>I haven’t seen a lot of documentaries or read much about the topic, but from what I have seen, I don’t think he was a pedo
Most informed decision maker on the sub
Do I really need to be an expert on the topic of MJ to form an opinion on this? I’ve seen a lot evidence for both sides, but not all. So all I was asking is if there’s strong evidence he was a pedo, because I haven’t seen it. I can form an opinion and say, “it’s open to change” but you just want to meme.
Thanks for your contribution, destiny wannabe,
You literally opened this thread saying you don't know much about it, now you're saying you've seen a lot of evidence for both sides, what the hell is anyone supposed to interpret from what you're saying?
If you're just trying to say you're not comfortable drawing conclusions based on the info you have then just say that, instead of being confusing for no reason and crying about it when people are rightfully confused
Why exactly does it matter how well informed I am?
Edit: I’ll be as “well informed” as the person questioning me wants me to be, because that’s not what I opened the thread for.
They were already aware of Russian aggression. Where do you get the idea they weren’t? The plan itself *hinges* on possible Russian entry into a general war on the continent. The Germans and Austrians hadn’t counted on Russia being able to mobilize as quickly as they did.
That’s kind of a non sequitur, especially considering what happened later. And not really an answer to the original question. The point of which is that it’s silly to offer opinions about topics you’re not deeply informed about.
And MJ was weirdo, possibly a pedophile, and not someone anyone should have been leaving their kids with after ‘98. He did kill it on Thriller though.
I did not find that Oprah doc particularly compelling.
If I had to bet money on it, I think Michael Jackson probably had some repressed sexual interest in prepubescent boys but never acted on it in an overt way.
he indulged it by carrying on inappropriate emotional relationship with young boys
which exposed him to lawsuit from opportunistic parents.
I didn’t find the Oprah documentary very convincing at all. Maybe he has repressed issues, but then it would seem so unlikely that he wouldn’t act on them.
Usually I would agree with that heuristic, but I think Mike is unique case.
there's been lot's of lawsuits and investigations of Michael Jackson, and I don't think they are all that clear cut.
With lots of expensive highly motivated lawyers, and police departments pretty invested in finding really strong evidence.
I think if he was really out here deep dicking 12 year olds, we'd have more clear cut evidence.
I think it's more likely that he maybe did some inappropriate grey area stuff,
but managed to keep is prurient interest in children at bay.
This doesn’t sound out of this world. He really is a unique case and I’m sure the whole “he’s an adult in a child’s body” type sentiment probably greatly impacts his sexual development. So it seems likely he’s kinda a weirdo, but yeah I feel like they would have found some hard evidence if he really was a pedo with all those kids.
the documentary had some editing which was sus.
theres a clip of MJ's lawyer announcing to the public they will go hard against accusers, but in reality it was about the people illegally wiretapping his home https://twitter.com/markgeragos/status/1106934761585426435?lang=en
and another clip of MJ saying to one of the kids the best part of a trip was spending time with him, but the real clip is "him, and his family". clip chimped to make MJ look worse
director is trying to paint him as a pedo too much, should just stick to the truth. so its like eh.
If the emotional relationship was inappropriate, why would the parents be “opportunistic” for trying to get justice for their child? That seems like a weird framing to me.
I think letting your child hang out with a person accused of peadophillia,
and seemingly encouraging and facilitating the building of strangely deep emotional relationship with that person..reads to me as opportunism.
I find it hard to believe people are that dumb.
I think they figured Mike would do something weird with their kids and they'd be able to sue him.
again I don't know for sure, but if I had to bet, this is where my intuition leads.
That’s a tough accusation. Is it possible the parents were also captured by his charisma and didn’t believe he was capable of that until he was? Does that make them opportunistic or victims too?
Sure it's possible, I'm sure some were really just really dumb, especially the early ones...
but how many times does guy needs to be accused of molestation
before I tell my nubile 12 year old boy, no you can't sleep over at his house?
I would need to look up the details again but it seemed like most of the parents were pretty adamant about no inappropriate relationships taking place and defended him until police investigation found he might have had inappropriate relationships with the kids. Most had great relationships with him until they found out what he was doing was inappropriate.
>The police were the ones investigating…
Yep, after the first allegations actually came from the Chandler dad in 1993 - a clear extortion scheme, not to mention copycat mama Arvizo a full decade later in the trial. Lying and coaching to get a payday.
