So, the Simpsons are pulling the Michael Jackson episode from distribution - the one where Jackson plays the voice of a white mental patient who comes home with Homer from the mental hospital.
https://slate.com/culture/2019/03/michael-jackson-simpsons-episode-featuring-singers-voice-to-be-pulled-from-circulation.html
All of this is a result of a documentary entitled Leaving Neverland, which interviews in depth two men who were repeatedly sexually molested by Jackson as young boys. Jackson of course was tried and acquitted on very similar charges back in the 90s.
I've seen and heard online discussions about whether it is right to still listen to Jackson's music, whether wedding DJs should play his music, that kind of thing.
So what say you Languish? Is it right to still listen to Jackson's music? Should radio stations stop playing his songs? Or do you still doubt that Jackson was a serial sexual abuser?
Sorry, I'm not gonna give up the Naked Gun movies.
I guess I feel differently about it now that he is dead. Any attempt to make him pay for his misdeeds or whatever is now pointless. So why not enjoy his music? What actual impact is that having?
Is it too much of a leap to say we should remove/hide any kind of media (e.g. books) done by anyone who did something naughty?
Presumably this would cut out the inputs of anyone involved in killing/causing the death of people in a way that we don't now approve of.
Or maybe that would be taking things too far?
I don't know if he did it or not. Lots of people who knew him swear it couldn't possibly be true.
At any rate, it doesn't affect his music imo.
Quote from: Tonitrus on March 08, 2019, 02:02:34 PM
Is it too much of a leap to say we should remove/hide any kind of media (e.g. books) done by anyone who did something naughty?
Presumably this would cut out the inputs of anyone involved in killing/causing the death of people in a way that we don't now approve of.
Or maybe that would be taking things too far?
Well, the argument is that Jackson did far more than "do something naughty". Repeated sexual molestation of children is pretty bad.
There certainly is a line I would suggest. John Wayne Gacy painted a whole lot of picture both before and after his arrest - and such pictures now sell for thousands of dollars. BUt I would never, ever buy one of them. Similarly Hitler was famously an artist, and his paintings similarly sell quite well.
But on which side of the line is Billie Jean?
Quote from: Barrister on March 08, 2019, 02:10:57 PM
Well, the argument is that Jackson did far more than "do something naughty". Repeated sexual molestation of children is pretty bad.
Obviously "something naughty" was intended to be sarcastically euphemistic.
But there are plenty of older, celebrated literary works by people that, when we really look at it from a modern sense, were very nasty people who were direct/indirect actors in the deaths of many.
But we often overlook all that in a historical kind of inverse of "too soon?" idea.
Quote from: Tonitrus on March 08, 2019, 02:15:46 PM
Quote from: Barrister on March 08, 2019, 02:10:57 PM
Well, the argument is that Jackson did far more than "do something naughty". Repeated sexual molestation of children is pretty bad.
Obviously "something naughty" was intended to be sarcastically euphemistic.
But there are plenty of older, celebrated literary works by people that, when we really look at it from a modern sense, were very nasty people who were direct/indirect actors in the deaths of many.
But we often overlook all that in a historical kind of inverse of "too soon?" idea.
Yup - one I've seen is that Charles Dickens tried to have his wife and the mother of his 10 kids committed to an insane asylum so he could shack up with some 19 year old.
Quote from: Barrister on March 08, 2019, 02:10:57 PM
Quote from: Tonitrus on March 08, 2019, 02:02:34 PM
Is it too much of a leap to say we should remove/hide any kind of media (e.g. books) done by anyone who did something naughty?
Presumably this would cut out the inputs of anyone involved in killing/causing the death of people in a way that we don't now approve of.
Or maybe that would be taking things too far?
Well, the argument is that Jackson did far more than "do something naughty". Repeated sexual molestation of children is pretty bad.
There certainly is a line I would suggest. John Wayne Gacy painted a whole lot of picture both before and after his arrest - and such pictures now sell for thousands of dollars. BUt I would never, ever buy one of them. Similarly Hitler was famously an artist, and his paintings similarly sell quite well.
But on which side of the line is Billie Jean?
