Simpsons pulling episode with Michael Jackson from streaming/future box sets
304 replies, posted
and if you posted a picture of MJ literally raping a kid I wouldn't argue with it, because it's direct evidence, unlike non-pornographic books and magazines
the reason I argue against the accusers is because the evidence isn't there, which is the same reason he was acquitted. If he were guilty there would be hard evidence like semen DNA stains from the accusers on his property, condoms with the accuser's blood on them, audio or video tapes of MJ acting in a abusive manner to kids, etc. There is none, after two unnanounced raids, a 300 page FBI report, and decades of public scrutiny.
The families and the victims in the documentary receive no compensation and money from the film. I just want to point that out to disprove the rumors they did it for "Attention".
Before i start this. The previous posts i made was due to me being overemotional and i acted completely Stupid. But that does not mean that the Documentary was trying to be "Emotionally Charged" And here's why.
Ok, big post.
I'm just gonna explain upfront about what i thought about this documentary and clear up the rumors about i. I'll avoid contaminating it with bias. But, the only way i can describe this well is if i bring up the shit that happened to me, cause, its relevant on why this Documentary was impactful to me. I'm not asking people to sympathize with me, i'm not trying to be "Emotionally Manipulative", or trying to make a big fuss. I will try to avoid any curse words in this if i can.
But before we dig into this. I need to say this.
Even if you're a fan of MJ or not. Hear me out.
There has been an alarming rate of people shunning sexual abuse victims and people who suffered other forms of abuse in the US and in other countries. They are pressured to not reveal their abuse to others or to keep quiet about it. Possibly due to the social class the Abuser is currently in, or due to believing that abuse victims only want "Fame and Money" when they come out. Meanwhile, when you look into the history of people who have suffered sexual abuse. They often times try to conceal that it happened, or have suppressed those memories due to gas-lighting or grooming. A person who suffers from abuse absolutely hates discussing it. Even if it would put the abuser behind bars or reveal information in a crime case or not. Or the other case is that they've been manipulated due to grooming and gaslighting, where they would view Sexual abuse as not being actual abuse and just being normal. That is why they have come out now and not during 2005 or later before 2013. It took me until College that i realized i was sexually abused during HS, and i've been unable to explain what happened due to the social status of the abuser and the local community believing he's a "Spotless saint".
So, Even if the victims are telling the true or not. They deserve to be heard. How the public approaches their responses is an entirely different thing. And its completely understandable and logical that people should not jump to conclusions when it comes to these cases. But, the victims should not be shunned for speaking out. In fact, the people who have come out to explain the abuse, have been receiving constant death threats by Michael Jackson's fans. Even if they are somehow lying or not, that is uncalled for and is completely bullshit. They don't deserve that.
And i understand the context around Michael Jackson and his history of being screwed over by Record Companies, the abuse by his father. and other shit that has caused him trouble. I am fully aware of that. And that is understandable that people have skepticism around the accusations of Michael Jackson being a Pedophile. Cause he has had a history of people trying to constantly jab at him. And its obviously given his behavior, this stuff had affected him mentally. So i can understand that people are skeptical. But that shouldn't stop you from watching the film. In fact, if you are skeptical about these victims, you need to listen to their story to get the full picture. You need to listen to both ends of the discussion. And don't worry about it being "Emotionally Manipulative", Its not.
How it was presented Emotionally, was extremely neutral. The Director himself said this was intentional and explained he wanted the film to be as neutral as possible. Mostly for the sake of stopping people from accusing it as a biased hit piece. It is not a hit piece, its not trying to deliberately shoot down Michael Jackson for the sake of attention. The Director Officially stated he was only giving a voice to the victims. And whatever they explained, is just whatever happened. Even if they're lying or not, he believed they deserved a platform to explain their story without being threatened or pushed to stay silent.
The Direct quote from him.
“I didn’t characterize Jackson at all in the film,” director Dan Reed told The Hollywood Reporter. “It’s not a film about Michael… The film itself is an account of sexual abuse, how sexual abuse happens and then how the consequences play out later in life.”
Some people would consider this being "Biased". I can sorta understand that, but from watching the film. What he meant, is that its about and only about the abuse that occurred and how the victims have dealt with it. Its not that they're ignoring Michael Jackson cause they're biased. Its that its not the point of the movie. The point of the movie is the victims explaining what happened, how they reacted, and how they recovered from the abuse.
