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.

You’re still giving money to his estate, which has denied any wrongdoing on his part, every time you stream one of his songs. That’s the difference.

You keep repeating this like some sort of mantra, apparently believing it is some sort of critical point. It isn't. Michael Jackson is dead, likely roasting in hell for his crimes. He gets no benefit from any royalties. What does it matter, at all, of his estate - which is comprised of his children, deny that he committed those crimes?

I don't disagree that the public should stop supporting artists who commit crimes, and the R Kelly movement is a perfect example. And of course everyone has to draw their own line as to what they are comfortable with. But for me, "the estate gets record streaming royalties," falls well short of a good reason for deleting Billy Jean from my playlist.

But, PP, you appear to be very fixated on the "estate has denied wrongdoing and vilified the accusers" argument. So, I have a question for you - did you vote for Hillary Clinton for President? Contribute to her campaign?

DP. When his estate attacks his accusers, they are making it so much harder for his victims to recover and lead healthy lives. I wouldn’t have a problem with his heirs continuing to earn royalties if they weren’t doing so at this point on the suffering of his victims. There is no question that a public acknowledgement of their truth would help them personally, emotionally to recover. Part of the insidiousness of their abuse was the way Jackson distorted their perception of reality. MJ took from them their ability to accurately perceive reality— the difference between love and abuse, whom to trust, truth and manipulation. That part of the abuse is ongoing by the estate toward his victims by denying the monstrous things that they KNOW Jackson did.

This is nonesene. No one other than getting out of your own head alllws for you to heal. Many rape victims, incest victims, and abuse victims never get any acknowledgement, and go on to healing. They have had the same twisting of reality. They also never get millions of dollars that would have gotten therapy and a start to a better life.

These men have been out of the public eye for years. MJ has been dead for 10 years. They can’t make him pay any more than healready has. Hisfamily, especially his children, shouldn’t be made to pay for his transgressions. They have never had a moment’s peace in their whole lives, and continue to be haunted by their fathers legacy, positive and negative.

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.

You’re still giving money to his estate, which has denied any wrongdoing on his part, every time you stream one of his songs. That’s the difference.

You keep repeating this like some sort of mantra, apparently believing it is some sort of critical point. It isn't. Michael Jackson is dead, likely roasting in hell for his crimes. He gets no benefit from any royalties. What does it matter, at all, of his estate - which is comprised of his children, deny that he committed those crimes?

I don't disagree that the public should stop supporting artists who commit crimes, and the R Kelly movement is a perfect example. And of course everyone has to draw their own line as to what they are comfortable with. But for me, "the estate gets record streaming royalties," falls well short of a good reason for deleting Billy Jean from my playlist.

But, PP, you appear to be very fixated on the "estate has denied wrongdoing and vilified the accusers" argument. So, I have a question for you - did you vote for Hillary Clinton for President? Contribute to her campaign?

I didn't vote for her in the primary. I did vote for her in the general, but I wasn't happy about it and only did so because the alternative was (and remains) so horrific. Given that her opponent was Trump, you picked a really horrible example for demonstrating my alleged hypocrisy when it comes to supporting people who mistreat abuse survivors.

My issue with everyone harping about how "difficult" it is to give up Jackson's music is that, unlike exercising your civic duty to vote, it isn't hard AT ALL to stop listening to a particular set of songs. It's damn easy. There's almost unlimited music out there; just pick something else!

BS. You are harping, over and over, about how people who listen to MJ's music music are "supporting the estate, which denies any crimes were committed and has vilified the accusers" when you *voted for someone for President* who has done *exactly* the same thing. That's pretty much the definition of hypocrisy. And yes, Trump is worse, but you are fine with black and white scenarios when you're chastising other people - it's only when those same standards are applied to you that the need for nuance suddenly becomes important. Also, plenty of people "exercised their civic duty to vote" by voting for someone other than Clinton or Trump. And now your rationale is, "well, it's easy to stop listening to the music."

So, you do (what you believe to be) the right thing when it is easy, don't do it when it is difficult, but feel fine railing at other people for not living up to your "standards." Real profile in courage, you are.