But none of those people can profit or benefit from their art though. They are dead. So why shouldn't the world benefit from their artistic contributions even if they were evil people in life?
Quote from: Valmy on March 08, 2019, 02:18:29 PM
Quote from: Barrister on March 08, 2019, 02:10:57 PM
Quote from: Tonitrus on March 08, 2019, 02:02:34 PM
Is it too much of a leap to say we should remove/hide any kind of media (e.g. books) done by anyone who did something naughty?
Presumably this would cut out the inputs of anyone involved in killing/causing the death of people in a way that we don't now approve of.
Or maybe that would be taking things too far?
Well, the argument is that Jackson did far more than "do something naughty". Repeated sexual molestation of children is pretty bad.
There certainly is a line I would suggest. John Wayne Gacy painted a whole lot of picture both before and after his arrest - and such pictures now sell for thousands of dollars. BUt I would never, ever buy one of them. Similarly Hitler was famously an artist, and his paintings similarly sell quite well.
But on which side of the line is Billie Jean?
But none of those people can profit or benefit from their art though. They are dead. So why shouldn't the world benefit from their artistic contributions even if they were evil people in life?
Forget it, Valmy. It's Chinatown.
Beethoven was a famous bastard for example, the "national" anthem of the EU is his.
A documentary without any proof is not cause enough for a damnatio memoriae in my mind. Now Jacksons music was crap and shouldn't be listened to anyhow, but that's beside the point.
Quote from: Threviel on March 08, 2019, 02:32:04 PM
Beethoven was a famous bastard for example, the "national" anthem of the EU is his.
A documentary without any proof is not cause enough for a damnatio memoriae in my mind. Now Jacksons music was crap and shouldn't be listened to anyhow, but that's beside the point.
How much more proof do you need than the detailed statements of two of Jackson's victims?
Personally, I always believed he was a paedophile since the mid-90s trial.
I think all material from the moon landings should be locked away somewhere. Enjoying the work of an SS officer is unacceptable.
Quote from: Threviel on March 08, 2019, 02:32:04 PM
Beethoven was a famous bastard for example, the "national" anthem of the EU is his.
If having an unpleasant personality was enough then it would be a wonder we are left with any art at all.
Quote from: Barrister on March 08, 2019, 02:34:20 PM
Quote from: Threviel on March 08, 2019, 02:32:04 PM
Beethoven was a famous bastard for example, the "national" anthem of the EU is his.
A documentary without any proof is not cause enough for a damnatio memoriae in my mind. Now Jacksons music was crap and shouldn't be listened to anyhow, but that's beside the point.
How much more proof do you need than the detailed statements of two of Jackson's victims?
Personally, I always believed he was a paedophile since the mid-90s trial.
Filtered through the legal system with a conviction in the end, well, then two witnesses is plenty.
Filtered through a documentary two witnesses mean nothing. Next documentary will have plenty of witnesses to the contrary. They are not building a case, they are making a TV show.
Quote from: Threviel on March 08, 2019, 02:45:25 PM
Quote from: Barrister on March 08, 2019, 02:34:20 PM
Quote from: Threviel on March 08, 2019, 02:32:04 PM
Beethoven was a famous bastard for example, the "national" anthem of the EU is his.
A documentary without any proof is not cause enough for a damnatio memoriae in my mind. Now Jacksons music was crap and shouldn't be listened to anyhow, but that's beside the point.
How much more proof do you need than the detailed statements of two of Jackson's victims?
Personally, I always believed he was a paedophile since the mid-90s trial.
Filtered through the legal system with a conviction in the end, well, then two witnesses is plenty.
Filtered through a documentary two witnesses mean nothing. Next documentary will have plenty of witnesses to the contrary. They are not building a case, they are making a TV show.
It's not like Jackson ever molested children in front of other people! He only ever did it behind closed doors. We know from existing evidence Jackson would befriend young children and their families and would often sleep with them alone in his bedroom.
He's dead, so we do nothing. I like a small number of his songs and would not want those to just vanish from the public space. Doesn't seem like it would accomplish much.
