• Simpsons pulling episode with Michael Jackson from streaming/future box sets
    304 replies, posted
Michael Jackson did absolutely nothing wrong. Every case brought against him was easily thrown out for lack of evidence and most were shown to be monetarily motivated.
I swear they do this shit just to remind everyone they're still making episodes. It was the same with Apu.
I don't know that we can make a determination either way. Sexual assault cases rarely have much evidence, anyway. Only 1.5% of reported rapes get conviction in Northern Ireland for this reason.
that's bullshit, it's a great episode https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BK2VGmpJ9xo "careful, men. he wets his pants."
If we're going to start taking documentaries into evidence, how can anyone be expected to defend their innocence against that kind of testimony? Especially when the dude's been dead for years.
Innocent until proven guilty always rules supreme. Michael Jackson was never found guilty after almost a decade of intense investigations. In the eyes of law, he is as innocent as you or I, and nothing else matters. If you still believe there is hidden guilt, that is your prerogative, but it's disgraceful that opinions are held higher than facts of law. It's like saying "Person A is a tad weird, and my friend with a barely credible swiss-cheese story says he saw Person A murder someone. The police and courts say no such thing happened, but a random citizen is obviously more credible than services of law and justice. I'm going to rally to not allow Person A to leave their home!" It's disgusting. The only victim of abuse was Michael Jackson himself. I won't say he wasn't strange, most of which was not directly his fault, but being strange is not a crime, nor is it even EVIDENCE of a crime. It's a horrifying attempt to make money, and to see people so easily swayed because "he was weird. this barely credible documentary says he's a pedo" has brought me to tears multiple times; cancel culture, EVEN POSTHUMOUS, is stripping away legitimate justice. My heart goes out to legitimate victims, but sympathy is not a tenet of legal practice (or, at least, it's not supposed to be).
This attitude is fucking disgusting. Literally dragging people through the mud even after being proven overwhelmingly innocent just because some trashy HBO documentary said so. This lynchmob shit needs to stop.
I mean... $14 million in hush money doesn't exactly look good
I know he was found innocent, but I just can't say for sure that he "didn't do anything wrong" either. He is innocent of the charges under the law but I can't help but be a bit suspicious too. He certainly did some very erratic stuff sometimes as well. I think removing the episode with him is stupid though. I still think he most likely didn't do what he was accused of.
Someone on Reddit pointed out that an amount of money like that was nothing to Michael Jackson (a man who didn't understand supermarkets) so you can infer it as "make this bs accusation go away quickly" just as much as it can be inferred as "omg he obvs did it then". End of the day, determined innocent by a court of law. Ergo, Michael Jackson is techically innocent, and no that isn't semantics, it's a fact. This is one of the few spheres of society that gives literally zero fucks about opinions. Court says someone isn't a murderer, they aren't a murderer. That's how it works. But people forget that when it fits their opinions & desired narrative.
So they didn't pull it during the period where the man was actually on trial for the allegations, but 14 years later and nearly a decade after his death they decide now's the time?
I have absolutely no respect for the parents that allowed their children to spend considerable time with MJ, it was crazy irresponsible and just downright motivated by greed. That does not indicate I believe Michael is guilty of abuse, and from what I've heard from the vast majority of the kids now as adults, they just don't see it happening. I haven't watched the new doc though, can anyone sum up what is said?
The FBI monitored him for years and found nothing too, suddenly the stories come back 10 years after the man's dead when HBO are making a big doc. The fact a product that's inherently bias and who's ultimate goal is to make fat money off stirring the pot is believed over years of hard investigation is sad.
It's completely sus how one of the people who defended him in a previous trial just suddenly turns around and says that he was molested by him.
I've only read a bit about this recent documentary and accusations, but so far it hasn't sounded credible at all - a documentary that relies on someone who voluntarily defended Michael who suddenly decided, after other aspects of his career weren't going too well, to release a book claiming the opposite of what he had originally said and who decided to try to sue after his book wasn't picked up by publishers, with the documentary then being focused on their perspective only and refusing to include others because they might contradict that narrative, is more than enough to very heavily doubt it.
