

Thank you.

PPs who are defending Jackson, what would you say to Chris?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I turn off MJ songs now.

But do you make sure you treat everything you consume as diligently? Make sure the restaurants you eat at don't support causes you oppose? Don't watch Woody allen or Roman Polanski movies? Don't support any politician who does things that are morally reprehensibly per your value system?

I think it's a bit nuts to focus on MJ's purported offenses unless you are prepared to take the same hard line against everything tainted by evil in our society. Crooked foreclosing banks? The Catholic Church? Heck, the Epsicopal and Jehovah's Witnesses have had sex scandals too....

Don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good, is a useful adage here. We all make informed choices where we can. This is a case where 1) the behavior is egregious/damage is profound and 2) the choice to avoid his music is easy to make and carry out, and it’s cost-free.

Exactly. Avoiding MJ's music does nothing. It doesn't stop child abuse from occurring and it doesn't stop the financial support of child abuse. Boycotting R Kelly is a much better use of my energy.

Yes. This is virtue signaling at its most profound. But there's at least one PP who is very invested in this - it's east! and the estate denies the crimes! (And I can't be bothered to take actions that might really matter.) What nonsense.

I'm the PP you're accusing.

Excuse me? Where do you get off saying I'm not taking any other actions? WTH?

[Anonymous]

Doesn't anyone understand that it's just a form of protest? Why does it matter whether royalty money either does or does not aid in abuse? That's not the point. It's just a statement that you don't agree with what he did and you are showing support to the victims. Just like sit-ins, or picket lines, or marches... these are simply symbolic acts, not actual steps to fix or avoid a problem.