- Registrado
- 21 de Ago, 2013
So how long until no radio is ever allowed to play Michael Jackson music again?
Leaving Neverland - heehee
- Iniciador del tema samuraicrack
- Fecha de inicio
-
🇵🇦 Nuestro primer dominio localizado está en español en kiwifarms.pa. Our first localized domain is on Spanish on kiwifarms.pa.
-
Want to keep track of this thread?
Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading.
Create account
- Registrado
- 18 de Mayo, 2014
I just don't understand what all these shrieking spergs expect to happen. Even if MJ was a pedo and a personally believe he was he's fucking worm food and has been for years. You can't punish him or make him pay for his crimes so why get worked up about it?
- Registrado
- 11 de Mar, 2019
These people have more money to spend on defending their cash cow than R. Kelly. Possibly more than even Courtney Love. It's not like they have to tell the stupid stan whether or not they themselves believe the five boys who've accused Jacko so far. They probably wouldn't have to kick to Gayzor even half of what Disney kicked to Collider to shill for Floppo: a Star Wars Story.
Jimmy Safechuck wasn't Jackie. He was "special friends" with Jacko for years.Except Safechuck did lie, demonstrably so.
He stated that, at the time of the 2005 trial that he was pressured into testifying. Not just once, but that he continued to get calls from Jackson and his team, wanting him to testify. But that can't be true. There are court records of the judge in the 2005 trial stating that certain children would not be permitted to testify and Safechuck is explicitly named.
So Jackson and his lawyers wouldn't have hounded him because they couldn't have called him as a witness anyway. But that's not even the fullest extent of the lie. Consider why he was lying, because what exactly is the point? Safechuck being ruled out of testimony doesn't hurt his credibility. There's no reason for him to suggest any other reason for it than what happened. So, what are the other possibilities?
It's possible that Safechuck simply didn't know about the ruling, although probably unlikely. But he was a kid so, for arguments sake assume his parents were told but he wasn't. He still came up with the story that Jackson was desperate for him to testify again, likely as a means to make him more sympathetic and brand Jackson as a monster, rather than doing any research into the case. If he did know, then he knowingly lied. Note, this doesn't rule him out from actually being abused. Abuse victims are sometimes very skilled at emotional manipulation, learning from their abusers but unable to stop the actual abuse, in a viscous cycle. But it's still a lie, and while I'm only speculating that it was for manipulation purposes, it brings into question the rest of his account. If he's willing to be misleading there and manipulate the facts in his favour, what else did he do it with?
To be clear, I think it's like 99% likely that MJ was a pedophile and abused young boys, and I'm all for his victims getting some kind of justice. But only if they are actual victims.
The only "special friend" who should be assumed not to've been molested is Ryan White, likely cause I doubt Jacko was curious enough to learn it's almost impossible to get the bug when you've already a healthy immune system* and you practice unprotected anal.
Not every crime of this scale offers a chance at reparations. Pearlman and the dude who raped Ricky Martin didn't generate hundreds of millions in revenue after their deaths.
Jacko did. It's time that money stopped going to his glorified accomplices and to his victims, and shame be brought to Sony and the Estate every second they do otherwise.
* If Westerners had as bad immune systems as Africans, our AIDS rates would've been just as bad.
- Registrado
- 3 de Sep, 2018
Its just modern outrage culture. Twitter has turned us into a performative society. If you don't express your outrage at [x] loudly and publicly, you're seen as anti-social at best and a supporter of [x] at worst. Never mind the fact that the thing you're supposed to be passionately upset about happened in the distant past to people you have no connection to, if this is what society tells you be upset about, you better be goddamn upset.
- Registrado
- 11 de Mar, 2019
Just as extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, extraordinary rebuttals require the same.
MJ was found innocent, just like Lizzie Borden, OJ Simpson, and the Ramsay Family.
Like the other three, the crimes had no other serious suspects, the behavior of the occused was extremely suspicious, the circumstantial and forensic evidence against the accused was enormous, and the primary defense used was "people in their social class don't commit these sorts of crimes".