"Hey, we're the producers of the Simpsons. Due to recent controversies on child abuse, we are now removing every episode where Homer strangles Bart. Our next box set will only contain a handful of episodes."
regardless of the public lynching and the documentary, it was common knowledge that he had young boys sleep in his room. i dont need evidence to know he was strange because he just was. and he was ill. all these put together was already not good enough so this mass exodus of "mj is innocent" is not really a good cause.
except...no one here is disputing that he wasn't strange. Many people have already made that point. But being strange isn't a crime, and it is not substantial evidence. People have tried to argue "well uh, if a weird man on the end of your street was accused, you'd believe it then, wouldn't you?' No. Because innocent until proven guilty cannot be applied to some - it is applied to all. "MJ is innocent" is not a cause. As it currently stands, it is a decision of the courts, and it is a fact. No one has defended Michael Jackson's oddities (for lack of a better term) but they also refuse to try to spin that into evidence. Criticise Michael Jackson for being weird, go right ahead, but, as it currently stands today, as I type this very post, Michael Jackson has never been found guilty of any of these accusations, and a shoddy documentary cannot change that. Michael Jackson was not perfect, and only so much of it can be blamed on his, frankly, awful & abuse-filled childhood, but he is not a criminal. I will admit people are being too lenient on him at the moment, but I can excuse it for the time-being because his memory is currently being thrown back into the muddy cycle of 'here's some unproven accusations, ergo, you fuckin' did it cos you acted weird'.
it all depends whether you can believe it from how they say it. i havent seen the complete documentary but i do want to. one thing that creeped me out was how he describes the details of the abuse. because some of the stuff is really strange and could well be believable.
What if he didn't make a mistake? Infallible or not, their judgement has to be considered absolute unless you have proof that the judge fucked up, or else why even have a trial system when you can just go "Oh, the judge could be wrong" in every case done just because it goes against your feelings?
They're not taking the documentary as evidence. That would imply there's some sort of search for truth going on. They do this kind of stuff because of profit margins and could care less if he really did it or not. Or to quote RvB, "Sorry, it's pretty clear that you're not very popular around here, and if I'm gonna make any progress at all, I can't be directly associated with you"
Whether "you can believe it" has absolutely no bearing on the credibility or bias of the source.The situation surrounding those claims gives reason to doubt them regardless of if they sound "believable" to you or not.
Didn't the dad of the main accusing kid get caught on tape saying he wanted to ruin MJ so he could fund his Robin Hood production
Probably less fallible than some guy on facepunch dot com
Imagine having an argument based in 'what if's. What if the Earth ends tomorrow? Probably won't, and there's no evidence to say it will, BUT GUYS WHAT IF? ASTROPHYSICISTS AREN'T ALWAYS RIGHT! 'What if' needs to be kept outside of the judiciary, otherwise you're forever clinging onto the past. Imagine being falsely accused of something, proving your innocence but everyone in your life, and everyone who has heard about your case, looks at you and thinks "but...maybe?" Courts do not have a 100% track record, but being speculative 24/7 contributes nothing. Take it as absolute until it stops seeming absolute.
it's not usual to lock yourself in a room with boys
If that "room" is the size of an average house it's not quite the same as if it were a standard-sized "room"... Also, please back up that he "locked himself in a room with boys". When did he force them to stay? Do you have any evidence that anyone wanted to leave and he prevented them from doing so? Or are you just being completely devoid of intellectual honesty and simply using words you know do not accurately fit the situation but will help you turn the tide of conversation in favor of your misinformation?
yes, but i won't say he was on the straight and narrow 100% either
Mate what You seriously think that when he died he was around children? You understand that there are literal decades between the events we're talking about right? Where is your evidence that he was high on illegal narcotics when he "led children into his room"?
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.