Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 4, 2019 13:50:08 GMT
Are you guys watching? It's really difficult to digest, but the evidence is very damning.
|
|
|
|
Post by theycallmemrfish on Mar 4, 2019 14:22:18 GMT
Are there people who actually still think Jackson is innocent?
|
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Mar 4, 2019 14:30:49 GMT
It's very hard for me to look at Michael Jackson and to discuss popular music in the 80s anyway even without this scandal aspect - like my version of the 80s in music (and otherwise really but especially the 80s) is very specific, very non-mainstream - almost blatantly anti-mainstream and comprises my identity and personality - like I am who I am (for better or worse) because I never listened to him and any 80s pop Bon Jovi, Madonna, Prince, Whitney Houston - are all foreign to me. But even to me - even someone as clueless as I am can see the sad and circus aspects and see that he engaged in this type of behavior in public, for years, beat the legal case, and got away with it in front of our faces (R. Kelly too was like this in that respect btw).
This came up in the Sundance thread when it premiered too - this is an artist that made everyone look foolish and flies in the face of his artistic persona and people are going to either live in a world of denial about him or deny his Art - I see no in-between really....it is to me the most egregious example the Art and the Artist ............we've literally ever had.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 4, 2019 14:50:21 GMT
theycallmemrfish - Definitely. But I think Oprah's involvement with this docu-series is the final death knell - she was friendly with the Jackson family for decades. pacinoyes - So, so true. Joan Crawford and Roman Polanski have nothing on Michael Jackson.
|
|
|
|
Post by akittystang on Mar 4, 2019 19:56:14 GMT
I haven't watched it yet, but when I was young, I was willing to give him the benefit of the doubt during that trial. Until I saw Catherine Crier on CourtTV hold up a "photography" book (found in his home) with a strategically placed hand. I knew, after seeing that, he was guilty.
|
|
|
|
Post by mikediastavrone96 on Mar 4, 2019 20:45:53 GMT
Have only seen part one so far. With accusations, I hold to a stance of holding empathy for the victims and withhold judgment for the accused until the matter is illuminated and I maintain that here. I feel for Wade Robson and Jimmy Safechuck and their testimonies, assuming they are true, are devastating and I hope they receive the support they need.
I feel shitty about saying this next part because it doesn't hold much value yet, but since it is the main topic of discussion regarding the film, I'll just say for as compelling as the documentary has been thus far I don't consider this to be damning evidence or to have a ton of journalistic value by the very nature of the documentary's format. It's all the testimonies of Robson, Safechuck, and their respective families. It's their stories, not an exhaustive investigation, nor even the variety of perspectives that something like Surviving R. Kelly offered. It opens the door for such things, which in itself is invaluable (survivors making their voices heard can inspire others to come forward), but I withhold judgment for the time being.
|
|
|
|
Post by quetee on Mar 5, 2019 4:20:02 GMT
I haven't watched it yet but I will do so soon. I've been reading about the accusers and why did they lie under oath and say they weren't abused and why did they wait until years after Jackson had died? Why not say something sooner especially if he's dead.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 5, 2019 13:39:32 GMT
I haven't watched it yet but I will do so soon. I've been reading about the accusers and why did they lie under oath and say they weren't abused and why did they wait until years after Jackson had died? Why not say something sooner especially if he's dead. Your questions will be answered in great detail when you watch the documentary. |
|
|
|
Post by Tommen_Saperstein on Mar 6, 2019 3:13:30 GMT
Really looking forward to seeing this.
|
|
chris3
Badass
I just ordered a slice of pumpkin pie...
