Leaving Neverland

[tedere12]

like others mentioned to act like you care that much is kinda hypocritical

[deleted_user0]

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:).

I agree with most of your post but not that there isnt any point to it now. The point is to learn, understand and make sure that it cant happen (as easily) again. Assuming it happened. I dont know enough to make any claim about that.

[Goodspeed]

?

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.

I'm sure they were conflicted about it, but it makes sense to want the world to know. It has to be painful to see your abuser idolized. Once the secret is out of you, part of you would want it to get as much exposure as possible. And wade, for one, probably wanted to right his wrong of defending MJ years earlier, which he also did on a big stage. And it could be a big help to other abuse victims. And sure, the money helps, so what?

But again, if you're really interested in what goes on in the victims' heads maybe you should watch the documentary, which (obviously) goes into that.

[XeeleeFlower]

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'm fully aware of those things. Several years ago, I actually had this overwhelming feeling of guilt for simply living. By living, one indirectly and directly kills many creatures and harms others. It was pretty impossible for me to find much joy in anything at this time. Sometimes, I slip back into those thoughts when I'm feeling particularly depressed, but I'm much better now. I try to limit the amount of harm that I do to the rest of the world, but I know that there are always some negative consequences of my actions. What I can do is try to be mindful of things. I can choose to not support individuals and ideals that I find to be wrong. I can choose to not eat at certain places or eat certain things. I can choose to stand up against things that go against my morality. I cannot change everything, but I can make better choices to limit the amount of guilt I feel. To be clear, I'm not saying that everyone should adopt my views and thinking. They don't make a lot of sense, and much of it probably stems from depression/PTSD.

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.

The constitution isn't a fixed work of art. It can be and has been changed throughout time. The focus of the constitution isn't on the individuals who wrote it. Hell, most people don't even know all the people who were involved in writing/signing it, let alone their individual histories. In contrast, in movies/shows/music, an individual is on display.

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 am not saying that other people shouldn't be able to enjoy things if an individual who did fucked up things is part of it. I'm just saying that I personally cannot. It ruins it for me. If I found out that Stephen Baxter (an excellent author that all should read) was abusing children, I wouldn't be able to read his books. I just wouldn't be able to find enjoyment from them anymore because that thought would be continually echoing through my mind. Even though I already have the books, I would also feel like I was supporting him in some way by simply reading. I would be choosing to not take part in something that I once enjoyed so as to limit the amount of my own personal stress. This is the whole point - minimizing my stress. I'm not holding people responsible for other people's behaviors. I do hold people responsible for enabling behaviors.

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).

We've discussed labels before and you know that I am not a fan of them. However, labels are often very useful when simplifying things, which was what I was doing. A person is both good and bad, yet also neither depending on one's subjective feelings. A parent who beats their child because they believe that their child is possessed by a demon and this is the only way to save the child would be perceived as being bad and mentally ill by much of society. In the parent's mind, they are good. In the minds of others who believe in demon possession, the parent is also good. Now, let's say that said parent also happened to create some work of art, made a medical or tech breakthrough. If you found out that they beat their child to eradicate demons from them, would you still be able to fully enjoy the work that they did? Would you be able to look at their painting/read their research without thinking about what they did/do to their child? I wouldn't be able to. Perhaps it's as GS said earlier about empathy. Perhaps I have too much empathy and thus wrongly assume that others should too. I shouldn't be so moralistic and judge others for not living up to standards that I put upon them. I do recognize that. God, I'm such a fucked up person. Apparently, my empathy is selective.

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?

When people admit to wrongdoing and seek to change, then I am able to forgive and give them a chance. Atonement is important to me.

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?

First, we need to define bravery, then cowardice, then the situations. To simplify with labels: he was a brave man who died a coward.

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.

I'm interested to know how many, if any, abuse victims you know. Also, how much research have you done on it?

[Goodspeed]

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:).

There is a difference. Art is personal, science is not. Art is about expressing oneself. Art and whoever made it are much more linked than a scientific theory and the one who came up with it.

[deleted_user0]

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'm fully aware of those things. Several years ago, I actually had this overwhelming feeling of guilt for simply living. By living, one indirectly and directly kills many creatures and harms others. It was pretty impossible for me to find much joy in anything at this time. Sometimes, I slip back into those thoughts when I'm feeling particularly depressed, but I'm much better now. I try to limit the amount of harm that I do to the rest of the world, but I know that there are always some negative consequences of my actions. What I can do is try to be mindful of things. I can choose to not support individuals and ideals that I find to be wrong. I can choose to not eat at certain places or eat certain things. I can choose to stand up against things that go against my morality. I cannot change everything, but I can make better choices to limit the amount of guilt I feel. To be clear, I'm not saying that everyone should adopt my views and thinking. They don't make a lot of sense, and much of it probably stems from depression/PTSD.

