Page 20 | Michael Jackson

C4tintherug · 2024-08-03T11:00:29+00:00

Why has Michael Jackson not been cancelled? I don’t understand why a musical has been made out of his music, and why his music is played at school discos and is still everywhere. After I watched the documentary where the men described how he raped them, I won’t listen to his music at all, in fact, I feel a sense of disgust when it is played publicly. I don’t understand why we seem to have cancelled everyone else except him. Is it because he died before he was officially found guilty?

CosmicDaisyChain · 06/08/2024 06:15

creamofroses · 06/08/2024 00:07

Yes, MJ himself told the world he slept in a bed with little boys - only of a particular age range of his preference, clearly, and not little girls. That is perfectly normal behavious for a grown man to do, according to some on this thread. Oh, he had a difficult childhood, he was just a childlike man.... who grabbed his crotch and did pelvic thrusts as part of his act. Well, perhaps it's not normal... but there is no "proof" that he abused them, you say.

Was there ever proof any high profile person accused sexually abused their victims? Even the adult women who Harvey Weinstein abused had only their stories versus his, and some back-up provided by the sheer number of them. I believe if MJ was still alive those boys now adults could have got together and created a case that would have been far more damning and contained far more evidence to back them up.

There was enough circumstantial evidence gathered from the ranch to paint a very clear picture - a tonne more than in HW's case.

I won't bother listing it. It's been listed in this thread. It's been listed in some of the articles linked - that are apparently not good enough sources. Hahahaha.

Ten little boys at least have said MJ sexually abused them. People accept Saville abused his victims, but no number is enough for them to believe MJ did. It is very odd.

Almost as odd as believing a middle aged man was just being childlike having little boys over for slumber parties, in his ranch with the pornography he showed them, the pictures of naked little boys, the secret rooms, and the bell rigged to ring to warn him someone else was heading towards them. Oh, and the testimony of the abused - which is only believed when you're not a fan of the perpetrator, apparently.

Show quote history

Wasn’t found guilty though was he?

creamofroses · 06/08/2024 06:25

CosmicDaisyChain · 06/08/2024 06:15

Wasn’t found guilty though was he?

Show quote history

No, and neither was OJ.

Juries can be as blind and biased as the posters on this thread.

CosmicDaisyChain · 06/08/2024 07:19

creamofroses · 06/08/2024 06:25

No, and neither was OJ.

Juries can be as blind and biased as the posters on this thread.

Show quote history

Sorry, I didn't see the bit were I made a bitchy comment about you?

creamofroses · 06/08/2024 07:46

CosmicDaisyChain · 06/08/2024 07:19

Sorry, I didn't see the bit were I made a bitchy comment about you?

Edited

Show quote history

I think you just did then.

Mirabai · 06/08/2024 07:47

CosmicDaisyChain · 06/08/2024 07:19

Sorry, I didn't see the bit were I made a bitchy comment about you?

Edited

Show quote history

I don’t see any bitchy comment, simply stating a fact.

ImCamembertTheBigCheese · 06/08/2024 18:54

Mirabai · 05/08/2024 14:56

His musical legacy will die if enough evidence comes out that he was actually a paedophile. Which I think it probably will in the long run.

Show quote history

Yeah, right

Allthehorsesintheworld · 06/08/2024 18:55

Hairyfairy01 · 03/08/2024 12:21

Totally agree with you OP. If I hear his music on the radio I turn it off. I have no idea how a grown man who admitted to sharing a bed with young boys not related to him is still being celebrated and treated like a hero by some. Was amazed when this musical came out. You couldn't pay me to watch it.

Same here.

kkloo · 06/08/2024 19:52

I believe his victims.

For those who think he never sexually abused them I think even without sexual abuse the relationships with the boys were still extremely damaging and traumatic for the boys, grooming without the sex, smothering those boys in intimacy, making them his world, acting like the sun shined out of them and then dropping them for the next little boy...so it's not even much better if you believe MJs version of events.