And from a film-making standpoint and editing standpoint.(I work as a cinematographer and editor for a living so take that as you will) It is about as bare-bones and basic as humanely possible in terms of making something "Emotionally" Cinematic. There isn't any "Clever Editing". Its just showing pictures for the sake of context. It isn't presenting Michael Jackson looking weird or evil while they explain the abuse. Almost everytime they explain abuse. Its only the camera focusing on the victims, a long drone shot of some city if the story was centered on that city, or a photo of Michael jackson with the kid involved looking casual or doing something at a concert or event. And the emotional music is just a basic piano playing in the background, its just regular ambient background music. Nothing standoutish.
Now we get to the victims. I will say this right off the bat. If these guys were acting and being liars. They deserve a fucking Oscar. Like Daniel-Day Lewis tier of method acting. Both of them clearly show obvious signs of emotional turmoil from the abuse. Another thing somebody would argue is that there's certain moments in the documentary where they're speaking about the abuse very casually. This is often a sign of prolonged sexual abuse or abuse in general. Where they have become completely desensitized to what they have experienced. Even when describing the abuse. The two victims don't even hold Michael Jackson in full contempt, in fact. Safechuck was in love with Michael Jackson during the abuse, he was completely oblivious to what was happening. Not a moment during that, he considered it to be abuse. Which was due to how much he was gas-lighted and groomed by it. It only was until decades later the victims were able to realize what was happening.
And this, is when it sorta gets personal.
I find no joy in typing this. In fact, the more i type, the more connections i find. So, take this as you will. If you don't believe me, that's fine. This is just for the sake of showing why to me, this was
Safechuck and Wade Robson's stories are like staring into a mirror to me. People might think I'm being melodramatic when i say that. But i had to stop the documentary to have a moment to recollect myself. It wasn't the music, it wasn't the editing, it wasn't the cinematography. It was just them explaining it, plain and simple. No loaded words or anything, they just said it as it is. And that was enough for me to stop it for awhile. It was almost beat for beat the same tactics, trickery, and gas-lighting that the person who abused me in HS did. I eventually resumed the film and put it on as background noise cause i had to do Freelance work. Even then, just listening to them explain their story as it is and what happened was enough to continue to disturb me and unsettle me.
One thing i can explain why it was "Too real" was the tricking of thinking it was normal. Compared to the two in the documentary, more similar to Wade Robson. I had a vibe in the beginning that whatever was happening to me in HS was not exactly "Normal". But due to the gas-lighting and manipulation by the abuser. It was downplayed completely, and i was convinced that was happening was necessary, even though it sucked, for me to be a "Cool" Highschooler. How i thought of it, at the time. Was like how people would get upset if they had to run more laps or do more workouts during football/basketball practice. So i avoided speaking out about it or talking about it, Cause i thought it was a thing. Another Similarity that i found was the strange parallel of my abuser and Michael Jackson. My abuser was the top dog in the school i went to. While Michael Jackson was the top dog in the world... No matter what you could find against these two would be impossible to move forward, or people would be afraid of showing that information cause it would shatter their world view of that person. And like how Robson and Safechuck explained in the documentary. Michael jackson would often times support them, give them money, take them to parties, tours, and acting friendly to their parents so the would trust them. Of course not at that level of ridiculousness that MJ did, but my abuser did the same thing. Outside of the locker-rooms. He tried to act like he was the coolest dude that i knew and was friends with. Everyone thought he was a good friend to me, they thought he was always supportive of what i did, and they treated him like being the pinnacle of being a good person.
And, it got to a point where people were so convinced by his charisma. That he would do the abuse to a lesser extent outside of the locker-rooms as a game to see what he could get away with. It revolved around him jumping on me and dry humping me, Trying to grab my genitals, groping me, other forms of molestation. Whats worse, and I've never really explained this before but. When he did this abuse inside or outside of a lockeroom. He would mimic the voice of a woman having sex or an orgasm. To this day, i can't listen to that sound without being reminded of him. He even admitted to me that he did that deliberately so "I would never forget him". And it was also done to keep me from attempting to have a girlfriend. And, not surprisingly, it worked. If i watch a movie and if it has a sex scene with a woman or if i hear that in porn, or if i ever get a girlfriend. (I'm still trying to deal with the effects of this), it reminds me of my abuser. I bring this up cause in the documentary, they explain Michael Jackson performed similar gas-lighting and manipulation to keep the boys from being interested in girls. Or that when every-time they would attempt a sexual act, they are told to be reminded of him.