Posts: 1,050 
Likes: 1,045
|
Post by chris3 on Mar 20, 2019 8:48:31 GMT
Utterly heartbreaking. I finished it this morning and I still can't get it off my mind. Robson and Safechuck are heroes for coming forward. Anyone trying to discredit them either haven't seen the doc or are willfully blind. This shit happened.
|
|
|
|
Post by pupdurcs on Mar 20, 2019 11:36:02 GMT
Utterly heartbreaking. I finished it this morning and I still can't get it off my mind. Robson and Safechuck are heroes for coming forward. Anyone trying to discredit them either haven't seen the doc or are willfully blind. This shit happened. I truly worry about the future of our society when I read statements like this. Leaving Neverland is a film. "Film" being the operative word. Leni Riefenstahl and Joseph Goebbels fully understood the power of the medium to manipulate a position, and so clearly does Dan Reed. Unquestioning belief in a one-sided testimonial without cross-examination means you may as well dispense with the entire justice system. Fuck the courts! "Documentaries" and social media lynchings tell us all we need to know. One shudders. I had little strong opinion on Jackson's guilt or innocence before watching Leaving Neverland. I probably leaned more towards him being guilty. He was weird. He looked weird. He so spoke like a chipmunk on helium. He seemed way to intrested in hanging out with little boys. Didn't he settle with some kid for 20 million? No smoke without fire right. I used to laugh right along with all the Jackson is a pedo jokes made when he was still alive. To quote Chris Rock, "Not another kid, Mike!" Leaving Neverland is uncomfortable to watch. It's graphic to the point of stomach churning. But it's also extremely one-sided and thin on actual evidence, and how any intelligent, reasonable human being can see that's not a fucking huge problem is beyond me. After watching it, I went off on social media to get all the hot takes, and also start reading the preponderance of evidence out there that not only discredit the the two accusers, but makes you wonder if this whole entire project isn't just as smokescreen to distract from living abusers in the entertainment industry (Harvey Weinstein actually used to plant peadophile stories about Michael Jackson in the tabloids to take the heat off his own transgressions, something confirmed by gossip columnist AJ Benza. Funny how Leaving Neverland completely buried the Weinstein documentary with it's last minute Sundance entry. Hmmm....). By the end of it, I was more disgusted at the laziness and outright corruption of our media than anything else. Until looking further into this stuff, I had no idea Jackson was investigated by the FBI of these accusations for 10 years, and they came up with zilch. Wire taps, searching his computers for kiddy porn....they came up with nothing. Both Robson and Safechuck defended Jackson's innocence while he was alive. Obviously the film posits that they did it because it was out of "love" (Leaving Neverland also has weird NAMBLA style pro-peadophilia undertones that seriously make me question the leanings and motivations of the filmmaker. You cannot be a fucking "lover" to a 7 years old kid! Yet Reed insists on calling Jackson's supposed abuse of these children just that, and actually coaches Robson in one scene to call Jackson his "lover". I nearly threw up!) Anyway, Robson is Jackson's biggest cheerleader even after death, insisting on going to the funeral, performing tributes and so on. Jackson gave him a career and opened doors for him in life. It seems he presumed this would continue after death. When Jackson's estate refused him a job directing a Jackson cirque du soeil show, Robson had a nervous breakdown, probably realising the gravy train was over. He goes into therapy and a few months later realises all those years he was abused...and decides to sue the estate for 1.5 billion dollars. James Safechuck family business gets sued around the same time, and have to pay out 1 million dollars to the claimant. Safechuck see's Robson on TV talking about being abused by Jackson, and claim this is the first time he realised Jackson had abused him . And decides to join Robson on his quest for 1.5 billion bucks. It's highly important for both Robson and Safechuck to realise it was "abuse" only at that point, because it's the loophole that gets around statute Of limitations laws, and allows them to sue for all thoas Jackson billions. People kill for far less. Jussie Smollet went on TV, cried his eyes out with the conviction of an Oscar winner and lied his face off because he wanted a raise. Yet this "documentary" refuses to disclose that Safechuck and Robson had been going after 1.5 billion since 2013, had their suit dismissed (mainly because of the lies and inconsistencies in their timelines and stories. The judge even stating that no reasonable person could believe Robson's testimony). Both men are appealing the decision. Hence, we get Leaving Neverland, a graphic 4 hour testimonial from two perjerurs who at the end of it all, are seeking one