I stopped listening to his music in the 90s when the accusations came out. But I’ve spent a lot of time seperatijg the tabloid smears, the false or unlikely allegations from his own story. I’m convinced he was destroyed for his money.
We should enjoy his music and his legacy. And I say that as a survivor myself.
Not . . . watch the movie? That would seem to be the most complete way to absorb the information. But sure, finding and reading the transcript instead of watching it is something i’d rather not.
I notice the first link to a transcript search is the Michael Jackson Innocence project. So - look, if anyone hasn’t just watch it. It’s a better experience than this:
I disagree, based on the simple fact that transcripts aren’t often as full of visual trickery, etc. as their video/film products —and not just because “little lies” are essential to the latters’ very creation. ☝🏼
Generally, I think the video format is responsible for a lot of disinformation getting swallowed wholesale. The people I know who fall for disinformation get it from videos. They usually have no other sources than themselves, nobody to challenge in the video itself, and it’s very difficult to reference parts of the video for critical discussion. It’s the perfect medium for a Gish gallop.
So I read it because I didn’t want to take in information passively. 4-hours is too much information to process critically in one go. It’s easy to watch that and be led to the conclusion the producers want with cut scenes, music choices, etc. After hearing so many falsehoods and retractions, I wanted to digest it properly.
The word “documentary” does not mean truth. In some cases it means a completely unchallenged and biased narrative led to deceive, such as the documentary Vaxxed, which was also promoted by a massive platform when it came out. It’s hard to put the genie back in the bottle after something like that.
I’m not necessarily judging the individuals in the video. If they have a case, it was badly represented by a documentary that did not check some facts that are essential to their core claims. Their director is also very odd. Regardless of what happened, to say Jackson was “worse than Epstein” is just not something a thinking person would say in an age where those victims are also trying to get justice.
Are you going to explain what specific audiovisual component might, if seen, lead someone to conclude that Michael Jackson shouldn’t have been acquitted? Or is this just some vague allusion to nonexistent super-important context that invalidates all the legal proceedings so you don’t have to actually make a solid case for your accusation?
What specific audiovisual component? Well, the way he went near-catatonic as the verdict seemed to draw near, and the surprise testimony of Macaulay Culkin were two specifically related to the trial.
Legal proceedings are not necessarily a source of truth, ask Dred Scott.
I’m just saying the full documentary is plenty of evidence. The only people who strongly disagree are those who haven’t seen it. IME.
Not the one you replied to, but I did, and it was very hard to dismiss. I still don’t think I have, completely. Maybe I should, logically, but emotionally it was hard to let go. Still conflicted about it, because the conspiracy against Michael scenario is just as probable.
Sarcastic edit: The snake in that scene is telling the boy that all his problems will go away if he stings him with his stinger. The pedophillia was obviously also copied from this scene.
The relevant Wikipedia page coalates the mountain of all the evidence related- I hadn’t read it till recently when someone linked it and I really have no stake in this, I don’t really care about mj, but the evidence really doest point to him being a pedophile.
It points to him having an unhealthy and innapropriate relationship with children and the idea of childhood. But theres honestly a really big gap between what it points to and being a pedophile who has sex with children
Cinema is not a valid reference source, even “documentaries” aren’t required to be 100% true.
FFS, even penguins were propagandized for generations before the public was allowed to learn that they’re ridiculously homocidal rapists, etc. 🤷🏼♂️ The latter came from the field journals penned during the first excursion through their territories, way back when. The cover up that swiftly followed said expedition’s report was bankrolled by the running class & its academic policy makers.
Not accounting for the international conspiracy to cover up penguin behavior characteristics, the film interviews two men who were boys at the time as well as their family, friends, and archival materials.
Eyewitness testimony is legally valid, and it’s hard to imagine two different people had the same story, but the other - 50? 100? kids didn’t.
The film says it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck and demands the bloody underwear be retrieved out of the trash before the cops find it like a duck.
He was phenomenally talented, there’s no doubt. But very troubled as well, and part of that was sexualizing young boys.
Again, you seem to be founding a lot on outdated and/or debunked views/methods like eyewitness testimony, and I’m hoping you take your experience from this thread to make some changes, fellow pleb. 🙇🏼♂️
Documentaries do not exactly have the best track record when it comes to choosing between accuracy vs the more salacious story, I think a documentary is uniquely poorly suited to being a meaningful source on this subject in my eyes 😅
Ideally we would collect ALL primary sources and defer exclusively to what those primary sources say, but thats not exactly feasible for us to do.