Like the two Victims in the documentary. It wasn't until years later i finally realized what was being done to me was wrong and was actual sexual abuse. My realization started after i had a panic attack by getting physically close to a person i cared for emotionally, from that i found out i had Haphephobia. The fear of being touched, and the more i dug into that condition. The more i realized what happened to me in HS was not normal at all. This eventually led to the realization of my abuse. Even after discovering this, i tried to explain to other people who were a part of my class who graduated from HS about my realization. Nobody believed me except for only 2 people. And this revelation disturbed me the most. I realized overtime after the realization, ene of my friends was also being abused during HS by the same guy. He thought i was being "Crazy" and it was just "Locker-room talk" and "Boys being Boys". Due to nobody believing me, thinking i'm overreacting, and people praising that man constantly, to the point he's considered to be a community idol to everyone else, I've just stopped all contact with people i knew from my HS during that time. Only remaining in contact with those 2 people that actually believed me.
And, like the Documentary. Like how the two describe with Michael Jackson and their families, my mom and dad were completely oblivious to what was happening to me in HS. My abuser even played the same tactic of getting on the side of my parents to appear like he's innocent and is actually helping me. During local football games. My dad used to cheer constantly for him every-time he made a good play or touchdown. Completely oblivious to what was happening to me behind the locker-room doors. The worse part of that too is my dad died when i was 16. It wasn't until i was 20 until i realized that. Another worse example, which also mirrors how clueless and narcissistic the mothers are in the documentary. There was one time i got into a fight with someone who accused me of being a "Liar" and trying to "Paint a good man in a bad way". Afterwards, my mom told me to quit my "Shenanigans" and i was being ridiculous and was making her look bad. Which was how the mother of Safechuck reacted to her son coming out and explaining the abuse. She was saying that her son was bringing unwanted attention to her and was making an embarrassment out of herself. Completely disregarding what happened to her son.
To this day, and like Michael Jackson as the victims have said in this documentary. My abuser has become successful in his career of work, and people are completely oblivious what happened. And to this day, I'm still afraid he's doing the same thing to others. Yet I'm completely powerless in doing anything about it, cause no one will allow me to explain myself and my experience.
So, I'm not asking you to go. "Michael Jackson is a pedophile". I only typed this for the sake of showing this Documentary isn't emotionally charged, manipulative, or trying to be a hit-piece. For a person who's dealt with this. It is as realistic and down to earth as possible.
I don't understand how you can say this. A documentary that uses sad/emotional music alongside out-of-context pictures while telling you bad things so you associate them all together is using an emotional argument. Especially when that's combined with lots of switching between wide-angled and close-up camera positions, and has evidence of multiple takes:
Then there's the inconsistencies and the parts that are edited in such a way to give it a completely different context of what something meant, as shown here (the youtuber is very hyperbolic in his presentation, but that doesn't change the information):
If a documentary decides to leave out actual context and not look into/include other sources because then the narrative their telling might fall apart due to inconsistentices and contradictions, then that is not an unbiased documentary that just wants to let them tell their story and that's it. That's the same sort of underhanded tactics conspiracy documentaries about the moon landings and such do.
That's just regular editing and film-making...
That's like filmmaking 101 and editing with the switch up of the camera. I've already stated that i listened to the later part of the documentary via only audio. And it was enough for me to find it disturbing and unsettling to me. Everything said in the documentary can be separated from all of the visual and musical mediums, and it's just as disturbing.
And you're showing youtube videos of people i have no idea who they are or their credibility.
One is a regular Pop culture youtuber.
Btw the second video you've shown is from a dude who spouts pseudoscience and false information.
And has these as their videos...
and is using the NPC meme unironically...
Ok, I just want to point here. We are currently using Youtubers as sources of credible information in this thread. Why is it in this thread, its acceptable right now?
I feel like the biggest red flag as to why the documentary ( which has absolutely no factual evidence, contradicts itself on multiple occasions, has outright lies regarding Michael Jackson's anatomy, and has omitted parts of itself in it's European release ) is likely bullshit is because the entire thing is monetarily driven.
They're trying to sue the Jackson Estate for 1.5 Billion Dollars.
Tell me again why I should definitely just believe this documentary made to be as sad and emotionally compelling as possible isn't manipulating the people who watch it to be on their side?
Should i be a bit worried that what you're saying is the same thing on r/conspiracy and tabloids?
And you're taking a documentary made by a very much partial source as fact. What you're saying is as much a conspiracy as what people are saying about the money behind all this.