But the people who are convinced that all the allegations were just a big conspiracy-- we need to go after them :glare:
Quote from: derspiess on March 08, 2019, 02:49:43 PM
He's dead, so we do nothing. I like a small number of his songs and would not want those to just vanish from the public space. Doesn't seem like it would accomplish much.
But the people who are convinced that all the allegations were just a big conspiracy-- we need to go after them :glare:
How do you feel about the works of criminals who are still alive?
Quote from: Barrister on March 08, 2019, 01:55:12 PM
So what say you Languish? Is it right to still listen to Jackson's music? Should radio stations stop playing his songs? Or do you still doubt that Jackson was a serial sexual abuser?
I'm not sure what to think.
I'm inclined to believe the alleged victims.
No, strike that. I do believe them, their story is credible, despite past testimony.
Too many allegations of the same incidents, similar patterns to be a total fabrication.
Did it happen exactly as they describe? Maybe not. Did sexual contacts between Jackson and underage boys happenned? I'm pretty sure now.
I had completely forgotten about the details of these past incidents. I wasn't a Jackson fan by then and felt unconcerned. I read the big titles, a few newspiece here&there, but it's not like I had high speed internet and forum filled to the brim with lawyers to explain the finer points of every legal details of the trial(s?).
Was he a great artist of his field? Certainly.
Was he a tormented soul with a difficult childhood? Certainly.
Was he a pedo? In most likelyhood, yes. But it's a moot point now that the man is deceased.
I don't think radio or djs should play his songs, but I'm not going to boycoot anyone over this either.
They do or they don't, it's their choice.
So the idea of "banning" MJs songs isn't to punish MJ - he's obviously very dead.
It's more that knowing what we know, listening to his music demonstrates a lack of empathy to victims of sexual abuse. SUch music may be triggering to others. It may in fact bother the listener themselves to take enjoyment from such a monster.
Quote from: Tonitrus on March 08, 2019, 02:15:46 PM
But there are plenty of older, celebrated literary works by people that, when we really look at it from a modern sense, were very nasty people who were direct/indirect actors in the deaths of many.
The problem is, the alleged acts where criminal and non socially acceptable acts back when they were committed in the case of Michael Jackson.
I'm pretty sure Genghis Khan soldiers committed a lot of atrocities, raping/killing children or their corpses among them, but it wasn't a punishable offense back then, when you did that to your ennemies.
Quote from: Barrister on March 08, 2019, 02:55:25 PM
So the idea of "banning" MJs songs isn't to punish MJ - he's obviously very dead.
It's more that knowing what we know, listening to his music demonstrates a lack of empathy to victims of sexual abuse. SUch music may be triggering to others. It may in fact bother the listener themselves to take enjoyment from such a monster.
There is an estate that still derives profits from his music and is very much involved in perpetuating his legacy and preventing the truth from coming out.
And again, I stress my personal opinion. Lots of people lack empathy. They want to, they do it, not my business.
I ain't gonna go on crusade over this.
But I'm not gonna listen to a radio station when it plays Jackson's music, I'm not gonna play it myself either and will never request such a song from a dj.
Quote from: viper37 on March 08, 2019, 03:01:29 PM
Quote from: Tonitrus on March 08, 2019, 02:15:46 PM
But there are plenty of older, celebrated literary works by people that, when we really look at it from a modern sense, were very nasty people who were direct/indirect actors in the deaths of many.
The problem is, the alleged acts where criminal and non socially acceptable acts back when they were committed in the case of Michael Jackson.
I'm pretty sure Genghis Khan soldiers committed a lot of atrocities, raping/killing children or their corpses among them, but it wasn't a punishable offense back then, when you did that to your ennemies.
Which literary works do you have in mind?
Quote from: The Brain on March 08, 2019, 03:04:37 PM
Quote from: viper37 on March 08, 2019, 03:01:29 PM
Quote from: Tonitrus on March 08, 2019, 02:15:46 PM
But there are plenty of older, celebrated literary works by people that, when we really look at it from a modern sense, were very nasty people who were direct/indirect actors in the deaths of many.
The problem is, the alleged acts where criminal and non socially acceptable acts back when they were committed in the case of Michael Jackson.
I'm pretty sure Genghis Khan soldiers committed a lot of atrocities, raping/killing children or their corpses among them, but it wasn't a punishable offense back then, when you did that to your ennemies.