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.

The constitution isn't a fixed work of art. It can be and has been changed throughout time. The focus of the constitution isn't on the individuals who wrote it. Hell, most people don't even know all the people who were involved in writing/signing it, let alone their individual histories. In contrast, in movies/shows/music, an individual is on display.

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 am not saying that other people shouldn't be able to enjoy things if an individual who did fucked up things is part of it. I'm just saying that I personally cannot. It ruins it for me. If I found out that Stephen Baxter (an excellent author that all should read) was abusing children, I wouldn't be able to read his books. I just wouldn't be able to find enjoyment from them anymore because that thought would be continually echoing through my mind. Even though I already have the books, I would also feel like I was supporting him in some way by simply reading. I would be choosing to not take part in something that I once enjoyed so as to limit the amount of my own personal stress. This is the whole point - minimizing my stress. I'm not holding people responsible for other people's behaviors. I do hold people responsible for enabling behaviors.

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).

We've discussed labels before and you know that I am not a fan of them. However, labels are often very useful when simplifying things, which was what I was doing. A person is both good and bad, yet also neither depending on one's subjective feelings. A parent who beats their child because they believe that their child is possessed by a demon and this is the only way to save the child would be perceived as being bad and mentally ill by much of society. In the parent's mind, they are good. In the minds of others who believe in demon possession, the parent is also good. Now, let's say that said parent also happened to create some work of art, made a medical or tech breakthrough. If you found out that they beat their child to eradicate demons from them, would you still be able to fully enjoy the work that they did? Would you be able to look at their painting/read their research without thinking about what they did/do to their child? I wouldn't be able to. Perhaps it's as GS said earlier about empathy. Perhaps I have too much empathy and thus wrongly assume that others should too. I shouldn't be so moralistic and judge others for not living up to standards that I put upon them. I do recognize that. God, I'm such a fucked up person. Apparently, my empathy is selective.

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?

When people admit to wrongdoing and seek to change, then I am able to forgive and give them a chance. Atonement is important to me.

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?

First, we need to define bravery, then cowardice, then the situations. To simplify with labels: he was a brave man who died a coward.

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.

I'm interested to know how many, if any, abuse victims you know. Also, how much research have you done on it?

I know you aren't trying to force your views on me or others. And I respect that you are trying to be mindful to not facilitate things that go against your sense of right and wrong. I think this is normal, and I think most people would feel the same and try to do the same. But I also feel it's healthy to, as GS said, separate the person from the art/science/law/etc, as well as to put into perspective the harm done by the action, and the harm you will do to yourself by getting upset over said action or the consequences thereof. If it ends up where you feel guilty for living even though personally you haven't done anything wrong beyond being connected in some almost inescapable way, shape or form, to those who have done bad things, then I don't know what good can come from that.

Like Kami pointed out, I can understand that there are certain things close to heart, due to your personality or perhaps personal history, which make certain crimes/actions hit you harder emotionally, and/or for which you don't have to give up that much in order to avoid it. But as I also pointed out, there are simply things that we can't avoid being connected to unless we drastically change our lives in a way that can't reasonably be demanded of a single individual or unless we give up on living life entirely. Flying, smart tech, food, clothing, global economy in general, these are all tied to social and ecological injustices, and unless we decide to live in a cave and cut all ties with society (provided you can find a cave where you are allowed to squat) or commit suicide, there's just no way to really disentangle yourself from all of it, so you must choose what you find most or more important. And I think this is normal. So certain people will choose to become vegan, others will volunteer to help refugees, others will create inspirational videos/etc/etc, but few people try to do all of it at once, or even in succession. Also a large portion will also be too disconnected either by having too much short-term stuff to focus on, or from being so priviliged that they are unable to relate to what goes on outside their bubble, that they don't care. You think you're a fucked up person for having selective empathy, but I think it's almost, if not entirely impossible to encompass all with love and understanding. It will blow you up, that's how big you have to become for that, stretch you out beyond human limitations, and there won't really be any YOU left. After all, if we didn't set boundaries, all of them different for each and everyone of us, we'd just be indistinguishable from each other.

As for the labels, that was half responding to you, half just a general observation of how this stuff tends to get discussed in mainstream media/conversations.