On Wikipedia, subjects with very high visibility and interest tend to mean that people must be able to make a strong case for the information that makes it into the article. On a platform like Wikipedia, that means you need primary sources, meaningful evidence, to support what gets to be written when everyone has a strong opinion. If we’re to take a single tertiary/secondary source collating information to be a useful indicator, I think Wikipedia is, in kind of the opposite fashion, uniquely well suited to presenting an understanding of what happened
And the extraordinarily long article on Wikipedia doesnt suport the idea that he wanted to have sex with children. It points to him wanting very badly to vicariously experience the innocence of youth that he never got to, in a similar way to how some parents want to vicariously experience the accolades or ability of their child (mothers putting their child through pageants, fathers caring too much about their kid’s victory in sports). And I don’t think that’s a healthy thing to do to a child- it mirror grooming and normalizes that as a way for a relationship with an adult to look, and that is potentially extremely damaging. But the evidence doesnt really support the idea he wanted to have sex with children.
People also came out saying their parents were money hungry cunts who wanted a piece of the pie. THEY were okay to let their kids sleepover at a complete strangers home, but no one blames them skmehow.
Lots of people blame them. I blame them. They blame them. They said so, on camera, with examples of how they failed. One of which was getting financial rewards for looking the other way.
Oh yeah, totally normal for a bunch of different children to accuse him of sexual abuse. I’m glad people believed me when I told them what my uncle did. I’d be a whole lot more fucked up if people didn’t take me seriously…and guess what, I’m still pretty screwed up from it.
I’ve seen an interview with someone who was offered money by those trashy British tabloids to concoct a story. They told the “journalist” that nothing improper had happened and the journalist told them that if they decided to change their story, there would be good money in it.
My point is, there was a lot of money and other infrastructure making allegations very attractive to fabricate.
Then there’s the actual FBI and parents who have been trying to concoct stories about him, while apparently they have protected actual pedophiles such as Epstein. Here’s one account of that (90 second clip): https://www.youtube.com/watch?app=desktop&v=O9hesItLnuk&ra=m
So you didn’t find it weird that the young kid Michael showcased on stage slept in the same bed as Michael in the hotels, while his family was given a room at the other end of the hotel. It seems super inappropriate, but besides Michael I also blame the parents … because you don’t let your kids sleep in a hotel room with a grown man. Even if he was famous.
100% he was not normal and was abused his whole life. Whether he was fondling anyone or not, we’ll never know for certain, but none of those kids should have been allowed to do that just to leave a safety margin.
It’s not impossible that he became a rich target for extortion, but he was off enough that it would def have been grounds for pedo like restraining orders.
thafuq? Is that the only song of his you know? That dance style was integral to much of his whole thing, and permeated his own style from very early on. 🤙🏼
Oh cool, so not only was he forgiven for being a pedophile but his entire image was a ripoff
I stopped listening to his music in the 90s when the accusations came out. But I’ve spent a lot of time seperatijg the tabloid smears, the false or unlikely allegations from his own story. I’m convinced he was destroyed for his money.
We should enjoy his music and his legacy. And I say that as a survivor myself.
Did you watch “Leaving Neverland”?
I read the transcript. I was almost convinced until the discrepancies emerged later.
You read the transcript of a 90 minute movie?
Others’re bound to accomplish what you’d rather not.
Not . . . watch the movie? That would seem to be the most complete way to absorb the information. But sure, finding and reading the transcript instead of watching it is something i’d rather not.
I notice the first link to a transcript search is the Michael Jackson Innocence project. So - look, if anyone hasn’t just watch it. It’s a better experience than this:
I disagree, based on the simple fact that transcripts aren’t often as full of visual trickery, etc. as their video/film products —and not just because “little lies” are essential to the latters’ very creation. ☝🏼
The video is a lot longer than 90 minutes. The transcript is around 100 pages. The language is simple so you’d read it in an evening.
But you’re missing the sound and visuals. That informs the context. Plus the transcript is auto-generated. Why read it but not watch it?
And yes, you’re right, both episodes together are 236 minutes total.