Which literary works do you have in mind?
Not sure who Toni was thinking of, but take someone like Rudyard Kipling. Always regarded as a good writer, his unabashedly pro-EMpire colonialist attitude have diminished his reputation, even though such attitudes were common during his lifetime.
Quote from: Barrister on March 08, 2019, 03:13:55 PM
Quote from: The Brain on March 08, 2019, 03:04:37 PM
Quote from: viper37 on March 08, 2019, 03:01:29 PM
Quote from: Tonitrus on March 08, 2019, 02:15:46 PM
But there are plenty of older, celebrated literary works by people that, when we really look at it from a modern sense, were very nasty people who were direct/indirect actors in the deaths of many.
The problem is, the alleged acts where criminal and non socially acceptable acts back when they were committed in the case of Michael Jackson.
I'm pretty sure Genghis Khan soldiers committed a lot of atrocities, raping/killing children or their corpses among them, but it wasn't a punishable offense back then, when you did that to your ennemies.
Which literary works do you have in mind?
Not sure who Toni was thinking of, but take someone like Rudyard Kipling. Always regarded as a good writer, his unabashedly pro-EMpire colonialist attitude have diminished his reputation, even though such attitudes were common during his lifetime.
I was asking viper.
Quote from: Valmy on March 08, 2019, 02:18:29 PM
Quote from: Barrister on March 08, 2019, 02:10:57 PM
Quote from: Tonitrus on March 08, 2019, 02:02:34 PM
Is it too much of a leap to say we should remove/hide any kind of media (e.g. books) done by anyone who did something naughty?
Presumably this would cut out the inputs of anyone involved in killing/causing the death of people in a way that we don't now approve of.
Or maybe that would be taking things too far?
Well, the argument is that Jackson did far more than "do something naughty". Repeated sexual molestation of children is pretty bad.
There certainly is a line I would suggest. John Wayne Gacy painted a whole lot of picture both before and after his arrest - and such pictures now sell for thousands of dollars. BUt I would never, ever buy one of them. Similarly Hitler was famously an artist, and his paintings similarly sell quite well.
But on which side of the line is Billie Jean?
But none of those people can profit or benefit from their art though.
As I lay dying is a pretty good metal band. Christian metal band, actually, but still very good.
They are all in some kind of Christian sect that frowns on divorce.
The singer of that band tried to hire a killer to terminate his wife, instead of divorcing her.
Once in jail, he said the "Christian" act of the band was just that, an act. He was an atheist.
A filthy godless murderous atheist with an insane talent for music. That went so well with his sect that they visited him in jail, got him to reaffirm his faith, managed to help him through parole and now he is a born-born again Christian in a Christian metal band touring with them to promote their new album.
It's a very good album from a very good band, even better than the last one. Or so I'm told. I refuse to listen to any stream of it.
I would have listened to the band, had they followed their original plan of finding a new singer and leaving that piece of shit to rot alone. Now I refuse to even hear their new music.
The ex-wife is now excluded from the community, she sought divorce. He is a member of that community since he has found light.
I have seen people hammering Mahatma Gandhi for his long list of unforgivable sins. I mean if Gandhi is too evil for this world what chance do the rest of us have?
Quote from: The Brain on March 08, 2019, 03:04:37 PM
Quote from: viper37 on March 08, 2019, 03:01:29 PM
Quote from: Tonitrus on March 08, 2019, 02:15:46 PM
But there are plenty of older, celebrated literary works by people that, when we really look at it from a modern sense, were very nasty people who were direct/indirect actors in the deaths of many.
The problem is, the alleged acts where criminal and non socially acceptable acts back when they were committed in the case of Michael Jackson.
I'm pretty sure Genghis Khan soldiers committed a lot of atrocities, raping/killing children or their corpses among them, but it wasn't a punishable offense back then, when you did that to your ennemies.
Which literary works do you have in mind?
Mongol music:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v4xZUr0BEfE
;)
Like I said, what they did was socially acceptable at the time, so I don't frown on mongol music.