Guys. Please fucking remove Michael Jackson from this discussion and look what the fuck you're doing. you're going to youtube channels with completely pseudoscientific videos and flat out lies.
And spread a conspiracy theory from Fucking R/Conspiracy
What the fuck is happening?
You're using an argument from authority to dismiss what they're saying despite whether you know of them or what their other videos involve having no relavance to the information presented in their videos. You haven't heard of the first youtuber, that doesn't change that background changes and subtlety differing camera positions is evidence of multiple takes. The 2nd one has some hyperbolic or strange stuff in his other videos, that doesn't change whether or not the documentary does things like take a voice clip and present it in an out-of-context negative way to fit its narrative, or that the UK version of the documentary had large sections removed.
The point of my giant post wasn't me going "This is true". I'm just explaining why the documentary affected me so extremely and pointing out it isn't emotionally charged. Its just that blunt, which makes it more disturbing to me. They just flat out explain what happened.
You're going to keep trying until we cave and agree with you. That's not how this works. Claims made by individuals with no hard evidence to back them up are not facts. Maybe what they're saying happened, maybe not.
You need to understand that they've been surrounded by people who are aware of what might have happened, and will have been repeating this to them many times. Their memories of the events could have been distorted over time. When everybody tells you "you were abused", "this and that happened", etc it will change your memories and perceptions. So even if they believe it's the truth, that doesn't mean it is.
Without hard evidence we can't know, and we shouldn't pass judgment either way. This documentary does not provide hard evidence, just statements made by people.
This didn't happen...
Yes, it did....and it's something you can very easily check yourself. Even the wikipedia page says so:
182 minutes (UK version)[/quote]
They cut time to fit in adverts, it doesn't say anything about removing parts because of falsehoods or inconsistencies.
Its possibly due to copyright issues and legal shenanigans that caused it to be cut down. You know that's a common thing that oftentimes stuff is edited differently for other countries? Just cause they edited down to less time doesn't mean they removed important info.
But your idea is that they removed information on purpose for some reason. Even though that doesn't make any sense cause it'd be pretty easy to see both the US version and the UK version. In fact, i'm finding absolutely no information that it was cut down to remove important information.
I somehow completely overlooked that, you're both right about that then. Sorry!
Guys, just. Please. Remove Michael Jackson from this situation and think. You're going to Conspiracy theorists for support. Like how the fuck would that be in any other situation. That would be fucking insane.
I don't get the argument of comparing the documentary to a conspiracy theory. Cause a conspiracy theory doesn't have any logic reasoning backing it. Meanwhile this Documentary. Think whatever you want about Michael jackson being an abuser or not. How they described abuse itself and their reactions to it is extremely accurate. And the Director is a well renown Documentary filmmaker who is known for making films that are extremely unbiased.
Thats why i hold it on a pedestal higher than the conspiracy theories that have been shared for the past few votes. I will say i am biased cause i dealt with the literal abuse.
But, for the sake of civility, i want it to be on the same pedestal as MJ here. They both have equal ground. That'll eventually be settled in court if someone physical evidence begins showing up or not. Or if more people come out or not.
Why do you keep bringing up this point when people are telling you, straight faced and as bluntly as possible, that all of your points, which you're lifting from a documentary with iffy reasons to exist in the first place, have been in the public domain for years and have been investigated over, and over, and over by people who are actual investigative professionals, even in courts of law?
Okay! Did some further digging. The 1.5b number seems to have no actual source, and I can fully admit that it's been fluffed up a lot. I fully apologize for the wrong number.
Robson Summary Judgment Ruling
In a case from 2013 of Robson vs the Jackson Estate ( which was thrown out due to Jackson being dead and his estate not being in control of anything Jackson could have or potentially did, mind you ) it is stated within the first page that Robson was looking for damages.
MJ Estate answer to Robson Civil Complaint
I can and will fully admit that this is a response from the MJ Estate themselves, which can and does leave a level of intrinsic bias against the civil complaint case. 2015 again.
"Robson was twenty-three years old when he testified in 2005. He was subjected to vigorous and repeated cross examination by a very zealous prosecutor handling the case, but Robson's testimony never wavered.
In his complain for money damages, Robson does not claim that he made a mistake when he testified in 2005 or that he suffered from a "repressed memory." Rather, Robson simply claims that he chose to lie to a criminal jury in 2005. Yet, a decade later, and almost four years after Michael Jackson's tragic death, Robson changed his story knowing that Michael Jackson is no longer here to defend himself. Robson recanted his testimony in a criminal trial for the soul and express purpose of taking money from Michael Jackson's heirs and beneficiaries. After all, Robson's complaint does not, and cannot, seek anything other than money."
