I'm a white mother. I had Michael Jackson's posters in my bedroom as a pre-tween, and one of my favorite videos of my oldest daughter used to be of her dancing to one of his songs.
Knowing what we know now, I cannot bear to hear his music. So many songs are especially infuriating and triggering. It makes me angry that people are treating child molestation so lightly. I didn't watch the documentary. I don't think I will - I believe them, and I don't need to look at them.

I'm infuriated that Al Franken is no longer in Congress just because of a photo where he's air-grabbing someone's boobs back when he was a comedian. I'm annoyed as heck that Louis CK's career is gone because he whacked off in front of women he worked with.

Meanwhile it took decades to get anything done about the pedophilia in the Catholic church, and there still have not been enough consequences. Other religious institutions have similar scandals that are not being dealt with loudly enough.

It seems like abuse of children is so abhorrent that people are in complete denial that it could have happened and therefore cannot appropriately take a stand against its perps. Meanwhile, they can completely imagine abusive behavior to women and get worked up about it, and levvy appropriate consequences.

It makes me so angry that my woke friends think that being annoyed at the discrepancy of treatment of Louis CK and Michael Jackson's works is a sign of racism and an example of supporting white men in anything. Oh My God does it piss me off.

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.

Same. I think I am in denial, tbh. I grew up in a different country. His music spAnned borders, sparked joy. It still does. I am in a dilemma because somewhere I am sympathetic to him, as it relates to his abusive childhood.

His abusive childhood doesn't justify what he did to those boys. Other people have had abusive childhoods and really tough lives in other ways and they didn't engage in child abuse.

Lots of other music sparks joy around the world -- listen to that instead.

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.

Same. I think I am in denial, tbh. I grew up in a different country. His music spAnned borders, sparked joy. It still does. I am in a dilemma because somewhere I am sympathetic to him, as it relates to his abusive childhood.

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?

Anonymous wrote:^^All that said, I no longer actively listen to or celebrate his music. But when I hear it? My heart loves it.

Yes, my first instinct is excitement and a desire to dance.....Quickly followed by a disgust and queasiness.
Especially if you listen to some lyrics.

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.

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.

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.

It’s mostly women who like MJ. Most women do not think males can be raped or sexual abuse...that only happen to women. So they do not see what MJ did as anything wrong or bad. Why should they not enjoy a song like “Pretty young thing”?

Anonymous wrote:I listen and like MJ and I don't see that changing. 1)He was found not guilty in court. (It's funny how people pick and choose when to believe the judicial system.) 2) I'm not going to base my opinion on a one sided point of view "documentary".

Do you acknowledge he slept in the same bed as little boys? How do you justify that?

Do you think our judicial system is flawless? Can you not acknowledge the possibility that verdicts might come down that don't comport with reality?

I listen and like MJ and I don't see that changing. 1)He was found not guilty in court. (It's funny how people pick and choose when to believe the judicial system.) 2) I'm not going to base my opinion on a one sided point of view "documentary".

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Yes, and for those artists whose conduct has crossed a line for me, I don't stream their music. If I want to listen to it, I do so on vinyl.

But you still listen to the music.

My issue was never with listening to the music -- it was with giving money to his estate.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Yes, and for those artists whose conduct has crossed a line for me, I don't stream their music. If I want to listen to it, I do so on vinyl.

But you still listen to the music.

Anonymous wrote: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.

I watched it.

I also believed he was creepy when the allegations came out, I was a teenager at the time. I still listened to his music bc it was played. The world moved on and it became more of a joke. Everyone knew he was creepy.

I didn’t need this documentary to sway me like other ppl did. I still listen to his music when it comes on and I didn’t delete it from my playlists. You can fight that ppl shouldn’t listen to his music but you can’t contorl everything. His accusers lied several times which is hard for ppl who really like MJ to get over. Honestly, I didn’t find Wade Robinson to be that credible. The other guy was more credible but the entire documentary left me more upset with the parents who failed their children.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Yes, and for those artists whose conduct has crossed a line for me, I don't stream their music. If I want to listen to it, I do so on vinyl.