Jackson Not Guilty

j$ · Post by j$ » Wed Jun 15, 2005 6:13 pm

sparks wrote:I think almost everyone needs to be a little more cautious and objective when making assumptions about serious criminal accusations, even when you're just blabbing about media figures.

This kinda goes without saying, Sparks. But thanks for saying it anyway.

erik · Post by **erik** » Wed Jun 15, 2005 6:49 pm

sparks wrote:Jackson being a totally insane individual has nothing at all to do with his guilt or innocence. Yeah, folks, he's a wacko. But you have no clue as to whether he actually committed this specific act with that information, and you simply shouldn't pretend that you do. This isn't just aimed at you, Jazz, if you can't tell--I think almost everyone needs to be a little more cautious and objective when making assumptions about serious criminal accusations, even when you're just blabbing about media figures.

Why? As long as they can find 12 people who live in the same town as the accused and agree not to be biased, what does it matter how quickly the rest of America decides whether he did it or not? It's watercooler talk, it's gossip, and people do it all the time about celebrities simply because we have no hard and fast evidence about it. Are Tom Cruise and Katie Holmes really in love? Is Rachael Ray a lesbian? Is Michael Jackson a child molester? About 5 people in the world will ever have enough information to answer any of those questions. The rest of us are just guessing (*gasp*) and I think we all know it.

sparks · Post by **sparks** » Wed Jun 15, 2005 11:31 pm

Right. But these are real people, too. The reult of that thinking is that we play into the eact kind of process that condemns innocent individuals by uneducated mob decision. And to start, we're orking with whatever hand the media deals us on the topic. It's pathetic. There's plenty of halfay intelligent stuff to waste your thinking on at the watercooler. I can't believe I'm the only one who gets sick of this constant speculative shit disguised as relevant current events. schaivo was bad enough. "He never loved her anyway! Killer!"

sparks · Post by **sparks** » Wed Jun 15, 2005 11:36 pm

j$ wrote:
sparks wrote:I think almost everyone needs to be a little more cautious and objective when making assumptions about serious criminal accusations, even when you're just blabbing about media figures.
This kinda goes without saying, Sparks. But thanks for saying it anyway.

But no one ever says it. I mean, it's not like everyone involved is just shooting the shit. I believe most people who talk this way believe every cent of it.

On the one side of this topic that I'm not embarrassed to associate myself with, I've got to agree that his decline in popularity probably has nothing at all to do with the diddling, real or invented. His new stuff is really dreadful, and by "new" I'm still talking like 1996. I don't think anyone but the die-hards can say if he's got anything newer than that ithout doing a little google/allmusic.

erik · Post by **erik** » Thu Jun 16, 2005 12:27 am

sparks wrote:The result of that thinking is that we play into the exact kind of process that condemns innocent individuals by uneducated mob decision. And to start, we're working with whatever hand the media deals us on the topic. It's pathetic. There's plenty of halfway intelligent stuff to waste your thinking on at the watercooler. I can't believe I'm the only one who gets sick of this constant speculative shit disguised as relevant current events. schaivo was bad enough. "He never loved her anyway! Killer!"

Meh, it's as pathetic as you want to make it. What exactly am I condemning Michael Jackson to, by thinking that he's a child molester? I have no real power over him at all. My opinion on the matter is absolutely irrelevant. It's just bullcrap to talk about, and there's nothing wrong with talking about stuff that's stupid and simultaneously admitting that it's stupid.

Hoblit · Post by **Hoblit** » Thu Jun 16, 2005 5:34 pm

Sparks, lighten up do0d.

boltoph · Post by **boltoph** » Fri Jun 17, 2005 10:46 am

Has anyone even considered the idea that maybe M.J. is asexual and really has no libido?

And is a guy who basically missed out on childhood and is unable to cope because he's always trying to recapture it in some way? That he never went through puberty properly?

And that at a sleepover with a bunch of little kids, maybe he feels like just another little kid? I mean, just listen to him talk.

I think too many people assume the worst just because people can't see past their own sexuality and upbringing to identify with someone who is incapable of sexuality and coming from a very very different background. It might be considered to be like homophobia in a different way, more like aphobia. Just because you or I may like to have sex with this or that doesn't mean that he is the same way. I'd be interested in reading full psychiatric and psychological reports on M.J.

My opinions don't necessarily reflect the questions I'm posing here.

jack · Post by **jack** » Fri Jun 17, 2005 10:53 am

yeah right. he's asexual. all that pornography they found in his bedroom was someone elses. he just likes to hang out with all the other little kids and drink wine and surf for porn on the internet.

he's certainly a narcissist and a drama queen extraordinaire but i doubt he's asexual.

roymond · Post by **roymond** » Fri Jun 17, 2005 11:05 am

boltoph wrote:That he never went through puberty properly?

Remind me what the proper way was, again?

Just because you or I may like to have sex with this or that doesn't mean that he is the same way.