He wanted damages. He wanted money. The case was thrown out due to statue of limitations and the fact that the Jackson Estate itself did not commit any form of sexual abuse. He either admitted he straight up lied in the case, or that he perjured himself. All in the pursuit of a settlement, or the damages. And he lost.
Where is reports that show the documentary as being "Phoney" or "Iffy"?
In fact the people who were in the documentary. Have gone to court multiple times over the sexual abuse after it happened. Yet the court threw it out.
"Both had previously testified in defense of Jackson. In 2015, Robson's case against Jackson's estate was dismissed on the grounds that it had been filed too late, and in 2017 it was ruled that neither of the corporate entities formerly owned by Jackson held responsibility for Jackson's alleged actions."
They lost all ways to tell their story. Thats why they did the documentary. And the victims didn't make the documentary. It was funded by the director, who is a well renown Documentary Director.
I'm not saying this didn't happen or wasn't true, but if you're taking the word of a documentary over the word of a court system, while at the same time lambasting people for getting information from youtube videos and calling people conspiracy theorists because they're getting facts from bad sources instead of an authoritative source.
By the definition of the word, I feel you're applying the "conspiracy theorist" term unfairly, since under the "the courts have deliberated innocence" prism, you're the one engaging in conspiracy rhetoric.
You want to keep putting words in my mouth?
No, I'm trying to explain my point, and how it seems you're being disingenuous here. You're holding up the documentary, which as people have been trying to tell you, has multiple red flags within it, as a higher source than years of investigation, while having the gall to label everyone who disagrees as someone who subscribes to a conspiracy. It doesn't seem consistent.
So, we're gonna go off an evidence-lacking emotionally-driven documentary, and 'he said this' in direct opposition of a court case that was thrown out, and Michael being found completely innocent of any wrong doing years prior, a trial in which he and his family testified in his defense during.
So what was he looking for if it wasn't damages?
Was he looking to 'tell his story' as you put it? If that's the case why try to sue? Why file the civil complaint? Why not just find a way to 'tell his story' like it's happened now, since clearly this documentary has done the job well enough? Maybe he didn't because of the fact that there's absolutely no evidence.
Clearly there had to be some form of motivation for all that effort, surely he would have just came out with some big hit-piece to begin with if it was all about 'telling his story', right? What was he after in the lawsuit if it wasn't money.
He might not be looking for money now, but obviously everyone knows who he is on a far bigger scale because of this documentary. Story told. Which the lawsuit near certainly wouldn't have done, and absolutely never on this scale. It would have given him money.
At the end of the day he's either perjuring himself or admitted he lied during the 2005 trial ( along with the rest of his family ) and managed to completely bluff intense cross examination, too.
Are they red flags? Cause every red flag you guys say the documentary has. Is straight from r/conspiracy or crazy fan websites. Meanwhile every major news organization and every credible news organization hasn't had anything that points out the documentary being "bullshit".
Like, show me the news articles of it actually being that. Instead of before in this thread, where people showed me two videos from one guy who's a actual self proclaimed conspiracy theorist. And the other is a MAGApede who unironically wants the Wall built, uses the NPC unironically, and has a shit ton of other fake information on his youtube channel.
btw this is the conspiracy theory guy's website.
How about the court system, in which MJ was cleared of all charges? Surely you're not saying that the word of the media, biased as it is, is worth more than the court system? That's basically my whole point here, my main point of contention with your arguments.
I could argue that the news outlets profit more from the drama than calling it out, but that just opens an entirely different can of worms. However, we shouldn't take their opinion as fact, since it isn't. Multiple people contest it, even if you label them conspiracy theorists, but those opinions are also just that, opinions. The only thing that isn't opinionated here is the facts of the investigation, which cleared MJ of wrongdoing, even with big stacks of iffy evidence which you already allured to, so I don't see how you're raising everything else as the same level of truth.
If suing the estate is your only way of getting legal recognition of a crime committed against you, of course you would sue. It doesn't have to be about the money, it's just the closest thing to justice you can get if your abuser is already dead.
And the bigger the thing they sue. The more attention it brings. which is the point of this documentary and those lawsuits.
Its to show, if they did it or not, that they are not Invincible and they are able to speak out.
Can you stop brining up things like "It's from a conspiracy website" or "look at this guy's YouTube channel/website", it's literally ad homineum and you're deflecting the argument.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.