Why can't people give up Michael Jackson?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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, they're lying.

NP. Yep I think they are lying as well. Easy to accuse someone when they are dead and can't defend themselves.

So ALL of Michael Jackson's accusers are lying?

My opinion. Yes, they are.

Michael Jackson paid a settlement of $23 million to one of his accusers family. You don't do that if you're innocent.

I didn't say he was innocent. I said I don't believe his accusers. I think they are lying.

The accusers are lying but he's not innocent????

Do you really believe that there are that many people who are evil enough to completely destroy the reputation of a kind man who was good to them? He paid $23 million to one of these people! Not to mention he was obviously incredibly strange and seemed to have a very peculiar sort of sexuality. Get your head out of the sand, it's obvious he's guilty af.

Head not in the sand. I.Don't.Believe.those.accusers.

I am a parent, and there is NO AMOUNT of money that I could be given to keep quiet, if I thought my children were being molested. No amount. None. So I don't believe people who got money to keep quiet and then after MJ dies, come out later to say they were molested after they took the money. These same accusers lied in court and lied for years. So why should I believe them now? THEY ARE SELF ADMITTED LIARS. And they are white. That makes a difference to me. Don't believe them. Love MJ music, listen to it everyday. Will continue.

You didn’t watch the documentary.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

It goes to his kids who deserve it.

Really? His kids--who are already rich--deserve it, even though they've denied their father ever did anything wrong?

Wow.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Because it brings back happy memories spanning three decades for me. Many people felt to know him when he was an adorable child, then an otherworldly-talented man. When you saw the Moonwalk for the first time, it was really like...no one else on Earth could do that, not that way.

Then all the craziness and eccentricity, I think people chalked up (understandably) to the overwhelming pressures of fame and fortune. People could also identify with a poor and unstable and abusive childhood.

And then...there was no guilty in a court of law. So people felt like there was doubt, even though I don't think there is any doubt that he harmed at least two children, and probably more. But people felt like because there was no concrete gavel going down, no sentence served, maybe there was some gray area.

And then again...the tragedy of bankruptcy and drugs, which many people can relate to. So it felt like a loss and a horrible one when he died.

I don't actively listen to it, but when I hear it, his music and his voice usually make me happy.

All of this for me too.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Despite the child abuse allegations including the horrific claims from the men in Leaving Neverland, his music continues to be played. My daughter's dance studio just choreographed her recital dance and it's to a Michael Jackson song. Why are people so dismissive over this scandal?

Extremely talented and a really really crappy childhood mixed with mental illness lends to some empathy. It really is very complicated.

He was abused as a child and not allowed to grow up and develop the normal prefrontal cortex to be able to say no. These are two things that most pedophiles have in common (not all people who have both become pedophiles though). I am also wondering if they gave him hormones to keep his voice from changing too much- that could have really messed with him. Mental illness is terrible and he had no one to hold him responsible for his actions. I don't think he ever really had a chance. It doesn't make his behaviors less horrible; it just gives people perspective to understanding the "why".

Don't all pedophiles suffer some sort of mental illness? Should we show the same empathy and understanding towards all pedophiles?

If we want to figure out what is going on to stop the cycle, then yes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Because it brings back happy memories spanning three decades for me. Many people felt to know him when he was an adorable child, then an otherworldly-talented man. When you saw the Moonwalk for the first time, it was really like...no one else on Earth could do that, not that way.

Then all the craziness and eccentricity, I think people chalked up (understandably) to the overwhelming pressures of fame and fortune. People could also identify with a poor and unstable and abusive childhood.

And then...there was no guilty in a court of law. So people felt like there was doubt, even though I don't think there is any doubt that he harmed at least two children, and probably more. But people felt like because there was no concrete gavel going down, no sentence served, maybe there was some gray area.

And then again...the tragedy of bankruptcy and drugs, which many people can relate to. So it felt like a loss and a horrible one when he died.

I don't actively listen to it, but when I hear it, his music and his voice usually make me happy.

All of this for me too.

It really makes you happy? Because it makes me sick to my stomach. I'm shocked you can just forget about what the man did when you listen to him sing.

No amount of "great music" or "great dancing" or "nostalgia" counts for more than a clear record of child abuse. I absolutely love music, but you're delusional if you think it really matters, especially compared to trying to give these victims a modicum of justice.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You're conflating the art with the artist. I guess you think art should be didactic? People still love to view Gauguin's work and he slept with teenage girls. Despite his abhorrent tendencies, MJ's music is not going away, because his actual WORK and musical legacy was brilliant.

