Leaving Neverland

This is for discussions about news, politics, sports, other games, culture, philosophy etc.
United States of America XeeleeFlower
Retired Contributor
Xeelee Patron
Posts: 1650
Joined: Aug 28, 2016
Location: Netherlands

Leaving Neverland

Post by XeeleeFlower »

Just watched this documentary last night. It was really good and I highly recommend it.

@Goodspeed and I discussed whether it's possible for an individual to enjoy Jackson's music and creativity while also acknowledging/believing that he abused children. What do you think?
Time is wise and our wounds seem to heal to the rhythm of aging,
But our past is a ghost fading out that at night it’s still haunting.

http://www.galactanet.com/oneoff/theegg_mod.html
No Flag deleted_user0
Ninja
Posts: 13004
Joined: Apr 28, 2020

Re: Leaving Neverland

Post by deleted_user0 »

Yes, (obviously) that's possible, we have done so for far worse since the dawn of time. It seems like you're rather asking another question, or actually a bunch of different questions.

Is it ethical to enjoy/love (the fruits of the labor of) a person who has done immoral/illegal things?

But also more abstract, what defines a person ('s legacy)? And what responsibility do other people have when it comes to such legacies, or in general the actions of others

Personally I feel like the idea that people are either good or bad, beyond reproach or abominations to be quite dangerous, and the reactions I have observed, mainly from US (social) media to people's transgressive behaviour to completely disregard the idea that people can change.
User avatar
No Flag fightinfrenchman
Ninja
Donator 04
Posts: 23505
Joined: Oct 17, 2015
Location: Pennsylvania

Re: Leaving Neverland

Post by fightinfrenchman »

It's definitely made The Basement rethink our plan to do a Michael Jackson dance video
Dromedary Scone Mix is not Alone Mix
Image
United States of America XeeleeFlower
Retired Contributor
Xeelee Patron
Posts: 1650
Joined: Aug 28, 2016
Location: Netherlands

Re: Leaving Neverland

Post by XeeleeFlower »

umeu wrote:Yes, (obviously) that's possible, we have done so for far worse since the dawn of time. It seems like you're rather asking another question, or actually a bunch of different questions.

Is it ethical to enjoy/love (the fruits of the labor of) a person who has done immoral/illegal things?

But also more abstract, what defines a person ('s legacy)? And what responsibility do other people have when it comes to such legacies, or in general the actions of others

Personally I feel like the idea that people are either good or bad, beyond reproach or abominations to be quite dangerous, and the reactions I have observed, mainly from US (social) media to people's transgressive behaviour to completely disregard the idea that people can change.

Yes, our discussion went many different directions. For me, it's not possible to enjoy something if someone involved in that something has done something that breaches my morality. I can't enjoy Jackson's music and feel disgusted any time I hear it. There are other musicians that I can no longer enjoy because of the same reason. I also can no longer watch The Deuce because of James Franco. Ignorance of moral failings would be better for me, I often think.

Do I feel that it's wrong if others enjoy stuff that I simply cannot? No, but it does make me question that person's own morality and I may harbor a bit of distrust towards them. I do recognize that this is a flaw on my part - believing that my morality is best and upholding others to this - but at the same time, I can't shake the feeling that their morality is the one that is flawed. Thus, I am able to empathize with these individuals and recognize that an individual's morality is based upon many different things and that ultimately it is subjective, while also holding to my feeling of moral superiority. A bit of a contradiction, I admit.

I don't think that people are good or bad. I think in terms of grey and try to get to the root. In the case of Michael Jackson, I'm not sure if he was actually manipulating everyone, or if he himself was simply a victim of mental illness. Was everything a ploy just to be able to groom and then abuse children, or was he himself suffering from a mental illness and he honestly didn't think that he was hurting anyone. Prior to watching the documentary, I was pretty closed minded to thinking of him in terms of human. I'm pretty bias when it comes to abusers. Afterwards, I decided to do just a little digging and came across this article, which I feel encapsulated some of the thoughts I was having regarding him being stuck at a certain age and his actions towards children.

I feel that society does have a responsibility. Regardless if you think that he was an abuser, his relationships with children wasn't healthy.
Time is wise and our wounds seem to heal to the rhythm of aging,
But our past is a ghost fading out that at night it’s still haunting.

http://www.galactanet.com/oneoff/theegg_mod.html
No Flag deleted_user0
Ninja
Posts: 13004
Joined: Apr 28, 2020

Re: Leaving Neverland

Post by deleted_user0 »

XeeleeFlower wrote:
umeu wrote:Yes, (obviously) that's possible, we have done so for far worse since the dawn of time. It seems like you're rather asking another question, or actually a bunch of different questions.