of the biggest paydays ever given. And that's just the tip of the iceberg. So many lies, inconsiustencies and omissions, that'd it take days to lay it all out. Yet we can be so easily manipulated by moodily lit testimonials on film with the music just right, and the drone shots to add gravitas, and celebtrity endorsements saying "watch the documentary. You guys are so brave for telling your truth. We need to say goodbye to Michael Jackson, that monster"! Fuck you very much Oprah. I'll watch the documentary....then I'll research the actual case, and come to my own conclusions. The whole thing is sordid. Jackson is low hanging fruit, and every single time these "victims" go for the money. Every. Single. Time. It'd be nice to see a supposed Jackson victim who only wanted justice or closure without a payday. Just once. |
|
Javi
Badass
Posts: 1,532
Likes: 1,620
|
Post by Javi on Mar 20, 2019 12:45:23 GMT
Utterly heartbreaking. I finished it this morning and I still can't get it off my mind. Robson and Safechuck are heroes for coming forward. Anyone trying to discredit them either haven't seen the doc or are willfully blind. This shit happened. I truly worry about the future of our society when I read statements like this. Leaving Neverland is a film. "Film" being the operative word. Leni Riefenstahl and Joseph Goebbels fully understood the power of the medium to manipulate a position, and so clearly does Dan Reed. Unquestioning belief in a one-sided testimonial without cross-examination means you may as well dispense with the entire justice system. Fuck the courts! "Documentaries" and social media lynchings tell us all we need to know. One shudders. I had little strong opinion on Jackson's guilt or innocence before watching Leaving Neverland. I probably leaned more towards him being guilty. He was weird. He looked weird. He so spoke like a chipmunk on helium. He seemed way to intrested in hanging out with little boys. Didn't he settle with some kid for 20 for million? No smoke without fire right. I used to laugh right along with all the Jackson is a pedo jokes made when he was still alive. To quote Chris Rock, "Not another kid, Mike!" Leaving Neverland is uncomfortable to watch. It's graphic to the point of stomach churning. But it's also extremely one-sided and thin on actual evidence, and how any intelligent, reasonable human being can see that's not a fucking huge problem is beyond me. After watching it, I went off on social media to get all the hot takes, and also start reading the preponderance of evidence out there that not only discredit the the two accusers, but makes you wonder if this whole entire project isn't just as smokescreen to distract from living abusers in the entertainment industry (Harvey Weinstein actually used to plant peadophile stories about Michael Jackson in the tabloids to take the heat off his own transgressions, something confirmed by gossip columnist AJ Benza. Funny how Leaving Neverland completely buried the Weinstein documentary with it's last minute Sundance entry. Hmmm....). By the end of it, I was more disgusted at the laziness and outright corruption of our media than anything else. Until looking further into this stuff, I had no idea Jackson was investigated by the FBI of these accusations for 10 years, and they came up with zilch. Wire taps, searching his computers for kiddy porn....they came up with nothing. Both Robson and Safechuck defended Jackson's innocence while he was alive. Obviously the film posits that they did it because it was out of "love" (Leaving Neverland also has weird NAMBLA style pro-peadophilia undertones that seriously make me question the leanings and motivations of the filmmaker. You cannot be a fucking "lover" to a 7 years old kid! Yet Reed insists on calling Jackson's supposed abuse of these children just that, and actually coaches Robson in one scene to call Jackson his "lover". I nearly threw up!) Anyway, Robson is Jackson's biggest cheerleader even after death, insisting on going to the funeral, performing tributes and so on. Jackson gave him a career and opened doors for him in life. It seems he presumed this would continue after death. When Jackson's estate refused him a job directing a Jackson cirque du soeil show, Robson had a nervous breakdown, probably realising the gravy train was over. He goes into therapy and a few months later realises all those years he was abused...and decides to sue the estate for 1.5 billion dollars. James Safechuck family business gets sued around the same time, and have to pay out 1 million dollars to the claimant. Safechuck see's Robson on TV talking about being abused by Jackson, and claim this is the first time he realised Jackson had abused him . And decides to join Robson on his quest for 1.5 billion bucks. It's highly important for both Robson and Safechuck to realise it was "abuse" only at that point, because it's the loophole that gets around statute Of limitations laws, and allows them to sue for all thoas Jackson billions. People kill for far less. Jussie Smollet went on TV, cried his eyes out with