THESE FORUMS NOW CLOSED (read only)
Fun Stuff => CHATTER => Topic started by: Ozymandias on 25 Jun 2009, 15:40
-
Like, holy crap. (http://www.cnn.com/2009/SHOWBIZ/Music/06/25/michael.jackson/index.html)
-
FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF
-
holy shit
-
He's been dead for a long time.
-
fuuuuu--
holy shit.
--uuuuck
sorry ozy
-
I hate it when famous people that much younger than me die. It makes me feel insecure.
-
Farrah Fawcett died today (http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jbnkPqBpepIbGtRD4zw0WKiHwkmwD991U1HO0), too.
Not a good day to be famous.
-
how long before an alleged victim of his abuse comes out with a tell-all book?
-
Guys, honestly, he was gone too soon and even though I know it's human nature, please keep the joking about it to a minimum because it's really, really bad.
-
Guys, can we really avoid making jokes about his death at least for a while. Please.
Also can we please try and remember all the really great things he's done musically and charity wise, instead of an accusation that was never proven in the end(no debates about this please, he could have done it, he could have not)
-
Guys, honestly, he was gone too soon and even though I know it's human nature, please keep the joking about it to a minimum because it's really, really bad.
Really, really bad!
-
It is pretty sad. I also feel bad that his legacy is for allegedly molesting children, which is unfair to him seeing as how there was no solid proof that he molested any children. However, there is plenty of proof of him helping needy families and their children the world over. He will be missed.
-
Guys, honestly, he was gone too soon and even though I know it's human nature, please keep the joking about it to a minimum because it's really, really bad.
Really, really bad!
-
Hey how about that election in Iran that CNN isn't covering anymore!
Also he's #3: McMahon, Fawcett, Jackson.
-
Not much else to say, other than :-(
-
He made a lot of songs. I enjoyed several of them.
-
Bad, so bad.
Come on.
-
The way you post in this thread will scaffold the way people post in the relative thread about you. Birthday threads for forumites may be out, but consider the alternative.
-
And the whole world has to answer right now just to tell you once again,
Who's bad?
-
And the whole world has to answer right now just to tell you once again,
Who's bad?
Because I'm Bad, I'm Bad-
Come On
-
Really really bad!
-
(http://photos-e.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc1/hs092.snc1/4942_1164082616731_1067820001_510084_2722068_n.jpg)
-
I'll cross-post from the Music forum.
Dude made some good pop music. Then he sharply declined. It's telling that you'll probably only see photos of his younger self in obits - his elder self, if not a child molester, was obviously mentally ill and a tragic figure more than anything.
Good records, though.
Honestly I'd just like to point out that the "respect" rule is kind of ridiculous. We shouldn't be canonizing anyone when they die. The dead deserve better than that. They were human beings, not selfless paragons whose very presence was a boon to the lives of everyone around them. A period of mourning is a time to reflect on good things (like great commercial and artistic success, and the adoration of millions received) and bad things (like inappropriate conduct with children, mental illness, and career ruination) because who they were in life on the day they die is no different from who they were in life after a year in the ground - when you die there shouldn't be some ultimate choice between your being a saint or devil. We can know that Ghandi was a great peacemaker and still acknowledge that he was such a terrible, neglectful father that it drove his son to suicide. We can know that King was a master orator and champion of the oppressed and still acknowledge that he was an adulterer. Michael Jackson, less of a figure than either of those two, made good pop records that a lot of people really loved and cherished, and yet he had deep psychological problems that made a functional life impossible, problems from which he could never escape. Some people might hold scorn for him for that, which is their right, but I think it's just sad.
A degree of respect must be maintained in public in consideration for loved ones, but this is more or less a private forum and no one's getting hurt, unless you believe in spirits of the dead, and I don't.
-
Ahem...
(http://artsblog.freedomblogging.com/files/2009/01/thriller2.jpg)
-
I'll cross-post from the Music forum.
Dude made some good pop music. Then he sharply declined. It's telling that you'll probably only see photos of his younger self in obits - his elder self, if not a child molester, was obviously mentally ill and a tragic figure more than anything.
Good records, though.
Honestly I'd just like to point out that the "respect" rule is kind of ridiculous. We shouldn't be canonizing anyone when they die. The dead deserve better than that. They were human beings, not selfless paragons whose very presence was a boon to the lives of everyone around them. A period of mourning is a time to reflect on good things (like great commercial and artistic success, and the adoration of millions received) and bad things (like inappropriate conduct with children, mental illness, and career ruination) because who they were in life on the day they die is no different from who they were in life after a year in the ground - when you die there shouldn't be some ultimate choice between your being a saint or devil. We can know that Ghandi was a great peacemaker and still acknowledge that he was such a terrible, neglectful father that it drove his son to suicide. We can know that King was a master orator and champion of the oppressed and still acknowledge that he was an adulterer. Michael Jackson, less of a figure than either of those two, made good pop records that a lot of people really loved and cherished, and yet he had deep psychological problems that made a functional life impossible, problems from which he could never escape. Some people might hold scorn for him for that, which is their right, but I think it's just sad.
A degree of respect must be maintained in public in consideration for loved ones, but this is more or less a private forum and no one's getting hurt, unless you believe in spirits of the dead, and I don't.
That might all be true but from now on when I do the crotch grab it will be in memory of MJ.
-
Sucks, honestly. I just danced the thriller two days ago.
-
I totally remember rocking out to Black or White when it was coming on regularly on VH1.
-
I know I'll be digging up my copy of this, but who remembers this fondly?
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/0/0b/Smoothcriminal7.jpg)
-
forget the movie, how bout the game?
(http://www.seganerds.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/12/sega-genesis-michael-jackson-moonwalker.jpg)
i played it when i had sega channel. it was pretty damn good.
-
I only ever played the Master System version of it, but if that was anything to go by, the Megadrive one would be just as fucking sweet.
-
The word is out, that you're in the wrong.
Gonna lock you up!
-
Michael Jackson's upcoming London dates have been canceled. They were James (aged 9) and Thomas (aged 11).
Seriously though it is a shame he died. I'd always hoped that one day he was going to knock out something Thriller-esque again, but alas, no redemption for MJ.
-
Some guy came in to work and told me, then ordered a Shrimp Tempura Roll and an Eel and Cucumber. I didn't believe cause he smelled like he was high.
-
Michael Jackson's upcoming London dates have been canceled. They were James (aged 9) and Thomas (aged 11).
BOO! Get off the stage!
-
There is no humour to be derived from a man's death. End of debate.
-
Michael Jackson's upcoming London dates have been canceled. They were James (aged 9) and Thomas (aged 11).
BOO! Get off the stage!
Your jokes are bad and you should feel bad!
-
Okay okay okay, guys, here's what we're going to do.
Ahem, I said YOUR ATTENTION PLEASE.
We have two threads on this topic. One is this one right here, and the other one is in the music sub-forum: http://forums.questionablecontent.net/index.php/topic,23360.0.html (http://forums.questionablecontent.net/index.php/topic,23360.0.html).
Instead of locking one of the threads, here's what's going to happen: all jokes and snarky comments and other things of a questionable nature relating to Mr. Jackson's untimely death are to be posted in the music sub-forum thread.
All messages of genuine sorrow and grief and shock and surprise and just generally "the serious stuff" are to go here.
Let's see how that works out, eh?
-
I've been hearing all day that he's dead and then he's not really dead, he just went into cardiac arrest but is ok. What is it?? I are confused!
-
Aye, I apologise for that, I don't know what came over me. It was a stupid comment to make and I regret making it.
Just been informed this by a friend on Twitter: according to MSNBC, he re-wrote his will in January, giving those Beatles songs he had the rights for back to Paul McCartney. That's a pretty classy move, considering the shit-storm people(?) kicked up over the whole thing when it happened. Said friend is still trying to find the link. I just hope he isn't remembered by the majority for the batshit stuff he got up to, and more the excellent music he did. Sadly I think people born in the mid-90's onwards are just going to know him as this crazy guy who went to court over some shady activities with children, that's the real downer.
-
all jokes and snarky comments and other things of a questionable nature relating to Mr. Jackson's untimely death are to be posted in the music sub-forum thread.
This is a really bad idea which I have duly derailed by giving my answer in the other thread.
-
Replied, with respect.
-
If it makes you feel any better I also laughed out loud.
Han told me about this earlier this morning while I was sleeping in. My reaction was something like "oh, that's weird" and then I went back to sleep. He was a really great performer who turned into a creepy douchebag at some point. I am not saying that he deserved to die or anything as malicious as that, I guess I am just saying that I don't really care.
-
I guess nobody even got it in the first place. The point being, I laughed at something that was funny.
Did. None the less, at the very least there is a time and place for restraint.
-
I found it tasteful. The distinction to be made is that it was not humour derived from his death. There is no good humour to be derived from a man's death.
-
I found it tasteful. The distinction to be made is that it was not humour derived from his death. There is no good humour to be derived from a man's death.
You sure?
I would suggest that whilst someone's death will predominantly provoke feelings of sadness, it can still be viewed in a humourous light particularly if that humour allows people to better deal with death. There's nothing wrong with a bit of banter is there?
-
"nuh uh" probably would have been a better response.