Is it ethical to enjoy/love (the fruits of the labor of) a person who has done immoral/illegal things?

But also more abstract, what defines a person ('s legacy)? And what responsibility do other people have when it comes to such legacies, or in general the actions of others

Personally I feel like the idea that people are either good or bad, beyond reproach or abominations to be quite dangerous, and the reactions I have observed, mainly from US (social) media to people's transgressive behaviour to completely disregard the idea that people can change.

Yes, our discussion went many different directions. For me, it's not possible to enjoy something if someone involved in that something has done something that breaches my morality. I can't enjoy Jackson's music and feel disgusted any time I hear it. There are other musicians that I can no longer enjoy because of the same reason. I also can no longer watch The Deuce because of James Franco. Ignorance of moral failings would be better for me, I often think.

Do I feel that it's wrong if others enjoy stuff that I simply cannot? No, but it does make me question that person's own morality and I may harbor a bit of distrust towards them. I do recognize that this is a flaw on my part - believing that my morality is best and upholding others to this - but at the same time, I can't shake the feeling that their morality is the one that is flawed. Thus, I am able to empathize with these individuals and recognize that an individual's morality is based upon many different things and that ultimately it is subjective, while also holding to my feeling of moral superiority. A bit of a contradiction, I admit.

I don't think that people are good or bad. I think in terms of grey and try to get to the root. In the case of Michael Jackson, I'm not sure if he was actually manipulating everyone, or if he himself was simply a victim of mental illness. Was everything a ploy just to be able to groom and then abuse children, or was he himself suffering from a mental illness and he honestly didn't think that he was hurting anyone. Prior to watching the documentary, I was pretty closed minded to thinking of him in terms of human. I'm pretty bias when it comes to abusers. Afterwards, I decided to do just a little digging and came across this article, which I feel encapsulated some of the thoughts I was having regarding him being stuck at a certain age and his actions towards children.

I feel that society does have a responsibility. Regardless if you think that he was an abuser, his relationships with children wasn't healthy.


But is there really any person who is beyond reproach? What about companies? If you're using a laptop or a phone, chances are very large it contains materials which have been obtained through child labor and exploitation of economically disadvantaged people. Drank coffee? Ate chocolate? Fish? Meat? Money in a bank? If you've ever driven a car, you've been using gas which is associated with all kinds of dodgy businesses and trade practices. Indirectly you've undoubtedly funded a dictatorship or two that way, as well as the environmental destruction of people's living space. Where does it end? We live on a planet where a lot of bad things have happened, and in one way or another, those people and those events are all connected. So by this logic, there would be very little left in the world that you could still enjoy.

I mean, you are an American, will you boycot the constitution because it was written and signed by slaveholders, a practice I know you find morally repulsive. What's the difference between watching a movie to which one person with moral failings contributed, and enjoying the benefits of a constitution to which multiple people with moral failings contributed. Of course, the defense that it was normal for that time and place will hold, but only partially though, as the abolition movement already existed, and England outlawed the slave trade not soon after the American Independence.

It's one thing to hold people responsible for their own behaviour, a whole other thing entirely to hold them responsible for the behaviour of others. What most people do is just ignore it, which is undoubtedly what you have also done and probably do for great many things in your life. I'm sure we all do it, I don't know if you could get on with your life otherwise.

I agree that society has a responsibility, I'm not entirely sure what that responsibility is, to what extent, and which shape it should take, but I do question the notion that a person is either one, or the other. Good or bad is one label, manipulative or mentally ill is another. But why not all of them combined? I also question the notion that because someone has made mistakes or has done bad things as a private person (or in certain other cases, such as for example Bernie Madoff, as a business/public person) , that destroys everything else they have done. In my opinion, the good doesn't erase the bad, but the bad doesn't erase the good either, especially when it comes to things which are seemingly unrelated to one another, such as one's artistic expression and one's sexual desires (although I guess those may be connected in ways we do not always acknowledge or understand).

