thafuq? Is that the only song of his you know? That dance style was integral to much of his whole thing, and permeated his own style from very early on. 🤙🏼

How exactly is anything about this post "forgiving Michael Jackson"?

Oh yeah, totally normal for a bunch of different children to accuse him of sexual abuse. I'm glad people believed me when I told them what my uncle did. I'd be a whole lot more fucked up if people didn't take me seriously...and guess what, I'm still pretty screwed up from it.

There was also no proof my uncle raped me. But, guess what, he did.

Cue the pedophile threadjack.

Every time that happens I’m reminded of the saying, “You can’t reason someone out of a position they didn’t reason themselves into”.

You’d have to quantify them, which is difficult as many did not come forward.

I've seen an interview with someone who was offered money by those trashy British tabloids to concoct a story. They told the "journalist" that nothing improper had happened and the journalist told them that if they decided to change their story, there would be good money in it.

My point is, there was a lot of money and other infrastructure making allegations very attractive to fabricate.

Then there's the actual FBI and parents who have been trying to concoct stories about him, while apparently they have protected actual pedophiles such as Epstein. Here's one account of that (90 second clip): https://www.youtube.com/watch?app=desktop&v=O9hesItLnuk&ra=m

Not accounting for the international conspiracy to cover up penguin behavior characteristics, the film interviews two men who were boys at the time as well as their family, friends, and archival materials.

Eyewitness testimony is legally valid, and it’s hard to imagine two different people had the same story, but the other - 50? 100? kids didn’t.

The film says it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck and demands the bloody underwear be retrieved out of the trash before the cops find it like a duck.

He was phenomenally talented, there’s no doubt. But very troubled as well, and part of that was sexualizing young boys.

Not . . . watch the movie? That would seem to be the most complete way to absorb the information. But sure, finding and reading the transcript instead of watching it is something i’d rather not.

I notice the first link to a transcript search is the Michael Jackson Innocence project. So - look, if anyone hasn’t just watch it. It’s a better experience than this:

But you’re missing the sound and visuals. That informs the context. Plus the transcript is auto-generated. Why read it but not watch it?

And yes, you’re right, both episodes together are 236 minutes total.

Are you going to explain what specific audiovisual component might, if seen, lead someone to conclude that Michael Jackson shouldn't have been acquitted? Or is this just some vague allusion to nonexistent super-important context that invalidates all the legal proceedings so you don't have to actually make a solid case for your accusation?

What specific audiovisual component? Well, the way he went near-catatonic as the verdict seemed to draw near, and the surprise testimony of Macaulay Culkin were two specifically related to the trial.

Legal proceedings are not necessarily a source of truth, ask Dred Scott.

I’m just saying the full documentary is plenty of evidence. The only people who strongly disagree are those who haven’t seen it. IME.

Creepy as fuck pedophile snake man and the little prince. Definitely something MJ would re-enact with his child brides.

So you didn't find it weird that the young kid Michael showcased on stage slept in the same bed as Michael in the hotels, while his family was given a room at the other end of the hotel. It seems super inappropriate, but besides Michael I also blame the parents ... because you don't let your kids sleep in a hotel room with a grown man. Even if he was famous.

Hmm, all MJ moves weren't his. Its like all his moves are from just this movie.

I'll assume You're joking, because that would be the worst argument ever made.

I’m just saying the full documentary is plenty of evidence.

The evidence available was not enough to convince a jury. If you have new evidence, present it. Be specific. You're making a claim here, you back it up.

Legal proceedings are not necessarily a source of truth, ask Dred Scott.

And how do you know Dred Scott was a case of bad legal proceedings? Is it because a stranger on the internet went "nuh-uh!" and told you to go watch a documentary? Be honest.

The only people who strongly disagree are those who haven’t seen it.

Sure, sure, and if you didn't vote for Joe Biden you ain't black. These are awful fallacious arguments you're making. Just awful.

The evidence available was not enough to convince a jury. If you have new evidence, present it. Be specific. You're making a claim here, you back it up.

The evidence in the movie was not the same as presented in trial for a LOT of reasons, not least of which because most people find jury trials interminably boring.

And how do you know Dred Scott was a case of bad legal proceedings?

. . . Okay, look, nevermind.

Mj was married to a child? Elaborate please

Yeah, reason didn't get you here, reason won't get you out.

"slightly modified"

I never heard of it til I watched the 2015 animated movie. Was decent iirc.

He had multiple mock wedding ceremonies where he married children as young as 9. I watched a documentary and the boy had the ring and pictures to prove it. I think Michael bought the parents a house.

Bob Fosse was amazing, I am sure it was original with him.

The evidence in the movie was not the same as presented in trial for a LOT of reasons, not least of which because most people find jury trials interminably boring.

Meaningless excuse.

. . . Okay, look, nevermind.

No, let's mind it. You know Dred Scott was bad because the law and the evidence actually agreed with the plaintiffs, and the decision made against them was demonstrably motivated by racism. It's a bad comparison to make. The circumstances do not match up. You're making nothing but bad faith arguments here and this is the last I'll hear of it. Toodle-oo.

MJ was heavily abused physically and mentally in his youth. Being raised as a Jehovah's Witness fucks you up in a lot of ways so those of us from that era and background were never surprised at how he became a fucked up adult.

And to be clear, none of that excuses the things he did, but it does help explain how they came to be.

