Why can't people give up Michael Jackson?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Several previous posters keep claiming the accusers are not benefiting financially. Although neither was payed to appear in the documentary, both are appealing the courts’ dismissals of their claims against the Jackson estate.

The whole situation is sad but we should not pretend that these gentleman have nothing to gain by going public and putting out the documentary.

+1000 it bothers me that they first wanted to work with the Jackson estate and when that didn’t work out they made the movie. That says “for profit” to me.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I sing in a cover band that used to play a Jackson song. I asked that we don’t and the band was fine with that. I just felt icky singing his songs after seeing the documentary.

Why didn’t you feel icky before the documentary? These allegations aren’t new.

I’m not the pp in the band but this also rings true for me. Maybe I was too young to understand the allegations before. Maybe now that I have kids it makes me sick to know what happened. I watched the documentary and I was a huge huge fan of MJ. Now I change the radio station when he comes on. I’m only sorry I didn’t understand this sooner.

+1. I don’t follow celebrity news much, so headlines about his acquittal based on false testimony probably had undue influence. Also, before I had kids I didn’t know anything about how pedaphiles operate, like grooming their victims and families, etc. After watching Robson and Safechuck’s detailed, hours-long interviews, it was impossible for me to ignore what they said.

So how exactly do pedophiles learn how to "groom" their victims and victim's families? Is there a pedophile manual?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I sing in a cover band that used to play a Jackson song. I asked that we don’t and the band was fine with that. I just felt icky singing his songs after seeing the documentary.

Why didn’t you feel icky before the documentary? These allegations aren’t new.

I’m not the pp in the band but this also rings true for me. Maybe I was too young to understand the allegations before. Maybe now that I have kids it makes me sick to know what happened. I watched the documentary and I was a huge huge fan of MJ. Now I change the radio station when he comes on. I’m only sorry I didn’t understand this sooner.

+1. I don’t follow celebrity news much, so headlines about his acquittal based on false testimony probably had undue influence. Also, before I had kids I didn’t know anything about how pedaphiles operate, like grooming their victims and families, etc. After watching Robson and Safechuck’s detailed, hours-long interviews, it was impossible for me to ignore what they said.

So how exactly do pedophiles learn how to "groom" their victims and victim's families? Is there a pedophile manual?

Are you questioning that pedophiles groom their victims?

[Anonymous]

Wow. So what if people now decide to quit Michael Jackson. Why does it bother some of you so much? The man was sick. So he made great music. He was still a sick pedophile. Nobody needs to justify to anyone why they don’t want to play his music anymore. Sheesh.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Wow. So what if people now decide to quit Michael Jackson. Why does it bother some of you so much? The man was sick. So he made great music. He was still a sick pedophile. Nobody needs to justify to anyone why they don’t want to play his music anymore. Sheesh.

And yet, here you are.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Wow. So what if people now decide to quit Michael Jackson. Why does it bother some of you so much? The man was sick. So he made great music. He was still a sick pedophile. Nobody needs to justify to anyone why they don’t want to play his music anymore. Sheesh.

I think you are confused. This post asked why people wouldn't stop playing his music then people came in here lecturing and placing scarlet letters on those who said they would continue listening.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I still think his music is great, & am frankly pretty mad that it’s now to the point where no one can play any of it. My 5 yr old loves the music too, & talks about it in school, & no im afraid that other parents will be mad bc they don’t want MJ discussed.

You're defending a child rapist? And getting your 5 year old to like his art?
Well, you take the cake, you really do.

What court rendered a guilty verdict?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

No. You should do your homework before arguing a point you supposedly feel strongly about.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

So you think the men in leaving never land are lying?

How do you justify why he slept in the same bed as little boys?

Yes. I think the men in the overhyped and dismal HBO returns for viewers lied. Everybody seems to want their five minutes of fame.

[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??

Instead, you're choosing to believe a court decision, despite the fact that everyone knows court proceedings about abuse routinely deliver verdicts that do not align with what actually happened.

You also have the universally known fact that Jackson had an affinity for little boys. I'd love to hear your explanation for why he just HAD to have little boys around him all the time.

Read clearly- I said his trial did not prove things one way or another (just like the documentary).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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??

Instead, you're choosing to believe a court decision, despite the fact that everyone knows court proceedings about abuse routinely deliver verdicts that do not align with what actually happened.

You also have the universally known fact that Jackson had an affinity for little boys. I'd love to hear your explanation for why he just HAD to have little boys around him all the time.

DP. That was explained at the time that he was the boy who never grew up. Hence, Neverland. Basically, he was a little boy inside, too, which makes as much sense as anything.

That's why he wanted ample unsupervised time with little boys? Really? Are you that naïve?

Jackson's family isn't disputing that he spent the night with Wade and James without their parents involved. They aren't disputing that he shared a bed with them. They're disputing that sexual acts occurred.