Not everyone here shares the same concept either. But I agree with your point.

erik · Post by **erik** » Fri Jun 17, 2005 11:55 am

boltoph wrote:Has anyone even considered the idea that maybe M.J. is asexual and really has no libido?[/size]

Man, anything's possible. I won't deny the possibility of this. But couldn't you say this about anyone who goes out of their way to spend time with children? That the creepy custodian who's always sweeping really dilligently when the cheerleaders are practicing in the cafetorium is maybe asexual, that maybe he just makes friendship bracelets for all the freshman girls to be nice, that maybe he offers to drive kids home to be helpful.

It's possible. But that doesn't mean that it's not suspicious. Michael Jackson's behavior attracts suspicion because it's outside of culturally accepted norms and it's unverifiable. His refusal to understand why his behavior puts him in the category of "People who will be under suspicion of being child molesters" is foolish.

If he wants to be an asexual manchild who doesn't molest kids, that's fine. If he wants everyone to believe it, then he should put up nightvision security cameras in his bedroom. No, he shouldn't have to. But it would have saved him a crapload of grief the first time he settled out of court, and the second time when he got dragged into court.

Kid: He molestered me!
Jackson: Here's video of every night the boy spent the night in my bedroom.
Judge: Wow, it's plain to see that you aren't molestering young boys. You're just a freak, and that is no crime.

roymond · Post by **roymond** » Fri Jun 17, 2005 11:58 am

erikb wrote:You're just a freak, and that is no crime.

Says who?

boltoph · Post by **boltoph** » Fri Jun 17, 2005 1:40 pm

roymond wrote:
boltoph wrote:That he never went through puberty properly?
Remind me what the proper way was, again?

Just that he was smothered with music scene and probably was probably exposed to all sorts of sexual innuendo at a young age...I'd think that could mess with normal progression of sexuality. Maybe? obviously I'm uneducated about this but I thought it would be fun to play the devil's advocate.

erikb wrote:That the creepy custodian who's always sweeping really dilligently when the cheerleaders are practicing in the cafetorium is maybe asexual, that maybe he just makes friendship bracelets for all the freshman girls to be nice, that maybe he offers to drive kids home to be helpful.

I shouldn't be laughing. Maybe he's just lonely? ...uhh... Children do have a certain innocence and objectivity that someone may cling to, especially if they are used to rejection by their peers, alienation among peers. But yeah...highly unlikely esp. with what jack was saying about pron and such. Ugh.

Tell 'em that it's human nature, why, oh why? Couldn't MJ just be gay? Why, why...

Bjam · Post by **Bjam** » Fri Jun 17, 2005 3:01 pm

http://www.blogthings.com/michaeljacksonjokegenerator/

Classy.

Mogosagatai · Post by **Mogosagatai** » Tue Jun 21, 2005 2:13 am

Hey, Boltoph and 15-16. I think you two agree and are arguing the wrong details. Boltoph says, "It's reasonable to be open to the possiblity that he doesn't suck" and 15-16 says "Well that may be true but it's still reasonable for the world to suspect him of sucking!" You're both totally right.

He's a fucked up guy, either way, in a way that really oughta speak loads about cultural ideas on celebrity and living the big life and all that.

Future Boy · Post by **Future Boy** » Tue Jun 21, 2005 8:33 am

Provided that the guy calling himself "Former MJ Publicist" is actually what he claims to be, many of your questions about MJ will be answered in <a href="http://www.datalounge.com/cgi-bin/iowa/ ... age-1.html
">this thread</a>.
(via <a href="http://www.thesuperficial.com">the superficial</a>)

Mostess · Post by **Mostess** » Wed Jun 22, 2005 6:26 am

erikb wrote:Meh, it's as pathetic as you want to make it. What exactly am I condemning Michael Jackson to, by thinking that he's a child molester? I have no real power over him at all. My opinion on the matter is absolutely irrelevant. It's just bullcrap to talk about, and there's nothing wrong with talking about stuff that's stupid and simultaneously admitting that it's stupid.

Your opinion is not irrelevant. Your disregard (for MJ, for the importance of personal expression, for the strength of your own opinion) is dangerous: not to Michael Jackson, but to people you actually do influence. Sparks is right that casual condemnation is disgusting; it's not okay just because it doesn't hurt Michael Jackson.

I saw a hockey game where the drunk guy in front of me stood up against the glass as a visiting player skated past. He pointed his beer at the player and yelled "I HATE you!" I don't doubt that's part of the fun of the game, but there was no fun in his tone or manner. He was alone and drunk and full of hate. Didn't impact the player or the game or the sport. Left a hell of a hole in my soul.

Watched the Katie Couric special about the "Runaway Bride" last night, and they showed a clip of some moron-on-the-street spouting "I have no sympathy for that disgusting person. She's scum." I still don't know which is worse: that someone would say that to a camera, or that the producers would show it. (Or that I would watch it, or repeat it on a message board---but that's a different topic.)

I'm not saying people have a responsibility to make me or anyone else feel good about the world. I'm not saying that I or anyone else shouldn't hear what others have to say, negative or not. I'm not even saying that you're wrong. Just that your opinion matters, even if the subject of that opinion doesn't care. And thinking that there's nothing wrong with spewing contempt because you think it's harmless ignores the fact that you're leaving puddles of contempt everywhere.