Which movie. I'm very interested. I always figured he was just stuck in a childs mindset and didn't mean harm to other kids, just wanted friends his age. So I'd really like to see this movie.

I am not sure the exact one since I watched several, but my wife says it was probably Leaving Neverland.

I found a 2 part mini series called leaving neverland, the thumbnail looks like what you're describing. Gonna download it

Just curious; why are you abusing Bob Fosse of being a paedophile?

Creepy scene, maybe it was purely artistic.

And no, I am not abusing Bob Fosse. I don't even know the guy.

I did just watch a couple of his other choreographies though. I think the style is interesting for sure.

Since you brought it up though it looks like he was a prolific sexual assaulter and was exposed to sex and likely molested at a young age.

Why on earth would anybody joke about that?

No, not at all

Indeed.

They don't believe in birthdays or toys or gifts for Christmas. As far as I can tell all of their beliefs about children are centered around creating the most joyless upbringing possible.

A womaniser who has extramarital affairs, sure... However, calling someone a prolific assaulter or a paedophile would need to be backed up by some kind of evidence. You're spreading ill words about a man who is not longer alive and able to defend himself. That's just as bad, or even worse than doing it to someone who is alive. Please think over things before you post.

Which one?

Yes, I find that wholly inappropriate.

I looked it up, go troll someone else defender of rapists and paedophiles.

I mean, yes and no. You can see all the iconic MJ moves in Bob Fosse's performance here, but they're not quite the same. As well, Bob Fosse, as far as I know and I honestly don't know anything beyond this clip and I can't be bothered to look it up, wasn't also a singer and songwriter.

As well, there is rarely ever an original form of art - every great artist has either copied or stolen from someone else.

Terry Pratchett, an author that I greatly respect and admire, straight up stole/paid homage to all kinds of pop culture movies and science and quotes - he dressed up those stories and made them his own.

Rap artists off all kinds will steal bars and hooks from one another all the time.

I guess my point is, at what point is it paying homage to something and at what point is it stealing? If someone truly made something original it would likely be rejected for being so obscure as to be offensive to "good taste."

Generally, I think the video format is responsible for a lot of disinformation getting swallowed wholesale. The people I know who fall for disinformation get it from videos. They (the videos) usually have no other sources than themselves, nobody to challenge in the video itself, and it's very difficult to reference parts of the video for critical discussion. It's the perfect medium for a Gish gallop.

So I read it because I didn't want to take in information passively. 4-hours is too much information to process critically in one go. It's easy to watch that and be led to the conclusion the producers want with cut scenes, music choices, etc. After hearing so many falsehoods and retractions, I wanted to digest it properly.

The word "documentary" does not mean truth. In some cases it means a completely unchallenged and biased narrative led to deceive, such as the documentary Vaxxed, which was also promoted by a massive platform when it came out. It's hard to put the genie back in the bottle after something like that.

I'm not necessarily judging the individuals in the video. If they have a case, it was badly represented by a documentary that did not check some facts that are essential to their core claims. Their director is also very odd. Regardless of what happened, to say Jackson was "worse than Epstein" is just not something a thinking person would say in an age where those victims are also trying to get justice.

Who's doing the trolling? I'm not gonna let people throw around accusations unanswered. If you only have bile to contribute, spew it out in the gutter where it belongs.

You are full of shit for sure, did you research it? Fuck no. I did. You are wrong and should stop defending garbage people.

Edit:

https://www.moveyourstory.org/blog/2018/2/10/fossemetoo

https://hebontheweb.blog/2019/05/11/bob-fosse-victim-and-perpetrator-of-sexual-assault/

Okbye

Documentaries do not exactly have the best track record when it comes to choosing between accuracy vs the more salacious story, I think a documentary is uniquely poorly suited to being a meaningful source on this subject in my eyes 😅

Ideally we would collect ALL primary sources and defer exclusively to what those primary sources say, but thats not exactly feasible for us to do.

On Wikipedia, subjects with very high visibility and interest tend to mean that people must be able to make a strong case for the information that makes it into the article. On a platform like Wikipedia, that means you need primary sources, meaningful evidence, to support what gets to be written when everyone has a strong opinion. If we're to take a single tertiary/secondary source collating information to be a useful indicator, I think Wikipedia is, in kind of the opposite fashion, uniquely well suited to presenting an understanding of what happened

And the extraordinarily long article on Wikipedia doesnt suport the idea that he wanted to have sex with children. It points to him wanting very badly to vicariously experience the innocence of youth that he never got to, in a similar way to how some parents want to vicariously experience the accolades or ability of their child (mothers putting their child through pageants, fathers caring too much about their kid's victory in sports). And I don't think that's a healthy thing to do to a child- it mirror grooming and normalizes that as a way for a relationship with an adult to look, and that is potentially extremely damaging. But the evidence doesnt really support the idea he wanted to have sex with children.

Don't know what you're talking about, Shakespeare wrote the first story about two people falling in love. That not ending well, also Shakespeare original.

I cant tell if you're joking or just wrong.

Clearly you're joking, and I'm just too sleepy to pick up on the sarcasm.

I disagree, based on the simple fact that transcripts aren't often as full of visual trickery, etc. as their video/film products —and not just because "little lies" are essential to the latters' very creation. ☝🏼

I didn't hear of it until there was an event in Sky Children of the Light.