-
Yeah... MJ just knocked everyone's stories off the front page. I'm currently doing background research for a story about a local MJ impersonator, who announced this morning that he'll be doing a tribute show. :|
-
There's got to be a fraudulent bid in there somewhere. There is no way someone who somehow earned ten million pounds would think those are worth ten million pounds. I mean, there have got to be plenty of those tickets floating around. If each ticket was worth three million pounds this'd be nuts.
-
Somehow, cardiac arrest just doesn't seem fitting, middle aged bankers die of cardiac arrest. I was expecting something like a freak Ferris wheel accident or something along those lines.
-
Interestingly, it's easier to crack jokes about comedian entertainers' deaths, as somehow justified by John Cleese's eulogy for Graham Chapman.
I suppose in the end making jokes about it all falls down to the type of person who died.
-
There's got to be a fraudulent bid in there somewhere. There is no way someone who somehow earned ten million pounds would think those are worth ten million pounds. I mean, there have got to be plenty of those tickets floating around. If each ticket was worth three million pounds this'd be nuts.
This is the same internet that buys and sells cornflakes in singular for several thousand dollars, mind. Granted there's quite a jump, but there have been few entertainers as massively popular as Michael Jackson, and most of those tickets were probably discarded when the audience left the building., so there can't be many left.
But they are for a show that hasn't happened yet! They went on ebay before he died! There have got to be plenty of these things still around, and I'd like to think anyone with that much money to blow would understand the massive supply out there.
Congrats to the lucky seller if not.
-
That eBay auction just has to be fake. Even if one person put in a max bid of £10,000,000, why would a second person bid him up to it when there are other active auctions for tickets the same night (e.g. two buy-it-now £900)?
-
Just reading about him after his death has made me realize how much more there was to him other than the messed-up parts. R.I.P. Michael Jackson.
-
Sadly I think people born in the mid-90's onwards are just going to know him as this crazy guy who went to court over some shady activities with children, that's the real downer.
This. To me, he's that guy who made Thriller and hung around 10-year-olds. Still, great music. This marks an end of a period in pop music.
-
i wish he'd lived long enough to bust out another "leave me alone"-esque song, ridiculing the media for their constant dogging of him. dude was a legend, R.I.P.
-
We gotta remember how fucked up his childhood was. I mean, seriously, their father used to beat them if they so much as fucked up ONCE in the studio during the Jackson 5 days. He basically spent the rest of his life (and ALL of his money) in a terribly tragic, misguided attempt to regain his childhood. His father's abuse crippled him socially, his overwhelming fame brought it to the spotlight, and once that happened, all he could do was go even crazier. He never learned how to be a normal person because his life had never, NEVER been normal.
Probably as tragic a life as any celebrity could have.
-
Did anyone catch the interview with Uri Geller on Sky News last night? That was a really touching, personal interview to give. When he started talking about just how lonely MJ would say he felt, had to knock back a drink. It's a crime that someone can bring happiness to millions like MJ, and feel entirely on their own. That's tragic, right there.
And yeah, Patrick's bang on the mark, as per usual.
-
one of my childhood heroes, I can still remember dancing around the living room to an old LP my mum had.
Hell I even had a Michael Jackson doll and if you pressed his belly button he sang Black or White (which was kinda creepy on reflection)
The true king of pop.
-
It's Friday night so I went to my local bar to see a band tonight. A country-rock band. Midway through the second set they played a cover of "Billie Jean". It was a bit shaky and obviously barely rehearsed and the singer had to get someone to hold up the lyrics written out on a piece of paper, but it was the perfect tribute to Jackson: for those minutes they were playing the song everyone was out on the floor dancing and having a great time and there wasn't any sadness nor any crappy hipster irony (and I'm in an area where that's always a threat), there was just happiness at having a fun time listening to a great song we'd known all our lives.
-
Hey how about that election in Iran that CNN isn't covering anymore!
Hah, yes. Hey, Iranians, we know your struggles for fair elections are kinda important to global politics and all, but not as important as Michael Jackson dying. Hope things work out with Ahmadinejad while we're collectively reminiscing about how awesome Thriller was.
-
Chick gets shot in the chest by unnecessarily hostile forces who basically are going on a rampage, killing people indiscriminately in the streets of Tehran. She dies on a leaked internet video for the world to see, and the world pays attention for 30 seconds.
Michael Jackson died of cardiac arrest, which probably shouldn't have surprised anybody, and the world SHITS itself.
Doesn't make MJ's death less tragic, because yeah, it is. But you're right, it needs perspective.
God, I'm depressing myself.
-
That's kind of an unfair thing to say. It really kind of depends on where you're looking. Sure, all of the local and daytime news sources are going to cover Michael Jackson, but these events in Iran will remain at the top of the list as topics discussed by the nighttime political commentators. Same thing as in these forums; we have discussions going on both topics.
-
Chick gets shot in the chest by unnecessarily hostile forces who basically are going on a rampage, killing people indiscriminately in the streets of Tehran. She dies on a leaked internet video for the world to see, and the world pays attention for 30 seconds.
Michael Jackson died of cardiac arrest, which probably shouldn't have surprised anybody, and the world SHITS itself.
Doesn't make MJ's death less tragic, because yeah, it is. But you're right, it needs perspective.
God, I'm depressing myself.
Okay, sure, but I mean...all that girl did was die. MJ was in The Wiz.
Come on, y'know?
-
Thinking bout making a MJ thread in the music forum. I'd link to (and talk a bit about) albums with J5, the Jacksons, and a few from his solo career of course. Would there be interest?
-
There's a dude I knew in junior college. He had a crush on me. He might still actually :?
Anyways he decided to do this and he posted it on his facebook:
(http://c2.ac-images.myspacecdn.com/images02/92/l_a102aa8897bf4f2e8434c38e5faf2525.jpg)
Earlier he had typed "Fariah Faucet" so I guess it's an improvement but man am I getting tired of "Micheal."
-
My girlfriend called her "Fanah Fawcett".
-
A pity,he will be missed.
Cant say i am to upset. I never realy knew him or much about him.
I am upset though that i will never be able to know him.
-
"Micheal."
"Micheal" was a trending topic on Twitter for the longest fucking time. Michael/Micheal's since been supplanted for MJ, which is kind of the biggest relief for my brain
#uselessshit
And as far as Iran coverage, you guys are CRAZY if you think the protests in Iran are somehow more newsworthy today than Michael Jackson's death. The guy was a cultural icon, whose music is recognized by virtually everyone. I'm not saying the protests are unimportant. I just think it is totally, totally obvious why his death is taking precedent in headlines.
-
That poor Jetta. :-(
-
BLAH BLAH BLAH DOUBLE POST
Ray Smuckles had a great post today and I am reposting it here. You all know where to find the real thing.
On the Sudden Passing of Michael Jackson.
Raymond Q. Smuckles
President, Prime Time Records
It’s bad. It’s bad around here. It’s like today was fake. Even the sunlight seems staged. I wish they’d take it away.
When I got the Celebrity Death Beep on my Blackberry, I blew it off as a dumb rumor. That service is good, but I can see it makin’ mistakes. A false headline at, like, The Onion coulda’ triggered it. Michael had an eye on his health constantly. You know that about him. We all know the lengths he went to for health. Dude slept in a hyperbaric chamber. I like my health, but I ain’t gonna go that far, you know? Michael’s health was, to him, a special, magical thing. Something worth machines.
What I think a lotta folks are feelin’ now is a regret. Not regret that a man died; no. They regret that for almost three decades they been mockin’ this guy. This guy who wrote Thriller, and PYT, and Billie Jean. You know who you are, you Michael deniers, listenin’ to your The Cure or Aerosmith. You always considered Michael’s music silly. Not serious. Lame, mainstream. “Popular.” And his life — everyone gets a kick outta’ watchin’ the mighty fall. It sells paper. It makes us feel falsely superior, from our low places. Yet now, now that he’ll never sing another note, you listen to those songs anew —ABC, I Want You Back, Beat It — and you know who he was. Michael had more talent in his little finger than any act today has among four men. Try wakin’ up tomorrow and writin’ We Are The World. See what you come up with. See if you can get Stevie and Tina to come down to the studio, along with Bruce and Billy and twenty other people who cost a whole hell of a lotta money at the time.
Michael was our music. The next time you’re out alone in your car, and Smooth Criminal comes on, it’s gonna mean somethin’ different to you. You’re not gonna change it this time. You’re gonna hear it and think to yourself, “I missed knowin’ his music in the moment.” I don’t blame The Cure. That was your call. The Cure is just out there, like car horns or people who make noise when they cry. The Cure is a choice. When we hear Michael, it is not a choice to feel the beat. It is not a choice to cock your head and straighten all the fingers on your right hand.
His story went out like a light today, and now all we have is his music. He can’t make any more mistakes.* We can’t say anything bad about him anymore.**
R.I.P., Michael. You moved more wax than anybody, player.***
-=Ray Smuckles=-
Achewood Estates, CA
June 25, 2009
* Unless there is something weird in his will.
** I wish this were true.
*** Except: The Beatles (they had a huge head start), Elvis (even bigger head start), and Bing Crosby (40-year head start, and declining super-fast).
-
I think it's a bit grotesque how Michael Jackson dies and within hours he's returned to people's minds as the greatest pop star ever.