Do people see grooming behaviour as ok as long as it doesn't lead to sexual abuse?

kkloo · 06/08/2024 20:27

Brexile · 03/08/2024 15:22

No, I don't want to protect those men. But you asked how Elvis could have found Priscilla attractive, and I said that she looked much older - and also that he should have left her alone when he found out that she wasn't older!

Show quote history

He wasn't attracted to her because she looked older. He wanted her because she was younger and could be groomed and moulded into who he wanted her to be.

DotAndCarryOne2 · 07/08/2024 11:28

Mirabai · 05/08/2024 00:30

I wasn’t talking to you I was responding to @pam290358 claim that

“Whatever your personal opinion the law says he was not guilty.”

I simply pointed out that one of the law enforcers involved in the investigation is on record as saying he thought he was guilty.

I’m not sure why you find it hard to understand that a. People don’t need pointing out that MJ was not found guilty whereas Savile was never tried as they’re aware of it and b. It’s irrelevant to the issue of whether MJ was, in fact, a paedophile.

Edited

Show quote history

When you look back through the thread that’s exactly what several posters have argued. That everyone ‘knows’ Jackson is guilty, so the not guilty verdict is somehow irrelevant and the comparison is with Saville. This exchange from upthread is an example:

Q: Also was Jimmy Saville ever convicted?

A: No. He was dead by the time the scandal broke.

Response: Which was kind of my point- the fact there was no conviction did not mean he was not a dangerous pedo. Many rich and famous get away with the worst crimes because their money protects them, and MJ was no different.

Saville was never tried. Jackson was and found not guilty because the evidence didn’t support a conviction. Regardless of guilt or innocence they are two entirely different things.

DotAndCarryOne2 · 07/08/2024 11:31

kkloo · 06/08/2024 19:52

I believe his victims.

For those who think he never sexually abused them I think even without sexual abuse the relationships with the boys were still extremely damaging and traumatic for the boys, grooming without the sex, smothering those boys in intimacy, making them his world, acting like the sun shined out of them and then dropping them for the next little boy...so it's not even much better if you believe MJs version of events.

Do people see grooming behaviour as ok as long as it doesn't lead to sexual abuse?

Edited

Morally, absolutely not. Legally is a different matter I would think.

Mirabai · 07/08/2024 13:06

@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.

kkloo · 09/08/2024 17:22

DotAndCarryOne2 · 07/08/2024 11:31

Morally, absolutely not. Legally is a different matter I would think.

Show quote history

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?

Rosscameasdoody · 09/08/2024 18:21

Mirabai · 07/08/2024 13:06

@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.

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.

Iwasafool · 09/08/2024 19:34

kkloo · 09/08/2024 17:22

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?

Show quote history

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?

Mirabai · 09/08/2024 19:45

Rosscameasdoody · 09/08/2024 18:21

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.

Show quote history

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.

Meredusoleil · 09/08/2024 20:01

Iwasafool · 09/08/2024 19:34

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?

Show quote history

They were groomed too.

saidthebellsofstclements · 09/08/2024 20:30

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.

kkloo · 09/08/2024 21:01

Iwasafool · 09/08/2024 19:34

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?

Show quote history

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.

Mirabai · 09/08/2024 21:09

saidthebellsofstclements · 09/08/2024 20:30

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.

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.

TowerRavenSeven · 09/08/2024 21:17

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).

kkloo · 09/08/2024 21:54

TowerRavenSeven · 09/08/2024 21:17

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).

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).

LovelyBitOfHam · 09/08/2024 22:26

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.

saidthebellsofstclements · 09/08/2024 22:32

LovelyBitOfHam · 09/08/2024 22:26

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.

What has he done?

Firefly1987 · 10/08/2024 02:35

kkloo · 09/08/2024 17:22

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?

Show quote history

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.