Unlike the other three, Jacko's victims are all living, aside from those animals he ordered sacrificed to put a curse on those Hollywood Jew bastards who cast Robin Williams in Hook, and this is coming with somebody who's fine with animal sacrifice as long as you eat most of what you slaughter, as opposef to hexing people who want to keep you away from child actors.
Funny, but the PR machibe was sticking up for Jacko even in the early '80s when they did their damndest to make it look like he was more into Brooke Shields than Webster.
Brooke Shields says they never had sex, and has yet to retract. They were together for longer than Taylor Swift and Harry Styles, who also never had sex, but I'd believe they fucked before I'd believe Brooke and Michael did the horizontal mambo, or even the disinterested handjob.
The question isn't whether this happens. The question is whether radio stations become too embarrased to playing the music. It's not like 'NSYNC is banned from radio despite the group existing solely to provide Lou Pearlman with fresh ass.
I'm not worked up over Jacko. He's where he should be.
What I'm worked up over is the Estate and Sony continuing to profit off one of America's worst sexual predators when they themselves heled cover the bastard for years.
If "just following orders" doesn't cut it for murder, it shouldn't cut it for rape neither.
- Registrado
- 3 de Ene, 2017
I dunno, there's a real sense that he got away with -- well, not murder, but something many people regard as the next-worst thing. The new documentary is stirring it all up again, but if Razor is right about anything, it's that there's nothing new here. The rush to canonize him after he died young rubs a lot of people the wrong way, and I think a good bit of the outrage is pretty genuine.
What I want to know is, what with the Simpsons episode getting buried, and with talk of pulling his songs from airplay, is whether anyone from the Congressional Black Caucus is going to apologize for the moment of silence they had for him in Congress when he died. Which is a real thing that happened, despite there having been plenty of awful rumors about him right up to the day he OD'ed.
On House floor, a moment of silence for Michael Jackson
The Congressional Black Caucus leads a brief memorial to the late star
www.salon.com
- Registrado
- 30 de Jul, 2018
- Implying there's actual evidence when it comes to nearly all of these guys
- Implying there's actual evidence to believe Dan Schneider was a pedo outside of just being some weird middle-aged fat dude who made children's TV shows and who also thought feet were hilarious
- Implying legitimate evidence doesn't mean a thing
- Implying legitimate proof doesn't mean a thing
- Implying heresay, rumors, and "feelings" should all count as incredibly damning legitimate evidence to make something fact
- Implying heresay holds that much weight
- Implying we should start burning people at the stake all because of heresay
Última edición:
- Registrado
- 11 de Mar, 2019
The music people like is their own business. As it is for any other art.
I still like Spartacus even though it starred a rapist and won an Oscar to a dedicated Stalinist who wrote pacifist propaganda for the Molotov-Ribbentrope years and disavowed his pacifism after Operation Barbarossa. I still like Benoit's wrestling career even though he murdered his wife and son.
I like most of Jackson's music, including a lot of Dangerous. Not as much as I like Muddy Waters or Kingfish Ingram, but he mostly made fantastic pop music. But he was a prolific and nasty predator who left a trail of ruin and literal black magic on the Earth. He's better off in Hell, and it wouldn't be worth keeping him around if he were as talented as Shakespeare himself.
There's a difference between outrage culture and outrage at dangerous criminals who use their power to commit and get away with countless felonies.
Just because I want someone dead doesn't mean we should ignore the criminal justice system. I want Ryan Murphy dead, but until he's looked into for his culpability in the downfalls of Salling and Moneith, that should just remain my wish and the wishes of everyone who has to spend more than half an hour with the fucker.
- Implying there's actual evidence when it comes to nearly all of these guys
- Implying there's actual evidence to believe Dan Schneider was a pedo outside of just being some weird middle-aged fat dude who made children's TV shows and thought feet were hilarious
- Implying legitimate evidence doesn't mean a thing
- Implying legitimate proof doesn't mean a thing
- Implying heresay, rumors, and "feelings" should all count as incredibly damning legitimate evidence to make something fact
- Implying heresay holds that much weight
- Implying we should start burning people at the stake all because of heresay
I support the death penalty for a lot more that it's currently on the books in America for, including rape. But as it's currently not, I support planting a microscope up the celebrosphere's ass, and hitting hard as the law allows 'til they're set down.
