|
Post by OVO 40 hunched over like he 80 on Mar 28, 2019 7:04:06 GMT -5
You guys get that these two were children back then right? Y'all keep acting like they were grown men back then and "if it was true, they shoulda done this or they wouldn't have done that." Maybe, maybe not. But these were kids. They couldn't possibly have the cognitive abilities of adults yet cuz they weren't adults. People have said 'oh Michael was a child in a man's body' to excuse his behavior while not giving the same pass to what were actually children. Besides, I don't think anyone saying "I'm not sure what happened" is basing that on one documentary. Michael's kooky, inappropriate behavior was WELL documented. And again, even if there was no abuse, dude was inappropriate with kids. That's inarguable no matter what YouTube vid ya watch. They were both adults when the second trial started. I know that you can’t dictate or force victims to come forward, it’s just that they could’ve helped that kid get justice.
|
|
|
Post by realist on Mar 28, 2019 7:28:59 GMT -5
I strongly stand by my belief that they're lying. People can side with Robson and Safechuck all they want to, however, I am a believer in facts and I have the ability to form my own opinion without some quick cash grab of a "documentary". As many people have already stated if they were going through abuse at that time they could've mentioned all of this when he was alive. They could've exposed him then in actuality instead they decided to strongly defend his name, his legacy, and his love of children. I don't buy for one second that they were groomed, brainwashed, or didn't know right from wrong. My opinion? It's nothing more than a distraction from the real life issues going on in the world today. Notice you don't hear about Weinstein, Singer, or Brett Ratner anymore? Now they're focusing on Michael by removing his songs from the radio, accusing him of anti-Semitism, and literally doing everything in their power to slander his name instead of asking the real questions. Someone should ask Oprah how come she's not interviewing the victims of her best friend Weinstein. Where was she saying "Look beyond the executive of Weinstein and stand up for the victims." Better yet how come people in this thread aren't asking the real questions and researching facts instead of a one sided "documentary"? You and I are on the same page, my friend. With me, I am just conditioned to see one-sided documentaries as complete bullshit. If they had interviewed members of the Jackson family to present another side to the story, I would actually be more inclined to believe them. It would indicate to me that they were actually in search of truth and the truth just happened to be that Michael was a pedophile. But when something is so completely one sided, it just screams to me: "we have an agenda!" Think political ads.
|
|
|
Post by realist on Mar 28, 2019 7:47:19 GMT -5
Also Weinstein doesn't have anything whatever to do with this. Him being a rapist etc is pretty well known given he's facing charges for it. But that has no bearing whatever on whether or not Jackson did anything. That's an odd bit of whataboutism. 'What about Harvey Weinstein?' 'Apparently dude was a monster.' I respectfully disagree. People are saying "what about Harvey Weinstein?" for a number of reasons: 1.) Michael Jackson is dead. Harvey is alive and well. His victims can still get justice. I and many others vaguely know about his crimes, but if it is as bad as has been hinted, why shouldn't he be put on blast just like Bill Cosby, R. Kelly, or Michael Jackson? You know the only major difference is..... 2.) Harvey Weinstein is white and the other dudes are black. This may not be a race issue at all. But, it very well could be. You have to admit that it sends a message when there are documentaries and court cases for the black guys, but people like Woody Allen, Roman Polanski, Harvey Weinstein, and others are not nearly as persecuted in the public eye. By doing this, whether intentional or not, it turns something that may not be a race issue into a definite race issue. If all these allegations are true, each of these guys deserve their legacies to be tarnished and to be lynched publicly. However, it only seems to be happening to the black guys. 3.) There is a conspiracy theory that one of the reasons that this Michael Jackson documentary has happened is to get some of the heat off of Harvey Weinstein. I do not know if it is true or not, but that is the belief. Jackson is more famous and Weinstein is more powerful. Weinstein used his power to have his buddies fast track a documentary about sexual misconduct allegations about a more famous figure to take some of the heat off of him. 4.) We do not know whether or not the MJ allegations are true. People on both sides of the issue believe very passionately one way or the other, but no one knows. Everyone knows that the Weinstein stuff is true. His own company put it into his contract that he was to deal with his own sexual misconduct allegations with his own money. That's a pretty specific clause for a contract. 5.) Oprah. I think that many people feel betrayed by Oprah. She is a powerful influence on her fans. She and Michael Jackson were friends. She and Harvey Weinstein are friends. For her to come out so negatively about Michael and not about Harvey Weinstein rubs a lot of people the wrong way. If she truly cares about justice for victims of sexual assault, as she claims, why has she not had a show about Weinstein?
|
|
Ben Wyatt
Crow T. Robot
Are You Gonna Go My Way?