the conviction of an Oscar winner and lied his face off because he wanted a raise. Yet this "documentary" refuses to disclose that Safechuck and Robson had been going after 1.5 billion since 2013, had their suit dismissed (mainly because of the lies and inconsistencies in their timelines and stories. The judge even stating that no reasonable person could believe Robson's testimony). Both men are appealing the decision. Hence, we get Leaving Neverland, a graphic 4 hour testimonial from two perjerurs who at the end of it all, are seeking one of the biggest paydays ever given. And that's just the tip of the iceberg. So many lies, inconsiustencies and omissions, that'd it take days to lay it all out. Yet we can be so easily manipulated by moodily lit testimonials on film with the music just right, and the drone shots to add gravitas, and celebtrity endorsements saying "watch the documentary. You guys are so brave for telling your truth. We need to say goodbye to Michael Jackson, that monster"! Fuck you very much Oprah. I'll watch the documentary....then I'll research the actual case, and come to my own conclusions. The whole thing is sordid. Jackson is low hanging fruit, and every single time these "victims" go for the money. Every. Single. Time. It'd be nice to see a supposed Jackson victim who only wanted justice or closure without a payday. Just once. Agreed. Jackson may well have been the biggest pedophile in the world, but this sorry excuse for a "documentary" is hardly proof. It's not even remotely interested in the truth, or in shaping the material into anything resembling complexity or insight. It treats its audience as idiots--here, sit down and listen... the whole premise being that the truth is self-evident, the classic hack documentarian's resort. Throw in the violins and the drone shots (an attempt to be ominous? beautiful? why does everything have a sheen to it?) This dude wishes he was Leni Riefenstahl  There's material for a truly great doc here, though. |
|
|
|
Post by quetee on Mar 21, 2019 4:05:19 GMT
Utterly heartbreaking. I finished it this morning and I still can't get it off my mind. Robson and Safechuck are heroes for coming forward. Anyone trying to discredit them either haven't seen the doc or are willfully blind. This shit happened. I truly worry about the future of our society when I read statements like this. Leaving Neverland is a film. "Film" being the operative word. Leni Riefenstahl and Joseph Goebbels fully understood the power of the medium to manipulate a position, and so clearly does Dan Reed. Unquestioning belief in a one-sided testimonial without cross-examination means you may as well dispense with the entire justice system. Fuck the courts! "Documentaries" and social media lynchings tell us all we need to know. One shudders. I had little strong opinion on Jackson's guilt or innocence before watching Leaving Neverland. I probably leaned more towards him being guilty. He was weird. He looked weird. He so spoke like a chipmunk on helium. He seemed way to intrested in hanging out with little boys. Didn't he settle with some kid for 20 million? No smoke without fire right. I used to laugh right along with all the Jackson is a pedo jokes made when he was still alive. To quote Chris Rock, "Not another kid, Mike!" Leaving Neverland is uncomfortable to watch. It's graphic to the point of stomach churning. But it's also extremely one-sided and thin on actual evidence, and how any intelligent, reasonable human being can see that's not a fucking huge problem is beyond me. After watching it, I went off on social media to get all the hot takes, and also start reading the preponderance of evidence out there that not only discredit the the two accusers, but makes you wonder if this whole entire project isn't just as smokescreen to distract from living abusers in the entertainment industry (Harvey Weinstein actually used to plant peadophile stories about Michael Jackson in the tabloids to take the heat off his own transgressions, something confirmed by gossip columnist AJ Benza. Funny how Leaving Neverland completely buried the Weinstein documentary with it's last minute Sundance entry. Hmmm....). By the end of it, I was more disgusted at the laziness and outright corruption of our media than anything else. Until looking further into this stuff, I had no idea Jackson was investigated by the FBI of these accusations for 10 years, and they came up with zilch. Wire taps, searching his computers for kiddy porn....they came up with nothing. Both Robson and Safechuck defended Jackson's innocence while he was alive. Obviously the film posits that they did it because it was out of "love" (Leaving Neverland also has weird NAMBLA style pro-peadophilia undertones that seriously make me question the leanings and motivations of the filmmaker. You cannot be a fucking "lover" to a 7 years old kid! Yet Reed insists on calling Jackson's supposed abuse of these children just that, and actually coaches Robson in one scene to call Jackson his "lover". I nearly threw up!) Anyway, Robson is Jackson's