Quote from: Valmy on March 08, 2019, 03:20:34 PM
I have seen people hammering Mahatma Gandhi for his long list of unforgivable sins. I mean if Gandhi is too evil for this world what chance do the rest of us have?
I similarly despair when Winston Churchill is pilloried as some kind of monster. He was a complicated dude not without his faults, but surely helping to save democracy and defeating fascism counts for something?
I'm not so keen on automatically believing accusations against a person who 1) dead and 2) already been acquitted on similar charges.
Quote from: Razgovory on March 08, 2019, 04:34:31 PM
I'm not so keen on automatically believing accusations against a person who 1) dead and 2) already been acquitted on similar charges.
In coming to a personal opinion, I don't put much weight on 'acquitted at trial'. After all, OJ was acquitted at trial.
I haven't seen the documentary in question, but apparently it is quite powerful. MJ also paid off at least one other kid to stave off such allegations.
Quote from: Barrister on March 08, 2019, 02:34:20 PM
How much more proof do you need than the detailed statements of two of Jackson's victims?
It's a little more tricky then that because both witnesses gave sworn statements in the 1990s contradicting their claims now, and one of them gave another statement a decade ago.
Both were minors when they made the 90s vintage statements and it is not unreasonable to think they were coerced in some way. I personally find the allegations credible but is not beyond any shadow of a doubt.
Nothing, he is dead. One can be a horrible person and a criminal, and a good musician at the same time.
All I know is makes it kinda icky to hear PYT from him anymore.
I put him aside long ago.
It's a somewhat different case, but I still watch Kevin Spacey movies, and would watch more if he made them.
Not really an MJ fan, so not much is going to change for me. There is a difference between listening to a song (or watching a movie) by yourself, and doing it as a public act. For example I've stopped singing Sweet Home Alabama at karaoke because of the politics.
Quote from: Barrister on March 08, 2019, 04:41:57 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on March 08, 2019, 04:34:31 PM
I'm not so keen on automatically believing accusations against a person who 1) dead and 2) already been acquitted on similar charges.
In coming to a personal opinion, I don't put much weight on 'acquitted at trial'.
Yeah, we know.
If they weren't guilty, the prosecutor wouldn't have pursued the case, amirite?
Quote from: Barrister on March 08, 2019, 03:35:04 PM
but surely helping to save democracy
to many, that's what they hate.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 08, 2019, 07:27:17 PM
Sweet Home Alabam
My favorite song. :)
In Starcraft II ;)
Quote from: Eddie Teach on March 08, 2019, 03:02:47 PM
Quote from: Barrister on March 08, 2019, 02:55:25 PM
triggering
Oh ffs.
Coming from a self-proclaimed conservative! That's rich, indeed! :lol:
Who's next btw for the next
auto-da-fé? Polanski? Make sure to burn the 35 mm original camera negatives too.
Polanski is a good comparison. IIRC sentenced in a civil court for a brutal rape of a 13 year old and lauded in cultural sectors for his movies for a long time. It's quite hypocritical if he is tolerated and Jackson, with less proof, is damned.
I already brought up Polanski.
Quote from: The Brain on March 09, 2019, 09:11:00 AM
I already brought up Polanski.
You did a bad job then. Chinatown notwithstanding.
Quote from: Duque de Bragança on March 09, 2019, 07:37:25 AM
Polanski? Make sure to burn the 35 mm original camera negatives too.
I have seen one Polanski movie, Dance of the Vampires, and that was way before I knew who was Polanski.
At least, I'm not an hypocrit. But Hollywood is, however. Especially given all the shit about #metoo.
The recent TV programme changes little for me. Already knew he was a very disturbed man.
Criminals can still produce good things.
If the PRC can roll tanks over several hundred students, and we'll still move our industry over there/buy their crap at Walmart...than do MJ songs really rank all that high on the "too despicable to do business with" scale?
Quote from: Barrister on March 08, 2019, 02:10:57 PM
There certainly is a line I would suggest. John Wayne Gacy painted a whole lot of picture both before and after his arrest - and such pictures now sell for thousands of dollars. BUt I would never, ever buy one of them. Similarly Hitler was famously an artist, and his paintings similarly sell quite well.
But on which side of the line is Billie Jean?