Yes, he was the biggest pop star ever. It's really impossible to argue that. The legacy of his early solo career is massive and should be celebrated. But honestly, his peak was over decades ago. For most of the 90s and 00s, he's been more a curiosity or an object of ridicule than a musician. Where was everyone lauding his legacy last year, or last month?
He died and that's a shame. It's a shame when anyone who's brought something great into this world dies. But dying didn't make him a different person than the one who's been largely irrelevant for years, except as a constant source of tabloid fodder.
-
Be nice, the new (http://www.theonion.com/content/news/justin_timberlake_apathetically) king of pop is kinda a douchebag.
-
And as far as Iran coverage, you guys are CRAZY if you think the protests in Iran are somehow more newsworthy today than Michael Jackson's death.
This is a joke, right?
In other news, hearing that the dude who made the first abuse allegations against him has come out and said that his dad made him make them made me feel really sorry for the poor guy and all the shit he has gotten and the fact that he will probably still be remembered that way.
-
^ Oh hey where did you hear that?
-
And as far as Iran coverage, you guys are CRAZY if you think the protests in Iran are somehow more newsworthy today than Michael Jackson's death. The guy was a cultural icon, whose music is recognized by virtually everyone. I'm not saying the protests are unimportant. I just think it is totally, totally obvious why his death is taking precedent in headlines.
10/10 would rage again you fucking prick.
EDIT: This post is bound to generate hostility, but fuck it, if it was a joke it was not obvious enough and if this guy is serious I am taking this thread to Cuba. Sorry, MJ.
-
In other news, hearing that the dude who made the first abuse allegations against him has come out and said that his dad made him make them made me feel really sorry for the poor guy and all the shit he has gotten and the fact that he will probably still be remembered that way.
Cite your source!
-
Chick gets shot in the chest by unnecessarily hostile forces who basically are going on a rampage, killing people indiscriminately in the streets of Tehran. She dies on a leaked internet video for the world to see, and the world pays attention for 30 seconds.
Michael Jackson died of cardiac arrest, which probably shouldn't have surprised anybody, and the world SHITS itself.
Doesn't make MJ's death less tragic, because yeah, it is. But you're right, it needs perspective.
God, I'm depressing myself.
What was that thing that Stalin said?
-
when one person dies, its a tragedy,
when 20,000 people die, its a statistic.
-
No, I think he said "I have a bone to pick with Trotsky."
Then he laughed.
-
when one person dies, its a tragedy,
when 20,000 people die, its a statistic.
I was hoping that referencing it would get the job done instead of quoting it directly. :lol:
-
“I think we can agree that the Iranian regime benefits from the media rush to memorialize, explore, and reflect upon Michael Jackson and his legacy,” [national-security blogger Spencer] Ackerman wrote in a blog post last night. In an email interview, Ackerman told The Daily Beast (http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2009-06-26/will-michael-jackson-doom-iran/full/) that “anything that takes Twitter bandwidth away from [the Iran election] is bad for the opposition, and anything that distracts the cable networks from showing images of the crackdown is similarly bad.”
-
The fact that Michael Jackson died today is more newsworthy today in countries that are not Iran because it's more immediate. The nuances of the Iranian political issues are lost on most people, me included, and the news has been informing that Iran isn't doing too well with this democracy business for weeks now. This is the first time Michael Jackson has died (that is not meant to be as flippant as it might sound), so it's a bigger story. This time next week, or indeed this time tomorrow, it'll be back off the airwaves and Iran will probably the main story again.
I know nothing about Michael Jackson except that there's a bit of Thriller used in the film 13 going on 30 so I've heard it. I've never listened to his music or followed news stories about him. But nevertheless I'm sad to hear he died, and I wonder whether in twenty years I'll be telling people "I remember when MJ died" in the same way that people say "I remember when Lady Di died". A boy came to my till today and bought two papers with pictures of Michael Jackson on the front; he said he is collecting them because they will be valuable some day.
I hope the children are taken care of. I heard an interview with their godfather who pointed out that Michael Jackson has a huge family and they will rally round but still, three small children have just lost their dad.
-
This is my source. Obvious caveats about reliability of sources - couldn't corroborate it.
http://trashselector.com/evan-chandler-i-lied-for-my-father-im-sorry-michael/
-
The fact that Michael Jackson died today is more newsworthy today in countries that are not Iran because it's more immediate.
Idunno May it seems to me that several hundred people dying and having people being beaten on the streets just 'cause the Revolutionary Guard fucking feels like it (without, I might add, even bothering to be sure their victims were doing anything "wrong") is just as immediate as cardiac arrest killing a pop star. If anything, the levels of outrage should well exceed the levels of loss.
Then again, who am I to foist my view of morality on anybody else. I'm just saying, I think it is really, REALLY fucked up.
-
“I think we can agree that the Iranian regime benefits from the media rush to memorialize, explore, and reflect upon Michael Jackson and his legacy,” [national-security blogger Spencer] Ackerman wrote in a blog post last night. In an email interview, Ackerman told The Daily Beast (http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2009-06-26/will-michael-jackson-doom-iran/full/) that “anything that takes Twitter bandwidth away from [the Iran election] is bad for the opposition, and anything that distracts the cable networks from showing images of the crackdown is similarly bad.”
ahahahahaha
-
Fuck him for dying when there's a revolution going on in Iran. How fucking inconsiderate. Ugh!
-
Man nobody's saying he chose to die for the express purpose of turning people's eyes from Iran. In the end, though, how many more lives are going to be irrevocably, completely, utterly DESTROYED by Michael Jackson's death vs. them being shot/axed/clubbed/door-slammed/curbstomped to death over a corrupt government's anger at being caught in their own misdeeds?
I mean I am a fan of Michael Jackson ever since Cathy told me I should maybe go listen to Thriller like 2 years ago. Not a lifelong thing, so maybe there's just something I'm not getting here, but really. If people are dying in the streets from axe wounds just because he died, maybe they shouldn't be alive to start with.
-
The fact that Michael Jackson died today is more newsworthy today in countries that are not Iran because it's more immediate.
Idunno May it seems to me that several hundred people dying and having people being beaten on the streets just 'cause the Revolutionary Guard fucking feels like it (without, I might add, even bothering to be sure their victims were doing anything "wrong") is just as immediate as cardiac arrest killing a pop star. If anything, the levels of outrage should well exceed the levels of loss.
Then again, who am I to foist my view of morality on anybody else. I'm just saying, I think it is really, REALLY fucked up.
You can say that about pretty much anything though.
Its silly that MJ's death is getting more attention than:
a. the situation in Iran
b. the continued suppression and elimination of Tibetan people and culture by the Chinese
c. the continued ethnic cleansing in regions of Africa
d. the situation between Israel and Palestine
e. the fact that 95% of childrens' deaths in the world could be prevented by access to medicine, clean water, and food (which most of us take for granted)
f. the fact that the Taliban/Al-Qaeda militants throw acid in girls faces for attending school source (http://www.msmagazine.com/news/uswirestory.asp?ID=11773)
g. the fact that 50% of the world lives on $2.50 a day or less source (http://www.globalissues.org/article/26/poverty-facts-and-stats)
there are plenty of other things that deserve coverage. But you can't deny that pop-culture is part of life, and MJ was a world-wide icon, so his death deserves to be noted.
-
Noted, yes. Given the amount of hooplah and coverage it's getting, no. The man was an entertainer, and a great one in his time, but the amount of attention the media, to say nothing of the general population, is giving his death is goddamn ridiculous.
-
I'd like to note that every single one of those examples, save for the first, are ongoing things. Yes, noteworthy ongoing things, but they are not any different from yesterday, or the day before, or even a year ago. The situation in Iran is, admittedly, something we all saw coming, but that's not the normal way things go in Iran. Not parallel cases with the others.
-
I don't think anyone is dismissing what is going on in Iran; I'm certainly not. But the protests have been going on for sometime, whereas this death (again, of a cultural icon who is so, so recognizable) just happened, yesterday - it is obvious front-page news.
I'm not really endorsing how the media is, in practice, covering his death. It's definitely overdone, and kind of vacillating between canonizing and gaudy. I am also not saying I give more of a shit about MJ than I do about Iran. (And wow, dudes, I'm finding it so incredibly easy to ignore the MJ story online and scroll down to the Iran one!) I just think it is unnecessarily pontifical to be all, blah blah blah why don't you guys care about things going on in the real world.
-
Yeah, that's fair. I swear to god though, if in 3 days the name "Michael Jackson" still appears in 8 of the 10 most-read articles on every news site ever, I'm gonna cut a bitch.
-
the amount of attention the media is giving his death is goddamn ridiculous.
I actually don't have cable, I only have been noticing what foxnews, msnbc, cnn, reuters, and bbc have been putting up on their websites. I can't imagine what sorts of tributes/coverages are going on in TV land. So I'm going to go ahead and retract my argument and concede
-
I'm not gonna say anything regarding What Is Important or whatever the argument is, but I thought this was the more appropriate thread for both Michael Jackson was ridiculously talented oh my god (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bJTNUIuassY) and also hey look, here is probably his most famous performance [it is the one where he debuted the moonwalk!] (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2RuxoCDfbjU).