Voting for 3rd party candidates helped elect Trump, especially for those who did so in certain states. You're a fool if you think voting for a particular candidate is the same thing as choosing what music to listen to. There are much higher stakes and more complicated reasoning involved when making a decision about whom to vote for in an election.

Oh, we know, PP - your situation is different! and complicated! and harder!

Pretty much exactly the bolded above, right?

If you can't see the difference between figuring out whom to vote for in a close presidential election with massive consequences for our country and the world, and deciding whether to listen to Michael Jackson music, there isn't much I can accomplish by continuing to debate this with you.

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.

You’re still giving money to his estate, which has denied any wrongdoing on his part, every time you stream one of his songs. That’s the difference.

You keep repeating this like some sort of mantra, apparently believing it is some sort of critical point. It isn't. Michael Jackson is dead, likely roasting in hell for his crimes. He gets no benefit from any royalties. What does it matter, at all, of his estate - which is comprised of his children, deny that he committed those crimes?

I don't disagree that the public should stop supporting artists who commit crimes, and the R Kelly movement is a perfect example. And of course everyone has to draw their own line as to what they are comfortable with. But for me, "the estate gets record streaming royalties," falls well short of a good reason for deleting Billy Jean from my playlist.

But, PP, you appear to be very fixated on the "estate has denied wrongdoing and vilified the accusers" argument. So, I have a question for you - did you vote for Hillary Clinton for President? Contribute to her campaign?

I didn't vote for her in the primary. I did vote for her in the general, but I wasn't happy about it and only did so because the alternative was (and remains) so horrific. Given that her opponent was Trump, you picked a really horrible example for demonstrating my alleged hypocrisy when it comes to supporting people who mistreat abuse survivors.

My issue with everyone harping about how "difficult" it is to give up Jackson's music is that, unlike exercising your civic duty to vote, it isn't hard AT ALL to stop listening to a particular set of songs. It's damn easy. There's almost unlimited music out there; just pick something else!

BS. You are harping, over and over, about how people who listen to MJ's music music are "supporting the estate, which denies any crimes were committed and has vilified the accusers" when you *voted for someone for President* who has done *exactly* the same thing. That's pretty much the definition of hypocrisy. And yes, Trump is worse, but you are fine with black and white scenarios when you're chastising other people - it's only when those same standards are applied to you that the need for nuance suddenly becomes important. Also, plenty of people "exercised their civic duty to vote" by voting for someone other than Clinton or Trump. And now your rationale is, "well, it's easy to stop listening to the music."

So, you do (what you believe to be) the right thing when it is easy, don't do it when it is difficult, but feel fine railing at other people for not living up to your "standards." Real profile in courage, you are.

Voting for 3rd party candidates helped elect Trump, especially for those who did so in certain states. You're a fool if you think voting for a particular candidate is the same thing as choosing what music to listen to. There are much higher stakes and more complicated reasoning involved when making a decision about whom to vote for in an election.

Oh, we know, PP - your situation is different! and complicated! and harder!

Pretty much exactly the bolded above, right?

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.

You’re still giving money to his estate, which has denied any wrongdoing on his part, every time you stream one of his songs. That’s the difference.

You keep repeating this like some sort of mantra, apparently believing it is some sort of critical point. It isn't. Michael Jackson is dead, likely roasting in hell for his crimes. He gets no benefit from any royalties. What does it matter, at all, of his estate - which is comprised of his children, deny that he committed those crimes?

I don't disagree that the public should stop supporting artists who commit crimes, and the R Kelly movement is a perfect example. And of course everyone has to draw their own line as to what they are comfortable with. But for me, "the estate gets record streaming royalties," falls well short of a good reason for deleting Billy Jean from my playlist.

But, PP, you appear to be very fixated on the "estate has denied wrongdoing and vilified the accusers" argument. So, I have a question for you - did you vote for Hillary Clinton for President? Contribute to her campaign?

I didn't vote for her in the primary. I did vote for her in the general, but I wasn't happy about it and only did so because the alternative was (and remains) so horrific. Given that her opponent was Trump, you picked a really horrible example for demonstrating my alleged hypocrisy when it comes to supporting people who mistreat abuse survivors.