biggest cheerleader even after death, insisting on going to the funeral, performing tributes and so on. Jackson gave him a career and opened doors for him in life. It seems he presumed this would continue after death. When Jackson's estate refused him a job directing a Jackson cirque du soeil show, Robson had a nervous breakdown, probably realising the gravy train was over. He goes into therapy and a few months later realises all those years he was abused...and decides to sue the estate for 1.5 billion dollars. James Safechuck family business gets sued around the same time, and have to pay out 1 million dollars to the claimant. Safechuck see's Robson on TV talking about being abused by Jackson, and claim this is the first time he realised Jackson had abused him . And decides to join Robson on his quest for 1.5 billion bucks. It's highly important for both Robson and Safechuck to realise it was "abuse" only at that point, because it's the loophole that gets around statute Of limitations laws, and allows them to sue for all thoas Jackson billions. People kill for far less. Jussie Smollet went on TV, cried his eyes out with the conviction of an Oscar winner and lied his face off because he wanted a raise. Yet this "documentary" refuses to disclose that Safechuck and Robson had been going after 1.5 billion since 2013, had their suit dismissed (mainly because of the lies and inconsistencies in their timelines and stories. The judge even stating that no reasonable person could believe Robson's testimony). Both men are appealing the decision. Hence, we get Leaving Neverland, a graphic 4 hour testimonial from two perjerurs who at the end of it all, are seeking one of the biggest paydays ever given. And that's just the tip of the iceberg. So many lies, inconsiustencies and omissions, that'd it take days to lay it all out. Yet we can be so easily manipulated by moodily lit testimonials on film with the music just right, and the drone shots to add gravitas, and celebtrity endorsements saying "watch the documentary. You guys are so brave for telling your truth. We need to say goodbye to Michael Jackson, that monster"! Fuck you very much Oprah. I'll watch the documentary....then I'll research the actual case, and come to my own conclusions. The whole thing is sordid. Jackson is low hanging fruit, and every single time these "victims" go for the money. Every. Single. Time. It'd be nice to see a supposed Jackson victim who only wanted justice or closure without a payday. Just once. this is a good video and makes you second guess any of this stuff. This guy is a reporter and is well verse on this case. |
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Mar 21, 2019 12:22:24 GMT
One of the things with this - and I've stated that to me it rings completely, obviously true - is how many people are involved outside the documentary that take the POV that they have something to add when they don't imo. Charles Thomson seems like a nice man I believe he's sincere, but you have to be raising an eyebrow when he calls himself - himself - an "expert". He merely repeats the public record and then he merely repeats the public record while also cheap-shotting the film - it's a "TV show" not a "film".
Ah, thanks for that. Thanks for telling me what it isn't and not really addressing what it is.
He compares Jackson to Jimmy Savile and how the "facts" don't match - which is preposterous - they just didn't act in the same manner at all - come on why would they match? It's as illogical a thing to say as anything in the documentary itself which has clear and logical "rings true" explanations at least for truth vs. public record. Again, you might not buy it - but it sells that narrative it's presenting. Jackson-Savile is just stupid and meaningless to correlate in any way here.
He is also quick to say it's appalling journalism - but he's right AND wrong, there is nothing he says that is journalistic either, you have the internet and I have it too....... fine. The argument the film makes is truth aside from the public record - it's pretty clear when watching it, it isn't interested in airing both sides since "both sides" implicitly were controlled by one side (Jackson's side).
Now you don't have to believe it, that's fine.......people who don't believe the documentary are ok with me, that's their right....... I think we have a problem in this culture where reasonable people disagree and instead of disagreeing like adults we demonize them like idiots (Trump is Hitler! - No......) so I try to never do that - but it's like I said before, to me, you can't out-argue what is presented in Leaving Neverland with the trappings of adulthood - parental complicity, court cases, statute of limitations, money........it doesn't equate.
The truth as presented in Finding Neverland is somewhere else in childhood (theirs) and an arrested childhood (his).............and as I've said in the other thread I think it's one of the most devastating documentaries ever made and it's long-term effect will be seismic - it's too soon now to even see it playing out imo.