Generally, I think the video format is responsible for a lot of disinformation getting swallowed wholesale. The people I know who fall for disinformation get it from videos. They usually have no other sources than themselves, nobody to challenge in the video itself, and it’s very difficult to reference parts of the video for critical discussion. It’s the perfect medium for a Gish gallop.
So I read it because I didn’t want to take in information passively. 4-hours is too much information to process critically in one go. It’s easy to watch that and be led to the conclusion the producers want with cut scenes, music choices, etc. After hearing so many falsehoods and retractions, I wanted to digest it properly.
The word “documentary” does not mean truth. In some cases it means a completely unchallenged and biased narrative led to deceive, such as the documentary Vaxxed, which was also promoted by a massive platform when it came out. It’s hard to put the genie back in the bottle after something like that.
I’m not necessarily judging the individuals in the video. If they have a case, it was badly represented by a documentary that did not check some facts that are essential to their core claims. Their director is also very odd. Regardless of what happened, to say Jackson was “worse than Epstein” is just not something a thinking person would say in an age where those victims are also trying to get justice.
Are you going to explain what specific audiovisual component might, if seen, lead someone to conclude that Michael Jackson shouldn’t have been acquitted? Or is this just some vague allusion to nonexistent super-important context that invalidates all the legal proceedings so you don’t have to actually make a solid case for your accusation?
What specific audiovisual component? Well, the way he went near-catatonic as the verdict seemed to draw near, and the surprise testimony of Macaulay Culkin were two specifically related to the trial.
Legal proceedings are not necessarily a source of truth, ask Dred Scott.
I’m just saying the full documentary is plenty of evidence. The only people who strongly disagree are those who haven’t seen it. IME.
Not the one you replied to, but I did, and it was very hard to dismiss. I still don’t think I have, completely. Maybe I should, logically, but emotionally it was hard to let go. Still conflicted about it, because the conspiracy against Michael scenario is just as probable.
There is literally no proof he was a pedophile.
Sarcastic edit: The snake in that scene is telling the boy that all his problems will go away if he stings him with his stinger. The pedophillia was obviously also copied from this scene.
There was also no proof my uncle raped me. But, guess what, he did.
I’ll assume You’re joking, because that would be the worst argument ever made.
Why on earth would anybody joke about that?
No proof except multiple eyewitness / victim testimony and a mountain of corroborating evidence. Like Epstein. Or trump.
The relevant Wikipedia page coalates the mountain of all the evidence related- I hadn’t read it till recently when someone linked it and I really have no stake in this, I don’t really care about mj, but the evidence really doest point to him being a pedophile.
It points to him having an unhealthy and innapropriate relationship with children and the idea of childhood. But theres honestly a really big gap between what it points to and being a pedophile who has sex with children
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1993_Michael_Jackson_sexual_abuse_allegations?wprov=sfla1
Just watch “Leaving Neverland”. It’s spelled out very plainly.
Cinema is not a valid reference source, even “documentaries” aren’t required to be 100% true.
FFS, even penguins were propagandized for generations before the public was allowed to learn that they’re ridiculously homocidal rapists, etc. 🤷🏼♂️ The latter came from the field journals penned during the first excursion through their territories, way back when. The cover up that swiftly followed said expedition’s report was bankrolled by the running class & its academic policy makers.
Not accounting for the international conspiracy to cover up penguin behavior characteristics, the film interviews two men who were boys at the time as well as their family, friends, and archival materials.
Eyewitness testimony is legally valid, and it’s hard to imagine two different people had the same story, but the other - 50? 100? kids didn’t.
The film says it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck and demands the bloody underwear be retrieved out of the trash before the cops find it like a duck.
He was phenomenally talented, there’s no doubt. But very troubled as well, and part of that was sexualizing young boys.
“Legal” ≠ “factually correct”, though. ☝🏼
Again, you seem to be founding a lot on outdated and/or debunked views/methods like eyewitness testimony, and I’m hoping you take your experience from this thread to make some changes, fellow pleb. 🙇🏼♂️
Seriously you people are way up in that tree with no interest at all in getting down, so. Ok. Have fun thinking MJ didn’t rape boys.
OJ wasn’t guilty either right
Documentaries do not exactly have the best track record when it comes to choosing between accuracy vs the more salacious story, I think a documentary is uniquely poorly suited to being a meaningful source on this subject in my eyes 😅
Ideally we would collect ALL primary sources and defer exclusively to what those primary sources say, but thats not exactly feasible for us to do.
