Simpsons pulling episode with Michael Jackson from streaming/future box sets - Sensationalist Headlines

him abusing painkillers and having small children in his room alone is inappropriate. his father abusing him as a child does not excuse his behaviour. but if the descriptions of the events are suspicious, i am not going to treat mj as a god who is wholely innocent. just because he donated to charity and sang heal the world doesn't make him wholesome. he's an artist. hitler painted nice pictures, doesn't make him automatically a nice person.

I can't figure out why these people would lie about it at this point in time, so I think calling them liars and dismissing their experience is literally what many of you would say we shouldn't do to the victims of Harvey Weinstein, or anyone else. But it's just something we "know" he didn't do so we're not going to look into it? It's only because he's beloved that he's being defended like this, no one cares for Weinstein, so there's no defence force for him. People love MJ and anything that tarnishes his image is going to face a lot of pushback. As I've said, I'll change my mind when evidence comes out about that as more things come to light. I will change my mind to reflect evidence. Will you guys?

That's fair enough. I don't really know why else you'd whole heartedly believe it though.

i want to see this documentary properly, the parts i saw where they describe michael making them put their hands on his head while he gives them fellacio is disturbing. he described his hair feeling like brillo pads which is accurate since he wore wigs. I'm not going to take it all as criminally admissable but the descriptions are horrible and not usual. his family didn't have a clue what he was doing, they had no part in his life right to the end. jermaine thinks "i know my brother" he just didn't know him...

Why would you whole heartedly believe a victim?

nothing found was even remotely illegal and "contain material that can be used as part of a "grooming" process" is extremely circumstantial at best In the absence of any hardcore “smoking gun” evidence against Jackson, the prosecution tried desperately to make a case for several legal art books which Jackson owned as part of an extensive library, one that contained over ten thousand titles on art and photography (subjects that were of interest to him as inspiration for his own lyrics and films). These art books, as they were written up and described in the original police reports, were clearly stated as not being pornographic in nature but as items that could “possibly” be used as part of a “grooming” process (however, it is important to note that this was not a claim the prosecution was able to successfully prove in court). Secondly, it has been confirmed via a statement issued by the Santa Barbara County Sheriff’s Department that several pages of the document ― which originated with the publication Radar Online-appeared to have been falsified, with images that were never part of the original documents, claiming those images “appeared to have been taken from internet sources.” Since this story spread like proverbial wildfire through the tabloid media ― and even to legit mainstream media who apparently never bothered to fact check either the origin or contents of these documents ― we really must pause to consider how the media operates in spreading such hoax stories on celebrities. We also must ask some hard questions about why better laws are not in place to protect deceased persons-famous or not-from this kind of libel. - The Truth About What Michael Jackson Had (And Didn't Have) In Hi..

I love this argument, because it's been spat out so many times. "You're only saying that because it's MJ, and you like his music'. Thanks for projecting, but, uh, no, some of us just believe in proper court procedure. I don't care how many tin foil hats you've got in storage, because you think the courts are in the pockets of the rich - one of your precedents for this being OJ...even though OJ wasn't acquitted for that reason, so your argument is as strong as a chocolate kettle - this stance of 'I stand with the accuser 100%, because why would anyone ever lie? People don't lie! There's clearly no financial motive here [ahem, spoiler alert: yes there is]' and its partner 'I'll change my mind when evidence comes out' is downright moronic. I'm gonna need more from the self-proclaimed 'master of deception' Wade Robson, thank you very much, because I believe in innocent until proven guilty for everyone, whereas you believe in 'guilty until proven innocent'. If you're going to have an obnoxious holier-than-thou tone, at least have one when you're not trying to undermine principles of the law, thanks.

That's a pretty loaded topic. Innocent until proven guilty is something i hold onto and value deeply. I don't think we should take accusations without substantial evidence as fact, but at the same time you don't wanna just brush off the possibility that the victim really is a victim. It's a really complicated situation, but that just means putting all your faith in one side is probably a bad idea

that's not what the documentary out now says.

?? Thanks for this sudden revelation. You do know it's not like...Animal Planet, right? It's wholly one-sided and refuses to present a sufficient alternative viewpoint because to do that would allow people to form their own judgement, rather than the easier tactic of 'Take my narrative, and don't question it'. Why are people taking this thing as gospel?

What You Should Know About the New Michael Jackson Documentary

Look I don't think we should bury his work either its just to say MJ didn't do anything because it never was proven in court is a narrow viewpoint as well.

I have no doubt this will unironically happen one day

In Robson’s case, decades after the alleged incidents took place, he was barbecuing with Michael Jackson and his children. He was asking for tickets to the artist’s memorial. He was participating in tributes. “I still have my mobile phone with his number in it,” Robson wrote in 2009, “I just can’t bear the thought of deleting his messages.” Then, suddenly, after twenty years, his story changed and with his new claims came a $1.5 billion dollar lawsuit. "Why would they lie?" indeed.

So far the only reason you've given as to why you believe that to be absolutely true is that other cases of people with power covering up heinous crimes, well, exist. By that logic all people with any modicum of power are only walking free because they haven't been accused of anything horrible and the moment they are you'd throw them under the bus and back right over them.

mj was a weirdo who liked kids a little too much this is objective truth

Whoa what an insight! You've said something that nobody before has ever considered! (actually what you've done is shitpost with something nobody disagrees with as if it backs up a completely different point)

don't complain about his tone, he isn't the one using bold, italic and underline to emphasize how dumb their perception of this is. mj was addicted to drugs, fact. mj was high a LOT of the time, fact. mj was mentally ill, fact. mj took kids into his bedroom, fact. mj had a lot of power over people, fact. this doesn't build a good case for mj being a godlike person who did nothing wrong when a lot of the controversy is about kids. and whats dumb is he kept expanding his children's centre and he kept singing about children. does noone around him tell him how was perceived? or was he this almighty being who could do no wrong.

it probably has something to do with he himself never having a proper childhood

would you have let michael jackson alone with your child locked in a bedroom.

Yall need to fucking chill, get a hobby, and stop trying to cannibalize the legacy of some guy who was abused as a child and is literally 5 feet underground and no longer exists.

he was traumatised and abused by his father. then he had a severe burns injury which affected his whole life. no amount of money can make him a stable person after this. he could be smiling all day and laughing but alone i guarantee you he was not.

Can't wait for this episode to become super pirated. Also it's fun seeing the prices for this season on amazon and ebay skyrocket.

I don't think anyone's arguing that he wasn't weird as shit, but I'm not going to throw around accusations after he was found innocent after a long and arduous trial that is notable for how poorly it was handled by the media which showed more bias towards the prosecution than any court case I'm aware of.

Go read about Macaulay Culkin’s relationship with MJ. He talks about how it was the only normal friendship he had.

No matter how many times you say it, it's still a massive logical leap to go from that to "he's undoubtedly a child rapist". Also, I'm just going to throw this out there, but him being addicted to opioids kind of makes it seem less likely that he did it in my eyes. Opioids, especially the stronger ones, are known for their ability to massively inhibit people's sex drives. Doesn't mean he didn't do it but if we're going to throw around points like that, it might as well be brought up.

do you realise who macaulay culkin was in 1990. he was the biggest movie star under the age of 18. his "friendship" with MJ could have been "oh hey MJ" or a day out once in a couple of months. I highly doubt he spent a majority of his spare time with him.

The rhetoric is that all the evidence that anyone has provided for him "doing anything wrong" has been debunked, and you've provided nothing but "he was weird???" in bullshit, no-caps shitpost.

They literally slept in the same bed. He’s MJ’s daughter’s godfather.