Michael Jackson

Some people are too big to be cancelled. His music, his influence on pop culture as a whole just can't be cancelled. Also his been dead for 15 years and nothing was ever proven, so pretty hard to cancel him now

@kkloo well in that case people are perfectly within their rights to not believe what the documentary is trying to sell.

@Firefly1987
Documentaries are not supposed to be balanced at all. They're not trials. Most documentaries aren't 'balanced'. They pick a side and perspective.

And as I already said most victims of child abuse don't have proof. It is just their word.

But there's no facts in the entire thing, usually a documentary is supposed to be balanced, and with some proof! And they even claimed some other kids as victims who had to come out and say nothing happened. It was all done to shock and repulse people and it worked at first until people looked into it more and thought hang on...
even Dan Reed had to backtrack on the train station thing and say oh James got the dates wrong he was actually older...

No one is inventing stuff they're fact checking, which I'm sure you hate, we should just take every single allegation as truth without even a trial.

I agree, although to me MJ is an archetypal “child catcher” too with his Neverland and endless macabre Disney kitsch - all the better to lure kids.

But you’re absolutely right that MJ manipulated his victims into silence by making them believe they were loved and special rather than scaring the shit out of them.

MJ has a global army of fans who think they love him, a big family and an infrastructure of corporate investment in his work. Savile was just a lonely old perv whom it turned out no-one particularly liked.

Spot on. I think the reason people have more trouble with accepting Jackson as a paedophile than Saville is because we've got this image of a 'child catcher' figure, terrifying their victims into silence after coldly and brutally abusing them. Saville fits that image. Jackson doesn't. Jackson isn't any less of an abuser because he groomed his victims into loving him instead of fearing him. He just used a different technique. The mental damage he did to those boys, not just through physical abuse but emotional manipulation was evident in the documentary.
There's more than one way to silence a victim, and one is to make them believe the abuse is not abuse, but a special thing that others wouldn't understand.

The train station thing means nothing.
I had to give a statement to the police recently about something that happened over 25 years ago, my friend also had to give a statement.. we were told not to speak to each other about it beforehand and just recall what we have remembered.

I said.. There was a fight outside a restaurant. He was wearing a blue top and had blonde hair.

My friend said.. There was a fight outside of a pub, he was wearing a blue top and had blonde hair.

Neither of us is lying, it's an old memory but was consistent enough for a charge and trial to take place.

My point being that, Micheal Jackson's victims may get small details (like locations) wrong but child after child has told the world consistently that they have been abused. That is evidence!

There was at least one earlier but it may have been deleted.

It sounds like you're saying that you don't think that it would be psychologically or emotionally abusive to make a little child the centre of your world, share the intimacy of a bed etc. and then ditch them afterwards for a younger boy? Do you not think that that could cause trauma?

I think regardless of sexual abuse that that alone IS abusive.

I don't really care if he was found not guilty, at least some of the jury reckon he was a pedophile but that the evidence just wasn't strong enough, which tends to be true for many sexual abuse cases, most don't ever lead to convictions, doesn't mean that the jury didn't think they did it or that the person wasn't actually guilty.

Also most victims of child abuse don't have any proof or facts, just their word. Do you not believe any of them either?

He did drop them after a certain age, he dropped them as his main target, after that it sounds like he just tried to keep the boys sweet and make them think that they still had a very special relationship/bond.

Your last question shows that you just don't understand grooming. Victims of it will often have extremely complex relationships with their abusers. They could love and hate them. They could be angry with them and also feel sorry for them. They could wish they never met them while also wishing they could be with them. They could know that what happened was wrong and fucked them up but also be jealous if he did it to others and that they weren't 'special' like they thought.

I don't believe Wade and James just because they made a documentary based on trying to shock people with absolutely no proof or facts whatsoever. In fact getting important details wrong like saying abuse happened in a train station that didn't exist until James was 16+ completely blowing the theory out of the water that MJ dropped kids after a certain age and was only interested in prepubescent boys.

WR and JS trying to shock people? What a morally repugnant thing to say.
MJ fans cling on to the station thing but in fact there were several stations on that pretend railway line built at different times. Inventing stuff to discredit victims is really twisted. And memories are fallible - remembering precise locations and dates of abuse that took place 30 years previously is notoriously tricky.

@kkloo not on this thread I don't think? Obviously they'd be traumatised if something abusive happened, not everyone believes that to be the case though. Plus he was found not guilty. I don't believe Wade and James just because they made a documentary based on trying to shock people with absolutely no proof or facts whatsoever. In fact getting important details wrong like saying abuse happened in a train station that didn't exist until James was 16+ completely blowing the theory out of the water that MJ dropped kids after a certain age and was only interested in prepubescent boys.

Wade wanting (begging) to do the MJ Cirque du soleil show and not getting it and suddenly the allegations start raises peoples eyebrows a bit too...plus why would someone who was abused want to dance to his music all day?

I disagree because many who defend him are extremely harsh about the accusers and never acknowledge that MJ did anything wrong at all or that the men are potentially very traumatised individuals due to what happened.