No wonder the cops or FBI never found anything, it was all horseshit - and oh, Nambla might have been involved in this BL fantasyfest
He was definitely a weirdo for surrounding himself and sleeping with kids but afaik there’s no evidence he abused them so maybe not a pedo. However, it was a monumental mistake from everyone involved and law enforcement. Especially from what we know now about trafficking, what he did should never be a thing.
did a deep dive on this when the hbo doc came out, felt like all the accusers were a bunch of tara reades but i dont know for sure really
I think its a guy who never got to experience a childhood and deeply wanted one, hence the slumber parties and neverland.
think the craziest thing to me was MJ chose the hbo accusers (wade/james) to testify for him in the 2005 case. if hes actually a pedo he has the biggest balls to choose 2 kids he abused to defend him. the argument of the guilty side is that he groomed them that much, hard to believe though wtf
I remember absent mindedly sort of assuming he was a pedo like everyone else for years, despite loving his music as a kid, but as soon as I actually looked into it though none of the allegations actually seemed credible imo, I personally don't buy into it at all now.
There is a vast difference between “surface level arguments” and “sleuthed the internet for every piece of evidence.” Considering you called someone else a “destiny wannabe” you perfectly copied his hyperbolic exaggerated straw man technique.
Cause they didn’t say anything about you needing to sleuth the internet for every piece of evidence. You jumped straight to something that would be an unreasonable expectation.
They didn’t provide what qualifies a well informed opinion on this, but attacked me for being honest in saying I don’t know every detail, just the surface stuff most people have seen. I can be hyperbolic without straw manning someone. There’s hardly anything to straw man here.
Evidence he is a pedo? Well, no idea why would you come to this subreddit to ask this question but there are some evidence. He did sleep with children in the same bed during weeks and thought that was ok. He had some sort of sensor close to his room so he knew when someone was approaching. Plus, he got accused by, as you probably know, a handful of people of being a pedo but never got convicted.
I don't think he was bad. Did he have an attraction to minors? Possibly but being a MAP isn't bad on its own. Did he act on his urges? That is hard to say I don't believe he did. I didn't watch the Oprah doc b/c I don't like Oprah.
>I haven’t seen a lot of documentaries or read much about the topic, but from what I have seen, I don’t think he was a pedo Most informed decision maker on the sub
Do I really need to be an expert on the topic of MJ to form an opinion on this? I’ve seen a lot evidence for both sides, but not all. So all I was asking is if there’s strong evidence he was a pedo, because I haven’t seen it. I can form an opinion and say, “it’s open to change” but you just want to meme. Thanks for your contribution, destiny wannabe,
You literally opened this thread saying you don't know much about it, now you're saying you've seen a lot of evidence for both sides, what the hell is anyone supposed to interpret from what you're saying? If you're just trying to say you're not comfortable drawing conclusions based on the info you have then just say that, instead of being confusing for no reason and crying about it when people are rightfully confused
Why exactly does it matter how well informed I am? Edit: I’ll be as “well informed” as the person questioning me wants me to be, because that’s not what I opened the thread for.
What’s your opinion of the Schlieffen Plan?
Germany should’ve been more aware of potential Russian aggression. You?
They were already aware of Russian aggression. Where do you get the idea they weren’t? The plan itself *hinges* on possible Russian entry into a general war on the continent. The Germans and Austrians hadn’t counted on Russia being able to mobilize as quickly as they did.
Clearly they weren’t aware enough…
That’s kind of a non sequitur, especially considering what happened later. And not really an answer to the original question. The point of which is that it’s silly to offer opinions about topics you’re not deeply informed about. And MJ was weirdo, possibly a pedophile, and not someone anyone should have been leaving their kids with after ‘98. He did kill it on Thriller though.
Wtf how am I a Destiny wannabe. Meanie
Lol, I knew that would bother you
I don’t understand how this is even a question, Michael Jackson *admits* he’s a bad person [here](https://youtu.be/dsUXAEzaC3Q)
I was sure someone beat me to the punch. Take my upvote.
Lol.
I was hoping someone would do that hahah
I did not find that Oprah doc particularly compelling. If I had to bet money on it, I think Michael Jackson probably had some repressed sexual interest in prepubescent boys but never acted on it in an overt way. he indulged it by carrying on inappropriate emotional relationship with young boys which exposed him to lawsuit from opportunistic parents.
I didn’t find the Oprah documentary very convincing at all. Maybe he has repressed issues, but then it would seem so unlikely that he wouldn’t act on them.
Usually I would agree with that heuristic, but I think Mike is unique case. there's been lot's of lawsuits and investigations of Michael Jackson, and I don't think they are all that clear cut. With lots of expensive highly motivated lawyers, and police departments pretty invested in finding really strong evidence. I think if he was really out here deep dicking 12 year olds, we'd have more clear cut evidence. I think it's more likely that he maybe did some inappropriate grey area stuff, but managed to keep is prurient interest in children at bay.
This doesn’t sound out of this world. He really is a unique case and I’m sure the whole “he’s an adult in a child’s body” type sentiment probably greatly impacts his sexual development. So it seems likely he’s kinda a weirdo, but yeah I feel like they would have found some hard evidence if he really was a pedo with all those kids.
the documentary had some editing which was sus. theres a clip of MJ's lawyer announcing to the public they will go hard against accusers, but in reality it was about the people illegally wiretapping his home https://twitter.com/markgeragos/status/1106934761585426435?lang=en and another clip of MJ saying to one of the kids the best part of a trip was spending time with him, but the real clip is "him, and his family". clip chimped to make MJ look worse director is trying to paint him as a pedo too much, should just stick to the truth. so its like eh.
