I read them the first time.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Argue About Michael Jackson - Here's Yer Thread
- Thread starter Revoltingest
- Start date
I remember the Jackson 5 had some catchy tunes, and I even remember they had a cartoon on Saturday mornings. I was never much of a Michael Jackson fan, though. My musical tastes back then were more hard rock/heavy metal/AOR, and Michael Jackson's appeal was more to a different crowd. But there was just so much hype about him. I thought he was way too overrated and hyped up by the media. He was perfect for the culture of the 1980s, and he stood for everything I was against. I recall that he bought up the entire Beatles' catalog, which got my notice when I heard "Revolution" on a TV commercial. That, just by itself, was enough to put him on my poop list. Then he also tried to buy the Elephant Man's remains.
The music station I listened to was of a format most people know as "Classic Rock," so they never played anything by Michael Jackson. However, it was impossible to avoid his music entirely, so I grew to become familiar with it. There was another commercial which played on the radio constantly during the 80s - a Pepsi commercial, with Michael Jackson rewriting his song "Billie Jean" and changing the lyrics to sell soda pop. I stopped drinking Pepsi altogether at that point, and it was around the same time that "New Coke" became a thing.
My aunt and uncle lived near Michael Jackson's residence when he was living near Encino (before he built that "Story Book Land" or whatever it was called, up the coast). Whenever we visited, we would ride past there, and there were always several people standing across the street. I just shook my head every time I saw that.
Another thing that struck me was when there was some complaints and controversy about some strange gimmick they set up for selling tickets to his concert. I don't recall the details, but it made his whole family look like shameless money-grubbers, while his fans couldn't really afford it. Although I couldn't really understand his fans or what they ever saw in Michael Jackson to begin with.
I don't know if he's guilty of the crimes he was accused of, although it's pretty much moot at this point.
In the thread mentioned by the OP, it was in the context of whether one can enjoy the music or movies or other artistic works of someone who has done something criminal or morally wrong. As I said, I listened to some of the Jackson 5 when I was a kid, and a few of their songs were kind of catchy. I might still like listening to them on occasion. My opinion of the music would be the same regardless of whether he's guilty or not.
The music station I listened to was of a format most people know as "Classic Rock," so they never played anything by Michael Jackson. However, it was impossible to avoid his music entirely, so I grew to become familiar with it. There was another commercial which played on the radio constantly during the 80s - a Pepsi commercial, with Michael Jackson rewriting his song "Billie Jean" and changing the lyrics to sell soda pop. I stopped drinking Pepsi altogether at that point, and it was around the same time that "New Coke" became a thing.
My aunt and uncle lived near Michael Jackson's residence when he was living near Encino (before he built that "Story Book Land" or whatever it was called, up the coast). Whenever we visited, we would ride past there, and there were always several people standing across the street. I just shook my head every time I saw that.
Another thing that struck me was when there was some complaints and controversy about some strange gimmick they set up for selling tickets to his concert. I don't recall the details, but it made his whole family look like shameless money-grubbers, while his fans couldn't really afford it. Although I couldn't really understand his fans or what they ever saw in Michael Jackson to begin with.
I don't know if he's guilty of the crimes he was accused of, although it's pretty much moot at this point.
In the thread mentioned by the OP, it was in the context of whether one can enjoy the music or movies or other artistic works of someone who has done something criminal or morally wrong. As I said, I listened to some of the Jackson 5 when I was a kid, and a few of their songs were kind of catchy. I might still like listening to them on occasion. My opinion of the music would be the same regardless of whether he's guilty or not.
Callisto
Hellenismos, BTW
It didn't seem to and I didn't see the point in a circular back n' forth.
Callisto
Hellenismos, BTW
What I know and what a person can present publicly as evidence may or may not necessarily be the same thing. Even an individual publicly known to be personally involved in a given matter would not be able to present something publicly on a forum like this without there being legal fallout or, at the least, argued to be hearsay.
And, as you indicate, a fan will believe what they want to believe. For many, no amount of evidence would change their mind, anyway.
As I indicated before (part of why I said to refer back to previous posts), where there's smoke there's fire. And, of course, no one, especially those closest to him, want his legacy to go in a way similar to Bill Cosby's. That much should be obvious regardless.
Hermit Philosopher
Selflessly here for you
He’s dead.
But the arguments live on.
Although, he was recently sighted with Elvis & Sasquatch.
It's not about me being a fan. As I said in the other thread that this is a spin-off of, I'm not really a fan of his and I am very willing to cancel artists I like when it comes out they're monsters. I've done it more than once already, especially with Marilyn Manson, who I was a huge fan of and greatly influenced by his art (his writing and visual art along with his music). Now I think he needs to be locked up. I just remember that whole debacle in the 2000s with MJ and everything that went on. I wasn't sold on his guilt then and nothing has come out to change my mind on that.
I doubt Cosby's legacy is that ruined as he has always had a large number of defenders. Jackson's image was tarnished very badly due to the media and press demonizing him for years. "Whacko Jacko". Even Cosby didn't have it that bad in the public eye.
I think the energy spent talking about MJ would be better spent on known monsters who are still alive, like Polanski.
Callisto
Hellenismos, BTW
The main reason to spend energy on others is that Jackson is dead and not here to face his accusers. So any amount of evidence won't change anything and, clearly, will never change some people's minds. In a way, he's "lucky" his controversies came at a time when it was very difficult for accusers to speak out against someone famous, particularly on his level of celebrity. Had these events broke after the #MeToo, no doubt things would have gone differently.
Vile individuals have always had sycophants, that's nothing new (cough*trump*cough). However, Cosby's has had various deals "delayed indefinitely" so while, I'm sure, at some point he'll get something, he's still radioactive and he'll not ever redeem himself. He fell from particularly lofty heights and the nature of the allegations isn't anything he'll ever truly shake. His legacy will be forever tarnished.
PureX
Veteran Member
No offense, but that's an insane question. Even an unconfirmed accusation is still evidence. In fact, every detail of the accusation is evidence and will be submitted as as such in court. Evidence does not require that it be convincing to be evidence.
You have invented a whole "evil theory" in your mind about this. Why? Why do you feel the need to play judge and jury over a news story that you have no way of accurately determining the validity of? That just seems weird to me.
I was obviously talking about just accusing someone. I could say you stepped on my foot.
Excuse you, but all anyone is doing in this thread is offering their opinion as that's all we can do, so why do you single me out? Because you disagree? Well, that's just hypocrisy.
Last edited:
PureX
Veteran Member
And your word is evidence whether I am convinced that it's true or not.
Why form opinions about people or things based on ignorance?
syo
Well-Known Member
They have the right to speak out. Are you his victim?
syo
Well-Known Member
Huh? Why would I call them liars?Not unless he did something whilst I was asleep.What are you getting at - that those who accuse him are liars?
syo
Well-Known Member
You lost me.