Art cannot be separate from the artist.
And yes, I don't like Gauguin at all, and always remind myself not to set any people I don't know personally on a pedestal.

So you cannot separate the art from the artist and now you cannot separate the listener from the artist either. You consider me complicit when I listen to Billie Jean or Smooth Criminal.

Yes, you understand me correctly. You are indeed complicit.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You're conflating the art with the artist. I guess you think art should be didactic? People still love to view Gauguin's work and he slept with teenage girls. Despite his abhorrent tendencies, MJ's music is not going away, because his actual WORK and musical legacy was brilliant.

Art cannot be separate from the artist.
And yes, I don't like Gauguin at all, and always remind myself not to set any people I don't know personally on a pedestal.

So you cannot separate the art from the artist and now you cannot separate the listener from the artist either. You consider me complicit when I listen to Billie Jean or Smooth Criminal.

Yes, you understand me correctly. You are indeed complicit.

I'm complicit in child abuse because I listen to a song.

Umm, no.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You're conflating the art with the artist. I guess you think art should be didactic? People still love to view Gauguin's work and he slept with teenage girls. Despite his abhorrent tendencies, MJ's music is not going away, because his actual WORK and musical legacy was brilliant.

Art cannot be separate from the artist.
And yes, I don't like Gauguin at all, and always remind myself not to set any people I don't know personally on a pedestal.

So you cannot separate the art from the artist and now you cannot separate the listener from the artist either. You consider me complicit when I listen to Billie Jean or Smooth Criminal.

Yes, you understand me correctly. You are indeed complicit.

+100000

PP, I am a huge music fan and I used to have Michael Jackson in my rotation. I no longer do. Want an upbeat, happy song with a catchy beat? Listen to the Supremes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Despite the child abuse allegations including the horrific claims from the men in Leaving Neverland, his music continues to be played. My daughter's dance studio just choreographed her recital dance and it's to a Michael Jackson song. Why are people so dismissive over this scandal?

Extremely talented and a really really crappy childhood mixed with mental illness lends to some empathy. It really is very complicated.

He was abused as a child and not allowed to grow up and develop the normal prefrontal cortex to be able to say no. These are two things that most pedophiles have in common (not all people who have both become pedophiles though). I am also wondering if they gave him hormones to keep his voice from changing too much- that could have really messed with him. Mental illness is terrible and he had no one to hold him responsible for his actions. I don't think he ever really had a chance. It doesn't make his behaviors less horrible; it just gives people perspective to understanding the "why".

I am a research scientist and an advocate for more research and more funding for the study and treatment of mental illness.
I have compassion for mentally ill people who are misunderstood and for whom doors close in life.
However, my sympathy stops when the afflict hurt other people, especially the most vulnerable and innocent among us.

His undoubted mental illnesses will never be an excuse for what he did. Period. And his art is forever stained by his life choices.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You're conflating the art with the artist. I guess you think art should be didactic? People still love to view Gauguin's work and he slept with teenage girls. Despite his abhorrent tendencies, MJ's music is not going away, because his actual WORK and musical legacy was brilliant.

Art cannot be separate from the artist.
And yes, I don't like Gauguin at all, and always remind myself not to set any people I don't know personally on a pedestal.

So you cannot separate the art from the artist and now you cannot separate the listener from the artist either. You consider me complicit when I listen to Billie Jean or Smooth Criminal.

Yes, you understand me correctly. You are indeed complicit.

I'm complicit in child abuse because I listen to a song.

Umm, no.

If you are streaming these songs, every time you listen you give money to his estate, which has denied he ever did anything wrong and has vilified his victims.

The only way you're not complicit is if you confine your listening to vinyl, CDs, and downloaded music -- formats that don't pay royalties out on every listen.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You're conflating the art with the artist. I guess you think art should be didactic? People still love to view Gauguin's work and he slept with teenage girls. Despite his abhorrent tendencies, MJ's music is not going away, because his actual WORK and musical legacy was brilliant.

Art cannot be separate from the artist.
And yes, I don't like Gauguin at all, and always remind myself not to set any people I don't know personally on a pedestal.

So you cannot separate the art from the artist and now you cannot separate the listener from the artist either. You consider me complicit when I listen to Billie Jean or Smooth Criminal.

Yes, you understand me correctly. You are indeed complicit.

I'm complicit in child abuse because I listen to a song.

Umm, no.