The constitution isn't a fixed work of art. It can be and has been changed throughout time. The focus of the constitution isn't on the individuals who wrote it. Hell, most people don't even know all the people who were involved in writing/signing it, let alone their individual histories. In contrast, in movies/shows/music, an individual is on display.

I don't know if I agree with this. A work of art, espcially in pop, is something that over a dozen, sometimes more than a hundred people will likely have worked on. From the lyrics to the fashion to the video clip etc, it's not just one person, and the lead singer might often not even have a big say in the end product. Not saying that you shouldn't, but by boycotting the MJ songs, you are also boycotting these people, who may or may not have done anything wrong. What if you'd find out that it wasn't MJ but for example the camera man of the video clip Thriller who had been a murderer, for which he'd never been convicted or had shown remorse? His camera work isn't about him, or his individual history, either. As an actor you also try to make the actor disappear, and become the character, so I'm not sure if the individual is any more on display there, than in a piece of legislation which clearly has not only a physical signature on it, but also the intellectual signature of the men who thought up the piece of work, surely that too must reflect what kind of people they were. It's something that the founding fathers in fact recognized and had fierce debates over, and IIRC correctly, it was for this reason that Jefferson wanted to have the constitution rewritten every 10 years or so, so it wouldn't just reflect their own opinions and ideas, but would change as the nation did. Obviously this would've been highly impractical and wouldn't provide the stable base the constitution proved to be, but nonetheless it highlights the fact that you can't just think the individual out of that piece of work, or almost any piece of work for that matter, except perhaps the meaningless jobs that we have created nowadays, which has led the worker to become disconnected with his work, but that's for Marx and another debate. I'm not trying to convince you here to start hating on the constitution for this reason, but just hope that you recognize the way which you have reconciled yourself with the fact that it was written by people who had morals or did things which you find morally repulsive, while at the same time separating them from their legacy. I think it doesn't work very differently with other people when it comes to other things. And yes, that's being selective, but it's also being reasonable, and in that sense, I suppose, healthy, or at least, normal.

[Goodspeed]

I don't know if I agree with this. A work of art, espcially in pop, is something that over a dozen, sometimes more than a hundred people will likely have worked on.

True and all, but you do acknowledge that art is generally a much more personal thing than legislation or a scientific theory? In pop especially, it's often as much the person being sold as it is the music, and this was certainly the case for MJ. And in MJ's case he actually wrote his own music, too, did his own choreography. He wasn't like some of these modern pop stars who are really just attractive people with a good singing voice (sometimes not even) and who have all their music written for them.

Another thing is that legislation/scientific theories are written with the intent of being objective and impersonal. Art, on the other hand, is personal and subjective by definition.

So while I get your point, I think MJ's art is certainly a more personal thing than the US constitution. And while his history of child abuse doesn't change the fact that it's good art and that it had a positive effect on a great many people, it does make it understandable that someone would regard it as "tainted", and wouldn't have this issue with the constitution.

[Dolan]

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.

I'm interested to know how many, if any, abuse victims you know. Also, how much research have you done on it?

I don't know, I live in Eastern Europe and people here don't wear their pain on their lapel, like in the USA or other Western countries, where you're a hero if someone else abused you in some way (mild or serious) and you go public with it. Here it's unheard of that if you're a former victim of abuse you go live on screen on the biggest cable network to publicise your pain. Usually abuse victims here choose to have their face and name blurred out or anonymised and I find this reflex more natural: if you went through a painful personal experience, you are less likely to seek huge public exposure, because it's a painful subject to talk about. And you would most likely feel too much shame to simply expose yourself like that.

If you want to help other abuse victims, you can get public exposure by starting an NGO, doing advocacy work, talking to news outlets, without actually making a big splash, making a whole documentary on the biggest cable network. But maybe in the USA people got used to this so much they don't even question the motives anymore, they just take it as something natural: ok, you went through some shocking experience, so the next natural step is to write a book about it, show up on big TV shows, "go national". There is such an industry of selling your own personal story or pain in the USA, whether it's about former abuse victims, whether it's about famous people who discover after tens of years of life they used to be mistreated by their parents or former partners, etc.

