Trollheart

__________________
Trollheart: Signature-free since April 2018

Mucha na Dziko

He doesn't like the negative vibes of a "hate" thread.

Therefore he told us what he loves

__________________

Mucha na Dziko

If you believe she was crazy when saying this, then why don't you think she was crazy when accusing Jackson?

__________________

Mucha na Dziko

I feel utterly offended by this.
There was no need to be this aggressive.

I think you should not only watch the movie, but also read about the controversies it inspired.

It's one sided.
It was basically made to lynch an acquitted person.

And you know - ta da da - the lawsuits topped after the court decided that the Jackson Estate isn't responsible for whatever Jackson himself did (ergo: no money if the trial is won by the prosecutor).
Soo it wasn't really about the truth.

Michael Jackson was clearly a deeply troubled person.

There's no dispute about that.

But look at what the troubles were:

He didn't really have a childhood, he was a trained monkey from day one.

After he had grown up these traumas where still inside his subconscious.

Therefore spending time with 10 year old kids was what he liked, because he really was a 10 year old boy inside.



Apart from the testimonies of sexual abuse, you have testimonies of people saying the accusations are absurd.

(Btw the same people who testify under oath in 2013 that he abused them, are the same people who testified under oath in 1993 or 1994 that he didn't)

Because he was at one time the most famous person in the world, and because, when he was the most famous peron in the world, he did some disturbing things (like the whole thing with changing his skin colour – which ended up in him looking like a zombie), it's easy for people to believe he was disturbing and evil in general.


It's not "giving a pass".
It's "not ****ting over someone until it's proven they did something wrong"

And, no, two or three testimonies from "alleged victims" is not enough. Especially when it comes to a public person.

__________________

Mucha na Dziko

Now look, I'm not particularly a fan of MJs music, or a fan of him as a celebrity or whatever.

To be honest, I don't give a ****.

But what I do give a **** about is people lynching and cancelling other people based on statements without grounding.

And what I dislike the most is when someone says " won't lisen/watch/read anything that author did, because he was a bad person". This statement is just purely absurd, because what you're doing is basically depriving yourself from something great –you're not punishing that "evil" person.

Jackson's music is great overall, and is usually fun and a really good listen. Not listening to it because allegedly he was a pedophile is absurd, because he music lives on apart from the creator.

__________________

Frownland

Framing pedophilic acts and false accusations as on the same level of depravity and likeliness minimizes the severity of the former and reads like it's in favour of said actions.

I wouldn't rely on the american court system for moral questions. Emmett Till's murderers were acquitted, should we ignore everything else about their crimes because of that?

__________________

Studies show that when a given norm is changed in the face of the unchanging, the remaining contradictions will parallel the truth.

Trollheart

It's not negative, it's meant to be a bit of fun. TBH I don't give two ****s what he likes or loves, that was not the question and he didn't even answer it in a musical vein so it's a totally pointless post. If he doesn't like the "negative vibes" then why not stay out of the thread?
There was plenty of evidence. Didn't you see the interview? She wasn't crazy, as in, didn't know what she was saying in terms of accusations; she just went over the top and ****ed her own testimony and tainted it by going bat**** crazy. Maybe she wasn't; I don't know. But she didn't help her case and it soon collapsed. He was clearly guilty and to be honest you're, as Guybrush said, pretty stupidly naive if you think he wasn't.

Tell me, do you think OJ was innocent? He got off too, so he must not have done it, right?

Edit: Also, you're the one who's brought the "hate vibe" into the thread. Up to now it was, as it was intended to be, pretty light-hearted with some verbal fencing and a few verbal kicks in the verbal bal... ance of opinion. From my OP:

Give reasons if you want but you don't have to.

So anyone can vote for Jackson without explaining why. You were the one, if I recall, who demanded to know why, and now it's exploded into a whole weird defence of him when you clearly don't know what you're talking about. If Jackson had been an ordinary, non-wealthy person accused of these crimes he would be in jail now. It was only his celebrity status and his money that saved him. **** Jackson, may he rot in hell, the ****.

__________________
Trollheart: Signature-free since April 2018

Trollheart

NOW we have proper hate vibes!

__________________
Trollheart: Signature-free since April 2018

Mucha na Dziko

I'm just rational

Not riding on the "not guilty" or "guilty" idea, because there is just too much contradictory data.

OJ Simpson was acquitted at first, but then found guilty. It's right there in the first paragraph on his Wikipedia page.



So asking for an explanation is being negative?

Saying "I won't listen to Xs music because we all know what a bastard he is" is fine, but asking "why is he a bastard?" is hate?
Come on...

Really, it works exactly the other way around.
I thought that rich/celebrty people can get past the juridicial system when I was like 12.
It might work that wa if you're like Elon Musk of=r she other banking clan type person, but it doesn't when you work in culture.

If you're a well-known musician selling millions of albums, you're more likely to be found guilty when charged, because the "society" makes an "example" out of you.

You can get out on bail, sure.
You can pay or something for your jail time, sure.
But you can't dictate whether you're found guilty or not.



Anyway, as long as someone isn't found guilty on strong evidence, they shouldn't be considered "guilty".
Otherwise we just go back to out caveman days when if someone said "he beat/raped me" we just go out and torch that person out to hell.

__________________

Frownland

That mentality favours rapists.

__________________

Studies show that when a given norm is changed in the face of the unchanging, the remaining contradictions will parallel the truth.