I also support not putting children and teenagers in environments where they can so easily be abused by creepy old men like Schneider, Singer, and Jacko. Hollywood has less credibility to stand on than The Vatican. Only a lunatic would assume they deserve less than default suspicion 'til genuine reform's enacted and lived by.
iRON-mAn
kiwifarms.net
- Registrado
- 12 de Mar, 2019
Well, ok, if we're going by what Jimmy SAYS happened...
Note, 'towards the end of the trial', which as stated, is impossible, because the judge had already ruled.
That website you shared also states:
And Safechuck is equally unclear about it. The website also highlights this lie:
But, wait, didn't Safechuck say he only realised that he had been abused after he saw the Robson interview?
Either he realised he'd been abused and no longer wanted to testify on his behalf, and then lied about it later to create some sort of contrived sense of bond with Robson, or he was calling him a bad man for some different, undisclosed thing, which seems unlikely. And that's not even considering the possibility that he wasn't abused at all.
EDIT: I'm aware that the article does address this contradiction btw, I'm just not buying the ' worried his mother would learn his secret before he was ready to tell' line.
Última edición:
- Registrado
- 24 de Ene, 2018
I envision a deep thoughts post titled "what is worse: shitting on a corpse, or sucking a corpse's dick?"
Anyway- I don't really think anyone would care if there weren't super fans trying to white wash child rape to feel better about their own fandom. They could just say they separate the art from the artist or whatever, but they won't settle for anything less than MJ being a saint. That's irritating as shit. The super fans won't even fault michael for the decisions he made that make him look like a child molester, instead they say those decisions are actually proof that he was a really great person.
I find it hard to resist that kind of bait, the level of delusion by itself isn't much of a draw without the self righteousness on top of it. Maybe people are worried about the normalization of pedophilia or something... I looked it up today because I was curious, and I guess the percentage of americans who thought MJ is innocent for sure was the same before and after the documentary, holding at 19%. That isn't even close to a majority. Across a few different polls over different years, it is clear that most people believe he probably molested children. Weirdly it has no real connection to the numbers in polls that ask if people have a favorable or unfavorable view of MJ, so there are people out there who don't find him unfavorable despite thinking he probably touched some kids. I am guessing they did not think about it very deeply? Most people don't want his music removed from anywhere and can still enjoy the songs knowing that he probably diddled kids. There is no real danger of the pop culture legacy being canceled. The catholic church is still kicking, after all.
- Registrado
- 12 de Jul, 2018
It only seems to be some places in the UK and Canada that have done that. In my city they still play his music. I doubt they'll try to pull it from streaming services or iTunes. I'll give it about a month or less before some people are going to retract it.
- Registrado
- 21 de Ago, 2013
On a more serious note: I haven't been keeping up on the info in this thread, but sometime last year I heard that some branch of law enforcement said they took a pile of kiddie porn from MJ's estate but haven't released it. Wouldn't the easiest method to settling this matter be to:
Sure, you'll have a bunch of conspirators regardless, but I think most people would be satisfied with legitimate physical proof instead of just hearsay evidence.
- Provide substantial proof that the evidence in question was retrieved from the accused's residence, and
- Disclose the evidence publicly instead of sitting on it leaving room for doubt?
Sure, you'll have a bunch of conspirators regardless, but I think most people would be satisfied with legitimate physical proof instead of just hearsay evidence.
- Registrado
- 11 de Mar, 2019
Defining what is and isn't pornography's harder than it looks.
Ever hear of a magazine caled Jaybird? I hate linking to Salon, but this is from '03, and even if it was from yesterday, they still allude to the reason why Jaybird was popular and why it died: you could show more nudity in naturist magazines than you could in girlie magazines before the '70s.
Everybody who made nudie magazines in the olden days knew the real reason thet were printed. The people seen in the mags weren't nudists. They were models, hired for their looks, to pose for spank-pictures.
Should we allow content to be deemed pornography when there's no sex act involved in its creation? Is content pornography because of any particular quality of its own? Or is the very possibility that it could be used for masturbation enough?
Surely it can't be the last of the three. There are people out there who masturbate to Lolita; which was written without swears of any kind, and is the greatest novel in Anglosphere History; a law that bans Lolita would be fundamentaly wrong. But if Lolita were the only book or film Lena Dunham owned a copy of, I say it's reasonable to make suspicions.
