Was Michael Jackson a pedophile?

[Teenwolf]

New documentary series coming out detailing people's sexual relationships with Jackson through their childhood. Controversial because the 2 witnesses in the documentary had previously defended Jackson in court.

I don't think I'll watch it, but I'm curious what the bar thinks.

I switched to believing he was a pedo after it came out that he fed children wine and called it 'Jesus Juice'... but some folks like my mom refuse to believe.

[revo]

Maybe it's just my recollections, but I thought it was pretty well documented that he was.

[Ken]

Maybe it's just my recollections, but I thought it was pretty well documented that he was.

Yes, it was. Sadly he got a free pass because people liked his music.

[B-Fly]

Yes. I'm not sure how much childhood psychological abuse and mental illness would have been raised as mitigating factors at a sentencing hearing had he been tried and convicted before his death, nor am I sure how much we should explore and factor that into our post-mortem assessments of the man, but I don't doubt that he engaged in conscious, deliberate and illegal sexual activity with children.

[Teenwolf]

By the way, no judgment if anybody thinks he's innocent. It's hard for some people to turn on their favourite celebrities.

There's a Canadian rock band called Hedley who were quite famous, and it took a decade for the rumours of sexual assaults on under age girls to become public. The crazy thing is, they played a show in my hometown about a year ago, several months after rape and abuse allegations from multiple women were made public... the locals didn't care, viewed it as a sad farewell tour for the poor lead singer... an article ran in the local paper about a woman who was upset about her 12 year old son's VIP ticket no longer including a meet and greet... the level of delusion among fans can be hard to overcome. IE Trump supporters.

[Ken]

It's hard for some people to turn on their favourite celebrities.

I agree. The question is why?

[DMT]

I agree. The question is why?

Because they're fragile.

[Ken]

Because they're fragile.

Certainly a part of it.

It's strange how much we idolize celebrities.

[Sour Masher]

Yes. I'm not sure how much childhood psychological abuse and mental illness would have been raised as mitigating factors at a sentencing hearing had he been tried and convicted before his death, nor am I sure how much we should explore and factor that into our post-mortem assessments of the man, but I don't doubt that he engaged in conscious, deliberate and illegal sexual activity with children.

Yeah, I'm in the same boat. I'm not exactly sure what sort of sexual activity he forced upon children, but the evidence seems overwhelming that he was a pedophile, and acted on those impulses. I think I recall their being two classes of pedos. One that is about getting off on the control and power dynamic. If you had to parse evils, this group is the more evil, because they don't delude themselves into thinking they are not hurting the children. They get off on it. The other type more identifies with children. I think Jackson fit into the latter category. Those pedos often don't really believe what they are doing is wrong, because they think they love children and would not hurt them, when, of course, their actions, if they act on their feelings, are about the most damaging thing anyone could ever do to a child. I think Jackson fit in that latter category, and did those things while thinking what he did wasn't really wrong.

It is a travesty that fame and money protected him. I have never been faced with the decision of prosecuting the man who sexually abused my child, or accepting millions of dollars to keep quite, but I feel confident I'd turn down that money to make sure that man went away to pay (not just with money) for his crime and ensure he never hurt another child. I'd want to hurt the man, bad, regardless of his motives or mind-frame. I remember being utterly disgusted by that massive settlement him paid off that those parents accepted.

A different question is, should we refuse to appreciate any product from bad people? Where is the line? I don't know the answer to that.

[Teenwolf]

A different question is, should we refuse to appreciate any product from bad people? Where is the line? I don't know the answer to that.

I wrote about this in another thread, ("cover songs I like") so I'll copy/paste here:

Do all of you know that Ryan Adam's was recently outed for his own indiscretions with under age fans? Swampy, I think your students have a point.

Or do you guys ignore the personality stuff? I'm a recovering Kanye West and R. Kelly superfan, but it's something I can't support once you know... and in hindsight, i feel dumb for not connecting the dots with R. Kelly sooner.

[Mithrandir]

I agree. The question is why?

Hasn't this been the case for recorded human history? Celebrities, and other "important" people, are thought to be somehow better than the general populace.

Would part of it be the desire of people to have the fame and money that celebrities have so they equate that with "importance"?

[senorsheep]

Nah. He paid out $200 million to the the families of nearly 20 kids because trials are a nuisance.

[senorsheep]

A different question is, should we refuse to appreciate any product from bad people? Where is the line? I don't know the answer to that.

Off The Wall and Thriller are no less enjoyable to me because the artist was later exposed as a creep. The music didn't change, our perception of the human behind the music did. But I have a freakish capacity to separate artists from their art. I get why normal humans might react differently, with their irrational emotional attachments and whatnot.

[B-Fly]

Off The Wall and Thriller are no less enjoyable to me because the artist was later exposed as a creep. The music didn't change, our perception of the human behind the music did. But I have a freakish capacity to separate artists from their art. I get why normal humans might react differently, with their irrational emotional attachments and whatnot.

Yeah, that's pretty much where I am, as well. I might have some hesitation about financially rewarding a terrible person, but I certainly see no really good reason to refuse to listen to the music of a deceased artist based on the artist's personal failings/crimes.

[senorsheep]

Hasn't this been the case for recorded human history? Celebrities, and other "important" people, are thought to be somehow better than the general populace.

Would part of it be the desire of people to have the fame and money that celebrities have so they equate that with "importance"?

I agree that celebrities are generally useless and don't deserve most of the adoration and attention they get. Artists are another matter. Great artists are able to do something that the rest of us can't - they can create in a way that reaches us and moves us on a deep and meaningful level. Most of us place a lot of value in that ability to connect, and to illustrate the human condition in a manner that stirs the soul. I think that's why so many people elevate the importance of their favorite artists, and are willing overlook their personal failings - the artist gives them something valuable that few other humans can.