"Cancel Culture" Opinions?

[SoulMonster]

14 minutes ago, Towelie said:

What MJ is describing is a slumber party. Macauley Culkin said that MJs bedroom at Neverland was bigger than most people's houses and even had different floors. 

Besides, sleeping in the same bed as a child does not make somebody a child molester. 

Letting children stay in his room was obviously an insane idea and put him in an incredibly vulnerable position. But it's worth remember that many, many children did this. If MJs intention was to sexually abuse these kids, why have 99% of them all maintained it was totally innocent? Crime experts always say that child molesters typically escalate their behaviour with time. MJ had unprecented access to as many children as he liked. If he was truly a paedophile, the number of abused children would likely be in the hundreds.

A paedophile is just someone who is sexually attracted to kids. Just like us, most of them realize that this is wrong and, I would think, most of them would not act out on their urges, they would control it and suppress the attraction from committing any crimes.

The fact that MJ wanted to spend so much time with kids could mean he was a paedophile... or just a manchild with stunted development. The fact that he wanted to sleep in the same bed as them would, in my opinion, lean towards the paedophile explanation, although the stunted development explanation still fits. The fact that some of the kids accused him of molestation is of course damning, but it could just be bullshit since there will always be people accusing celebrities of all kinds of things. That not all he slept with accused him of molestation, doesn't really mean much. He could easily have been a paedophile that managed to not molest all kids in his vicinity.

That fans of MJ argue so passionately for him not being a paedophile, is funny. Who cares what he was? The music is not affected one way or the other and if you happen to like his music you can still continue to do so, even if he was a paedophile or just a manchild with stunted development.

In the end, it all comes down to what you believe. 

[PatrickS77]

1 hour ago, SoulMonster said:

A paedophile is just someone who is sexually attracted to kids. Just like us, most of them realize that this is wrong and, I would think, most of them would not act out on their urges, they would control it and suppress the attraction from committing any crimes.

The fact that MJ wanted to spend so much time with kids could mean he was a paedophile... or just a manchild with stunted development. The fact that he wanted to sleep in the same bed as them would, in my opinion, lean towards the paedophile explanation, although the stunted development explanation still fits. The fact that some of the kids accused him of molestation is of course damning, but it could just be bullshit since there will always be people accusing celebrities of all kinds of things. That not all he slept with accused him of molestation, doesn't really mean much. He could easily have been a paedophile that managed to not molest all kids in his vicinity.

That fans of MJ argue so passionately for him not being a paedophile, is funny. Who cares what he was? The music is not affected one way or the other and if you happen to like his music you can still continue to do so, even if he was a paedophile or just a manchild with stunted development.

In the end, it all comes down to what you believe. 

Right. And the only way you can like someone is "sexual" and lying in a bed always ends up with sex/a bed only exists to have sex. Also a bed is never used for something else but sex. The reason the fans are passionate about this is because they know these cases, the people involved, in and out and all of those accusers are problematic and their stories have holes. Also we're tired of people, who have no clue and rely on tabloid headlines, to accuse him of being a criminal and think the only reason we defend him is, because we're fans. And as for "who cares", it's people who don't stand idly by when someone is accused of one of the most heinous crimes when they have every reason to believe, due to their knowledge of the situations, that he didn't actually do these things.

[EvanG]

3 hours ago, SoulMonster said:

That fans of MJ argue so passionately for him not being a paedophile, is funny. 

This. At the end of the day, we weren't there, so it's impossible to know what really happened without any evidence, not even for the ones who claim to be his biggest fan and will defend him no matter what.

[EvanG]

5 hours ago, Towelie said:

Crime experts always say that child molesters typically escalate their behaviour with time. MJ had unprecented access to as many children as he liked. If he was truly a paedophile, the number of abused children would likely be in the hundreds.

This is not a good argument, though. There are plenty of paedophiles who only crossed the line once or twice even though they had plenty of opportunities.

If he was a paedophile, it's clear that he wasn't the average paedophile, if there is such a thing. After watching that documentary, and if those guys were telling the truth, I wouldn't be surprised if in his eccentric mind he thought he had a real relationship with them that was nothing but loving and pure. That's also sorta how they described it. And that could explain why he didn't touch every kid that was around. 