Liz had on Thriller the other day (okay I think it just came on) when we were playing board games at her place the other day and it was pretty awesome, also doing Thriller with a buncha zombies in a bar is excellent. Thank you MJ for helping with my Fun Times!
-
I think I would enjoy reading a historiography of the board written by you, Tommy. I really mean that.
An apology to this young lady who although unknown to you played an early but crucial role
She is like an undercover, controversial character in the inception of a band of freedom fighters. I could read anything written in this style, but it seems like you could be the Herodotus of the boards.
Minus the men with faces for tits and giant ants and stuff.
-
I dunno how much I'd like being reduced to a footnote near the back though. I already have enough struggles with inadequacy.
-
This is my source. Obvious caveats about reliability of sources - couldn't corroborate it.
http://trashselector.com/evan-chandler-i-lied-for-my-father-im-sorry-michael/
I want this to be true, but the thing didn't even get the names right. Jordan was the boy, Evan was the father,
-
hey look, here is probably his most famous performance [it is the one where he debuted the moonwalk! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2RuxoCDfbjU).
he's miming there right? if he's not, i'm even more massively impressed by the guy's skills (and i was pretty impressed before!).
-
And as far as Iran coverage, you guys are CRAZY if you think the protests in Iran are somehow more newsworthy today than Michael Jackson's death.
This is a joke, right?
In other news, hearing that the dude who made the first abuse allegations against him has come out and said that his dad made him make them made me feel really sorry for the poor guy and all the shit he has gotten and the fact that he will probably still be remembered that way.
Have to agree with Yunior here.
The death of Michael Jackson is of greater interest to more people than the Iranian revolution. In fact I'm not sure if the Iranian revolution was ever page 1 here even before MJ's death.
-
Also I am going to hire an animal psychologist, interview Bubbles the Chimp, sell the exclusive interview for millions and retire.
-
There is a difference between saying something will be covered more by the news and should be covered more by the news, and 'newsworthy' certainly implies the second to me, not the first. Michael Jackson's death is obviously more likely to be covered, but saying it's more worthy of being covered is a value judgement I take issue with.
-
Well,
I was saying Jackson's death "should" receive coverage -- not because it was more important but because it was timelier and of interest to the kind of audience mainstream media caters to.
Stop value-judging me!! :police: :police: :police:
-
Oh, OK then! I misinterpreted what you meant by should. I mean, there is an argument to be had about what the role of the media should be etcetera ad nauseaum, but this is not the place for it.
-
(http://i28.photobucket.com/albums/c213/hey_there_fatty/MOONWALKTEODOR.gif)
-
He was a big deal to people Philippe's age, too.
(I'm really, really sorry, I'll go back to my hole in the other thread now)
-
An apropos ditty to the media entitled "Michael Jackson Is Dead (You Fucking Hypocrites)" (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tVACUjHn6yU)
Also, re: other coverage a la Iran, Tibet, Africa: This is the United States, where the extent of people giving a shit amounts to starting Facebook groups and retweeting.
Also, if you're concerned about Tibet, it may change your mind (or work you into a raging froth) to listen to or read this (http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4111).
-
After watching a couple of Michael Jackson tribute programmes, I realise that I really like the Jackson 5. I hadn't known that the songs were by them, but I've always liked them.
I'm still not a huge fan of Michael's solo stuff but I have to agree that he was an incredible musician. I wish I'd taken a bit more interest when he was alive. Even getting het up about the alleged abuse would have been better than utter apathy to someone who it's increasingly apparent to me was pretty interesting.
-
I have a sudden urge to go out and learn to moonwalk well. This is being said in all seriousness.
-
I think I care more about Billy Mays' untimely death than MJs.
-
This is my source. Obvious caveats about reliability of sources - couldn't corroborate it.
http://trashselector.com/evan-chandler-i-lied-for-my-father-im-sorry-michael/
As Jordan pointed out, there are basic factual flaws in the article and there are no corroborative links (the "read more" article goes to a fanblog which has a similarly worded description of the events following the abuse allegation, but nothing about a recantation) However I would expect this sort of thing to actually happen if MJ did not in fact molest anyone. False accusations of sexual violence are very rare, and especially given the incredible scrutiny and invective hurled at the reported victims (even here in this thread) I would expect a false accusation to have been recanted by now. If no recantation occurs in the next few years I'll be fairly certain that something did in fact happen. The lack of conviction means just north of nothing considering sex crimes conviction rates in general, which are abysmal (and I don't think anybody would seriously argue that the only sex crimes taking place are the ones getting convictions) and when respected men engage in sex crimes in our culture, victims are blamed every time. In this case it's got to be about money, or the boy was gay and vindictively obsessed with MJ. You hear similar claims levied against rape victims every day.
From what I remember of his statements it seemed to me as though MJ didn't really understand the charges that were leveled against him and didn't understand why his affection towards children and his sleeping in the same bed with them could be construed as inappropriate. Given his candor I don't believe he really intended to do harm but he may have done so simply by his inability to perceive the appropriateness of his actions, but when it comes to things like this your intentions are irrelevant.. Molestation is a fairly broad category and it should be noted that there is a distinction between it and sexual abuse - molestation does not require actual sexual gratification to take place, but rather just the placing of a child in a situation he is uncomfortable with, be it unwanted touching or being undressed in the same room. It seems to me personally that these things could easily have happened at Neverland Ranch by the admission of the man himself. Sexual abuse like the sort MJ was accused of in '93 is not as easily corroborated with Jackson's own statements, but the thing about perpetrators of sexual violence is that there isn't a type of person that just wouldn't do it. Predators are not random black thugs, they are people in regular contact with victims. MJ certainly had ample opportunity to commit crimes, if he was inclined to. But again, if the statements aren't recanted then I'd err on the side of believing the accusers.
-
I think I care more about Billy Mays' untimely death than MJs.
-
"False accusations of sexual violence are very rare..."
Oh this is so untrue it almost hurts.
-
That is so wrong it hurts. In fact, it's that sort of attitude that is responsible for a LOT of the shit associated with poor treatment of abuse victims and low conviction rates.
-
Given his candor I don't believe he really intended to do harm but he may have done so simply by his inability to perceive the appropriateness of his actions
It is also possible that he did little or no harm, but that harm has been created or increased by outside observers telling children they've been harmed. This area is, as we know well, a minefield.
-
Paul, that's one of the first things I saw in one of my sister's old uni textbooks on psychology. Fascinating read, and that story proved pretty conclusively that firsthand testimony is not always accurate.
Still, we don't have any idea what happened, and we never will. He was acquitted through the justice system and is therefore innocent of these specific allegations of abuse. Fallibility of testimony and the justice system as a whole is another topic that can be saved for another thread in another subforum.
-
Oh this is so untrue it almost hurts.
It's usually somewhere around 5-7 percent (http://www.omsys.com/mmcd/courtrev.htm#Rcr23682). It's telling that when faced with those odds people tend to gamble on the off chances. Given a choice people would rather sympathize with a martyr than a victim.
That is so wrong it hurts. In fact, it's that sort of attitude that is responsible for a LOT of the shit associated with poor treatment of abuse victims and low conviction rates.
Could you explain that?
It is also possible that he did little or no harm, but that harm has been created or increased by outside observers telling children they've been harmed. This area is, as we know well, a minefield.
The studies I have (and linked to) put that scenario at about 1% of all reported cases. This is all quite similar in spirit to the slut-shaming that usually happens when rape is reported, since crimes cannot possibly occur to "disreputable" people. We would rather be safe in belittling possible victims than presume to discredit the reputation of possible offenders.
-
Jackson's children will go to Michael's parents. (http://www.cnn.com/2009/SHOWBIZ/Music/06/29/michael.jackson/index.html?eref=rss_topstories)
Oh, this is just going to go absolutely swimmingly, I bet.
-
i wouldn't trust the guy around kids.
i'm not getting into this; all i'm saying is when shit reoccurs like that i lose respect for a dude regardless of his lawyer or mental state.
besides that, i've never truly understood the whole 'omigod a celebrity died' mentality. His music was okay, but i can name tons of other artists that would leave me more disgruntled with their untimely death.
-
Jackson's children will go to Michael's parents. (http://www.cnn.com/2009/SHOWBIZ/Music/06/29/michael.jackson/index.html?eref=rss_topstories)
Oh, this is just going to go absolutely swimmingly, I bet.
From what I understand it was indicated in MJ's will that his children would be put in the custody of their grandmother. The childrens' mother has unofficially relinquished claims to the children but it was never 100% sealed, and so I think she'll sue for custody and a hefty support allowance.
-
Could you explain that?
I mean that this willingness to assume that false accusations of rape or abuse are far more common than they actually are is symptomatic of a bunch of attitudes in society that make it very tough for people to even come forward when they are raped or abused, let alone deal with the horrible shitstorm that is the entire justice process in rape and abuse cases.
-
besides that, i've never truly understood the whole 'omigod a celebrity died' mentality. His music was okay, but i can name tons of other artists that would leave me more disgruntled with their untimely death.