As always...........ymmv.
|
|
|
|
Post by pupdurcs on Mar 21, 2019 13:46:03 GMT
One of the things with this - and I've stated that to me it rings completely, obviously true - is how many people are involved outside the documentary that take the POV that they have something to add when they don't imo. Charles Thomson seems like a nice man I believe he's sincere, but you have to be raising an eyebrow when he calls himself - himself - an "expert". He merely repeats the public record and then he merely repeats the public record while also cheap-shotting the film - it's a "TV show" not a "film". Ah, thanks for that. Thanks for telling me what it isn't and not really addressing what it is. He compares Jackson to Jimmy Savile and how the "facts" don't match - which is preposterous - they just didn't act in the same manner at all - come on why would they match? It's as illogical a thing to say as anything in the documentary itself which has clear and logical "rings true" explanations at least for truth vs. public record. Again, you might not buy it - but it sells that narrative it's presenting. Jackson-Savile is just stupid and meaningless to correlate in any way here. He is also quick to say it's appalling journalism - but he's right AND wrong, there is nothing he says that is journalistic either, you have the internet and I have it too....... fine. The argument the film makes is truth aside from the public record - it's pretty clear when watching it, it isn't interested in airing both sides since "both sides" implicitly were controlled by one side (Jackson's side). Now you don't have to believe it, that's fine.......people who don't believe the documentary are ok with me, that's their right....... I think we have a problem in this culture where reasonable people disagree and instead of disagreeing like adults we demonize them like idiots (Trump is Hitler! - No......) so I try to never do that - but it's like I said before, to me, you can't out-argue what is presented in Leaving Neverland with the trappings of adulthood - parental complicity, court cases, statute of limitations, money........it doesn't equate. The truth as presented in Finding Neverland is somewhere else in childhood (theirs) and an arrested childhood (his).............and as I've said in the other thread I think it's one of the most devastating documentaries ever made and it's long-term effect will be seismic - it's too soon now to even see it playing out imo. As always...........ymmv. Never thought you of all people were this guilliable or lacking in intellectual rigour.  Leaving Neverland is about as devastating as a wet fart. As a documentary, as Pelle said, it's fucking awful and designed to seduce simpletons, idiots and the unquestioning. And those who had already considered him guilty. Some people desperately wanted it to be "devastating", particularly the blatantly corrupt old media for whom "Wacko Jacko" headlines and stories (real and false)have literally generated billions of dollars over the years. It's a cottage industry. That Peter Pan shit doesn't sell. Not salacious enough. The documentary failed, because old media simply can't give two proven liars a platform, have Oprah give a seal of approval and expect everyone to go along with it. It was a fatal miscalculation that in the era of #metoo, where we are supposed to "believe all victims" and the burden of evidence/proof is actually very small, that they could get away with this travesty. Maybe before the era of the internet, but there's simply too much information out there to debunk this "documentary" and those two money hungry dudes giving testimonials (that were already thrown out of court, and have changed several times). Jackson isn't getting muted or cancelled or whatever the heck the outcome was suppposed to produce. Those that always thought the was a freaky peado (and many felt that way before that shitty documentary)will continue to think so, but with no concrete evidence, DJ's will keep blasting "Thriller" in the club and he'll almost certainly remain the world's richest dead entertainer for years to come. His estate said not a single one of their licensing partners called to express concern or try to cancel their licensing agreement. I do think there will be an impact, but not quite the one you expected. As this joke of a film keeps being debunked (Reed has already cut out 45 minutes of footage proven to be contradictory or untrue between the US and UK premiere), I think there will be a push to change the defamation laws, so the dead can have some measure of protection. Because every single person involved in this film would be sued into oblivion and lose, if Jackson were alive. And I think co-signing this thing is probably going to end up being the single biggest mistake of Oprah's career. Calls into question her credibility and integrity (right after Jackson died, she was let into the home of Jackson's mother and kids to share warm hugs with them and celebrate his memory. Now she's pissing on his grave, she looks like someone who will do anything for money and ratings. Her brand has taken a big hit, imho). |
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Mar 21, 2019 14:02:50 GMT
Remember what I said in my post about merely disagreeing with people and then attacking and de-humanizing them? That's what this is - they're/we're idiots, ok, riiiiiiight :
Never thought you of all people were this guilliable or lacking in intellectual rigour.As for this: "DJ's will keep blasting "Thriller" in the club" - Right, in that dream-world club where it's 1984 where you wore those stone-washed jeans and leg warmers are always in style.  But that last paragraph leaves me speechless tbh - so there will be a push to protect the guilty, and Winfrey's "brand" (a grotesque term btw) is going to take a hit not Jackson's? That's what you think the impact will be? Um........ I'm not saying you don't have a single point in your posts (somewhere in there yes, just not in the totality imo) and I wouldn't engage in the de-humanizing code language/signifying you are in calling people who quite reasonably see his guilt as "idiots" (in a de-facto way) but that last paragraph is about as close to "Forget it Jake, it's Chinatown" as anything I can imagine. |
|
|
|
Post by pupdurcs on Mar 21, 2019 14:28:23 GMT
Ummm...I know you probably haven't been to a club in decades, but club DJ's still regularly work Jackson into their sets. Guess his music transcends eras.
As for Oprah, her instagram page is a shitshow. She fucked up, because her own fans are turning on her and talking about cancelling subscriptions to her network. So yes, her "brand" (what the fuck is grotesque about that? "Oprah" is billion dollar corporation) is taking a hit.
I've never minced words, you know that. I say it as I see it.
|
|
LaraQ
Badass
English Rose
Posts: 2,298 
Likes: 2,833
|
Post by LaraQ on Mar 21, 2019 14:57:17 GMT
Ummm...I know you probably haven't been to a club in decades, but club DJ's still regularly work Jackson into their sets. Guess his music transcends eras. As for Oprah, her instagram page is a shitshow. She fucked up, because her own fans are turning on her and talking about cancelling subscriptions to her network. So yes, her "brand" (what the fuck is grotesque about that? "Oprah" is billion dollar corporation) is taking a hit. I've never minced words, you know that. I say it as I see it. Ya boy Jackson is a paedophile who has raped dozens of boys over the years.You are defending a child rapist ffs. |
|
|
|
Post by pupdurcs on Mar 21, 2019 15:13:10 GMT
Ummm...I know you probably haven't been to a club in decades, but club DJ's still regularly work Jackson into their sets. Guess his music transcends eras. As for Oprah, her instagram page is a shitshow. She fucked up, because her own fans are turning on her and talking about cancelling subscriptions to her network. So yes, her "brand" (what the fuck is grotesque about that? "Oprah" is billion dollar corporation) is taking a hit. I've never minced words, you know that. I say it as I see it. Ya boy Jackson is a paedophile who has raped dozens of boys over the years.You are defending a child rapist ffs. No, I'm defending fairness, the rule of law, and burden of evidence. Jackson just happens to be part of this particular case study. I'm open to the possibility of him being guilty of something, but certainly not on the basis of this "documentary". And it's dozens now? Oy vey. |
|
Zeb31
Based
Bernardo is not believing que vous êtes come to bing bing avec nous
Posts: 2,557
Likes: 3,794
|
Post by Zeb31 on Mar 23, 2019 0:51:23 GMT
Streisand chimes in: (E!)  |
|
|
|
Post by theycallmemrfish on Mar 23, 2019 0:58:25 GMT
Streisand chimes in: (E!) Ew. Just... ew.  |
|
|
|
Post by Christ_Ian_Bale on Mar 23, 2019 1:31:46 GMT
Streisand chimes in: (E!) I haven't watched the doc or anything but  |
|
Lubezki
Based
the social distancing
Posts: 4,332
Likes: 6,554
|
Post by Lubezki on Mar 23, 2019 4:28:06 GMT
Streisand chimes in: (E!)  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 23, 2019 12:50:28 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by RiverleavesElmius on Mar 23, 2019 18:21:16 GMT
One of the things with this - and I've stated that to me it rings completely, obviously true - is how many people are involved outside the documentary that take the POV that they have something to add when they don't imo. Charles Thomson seems like a nice man I believe he's sincere, but you have to be raising an eyebrow when he calls himself - himself - an "expert". He merely repeats the public record and then he merely repeats the public record while also cheap-shotting the film - it's a "TV show" not a "film". Ah, thanks for that. Thanks for telling me what it isn't and not really addressing what it is. He compares Jackson to Jimmy Savile and how the "facts" don't match - which is preposterous - they just didn't act in the same manner at all - come on why would they match? It's as illogical a thing to say as anything in the documentary itself which has clear and logical "rings true" explanations at least for truth vs. public record. Again, you might not buy it - but it sells that narrative it's presenting. Jackson-Savile is just stupid and meaningless to correlate in any way here. He is also quick to say it's appalling journalism - but he's right AND wrong, there is nothing he says that is journalistic either, you have the internet and I have it too....... fine. The argument the film makes is truth aside from the public record - it's pretty clear when watching it, it isn't interested in airing both sides since "both sides" implicitly were controlled by one side (Jackson's side). Now you don't have to believe it, that's fine.......people who don't believe the documentary are ok with me, that's their right....... I think we have a problem in this culture where reasonable people disagree and instead of disagreeing like adults we demonize them like idiots (Trump is Hitler! - No......) so I try to never do that - but it's like I said before, to me, you can't out-argue what is presented in Leaving Neverland with the trappings of adulthood - parental complicity, court cases, statute of limitations, money........it doesn't equate. The truth as presented in Finding Neverland is somewhere else in childhood (theirs) and an arrested childhood (his).............and as I've said in the other thread I think it's one of the most devastating documentaries ever made and it's long-term effect will be seismic - it's too soon now to even see it playing out imo. As always...........ymmv. Never thought you of all people were this guilliable or lacking in intellectual rigour. Leaving Neverland is about as devastating as a wet fart. As a documentary, as Pelle said, it's fucking awful and designed to seduce simpletons, idiots and the unquestioning. And those who had already considered him guilty. Some people desperately wanted it to be "devastating", particularly the blatantly corrupt old media for whom "Wacko Jacko" headlines and stories (real and false)have literally generated billions of dollars over the years. It's a cottage industry. That Peter Pan shit doesn't sell. Not salacious enough. The documentary failed, because old media simply can't give two proven liars a platform, have Oprah give a seal of approval and expect everyone to go along with it. It was a fatal miscalculation that in the era of #metoo, where we are supposed to "believe all victims" and the burden of evidence/proof is actually very small, that they could get away with this travesty. Maybe before the era of the internet, but there's simply too much information out there to debunk this "documentary" and those two money hungry dudes giving testimonials (that were already thrown out of court, and have changed several times). Jackson isn't getting muted or cancelled or whatever the heck the outcome was suppposed to produce. Those that always thought the was a freaky peado (and many felt that way before that shitty documentary)will continue to think so, but with no concrete evidence, DJ's will keep blasting "Thriller" in the club and he'll almost certainly remain the world's richest dead entertainer for years to come. His estate said not a single one of their licensing partners called to express concern or try to cancel their licensing agreement. I do think there will be an impact, but not quite the one you expected. As this joke of a film keeps being debunked (Reed has already cut out 45 minutes of footage proven to be contradictory or untrue between the US and UK premiere), I think there will be a push to change the defamation laws, so the dead can have some measure of protection. Because every single person involved in this film would be sued into oblivion and lose, if Jackson were alive. And I think co-signing this thing is probably going to end up being the single biggest mistake of Oprah's career. Calls into question her credibility and integrity (right after Jackson died, she was let into the home of Jackson's mother and kids to share warm hugs with them and celebrate his memory. Now she's pissing on his grave, she looks like someone who will do anything for money and ratings. Her brand has taken a big hit, imho). The way you keep calling his 2 victims "proven liars" is DISGUSTING. You should be ashamed of yourself!! NOTHING has been proven, one way or the other. But I question the discerning abilities of anyone who watches the 4-hour documentary and thinks they're lying. I doubt any child psychiatrist worth a salt would disbelieve them. As for Jackson's legacy taking a hit: GIVE.IT.TIME. This astonishing documentary is not being forgotten any time soon, and his reckoning WILL come. More voices will speak out, I'm sure. You're gonna really regret these heartless & sickly cynical posts. |
|