[RussTCB]

😂 "documentary" 

[Towelie]

39 minutes ago, EvanG said:

This is not a good argument, though. There are plenty of paedophiles who only crossed the line once or twice even though they had plenty of opportunities.

If he was a paedophile, it's clear that he wasn't the average paedophile, if there is such a thing. After watching that documentary, and if those guys were telling the truth, I wouldn't be surprised if in his eccentric mind he thought he had a real relationship with them that was nothing but loving and pure. That's also sorta how they described it. And that could explain why he didn't touch every kid that was around. 

Wade Robson claimed that MJ anally buggered him at 7yrs old. You really think MJ would've felt that was pure and innocent? MJ sang about child sexual abuse on the song Do You Know Where Your Children Are (recorded before the first allegations). He sings about it in a negative way, so there's no mistaking his understanding of what child sex abuse is. He also wrote a letter to his sister-in-law, in the late 80s/early 90s after one of his nephews Taj Jackson (Tito's son) was sexually abused by an uncle on his mothers side of the family, warning her of the dangers of pedophiles and child sex abusers. These tidbits seem to suggest he wasn't some loon deluding himself that a sexual relationship with a child is something he's comfortable with. 

[EvanG]

6 minutes ago, Towelie said:

Wade Robson claimed that MJ anally buggered him at 7yrs old. You really think MJ would've felt that was pure and innocent? MJ sang about child sexual abuse on the song Do You Know Where Your Children Are (recorded before the first allegations). He sings about it in a negative way, so there's no mistaking his understanding of what child sex abuse is. He also wrote a letter to his sister-in-law, in the late 80s/early 90s after one of his nephews Taj Jackson (Tito's son) was sexually abused by an uncle on his mothers side of the family, warning her of the dangers of pedophiles and child sex abusers. These tidbits seem to suggest he wasn't some loon deluding himself that a sexual relationship with a child is something he's comfortable with. 

I was talking about the relationship. One of those guys, I don't remember their names (I watched it years ago), said that Michael didn't do anything that they didn't want to do. At one point he wanted to do some sex thing and the kid wasn't comfortable with it, so Michael refrained from doing it.

Look, I'm not saying it happened, unlike you, I can't know. After everything that has been said and after watching that documentary, I wouldn't be surprised and that in Michael's warped mind they had a real relationship and he didn't see it as molestation. 

The thing about shopping for the ring is also creepy. One of those guys talked about that and after the documentary aired, security footage came out of exactly that, Michael and him shopping for a ring. I know this isn't proof, but it proves he was right about that at least, and why would a grown man go ring shopping with a little kid, that isn't his, anyway?

[Towelie]

8 minutes ago, EvanG said:

shopping for the ring is also creepy. One of those guys talked about that and after the documentary aired, security footage came out of exactly that, Michael and him shopping for a ring. I know this isn't proof, but it proves he was right about that at least, and why would a grown man go ring shopping with a little kid, that isn't his, anyway?

That was James Safechuck - the guy who claimed MJ molested him inside the Neverland train station, which turned out to not even have been built until years after he alleged abuse. You seriously taking that guy seriously?

Also, there are receipts of Safechuck shopping for rings online dated exactly around the time he was filming his scenes for Leaving Neverland. Seems a bit suspicious to me. 

Edited January 20, 2022 by Towelie

[EvanG]

1 minute ago, Towelie said:

That was James Safechuck - the guy who claimed MJ molested him inside the Neverland train station, which turned out to not even have been built until years after he alleged abuse. You seriously taking that guy seriously?

Also, there are receipts of Safechuck shopping for rings online dated exactly around the time he was filming his scenes for Leaving Neverland. Seems a bit suspicious to me. 

Again, I don't know, especially with accusations like this, I always try to be objective, but like I said, I wouldn't be surprised either.

I've seen the security footage after it came out, it's how he described it, and I'm sure he wasn't aware that it would come out or even existed, so I believe that part of the story. 

[Towelie]

3 minutes ago, EvanG said:

Again, I don't know, especially with accusations like this, I always try to be objective, but like I said, I wouldn't be surprised either.

