Anonymous wrote:He didn’t see anything wrong with sharing a bed because he grew up with nine brothers and sisters in a 2 bedroom house.

Michael had plenty of mental health issues especially body dysmorphia but I tend to believe he was more asexual than pedophilic.
His supposed bio kids were not his. He didn’t sleep with Debbie.

I think he mentally thought he was still a kid and didn’t have sexual desire for either women, men, or kids.

+1 million

I don’t think he was a pedophile. I also think he shared a bed with the kids because he recognized (from his own childhood) something lonely and unloved in them and thought he was being a good friend (like being a comforting presence basically). Agree that he was mentally a child and therefore it never occurred to him that what he was doing was inappropriate or that the vast majority of people would see it as such.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:While I see an argument about not supporting an artist you otherwise admire if said support would contribute to him monetarily, Michael Jackson is dead. Buying every song he ever made ten times each would not contribute to supporting him in any way.

Someone can be a terrible person, a criminal, a monster and still make great art. I do not get canceling the art with the artist especially if said artist can’t benefit from it. I judge art, music, and things in general on whether I like it, not whether its creator comports with my morals. Are we going to cancel Apple products because Steve Jobs who’s now dead was a jerk?

His estate which holds the rights to his catalogue still profits from his image and music.

So, his children. If he was really as pedophile, as you say, it's probably good that they benefit from his image and music. What's the issue here?

It shouldn’t be his children either. His victims should receive compensation through the royalties.

That may or may not be the morally correct thing, but if you think someone’s music should be canceled because royalties from it go to a perp’s innocent kids and not his innocent victims, you are not gonna get a lot of takers.

(Also, the victims are free to litigate the royalties as comps matter in civil court - perhaps they’ve already done so and lost, I have no idea. At this point you are getting so far into the weeds though I am not sure who in the general public will care enough to follow.)

Oh and finally - perhaps he’d have been canceled before his death if he was ever convicted. But he wasn’t. So most people look at that and that’s good enough for them and they don’t have much interest in digging further especially since he’s now dead and we are unlikely to ever find out more than we did before or punish him if we did.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:While I see an argument about not supporting an artist you otherwise admire if said support would contribute to him monetarily, Michael Jackson is dead. Buying every song he ever made ten times each would not contribute to supporting him in any way.

Someone can be a terrible person, a criminal, a monster and still make great art. I do not get canceling the art with the artist especially if said artist can’t benefit from it. I judge art, music, and things in general on whether I like it, not whether its creator comports with my morals. Are we going to cancel Apple products because Steve Jobs who’s now dead was a jerk?

His estate which holds the rights to his catalogue still profits from his image and music.

So, his children. If he was really as pedophile, as you say, it's probably good that they benefit from his image and music. What's the issue here?

It shouldn’t be his children either. His victims should receive compensation through the royalties.

Ever heard of Steven Stayner? He was 7 years old when Kenneth Parnell kidnapped him, and 14 when he escaped and rescued a 5 year old boy that Parnell had kidnapped about ten days before. 7 years of rape and abuse. Kenneth Parnell was sentenced in 1981… to 7 years and PAROLED after 5 years. In 2004, Parnell was arrested for attempting to solicit another kidnapping of a young boy. Upon conviction he was sentenced to 25 to life.

The system, which still sucks today, was absolutely horrible for child victims. Michael Jackson had limitless funds to mount a defense when he finally faced trial twelve years after the first allegations became public. And he was acquitted in 2005. We’d reached a point of holding a poor, scummy man known to be a violent predator accountable, but Michael Jackson had so many advantages, his fame, his money, his image, growing up in front of America. People didn’t want to believe it. They wanted victims to shut up, and they wanted to keep listening to his music. The internet was a different place. Less mobilizing, more I Can Haz Cheezeburger.

20 years later, we are willing to hold some people more accountable, but we let plenty go by too.

And for the political crowd, it’s the GOP paradise of Idaho that won’t let a minor get a rape kit without parental consent. And guess who’s most likely to rape those children- a parent or someone in the household the parent protects. Michael Jackson was not protected by some nefarious leftist cabal because he was black. That’s your weird cult programming. There are pedophiles on “both sides,” but only one side is trying to legally protect them.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Do people watch Woody Allen and Roman Polanski films? They do.