And how does it work when people change? The notion of a prison sentence, at least in Europe, is one of atonement and changing people to return to society as a better citizen. If someone murdered a person at 18, served 20 years in prison and comes out of prison a changed person, how do we judge that person? In one of Sartre's books he writes about a man who has always been very brave, every situation he was in, he was brave, until the last situation, just before his death, he acted cowardly. Is this man brave, or is he a coward? What if he had died before he had had the chance to act cowardly? Would he still have been a brave man, or a coward who just never got into a situation where his cowardice could show?
User avatar
Great Britain Horsemen
Jaeger
Posts: 2998
Joined: Sep 24, 2018

Re: Leaving Neverland

  • Quote

Post by Horsemen »

Thread title made me think you were leaving Holland
User avatar
Netherlands Goodspeed
Retired Contributor
Posts: 13002
Joined: Feb 27, 2015

Re: Leaving Neverland

Post by Goodspeed »

I don't think being able or not being able to enjoy MJ's music knowing he was a child abuser is a question of morality, at least not for most people. Enjoying his music doesn't imply that you're okay with what he did. It just means you managed to separate the art from the man and I think that's healthy. It's hard to say if I would've been able to separate the two. I don't think it would completely ruin his music for me but it would make a difference. I didn't have to try though, because luckily I already wasn't a fan of his music. There is one example that I can think of where I was unable to separate the two, that's in Louis CK's case. I think it has to do with his profession. Maybe it's that I have to believe that a comedian is coming from a place of moral high ground in order to enjoy their jokes, which are often about people's (moral) failings. And, yeah, if MJ had a song about how great children are (maybe he does?) that would be impossible to listen to.

So if it's not a question of whether you consider his actions to be morally wrong or not, then what? I think what makes the difference is how much this knowledge affects you. For example people with high empathy will be more affected by it, and may be unable to listen to his music without immediately thinking of what he did. I suppose if you have a strong sense of morality (by that I mean morality is generally something that matters to you more than to other people) this would also mean you're more affected by it. But note that this doesn't mean there are any disagreements about morality between a person still able to enjoy his music and a person not able, it just means morality "weighs heavier" to the person not able.

A question that remained is "is it possible to be a fan of his, and also believe that he did these things?". The stickied "Michael is innocent" thread on /r/michaeljackson suggests that it is at least very rare.
No Flag deleted_user0
Ninja
Posts: 13004
Joined: Apr 28, 2020

Re: Leaving Neverland

Post by deleted_user0 »

Goodspeed wrote:I don't think being able or not being able to enjoy MJ's music knowing he was a child abuser is a question of morality, at least not for most people. Enjoying his music doesn't imply that you're okay with what he did. It just means you managed to separate the art from the man and I think that's healthy. It's hard to say if I would've been able to separate the two. I don't think it would completely ruin his music for me but it would make a difference. I didn't have to try though, because luckily I already wasn't a fan of his music. There is one example that I can think of where I was unable to separate the two, that's in Louis CK's case. I think it has to do with his profession. Maybe it's that I have to believe that a comedian is coming from a place of moral high ground in order to enjoy their jokes, which are often about people's (moral) failings. And, yeah, if MJ had a song about how great children are (maybe he does?) that would be impossible to listen to.

So if it's not a question of whether you consider his actions to be morally wrong or not, then what? I think what makes the difference is how much this knowledge affects you. For example people with high empathy will be more affected by it, and may be unable to listen to his music without immediately thinking of what he did. I suppose if you have a strong sense of morality (by that I mean morality is generally something that matters to you more than to other people) this would also mean you're more affected by it. But note that this doesn't mean there are any disagreements about morality between a person still able to enjoy his music and a person not able, it just means morality "weighs heavier" to the person not able.

A question that remained is "is it possible to be a fan of his, and also believe that he did these things?". The stickied "Michael is innocent" thread on /r/michaeljackson suggests that it is at least very rare.


Is this a response to me or to the op? or both?
User avatar
Netherlands Goodspeed
Retired Contributor
Posts: 13002
Joined: Feb 27, 2015

Re: Leaving Neverland

Post by Goodspeed »

Just my 2c on the subject raised in the op. I hadn't seen your post before writing mine
No Flag kami_ryu
Retired Contributor
Posts: 2196
Joined: Jan 2, 2017

Re: Leaving Neverland

Post by kami_ryu »

-- deleted post --

Reason: on request (off-topic bulk delete)
United States of America XeeleeFlower
Retired Contributor
Xeelee Patron
Posts: 1650
Joined: Aug 28, 2016
Location: Netherlands

Re: Leaving Neverland

Post by XeeleeFlower »

@kami_ryu Those are similar thoughts to my own. @deleted_user I'll tackle your post hopefully tomorrow.
Time is wise and our wounds seem to heal to the rhythm of aging,
But our past is a ghost fading out that at night it’s still haunting.

http://www.galactanet.com/oneoff/theegg_mod.html
User avatar
Nauru Dolan
Ninja
Posts: 13064
Joined: Sep 17, 2015

Re: Leaving Neverland

Post by Dolan »

I've grown sceptical of these docu-dramas produced by big studios like HBO, Netflix, Channel 5, just to "set the moral tone" of discussion in society. It really makes you wonder: what is the motivation behind them?