If you are streaming these songs, every time you listen you give money to his estate, which has denied he ever did anything wrong and has vilified his victims.

The only way you're not complicit is if you confine your listening to vinyl, CDs, and downloaded music -- formats that don't pay royalties out on every listen.

There is no child abuse happening or being financially supported when I stream MJ.

Don't listen if you don't want to. I'm not a child abuser if I do.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You're conflating the art with the artist. I guess you think art should be didactic? People still love to view Gauguin's work and he slept with teenage girls. Despite his abhorrent tendencies, MJ's music is not going away, because his actual WORK and musical legacy was brilliant.

Art cannot be separate from the artist.
And yes, I don't like Gauguin at all, and always remind myself not to set any people I don't know personally on a pedestal.

So you cannot separate the art from the artist and now you cannot separate the listener from the artist either. You consider me complicit when I listen to Billie Jean or Smooth Criminal.

Yes, you understand me correctly. You are indeed complicit.

I'm complicit in child abuse because I listen to a song.

Umm, no.

If you are streaming these songs, every time you listen you give money to his estate, which has denied he ever did anything wrong and has vilified his victims.

The only way you're not complicit is if you confine your listening to vinyl, CDs, and downloaded music -- formats that don't pay royalties out on every listen.

There is no child abuse happening or being financially supported when I stream MJ.

Don't listen if you don't want to. I'm not a child abuser if I do.

You're financially supporting people who excuse child abuse. If listening to a great song is worth that for you, fine, but it's not worth it for me. There's a lot of great music out there that doesn't involve funneling money to people like the Jackson family.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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, they're lying.

NP. Yep I think they are lying as well. Easy to accuse someone when they are dead and can't defend themselves.

So ALL of Michael Jackson's accusers are lying?

My opinion. Yes, they are.

Michael Jackson paid a settlement of $23 million to one of his accusers family. You don't do that if you're innocent.

I didn't say he was innocent. I said I don't believe his accusers. I think they are lying.

The accusers are lying but he's not innocent????

Do you really believe that there are that many people who are evil enough to completely destroy the reputation of a kind man who was good to them? He paid $23 million to one of these people! Not to mention he was obviously incredibly strange and seemed to have a very peculiar sort of sexuality. Get your head out of the sand, it's obvious he's guilty af.

Head not in the sand. I.Don't.Believe.those.accusers.

I am a parent, and there is NO AMOUNT of money that I could be given to keep quiet, if I thought my children were being molested. No amount. None. So I don't believe people who got money to keep quiet and then after MJ dies, come out later to say they were molested after they took the money. These same accusers lied in court and lied for years. So why should I believe them now? THEY ARE SELF ADMITTED LIARS. And they are white. That makes a difference to me. Don't believe them. Love MJ music, listen to it everyday. Will continue.

Is there any amount of money that you would pay to simply make an accusation of child sex abuse go away? Most people would rather go penniless than pay a settlement towards an accuser of child sex abuse that makes them look guilty AF. He knew how devastating it was to his image to have to pay that settlement. There is NO WAY he would have done it if he absolutely didn't have to.

[Anonymous]

I find it hard to believe that anyone who still finds pleasure in his music actually watched the documentary. If you haven’t watched it, then your understanding of MJ and how he operated is almost useless.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You're conflating the art with the artist. I guess you think art should be didactic? People still love to view Gauguin's work and he slept with teenage girls. Despite his abhorrent tendencies, MJ's music is not going away, because his actual WORK and musical legacy was brilliant.

Art cannot be separate from the artist.
And yes, I don't like Gauguin at all, and always remind myself not to set any people I don't know personally on a pedestal.

So you cannot separate the art from the artist and now you cannot separate the listener from the artist either. You consider me complicit when I listen to Billie Jean or Smooth Criminal.

Yes, you understand me correctly. You are indeed complicit.

I'm complicit in child abuse because I listen to a song.

Umm, no.

If you are streaming these songs, every time you listen you give money to his estate, which has denied he ever did anything wrong and has vilified his victims.

The only way you're not complicit is if you confine your listening to vinyl, CDs, and downloaded music -- formats that don't pay royalties out on every listen.

There is no child abuse happening or being financially supported when I stream MJ.

Don't listen if you don't want to. I'm not a child abuser if I do.

You're financially supporting people who excuse child abuse. If listening to a great song is worth that for you, fine, but it's not worth it for me. There's a lot of great music out there that doesn't involve funneling money to people like the Jackson family.

There are many artists with questionable lives. Many.