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.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

So you are actually okay with the abuse, then. Do you also listen to R. Kelly? Or is R. Kelly only okay if he is dead?

I already said that it appalls me. But make the logical connection - why should my being appalled translate to turning off the radio when an MJ song comes on? He's been dead for a decade.

Because you are helping the estate of a molester profit. Why can't you understand that?

Again, are you okay with R. Kelly? If he died, would you start listening to his music?

If the bolded is your idea of a "logical connection," I sincerely hope you attended a different school than my kids do. And no, that doesn't mean I'm OK with abuse.

I wouldn't know one R Kelly song if someone came into my office to sing it. But if, 30 years from now, someone plays it on the radio, I'm not going to lose any sleep about it.

I am curious, PP, how far do you extend your rule against consuming entertainment from celebs with questionable backgrounds? DO you have a list of movies you won't see? Will you share it?

Or is this just you personal pet project?

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.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

So you are actually okay with the abuse, then. Do you also listen to R. Kelly? Or is R. Kelly only okay if he is dead?

I already said that it appalls me. But make the logical connection - why should my being appalled translate to turning off the radio when an MJ song comes on? He's been dead for a decade.

Because you are helping the estate of a molester profit. Why can't you understand that?

Again, are you okay with R. Kelly? If he died, would you start listening to his music?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

So you are actually okay with the abuse, then. Do you also listen to R. Kelly? Or is R. Kelly only okay if he is dead?

I already said that it appalls me. But make the logical connection - why should my being appalled translate to turning off the radio when an MJ song comes on? He's been dead for a decade.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

the previous poster has some real issues. Number one. It is not virtue signaling to not play music if it makes me, personally, feel dirty and gross when I hear it.

two. I know the kind of advocacy that I'm involved in, but I would like to know that person's particular suggestions for what they believe constitutes action? Please, inform us about what you think " actions that matter" enails and we can tell you if we're actually doing those things.

Until then, you're just making baseless assumptions

Do whatever you like. I agree with, "It is not virtue signaling to not play music if it makes me, personally, feel dirty and gross when I hear it."

But, that's not what the other PP is doing. She's repeatedly criticizing others for not deleting MJ because the estate denies his culpability and attacks the two most recent accusers. That's absolutely virtue signaling. And she has black and white standard for others, and flexible standards for herself. She can explain away her own support for someone who did exactly the same thing as she accuses the estate of, because it was really important. Situational ethics at its best. She's already demonstrated she's not willing to take actions that might matter - such as redirecting her presidential vote.

The ridiculous thing is, I don't even really like Michael Jackson. If Eddie Van Halen were accused of pedophilia, I'd be crushed. But the ridiculous hypocrisy and incoherence of her positions offends me, as someone who thinks and abhors stupidity.

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

It's a strange form of defense, saying that the art is separate from the artist.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

So you are actually okay with the abuse, then. Do you also listen to R. Kelly? Or is R. Kelly only okay if he is dead?

DP. There's no talking to you. I'm not going to change the station when MJ comes on the radio. If that means that you feel you need to defriend me, so be it.

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

Anonymous wrote:

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.

So you are actually okay with the abuse, then. Do you also listen to R. Kelly? Or is R. Kelly only okay if he is dead?

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.

Anonymous wrote:

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?

the previous poster has some real issues. Number one. It is not virtue signaling to not play music if it makes me, personally, feel dirty and gross when I hear it.

two. I know the kind of advocacy that I'm involved in, but I would like to know that person's particular suggestions for what they believe constitutes action? Please, inform us about what you think " actions that matter" enails and we can tell you if we're actually doing those things.

Until then, you're just making baseless assumptions

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.

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.

Then continue your protest, no one is stopping you. Why do you need everyone else to agree with you. You may want to but you cannot control other ppl.

Anonymous wrote: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.

They weren’t even shadows in MJs eyes when this allegedly occurred. He is their FATHER. He’s dead. They have no way of knowing what happened. A court of law says their father is innocent. A movie, carefully released after his death is saying he’s not.

Yeah, most kids would align themselves with a bunch of strangers who are setting their dead father on fire for something they’ve been told he’s innocent of all their lives. They know the man, and are allowed to take whatever side they want without being penalized.