Do you believe the Michael Jackson allegations part 2

[AutumnLover1990]

New thread 😀

Not going your way? 🧐

Well you can't blame her. The tone hasn't been great. I have friends who disagree on the subject and they can still be civil

Start your own thread if you're that bothered🤣

https://x.com/LiberianGirl779/status/2057498747882389886?s=20

I’d like you to point out where it hasn’t been civil. It’s been perfectly fine. I think a lot of people ( fans) want to put their fingers in their ears about what really went on. Happy with the massive pro-Jackson biopic but not with any other narrative so would cancel subscriptions and take down threads rather than explore other possibilities.

Hmmmmm. Some not all. I did not like the biopic at all

Agreed. It's been mostly very civil considering the subject matter.

@Missohnoyoubetterdont Its shocking that the LN director has received death threats.

But you paid money to watch it, and you have already said repeatedly you are not a super fan! Or are you? I’m very confused with your stance. Anyway, many fans have stated they won’t watch the documentary which seems to me to be extremely blinkered. Why would you not want to know the truth? Why would you be scared of hearing another point of view? I hope it gives both sides.

I think it is, I seem to remember 'you decide' being on the trailer.

I think we forget how fanatical some people can be, he definitely has a committed following! 😳 No wonder no one wants to say much more.

I don’t think you have to either hate or love everything MJ-related, or immediately categorise people based on where they land in the discussion. Balanced reporting and discussion would be ideal, but unfortunately that rarely gets clicks or views because there’s an entire media economy built around outrage and certainty.

I also don’t think choosing not to watch something automatically means someone is “scared of another point of view.” People engage with these topics differently, and some have already made up their minds either way. Personally, I’d just prefer discussions that allow for nuance instead of treating everything as a fan vs hater binary.

I think part of the problem is that people reduce everyone into camps. Some fans absolutely behave badly online, just like some critics do, but it’s unfair to treat every fan as delusional or abusive by default. People should be able to discuss the subject thoughtfully without immediately being stereotyped based on which aspects they question or agree with.

I don’t think the thread should be pulled personally - I would have started a new one. Nobody has been hateful to each other.

i think there is some compelling evidence on here about MJ’s patterns of behaviour that people should know. Not everyone gets pulled into researching this. Having the thread pulled would seem like you’re trying to cover up the truth.

. I think when it comes to a crime like this it’s pretty emotive, I can’t sit on the fence about it if I think for one second there might be a chance he is guilty. It’s children. It’s super emotive and so given that, it seems hard to be all passive about it and say ‘it’s okay to still sort of like him’ within that context. That’s not okay for me and given just this one fact, isolated, without any other of the porn etc or wierd stuff that was found, I still have to say it’s not okay to sleep with minors in a bedroom, locked or not. It’s not okay. And for that reason alone I’m out. I can’t not believe people are making excuses about it. Feels fairly black and white to me and I can’t square it with my conscience to be a supporter of his. Despite this I do think we have all managed to be fairly grown up about the discussion and have discussed it thoughtfully so I do wonder why it is that the OP wants it gone.

Maybe the OP could explain why? I don’t this Mumsnet will pull a thread without good reason.

Well you see this is why I wonder how pressurised the jurors felt. Imagine the threats they’d have received if they put Michael Jackson, their idol in prison?

I do believe that another man (not famous) with the same evidence presented at court would have been found guilty.

@MyTrivia I wonder if he is American. or resides in USA in which case I would imagine he would take death threats seriously, and it could have involved threatening his family if he has one.

ETA i have just had a quick look, he lives in London and has received 'thousands' of threats as well apparently.

I think if Mumsnet is ok with threads where victims of csa get called liars and are accused of being only after money they really should not pull those threads after other posters firmly push back.

Or should parenting websites only allow discussions where apologists for child abuse go unchallenged?

I do understand that perspective, especially because anything involving children is going to feel deeply emotional and moral.

I don’t think anyone is saying “it’s okay” if abuse happened. I think where people differ is in how certain they feel about what actually happened and how much weight they give to different pieces of evidence, allegations, contradictions, media coverage, financial incentives, settlements, etc.

For me, it’s not really about making excuses for bad behaviour. It’s more that once I’ve seen people openly admit they were offered large amounts of money to say negative things about MJ, or when accounts and narratives become complicated or contradictory, it makes me more cautious about treating the whole thing as completely black and white.

I can understand why someone would personally step away from supporting him, though, even if others arrive at a different conclusion.

But equally the MJ estate has offered vast sums of money to not bring accusations to trial. That seems super suspicious. You can’t just focus on one piece of evidence to the contrary? Also the water is so muddled, maybe they have been offered money to say that they have been offered money?!!! Why believe that person and not another? I’m interested in how you explain away the sleeping with young boys? What’s your take on that, that seems the only fact which is not refuted and it’s been massively side-stepped on here.

I don’t think it’s unreasonable to find the sleeping arrangements strange or uncomfortable. I completely understand why people see that as a major red flag, especially viewed through a normal adult lens. There's no way I'd put my son in that position. I’m not really trying to “explain it away” so much as say that for me personally, inappropriate boundaries are not automatically the same thing as certainty of criminal abuse.

And you’re right that the waters become very muddied once money, settlements, media narratives, lawyers, fame, and public pressure all get involved. That cuts both ways, which is partly why I’m cautious about speaking in absolutes either way.

It’s pretty damning and almost impossible to ‘explain away’

…even if you want to sugar-coat it as ‘inappropriate boundaries’

I’m not really trying to sugar-coat anything. I’ve already said I understand why people find it troubling and why some draw firm conclusions from it. I just don’t think acknowledging nuance or uncertainty automatically equals defending abuse.