Jump to content

Leaving Neverland, Michael Jackson Documentary, HBO


JONEZY

Recommended Posts

20 hours ago, action said:

i hope the day will come that the lies of safechuck and robson will be exposed. it all points that way. How much longer can they keep up the charade?

Very little points that way.  It's just what you believe.  Others believe differently.  

Still, you think Jackson is guilty of something along the lines of what he's being accused of but don't believe any of the accusers.  You do see how that makes zero sense, right?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, downzy said:

Very little points that way.  It's just what you believe.  Others believe differently.  

Still, you think Jackson is guilty of something along the lines of what he's being accused of but don't believe any of the accusers.  You do see how that makes zero sense, right?

it makes sense to me, but I appreciate not everyone agrees with that

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/24/2019 at 9:04 PM, soon said:

But all this MJ stuff starts to feel like a tabloid thing after a while. A distraction. 

It certainly diverted attention away from Harvey Weinstein and the documentary Untouchable, which premiered the same day as LN.

On 4/24/2019 at 10:14 PM, EvanG said:

Well, he's got that right. Just look at how much MJ lied in Living With Michael Jackson already. At first he said that Blanket's mother and him had a relationship, then he forgot about that apparently, and a few interviews later he said that she was a surrogate and they don't know each other. Why would he even lie about that in the first place? 

Apparently the gestational surrogate and the egg donor were two different people, so he's talking about two different mothers.

I can see how it's confusing, especially since it appears that he's referring to the egg donor as "surrogate mother".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, Scream of the Butterfly said:

Apparently the gestational surrogate and the egg donor were two different people, so he's talking about two different mothers.

I can see how it's confusing, especially since it appears that he's referring to the egg donor as "surrogate mother".

So he had a relationship with the egg donor and they used a surrogate to have the baby? I don't know if that's what he meant, but if he did, then yes, that's confusing indeed.

Nonetheless, it's not like he didn't lie about plastic surgery a billion times. I guess my point was that he's not exactly a trustworthy person when you already lie about things you really don't need to lie about in the first place.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, EvanG said:

So he had a relationship with the egg donor and they used a surrogate to have the baby? I don't know if that's what he meant, but if he did, then yes, that's confusing indeed.

Nonetheless, it's not like he didn't lie about plastic surgery a billion times. I guess my point was that he's not exactly a trustworthy person when you already lie about things you really don't need to lie about in the first place.

so you're saying, because he lied about plastic surgery, he must be lying about the allegations too? :facepalm:

everyone lies one or two times a day about things you don't need to lie about, you included. unless you claim to be holier than everyone, of course. In which case, I wont believe you

 

Edited by action
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, action said:

so you're saying, because he lied about plastic surgery, he must be lying about the allegations too? :facepalm:

everyone lies one or two times a day about things you don't need to lie about, you included. unless you claim to be holier than everyone, of course. In which case, I wont believe you

Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. Uhm, no, not really...

I merely reacted to the bodyguard's comment on how people lie. I had just re-watched Living With MJ and I thought.... Yep, just look at how much your boss lied already about stuff that you wouldn't even have to lie about. 

I'm not saying that because he evidently lied a lot, it means he must have lied about not molesting those boys. What do you take me for?

  • Like 2
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, EvanG said:

So he had a relationship with the egg donor and they used a surrogate to have the baby? I don't know if that's what he meant, but if he did, then yes, that's confusing indeed.

No. He had a relationship with the gestational surrogate in the sense that they met and interacted and were part of each other's lives at least for the duration of the pregnancy. Whereas the egg donor was selected from a catalog without personal interaction. That is my understanding of it based on what I've seen and read, but I could be wrong.

 

5 hours ago, EvanG said:

Nonetheless, it's not like he didn't lie about plastic surgery a billion times. I guess my point was that he's not exactly a trustworthy person when you already lie about things you really don't need to lie about in the first place.