I find the Woody Allen thing conflicting. Most of the negativity around him comes from Mia. Mia had plenty of her own problems. Several of her adopted kids are dead, several have accused her of abuse, and not all the kids support Dylan and her accusations against Allen. What is the truth? Nobody knows.

Well we do know he married his adopted daughter, so, that's enough for me.

He didn’t adopt her. She has another dad.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:While I see an argument about not supporting an artist you otherwise admire if said support would contribute to him monetarily, Michael Jackson is dead. Buying every song he ever made ten times each would not contribute to supporting him in any way.

Someone can be a terrible person, a criminal, a monster and still make great art. I do not get canceling the art with the artist especially if said artist can’t benefit from it. I judge art, music, and things in general on whether I like it, not whether its creator comports with my morals. Are we going to cancel Apple products because Steve Jobs who’s now dead was a jerk?

His estate which holds the rights to his catalogue still profits from his image and music.

So, his children. If he was really as pedophile, as you say, it's probably good that they benefit from his image and music. What's the issue here?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Do people watch Woody Allen and Roman Polanski films? They do.

I find the Woody Allen thing conflicting. Most of the negativity around him comes from Mia. Mia had plenty of her own problems. Several of her adopted kids are dead, several have accused her of abuse, and not all the kids support Dylan and her accusations against Allen. What is the truth? Nobody knows.

Well we do know he married his adopted daughter, so, that's enough for me.

I think Britney is the closest when trying to think of someone equally mentally Ill

They both had unspeakable traumas in their early lives

Anonymous wrote:When the FBI did a no-knock raid on his house when he was in Europe, he reportedly got so upset that he trashed his hotel room. They went through years of hard drives, internet history, security cameras, and hidden compartments in his home. What did they find? Absolutely nothing. He was exonerated when he was alive.

I think it’s more shocking he put his kid over a balcony and went to court in pajamas everyday . He was very very strange and lacked social cues

He’s dead. What is there to cancel exactly?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:He’s been deceased for a long time and we had the me too movement. No matter whether he did or didn’t sexually assault kids he had an inappropriate relationship with them. Why are people still fans/ his music regularly plays on the radio?

B/c he was a black gay male (and pedophile) who in the Left’s hierarchy of victimhood ranked above his victims. Kind of like OJ and why NOW did not go after him. Vote Kamala (if you are high).

Wow. Spot on.

Anonymous wrote:He’s been deceased for a long time and we had the me too movement. No matter whether he did or didn’t sexually assault kids he had an inappropriate relationship with them. Why are people still fans/ his music regularly plays on the radio?

B/c he was a black gay male (and pedophile) who in the Left’s hierarchy of victimhood ranked above his victims. Kind of like OJ and why NOW did not go after him. Vote Kamala (if you are high).

I can listen to Michael Jackson songs on the radio, but I have to change the channel when I hear “Father Figure” by George Michael. That song is creepy as hell.

I heard one of his songs on the radio the other day and I wondered the same thing. I have no clue he should eh totally cancelled. He was a pedo.

I don't find the accusations from the current 2 to be compelling, sorry. One of them was a family friend of the Jacksons that started his accusations after the Jacksons refused to cast him in a lead role in the Cirque du Soleil show. The other accuser joined the lawsuit after his mother had a 6-figure legal judgement against her. Both of their stories had inconsistencies that made me question the whole thing. One claimed that Jackson gave him the red Thriller jacket as payment to keep quiet about the alleged abuse. It was found to have never been in this man's possession. He claimed that as soon as he turned 14, Jackson "banished" him from his life and he never spoke to him again, as he "aged out". But pictures and videos of Neverland show him being at Jackson's property well into adulthood. One accuser said Jackson wouldn't "allow" him to interact with girls and he had to promise to never have a girlfriend, because it would make Jackson "jealous". But the accuser had a long-time girlfriend of 8 years during the alleged abuse period, who publicly gave an interview saying he was being untruthful. The filmmaker also had a history of stretching claims about the 9/11 attacks in his prior documentaries. I don't know. It's not beyond a reasonable doubt to me.