I totally agree! I will only be sad once ever: When I die myself. I am the person I care most about, and so, no matter who dies they will never be on the top ladder rung, there's always going to be a step up, y'know?
what i mean is, i'm sure most of the people on this board weren't all rocking out to Michael Jackson circa 1980-whatever the fuck. it sucks that somebody died, but frankly, people die every waking moment and it's unfair to just assume that since this dude was a 'popular idol' he deserves that much more attention.
i have no emotional attachment to MJ as it seems very few of the raving people going 'omigod mj is dead a blooh blooh blah blooh blah' had. before this shit, in the minds of most people the guy was a South Park joke; now there's facebook groups dedicated to blubbering about his death.
it's not that i have no feelings and feel 'who gives a shit that he died', it always sucks when a guy dies.
that said, i will be more upset when my dog dies.
all of this topped with the fact that there's a pretty good chance he did naughty shit with little kids makes me not really care.
cry from your heart people- not because that other guy is crying
-
Here is the thing: most people who die every day did not play a major role in shaping popular music. Even if you didn't like his music, you should still be able to appreciate his impact both in music as well as being one of the very first black musicians to get their music videos on MTV.
-
Jackson's children will go to Michael's parents. (http://www.cnn.com/2009/SHOWBIZ/Music/06/29/michael.jackson/index.html?eref=rss_topstories)
Oh, this is just going to go absolutely swimmingly, I bet.
Word, considering that MJ's dad is half the reason he's as fucked up as he is...
-
half? you're being awfully nice. i'd say closer to 100%
-
I think (hope) that Jackson's parents are divorced and the children are going to the mother.
-
I'm not sure how much of a threat Joe Jackson will pose to his grandchildren, if they can convince him that he can't make money off of them.
-
It is also possible that he did little or no harm, but that harm has been created or increased by outside observers telling children they've been harmed.
The studies I have (and linked to) put that scenario at about 1% of all reported cases.
Fair enough - if they're reporting about the actual scenario I described. You see,This is all quite similar in spirit to the slut-shaming that usually happens when rape is reported, since crimes cannot possibly occur to "disreputable" people. We would rather be safe in belittling possible victims than presume to discredit the reputation of possible offenders.
this is not what I was musing about. I was not thinking about the victims being unreliable reporters, but about the investigators interpreting what they hear in a way that suits their agenda and feeding that back into their treatment of the victim; that may be much harder to find figures on. I have seen this happen (in a different scenario), in a judgement made by no less a figure than Dame Butler-Sloss that turned out to be sadly wrong - but that is anecdotal, and so inadmissable.
-
I wouldn't think that would happen very often, at least here. The measures implemented to safeguard the rights of the accused make the burden of proof with regard to sex crimes pretty extraordinary. A prosecutor who decides to go after a high-profile defendant is gambling. The vast majority of them regret it. Unambitious prosecutors tend to avoid cases that aren't 100% ironclad.
-
if they tend to avoid cases that aren't 100% ironclad then why did they go after him in 2005
-
also i mean i kind of hate to say this but when you are talking about one of the richest most famous most well-known dudes in pop culture you basically have to readjust literally everything to consider the implications of what that means, unfortunately this means you can't approach it the way you'd approach almost literally every other case
-
Yeah, that's fair. I swear to god though, if in 3 days the name "Michael Jackson" still appears in 8 of the 10 most-read articles on every news site ever, I'm gonna cut a bitch.
Happy 3 days later, dude.
Yeah yeah blah blah but guys, Thriller. It is the perfect pop album. Every song on there is at least top 5 single material. EVERY. SONG. That's unbelievable.
-
if they tend to avoid cases that aren't 100% ironclad then why did they go after him in 2005
Note the word "unambitious".
also i mean i kind of hate to say this but when you are talking about one of the richest most famous most well-known dudes in pop culture you basically have to readjust literally everything to consider the implications of what that means, unfortunately this means you can't approach it the way you'd approach almost literally every other case
I don't agree. You can replace "one of the richest most famous most well-known dudes in pop culture" with "the captain of the Varsity football team" or "the biggest mattress dealer in the tri-state area" or "a police officer" and the implication is the same - that this has to be about collecting money at the expense of a successful and respected man's reputation as well as the community at large's investment in that man (thus making the accusation a threat to all of us, not just the defendant), that a person's power and wealth is a good indicator of how we should view their capacity for committing crime, and that people who claim sexual abuse are so often the sort of people that would lie about it that we should be automatically suspect (and since conclusive proof is so rare, you're effectively advocating for disbelief by default). It plays into the idea that sex abusers have to be a certain type of person - poor, uneducated, possibly a minority, someone who wouldn't be targeted by gold-digging "sex abuse victims". In those cases we can be more sure, those are the only people we can be certain do these things. How much higher than that 1% do you think these false accusations corroborated by victim statements will go in relation to ever-more rich defendants? 5%? 25%? 50%?
If we're talking about factors that would play into false accusations, I would say that it was his open and unselfconscious interest in and affection for children that would have made them more likely, since his wealth and status were not exceptional, in America if not the world. Someone really really really really really should have prevented MJ from letting children reside in his residence unsupervised, in any case. The parents should have refused (I can't remember, did he pay them a stipend for the stays?) but more importantly Jackson should never had been allowed to fulfill his sad desires, for his safety or for the safety of his guests.
-
Thriller. It is the perfect pop album. Every song on there is at least top 5 single material. EVERY. SONG. That's unbelievable.
I'll take Rumours, thank you.
-
Yeah, that's fair. I swear to god though, if in 3 days the name "Michael Jackson" still appears in 8 of the 10 most-read articles on every news site ever, I'm gonna cut a bitch.
Happy 3 days later, dude.
At least I warned everybody.
OKAY NEWS PEOPLE, HE IS FUCKING DEAD, HE AIN'T GONNA GET ANY DEADER, OR ANY LESS DEAD, SO MAYBE I THINK WE SHOULD LET HIS CORPSE COOL THE FUCK OFF OR SOMETHING.
Continue your discussion on the note that "Thriller" wasn't 100% Top 5 material, I mean shit I can hardly listen to 'Pretty Young Thing' (oh god please don't make a joke you guys).
-
I actually really enjoy PYT.
-
Rumours is one of my favourite ever records but I don't think it had the same kind of crossover success.
It's similar in that each song on the album ended up getting a ton of airplay, the record itself is in pretty much everyone's collection, and it's the most widely known by that artist.
Aside from album sales (that would go to Dark Side, obviously), Rumours is the closest the 70's had to Thriller.
-
thread tl;dr
So Farrah Fawcett dies and goes to heaven. God says, "Farrah, you've lead such an enriching life, filling so many people with joy. I'll grant you one wish now that you're dead." Farrah thinks about it and says, "thanks, God, that's really nice of you. I just want all the children of the world to be protected." God says, "Ok" and kills Michael Jackson.
What were Michael Jackson's last words?
"Take me to the children's hospital!"
What are Michael Jackson, Farrah Fawcett, Ed McMahon and Billy Mayes getting for Christmas?
Patrick Swayze
-
Boo.
-
I don't agree. You can replace "one of the richest most famous most well-known dudes in pop culture" with "the captain of the Varsity football team" or "the biggest mattress dealer in the tri-state area" or "a police officer" and the implication is the same - that this has to be about collecting money at the expense of a successful and respected man's reputation as well as the community at large's investment in that man (thus making the accusation a threat to all of us, not just the defendant), that a person's power and wealth is a good indicator of how we should view their capacity for committing crime, and that people who claim sexual abuse are so often the sort of people that would lie about it that we should be automatically suspect (and since conclusive proof is so rare, you're effectively advocating for disbelief by default).
No it doesn't because none of those people are the Michael Jackson who performed Off the Wall, Thriller and Bad. He is the only person to ever have done this. He's pretty much the only dude who moved 109 million copies of one record by virtue of that record being really fucking awesome. Everything else you're talking about is way down the ladder. Did the captain of the Varsity football team shoot the music video for "Beat It"? He didn't. Did the biggest mattress dealer in the tri-state area come up with the moonwalk? He didn't. Did a police officer find startling early fame as one of the dudes who sang "ABC"? He didn't. There have been more Popes than there have been Michael Jacksons. There have been more U.S. Presidents than there have been Michael Jacksons. Think about that for a second. I wouldn't say this about anyone else because anyone else is not Michael Jackson. That's what I meant when I typed that. I wouldn't be going out on a limb and typing massive defenses of those people because they aren't Michael Jackson.
Nobody should "automatically suspect" anyone who accuses their pastor or their teacher or their football coach or their lawyer or their doctor or whatever of lying because those people don't have Neverland Ranch, you know? Besides, those people weren't the sort of figure that Michael Jackson is. Those people didn't expressly want to recapture a youth they simultaneously never had and never left by surrounding themselves with children. Far be it from me to speculate or whatever but the dude wasn't interested in hanging out with kids because it put him on a power trip, he hung out with kids because he effectively lived a prolonged adolescence in an attempt to live out the childhood he felt he deserved. What's been documented of his life over the last twenty years is pretty solid proof of this.
It plays into the idea that sex abusers have to be a certain type of person - poor, uneducated, possibly a minority, someone who wouldn't be targeted by gold-digging "sex abuse victims". In those cases we can be more sure, those are the only people we can be certain do these things. How much higher than that 1% do you think these false accusations corroborated by victim statements will go in relation to ever-more rich defendants? 5%? 25%? 50%?