One of the accusers, Wade Robson, defended Jackson during his 2005 trial, when he was 23. So you can't suspect he wasn't mature enough to make his own judgement over Jackson's past conduct. And yet, he chose not only to keep quiet, but also to defend Jackson. It really makes you wonder what kind of incentive could he have had back in 2005 not to speak against MJ. Was it fear, was it money? Was it both? Because some of MJ's previous legal issues with such accusations have been settled out of court, with money. So, could Robson simply have chosen to defend MJ without gaining anything from that? Could he have watched other previous victims simply cashing in on this, while he was just being passed? He claims that he defended MJ because MJ told him they would both go to jail. Really? How could a 23-year old guy believe such bullshit? He used to be the victim, how could he go to jail in any possible scenario? He could have just asked a lawyer and any lawyer would have set him straight on this issue. And yet, he chose to keep hush.

And then, after MJ dies (2009), in 2013 he comes out publicly accusing him of sexual abuse. Why did he wait even 4 more years after MJ died to come out with such accusations? He says that his own experience as a father and his nervous breakdown caused him to have such a late moral awakening. Why did he continue to live with MJ after the first act of abuse? Didn't his parents wonder how could a 20-something guy want to sleep with kids in his ranch? Why were they all flocking to bring their kids to MJ's ranch, even after so many rumours about MJ's life came out? Could it be because they were all hoping to piggyback on MJ's fame and wealth and secure maybe a spot for their kids in his shows? I dunno, lots of questions. The decision to produce such a documentary right now is dubious. Why in 2019? Why not in 2013, when Wade Robson got public with his accusations for the first time?

Far from me to defend MJ, I mean, where there's smoke, there's likely to be fire. But these people could have sued Jackson while he was alive and got their settlement, or put him in prison back then. But they chose not to do that. Instead, they chose to cash in on out-of-court settlements and, more recently, to make a big splash with documentaries. When you were abused, why would you want to spread this story all over the world? Normally, former abuse victims don't want their pain or mistreatment to be broadcast all over the world, in 4K, on everyone's living room TV. They want to fix their lives, they want to move on, they want to undergo therapy. Exposing the abuse would only make it more painful, right?

And even if you do decide to come out for some kind of "higher" moralistic reason, to "help others deal with sexual abuse" etc, do you really need to go to HBO for that? You could just, you know, start a website, create an NGO, talk to the news, become an advocate. Nope. You choose to shut up while MJ is alive and then, years after he died, you choose to sue his estate (MJJ Productions) in the hope of making some millions, and then, when that fails, you eventually decide to do a documentary with HBO and Channel 5.

I don't know what to make of this. I don't have any ways of checking whether these guys had any sort of financial arrangement with MJ, or if they had any financial arrangement to sell their story exclusively to the HBO/Channel5. The director of this documentary denies it and if such a contract is secret, there's probably no way to bring that to the surface. It's just that I notice some behavioural patterns in this narrative and they don't quite match a simple case of "former victims altruistically coming out with their story for the sole purpose of public, moral soul-cleansing".

And all this happens in 2019, when in 2015 an LA judge dismissed Robson's case against MJ's estate (https://www.scribd.com/document/353219745/Safechuck-Ruling-Demurrer-Dismissal). True, the case was dismissed on procedural grounds, there was no ruling "on the merits" of this case. But it really makes one wonder, again, whether they first tried to cash in on MJ's estate and then, when that failed, they decided to sell the story.

So then, if this hypothesis is true, what you have is a sexual abuser versus his former victims, who would like to profit as much as possible from their own pain. A truly American story.

On Reddit, I'd get downvoted to oblivion for such an inconsiderate position.
User avatar
Netherlands Goodspeed
Retired Contributor
Posts: 13002
Joined: Feb 27, 2015

Re: Leaving Neverland

Post by Goodspeed »

I wouldn't blame anyone for downvoting that... Yeah you're being pretty inconsiderate. And this is important because your position seems to be largely based on your lack of consideration for how the guy felt about the whole thing at 23 years old. Did you actually watch the documentary? I hope not and perhaps naively assume that this wouldn't be your position if you had. He explains why he was unable/unwilling to come to terms with it all even at that age, and why he couldn't come out with it even then. You should realize the size of this secret. This guy had been lying to his family about this the whole time. He wasn't in a good place. You think it's easy just coming out with it after all those years, with the entire world watching?

