Poll of the Day > lol why are people so quick to defend Michael Jackson?

(+) Yeah! (+)

Like sure "muh phony testimonies" but they act like the dude was a saint. Dude was found to have a fuck ton of child porn!

Remember when he dangled his kid over that balcony
---

I dont think he was found to have a bunch of child porn

MICHALECOLE posted...

I dont think he was found to have a bunch of child porn

I dunno man Ive heard people say it on the internet
---

MICHALECOLE posted...

I dont think he was found to have a bunch of child porn

This.
---

I think it's because so many people are just sick of hearing the accusations and trials and everything and just want to enjoy his music/dancing without having to worry about if they're supporting a pedo or not.
---

Mead posted...

Remember when he dangled his kid over that balcony

I wasn't hearing you call him legendary
---

A better question might be, why are people so quick to condemn Michael Jackson?

It's not as if any of us really know what the fuck was going on, and he's dead now so it's not as if you can even use "Well, we have to keep him away from any more kids" as justification.

The more you read about what was actually going on in his life things get murky as fuck. It's never as cut-and-dried as most people like to think it is. And it's not like any of us were there, or will ever see definitive evidence to prove what really happened. So why pick that to be the hill you want to die on, one way or the other?
---

faramir77 posted...

Mead posted...

Remember when he dangled his kid over that balcony

I wasn't hearing you call him legendary

do what now?
---

Mead posted...

faramir77 posted...

Mead posted...

Remember when he dangled his kid over that balcony

I wasn't hearing you call him legendary

do what now?

I thought you were quoting the song "Michael Jackson is dead" by Jon LaJoie.
---

First, I think he should have been kept away from children for sure, but I never once heard any official report (and there sure would have been one) that he had any kind of child porn at all.

As to why he is condemned, he admitted to sleeping naked with kids in his bed. If I was a parent I would condemn someone for that (and I do basically state he should not have been allowed near any kids after that point...which basically means being put on a sex offenders list).

That being said, I did not get a feeling he was a selfish person, not from anything I saw, and I consider pedophiles (that actually molest kids) extremely selfish. It's the equivalent of a straight guy raping a girl cause he finds them attractive. When I was younger I had a healthy sex drive, but I never once considering raping a girl, heck I only asked a girl to have sex directly once (obviously before getting married) and I won the 19 year old virgin lottery and she said yes.

If Micheal was a pedo, he was mentally unstable and just didn't realize what he was doing is wrong. That does not excuse him, but I would say it seperates him from most of them, and we don't even know if he actually did anything other then sleep with the kids (which was bad enough, but at least you can semi understand why he might have thought that was ok....due to not living a normal life and understanding the world we live in today).

He was an amazing artist though, and many still love him for that, and feel there was never enough evidence of actual wrong doing, or damage that he did, to erase the music he created etc.

At this point, I find what he has done far less heinous then other musicians or actors have done and gotten away with (some of whom are even alive still today). He had problems, should not have been left alone around kids, and really needed someone to step in and tell him when things were just plain horrible ideas, but I don't think he was a monster.
---

TC should just Beat It.
---

Because he's talented and most people liked him well before the accusations became mainstream, not to mention that there are still significant doubts about whether he did the things he was accused of in some cases and whether he was motivated by pedophilia.

ParanoidObsessive posted...

A better question might be, why are people so quick to condemn Michael Jackson?

Because people love to see celebrities fall, especially when they feel the celebrity is overrated. And I wouldn't be surprised if racism was partly to blame.
---

product of a fucked up childhood. seemed to be living in constant mental torture, looking for an escape. I probably wouldnt go as far as to defend the poor bastard tho

---

A lot of people, including me, think he was kinda weird but not a child molester
---

Muscles posted...

A lot of people, including me, think he was kinda weird but not a child molester

Either he was or he wasnt

Belief isnt gonna change what happened
---

Mead posted...

Muscles posted...