No it doesn't because like I said pretty much everyone else existed on a completely different scale than Jackson? It's not so much that he, by virtue of being rich and powerful, is untouchable; instead, it's that he, by virtue of being the Michael Jackson whose life has been comparatively well-documented over twenty years, at the very least seemed to have completely different motives for hanging out with these kids, motives confirmed by people like Macaulay Culkin that had spent time with him as children.
And again I hate to be the dude who says this but is it entirely impossible for Jackson's accuser to be in that 1%, the one case in one hundred that was a false accusation? It's a lot more nuanced than simple statistics but the simple statistics suggest that while there's a slim possibility there is nevertheless a possibility, a possibility corroborated by the fact that he was found not guilty. Does that 1% have to happen exclusively to the poor uneducated minorities?
If we're talking about factors that would play into false accusations, I would say that it was his open and unselfconscious interest in and affection for children that would have made them more likely, since his wealth and status were not exceptional, in America if not the world. Someone really really really really really should have prevented MJ from letting children reside in his residence unsupervised, in any case. The parents should have refused (I can't remember, did he pay them a stipend for the stays?) but more importantly Jackson should never had been allowed to fulfill his sad desires, for his safety or for the safety of his guests.
His love for children and his wealth and status weren't mutually exclusive factors at any point. And, once again, his wealth was not acceptable but his status as the world's only Michael Jackson who performed Off the Wall, Thriller and Bad was.
For any other case this speculation wouldn't be happening. I wouldn't be typing this argument for anyone else; instead, I'd be letting the evidence present itself and opine once the case was concluded. I'm not a judge. The 2005 case concluded, though, and it concluded with a verdict based not by absence of evidence that there was wrongdoing but testimony that there was in fact no wrongdoing, testimony provided by other kids who could have been potential victims. When I said "literally" up there, I meant it. That wasn't hyperbole. Whether you like it or not, the insane amount of errata surrounding the case meant that the allegations against Jackson - like almost all of the events of his weird, tragic life - were a totally unique case of the sort that really didn't happen before him and hasn't happened since. And because of the factors that informed his weird, tragic life, he was acquitted.
You can say all you like that Jackson's wasn't a unique case. You'll be wrong.
-
MJ jokes
Dude you got the wrong thread
Also Johnny, I don't know how much better anybody could've put it. A salute to you, sir.
-
I put it better earlier when it was two glib sentences and I much prefer that format to the Massive Wall Of Text Written On The Internet.
-
No it doesn't because none of those people are the Michael Jackson who performed Off the Wall, Thriller and Bad. He is the only person to ever have done this. He's pretty much the only dude who moved 109 million copies of one record by virtue of that record being really fucking awesome. Everything else you're talking about is way down the ladder. Did the captain of the Varsity football team shoot the music video for "Beat It"? He didn't. Did the biggest mattress dealer in the tri-state area come up with the moonwalk? He didn't. Did a police officer find startling early fame as one of the dudes who sang "ABC"? He didn't. There have been more Popes than there have been Michael Jacksons. There have been more U.S. Presidents than there have been Michael Jacksons. Think about that for a second. I wouldn't say this about anyone else because anyone else is not Michael Jackson. That's what I meant when I typed that. I wouldn't be going out on a limb and typing massive defenses of those people because they aren't Michael Jackson.
You're not getting it. I agree with you that Michael Jackson was Michael Jackson, and that he has done extraordinary things, but you say that as though it means that puts him in a different reality, as though this is some objective thing that makes him special. In the grand scheme of human behavior Michael Jackson was really not special at all. He was just as fucked up as everybody else. He had drug problems just like a mere mortal. He had family issues, just like a mere mortal. He was a person capable of just as much as anybody else, he just happened to achieve relative success. You seem to be saying that he was famous all his life and was successful through most of his life. So fucking what? Really. I can't figure out if you're trying to say here that Michael Jackson was so super goddamn successful he couldn't possibly have hurt anyone, or that he was so exceptionally famous that the chances of false allegations of sexual abuse by a minor go from 1% to some number we would be feel safe betting on. Either way you're making a stunning leap of faith.
Nobody should "automatically suspect" anyone who accuses their pastor or their teacher or their football coach or their lawyer or their doctor or whatever of lying because those people don't have Neverland Ranch, you know?Besides, those people weren't the sort of figure that Michael Jackson is. Those people didn't expressly want to recapture a youth they simultaneously never had and never left by surrounding themselves with children. Far be it from me to speculate or whatever but the dude wasn't interested in hanging out with kids because it put him on a power trip, he hung out with kids because he effectively lived a prolonged adolescence in an attempt to live out the childhood he felt he deserved. What's been documented of his life over the last twenty years is pretty solid proof of this.
No? How does Michael Jackson's ranch make him less likely to commit a crime than any of these other people? Again you're insinuating that it was his wealth that attracted gold diggers, but there are all sorts of rich people, richer people than MJ, who own whole Caribbean Islands. Are they more likely to be falsely accused than Michael Jackson? They'd have to be, they've got even more money than he did. Are you saying that they falsely accused him to get a slice of his fame? That's the only thing that would set him apart from other targets of gold-digging evil children, but it doesn't seem very plausible, especially since they'll forever be known as the people who ruined Michael Jackson's career, hated by millions.
As far as Michael Jackson's psyche is concerned, all I think we can safely say is that it was clearly severely damaged. The "missing childhood" angle is an extremely prevalent pop psych verdict on MJ but I can't say with any certainty that it's actually what was going on with him, even if he said so himself, precisely because he was so damaged. It was probably much, much more complicated than that, and so I can't speak to Jackson's motives as you do.
No it doesn't because like I said pretty much everyone else existed on a completely different scale than Jackson? It's not so much that he, by virtue of being rich and powerful, is untouchable; instead, it's that he, by virtue of being the Michael Jackson whose life has been comparatively well-documented over twenty years, at the very least seemed to have completely different motives for hanging out with these kids, motives confirmed by people like Macaulay Culkin that had spent time with him as children.
For any other case this speculation wouldn't be happening. I wouldn't be typing this argument for anyone else; instead, I'd be letting the evidence present itself and opine once the case was concluded. I'm not a judge. The 2005 case concluded, though, and it concluded with a verdict based not by absence of evidence that there was wrongdoing but testimony that there was in fact no wrongdoing, testimony provided by other kids who could have been potential victims.
Child molesters, as a general rule, do not molest all children that they come into contact with, or even all children that they could molest without getting caught. You know rapists often have significant others, who will swear up and down that the man they're in a relationship would never in a million years take advantage of anyone? It's a really mind-blowing concept, I know, but if it weren't true then we would never have to worry about sexual assault at all, because perpetrators would be easily identifiable. But they aren't easily identifiable, they almost never are, and that's what makes them so fucking terrifying. Instead of actually coming to terms with this we teach women and children to fear haggard-looking old men wandering the streets. And when the suburban dad or the pastor or the famous pop star is accused of molestation it's so fucking hard to reconcile what we're taught about rapists and child molesters, and how the accused don't match up to that. You're right in that, if you really look, there's been very little from his very public life to suggest that he resembled the "child molester" archetype. He seemed like a sweet, gentle, delicate man. But you know what that means, really? Absolutely nothing, because there's no such thing as a fucking "child molester" archetype. If Michael Jackson was a child molester, the only people who would know anything about it are Michael Jackson and the victims.
When I said "literally" up there, I meant it. That wasn't hyperbole. Whether you like it or not, the insane amount of errata surrounding the case meant that the allegations against Jackson - like almost all of the events of his weird, tragic life - were a totally unique case of the sort that really didn't happen before him and hasn't happened since. And because of the factors that informed his weird, tragic life, he was acquitted.
You can say all you like that Jackson's wasn't a unique case. You'll be wrong.
Every case is unique in the nitty gritty details of it but in general each type of crime has a basic set of characteristics which make it what it is. There's no really unique murder - there are creative murders, and murders done out of passion or fear or whatever, but you know, somebody got killed intentionally in all cases. Michael Jackson's case was a child molestation case. We can go on and on about his life and how unique it was, and I'm not saying it wasn't, I'm saying that doesn't matter. So what if Michael Jackson led a unique and sad life? All this talk about how this is a "unique case" is really heading towards a single intended goal - to paint things such that if we did accept that he molested children, he would be the real victim, thus making him a blameless victim in any case and preventing us from ever feeling sick about how we felt about him in the past. And he was probably a victim of something to some degree, but if he did it he was not a victim of the crime he was accused, there were greater victims who deserved greater consideration.
I'll say this though - If I were a victim of sexual assault and I saw the way the MJ saga played out, under no circumstances would I report it to the police.
-
Poor old Jacko. Maybe he'll get some peace now, anyway.
-
John, you seem to be suggesting that Michael Jackson's combined wealth, fame, popularity and open sleepovers with pre-pubescent children made him no more likely to be accused of child molestation than the average person. Nobody is saying that those circumstances made him less likely to commit a crime, but they DID significantly increase the likelihood of a false allegation.
The way I see it, Michael Jackson, for the people who accused him, was the easiest target in the world. He was reachable and had a strange reputation that made it easy to accuse him of child molestation. Sure, they could have accused any rich guy, but no other rich guy was Michael Jackson, significantly lowering the chances of a successful pay out. There was a level of oppurtunity that richer men than Michael Jackson did not present.
