Anonymous wrote:Same people that still support R Kelly. Disgusting.

Not everyone. I would not actively listen or not listen to MJs music at this point. If it comes on I am not going to turn it off, nor am I going to dispose of the CDs or whatever that I have. To me that's like posting "prayers" after a school shooting. Makes no difference and pretty sure MJ is not a current threat. R Kelly is a different thing - the point of the Mute R Kelly movement is to stop his income and the support of his promoters/label so that he stops his treatment of girls/women today, and hopefully pays the price for his past abuse. But I am probably not your target market because I am not sure I even knew who R Kelly was before watching the show.

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.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the boys parents should pay the price. They let their children stay with MJ even when the boys said they slept in the same bed with an adult rock star. Then they accepted money after MJ was finished with their kids. How are they innocent in this in ANY way regardless of what happened.

+1 They were shi**y parents.

I think they are. They’ve lost their relationship with their sons.

And it doesn’t in any way diminish Jackson’s culpability.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the boys parents should pay the price. They let their children stay with MJ even when the boys said they slept in the same bed with an adult rock star. Then they accepted money after MJ was finished with their kids. How are they innocent in this in ANY way regardless of what happened.

+1 They were shi**y parents.

I think they are. They’ve lost their relationship with their sons.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

Because the current “evidence” seems sketchy and motivated by profit about a man who is conveniently dead.

Then you don't really know anything about what's actually happening. Wade and James are not getting paid for their participation in the documentary. This was addressed directly in the Oprah special.

Haha. But they getting lot of free publicity just at a time when their careers were fading and the Jackson family turned them down for a project. Sketchy

did you watch it? Cause these man appear to be shells, dealing with the fall out. Also I don't know what profession would capitalize on this type of fame- this is the same "logic" from die hard Michael fans- these men aren't going to gain fame with this, they know this... if you really believe that than you are delusional

Anonymous wrote:I think the boys parents should pay the price. They let their children stay with MJ even when the boys said they slept in the same bed with an adult rock star. Then they accepted money after MJ was finished with their kids. How are they innocent in this in ANY way regardless of what happened.

+1 They were shi**y parents.

I think the boys parents should pay the price. They let their children stay with MJ even when the boys said they slept in the same bed with an adult rock star. Then they accepted money after MJ was finished with their kids. How are they innocent in this in ANY way regardless of what happened.

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.

You're not following. The PP argued he/she doesn't have the bandwidth to delete music from his/her library or switch the radio station. I was simply pointing out that it's easy to do these things. I wasn't making any comment about the financial implications of listening to downloaded music.

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.

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.

Not trying to defend him as I am very suspicious of his behavior, but his initial accusers weren’t able to describe his body accurately. Lots of misinformation out there.

Anonymous wrote:

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?

MHOB and worry about himself. He should make sure no one finds out the under age girls he use to chase after.

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.

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?

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?

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.