A lot of people, including me, think he was kinda weird but not a child molester

Either he was or he wasnt

Belief isnt gonna change what happened

But we don't know for certain so all we have is belief
---

That's ignant y'all ignant
---

I feel like he was innocent but just like with r Kelly why aren't the parents being blamed idc if you're the queen of England im not leaving you alone with my kid

---

Mead posted...

Muscles posted...

A lot of people, including me, think he was kinda weird but not a child molester

Either he was or he wasnt

Belief isnt gonna change what happened

Well, that's also sort of the issue. A lot of people can't separate the man from his music or anything of the sort. If he was then they'd say you can't enjoy his music and must be a terrible person if you do. Needless to say this causes a lot of problems because the option of 'yes he was but I still like his music' becomes invalid. Meaning you either like his music and think he wasn't guilty or you think he was guilty and hate his music as a result. No neutral ground.

I've sort of become dispondent whenever people say I should hate someone for something they did in their personal life. A lot of people did things that weren't perfect and that we would probably consider 'terrible' but that shouldn't affect if I approve or disapprove of their work.
---

it's almost as if some people want proof before they condemn someone
---

Muscles posted...

Mead posted...

Muscles posted...

A lot of people, including me, think he was kinda weird but not a child molester

Either he was or he wasnt

Belief isnt gonna change what happened

But we don't know for certain so all we have is belief

Mead must be confused, since you just said he wasn't. Your statement was pretty clear.

afrodude77 posted...

I feel like he was innocent but just like with r Kelly why aren't the parents being blamed idc if you're the queen of England im not leaving you alone with my kid

Uhhhhh... we know R Kelly did what he did because he recorded himself doing it.

Unbridled9 posted...

Well, that's also sort of the issue. A lot of people can't separate the man from his music or anything of the sort. If he was then they'd say you can't enjoy his music and must be a terrible person if you do. Needless to say this causes a lot of problems because the option of 'yes he was but I still like his music' becomes invalid. Meaning you either like his music and think he wasn't guilty or you think he was guilty and hate his music as a result. No neutral ground.

That's more of an R Kelly issue than a MJ issue because, again, we conclusively know that R Kelly did what he was said to have done.
---

Slept with little boys boys, check

Even if he didn't molest him, that's creepy enough.

Even if that one dad "hypnotized" his kid into admitting that he was molested. Yeah right

---

He made Thriller...

Noooo stop you're all being ignorant. That's ignorant.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=clsY425pI30
---

All I know is that when he passed, a group of people showed up at Disneyland wanting Captain Eo back.

Disney granted their wishes and it returned.

That's right, Disney people
---

Guy died like 10 years ago.
I never understood celebrity worship. If you want to judge someone for being a child predator we have plenty alive in our government.
---

why do people keep overlooking the fact that Michael Jackson didn't really get to have much of a childhood and as such could only make up for it in his adulthood?

that's always the downside of becoming famous when you are just a kid

you never really get to be a kid and instead just get to be a walking bag of money for whoever is managing you
---

I separate the person from the artist.

Dude was the king of pop. His music is legendary.
---

NightMareBunny posted...

why do people keep overlooking the fact that Michael Jackson didn't really get to have much of a childhood and as such could only make up for it in his adulthood?

If this argument was made in court on behalf of an ordinary defendant who didn't have Jackson's celebrity status, popularity, or talent as an entertainer, then far fewer people would accept it as a valid defence.

Here's the thing. People are prepared to give Jackson the benefit of the doubt mainly because they enjoy and respect his work; they're allowing their opinion of him as an entertainer to colour their judgement of him as a person. The truth is, they would not extend that same benefit of the doubt to someone else they didn't know. I'm not saying it's wrong to consider how Jackson's own childhood might have damaged him and warped his perspective and behaviour as an adult; but I am saying it's wrong to make a special case of him just because he's Michael Jackson.
---

Dude was acquitted of all charges in 2005, and that trash "documentary" that came out earlier this year is full of verifiable falsehoods. Better question would be "why are people so desperate to convince the world that Michael Jackson was a pedophile?" The only evidence that exists points to him being a bit of a weirdo, but nothing more.

---

Pulling the simpsons episode is silly.
Give people the option to watch it or not, if someone is so bothered by Michael Jackson then they can just skip it.