Being Michael Jackson might not have made him less likely to commit a crime than anybody else (though I believe it did), but being Michael Jackson did make him far more likely to be one of those falsely accused. People who accused Michael Jackson of child molestation had a LOT to gain. Though evidence strongly suggests that Evan Chandler fabricated the entire thing, he has spent the past 15 years living in mansions. He accomplished this despite police closing the investigation, citing a lack of evidence.
I'd rather not begin to produce evidence from the investigations to support these arguments because it will turn into a debate about whether or not he did it, but his circumstances were definitely far more unique than you seem willing to believe.
Think about it. If you're going to falsely accuse somebody of molestation in the hopes of a massive payout, who do you target? Me? You? The President of the United States? Or Michael Jackson?
-
I don't see how exactly you could falsely accuse yourself.
-
I know, I just thought the argument was getting a bit too serious business for the thread for respecting his memory.
-
Bill Bailey invented the moon walk, look it up on youtube under "QI origins of the moonwalk".
I must admit I don't really feel that much for him, his family and the people who loved his music yes I feel sorry for them and he undoubtably changed a great deal of musical history and certainly helped to define the sound of a good decade, possibly more. I was astonished at the out pouring of grief, but then I realised this man was the defining characteristic of some peoples lives, not now and it may not even have lasted that long, but it makes them realise how far they have come or fallen since they first heard one of his songs. Personally I will probably feel the same the day brandon flowers dies, because Hot Fuzz was my first CD, it defined me and my outlook for a little while.
Sorry, just my thoughts.
-
Think about it. If you're going to falsely accuse somebody of molestation in the hopes of a massive payout, who do you target? Me? You? The President of the United States? Or Michael Jackson?
there was also that part where he invited kids over to his giant kid-luring theme park with the intention of closed-door slumber parties.
-
Thanks for reiterating my point.
-
John, you seem to be suggesting that Michael Jackson's combined wealth, fame, popularity and open sleepovers with pre-pubescent children made him no more likely to be accused of child molestation than the average person. Nobody is saying that those circumstances made him less likely to commit a crime, but they DID significantly increase the likelihood of a false allegation.
The way I see it, Michael Jackson, for the people who accused him, was the easiest target in the world. He was reachable and had a strange reputation that made it easy to accuse him of child molestation. Sure, they could have accused any rich guy, but no other rich guy was Michael Jackson, significantly lowering the chances of a successful pay out. There was a level of oppurtunity that richer men than Michael Jackson did not present.
Being Michael Jackson might not have made him less likely to commit a crime than anybody else (though I believe it did), but being Michael Jackson did make him far more likely to be one of those falsely accused. People who accused Michael Jackson of child molestation had a LOT to gain. Though evidence strongly suggests that Evan Chandler fabricated the entire thing, he has spent the past 15 years living in mansions. He accomplished this despite police closing the investigation, citing a lack of evidence.
I'd rather not begin to produce evidence from the investigations to support these arguments because it will turn into a debate about whether or not he did it, but his circumstances were definitely far more unique than you seem willing to believe.
Think about it. If you're going to falsely accuse somebody of molestation in the hopes of a massive payout, who do you target? Me? You? The President of the United States? Or Michael Jackson?
I suppose I would have targeted Michael Jackson. Also, if I were to date any celebrity I suppose I would date Maggie Gyllenhaal. The possibilities of both those things happening successfully rely on an amazing run of luck and coincidence. Y'all seem to be conceiving of wealth and privilege as these incredible weaknesses against false accusation, but it seems to me as though wealth and privilege are quite effective barriers against placing oneself in a position where your claims would be credible, just as Maggie's fame makes it nigh-impossible for me to be in a position to ask her out without looking like a lunatic. Perhaps there was an application process to stay at the Neverland Ranch, which would have allowed me, having decided beforehand to falsely accuse, to gain access, but in the Evan Chandler case I do believe it was Jackson who approached the Chandlers about a stay at the Ranch. If the Chandlers were looking to falsely accuse Michael Jackson, whether they conspired to beforehand or were opportunistic, the stars really aligned for them.
It might be true that Jackson's willingness to bring children unsupervised into his house to stay for extended periods of time and his wealth create a unique opportunity for exploitation. But it's bitterly hilarious to me that it's either been dismissed or not thought of that Jackson's willingness to bring children unsupervised into his house to stay for extended periods of time makes him a prime candidate for perpetrating child molestation. If it was anyone else (well I guess anyone not as rich and famous as Michael Jackson) that one fact would be highly, highly suspect. But the fact that Michael Jackson a. Made Thriller b. Was super-famous c. Seemed like such a sweet guy d. Apparently didn't molest every child he ever boarded and e. Never confessed seems to make it more likely to most that he was falsely accused by best-paydirt-in-the-world striking gold diggers than his being an offender despite that fact. In that people are all-too willing to accuse reported victims of being liars, Michael Jackson's case is not unique in the slightest.
So did MJ's situation make false allegations more likely than in most cases? Of course. It also made the chances of the allegations being true higher. So if I were to be extorting anybody, it'd be Michael Jackson. On the other hand, if I were a child molester, I would really love to be in Michael Jackson's situation circa 1993.
-
I am pretty bummed that he died. I was sort of hoping these farewell concert things in London would start to put an end to the very screwy period of time.
-
“It’s like he’s been dying for years,” said a friend discussing Jackson. I get her point, but NOW HE’S DEAD and any latent dreams of Jackson executing some miraculous third-act comeback (in my dreams, this always involved Rick Rubin, à la Johnny Cash) die with him. The period has been placed at the end of the sentence. His art will not fight back and redeem him.
It’s enough to make you cry.
-
And again I hate to be the dude who says this but is it entirely impossible for Jackson's accuser to be in that 1%, the one case in one hundred that was a false accusation?
Yeah. But there's a 99% chance that it wasn't.
-
Except that two police investigations and an extended court trial determined that it was.
After weighing up all the testimonies and evidence from both cases, I'm 100% convinced that he was innocent. You can have my left nut if he wasn't.
-
Except that two police investigations and an extended court trial determined that it was.
After weighing up all the testimonies and evidence from both cases, I'm 100% convinced that he was innocent. You can have my left nut if he wasn't.
God what I wouldn't give to live in a world where court decisions actually meant something.
-
God what I wouldn't give to live in a world where people made epic walls of text about whether or not a dead pop star touched children.
-
It's not really about Michael Jackson (I wouldn't say with 100% certainty that Michael Jackson was a child molester, I'd say the statistics point to it being more likely than not), but about the cultural tendency towards victim-blaming when accusations are made, which is on display here even as attempts have been made to mark this case as exceptional. For most people questioning this tendency takes them well outside of their comfort zone, and they react with willful disbelief, or an ironic detachment that allows the awful things of the world (racism, rape, violence) to be humorous and harmless.
-
I must've created a new reality based on wishes and hopes.
I'm so happy.
-
That goes without saying. In general our happiness largely depends on the denial of commonplace violence. That's really the burden that anybody who tries to challenge conventional ideas (that we live in a post-racial society, that rape is not common, that the institutions we support funtion for most and are oppressive to none) carries. There are always conservative minds who wonder what the point of it all is, but when you don't say these things you then you're promoting ignorance, and it's the ignorance that ends up really being responsible for so many terrible things that happen.
-
Look, it is likely that we will never know more than we do now, or that any new evidence that might appear will be inherently less reliable than that we already have (passage of time, etc). We also know that court processes can make mistakes, but generally do not ; though in the case of complete uncertainty, veering away from conviction of course. If we start saying that the verdict in this case is likely to be wrong because of some statistics (statistical figures by their nature don't apply to individual cases, remember), then we are essentially throwing away our belief in the entire justice system.
I don't 'know' in an absolute sense if MJ was guilty in this case; but equally I see no reason not to accept the court's decisions and get on with my life - the court had and considered more information than I have.
-
Except that two police investigations and an extended court trial determined that it was.
After weighing up all the testimonies and evidence from both cases, I'm 100% convinced that he was innocent. You can have my left nut if he wasn't.
If I wind up winning the nut in this deal (not saying I will, I agree with you completely), I want it framed with an autographed matting.
Nah but seriously dude the American justice system is flawed but it's not like people don't put as much work as they can into that shit you know? Especially considering the stakes for both sides in either outcome.
-
Look, it is likely that we will never know more than we do now, or that any new evidence that might appear will be inherently less reliable than that we already have (passage of time, etc). We also know that court processes can make mistakes, but generally do not ; though in the case of complete uncertainty, veering away from conviction of course. If we start saying that the verdict in this case is likely to be wrong because of some statistics (statistical figures by their nature don't apply to individual cases, remember), then we are essentially throwing away our belief in the entire justice system.
There's not much reason to believe in the justice system outside of some feeling that we ought to. In the UK, for instance,5.6% of reported rape cases resulted in convictions (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/4296433.stm), which is as far as I know the lowest rate in the developed world (though there are likely developed countries that have much lower rates of report than the UK, which befuddles the comparitive stats to some degree). Let's be extremely conservative and say that 30% of all reported rapes were valid. In that case, 5 times as many rapists received no penalties as those who did. I'm not sure how anyone could say that in that case court processes "generally do not" make mistakes.