Do we know for certain that he lied about plastic surgery? Even if he did, it's not really something I would hold against him. It was nobody else's business how many surgeries he had. It would have been better to either tell the truth or refuse to comment at all, but it's nowhere in the same ballpark with lying about child sexual abuse.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I should add that I think Martin Bashir did a horribly bad job in Living With Michael Jackson. He seems baffled about everything as if it's the very first time he's ever had to come to terms with the fact that people are different and not everyone is following the same life script as he is. It's OK to be critical but he's critical and interrogating MJ in a manner that comes across as being completely closed-minded.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

after all of the demoralization attempts, I have come to the conclusion that I'm not going to let it impact my joy of life, in any means imaginable.

if I was still a fan of jackson, I'd probably use him as avatar just to piss off the haters. But my fandom doesn't go that far, and since I'm not a hypocrite I won't do that. But all of this, just to show that I couldn't care less what people thing of jackson fans ("supporters", we're called even though we're only interested in having a good time).

Jackson is dead and all of this is utterly pointless. I feel the "supporters" have to defend themselves against prejudice and questioning about their love for jackson's music and I just shake my head at so much bigotry. HE'S FUCKING DEAD 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2019-04-28 at 7:27 AM, action said:

after all of the demoralization attempts, I have come to the conclusion that I'm not going to let it impact my joy of life, in any means imaginable.

if I was still a fan of jackson, I'd probably use him as avatar just to piss off the haters. But my fandom doesn't go that far, and since I'm not a hypocrite I won't do that. But all of this, just to show that I couldn't care less what people thing of jackson fans ("supporters", we're called even though we're only interested in having a good time).

Jackson is dead and all of this is utterly pointless. I feel the "supporters" have to defend themselves against prejudice and questioning about their love for jackson's music and I just shake my head at so much bigotry. HE'S FUCKING DEAD 

I can't say there's a thing I agree with in your post.

First, your assertion that you couldn't care less is undermined by the numerous posts you have made in this thread.  

Understand supporters of Jackson are doing what they have to do to because a) they truly believe Jackson is innocent or b) they don't want to believe Jackson is guilty and what that would mean for their love of his music and their relationship with him as a fan.  In my opinion most people fall into the latter category.  Why?  Because most won't acknowledge the many areas that leads others to believe Jackson's accusers.  Hell, many try to defend his habit of sleeping with little boys as something innocent and not at all appropriate.  When I hear those kinds of assertions being made, it's obvious to me that those people really don't care about what truly happened and just want to feel fine with listening to Jackson's music.

Second, the argument that this is all pointless because Jackson is dead is absurd.  Death doesn't absolve one from one's actions.  I realize this might be difficult for you to do at this point, but assume Safechuck and Robson are telling the truth.  Should they no longer be allowed to tell their story?  Your logic mandates that any victim of sexual abuse must disclose of this abuse while their abuser is still alive in order to be acceptable by yourself and others.  That's a dangerous and completely unreasonable precedent to set for victims of sexual abuse.  The only difference here is that Jackson is famous.  Different standards shouldn't be applied because Jackson is a famous dead person.

Third, supporters are not under any obligation to defend themselves.  If someone says they don't believe the accusers then fine.  But if they want to volunteer their reasons why and others can find fault in either reasoning or the information they're based on, then why shouldn't they be questioned or reviewed?  Several MJ defenders have provided information that is either not true or can't be substantiated.  So why shouldn't others call others out for furthering a defence that is baseless?  

I was at a private birthday party this weekend where the DJ played some MJ.  Personally I won't play his stuff anymore but I'm not about to go give the DJ or the host a hard time for playing MJ.  

It's not about bigotry.  You have a very warped understanding of what bigotry is if that's the case.  It's about a guy who has had five people accuse him of sexual assault (having paid off two of them) and some choosing to believe those people.  Other's choose not to.  It's nothing more than that no matter how much you post or claim not to care.  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/29/2019 at 8:25 PM, downzy said:

 Hell, many try to defend his habit of sleeping with little boys as something innocent and not at all appropriate.  When I hear those kinds of assertions being made, it's obvious to me that those people really don't care about what truly happened and just want to feel fine with listening to Jackson's music.