I don't get it. At all. It's kind of a small horse, I mean what am I missing? Am I crazy?
Posts: 41,511
|
Post by Ben Wyatt on Mar 28, 2019 8:09:04 GMT -5
The reality is that unless someone grabs a Ouija board and makes some contact with Jackson, the truth about him and what he may or may not have done will probably never be known.
|
|
|
Post by Kevin Hamilton on Mar 28, 2019 9:03:34 GMT -5
Also Weinstein doesn't have anything whatever to do with this. Him being a rapist etc is pretty well known given he's facing charges for it. But that has no bearing whatever on whether or not Jackson did anything. That's an odd bit of whataboutism. 'What about Harvey Weinstein?' 'Apparently dude was a monster.' I respectfully disagree. People are saying "what about Harvey Weinstein?" for a number of reasons: 1.) Michael Jackson is dead. Harvey is alive and well. His victims can still get justice. I and many others vaguely know about his crimes, but if it is as bad as has been hinted, why shouldn't he be put on blast just like Bill Cosby, R. Kelly, or Michael Jackson? You know the only major difference is..... 2.) Harvey Weinstein is white and the other dudes are black. This may not be a race issue at all. But, it very well could be. You have to admit that it sends a message when there are documentaries and court cases for the black guys, but people like Woody Allen, Roman Polanski, Harvey Weinstein, and others are not nearly as persecuted in the public eye. By doing this, whether intentional or not, it turns something that may not be a race issue into a definite race issue. If all these allegations are true, each of these guys deserve their legacies to be tarnished and to be lynched publicly. However, it only seems to be happening to the black guys. 3.) There is a conspiracy theory that one of the reasons that this Michael Jackson documentary has happened is to get some of the heat off of Harvey Weinstein. I do not know if it is true or not, but that is the belief. Jackson is more famous and Weinstein is more powerful. Weinstein used his power to have his buddies fast track a documentary about sexual misconduct allegations about a more famous figure to take some of the heat off of him. 4.) We do not know whether or not the MJ allegations are true. People on both sides of the issue believe very passionately one way or the other, but no one knows. Everyone knows that the Weinstein stuff is true. His own company put it into his contract that he was to deal with his own sexual misconduct allegations with his own money. That's a pretty specific clause for a contract. 5.) Oprah. I think that many people feel betrayed by Oprah. She is a powerful influence on her fans. She and Michael Jackson were friends. She and Harvey Weinstein are friends. For her to come out so negatively about Michael and not about Harvey Weinstein rubs a lot of people the wrong way. If she truly cares about justice for victims of sexual assault, as she claims, why has she not had a show about Weinstein? Weinstein is on trial, and again his case has not a thing to do with Jackson's. I don't care about Oprah. Regardless, one guy bein a monster doesn't have thing to do with another guy's innocence or guilt.
|
|
|
Post by Kevin Hamilton on Mar 28, 2019 9:04:53 GMT -5
And pretty much all conspiracy theories are stupid.
|
|
riseofsetian1981
King Koopa
"I met him fifteen years ago. I was told there was nothing left."
Posts: 10,323
|
Post by riseofsetian1981 on Mar 28, 2019 9:55:38 GMT -5
And pretty much all conspiracy theories are stupid. Again the fact that you so easily dismiss it is the problem. Just because you find it stupid doesn't mean that it is either. There's a reason why people are claiming a conspiracy.
|
|
riseofsetian1981
King Koopa
"I met him fifteen years ago. I was told there was nothing left."