On Wikipedia, subjects with very high visibility and interest tend to mean that people must be able to make a strong case for the information that makes it into the article. On a platform like Wikipedia, that means you need primary sources, meaningful evidence, to support what gets to be written when everyone has a strong opinion. If we’re to take a single tertiary/secondary source collating information to be a useful indicator, I think Wikipedia is, in kind of the opposite fashion, uniquely well suited to presenting an understanding of what happened
And the extraordinarily long article on Wikipedia doesnt suport the idea that he wanted to have sex with children. It points to him wanting very badly to vicariously experience the innocence of youth that he never got to, in a similar way to how some parents want to vicariously experience the accolades or ability of their child (mothers putting their child through pageants, fathers caring too much about their kid’s victory in sports). And I don’t think that’s a healthy thing to do to a child- it mirror grooming and normalizes that as a way for a relationship with an adult to look, and that is potentially extremely damaging. But the evidence doesnt really support the idea he wanted to have sex with children.
Just watch the music video to " Smooth Criminal". Absolute masterpiece.
All of whom have since either quietly retracted their testimony and/or admitted they lied.
A false accusation can’t be corroborated
Are you this mad about them too? Or do you only pick on the easy targets to make yourself feel big?
That’s not true.
Madder, fwiw. Trump’s dancing is awful.
Better? Now it’s accurate.
You’d have to quantify them, which is difficult as many did not come forward.
Ah, I wasn’t aware that unsubstantiated claims were given that much latitude in your argument —though, I could’ve guessed. 😅
They are substantiated AF.
I like how he thinks that just mentioning Epstein and Trump, when talking about pedos, makes him right.
You do? Weird.
People also came out saying their parents were money hungry cunts who wanted a piece of the pie. THEY were okay to let their kids sleepover at a complete strangers home, but no one blames them skmehow.
Lots of people blame them. I blame them. They blame them. They said so, on camera, with examples of how they failed. One of which was getting financial rewards for looking the other way.
How exactly is anything about this post “forgiving Michael Jackson”?
You’ve been fooled by propaganda.
His image was attacked and destroyed because he wouldn’t sell his music catalog.
Oh yeah, totally normal for a bunch of different children to accuse him of sexual abuse. I’m glad people believed me when I told them what my uncle did. I’d be a whole lot more fucked up if people didn’t take me seriously…and guess what, I’m still pretty screwed up from it.
I’ve seen an interview with someone who was offered money by those trashy British tabloids to concoct a story. They told the “journalist” that nothing improper had happened and the journalist told them that if they decided to change their story, there would be good money in it.
My point is, there was a lot of money and other infrastructure making allegations very attractive to fabricate.
Then there’s the actual FBI and parents who have been trying to concoct stories about him, while apparently they have protected actual pedophiles such as Epstein. Here’s one account of that (90 second clip): https://www.youtube.com/watch?app=desktop&v=O9hesItLnuk&ra=m
So you didn’t find it weird that the young kid Michael showcased on stage slept in the same bed as Michael in the hotels, while his family was given a room at the other end of the hotel. It seems super inappropriate, but besides Michael I also blame the parents … because you don’t let your kids sleep in a hotel room with a grown man. Even if he was famous.
Yes, I find that wholly inappropriate.
There’s a lot more than one inappropriate thing. A lot more.
No link or citation is bold for such a take. Not heard it before now.
He slept in the bed with children that werent his own and were obsessed with them. Its not a thing a normal adult does.
100% he was not normal and was abused his whole life. Whether he was fondling anyone or not, we’ll never know for certain, but none of those kids should have been allowed to do that just to leave a safety margin.
It’s not impossible that he became a rich target for extortion, but he was off enough that it would def have been grounds for pedo like restraining orders.
Just for Billie Jean, not his entire image.
thafuq? Is that the only song of his you know? That dance style was integral to much of his whole thing, and permeated his own style from very early on. 🤙🏼
You’re right, but there’s way too much MJ dick riding in the world for it to ever be a popular thing to say.
Yeah, because you being wrong simply isn’t possible.
Not in this case, pedophilic billionaire dickrider.
He’s probably too old for that.
Still, just alive enough for them, though.