Why wouldn't it be innocent? Unless you are already assuming that it involved sexual abuse, which is the very issue being debated.

Not all people who defend Jackson are fans of his music. I remember discussing this issue with a classical violinist who didn't listen to any popular music around the time Bashir's documentary first aired. She was telling me about all the times she had herself slept in the same bed with friends' children and she thought it was plain stupid that anybody would attempt to sexualize such a thing.

On 4/29/2019 at 8:25 PM, downzy said:

I was at a private birthday party this weekend where the DJ played some MJ.  Personally I won't play his stuff anymore but I'm not about to go give the DJ or the host a hard time for playing MJ.

I would have more respect for people who have stopped playing or listening to him if they had done so in 1993 or whenever they first became aware of the accusations. To do so now is to jump on the bandwagon and I find it hard to see it as any kind of genuine statement for the victims. Of course people are free to not listen to whoever they like and it's their loss not mine. Myself, I would probably continue listening to him even if he was proven guilty, because why the hell not? It's not like he's going to molest more children because I'm listening to his music.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Scream of the Butterfly said:

Why wouldn't it be innocent? Unless you are already assuming that it involved sexual abuse, which is the very issue being debated.

Not all people who defend Jackson are fans of his music. I remember discussing this issue with a classical violinist who didn't listen to any popular music around the time Bashir's documentary first aired. She was telling me about all the times she had herself slept in the same bed with friends' children and she thought it was plain stupid that anybody would attempt to sexualize such a thing.

Because that behaviour (grown men sleeping with prepubescent kids and young teens) is usually associated with pedophiles.  Was your violinist friend later accused of sexual assault of minors?  Did she sleep with the same kids in her bed for years, swapping out one children for another like clock work?  

It's just fucking weird in the context.  Almost nobody would argue otherwise when all factors considered.

And this is the problem with Jackson defenders.  They can't even acknowledge how fucking nuts this kind of behaviour is by someone like Jackson.  They feel the need to dismiss it because they seem incapable of entertaining the idea that Jackson is guilty.  

1 hour ago, Scream of the Butterfly said:

I would have more respect for people who have stopped playing or listening to him if they had done so in 1993 or whenever they first became aware of the accusations

That is to assume that people knew much about those accusations or heard them from the victim themselves.  

As I've said before, it's one thing to read it in a headline, it's another to sit there for four hours and hear it in their own words.  You don't see a difference?  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, downzy said:

Because that behaviour (grown men sleeping with prepubescent kids and young teens) is usually associated with pedophiles.  Was your violinist friend later accused of sexual assault of minors?  Did she sleep with the same kids in her bed for years, swapping out one children for another like clock work?  

It's just fucking weird in the context.  Almost nobody would argue otherwise when all factors considered.

And this is the problem with Jackson defenders.  They can't even acknowledge how fucking nuts this kind of behaviour is by someone like Jackson.  They feel the need to dismiss it because they seem incapable of entertaining the idea that Jackson is guilty.  

So if being a man with a beard was associated with being a pedophile, you would then conclude that all men with beards are pedophiles?

As far as I know that person was never accused of sexual assault of any kind. Are we now going to assume that anybody who thinks Jackson was innocent must be a sexual offender themselves?

I'm well capable of entertaining the idea that he's guilty and I just did in my previous post. I just don't see any evidence that would allow me to draw that conclusion.

31 minutes ago, downzy said:

That is to assume that people knew much about those accusations or heard them from the victim themselves.  

As I've said before, it's one thing to read it in a headline, it's another to sit there for four hours and hear it in their own words.  You don't see a difference?  

I'm sure if the accusers were ugly and had annoying speaking voices, not half as many people would believe them. But since they were reasonably good-looking and pleasant and were able to deliver their stories in a manner that kept viewers hooked for four hours, people want to support them.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Scream of the Butterfly said:

So if being a man with a beard was associated with being a pedophile, you would then conclude that all men with beards are pedophiles?