I've seen the security footage after it came out, it's how he described it, and I'm sure he wasn't aware that it would come out or even existed, so I believe that part of the story. 

Well, even if he did take him shopping:

1. Who knows who he was buying the ring for? I drag my son around shopping for all kinds of shit that's not for him. 

2. Safechuck said he liked jewelry in the documentary which I find a bit strange for a 10yr old kid, but even if it was for him, it doesn't prove anything. A kid tells a grown up they like something, the grown up buys it for them. Simple as that. It's only creepy if you're looking at it through a sinister lens.

[downzy]

40 minutes ago, Towelie said:

Wade Robson claimed that MJ anally buggered him at 7yrs old. You really think MJ would've felt that was pure and innocent? MJ sang about child sexual abuse on the song Do You Know Where Your Children Are (recorded before the first allegations). He sings about it in a negative way, so there's no mistaking his understanding of what child sex abuse is. He also wrote a letter to his sister-in-law, in the late 80s/early 90s after one of his nephews Taj Jackson (Tito's son) was sexually abused by an uncle on his mothers side of the family, warning her of the dangers of pedophiles and child sex abusers. These tidbits seem to suggest he wasn't some loon deluding himself that a sexual relationship with a child is something he's comfortable with. 

Same thing you hear from priests.

No one knows.  Everyone has their reasons for their beliefs.  Let’s just leave it at that.

Anyway, this thread isn’t about whether MJ was a diddler.  

[RussTCB]

12 hours ago, RussTCB said:

Side note-

I could update the thread about 5 times a day with things the left have faux outrage about, but that wasn't even remotely the point of starting the thread. 

The point of the thread was to have a discussion about the the idea of cancel culture. It wasn't meant to have another space to divide everyone with "look how wrong the left looks!" or "look how wrong the right looks!" 

The world has enough division for divisions sake. I was more looking to understand what people's thoughts were on the matter as a whole. 

@Towelie

^^^^^^^ this is why the thread was started in the first place. 

 

(Sorry towel, I couldn't get it to un-tag you from my original post) 

[downzy]

43 minutes ago, RussTCB said:

^^^^^^^ this is why the thread was started in the first place. 

 

The issue though is that the term "cancel culture" has almost exclusively been branded and associated as a political left concern.  The right has done a wonderful job of tying "cancel culture" as something that's emblematic of left-leaning politics.  If you look at the first few pages of this thread and the orientation of the topic, it's almost exclusive to issues around cancelling efforts in art, often led by left-leaning or progressive-minded people.

What I've been trying to underscore is that "cancel culture" is more than just efforts to nix matters that a few individuals find offensive; that complaints lobbied against what some feel are problematic issues in music and visual arts is perhaps not the worst forms of cancel culture.  The term has become a cultural and political cudgel used by those who are often the worst practitioners, often in areas that have the potential for far more harm for society in general.  

[RussTCB]

4 minutes ago, downzy said:

The issue though is that the term "cancel culture" has almost exclusively been branded and associated as a political left concern.  The right has done a wonderful job of tying "cancel culture" as something that's emblematic of left-leaning politics.  If you look at the first few pages of this thread and the orientation of the topic, it's almost exclusive to issues around cancelling efforts in art, often led by left-leaning or progressive-minded people.

What I've been trying to underscore is that "cancel culture" is more than just efforts to nix matters that a few individuals find offensive; that complaints lobbied against what some feel are problematic issues in music and visual arts is perhaps not the worst forms of cancel culture.  The term has become a cultural and political cudgel used by those who are often the worst practitioners, often in areas that have the potential for far more harm for society in general.  

Again, it's not about what the left or the right are doing. That's not why the thread was started. Both the left and the right are excellent at branding things to whatever fits their needs in the moment, which isn't any of my concern. I don't look at anything and say "oh that's something people on the right believe in, so it must be bad" or vice versa. I happen to think society could benefit a great deal from more people being open minded to the how's and why's of others line of thinking instead of immediately saying "left ideal = bad" or the opposite. 

