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.

Great summary

https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2019/mar/04/the-michael-jackson-accusers-the-abuse-didnt-feel-strange-because-he-was-like-a-god

I don’t fancy signing up to read that. It’s not a great look to strengthen your point by posting a link to a paywalled article, especially when the headline gives no indication of your argument.

An alternative view:

https://medium.com/@justhoughts/leaving-neverland-debunked-in-10-minutes-or-less-35d2017469ba

This

Thank you! Glad it’s not just me who is appalled by this! As a pp said, imagine if they made a film worshipping Gary Glitter or Ian Watkins!
Truly sickening.

While all three were accused and faced trial two were found guilty. One was acquitted after due process .
Conflating MJ’s case with those who were convicted ignores the legal outcomes and ignores the principle that each case must be judged on its own merit

We understand you keep saying it's different but you're not explaining how, how is it different? How is your logic any different to the usual defense of abusers which is to deny and attack accusers?

Yes exactly! For everyone who says well there just isn't enough proof of MJ, cases like r Kelly show that even when there's actual videotape of the offenses we live in a culture that still blames the victim.

I understand it perfectly you're the one with cognitive dissonance where you realise what settling says but not in the case of Jackson. You're even saying maybe because of the likelihood he would be found guilty..yet there's no real evidence? You're doing a lot of mental gymnastics.

Due process isn't always moral though which is why many abusers like R Kelly can be acquitted on certain charges yet still go on to be convicted. You can't just be brought to trial and charged without there being due process and enough evidence. You can be a rapist and not ever charged or found guilty which is why you would hopefully believe someone you know was raped even if they never sought criminal justice. I think for a personal judgement of people of someone's morality criminality in the eyes of a court is a low bar, and we just can find people and their behaviour reprehensible even if it doesn't meet the standard of criminality. For me sleeping in bed with children like he did is inappropriate regardless of what else happened. It's like when prophets claim they only sleep with their child brides but claim it's not sexual. It's not illegal in the eyes of the law so they can't be charged for it or for even calling a child their wife but we all know it's wrong and why it makes us uncomfortable.

Wasn’t there doubt about the identity of the male in the video that was played in R Kelly’s 2008 trial? Also, the central witness (and alleged victim) didn’t testify, she’d even denied it was her in the tape.

She doesn't deny it today and has explained why she was too fearful to testify. Do you genuinely think today now that he's a convicted pedophile that there's real doubt that he's the man in that video? Can you understand why children (she was only 14!) are especially vulnerable to denying they abuse they suffered while they're still children?

We were talking about the 2008 trial, not what transpired since. Yes, I do believe it was him in that video, from the vantage point I’m at now. But I wasn’t a juror in that trial.

Yes, I can fully believe why she didn’t want to testify and denied what happened. I can also understand why he was acquitted.

I mean Safechuck was about 15 when he signed a witness statement in Jackson's favour. He refused to do so for Jackson's later criminal trial, although he was put under pressure to do so.

The swearing and the contrast between "having any trace of him wiped off the face of the earth and not making a fucking biopic"-which I said fair enough lol, you more than made your point there-does it really matter jeez. As if I'd be loling at child abuse ffs.

That article is an absolute joke and does nothing at all to actually debunk it unless you're someone who wants to suspend all knowledge of reality in order to believe it.

They did find evidence of wrongdoing, it's perfectly normal and common that victims of CSA and grooming don't understand that they were abused until much later, obviously some details would match other accounts, unless you want to believe that Jacksons behaviour and night time routine would completely change with each victim, which obviously makes no sense whatsoever.

Odd. Considering I didn’t make any mention of him being wiped off the face of the earth…

Interesting… if is was little black boys and a white artist I wonder what he would be saying then.

SwingTheMonkey · Yesterday 22:01
I don’t necessarily want everything to do
with him wiped from existence. That would be difficult. But not celebrating him like a fucking hero with a major biopic would be a start…

I went from memory. Do you always nit-pick this much? Well done for no F- bombs this time though!

Ooooh, how many points is that worth on your score card?

Yep I 100% believe he sexually abused them, but even if he didn't, the grooming process itself without sexual abuse can still be just as harmful and lead to deep psychological trauma.

If they are liars about the sexual abuse (again, I don't believe they are) then it could well be that trauma that has warped their brains that way.

For some time they were MJs obsession, showered with gifts and attention and 'love', made to feel like they were the most special people in the world, made to feel in love with him, then discarded for new, younger boys, several of the boys who denied abuse said that they were teased etc in school by kids saying that they were getting f**ked by MJ. The whole experience could have been deeply traumatising.

That’s a bizarre reach on your part.

But to spell it out (again) I posted that because this is another example - just like the film continuing to do very well at the box office - of someone now ‘celebrating’ Jackson and the film. Perhaps you need to re-read the first post of this thread.

You're the one reaching all over the thread.

We don't need examples, we KNOW it's doing well at the box office, we KNOW he has fans, we KNOW he has supporters, that's literally the point of the thread, that he's being celebrated and many find that disgusting, but you seem to have taken the point of the thread to mean 'post celebrations here'. 🤔🤔🤔

Is it ever in the interest of children to share a bed with an (unrelated) adult male?

Given that it is very likely not, then is it not arguably a form of abuse in itself, even if nothing else occurred?

I can imagine it would be very complex as an adult to think back on the scenario and feel comfortable and unconfused about it. In the best case scenario you would have been put in an extremely questionable situation by him and the adults around you.

I just don’t understand the people defending him. I don’t mean listening to his music, or even watching the film, but actually defending these specific actions. It’s been said before but would you defend old Bob down the road if he ‘just loved children’, ‘wanted to protect them’ and had ‘Peter Pan syndrome’ while having young boys share his bed?

No. You wouldn’t. So why glorify a rich popstar for the same?

Gosh it’s surprising you are so sensitive to swearing but not paedophila…