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.

It takes a moral stand against abuse. Listening to it sends a message to all victims that their abuse doesn’t matter and can be overlooked if the abuser is popular or powerful.

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.

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.

When I know behavior has been egregious and I can avoid supporting such a person, I do. Why wouldn't I?
Same for climate change - I make an effort to avoid sending too much greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.
I try to cut down on plastic, to avoid future global ingestion of microbeads.

I can't single-handedly save the planet, or avoid every single pedophile or abusive person's work, but I try to do what I can. If we all have that mindset, we'd be a lot better off!!!

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.

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....

I would never purport to say I don't unintentionally support organizations that cause harm to people, but I will say I try really hard to avoid doing so.

I'm not part of any church or organized religion. I have my own personal spiritual views, but I don't go to organized religious services. I am a vegetarian because I don't like factory farming or the environmental impact of eating especially red meat. I researched the labor practices of children's clothing companies when I had my daughter and only buy clothes for her from places that have ethical labor practices. We bought our home in a community specifically built to reduce car dependence and promote a sustainable lifestyle.

Again, I'm not perfect, but I believe in making conscious, informed choices whenever possible.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Because he is dead and the money does not go to him.

Think for a second.

It goes to his estate, which has denied all wrongdoing and vilified the victims.

What else did you think his family and loved ones would do? He may be a pedo to most of us but he is their son, brother, father, uncle etc and they know him in ways we don't and don't believe any of it is true. I am not at all surprised by this reaction.

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....

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I HAVE seen the documentary and, when placed in the context of everything else which has happened, did not find the two men who spoke particularly compelling. It was clearly edited and made no attempt to be unbiased. You are a fool if you think they will not get any financial or other benefits from this. Not saying MJ isn't guilty, I don't think his trial proved things one way or another, but neither does this documentary.

I agree. Really don't understand why people are using this as "proof" when it's clearly biased??

Instead, you're choosing to believe a court decision, despite the fact that everyone knows court proceedings about abuse routinely deliver verdicts that do not align with what actually happened.

You also have the universally known fact that Jackson had an affinity for little boys. I'd love to hear your explanation for why he just HAD to have little boys around him all the time.

And the court decision would have probably gone the other way if Robson and Safechuck were able to tell their stories at that time. They weren’t. It has taken them years to get to a place where they can.

I find it hard to fathom how anyone can watch Safechuck, especially, and not be moved. His voice and hands shook throughout the interview. His pain and emotional confusion is palpable. Frankly, I worry for him.

It seems like it must be willful denial by viewers to come away from that film and Oprah’s aftershow and still defend Jackson.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I HAVE seen the documentary and, when placed in the context of everything else which has happened, did not find the two men who spoke particularly compelling. It was clearly edited and made no attempt to be unbiased. You are a fool if you think they will not get any financial or other benefits from this. Not saying MJ isn't guilty, I don't think his trial proved things one way or another, but neither does this documentary.

I agree. Really don't understand why people are using this as "proof" when it's clearly biased??

Instead, you're choosing to believe a court decision, despite the fact that everyone knows court proceedings about abuse routinely deliver verdicts that do not align with what actually happened.

You also have the universally known fact that Jackson had an affinity for little boys. I'd love to hear your explanation for why he just HAD to have little boys around him all the time.

DP. That was explained at the time that he was the boy who never grew up. Hence, Neverland. Basically, he was a little boy inside, too, which makes as much sense as anything.

That's why he wanted ample unsupervised time with little boys? Really? Are you that naïve?

Jackson's family isn't disputing that he spent the night with Wade and James without their parents involved. They aren't disputing that he shared a bed with them. They're disputing that sexual acts occurred.

Do you seriously think it's normal or healthy to share a bed with a little kid unrelated to you when that kid's parents are nowhere to be found?

Does anyone think that MJ was normal or healthy? He wasn't.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I HAVE seen the documentary and, when placed in the context of everything else which has happened, did not find the two men who spoke particularly compelling. It was clearly edited and made no attempt to be unbiased. You are a fool if you think they will not get any financial or other benefits from this. Not saying MJ isn't guilty, I don't think his trial proved things one way or another, but neither does this documentary.

I agree. Really don't understand why people are using this as "proof" when it's clearly biased??

Instead, you're choosing to believe a court decision, despite the fact that everyone knows court proceedings about abuse routinely deliver verdicts that do not align with what actually happened.

You also have the universally known fact that Jackson had an affinity for little boys. I'd love to hear your explanation for why he just HAD to have little boys around him all the time.

DP. That was explained at the time that he was the boy who never grew up. Hence, Neverland. Basically, he was a little boy inside, too, which makes as much sense as anything.

That's why he wanted ample unsupervised time with little boys? Really? Are you that naïve?

Jackson's family isn't disputing that he spent the night with Wade and James without their parents involved. They aren't disputing that he shared a bed with them. They're disputing that sexual acts occurred.

Do you seriously think it's normal or healthy to share a bed with a little kid unrelated to you when that kid's parents are nowhere to be found?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I HAVE seen the documentary and, when placed in the context of everything else which has happened, did not find the two men who spoke particularly compelling. It was clearly edited and made no attempt to be unbiased. You are a fool if you think they will not get any financial or other benefits from this. Not saying MJ isn't guilty, I don't think his trial proved things one way or another, but neither does this documentary.

I agree. Really don't understand why people are using this as "proof" when it's clearly biased??

Instead, you're choosing to believe a court decision, despite the fact that everyone knows court proceedings about abuse routinely deliver verdicts that do not align with what actually happened.

You also have the universally known fact that Jackson had an affinity for little boys. I'd love to hear your explanation for why he just HAD to have little boys around him all the time.

DP. That was explained at the time that he was the boy who never grew up. Hence, Neverland. Basically, he was a little boy inside, too, which makes as much sense as anything.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I HAVE seen the documentary and, when placed in the context of everything else which has happened, did not find the two men who spoke particularly compelling. It was clearly edited and made no attempt to be unbiased. You are a fool if you think they will not get any financial or other benefits from this. Not saying MJ isn't guilty, I don't think his trial proved things one way or another, but neither does this documentary.

I agree. Really don't understand why people are using this as "proof" when it's clearly biased??

Instead, you're choosing to believe a court decision, despite the fact that everyone knows court proceedings about abuse routinely deliver verdicts that do not align with what actually happened.

You also have the universally known fact that Jackson had an affinity for little boys. I'd love to hear your explanation for why he just HAD to have little boys around him all the time.

Anonymous wrote:I HAVE seen the documentary and, when placed in the context of everything else which has happened, did not find the two men who spoke particularly compelling. It was clearly edited and made no attempt to be unbiased. You are a fool if you think they will not get any financial or other benefits from this. Not saying MJ isn't guilty, I don't think his trial proved things one way or another, but neither does this documentary.

I agree. Really don't understand why people are using this as "proof" when it's clearly biased??

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.

This is true. Here are a few that have been accused of some pretty awful things-

Mark Wahlberg
Mel Gibson
Bill Cosby
Casey Affleck
Johnny Depp
Chris Brown
T.I.
Tupac
50 Cent
Charlie Sheen
Tommy Lee
Terrence Howard
Wesley Snipes


Do we stop watching their TV shows/movies and listening to their music as well?

Yup
David Bowie
Beach Boys
Elvis Presley
Paul Walker
Sean Connery

The list goes on and on. You could never turn on the television or listen to radio.

^^^heaping abuse on top of abuse certainly doesn’t.