While you personally may not view art and culture as important, many other people feel those things are vital. So since those things are crucial to my life in many ways, that's where I happen to see it the most. So that's where the discussion started. 

Soon after, I lost interest in the thread because instead of having a constructive conversation on the matter it became a dumping ground for "oh look! The right is at it again!", which adds absolutely nothing to the discussion and further causes a divide. 

[downzy]

15 minutes ago, RussTCB said:

Again, it's not about what the left or the right are doing. That's not why the thread was started. Both the left and the right are excellent at branding things to whatever fits their needs in the moment, which isn't any of my concern. I don't look at anything and say "oh that's something people on the right believe in, so it must be bad" or vice versa. I happen to think society could benefit a great deal from more people being open minded to the how's and why's of others line of thinking instead of immediately saying "left ideal = bad" or the opposite. 

While you personally may not view art and culture as important, many other people feel those things are vital. So since those things are crucial to my life in many ways, that's where I happen to see it the most. So that's where the discussion started. 

Soon after, I lost interest in the thread because instead of having a constructive conversation on the matter it became a dumping ground for "oh look! The right is at it again!", which adds absolutely nothing to the discussion and further causes a divide. 

I get that you're a very apolitical person and I can respect that.  I generally look at these kinds of discussions through a political lens because the context and parameters of a topic like this usually involves a person's politics. 

I'm not saying that art and culture aren't important, but as this thread was created in Anything Goes and not the TV or Music sections of the forum, it's not unreasonable for the discussion to expand to other areas not limited to art and culture.

For me personally, I find legislative efforts to limit what can be taught in schools based on the feelings and sensitivities far more concerning than twitter cause and action over racial/gender concerns-issues in art and culture. 

I'm not saying that efforts to "cancel" comedians because of their acts is dumb and futile.  I thought much of the criticism lobbied against Dave Chappell missed the mark and was unwarranted.  But I think ultimately people like Chappell or JK Rowling are going to be okay. And that using them as examples of cancel culture gone amuck enables worse forces to both criticize cancel culture and be its worst practitioners.  Cancel culture has become to encapsulate any form of criticism, which allows those who deserved to be cancelled to excuse their own actions and avoid any consequences.  

[downzy]

On 1/19/2022 at 10:09 AM, Towelie said:

Makes me laugh how Oprah tried to cancel MJ in 2019 when that crock of shit mockumentary Leaving Neverland aired.

She tried to “cancel” MJ?

At most she offered her opinion. I don’t recall her claiming that people should stop listening to MJ or appreciate him as an artist. 

[RussTCB]

30 minutes ago, downzy said:

I get that you're a very apolitical person and I can respect that.  I generally look at these kinds of discussions through a political lens because the context and parameters of a topic like this usually involves a person's politics. 

I'm not saying that art and culture aren't important, but as this thread was created in Anything Goes and not the TV or Music sections of the forum, it's not unreasonable for the discussion to expand to other areas not limited to art and culture.

For me personally, I find legislative efforts to limit what can be taught in schools based on the feelings and sensitivities far more concerning than twitter cause and action over racial/gender concerns-issues in art and culture. 

I'm not saying that efforts to "cancel" comedians because of their acts is dumb and futile.  I thought much of the criticism lobbied against Dave Chappell missed the mark and was unwarranted.  But I think ultimately people like Chappell or JK Rowling are going to be okay. And that using them as examples of cancel culture gone amuck enables worse forces to both criticize cancel culture and be its worst practitioners.  Cancel culture has become to encapsulate any form of criticism, which allows those who deserved to be cancelled to excuse their own actions and avoid any consequences.  

As my first post in the thread would suggest, I don't need cancel culture explained to me lol. 

The reason the thread was placed in Anything Goes is because it covers several different art forms. So it didn't quite fit in the movies or music subsections.

The entire point of the thread was that not everything needs to be turned into a war. By turning it into a political thread, you've done just that. It's the left vs the right and one of them absolutely has to be wrong....usually the right, in your mind. 

In any case, I got some good perspectives out of the thread initially so that was good food for thought for me. I was just pointing out that the thread only gets bumped now when you feel the need to say "hey look at the right being dumb!" again, as opposed to it being bumped for any constructive reason. 