People do stand around water coolers and talk smack about celebrities. Celebrities don't mind, hell they probably need that. But man it makes the water cooler a nasty place to be.

erik · Post by **erik** » Wed Jun 22, 2005 8:59 am

Mostess wrote:Your opinion is not irrelevant. Your disregard (for MJ, for the importance of personal expression, for the strength of your own opinion) is dangerous: not to Michael Jackson, but to people you actually do influence. Sparks is right that casual condemnation is disgusting; it's not okay just because it doesn't hurt Michael Jackson.

I saw a hockey game where the drunk guy in front of me stood up against the glass as a visiting player skated past. He pointed his beer at the player and yelled "I HATE you!" I don't doubt that's part of the fun of the game, but there was no fun in his tone or manner. He was alone and drunk and full of hate. Didn't impact the player or the game or the sport. Left a hell of a hole in my soul.

Watched the Katie Couric special about the "Runaway Bride" last night, and they showed a clip of some moron-on-the-street spouting "I have no sympathy for that disgusting person. She's scum." I still don't know which is worse: that someone would say that to a camera, or that the producers would show it. (Or that I would watch it, or repeat it on a message board---but that's a different topic.)

I'm not saying people have a responsibility to make me or anyone else feel good about the world. I'm not saying that I or anyone else shouldn't hear what others have to say, negative or not. I'm not even saying that you're wrong. Just that your opinion matters, even if the subject of that opinion doesn't care. And thinking that there's nothing wrong with spewing contempt because you think it's harmless ignores the fact that you're leaving puddles of contempt everywhere.

People do stand around water coolers and talk smack about celebrities. Celebrities don't mind, hell they probably need that. But man it makes the water cooler a nasty place to be.

I agree with you general sentiment that bile and contempt can be infectious, especially when vocalized. But the way in which I express my opinion is different from the opinion in and of itself. Someone who says "Michael Jackson? I HATE HIM. I have no sympathy for that disgusting person. He's scum, no better than a moron on the street," that's one thing. But to say "I think Michael Jackson is a child molester", that's not going to leave puddles of contempt everywhere.

Post by jb » Wed Jun 22, 2005 9:03 am

boltoph wrote:Has anyone even considered the idea that maybe M.J. is asexual and really has no libido?[/size]

Well, dude does have two kids. Nobody's ever questioned whether they're his or not, it seems. At least the shrill screaming about this story that one cannot escape doesn't seem to include accusations of adoption or in-vitro fertilization. *shrug*

boltoph · Post by **boltoph** » Wed Jun 22, 2005 10:24 am

jb wrote:
boltoph wrote:Has anyone even considered the idea that maybe M.J. is asexual and really has no libido?[/size]
Well, dude does have two kids. Nobody's ever questioned whether they're his or not, it seems. At least the shrill screaming about this story that one cannot escape doesn't seem to include accusations of adoption or in-vitro fertilization. *shrug*

Very true...I'm not sure if there was ever a divorce from his latest wife, "Debbie Rowe". And they had a kid which was Prince MJJ I. The mother of Prince MJ II (the kid that was dangled from the fourth story balcony) is apparently "unknown".

Here's a Michael Jackson Timeline, for anyone interested (scroll down). The article leaves out info. about MJ's earlier career w/ the Jackson 5, though.

jack · Post by **jack** » Wed Jun 22, 2005 11:36 am

i thought the third kid's name (the balcony kid) was "blanket".

all you guys defending MJ.....be honest. would you leave your kid unsupervised for an overnight sleepover with this freak?

'nuff said.

boltoph · Post by **boltoph** » Wed Jun 22, 2005 11:53 am

jack wrote:all you guys defending MJ.....be honest. would you leave your kid unsupervised for an overnight sleepover with this freak?

He actually appears to have three kids. Where did you find info. about his pron collection?

13 Feb 1997 Michael and Debbie's child, "Prince" Michael Joseph Jackson Jr., born.
3 Apr 1998 Paris Michael Katherine Jackson born, Spaulding Pain Medical Clinic, Beverly Hills.
19 Nov 2002 Michael Jackson precariously dangles his child, Prince Michael Jackson II, outside a fourth-floor Adlon Hotel balcony window in Berlin. Video of this incident is seen everywhere, and nearly everyone found Jackson's behavior horrifying. The child has unknown parentage and an unknown birthdate, but is estimated to be six months old.

Hoblit · Post by **Hoblit** » Wed Jun 22, 2005 2:50 pm

jack wrote:i thought the third kid's name (the balcony kid) was "blanket".

all you guys defending MJ.....be honest. would you leave your kid unsupervised for an overnight sleepover with this freak?

'nuff said.

Not trusting someone to be a child molester is different than suspecting that someone is in fact a child molester. I wouldn't leave my kid for a week with anyone I didn't know. They may turn out to be a serial killer even if I didn't suspect them of that when I handed my kid over.

I'm not defending MJ...I'm arguing symantics.

b-dude...the pr0n collection was just a couple of adult magazines found in his bedroom while serving a search warrent. I'm sure you could google it.