Straw man argument.  Nobody would make that kind of association.  Anyone who would has issues.

We're not talking about Jackson's appearances, but his actions.  Just like anyone who drives around a school in a windowless van offering rides to kids is likely going to be viewed with suspicion.

1 hour ago, Scream of the Butterfly said:

As far as I know that person was never accused of sexual assault of any kind. Are we now going to assume that anybody who thinks Jackson was innocent must be a sexual offender themselves?

Nope.  That's some strange twisted logic there.  

That said, anyone who thinks that a 30 some odd man sleeping in the same bed with kids (of no relation) doesn't warrant to raise suspicion or finds fault towards others for said suspicion needs to give their heads a shake.  

Would someone not famous as Jackson be given the same benefit of the doubt?  If your 30 year old neighbour who works as a plumber and had a rapport with your kids invited them to sleep over in his bed, are you going to assume it's on the up and up?   

1 hour ago, Scream of the Butterfly said:

I'm well capable of entertaining the idea that he's guilty and I just did in my previous post. I just don't see any evidence that would allow me to draw that conclusion.

Really?  Because you're employing some terrible logic and straw man arguments to normalize behaviour by Jackson around little kids.

1 hour ago, Scream of the Butterfly said:

I'm sure if the accusers were ugly and had annoying speaking voices, not half as many people would believe them. But since they were reasonably good-looking and pleasant and were able to deliver their stories in a manner that kept viewers hooked for four hours, people want to support them.

Sorry, but that's pretty offensive.  Because some believe the accusers that it must be for shallow reasons (regardless of the fact that the alleged abuse happened when they were kids).  No offence, but that's really a sad and pathetic accusation towards those who chose to believe Robson and Safechuck on the merits of their accusations and the corroborating evidence that supports their claims.  

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, downzy said:

Straw man argument.  Nobody would make that kind of association.  Anyone who would has issues.

We're not talking about Jackson's appearances, but his actions.  Just like anyone who drives around a school in a windowless van offering rides to kids is likely going to be viewed with suspicion.

You would need to study a very large number of people to find out whether there is any significant correlation between sleeping habits and pedophilia, but I think it's safe to say that the vast majority of people who sleep in the same bed with children in their care are not pedophiles.

If in your mind man+boy+bed=sex, then of course in your mind he's guilty. However, it's completely circular logic and doesn't contribute anything to the debate to argue that his defenders don't care about what truly happened because they think it was innocent. As long as it hasn't been established by both sides that each and every person who sleeps next to a child is a pedophile child abuser, there is nothing to prevent an honest person from believing it was an innocent practise.

13 hours ago, downzy said:

That said, anyone who thinks that a 30 some odd man sleeping in the same bed with kids (of no relation) doesn't warrant to raise suspicion or finds fault towards others for said suspicion needs to give their heads a shake.  

You are repeating the same points that were already addressed earlier in the thread. As was already pointed out, he wasn't an odd man but was considered a friend and part of the family.

 

13 hours ago, downzy said:

Would someone not famous as Jackson be given the same benefit of the doubt?  If your 30 year old neighbour who works as a plumber and had a rapport with your kids invited them to sleep over in his bed, are you going to assume it's on the up and up?   

Jackson said he never invited children to sleep in his room and that it was the children who wanted to stay with him. As far as I know there is no evidence to the contrary.

 

13 hours ago, downzy said:

Sorry, but that's pretty offensive.  Because some believe the accusers that it must be for shallow reasons (regardless of the fact that the alleged abuse happened when they were kids).  No offence, but that's really a sad and pathetic accusation towards those who chose to believe Robson and Safechuck on the merits of their accusations and the corroborating evidence that supports their claims.

Then why was it so important to see and hear the accusers if not because of their appearance and speaking voices? Were you reading their auras?