[downzy]

2 minutes ago, RussTCB said:

In any case, I got some good perspectives out of the thread initially so that was good food for thought for me. I was just pointing out that the thread only gets bumped now when you feel the need to say "hey look at the right being dumb!" again, as opposed to it being bumped for any constructive reason. 

Okay, fair.

What I personally don't find constructive is a discussion that's little more than a pile-on against left-leaning cancel culture with respect to art and culture that chooses to ignore what I feel are far more pernicious forms of cancel culture. 

You claim you don't need the concept explain.  But the fact is this trend is far broader and more complicated than that what's happening in art.  That has been my argument throughout this thread.

[PatrickS77]

17 minutes ago, downzy said:

She tried to “cancel” MJ?

At most she offered her opinion. I don’t recall her claiming that people should stop listening to MJ or appreciate him as an artist. 

She actually said on her social media/network (or whoever it is that does it for her) that it's time to say goodbye to Michael for a last time. Well, joke's on her. Many said goodbye to her for a last time.

[RussTCB]

3 minutes ago, downzy said:

Okay, fair.

What I personally don't find constructive is a discussion that's little more than a pile-on against left-leaning cancel culture with respect to art and culture that chooses to ignore what I feel are far more pernicious forms of cancel culture. 

You claim you don't need the concept explain.  But the fact is this trend is far broader and more complicated than that what's happening in art.  That has been my argument throughout this thread.

Your argument throughout this thread has been "the right does it too!". Which is all fine and good because I never claimed the right doesn't. I would be wrong to make that claim because both sides do it. Again, I brought up the concept of cancel culture with respect to art because that's where I see it 

If you see it in the political realm and you think that's a bigger concern, that's fine. Again, I see art is being far more important to culture and society than you do, and that's totally fine. However, no one gains anything from posting links to examples for no other reason than to say "the right is at it again". 

[downzy]

8 minutes ago, PatrickS77 said:

She actually said on her social media/network (or whoever it is that does it for her) that it's time to say goodbye to Michael for a last time. Well, joke's on her. Many said goodbye to her for a last time.

She said that for her it was time to say goodbye

"So for me, it’s time to say goodbye to Michael Jackson—one last time.”

Again, some people believe the accusations.  Other's don't.  Since no one truly knows, it's not exactly fair to criticize those who believe that MJ was guilty of what he was accused of.  Those who believe, including myself, have moved on for MJ. 

That's a far cry from claiming that everyone should cancel MJ.

10 minutes ago, RussTCB said:

However, no one gains anything from posting links to examples for no other reason than to say "the right is at it again". 

In your first post you asked for examples.  

[PatrickS77]

12 minutes ago, downzy said:

She said that for her it was time to say goodbye

"So for me, it’s time to say goodbye to Michael Jackson—one last time.”

Again, some people believe the accusations.  Other's don't.  Since no one truly knows, it's not exactly fair to criticize those who believe that MJ was guilty of what he was accused of.  Those who believe, including myself, have moved on for MJ. 

That's a far cry from claiming that everyone should cancel MJ.

In your first post you asked for examples.  

Knowing how many rabid idiots follow whatever she does, yes, that is cancelling him.

And yes, it is fair to criticize the people who believe the shit put forth in a one sided hit piece. I understand that some may have doubts, but to actually accuse him of being guilty, stating that he is guilty, bringing that shit up whenever one mentions his name, isn't fair either and needs to get criticized. People always mention "but, ooh, he paid someone", but no one ever considers that "ooh, they took the money" and that none of these asswipes accusing him of shit are credible. Every single one of them has credibilty issues one way or the other. One of them I even know personally (and know he is full of shit). And none of them are trustworthy. All of them are shady as hell.

Edited January 20, 2022 by PatrickS77

[downzy]

37 minutes ago, PatrickS77 said:

Knowing how many rabid idiots follow whatever she does, yes, that is cancelling him.

See, this is a good example of how diluted and arbitrary the concept of "cancel culture" is.

So Oprah can no longer give her personal opinion on something, regardless of how clearly she is about it being her own personal opinion. 