Do you seriously think it's normal or healthy to share a bed with a little kid unrelated to you when that kid's parents are nowhere to be found?

Where were the parents. The parents obviously thought whatever interactions there were between MJ and their sons, such interactions were normal.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

So, protest away, but understand not everyone has your exact feelings or conviction on the issue. I’d rather spend my mental space and energy protesting things that will make my life and the life of my daughter better, not protesting the estate of a dead man in order to line the pockets of his two already financially compensated victims, while taking money from his equally innocent children.

Neither Robson nor Safechuck received any settlement money.

Th MJ defenders aren't interested in facts

I haven’t really seen anyone on here defending MJ. Some of you (I can’t tell if it’s one or a few) are taking this strangely personally.

For me, I don’t care enough to “protest” the estate of a dead man. I have bandwith for other things, but this isn’t one of them.

You don't have bandwidth to NOT listen to Jackson music? You realize this involves not doing something, right? Is it really that much effort?

Yeah. There’s a difference between going out and actively seeking out and paying for music, and not GAFF enough to pointedly turn off the radio if his music comes in, or deleting music I already own in my library. I also see no need to have a vinyl burning party in my driveway, which is also bad for the environment.

Are you always this bad with black, white, and grey? Or is everything in your life based on overdramatizing things and hyperbole?

It takes 2 seconds to delete music from your library. Sort it by artist and just delete the Jackson music. It also takes 2 seconds to switch the radio station.

If you don't care enough to do it, fine -- but don't act like this is difficult.

This takes incoherence to a new level. That argument has always been "you are benefiting the estate!" - but not this lunatic says delete it from your library? Are you unfamiliar with how iTunes works? If it's in my library, I already bought it. The estate gets nothing even if I play it on a constant loop. You are one of those idiots who cut up their Nike shoes with the Colin Kapernick commercial came out, or who threw their Keurig machines out of the second floor window at the urging of Sean Hannity.

I suppose stupid really does know no bounds.

Where’s the Like button? Like, like, like

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Several previous posters keep claiming the accusers are not benefiting financially. Although neither was payed to appear in the documentary, both are appealing the courts’ dismissals of their claims against the Jackson estate.

The whole situation is sad but we should not pretend that these gentleman have nothing to gain by going public and putting out the documentary.

+1000 it bothers me that they first wanted to work with the Jackson estate and when that didn’t work out they made the movie. That says “for profit” to me.

If me or my child were sexually abused, you bet your ass I’d be going after everything I could get from the abuser — their freedom (if criminal charges are an option), their money, their reputation. Everything. You don’t have to believe these men. I get it. They have no proof. Just their word. But questioning them based on them seeking damages from the accused’s estate is ridiculous. They may not win any damages, and they know this. But they damn well have the right to seek them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Several previous posters keep claiming the accusers are not benefiting financially. Although neither was payed to appear in the documentary, both are appealing the courts’ dismissals of their claims against the Jackson estate.

The whole situation is sad but we should not pretend that these gentleman have nothing to gain by going public and putting out the documentary.

+1000 it bothers me that they first wanted to work with the Jackson estate and when that didn’t work out they made the movie. That says “for profit” to me.

If me or my child were sexually abused, you bet your ass I’d be going after everything I could get from the abuser — their freedom (if criminal charges are an option), their money, their reputation. Everything. You don’t have to believe these men. I get it. They have no proof. Just their word. But questioning them based on them seeking damages from the accused’s estate is ridiculous. They may not win any damages, and they know this. But they damn well have the right to seek them.

You missed the part where fonts were posting that the two men were not seeking a monetary award, and they only told their documentary story to get their information to the public. The PPP pointed out that was in fact an untrue statement. The two men are in fact looking for money from the estate.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Several previous posters keep claiming the accusers are not benefiting financially. Although neither was payed to appear in the documentary, both are appealing the courts’ dismissals of their claims against the Jackson estate.

The whole situation is sad but we should not pretend that these gentleman have nothing to gain by going public and putting out the documentary.

+1000 it bothers me that they first wanted to work with the Jackson estate and when that didn’t work out they made the movie. That says “for profit” to me.

If me or my child were sexually abused, you bet your ass I’d be going after everything I could get from the abuser — their freedom (if criminal charges are an option), their money, their reputation. Everything. You don’t have to believe these men. I get it. They have no proof. Just their word. But questioning them based on them seeking damages from the accused’s estate is ridiculous. They may not win any damages, and they know this. But they damn well have the right to seek them.

You missed the part where fonts were posting that the two men were not seeking a monetary award, and they only told their documentary story to get their information to the public. The PPP pointed out that was in fact an untrue statement. The two men are in fact looking for money from the estate.

I don't believe them. They are after more money and fame. DCUM loves to call people fame who@res and that's what these guys are.