There's no question mark for me at all about whether he was doing anything illegal.

I think you'd be hard pressed to find anyone who thinks his behaviour was acceptable even if he didn't abuse any kids. Question is did anything illegal happen, because nothing he admitted to is actually against the law. But he put himself in a very vulnerable position, now was that because he knew he wasn't doing anything wrong legally or was he just so arrogant he thought he was untouchable? I doubt we'll ever know.

What has he done?

Slightly off topic but it always interests me how Bowie is revered by the same types who would be the first to cancel others for doing the exact same thing.

Very true.
I think he's a paedophile for sure but I enjoy some of his music.
The USA artistic swimming team did their routine to smooth criminal for the olympics and it was incredible, including doing a moonwalk!

I go to a class and occasionally a Michael Jackson is played but the teacher always asks if everyone is ok with his music being played, and no one has ever said no (although of course that doesn't mean that everyone is genuinely ok with it either).

It is so hard to separate the person and the artist/art. Some I can do easier than others. Woody Allen is easier to separate for me as he is/was a cinematic genius but I still feel almost guilty watching his films (which happen to be some of my favourite films ever).

I think some of the superfans on this thread might. They’re so in thrall that they don’t see the mashed creepy face, absence of boundaries and past victims they see a pop genius reliving his own childhood.

That is exactly what the kids parents saw. It’s the power of fame. And that’s why it’s so important that MJ is finally addressed and cancelled.

In the documentary the mothers tried to say that MJ was essentially grooming the whole family. The parents obviously should have had even the tiniest bit of sense and not allowed this to happen.

It's mindboggling to me that anyone would think that that was ok even if they were also taken in by MJs act. It's hard to believe that they thought it was completely innocent but it's horrific to think that if they did know something was likely to go on that they were essentially pimping their kids out.

They'd be co conspirators if they knew it was off and turned a blind eye I guess or else they were just completely stupid and negligent.

One of the mothers dropped her son off to sleep in Jacksons bed at 1:30am after MJ phoned. WTF was she thinking?

On the documentary I don't remember the mothers expressing any guilt (but I could be remembering wrong). To me it seemed like they were a bit like 'well we were groomed' but then perhaps they find it very hard to let their thoughts go back there and to take responsibility.

I do think they should have been prosecuted for neglect but not sure what good it would achieve now. I remember one of the accusers on Oprah said he forgave his mother and I think the other one said he was working on it. I would imagine the feelings about it are so complex especially if he still hasn't forgiven her yet, maybe she hasn't ever really taken any responsibility so maybe in that case a prosecution could help him heal.

The thing I can't get past is where were the parents? What were they thinking? I don't know if he was an abuser but those parents put their children in a position where he could abuse them. I think the parents should be prosecuted for negligence at the very least, if the children were abused surely the parents were co conspirators?

@Iwasafool
I agree, If a full grown man can convince you that your six year old son should share a bed with him and you go along with that you really aren't fit to be parents.
Especially when it's staring you in the face that he is a pedophile.

They were groomed too.

I’m not trying to square anything. I don’t see the point of wittering on about Jackson being found not guilty for one crime whereas Savile was never tried.

Jackson died without being tried for most of his crimes so he’s barely different from Savile there. And they’re both paedophiles who used fame to access children - again snap.

The thing I can't get past is where were the parents? What were they thinking? I don't know if he was an abuser but those parents put their children in a position where he could abuse them. I think the parents should be prosecuted for negligence at the very least, if the children were abused surely the parents were co conspirators?

It’s not unreasonable, no. And at no time have I ever offered an opinion either way - no one knows. My only point is that there is a difference between someone who died before their crimes came to light, and someone who was tried and not convicted. However you try to square the two, they are not the same. Morally it’s a different issue. Legally Saville died without being tried. Jackson died not convicted of the crime of which he was accused. Given you can’t try a dead man, I don’t know what can be done about that.

Yes I don't mean legally.
But some people think that he didn't commit sexual abuse, so I wonder do they genuinely think that his behaviour was perfectly acceptable and not in any way wrong as long as he didn't sexually abuse those kids.

And for those who think that it's fine because they believe the narrative that his intention was pure because he was childlike and never had his own childhood then can they really say that even if his intentions were pure that it was ok?

What about the impact on the boys? Don't they think what happened was extremely wrong even if they believe his intentions were good? Showering little boys with love and attention and making them feel like they were the center of his world, sleeping in the bed with them, and then later dropping them for a younger boy? How confusing and traumatic must that have been even if the boys weren't being sexually abused?

Even Corey Feldman has labelled it as grooming, he said his relationship with Michael Jackson was the standard grooming process that the accusers describe, and that everything was similar to what happened to him up until the sexual abuse part.

So do people think that that is ok as long as the child is never touched sexually?

@DotAndCarryOne2

What is your point exactly? People believe MJ to be a sexual abuser of children because a number of his victims said he was. I believe them. In particular I believe WR and JS. It’s a perfectly reasonable position.