Aren't you in effect "cancelling" Oprah?

If someone chooses to believe MJ's guilt solely on the opinion of Oprah, well, they have bigger problems.  Your logic indicates that no one famous can ever make any kind of qualitative statement out of concern about how it will shape the opinions of others.  I find that kind of absurd, especially for someone who considers themselves a fan of Axl, who has a history of providing his opinion on a variety of issues.

37 minutes ago, PatrickS77 said:

And yes, it is fair to criticize the people who believe the shit put forth in a one sided hit piece. I understand that some may have doubts, but to actually accuse him of being guilty, stating that he is guilty, bringing that shit up whenever one mentions his name, isn't fair either and needs to get criticized. People always mention "but, ooh, he paid someone", but no one ever considers that "ooh, they took the money" and that none of these asswipes accusing him of shit are credible. Every single one of them has credibilty issues one way or the other. One of them I even know personally (and know he is full of shit). And none of them are trustworthy. All of them are shady as hell.

Again, this isn't a thread to litigate the accusations about MJ.

The issue is whether Oprah called for MJ to be cancelled.  Or is the mere fact that she, someone who actually knew MJ personally and (correct me if I'm wrong) at one point considered him a friend, decided to believe MJ's accusers means she's guilty of being part of cancel culture? 

We shouldn't take these kinds of takes personally.  I don't fault you for believing MJ innocent of the charges, you shouldn't fault me for thinking the opposite.  Neither of us know.  So why judge each other for opinions that can't be verified?  

[hudsonsaul]

6 hours ago, downzy said:

See, this is a good example of how diluted and arbitrary the concept of "cancel culture" is.

So Oprah can no longer give her personal opinion on something, regardless of how clearly she is about it being her own personal opinion. 

Aren't you in effect "cancelling" Oprah?

If someone chooses to believe MJ's guilt solely on the opinion of Oprah, well, they have bigger problems.  Your logic indicates that no one famous can ever make any kind of qualitative statement out of concern about how it will shape the opinions of others.  I find that kind of absurd, especially for someone who considers themselves a fan of Axl, who has a history of providing his opinion on a variety of issues.

Again, this isn't a thread to litigate the accusations about MJ.

The issue is whether Oprah called for MJ to be cancelled.  Or is the mere fact that she, someone who actually knew MJ personally and (correct me if I'm wrong) at one point considered him a friend, decided to believe MJ's accusers means she's guilty of being part of cancel culture? 

We shouldn't take these kinds of takes personally.  I don't fault you for believing MJ innocent of the charges, you shouldn't fault me for thinking the opposite.  Neither of us know.  So why judge each other for opinions that can't be verified?  

Good post. 

And don't want to get sucked into the whole MJ argument. 

However with Oprah and the MJ thing, as well as Oprah in general particularly of late. I think for her it's more about getting the 'scoop' and exposure and this increasing her brand even further. Personally I wouldn't be suprised if she didnt support the accusers privately but publically does due to my point (same if it was the other way round). Struggle to trust people like her that aren't exactly respected journos and are heavily influenced by both their wide spread fame, and their need to be front and centre. Same goes for the Meghan interview she did, and a bunch of others. I feel she more plays the part that will best portray her. 

My two cents. 

[downzy]

What I don’t understand are claims that artists and creators can’t make the art they want anymore out of fear of being cancelled. That show x or movie y made years ago could never be made today.  And that kind of claim doesn’t stack up with what is currently coming out of Hollywood today.

Big Mouth, Family Guy, F is for Family, South Park, Bojack Horseman, Always Sunny and many other boundary pushing shows are still being made and highly popular.  In a world where shows like these get made and celebrated, how is there much merit to the argument that people can’t make art the way they use to?

That said, I do think there are kinds of jokes that have become out of date. I think about the scene in American Pie where the foreign exchange student is unknowingly recorded while naked and masterbating couldn’t be made today. Nor should it (in the context of a comedy).

So I guess if you’re mourning the loss of this kind of criminal culpable comedy, where violating a teenager’s privacy for the purposes of serving horny young men’s sexual entitlement, then yeah, cancel culture in the cultural art sphere is terrible.