I can see how the documentary was emotionally appealing, but if you were previously convinced that Jackson was innocent or on the fence about it, the documentary didn't offer any rational basis for changing your mind.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Scream of the Butterfly said:

You would need to study a very large number of people to find out whether there is any significant correlation between sleeping habits and pedophilia, but I think it's safe to say that the vast majority of people who sleep in the same bed with children in their care are not pedophiles.

Yeah, the vast number of people are likely family members.  Not strange weirdos in their 30s who cycled different boys (and only boys) in and out of his bed.  Nor do those people call up the mothers of those boys asking them to bring them over at 1:30AM to have a sleep over.  

5 hours ago, Scream of the Butterfly said:

If in your mind man+boy+bed=sex, then of course in your mind he's guilty.

I never said that.  What I object to is the position of many Jackson defenders that this is normal behaviour, that it can be explained away as something innocent and indicative of Jackson's desire to relive his youth.  It's a sad attempt to dismiss behaviour that indicates guilt (but not proof).  

5 hours ago, Scream of the Butterfly said:

he wasn't an odd man but was considered a friend and part of the family.

Yeah, largely because of his fame, opportunity and gifts he showered onto the kids and their families.  As the mothers in Finding Neverland attest, they had stars in their eyes that warped their ability to make wise decisions with respect to protecting their sons.  

5 hours ago, Scream of the Butterfly said:

Jackson said he never invited children to sleep in his room and that it was the children who wanted to stay with him. As far as I know there is no evidence to the contrary.

Except he's lying and we know this from the court transcripts form the 2005 case.  As Robson's mother testified under oath, she received a call at 1:30 in the morning from Jackson (or on behalf of Jackson) to have Robson be brought over, at which point they retired to his bedroom.  

But whether the kids were invited or not is kind of besides the point.  It's inappropriate to share a bed with a kid that you have no family connection on a repeated basis.  If it were a one-off because the kid was scared, then maybe.  Again, the fact we have to continue to to debate this is beyond ridiculous.

5 hours ago, Scream of the Butterfly said:

Then why was it so important to see and hear the accusers if not because of their appearance and speaking voices? Were you reading their auras?

Because body language matters.  The level of detail and specificity matters.  We hear their entire accounts, not something learned through a quick headline.  It has nothing to do with their appearances.  I find that this really needs to be explained to you and again leads me to question how capable you are of having a genuine conversation about the matter.  

5 hours ago, Scream of the Butterfly said:

I can see how the documentary was emotionally appealing, but if you were previously convinced that Jackson was innocent or on the fence about it, the documentary didn't offer any rational basis for changing your mind

I was on the fence about it.  What changed my mind was the level of specificity, the reasons for why they changed their positions, and the effects this had on their families.  

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On ‎01‎/‎05‎/‎2019 at 2:26 AM, Scream of the Butterfly said:

So if being a man with a beard was associated with being a pedophile, you would then conclude that all men with beards are pedophiles?

As far as I know that person was never accused of sexual assault of any kind. Are we now going to assume that anybody who thinks Jackson was innocent must be a sexual offender themselves?

I'm well capable of entertaining the idea that he's guilty and I just did in my previous post. I just don't see any evidence that would allow me to draw that conclusion.

I'm sure if the accusers were ugly and had annoying speaking voices, not half as many people would believe them. But since they were reasonably good-looking and pleasant and were able to deliver their stories in a manner that kept viewers hooked for four hours, people want to support them.

good points

it's almost as if "jackson defenders" approve of pedophilia.

I don't think it's normal for jackson to sleep with children, but that didn't stop @downzy from claiming "jackson defenders think it's ok to sleep with children". So in my case and many others, his whole premise is wrong or ill informed. 

You can perfectly argue that it is not OK for jackson to sleep with children, and still think he's innocent of sexual assault. As much as some people would "want" to see sleeping with children criminalised, which would make for an easy cop-out, it isn't. It is morally detestable, yes, but it is not a crime.

It's comparable with owing lots of videogames: that doesn't make you a pirate for video games.  Just because you own a lot of videogames, doesn't mean you pirated them.

