GRcade

Squinty wrote:

Pedz wrote:[

Squinty wrote:

Jenuall wrote:The director being dodgy or not is entirely irrelevant to the question of whether Jackson was inappropriate with children.

But he's bald! So he's bad and CREEPY.

Jawa's bald, but he is the nicest person ever. Guess he's not really and is massive scum. Jawa you are a bad bald person. And you have a beard and beards are for people who like to hide things.

This description of Jawa fits me. Bald. Creepy. Beard. Secret pervert.

Secret?

You should all read N1FFF's cameo here too

No:1 Final Fantasy Fan wrote:I can accept that MJ hung out with children because he was so open about it to the public.

Yeah it’s a well known fact that child molesters are never open about being seen with children.

This thread definitely needs archiving.

Just watched part one - I have to say they make pretty compelling testimony.

You have to apply Occam's Razor in situations like this. What's more likely? A weirdo manchild billionaire that openly admits to sleeping with young boys in his bed molesting the boys, or the boys making up detailed and graphic stories for financial gain?

On balance, I think he probably did do what they've accused him of, which is depressing because I love(d) his music and it's a shame to think that he was a massive predatory paedophile. But if that's the truth, then that's the truth and you have to deal with that. The fact he was a ridiculously talented performer isn't relevant, the fact he has a musical legacy isn't relevant. If he strawberry floated kids then he strawberry floated kids and good luck defending that.

The crazy fans that defend him to the hilt and have a weird religious-like blind faith regardless of the evidence are never going to see it that way and it's pointless (albeit amusing) to try and convince them otherwise (as well as enjoying their mental gymnastics trying to get out of that corner they painted themselves into).

Preezy wrote:Just watched part one - I have to say they make pretty compelling testimony.

You have to apply Occam's Razor in situations like this. What's more likely? A weirdo manchild billionaire that openly admits to sleeping with young boys in his bed molesting the boys, or the boys making up detailed and graphic stories for financial gain?

On balance, I think he probably did do what they've accused him of, which is depressing because I love(d) his music and it's a shame to think that he was a massive predatory paedophile. But if that's the truth, then that's the truth and you have to deal with that. The fact he was a ridiculously talented performer isn't relevant, the fact he has a musical legacy isn't relevant. If he strawberry floated kids then he strawberry floated kids and good luck defending that.

The crazy fans that defend him to the hilt and have a weird religious-like blind faith regardless of the evidence are never going to see it that way and it's pointless (albeit amusing) to try and convince them otherwise (as well as enjoying their mental gymnastics trying to get out of that corner they painted themselves into).

Agree with this, good post.

Cheeky Devlin wrote:

Pedz wrote::lol:

Man, where is that thread?

t:just-got-capsized-during-a-raft-race?f=7&hilit=Raft

That thread is absolutely majestic, so many golden points. My favourite is the realisation that Barcelona has weed in it.

Simpsons MJ episode removed

https://m.uk.ign.com/articles/2019/03/0 ... llegations

Any excuse to share this.

And this:

Gemini73 wrote:Simpsons MJ episode removed

https://m.uk.ign.com/articles/2019/03/0 ... llegations

Sucks that it's being removed from all future DVD releases

A lot of radio stations have pulled his music too

While I believe Jackson to be guilty, I really don’t see the point in removing his music or removing Simpson’s episodes featuring him.

He’s dead, he isn’t getting any royalties from anything anymore and (as far as I know) his estate are not a Clinton style pizza paedo ring.

With somebody like Gary Glitter, remove his music by all means as he is still alive and profiting. For a dead man though? He gets no benefit from it so I don’t think it needs to be removed.

It’d be different with something like a building named after and celebrating him, but we don’t remove ancient Greek art from the British Museum (as much as the Greeks might want us to ) and they all loved going full Jackson on preteens.

This really is the ultimate "can you separate the art from the artist" challenge. He has so many stone-cold-classic songs, some of them being in my all-time favourite lists. It sucks, but I just don't think I can listen to them without thinking about what he's most likely done to all those poor kids. It's gross.

At least Thriller can still get played at Halloween, that context only makes the night more creepy

(I also don't really see what has changed, similar allegations have been around forever and his trial was a long time ago, so surely if you believe the allegations and can't separate art from the artist you'd have stopped listening to him a long time ago also?)

I think Glitter sold the rights to his music years ago so I don't actually think he directly makes money off it anymore anyway.

Lex-Man wrote:I think Glitter sold the rights to his music years ago so I don't actually think he directly makes money off it anymore anyway.

He was still making money from it in 2012/13.

https://www.digitalspy.com/music/a45504 ... -playbook/

I think N1FFF might just be suffering from recurring mental trauma, given we've seen a raft of recent accusations against MJ.

Snigger..

Parksey wrote:I think N1FFF might just be suffering from recurring mental trauma, given we've seen a raft of recent accusations against MJ.

Snigger..

True it can be hard to process things in these circumstances, but we all have to be careful not to go overboard.

Preezy wrote:This really is the ultimate "can you separate the art from the artist" challenge. He has so many stone-cold-classic songs, some of them being in my all-time favourite lists. It sucks, but I just don't think I can listen to them without thinking about what he's most likely done to all those poor kids. It's gross.

Is it only now you feel this way? There have been rumours of his behavior towards children for decades. Hell, even when I was a kid and listened to his music I was under the impression he did/had done stuff to kids.

I think it's pointless removing his work. I really don't see what it achieves as the guy is dead.