Posts: 10,323
|
Post by riseofsetian1981 on Mar 28, 2019 9:57:41 GMT -5
I respectfully disagree. People are saying "what about Harvey Weinstein?" for a number of reasons: 1.) Michael Jackson is dead. Harvey is alive and well. His victims can still get justice. I and many others vaguely know about his crimes, but if it is as bad as has been hinted, why shouldn't he be put on blast just like Bill Cosby, R. Kelly, or Michael Jackson? You know the only major difference is..... 2.) Harvey Weinstein is white and the other dudes are black. This may not be a race issue at all. But, it very well could be. You have to admit that it sends a message when there are documentaries and court cases for the black guys, but people like Woody Allen, Roman Polanski, Harvey Weinstein, and others are not nearly as persecuted in the public eye. By doing this, whether intentional or not, it turns something that may not be a race issue into a definite race issue. If all these allegations are true, each of these guys deserve their legacies to be tarnished and to be lynched publicly. However, it only seems to be happening to the black guys. 3.) There is a conspiracy theory that one of the reasons that this Michael Jackson documentary has happened is to get some of the heat off of Harvey Weinstein. I do not know if it is true or not, but that is the belief. Jackson is more famous and Weinstein is more powerful. Weinstein used his power to have his buddies fast track a documentary about sexual misconduct allegations about a more famous figure to take some of the heat off of him. 4.) We do not know whether or not the MJ allegations are true. People on both sides of the issue believe very passionately one way or the other, but no one knows. Everyone knows that the Weinstein stuff is true. His own company put it into his contract that he was to deal with his own sexual misconduct allegations with his own money. That's a pretty specific clause for a contract. 5.) Oprah. I think that many people feel betrayed by Oprah. She is a powerful influence on her fans. She and Michael Jackson were friends. She and Harvey Weinstein are friends. For her to come out so negatively about Michael and not about Harvey Weinstein rubs a lot of people the wrong way. If she truly cares about justice for victims of sexual assault, as she claims, why has she not had a show about Weinstein? Weinstein is on trial, and again his case has not a thing to do with Jackson's. I don't care about Oprah. Regardless, one guy bein a monster doesn't have thing to do with another guy's innocence or guilt. Actually his case has a lot to do with Michael. So he's on trial? Then he should be persecuted and receiving coverage just like Michael did. His face should be on every news station just like Michael's was.
|
|
|
Post by realist on Mar 28, 2019 10:03:36 GMT -5
I respectfully disagree. People are saying "what about Harvey Weinstein?" for a number of reasons: 1.) Michael Jackson is dead. Harvey is alive and well. His victims can still get justice. I and many others vaguely know about his crimes, but if it is as bad as has been hinted, why shouldn't he be put on blast just like Bill Cosby, R. Kelly, or Michael Jackson? You know the only major difference is..... 2.) Harvey Weinstein is white and the other dudes are black. This may not be a race issue at all. But, it very well could be. You have to admit that it sends a message when there are documentaries and court cases for the black guys, but people like Woody Allen, Roman Polanski, Harvey Weinstein, and others are not nearly as persecuted in the public eye. By doing this, whether intentional or not, it turns something that may not be a race issue into a definite race issue. If all these allegations are true, each of these guys deserve their legacies to be tarnished and to be lynched publicly. However, it only seems to be happening to the black guys. 3.) There is a conspiracy theory that one of the reasons that this Michael Jackson documentary has happened is to get some of the heat off of Harvey Weinstein. I do not know if it is true or not, but that is the belief. Jackson is more famous and Weinstein is more powerful. Weinstein used his power to have his buddies fast track a documentary about sexual misconduct allegations about a more famous figure to take some of the heat off of him. 4.) We do not know whether or not the MJ allegations are true. People on both sides of the issue believe very passionately one way or the other, but no one knows. Everyone knows that the Weinstein stuff is true. His own company put it into his contract that he was to deal with his own sexual misconduct allegations with his own money. That's a pretty specific clause for a contract. 5.) Oprah. I think that many people feel betrayed by Oprah. She is a powerful influence on her fans. She and Michael Jackson were friends. She and Harvey Weinstein are friends. For her to come out so negatively about Michael and not about Harvey Weinstein rubs a lot of people the wrong way. If she truly cares about justice for victims of sexual assault, as she claims, why has she not had a show about Weinstein? Weinstein is on trial, and again his case has not a thing to do with Jackson's. I don't care about Oprah. Regardless, one guy bein a monster doesn't have thing to do with another guy's innocence or guilt. I would argue that the race component is possibly the most important reason for the "whataboutism."
