AIBU to be shocked by public celebration of Michael Jackson?

[2021x]

Now the MJ film is out my social media feed is flooded with people doing the dances and talking about the movie etc. My local cinema is holding special events and screenings.

I personally have no doubt that he was a predatory paedophile. All the signs are there, especially how he talks about how he would never hurt a child and sharing a bed with them is the "most loving thing you can do in the world". He manipulated the world into thinking he had a "child-like persona" but was able to manage a music career worth millions... which someone who is naive would never be able to manage.

I also do not judge people who enjoy his music. It was very popular at the time, and would be associated with all types nostaligic memories. I listen to problematic artists all the time, but I don't pretend that they weren't abusive.

AIBU to be astounded that any business/media outlet would be seen dead even associating with him let alone celebrating such a horrifically abusive man.

You think all paedophiles and rapists get convicted? Especially when they’re incredibly famous, rich and powerful?

Not an excuse though is it. It benefits Sharon immensly to repaint the abuse as something he couldn't control.

The fact is Ozzy was a grown man, capable of recognising the first time he put his hands around the neck of a person who couldn't fight back, that he could have done something about it. He chose not too, he chose to carry on being abusive.

I used to be a fan but I can't listen to his music now. I'm always amazed at how many parents allowed their kids to stay alone with him. There's no way my boys would have been allowed to, famous or not!

I never liked MJ's music so always bemused by people who worship MJ.
I don't need to have an opinion about events in last 20-30 yrs of his life.
A lot of movies have been made about complicated characters, including people you could both admire and despair of.

That is a perspective I haven't heard. I thought it might be because his artistic created such a good feeling in them that they think that once they accept him as a paedophile they will lose that good feeling, and maybe they aren't ready for that.

Why would a grown single man of 40 odd want to share a bed with someone else's underage sons?

Just why? Nobody who wasn't a paedo would want to do that.

The movie I don't mind, its the fact that there are special screenings of it in a celebratory way that I am baffled by.

Two reasons, both obvious.

1, Gadd / Glitter was not & never will be a $ billion industry.

2, Gadd / Glitter is white, so can’t be represented as part of a ‘marginalised’ group in the hierarchy of victimhood.

Well, exactly.

We are always told when someone shows you who they are, believe them.

Except when it’s MJ.

It’s all very well taking about separating the art from the artist, but this particular “biopic” is literally focusing on the weird little man’s life story. It’s about him and we’re presumably supposed to be rooting for him. Yuck.

I don't like the way that it's jumped to an automatic assumption that a man must be a predator because he enjoys spending time with children. Children are wonderful. They have a delight in life that adults often don't have. I completely agree it is unusual, the part I disagreed with was where people automatically jump to this must be a sexual motive. I don't think everyone is sexually motivated and I think it's sad that an adult can't say they enjoy the company of children without it being seen as sexual. I also think there is some sexism at play there, because there have been plenty of women who work with children professionally - teachers, nannies, pediatricians/pediatric therapists etc - and they openly talk about how much they love children, how children can come out with these wise or funny things and they genuinely enjoy their company. A sexual motive is very rarely (if ever) ascribed to women saying these things.

However from seeing more of the evidence the police did uncover, mainly his porn preferences but some other specific details I have thankfully forgotten, I accept that my initial rebuttal of this in the MJ case was wrong. And knowing how perpetrators of abuse are more often male, perhaps I am wrong not to want people to jump to that suspicion immediately. Maybe it's better to be suspicious even if I find this sad.

The fact some of the more famous victims changed their stories later on - this is not uncommon despite the defense lawyers claiming that it makes them less believable. Being abused as a child is traumatic AND children don't always realise what has happened to them is abuse. They are often ashamed or think it is their fault, or they will get into trouble. It is completely understandable that a child victim would not feel able or want to speak out as a teenager, but might be willing to speak out later in life when they have had more time to reflect on it. Some victims keep their abuse secret for 50 years or more, for many and complicated reasons. It's heartbreaking.

And like Savile, it's also highly possible that Jackson had many children visit Neverland and he did not abuse all of them. There are plenty of former teenage girls who did not get abused by Savile despite close contact with him, but that does not erase the at least hundreds who definitely did. This again is a classic groomer tactic because it means you have people who can stand up and say well I spent time with that person, and they didn't abuse me. Predators often select victims partially based on how likely they are to speak out and how believable they will be if they do. It's why care homes and approved schools were often seen as free for alls by sick men in the past.

This is not really baffling though is it? There is a huge audience and it will make people a lot of money.

There will always be people who overlook morals in favour of money.

He was a paedo

watching "Leaving Neverland" was one of the hardest watches

& the parents let their kids down

I lersonally don't believe he was a paedophile at all and want to see the film.
There are many reasons that I think this way, I cant list them all as its too much to type, but I have researched it and my conculsion is that he definitely was not.

Of course he was a paedophile. There is overwhelming evidence that he was. His behaviour towards this three children was also emotionally abusive and terrifying and yes I am sure they say he was a great dad etc etc. But he effectively bought them, took them away from their mother, made them cover their faces in public and dangled his baby off a balcony. I am utterly shocked that this white-washing trash film has been made. Let’s also make a film about a plucky working class lad from Leeds who turns into a national legend and call it Jimmy.

Exactly this 👆🏼 Only ever boys aged 7-13 he was a dirty predatory abusive piece of shit.

Imagine a random man you knew just inviting youngs boys for sleep overs; it would be ridiculously suspicious and rightly so.
The weirdo should have wore a big neon sign saying PREDATOR talk about hiding in plain sight.
He couldn’t have been any weirder if his house was mad of gingerbread.

As with most things South Park nailed it from "his" poor kids perspective

You don’t think he was a paedophile at all when there are multiple accusations from various boys that he sexually abused them, when he admits to sharing a bed with young boys and calls it beautiful, when his housekeeper reported having to pick his semen-stained pants up after his sleepovers? Sure.

I think it is baffling. I think its strange that a business would chose to draw even more attention to it. If there is such a huge audience then they will come anyway so just show it the same as every other film.

Having said that I bet it was part of a contract to show the movie that the had to go nuts on the promotion of it.

I hope they all lose money on it.

sadly @2021x no one is losing money, his estate even forked out $10,000,000 for a reshoot to leave out the allegations, it ends in 1988

I know - it’s making me feel quite uncomfortable too. I think he was a creative genius, genuinely changed the industry. Equally, I also think he was a predatory paedophile and I can’t ignore that.

This is it. Two things can be true at once. As uncomfortable as it is, people who are incredibly talented can also be horrific abusers at the same time.

For those saying he wasn’t a paedophile, how do we reconcile him wanking down the phone at George Terry?

I believe in innocent until proven guilty and I don't see the harm in enjoying his music. I wasn't a big MJ fan in his lifetime but I don't believe he did what he was accused of. I know as much as you do.

No, I absolutely wouldn't. I said I'm not convinced he was a pedophile but it would only need a hint of doubt for me to make sure my children were never alone with someone. Which make me question why some parents allowed him to be alone with their children after the first allegation and then made their own allegations.