 

Edited by action
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, action said:

good points

it's almost as if "jackson defenders" approve of pedophilia.

I don't think it's normal for jackson to sleep with children, but that didn't stop @downzy from claiming "jackson defenders think it's ok to sleep with children". So in my case and many others, his whole premise is wrong or ill informed. 

You can perfectly argue that it is not OK for jackson to sleep with children, and still think he's innocent of sexual assault. As much as some people would "want" to see sleeping with children criminalised, which would make for an easy cop-out, it isn't. It is morally detestable, yes, but it is not a crime.

It's comparable with owing lots of videogames: that doesn't make you a pirate for video games.  Just because you own a lot of videogames, doesn't mean you pirated them.

 

Except both of you are responding to arguments that nobody is making.

No, defending Jackson isn't expressing approval of pedophilia.  How the hell did you come up with that one?

And no where did I say that Jackson defenders think it's okay to sleep with children.  What I did say is that many people who cast doubt on the accusers seem to dismiss it as an issue altogether.  There are some people who believe Jackson but who also admit that such actions open Jackson up to those accusations.  Which is a completely understandable assertion.  What isn't logical is to downplay the fact that a 30 year old men repeatedly slept with prepubescent and teen boys and suggest that inherently there's nothing wrong with it.  All the while making the false equivalency that it's akin to a parent sleeping with their own child (when it so clearly isn't).

Again, please actually pay attention to the points being made rather than create straw man arguments.

Nobody wants to see sleeping with a child criminalized since context matters.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 months later...
6 hours ago, Jw224 said:

This video is pretty interesting. 

 

I think this video is spot on. One of the problems I've encountered is if you defend Michael Jackson & disbelieve 'Leaving Neverland' you get accused of defending child abuse amongst other things all because of a couple of guys come out the woodwork years after his death and their 'alleged' claims against him. If your old enough to remember the Joey Chandler scandal and how that was exposed to be false because of Chandler's dad being taped confessed to setting Jackson up before any claims against MJ were filed or accused and Carrie Fisher had evidence against him because Chandler's dad was a doctor or dentist to the stars. Those two 'Leaving Neverland' guys have tried doing the same thing only years later, they noticed how much the MJ estate has made since he died and went after a slice. On the other hand, MJ didn't help himself and was incredibly naive but he never had a childhood and bounced the ball like the rest of us, he was a breadwinner for the Jackson family before he was in double figures. 

Edited by Edward Nygma
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Edward Nygma said:

I think this video is spot on. One of the problems I've encountered is if you defend Michael Jackson & disbelieve 'Leaving Neverland' you get accused of defending child abuse amongst other things all because of a couple of guys come out the woodwork years after his death and their 'alleged' claims against him. If your old enough to remember the Joey Chandler scandal and how that was exposed to be false because of Chandler's dad being taped confessed to setting Jackson up before any claims against MJ were filed or accused and Carrie Fisher had evidence against him because Chandler's dad was a doctor or dentist to the stars. Those two 'Leaving Neverland' guys have tried doing the same thing only years later, they noticed how much the MJ estate has made his died and went after a slice. On the other hand, MJ didn't help himself and was incredibly naive but he never had a childhood and bounced the ball like the rest of us, he was a breadwinner for the Jackson family before he was in double figures. 

but...but... they are victims, why would they lie / people forget important facts like where did it all happen, you cant remember it all can you. Who can remember where he was raped? no one, isn't it? and after all it's all explained in the movie. but now they remember everything again.

also, jackson was wierd, he must therefore be guilty. because, weird people

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's still incredibly disturbing to see so many people not know how abuse can affect those who suffer from it.

If you are defending Michael Jackson, you are defending a pedophile, and you are helping to normalise the very abnormal behaviours he exhibited towards children.

Not only was he a pedophile, but he was a manipulative and cruel person in other ways too. Even if you don't want to believe he sexually abused children, he was still far from the kind-hearted angel his fans view him as.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...