It's not the first time that you're wrong due to your inability to empathize.
User avatar
Norway spanky4ever
Gendarme
iwillspankyou
Posts: 8389
Joined: Apr 13, 2015

Re: Leaving Neverland

Post by spanky4ever »

is it possible to distinguish his OP music from the bad person he was? In the long run, yes. As of now, maybe not. He was deprived of his childhood, always performing, no chance of playing with his peers. Can that be a reason for him wanting to make this playland, and invite his "peers"? and at the same time being an adult in age, but not in social skills? I do not know, but I ask myself these questions.
We can never take away his music though. Afterall I think there are many victims here, and Micheal Jackson is one of them. just take a look at him, fake to the core, nothing there, there :!:
Hippocrits are the worst of animals. I love elifants.
User avatar
Nauru Dolan
Ninja
Posts: 13064
Joined: Sep 17, 2015

Re: Leaving Neverland

Post by Dolan »

Goodspeed wrote:It's not the first time that you're wrong due to your inability to empathize.

Or maybe your thought processing about this story involves more emotion and less reasoning?

Why go to the HBO and not just go to the news? Why go to a big cable company and not just start an NGO or a website? Explain the psychological behaviour of these people. Why make a big splash with HBO/Channel 5, when there are other, more modest ways of sharing your past experience?
There are possibly millions of abuse victims out there and yet they don't go to HBO and Channel 5 to turn their story into one globally broadcast 4k hit. No, most abuse victims actually don't even want that exposure.

But, you know, a blanket dismissal of a whole panoply of arguments is better than just actually reasoning about these people's actions.
User avatar
Norway spanky4ever
Gendarme
iwillspankyou
Posts: 8389
Joined: Apr 13, 2015

Re: Leaving Neverland

Post by spanky4ever »

https://youtu.be/NOrOZL7_NkI
I do not know if I believe all of this :idea: I would defend any abused child, but I am not sure about these 2 persons motive :idea:
Hippocrits are the worst of animals. I love elifants.
User avatar
No Flag fightinfrenchman
Ninja
Donator 04
Posts: 23505
Joined: Oct 17, 2015
Location: Pennsylvania

Re: Leaving Neverland

Post by fightinfrenchman »

@Dolan Your argument is not really directly related to the topic of the thread is the thing. Regardless of whatever these two accusers do or say, the actual evidence of what Michael Jackson did was wildly inappropriate.
Dromedary Scone Mix is not Alone Mix
Image
User avatar
Netherlands Goodspeed
Retired Contributor
Posts: 13002
Joined: Feb 27, 2015

Re: Leaving Neverland

Post by Goodspeed »

Dolan wrote:
Goodspeed wrote:It's not the first time that you're wrong due to your inability to empathize.

Or maybe your thought processing about this story involves more emotion and less reasoning?

Why go to the HBO and not just go to the news? Why go to a big cable company and not just start an NGO or a website? Explain the psychological behaviour of these people. Why make a big splash with HBO/Channel 5, when there are other, more modest ways of sharing your past experience?
There are possibly millions of abuse victims out there and yet they don't go to HBO and Channel 5 to turn their story into one globally broadcast 4k hit. No, most abuse victims actually don't even want that exposure.

But, you know, a blanket dismissal of a whole panoply of arguments is better than just actually reasoning about these people's actions.
?

Wade Robson came out with the story in 2013. HBO wasn't his first stop, and I don't know this for sure bit it seems much more likely to me that HBO came to him.

His/their behavior was explained in the documentary. Maybe look into it a little more or, you know, actually watch the damn thing if you want anyone to take you seriously here.
No Flag deleted_user
Ninja
Posts: 14364
Joined: Mar 26, 2015

Re: Leaving Neverland

Post by deleted_user »

Dolan wrote:
Goodspeed wrote:It's not the first time that you're wrong due to your inability to empathize.

Or maybe your thought processing about this story involves more emotion and less reasoning?

Why go to the HBO and not just go to the news? Why go to a big cable company and not just start an NGO or a website? Explain the psychological behaviour of these people. Why make a big splash with HBO/Channel 5, when there are other, more modest ways of sharing your past experience?
There are possibly millions of abuse victims out there and yet they don't go to HBO and Channel 5 to turn their story into one globally broadcast 4k hit. No, most abuse victims actually don't even want that exposure.