I didn't do research on abuse specifically, but I did read a lot of psychological and brain research and I also corresponded with some researchers, sharing ideas with them, so I think I have a somewhat trained eye for getting insight into people's behaviours. Again, I'm not questioning whether they were abused, I'm not questioning that this had a disturbing effect on them, that it had a negative developmental influence on them, I'm not denying anything about their experience. All I am questioning is their choice to publicise their painful experience wide and large on HBO. This reeks of exploitation. I cannot prove this, but my suspicion is that there is some way in which they are monetising this. Nobody would simply go public with such a story on HBO if they didn't get any dime off it. Let's get real. And considering that they even tried to sue Jackson's estate, what do you think they were suing for? Appologies? And when they failed to get any compensation from MJJ Productions, the next step is to make this documentary.

Context is very important in this story. And everything that they did up to making this documentary shows a certain logical progression, almost like a strategy. One would be tempted to say: Ok, they tried to get money from MJJ Productions and when they failed, they chose to make a documentary on such a big cable network, that the media impact would be so huge, radio stations would start dropping Jackson's music, which would directly hit MJ's estate revenue from royalties. So it almost sounds like payback, plus some monetisation through other means by the victims.

[Goodspeed]

And considering that they even tried to sue Jackson's estate, what do you think they were suing for? Appologies?

Your "trained eye" is missing the rather obvious motivation of wanting to expose MJ for what he was. Remember this is one of the biggest pop stars in history we're talking about.

Having the courts proclaim to the world that he was a child molester is the most effective way to expose him. Failing that, they went to the court of public opinion. And again I'm sure the money helped but so what?

[Dolan]

But hasn't MJ already been exposed as a child molester, since the 90s? Ever since the Chandler case, which got settled out of court for $20 million, I don't think anyone had any shadow of doubt that MJ was a kiddie diddler. It's like overstating the obvious and for what reasons?

I don't buy this justification. And if you want to be rigurous, they don't even have the legal right to do so. At least Chandler proved it in court and got compensated for that, which is an indirect admission of guilt on MJ's part. But these guys failed to even sue and then turned the whole thing into a national and global piece of news.

>And again I'm sure the money helped but so what?

It's a topic on moral choices, so if we agree that they sought monetary compensation (through lawsuit and now through publicisation), then it throws a new light on the motivation behind this documentary.
I think it's more important than discussing whether you can still listen to Jackson's music, whether an author's past deeds reflect on the merits of his music etc etc.

[Goodspeed]

But hasn't MJ already been exposed as a child molester, since the 90s? Ever since the Chandler case, which got settled out of court for $20 million, I don't think anyone had any shadow of doubt that MJ was a kiddie diddler.

You think wrong. Even now there is a lot of denial, still.

It's a topic on moral choices, so if we agree that they sought monetary compensation (through lawsuit and now through publicisation), then it throws a new light on the motivation behind this documentary.
I think it's more important than discussing whether you can still listen to Jackson's music, whether an author's past deeds reflect on the merits of his music etc etc.

I don't think they sought it as much as it came with the territory. That's the impression I got, but could be wrong. Either way, it seems obvious that a major motivation was to expose MJ. It wasn't "all about the money", which is a phrase also often uttered by people still in denial.

[deleted_user0]

I don't know if I agree with this. A work of art, espcially in pop, is something that over a dozen, sometimes more than a hundred people will likely have worked on.

True and all, but you do acknowledge that art is generally a much more personal thing than legislation or a scientific theory? In pop especially, it's often as much the person being sold as it is the music, and this was certainly the case for MJ. And in MJ's case he actually wrote his own music, too, did his own choreography. He wasn't like some of these modern pop stars who are really just attractive people with a good singing voice (sometimes not even) and who have all their music written for them.

Another thing is that legislation/scientific theories are written with the intent of being objective and impersonal. Art, on the other hand, is personal and subjective by definition.

So while I get your point, I think MJ's art is certainly a more personal thing than the US constitution. And while his history of child abuse doesn't change the fact that it's good art and that it had a positive effect on a great many people, it does make it understandable that someone would regard it as "tainted", and wouldn't have this issue with the constitution.

In a sense, yes, i definitely acknowledge that. I agree that science/law tries to assume the air of objectivity, but I think we both agree such objectivity doesnt exist, though certain science perhaps comes closest to it. But at the same time I don't think it's a wild claim to say the the constitution reflects the agreed personal beliefs of the founding fathers more than for example billy jean reflects that of michael jackson, despite the fact that he perhaps exudes his extravagant personality through that work of art more than the the founding fathers did. I understand what you mean, though xeelee didnt initially make the point tgat it had to have strong ties to the certain personality, merely that a certain wrongdoing had to be associated with it. I also dont think that this has to be the case, for example, my wife and i dont buy bottled water from nestle, because we dont agree with the company's philosophy on people's right to water, this has nothing to do with a personal dislike for someone. And while it's of course not the same as the mj case, i do believe it comes from the same or at least a similar place.