Well, I don't have thousands (or even hundreds) of dollars to spend on original artwork, but I can listen to Billie Jean for free, and if I want to buy Jackson's music, CDs are relatively inexpensive, so I'm not sure that's a good comparison.
FWIW, I believed the original allegations against him back in the mid-90s, and it didn't stop me from enjoying his music then, so the supposedly new "info" doesn't change anything for me.
I don't get it. I always assumed he was molesting children, and there was plenty of evidence to support that while he lived. But why does a TV documentary (that I haven't seen) apparently establish his guilt when the accusers have made contradictory statements (including at some points under oath) and stand to benefit financially?
Quote from: alfred russel on March 09, 2019, 01:44:34 PM
I don't get it. I always assumed he was molesting children, and there was plenty of evidence to support that while he lived. But why does a TV documentary (that I haven't seen) apparently establish his guilt when the accusers have made contradictory statements (including at some points under oath) and stand to benefit financially?
Because it's compelling TV, which has the 'right' to move political or cultural issues over and above legal or ethical considerations; "It's the Spirit of the Age". :bowler:
Quote from: viper37 on March 09, 2019, 10:38:57 AM
Quote from: Duque de Bragança on March 09, 2019, 07:37:25 AM
Polanski? Make sure to burn the 35 mm original camera negatives too.
I have seen one Polanski movie, Dance of the Vampires, and that was way before I knew who was Polanski.
At least, I'm not an hypocrit. But Hollywood is, however. Especially given all the shit about #metoo.
That's actually my favorite. Chinatown is just behind.
If that makes you feel better, that movie was made in 1967, well before Polanski became infamous, i.e 1977.
PS: the victim, Samantha Geimer, actually wishes to dismiss the case against Polanski, given she suffered from all the trial publicity. :hmm:
What a mess...
I thought he became infamous in 2009, when he was arrested in Switzerland. IIRC that's when I understood what an evil fucker he is.
Quote from: Threviel on March 09, 2019, 03:53:32 PM
I thought he became infamous in 2009, when he was arrested in Switzerland. IIRC that's when I understood what an evil fucker he is.
He was infamous long before that.
Doesn't infamous imply something negative?
Quote from: Threviel on March 09, 2019, 04:00:36 PM
Doesn't infamous imply something negative?
Indeed. He was infamous as a kiddie fucker on the run from justice.
Well, IIRC I hadn't really noticed that. At the very least I hadn't read up on it. Unfortunately the 2009 made me read up on what the fuck he did and made me utterly despise the fucker and everyone who defended him.
Quote from: Threviel on March 09, 2019, 04:06:02 PM
Well, IIRC I hadn't really noticed that. At the very least I hadn't read up on it. Unfortunately the 2009 made me read up on what the fuck he did and made me utterly despise the fucker and everyone who defended him.
I'm sure 2009 made him even infamousier.
His infamousiness probably increased a lot.
Har inte du en schlagerfestival att glo på?
I happily watched The Pianist knowing Polanski had stuck his dick in a 13 year old butt hole and then fled the country. I would also like him to be brought to justice.
Quote from: Barrister on March 08, 2019, 01:55:12 PM
So, the Simpsons are pulling the Michael Jackson episode from distribution - the one where Jackson plays the voice of a white mental patient who comes home with Homer from the mental hospital.
https://slate.com/culture/2019/03/michael-jackson-simpsons-episode-featuring-singers-voice-to-be-pulled-from-circulation.html
All of this is a result of a documentary entitled Leaving Neverland, which interviews in depth two men who were repeatedly sexually molested by Jackson as young boys. Jackson of course was tried and acquitted on very similar charges back in the 90s.
I've seen and heard online discussions about whether it is right to still listen to Jackson's music, whether wedding DJs should play his music, that kind of thing.
So what say you Languish? Is it right to still listen to Jackson's music? Should radio stations stop playing his songs? Or do you still doubt that Jackson was a serial sexual abuser?
I think the SJW's should burn everything MJ to the ground.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 08, 2019, 07:27:17 PMThere is a difference between listening to a song (or watching a movie) by yourself, and doing it as a public act.
This is a good criteria/guideline.