But, you know, a blanket dismissal of a whole panoply of arguments is better than just actually reasoning about these people's actions.

Pretty poor reasoning for just touting it.
User avatar
Norway spanky4ever
Gendarme
iwillspankyou
Posts: 8389
Joined: Apr 13, 2015

Re: Leaving Neverland

Post by spanky4ever »

deleted_user wrote:
Pretty poor reasoning for just touting it.

What is your reasoning? pretty lame to call out another person if you don't have any "reasoning" yourself :?:
Hippocrits are the worst of animals. I love elifants.
No Flag deleted_user
Ninja
Posts: 14364
Joined: Mar 26, 2015

Re: Leaving Neverland

Post by deleted_user »

iwillspankyou wrote:
deleted_user wrote:
Pretty poor reasoning for just touting it.

What is your reasoning? pretty lame to call out another person if you don't have any "reasoning" yourself :?:

I don't have any reasoning myself.

I am pretty lame.
User avatar
Norway spanky4ever
Gendarme
iwillspankyou
Posts: 8389
Joined: Apr 13, 2015

Re: Leaving Neverland

Post by spanky4ever »

deleted_user wrote:
iwillspankyou wrote:
deleted_user wrote:
Pretty poor reasoning for just touting it.

What is your reasoning? pretty lame to call out another person if you don't have any "reasoning" yourself :?:

I don't have any reasoning myself.

I am pretty lame.

figures I guess ;)
Hippocrits are the worst of animals. I love elifants.
User avatar
Nauru Dolan
Ninja
Posts: 13064
Joined: Sep 17, 2015

Re: Leaving Neverland

Post by Dolan »

Goodspeed wrote:?

Wade Robson came out with the story in 2013. HBO wasn't his first stop, and I don't know this for sure bit it seems much more likely to me that HBO came to him.

His/their behavior was explained in the documentary. Maybe look into it a little more or, you know, actually watch the damn thing if you want anyone to take you seriously here.

No, his first stop was the court room, where he tried to get some money from MJJ Productions, basically MJ's legal estate. He failed to get it, because he filed the complaint too late, so his case was dismissed on procedural grounds (as I linked in a previous post).
Then he got approached by a director from HBO who wanted to make a documentary about these cases. And what does the poor, tormented victim do? Says yes, of course. What would you do when you're torn apart by so much pain and emotional devastation that you're trying to fix your life? Make an HBO documentary about that pain, spread it wide and deep across the world, on everyone's screen. Because that's what abuse victims usually do, they use their pain as a resource for fame and media exposure.
User avatar
Nauru Dolan
Ninja
Posts: 13064
Joined: Sep 17, 2015

Re: Leaving Neverland

Post by Dolan »

fightinfrenchman wrote:@Dolan Your argument is not really directly related to the topic of the thread is the thing. Regardless of whatever these two accusers do or say, the actual evidence of what Michael Jackson did was wildly inappropriate.

The evidence was wildly inappropriate? Maybe I misunderstand your point, but nobody is denying that these guys were abused by Michael Jackson. My arguments pointed to some weird choices they made. Why would an abuse victim want to bring even more media exposure on their pain? Wasn't the abuse enough torment on their lives? Wouldn't they just want more inner peace and privacy? Nope, they chose even more media exposure than they ever had in their lives.
India Ashvin
Retired Contributor
Posts: 2432
Joined: Jul 6, 2016
ESO: Octanium

Re: Leaving Neverland

Post by Ashvin »

iwillspankyou wrote:is it possible to distinguish his OP music from the bad person he was?

I think yes. We are talking about art here and because I do not know how to explain this with regards to arts, I can with regards to science. So let's assume Albert Einstein who has done a tremendous amount of work in cosmology had molested children, do you think people would have stopped using his work and disregarded his studies? —No. Then why here? Now to connect this with art I'd say new artists take inspiration from already established stars like MJ because of their work, so in a way the new art(work) we see now is because of the art(work) produced already. So I think it is not morally wrong to listen to his songs while accepting the fact that what he did was wrong and he should be punished for it(Now that he can't because he's dead already, no point of any of this now but well :shrug:).
Image

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests

Which top 10 players do you wish to see listed?

All-time

Active last two weeks

Active last month

Supremacy

Treaty

Official

ESOC Patch

Treaty Patch

1v1 Elo

2v2 Elo

3v3 Elo

Power Rating

Which streams do you wish to see listed?

Twitch

Age of Empires III

Age of Empires IV