|
|
|
Post by Kevin Hamilton on Mar 28, 2019 10:04:18 GMT -5
And pretty much all conspiracy theories are stupid. Again the fact that you so easily dismiss it is the problem. Just because you find it stupid doesn't mean that it is either. There's a reason why people are claiming a conspiracy. It's not a problem, the VAST majority of conspiracies are stupid as f***. Full stop. Period. And sure Weinstein should be straight up pilloried. That has f*** all to do with whether Jackson molested those kids. He's deader than disco, so it doesn't much matter
|
|
|
Post by eJm on Mar 28, 2019 10:06:29 GMT -5
Weinstein is on trial, and again his case has not a thing to do with Jackson's. I don't care about Oprah. Regardless, one guy bein a monster doesn't have thing to do with another guy's innocence or guilt. Actually his case has a lot to do with Michael. So he's on trial? Then he should be persecuted and receiving coverage just like Michael did. His face should be on every news station just like Michael's was. Weinstein WAS persecuted and he DID receive the same coverage. I don't know where you were last year but outside of the years before where he was practically spokesperson for the Oscars in his quest to win all of them, dude's face was everywhere for all the wrong reasons. Also, again, he's literally on trial and will be convicted of his crimes. Nothing to do with Jackson AT ALL.
|
|
|
Post by realist on Mar 28, 2019 10:22:07 GMT -5
Actually his case has a lot to do with Michael. So he's on trial? Then he should be persecuted and receiving coverage just like Michael did. His face should be on every news station just like Michael's was. Weinstein WAS persecuted and he DID receive the same coverage. I don't know where you were last year but outside of the years before where he was practically spokesperson for the Oscars in his quest to win all of them, dude's face was everywhere for all the wrong reasons. Also, again, he's literally on trial and will be convicted of his crimes. Nothing to do with Jackson AT ALL. I respectfully disagree. The justice system is a joke. This whole thing will be another "Rapist" Brock Turner situation. Weinstein is rich as hell, meaning that he has the money to keep delaying the trial for years and if it ever does eventually get to a courtroom, Weinstein will walk. To paraphrase one of my favorite jokes from "Arrested Development," he will discover that there is a loophole in the system - having money. It's the exact same reason that Jussie Smollet will face no consequences for his actions.
|
|
|
Post by King Boo on Mar 28, 2019 11:13:30 GMT -5
And pretty much all conspiracy theories are stupid. Again the fact that you so easily dismiss it is the problem. Just because you find it stupid doesn't mean that it is either. There's a reason why people are claiming a conspiracy. Since we're projecting thoughts and actions onto people, I could very easily say that the reason some people are claiming a conspiracy and shifting focus to someone like Harvey Weinstein is because they desperately do not want to believe their musical hero, whose songs shaped their lives, could do something so heinous to so many for so long.
|
|
Paul
Vegeta
Posts: 9,271
|
Post by Paul on Mar 28, 2019 11:20:38 GMT -5
Again the fact that you so easily dismiss it is the problem. Just because you find it stupid doesn't mean that it is either. There's a reason why people are claiming a conspiracy. Since we're projecting thoughts and actions onto people, I could very easily say that the reason some people are claiming a conspiracy and shifting focus to someone like Harvey Weinstein is because they desperately do not want to believe their musical hero, whose songs shaped their lives, could do something so heinous to so many for so long. I can separate the art from the artist. I've known for years all about Michael and so has anyone who's paid the least bit attention since about 1992.
|
|
|
Post by realist on Mar 28, 2019 11:22:43 GMT -5
Again the fact that you so easily dismiss it is the problem. Just because you find it stupid doesn't mean that it is either. There's a reason why people are claiming a conspiracy. Since we're projecting thoughts and actions onto people, I could very easily say that the reason some people are claiming a conspiracy and shifting focus to someone like Harvey Weinstein is because they desperately do not want to believe their musical hero, whose songs shaped their lives, could do something so heinous to so many for so long. I can separate the artist from the art. I love R. Kelly's music but I think he is guilty as sin. I love Michael Jackson's music, as well, but I would totally acknowledge his guilt if there was any real proof other than a one-sided documentary with a 1.5 billion dollar agenda.