That said, i dont think we'd disagree much if we'd elaborate on it further, and i can also understand xeelee, although i think her view is "too extreme" although that might not be the right word to describe it exactly.

[Dolan]

These were painted by a murderer:







His name was Caravaggio and I bet Reddit and the Twittosphere will now stop looking at any paintings made by him.

[spanky4ever]

I think MJ music will survive in the long run also, but right now I think many ppl will associate the music with child molester - and have a problem enjoying it. I do not listen to MJ music anymore, so it would not have any consequences on my behalf, but if I hear it now, I will immediately make a bad association to it. After a while, this will probably change, as the child abuse thing will fade - like a path in my brain, not used for a long time.
To my original question;

can we enjoy the art, even though the person was flawed?

In time, yes, but right now, nei

[XeeleeFlower]

@deleted_user @Dolan I will respond to both of you next week. Sorry for the delay.

[Sargsyan]

Forget about the 10 year FBI investigation and courts. Forget about the FBI raiding his home and finding nothing. Listen to two men who have both confessed to lying on multiple occasions as trustworthy witnesses.

[Sargsyan]

[tedere12]

I have a Michael Jackson coffee cup

[fightinfrenchman]

Forget about the 10 year FBI investigation and courts. Forget about the FBI raiding his home and finding nothing. Listen to two men who have both confessed to lying on multiple occasions as trustworthy witnesses.

Do you think the letters he sent to children he had no relation to were appropriate? How about having them sleep in his bed?

[Dolan]

[fightinfrenchman]

Now I also have to scrap our plans of doing a shot-for-shot remake of Hello Dolly for a cheadar dance vid https://www.nydailynews.com/entertainme ... story.html

[Horsemen]

Unfortunately, our website is currently unavailable in most European countries. We are engaged on the issue and committed to looking at options that support our full range of digital offerings to the EU market. We continue to identify technical compliance solutions that will provide all readers with our award-winning journalism.

[fightinfrenchman]

Unfortunately, our website is currently unavailable in most European countries. We are engaged on the issue and committed to looking at options that support our full range of digital offerings to the EU market. We continue to identify technical compliance solutions that will provide all readers with our award-winning journalism.

Don't worry it should work for you in a couple weeks

[Horsemen]

Unfortunately, our website is currently unavailable in most European countries. We are engaged on the issue and committed to looking at options that support our full range of digital offerings to the EU market. We continue to identify technical compliance solutions that will provide all readers with our award-winning journalism.

Don't worry it should work for you in a couple weeks

May I use your IP address in the meantime?

[Dolan]

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/8771319/l ... n-station/

LEAVING Neverland director Dan Reed has sensationally admitted that the dates given by one of Michael Jackson’s accusers in his film are WRONG.

Filmmaker Reed was forced into an embarrassing U-turn after Jacko biographer Mike Smallcombe revealed the train station at the singer’s ranch was not built until 1994.

In the doc, accuser James Safechuck claims he was abused from 1988 until 1992 and was molested in a room within the Neverland station.

Yesterday, Smallcombe tweeted out Santa Barbara County construction permits showing approval for the building of the structure happened in September 1993.

In response to Smallcombe's revelations, Reed tweeted: "Yeah there seems to be no doubt about the station date. The date they have wrong is the end of the abuse."

However, Safechuck has repeatedly claimed, in the documentary as well as in court documents and interviews, that the alleged sex abuse stopped in 1992 when he was aged 14.

On Twitter, Smallcombe slammed Reed’s apparent attempt to change the accuser’s timeline.

He posted: “So @danreed1000 is now saying because the story has been debunked, suddenly the end of Safechuck’s abuse was when he was 16/17 rather than 14.

“It’s a three year discrepancy. Just hold your hands up, don’t change the story.

“This is what happens when you don’t investigate properly.”

Speaking with the Mirror, the biographer called the filmmaker’s response “embarrassing.”

He said: ““Firstly, I’m shocked that he's spoken on Safechuck’s behalf.

“And secondly, it’s embarrassing that he feels he has to now change the narrative of the film – which is that the alleged abuse stopped in 1992 – all because part of it has been disproved.”

Wait what? Reddit and Twitter's mass indignation and virtue-signalling decision to stop listening to Jackson cannot be wrong. They are never wrong, common.

This documentary was not about making money, that's for sure. It was about saving the planet from climate change.