Some article about it was even trying to say the lyrics to "lisa its birthday" is troubling in light of the documentary.

How the fuck is any of the lyrics troubling?

---

^
he didn't even sing the song (he wasn't allowed to)
---

Firewerx posted...

NightMareBunny posted...

why do people keep overlooking the fact that Michael Jackson didn't really get to have much of a childhood and as such could only make up for it in his adulthood?

If this argument was made in court on behalf of an ordinary defendant who didn't have Jackson's celebrity status, popularity, or talent as an entertainer, then far fewer people would accept it as a valid defence.

Here's the thing. People are prepared to give Jackson the benefit of the doubt mainly because they enjoy and respect his work; they're allowing their opinion of him as an entertainer to colour their judgement of him as a person. The truth is, they would not extend that same benefit of the doubt to someone else they didn't know. I'm not saying it's wrong to consider how Jackson's own childhood might have damaged him and warped his perspective and behaviour as an adult; but I am saying it's wrong to make a special case of him just because he's Michael Jackson.

I mean, because hes a celebrity, it is easier for people to see and know that he didnt really get a childhood as compared to a random person they know nothing about. That being said, I think they do use t for regular people, but not on its own. I think it usually ties in for people with different mental conditions. I think...
---

Whargarble posted...

Dude was acquitted of all charges in 2005, and that trash "documentary" that came out earlier this year is full of verifiable falsehoods. Better question would be "why are people so desperate to convince the world that Michael Jackson was a pedophile?" The only evidence that exists points to him being a bit of a weirdo, but nothing more.

I have no idea why this becomes an issue again long after his death.....that documentary coming out when it did should have been enough confirmation that it was all a cheap farce to try and drum up sympathy so they could shake down the Jackson estate for cash
---

Because he was innocent and a very talented and wonderful man.
---

Jackson was just weird due to a very shit childhood, he did nothing wrong.
---

I don't believe he had sexual interest in children. What he did was fucked up, but he was fucked up, just look at his face.

South park probably gave a fairly accurate representation of who he was.

BlackScythe0 posted...

I don't believe he had sexual interest in children.

I don't believe that Jackson's interest in children was primarily sexual. I think he felt he could only relate properly to children, and struggled to engage with adults unless it was directly connected with work. I suspect that above all, he wanted to be a child.

Jackson's problem was that his judgement was questionable, he failed to consider consequences, and his status and wealth allowed him to cross boundaries that would have stopped ordinary people. That's a dangerous combination when you surround yourself with people who are never going to tell you, "No Michael, that's a bad idea."
---

Gandhi should be condemned too. He slept naked with minors. He also basically forced everyone he met to have an enema.

Raddest_Chad posted...

Gandhi should be condemned too... He also basically forced everyone he met to have an enema.

The old Gujarati prankster.
---

Firewerx posted...

Here's the thing. People are prepared to give Jackson the benefit of the doubt mainly because they enjoy and respect his work; they're allowing their opinion of him as an entertainer to colour their judgement of him as a person. The truth is, they would not extend that same benefit of the doubt to someone else they didn't know. I'm not saying it's wrong to consider how Jackson's own childhood might have damaged him and warped his perspective and behaviour as an adult; but I am saying it's wrong to make a special case of him just because he's Michael Jackson.

...he's a public figure, so people feel like they know enough one way or another. You don't have to be a renowned artist to get that kind of perception. That said, a lot of the claims exist solely BECAUSE of his celebrity status. Hell, the criminal trial -- which was the *only* non-civil case brought against him -- resulted from his documentary.
---

Because:

1) First kids, who went after him for money, admitted that it was a lie after his death.

2) Second kids, which got picked up by law enforcement so they didnt have a chance to sue for money like the first kids, were found to be lying while on the stand.

3) Macauley Culkin, and countless others(including the ones who were in the new documentary) said he never did anything like that.

4) He was a man in age but he was a child at heart. He tried to recapture the youth he had lost to touring and shit. Nevertheless, hanging out with children put him at risk for these kinds of attacks.
---