|
|
|
Post by ritt works hard fo da chickens on Mar 28, 2019 11:48:55 GMT -5
The funny (in the not so haha way) is that almost all these defenses for Michael are almost word for word what I had heard from church elders and loyalists when the Catholic scandals broke. Why wait? Just cash. Troubled stories. Unreliable people aren't trustworthy. It's a conspiracy to take down an empire. Nobody REALLY knows if you weren't there. Who's to say what's inappropriate for regular people isn't acceptable for a priest?
|
|
|
Post by King Boo on Mar 28, 2019 11:54:46 GMT -5
Since we're projecting thoughts and actions onto people, I could very easily say that the reason some people are claiming a conspiracy and shifting focus to someone like Harvey Weinstein is because they desperately do not want to believe their musical hero, whose songs shaped their lives, could do something so heinous to so many for so long. I can separate the art from the artist. I've known for years all about Michael and so has anyone who's paid the least bit attention since about 1992. Since we're projecting thoughts and actions onto people, I could very easily say that the reason some people are claiming a conspiracy and shifting focus to someone like Harvey Weinstein is because they desperately do not want to believe their musical hero, whose songs shaped their lives, could do something so heinous to so many for so long. I can separate the artist from the art. I love R. Kelly's music but I think he is guilty as sin. I love Michael Jackson's music, as well, but I would totally acknowledge his guilt if there was any real proof other than a one-sided documentary with a 1.5 billion dollar agenda. So what you're both saying is that what that statement is putting upon you and your words isn't accurate, which would make sense, since I'm not in your heads and don't know how you'd react because we're all different. Sort of like what I'm saying about the young boys, no? Also, I've "paid the least bit of attention since about 1992" and just happen to come to a different conclusion than you. The difference here is that I readily admit I'll never truly know for sure what is right because he's dead and none of us are the people involved.
|
|
|
Post by realist on Mar 28, 2019 11:56:43 GMT -5
The funny (in the not so haha way) is that almost all these defenses for Michael are almost word for word what I had heard from church elders and loyalists when the Catholic scandals broke. Why wait? Just cash. Troubled stories. Unreliable people aren't trustworthy. It's a conspiracy to take down an empire. Nobody REALLY knows if you weren't there. Who's to say what's inappropriate for regular people isn't acceptable for a priest? How about some actual research and evidence and not just emotional manipulation? Truth be told, if someone came along and disputed this with facts and evidence, then I would be inclined to believe them. It's not that I worship Michael Jackson. I just believe in evidence.
|
|
|
Post by ritt works hard fo da chickens on Mar 28, 2019 12:11:07 GMT -5
You realize your "research" is just as one sided if not more and usually quoting sources with just as much or more of a monetary interest as those you attack. At BEST I can only believe what he did was stupidly inappropriate, which is still something I am not willing to excuse from someone who otherwise was so smart and had so many people trying to protect his reputation. I've actually been against his behavior since the nineties so I am not new to this train or being emotionally manipulated.
Why do people dismiss his accusers if they even smell a dollar but readily believe Michael's family, lawyers, and others financially dependent on his relevance?
|
|
riseofsetian1981
King Koopa
"I met him fifteen years ago. I was told there was nothing left."
Posts: 10,323
|
Post by riseofsetian1981 on Mar 28, 2019 12:13:24 GMT -5
Again the fact that you so easily dismiss it is the problem. Just because you find it stupid doesn't mean that it is either. There's a reason why people are claiming a conspiracy. Since we're projecting thoughts and actions onto people, I could very easily say that the reason some people are claiming a conspiracy and shifting focus to someone like Harvey Weinstein is because they desperately do not want to believe their musical hero, whose songs shaped their lives, could do something so heinous to so many for so long. That may very well be the case too. However, by that same logic Weinstein has been behind some of the greatest films ever made, so you could claim that people don't want to believe he's capable of something horrible either. There is proof that Michael is innocent, there is proof that he was a victim of many extortion attempts, there is proof of the FBI, LAPD, and many other law enforcement agencies investigating him with and without his knowledge(the FBI investigation), he was acquitted of 14 counts of child molestation, and many forms of independent information is easily accessed by our best friend Google. People just don't want to educate themselves anymore and they blindly follow a clickbait article or a one sided "documentary".
|
|