I'm inclined to say that the system works exactly the way it's intended to - note that the BBC singles out skepticism on the part of prosecutors and police to reported cases. The prevailing concern in the common law court is not to provide validation for victims, but to prevent innocents from being convicted. Which in itself is certainly not a malicious goal, but there is a trade-off here, in that the burden of proof is so high to protect innocents that its actual effect is to protect the guilty.
If you can prove the rapist had sex with the victim, the rapist can claim that it was consensual, which is a possibility that creates reasonable doubt. If there are signs of violence, the rapist can claim that the victim "liked it rough", a possibility that creates reasonable doubt. If the victim was wearing a miniskirt, good luck convincing a jury that consent wasn't given. If a woman has had more than one or two sex partners in a short span of time there will never be a conviction no matter how hard you try. If the victim was a prostitute, isn't that what they're paid for? If the victim was under the influence of alcohol or drugs, then hell, the rapist basically has carte blanche. If the threshold for acquittal is a reasonable doubt then rapists in general have less to fear from the justice system than common shoplifters, provided they did not commit their crime in public, or on camera, or they are uneducated men of color. Prosecutors and police know all this, and so what reason do they have to work on rape claims? They could be spending their time investigating cases they can actually win. There's no easy way to avoid this, but the very least we can do is acknowledge that it is a reality, and a problem.
-
John, you're making arguments where there really doesn't need to be any. I'm convinced your strong personal feelings on the subjects of rape, abuse, and the way they're handled are making you pursue a debate that nobody else wants to have, especially in this thread.
You're presenting very valid arguments about a topic that has nothing to do with what anybody else is talking about. Some of your arguments seem crazy and irrational because they have absolutely nothing to do with this specific case. The only reason people are arguing with you is because your arguments, though technically correct, are completely irrelevant and somewhat unwelcome.
Paul's attempt at mediation was certainly not an invitation to discuss the faults with the justice system. if you want to have that debate, start it elsewhere.
-
I had a post typed up this morning but then my internet failed and I had to go to class. Glad to see it's not really needed anymore.
Anyways, to reiterate what Darryl has been saying, the parties involved in this argument seem to perceive different stakes.
-
John, you're making arguments where there really doesn't need to be any. I'm convinced your strong personal feelings on the subjects of rape, abuse, and the way they're handled are making you pursue a debate that nobody else wants to have, especially in this thread.
You're presenting very valid arguments about a topic that has nothing to do with what anybody else is talking about. Some of your arguments seem crazy and irrational because they have absolutely nothing to do with this specific case. The only reason people are arguing with you is because your arguments, though technically correct, are completely irrelevant and somewhat unwelcome.
Paul's attempt at mediation was certainly not an invitation to discuss the faults with the justice system. if you want to have that debate, start it elsewhere.
I'm pretty sure nobody ever really wants to have this debate, because nobody likes to think about this kind of thing, it is nasty and sad and it doesn't affect the majority of us. But lots of things we are comfortable talking about are similar. I held it off as long as I could, but when I felt like I had to I bring it up because of a prevailing belief in the falsehood of the claims made against Jackson. Consider that on the first page of the thread nobo said this -
how long before an alleged victim of his abuse comes out with a tell-all book?
Which is a fairly blatant, if flippant, assertion of gold-diggery. This was uncommented upon, but there was a lot of fretting over people making blatant, if flippant, assertions that MJ was an offender. There was even a separate thread created to protect this space from such statements. Because MJ was such a beloved pop star, the idea that he was framed was very welcome to a lot of people. But as I showed, the statistical chance of it being false were very low, and yet people are adamant about the statistics not applying, which might be because they feel as though MJ is a special case (I don't think he is) but I think it's really because they don't want to believe the statistics are valid in any case. When faced with the possibiity that someone you like or love is a criminal and an abuser, the statistics never apply. It's much easier to believe that accusers are confused or mistaken or, if they're dogged enough, vindictive or greedy, than to believe that the people accused of these crimes are guilty, that these crimes happen with the frequency they do.
The possibility remains that the accusers are lying. This possibility is present in all cases. But in all cases the measured chances of that being the case are fairly slim. Given that, it's only reasonable that people harbor a tentative, careful belief in the veracity of claims made, as I do. But that is not the case. More people by bounds believe in innocence, and belief in guilt is derided as vindictiveness, ignorance and slander (though the converse belief is never derided as such, because of MJ's supposed uniqueness)
There are indeed different stakes being perceived here, with other boarders taking the view that perceptions around this case apply only to it, and my view that the perceptions are applicable to sex crime in general. I believe that of you look at the dialogue around any other case that contains the basic elements of this case (powerful man accused of wrongdoing) you will hear many statements similar to the ones made here, and many that are identical.
-
John, I love ya man, but please start a new thread for this. This is not the place for it.
-
It's coming, don't worry.
-
No dude. People here are so willing to believe that Michael Jackson was innocent because of the overwhelming evidence that he was. Not because he was a 'unique' popstar that everybody loves. You've clearly put a lot of research into statistics, but how much research have you actually put into the specifics of this case? The only 'evidence' to suggest he did anything was that he had the oppurtunity to do it and it seems like you're saying that's more than enough to assume somebody is guilty.
Statistics are pretty much useless in the face of actual evidence, of which you have provided none. Statistics are not evidence.
-
Artists are different from art, michael jackson was sicc, chill succas.
-
The arguments in this thread are pretty much monuments to bizarre circular logic.
"MJ was probably guilty because he was accused of being guilty." - KvP
"MJ was probably not guilty because he seems so likely to be guilty." - Darryl
-
Let's not argue guys! Michael Jackson was a ghastly, spoiled, selfish waste of skin, and now he's dead!
Let's celebrate!
-
At this point it's difficult to research the Evan Chandler case, because of the false recantation that's flooded internet sites of disrepute, and various sites littering the first few pages of Google accusing Chandler of being a gold digger and in some cases providing his contact information. I was hoping the Washington Post would keep its archives free but you have to buy pageviews over 60 days old, and I don't have money to buy research. I know of the Taraborrelli book, which I've heard is thorough, but its assertion of tape-recorded statements of intent to extort have yet to be corroborated elsewhere as far as I'm aware. Do you have links that I could read?
"MJ was probably guilty because he was accused of being guilty." - KvP
"MJ was probably not guilty because he seems so likely to be guilty." - Darryl
These are only circular arguments because they are incomplete representations of our actual arguments. My argument was "A. MJ was accused of committing child abuse B. False accusations of child abuse are statistically unlikely therefore C. The accusations against MJ are likelier to have merit than not to have merit."
-
Can I just start accusing people of child abuse until it become statistically likely that people are falsely accused and then MJ can be off the hook?
I am deeply devoted to this man.
-
Defending Michael Jackson is kinda like defending Louis XVI.
-
Just heard on the news, the family will -not- be displaying his body.
But who would want to go and see micheal jacksons body, after what it's been through? It's an anorexic balding white man with horrible hair and a cut up face.
Just seems rather strange that anyone wishing to respect his memory would want to see him in a state like that.
-
So, guys, sorry for being an ass earlier with my post. I was slightly tipsy and I was reminded of a friend of mind who was accused of rape by his girlfriend because he left her for another girl.
-
In the UK, for instance,5.6% of reported rape cases resulted in convictions (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/4296433.stm)
Damned statistics. Taking the figures from that article, they also say that 40% of trials for rape ended in a conviction. The reported cases that did not go to trial need to be considered separately, as the same level of information on them is not available to us, not having been made public by the court process - they also shed no light on the court process, not having gone through it.
Sorry, thread, but I couldn't let that pass.
-
That does mean 60% of rape trials do not end in conviction. Now I'm not going to say that there aren't cases of false accusations. Let's be insanely generous and call that 20% of rape cases that go to trial.
This means that at least half of all rapists who end up in court get off scot-free. Half.
-
(http://www.ljplus.ru/img4/s/a/sanchezz_fbb/paedofinder-general.JPG)
Every man is innocent until speculated guilty!
-
That does mean 60% of rape trials do not end in conviction. Now I'm not going to say that there aren't cases of false accusations. Let's be insanely generous and call that 20% of rape cases that go to trial.
This means that at least half of all rapists who end up in court get off scot-free. Half.
With my history I am afraid I would contribute to that statistic completely unintentionally. I was assaulted last year and I kept meaning to file a police report and just never got around to it. In my defense, I never did know the guy's last name, but my ADHD symptoms can be a real fucker. I also told everyone I knew at the time, and everyone I encountered that he knew by name (which was like 4 people), but I still never did anything proper about it.
Michael Jackson dying makes me immensely sad. My dad used to dance me around to his songs like Black or White and Beat It, and there were tons of Jackson 5 songs on my kids-song videos. I don't really know what it is like to wish to be that young again [with no responsibilities and carefree and just having fun, or whatever], but the notion that he is gone makes it that much more unrealistic, even for nostalgic purposes. I was always sad that he ended up vaguely creepy and in a position to be subjected to all sorts of horrible allegations, but I had lovely memories, and I guess I will just have to not forget them.
-
1% is a pretty damn big number.
Anyway, has anybody here been to an actual criminal trial as an impartial observer? What you see on the news, if anything at all, is the most provocative stuff, because it sells papers and ads. What you don't see on the news? Well, that makes all the difference.