Jacko posed the same problem. What he owned was legal, but he owned books that only existed to get around the same laws the Jaybird writers were avoiding. Pedos will always find something to spank it to that can keep them outta jail, so I'm of the book that the only work that should be targeted is work depicting actual sexual abuse, and there's already enough stuff like that made to be a perpetual problem on its own.
Much like the Holocaust, Jacko's porn collection was large, extensively documented (along with his supply of drugs and booze), and contained horrors so extensive, you'd be better off not knowing how bad it really was even though you can go over it any time.
It'd be one thing to keep the likes of Michael Ryan's Believe it or Not, which makes A Serbian Film look like American Pie, in your home. But Michael Jackson kept it in the very same bedroom he slept with young boys in. Much like the DNA from an Asian textile slave on JonBenét's panties doesn't topple the fact that the killers composed the longest ransom note in history using supplies from the Ramsay's very home, "no child porn" being found at Neverland doesn't weigh against the crates upon crates of porn he owneed and kep in easy access for his dozens of boy guests, all found in a raid made a decade after his first rape charge.
If this shit were found at a cardinal's home, or a congressman's; and said dignitary was known for holding sleepovers with eight-to-sixteen-year-olds of either gender, likely soon to be gender non-conforming; there would be just as little debate to their purpose as there should be with Jackson's.
Any Republican that attempts this'll be shot by Mitch McConnell on the spot.
Michael Jackson, as I've linked previously, was Donald Trump's neighbor. By the word of Ivana in her book, he lived in their tower and spent hours with Eric and Donny June, alone, for years.
Much like how association with Jeffrry Epstein was kept off limits during the 2016 elections because of Trump and Clinton, allegedly, sleeping with more than a few of his dozens of underage hoes and sex slaves. Hillary only stays with Bill because he knows she's a dyke who's used him as her merkin for four decades.
Última edición:
Who is making these arguments in this thread? Who are these so called "super fans"? I know it's easy for your types to throw around "shill" and "super fan" but these aren't arguments, just weak straw-mans.The super fans won't even fault michael for the decisions he made that make him look like a child molester, instead they say those decisions are actually proof that he was a really great person.
- Registrado
- 31 de Ene, 2015
Ugh I ate during the first 30 minutes or so because I thought how bad could it be? Then the one guy started to describe how Michael taught him to masturbate and that his dick swell up and he had to put his dick inside a cup of water.
I didn't feel hungry any more after this.
I didn't feel hungry any more after this.
- Registrado
- 15 de Sep, 2014
I've watched the doc. Honestly can't say either with 100% confidence. It is mostly based on hearsay from some rather dubious individuals but there is no denying that MJ gave off some extremely red flags. Let me just ask this to his defenders: Would you let this man anywhere near your children?
If you say yes, you have the makings of a horrible parent, full stop.
- Registrado
- 6 de Oct, 2014
Before watching the documentary, I figured the rumors were true since there was all that unsettling stuff we already knew about, and it's not uncommon for the rich and famous to do deviant shit like that and get away with it. Now, I've watched it and I'm not so sure anymore. There isn't really any evidence presented, just the guys telling anecdotes. MJ definitely gave off some creepy vibes, and I wouldn't be shocked if something happened, but I don't know if I can trust these guys.
- Registrado
- 2 de Ene, 2017
oh man, Epstein and Trump and Billy and MJ. what a crowd
- Registrado
- 30 de Sep, 2016
ObsoleteMediaFormat
kiwifarms.net
- Registrado
- 24 de Feb, 2019
Having watched the doc now and only going off the doc, I found Jimmy Safechuck to come across as believable, but everything about Wade Robson seemed off so much like he was just an awful actor, also his mother is a cunt and what she did to his dad was just cruel.
Again that just how I feel from the doc, no idea what really did or didn't happen, but dude was a super creep and his relationships with kids weren't health even if he didn't bugger them.
Again that just how I feel from the doc, no idea what really did or didn't happen, but dude was a super creep and his relationships with kids weren't health even if he didn't bugger them.
Última edición: