Michael Jackson dies

[Diego440]

Who hates Jackson enough to kill him? Maybe it's just someone who tried to win a bet, or someone who wanted to make an international scene.

Seriously, where the hell did that come from?

 

[Joel]

Wow, this is quite the turn of events. Here we go again though, what do you think will get the front page for the next week?

 

[N155AN]

happy birthday MJ.... would of been 51....

 

[boiltheocean]

Ubisoft announce MJ video game

Presumably it's an 18+, what with all the kiddy fiddling challenges.

 

[Danny]

Presumably it's an 18+, what with all the kiddy fiddling challenges.

👎

 

[The Vanishing Boy]

^ I agree. 👎 👎

 

[nk4e]

 

[The Vanishing Boy]

^ :tup:

-> I'd like to see MJ's Thiller Werewolf/Zombie character goes against Moonwalker. That would be epic!

 

[Aldo]

Please tell me it will be like "Michael Jackson Moonwalker" for the Sega Megadrive... That would be sweeeeet!

 

[Northstar]

Please tell me it will be like "Michael Jackson Moonwalker" for the Sega Megadrive... That would be sweeeeet!

It will be like DDR with Michael Jackson songs, although it may be hard to do a moonwalk on those pads they come with.

 

[Omnis]

I still have Moonwalker for genesis. I should probably try to ebay it.

 

[Max Powers]

Ubisoft announce MJ video game

Presumably it's an 18+, what with all the kiddy fiddling challenges.

I LOLed. Maybe if he didn't have sleepovers with underage children, people wouldn't say these things.

I don't understand all of the reverence for a pedophile...

 

[Touring Mars]

Last night, despite legal threats from Michael Jackson's estate, Channel 4 (UK TV channel) aired the first part of the film 'Leaving Neverland', a controversial documentary detailing (in graphic detail) how Michael Jackson sexually abused two boys over the course of several years. The second part airs tonight.

I think it is safe to say that Jackson's reputation, already pretty poor, now lies in tatters.

 

[Liquid]

Last night, despite legal threats from Michael Jackson's estate, Channel 4 (UK TV channel) aired the first part of the film 'Leaving Neverland', a controversial documentary detailing (in graphic detail) how Michael Jackson sexually abused two boys over the course of several years. The second part airs tonight.

I think it is safe to say that Jackson's reputation, already pretty poor, now lies in tatters.

"Michael Jackson child abuse" is, in some ways, like "vaccines cause autism" or "the earth is flat". Just hear me out on this; it will never matter what supposition is presented, people will either blindly defend him or blindly crucify him. I don't think I know anyone whose opinion on Michael Jackson has ever changed from one end of the spectrum to the other. It'll be interesting to see if this documentary does.

 

[Touring Mars]

"Michael Jackson child abuse" is, in some ways, like "vaccines cause autism" or "the earth is flat". Just hear me out on this; it will never matter what supposition is presented, people will either blindly defend him or blindly crucify him. I don't think I know anyone whose opinion on Michael Jackson has ever changed from one end of the spectrum to the other. It'll be interesting to see if this documentary does.

You are probably right - but, there are a whole load of people out there, including me, who haven't bothered to delve particularly deeply into the accusations, trusting that the legal judgements in the past were correct. This documentary is bound to change a lot of minds...

Unfortunately, many of those legal judgements relied on testimony from his alleged victims, including a trial in 1993 when some of the key witnesses for Jackson's defence were still children and still involved in Jackson's personal life. This documentary focuses on two such witnesses who are now, clearly, telling a very different story. Jackson's estate call these people 'admitted liars'... but neglect to point out that those 'lies' were told in Jackson's own previous sexual abuse trials!

I, for one, am definitely no longer willing to give Jackson the benefit of the doubt.

 

[Liquid]

I was reading via Die Welt that some radio stations in Germany are no longer going to broadcast Jackson's music.

 

[Dennisch]

Typical pointless knee jerking by ze Germans.

 

[Liquid]

I am mistaken in saying that it is German stations.

The article auf Deutsch clarifies that NRK P1, NRK P13 and NRK P1+ of Norway and BBC Radio 2 of England have taken the decision to remove Jackson's songs "on a trial basis" and that in Radio 2's case, the decision was made weeks ago.

We evaluate every song for its artistic merit and the decision of what to play is always made bearing in mind public opinion and context.

 

[Touring Mars]

Typical pointless knee jerking

It isn't all that pointless... Jackson's estate earns millions from royalties earned from streaming and radio plays - it isn't merely a question of good taste, but more about why should Jackson's estate, who have done everything in their power to discredit Jackson's alleged abuse victims, continue to enjoy a vast revenue stream from his music? Jackson's estate and lawyers make a lot of money by attempting to portray Jackson and themselves as victims of money-seeking individuals, when in fact they are the ones making vast sums of money - they definitely have more than a vested interest in keeping those streams coming.

 

[Northstar]

Much like the R. Kelly thing I have to question why people are just taking the moral high ground now when these accusations have been around for a rather long time.

 

[Danoff]

I, for one, am definitely no longer willing to give Jackson the benefit of the doubt.

I reserved judgment while some of this was going on, thinking maybe he was weird. But when the child porn reports came out shortly after his death I did a quick about-face. That was all it took for me. Too many things had lined up.

https://www.gtplanet.net/forum/threads/white-privilege.360616/page-22#post-12455776

It isn't all that pointless... Jackson's estate earns millions from royalties earned from streaming and radio plays - it isn't merely a question of good taste, but more about why should Jackson's estate, who have done everything in their power to discredit Jackson's alleged abuse victims, continue to enjoy a vast revenue stream from his music? Jackson's estate and lawyers make a lot of money by attempting to portray Jackson and themselves as victims of money-seeking individuals, when in fact they are the ones making vast sums of money - they definitely have more than a vested interest in keeping those streams coming.

I've long been a proponent that you can enjoy someone's art without sanctioning their every deed. You have to hope that the legal system takes care of their criminal acts. But when someone gets away with criminal acts, then what? I have to admit that I've had a hard time listening to his music in recent years. He was an artist, and, if allegations are to be believed (and I think they are), a monster. But still, should we destroy his art? The monster is dead.

(I have not seen the documentary)

 

[Scaff]

Much like the R. Kelly thing I have to question why people are just taking the moral high ground now when these accusations have been around for a rather long time.

Some have long believed the accusations (in both cases).

 

[Dennisch]

It isn't all that pointless... Jackson's estate earns millions from royalties earned from streaming and radio plays - it isn't merely a question of good taste, but more about why should Jackson's estate, who have done everything in their power to discredit Jackson's alleged abuse victims, continue to enjoy a vast revenue stream from his music? Jackson's estate and lawyers make a lot of money by attempting to portray Jackson and themselves as victims of money-seeking individuals, when in fact they are the ones making vast sums of money - they definitely have more than a vested interest in keeping those streams coming.

Accusations isn't the same being guilty.

If Jackson ('s ghost) is found guilty, fine, ban his music from your station.

 

[Liquid]

If Jackson ('s ghost) is found guilty

Unfortunately this is all but impossible. If you die having not been convicted then that's that even if we know otherwise.

I don't think putting the dead on trial has been a thing since one of the 13th century Popes tried and found guilty his predecessor's corpse.

 

[Dotini]

Now a lot of actors, politicians, religious people, artists, and business tycoons have been outed as sexual predators or monsters. Should all their works be boycotted, seized or destroyed? Should all who defended them, family, estate, lawyers and fans be identified, called out, vilified or sued for damages? The first principle of litigation for damages is to go after whomever has the money.

America has long been intolerant of sinners, deviants and evildoers. If your favorite racing driver is shown to be a wifebeater, you should probably not watch any races he is in.

 

[Liquid]

The more we learn about the true depth of depravity and abuse in our societies, the more we find out that we have been as equally protective of sinners as we have been intolerant of them.

 

[Danoff]

The more we learn about the true depth of depravity and abuse in our societies, the more we find out that we have been as equally protective of sinners as we have been intolerant of them.

I'm not sure what your point is here. The concept of someone being innocent until proven guilty is a good one. Is that not the basic presumption that we should have toward people? Or would you rather that we did not protect anyone in the face of a mere allegation?

 

[Dotini]

The more we learn about the true depth of depravity and abuse in our societies, the more we find out that we have been as equally protective of sinners as we have been intolerant of them.

Like too many rats in a cage, there comes a time to devour and destroy those who would corrupt and pollute our precious existence.

 

[Famine]

Unfortunately this is all but impossible. If you die having not been convicted then that's that even if we know otherwise.

I don't think putting the dead on trial has been a thing since one of the 13th century Popes tried and found guilty his predecessor's corpse.

Our parliament has decided that Jimmy Savile was "a sickening and prolific sexual abuser who repeatedly exploited the trust of a nation for his own vile purposes", and the Savile estate was seized and preserved for the purposes of settling civil claims as approved by the courts.

It's not quite the same thing as a criminal court finding him guilty, but there's a (still ongoing) inquiry that may convey the same eventual verdict.

 

[Touring Mars]

I've long been a proponent that you can enjoy someone's art without sanctioning their every deed. You have to hope that the legal system takes care of their criminal acts. But when someone gets away with criminal acts, then what? I have to admit that I've had a hard time listening to his music in recent years. He was an artist, and, if allegations are to be believed (and I think they are), a monster. But still, should we destroy his art? The monster is dead.

I don't think people should stop listening to his music if they enjoy it - I grew up listening to 'Thriller' and 'Bad', and I'm not about to delete them from my iPod... but - I won't be listening to Jackson on Spotify or any other revenue source, and I totally agree with radio stations or other media outlets who may not wish to contribute to funding his estate, either by paying royalties or promoting his music to new audiences.

@Dennisch As Liquid says, it's too late for that. Jackson was tried several times but never prosecuted - but one has to question whether accepting testimony from alleged child victims is a good idea, when it is in the very nature of the alleged offenses to coach and groom victims to side with their abuser.