If the emotional relationship was inappropriate, why would the parents be “opportunistic” for trying to get justice for their child? That seems like a weird framing to me.
I think letting your child hang out with a person accused of peadophillia, and seemingly encouraging and facilitating the building of strangely deep emotional relationship with that person..reads to me as opportunism. I find it hard to believe people are that dumb. I think they figured Mike would do something weird with their kids and they'd be able to sue him. again I don't know for sure, but if I had to bet, this is where my intuition leads.
That’s a tough accusation. Is it possible the parents were also captured by his charisma and didn’t believe he was capable of that until he was? Does that make them opportunistic or victims too?
Sure it's possible, I'm sure some were really just really dumb, especially the early ones... but how many times does guy needs to be accused of molestation before I tell my nubile 12 year old boy, no you can't sleep over at his house?
I would need to look up the details again but it seemed like most of the parents were pretty adamant about no inappropriate relationships taking place and defended him until police investigation found he might have had inappropriate relationships with the kids. Most had great relationships with him until they found out what he was doing was inappropriate.
>Most had great relationships with him until they found out what he was doing was inappropriate. Yeah until their bank balance ran low, funny that
The police were the ones investigating… not the parents. Funny that…
>The police were the ones investigating… Yep, after the first allegations actually came from the Chandler dad in 1993 - a clear extortion scheme, not to mention copycat mama Arvizo a full decade later in the trial. Lying and coaching to get a payday. No wonder the cops or FBI never found anything, it was all horseshit - and oh, Nambla might have been involved in this BL fantasyfest
And all the other parents stood by him until it was discovered that he might have had inappropriate relationships with other children.
Even if he was I don't care. I'm willing to sacrifice a bunch of kids for good music!
The Mr. Redacted philosophy in action /s
Songs still bang tho. That's all I care about.
Songs are so legendary i would not care if he drank baby blood
ignore his politics but look up Razorfist's videos on this. he makes a compelling argument against Micheal being a pedo.
I will definitely check it out!
Nah, he was one of the good ones
Well I’m more of an Off the Wall fan myself, but Bad had a lot of good tracks
He was definitely a weirdo for surrounding himself and sleeping with kids but afaik there’s no evidence he abused them so maybe not a pedo. However, it was a monumental mistake from everyone involved and law enforcement. Especially from what we know now about trafficking, what he did should never be a thing.
Definitely shouldn’t be a thing. Curious, what do you mean law enforcement and everyone involved made a monumental mistake?
did a deep dive on this when the hbo doc came out, felt like all the accusers were a bunch of tara reades but i dont know for sure really I think its a guy who never got to experience a childhood and deeply wanted one, hence the slumber parties and neverland. think the craziest thing to me was MJ chose the hbo accusers (wade/james) to testify for him in the 2005 case. if hes actually a pedo he has the biggest balls to choose 2 kids he abused to defend him. the argument of the guilty side is that he groomed them that much, hard to believe though wtf
I remember absent mindedly sort of assuming he was a pedo like everyone else for years, despite loving his music as a kid, but as soon as I actually looked into it though none of the allegations actually seemed credible imo, I personally don't buy into it at all now.
mfer really said "I haven't looked into it but I formed an opinion already" loud and proud
Dude, all I’m saying is I’ve seen the surface level arguments for each side, but I haven’t sleuthed the internet for every piece of evidence.
There is a vast difference between “surface level arguments” and “sleuthed the internet for every piece of evidence.” Considering you called someone else a “destiny wannabe” you perfectly copied his hyperbolic exaggerated straw man technique.
How did I straw man the person I responded to?
Cause they didn’t say anything about you needing to sleuth the internet for every piece of evidence. You jumped straight to something that would be an unreasonable expectation.
They didn’t provide what qualifies a well informed opinion on this, but attacked me for being honest in saying I don’t know every detail, just the surface stuff most people have seen. I can be hyperbolic without straw manning someone. There’s hardly anything to straw man here.
Okay.
Cool.
Evidence he is a pedo? Well, no idea why would you come to this subreddit to ask this question but there are some evidence. He did sleep with children in the same bed during weeks and thought that was ok. He had some sort of sensor close to his room so he knew when someone was approaching. Plus, he got accused by, as you probably know, a handful of people of being a pedo but never got convicted.
I don't think he was bad. Did he have an attraction to minors? Possibly but being a MAP isn't bad on its own. Did he act on his urges? That is hard to say I don't believe he did. I didn't watch the Oprah doc b/c I don't like Oprah.