My issue with everyone harping about how "difficult" it is to give up Jackson's music is that, unlike exercising your civic duty to vote, it isn't hard AT ALL to stop listening to a particular set of songs. It's damn easy. There's almost unlimited music out there; just pick something else!

BS. You are harping, over and over, about how people who listen to MJ's music music are "supporting the estate, which denies any crimes were committed and has vilified the accusers" when you *voted for someone for President* who has done *exactly* the same thing. That's pretty much the definition of hypocrisy. And yes, Trump is worse, but you are fine with black and white scenarios when you're chastising other people - it's only when those same standards are applied to you that the need for nuance suddenly becomes important. Also, plenty of people "exercised their civic duty to vote" by voting for someone other than Clinton or Trump. And now your rationale is, "well, it's easy to stop listening to the music."

So, you do (what you believe to be) the right thing when it is easy, don't do it when it is difficult, but feel fine railing at other people for not living up to your "standards." Real profile in courage, you are.

Voting for 3rd party candidates helped elect Trump, especially for those who did so in certain states. You're a fool if you think voting for a particular candidate is the same thing as choosing what music to listen to. There are much higher stakes and more complicated reasoning involved when making a decision about whom to vote for in an election.

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.

You’re still giving money to his estate, which has denied any wrongdoing on his part, every time you stream one of his songs. That’s the difference.

You keep repeating this like some sort of mantra, apparently believing it is some sort of critical point. It isn't. Michael Jackson is dead, likely roasting in hell for his crimes. He gets no benefit from any royalties. What does it matter, at all, of his estate - which is comprised of his children, deny that he committed those crimes?

I don't disagree that the public should stop supporting artists who commit crimes, and the R Kelly movement is a perfect example. And of course everyone has to draw their own line as to what they are comfortable with. But for me, "the estate gets record streaming royalties," falls well short of a good reason for deleting Billy Jean from my playlist.

But, PP, you appear to be very fixated on the "estate has denied wrongdoing and vilified the accusers" argument. So, I have a question for you - did you vote for Hillary Clinton for President? Contribute to her campaign?

DP. When his estate attacks his accusers, they are making it so much harder for his victims to recover and lead healthy lives. I wouldn’t have a problem with his heirs continuing to earn royalties if they weren’t doing so at this point on the suffering of his victims. There is no question that a public acknowledgement of their truth would help them personally, emotionally to recover. Part of the insidiousness of their abuse was the way Jackson distorted their perception of reality. MJ took from them their ability to accurately perceive reality— the difference between love and abuse, whom to trust, truth and manipulation. That part of the abuse is ongoing by the estate toward his victims by denying the monstrous things that they KNOW Jackson did.

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.

You’re still giving money to his estate, which has denied any wrongdoing on his part, every time you stream one of his songs. That’s the difference.

You keep repeating this like some sort of mantra, apparently believing it is some sort of critical point. It isn't. Michael Jackson is dead, likely roasting in hell for his crimes. He gets no benefit from any royalties. What does it matter, at all, of his estate - which is comprised of his children, deny that he committed those crimes?

I don't disagree that the public should stop supporting artists who commit crimes, and the R Kelly movement is a perfect example. And of course everyone has to draw their own line as to what they are comfortable with. But for me, "the estate gets record streaming royalties," falls well short of a good reason for deleting Billy Jean from my playlist.

But, PP, you appear to be very fixated on the "estate has denied wrongdoing and vilified the accusers" argument. So, I have a question for you - did you vote for Hillary Clinton for President? Contribute to her campaign?

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.

You’re still giving money to his estate, which has denied any wrongdoing on his part, every time you stream one of his songs. That’s the difference.

You keep repeating this like some sort of mantra, apparently believing it is some sort of critical point. It isn't. Michael Jackson is dead, likely roasting in hell for his crimes. He gets no benefit from any royalties. What does it matter, at all, of his estate - which is comprised of his children, deny that he committed those crimes?

I don't disagree that the public should stop supporting artists who commit crimes, and the R Kelly movement is a perfect example. And of course everyone has to draw their own line as to what they are comfortable with. But for me, "the estate gets record streaming royalties," falls well short of a good reason for deleting Billy Jean from my playlist.

But, PP, you appear to be very fixated on the "estate has denied wrongdoing and vilified the accusers" argument. So, I have a question for you - did you vote for Hillary Clinton for President? Contribute to her campaign?

I didn't vote for her in the primary. I did vote for her in the general, but I wasn't happy about it and only did so because the alternative was (and remains) so horrific. Given that her opponent was Trump, you picked a really horrible example for demonstrating my alleged hypocrisy when it comes to supporting people who mistreat abuse survivors.

My issue with everyone harping about how "difficult" it is to give up Jackson's music is that, unlike exercising your civic duty to vote, it isn't hard AT ALL to stop listening to a particular set of songs. It's damn easy. There's almost unlimited music out there; just pick something else!

BS. You are harping, over and over, about how people who listen to MJ's music music are "supporting the estate, which denies any crimes were committed and has vilified the accusers" when you *voted for someone for President* who has done *exactly* the same thing. That's pretty much the definition of hypocrisy. And yes, Trump is worse, but you are fine with black and white scenarios when you're chastising other people - it's only when those same standards are applied to you that the need for nuance suddenly becomes important. Also, plenty of people "exercised their civic duty to vote" by voting for someone other than Clinton or Trump. And now your rationale is, "well, it's easy to stop listening to the music."

So, you do (what you believe to be) the right thing when it is easy, don't do it when it is difficult, but feel fine railing at other people for not living up to your "standards." Real profile in courage, you are.

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.

You’re still giving money to his estate, which has denied any wrongdoing on his part, every time you stream one of his songs. That’s the difference.

You keep repeating this like some sort of mantra, apparently believing it is some sort of critical point. It isn't. Michael Jackson is dead, likely roasting in hell for his crimes. He gets no benefit from any royalties. What does it matter, at all, of his estate - which is comprised of his children, deny that he committed those crimes?

I don't disagree that the public should stop supporting artists who commit crimes, and the R Kelly movement is a perfect example. And of course everyone has to draw their own line as to what they are comfortable with. But for me, "the estate gets record streaming royalties," falls well short of a good reason for deleting Billy Jean from my playlist.

But, PP, you appear to be very fixated on the "estate has denied wrongdoing and vilified the accusers" argument. So, I have a question for you - did you vote for Hillary Clinton for President? Contribute to her campaign?

I didn't vote for her in the primary. I did vote for her in the general, but I wasn't happy about it and only did so because the alternative was (and remains) so horrific. Given that her opponent was Trump, you picked a really horrible example for demonstrating my alleged hypocrisy when it comes to supporting people who mistreat abuse survivors.

My issue with everyone harping about how "difficult" it is to give up Jackson's music is that, unlike exercising your civic duty to vote, it isn't hard AT ALL to stop listening to a particular set of songs. It's damn easy. There's almost unlimited music out there; just pick something else!

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.

You’re still giving money to his estate, which has denied any wrongdoing on his part, every time you stream one of his songs. That’s the difference.

You keep repeating this like some sort of mantra, apparently believing it is some sort of critical point. It isn't. Michael Jackson is dead, likely roasting in hell for his crimes. He gets no benefit from any royalties. What does it matter, at all, of his estate - which is comprised of his children, deny that he committed those crimes?

I don't disagree that the public should stop supporting artists who commit crimes, and the R Kelly movement is a perfect example. And of course everyone has to draw their own line as to what they are comfortable with. But for me, "the estate gets record streaming royalties," falls well short of a good reason for deleting Billy Jean from my playlist.

But, PP, you appear to be very fixated on the "estate has denied wrongdoing and vilified the accusers" argument. So, I have a question for you - did you vote for Hillary Clinton for President? Contribute to her campaign?

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.

You’re still giving money to his estate, which has denied any wrongdoing on his part, every time you stream one of his songs. That’s the difference.

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.

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.

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.