Do you think Gaga’s opinion of MJ has/will change?

[misunderstood 8,736]

6 minutes ago, AgusPop said:

I love classical music and Richard Wagner was very anti-Semitic (i'm jewish) but I  really enjoy his masterpieces. We have to learn to separate the Art from the people.

Plus a biased documentary is not a court

It seems like a lot of people don't have the brain power to do that nowadays, it's sad

[AJRocketMan 2,684]

17 minutes ago, misunderstood said:

It seems like a lot of people don't have the brain power to do that nowadays, it's sad

But it also depends on who the person is and what exactly they have done. Someone like Chris Brown or R. Kelly, for example, should not have their art separated from themselves. They’ve straight-up abused women. And their misogyny comes through in their songs.

With someone like Azealia Banks, however, the move is justified. Azealia may have a cringe inducing personality, but she isn’t truly evil and therefore hasn’t done anything to justify boycotting her. You can separate her (amazing) art from her.

You separate the art from the artist when they get a DUI or a DWI, not when they’re a diabolical person.

[AgusPop 4,161]

8 minutes ago, AJRocketMan said:

But it also depends on who the person is and what exactly they have done. Someone like Chris Brown or R. Kelly, for example, should not have their art separated from themselves. They’ve straight-up abused women. And their misogyny comes through in their songs.

With someone like Azealia Banks, however, the move is justified. Azealia may have a cringe inducing personality, but she isn’t truly evil and therefore hasn’t done anything to justify boycotting her. You can separate her (amazing) art from her.

You separate the art from the artist when they get a DUI or a DWI, not when they’re a diabolical person.

"And their misogyny comes through in their songs."

This Is the only case I agree to not separate the art from the artist because they are the same in these examples.

But in MJ case. his songs are not about molesting childrens. and as I said. we don't know the truth and He is innocent till justice says otherwise

[misunderstood 8,736]

57 minutes ago, AJRocketMan said:

But it also depends on who the person is and what exactly they have done. Someone like Chris Brown or R. Kelly, for example, should not have their art separated from themselves. They’ve straight-up abused women. And their misogyny comes through in their songs.

With someone like Azealia Banks, however, the move is justified. Azealia may have a cringe inducing personality, but she isn’t truly evil and therefore hasn’t done anything to justify boycotting her. You can separate her (amazing) art from her.

You separate the art from the artist when they get a DUI or a DWI, not when they’re a diabolical person.

Ah I see, well in that case we can end this discussion from going any further

 

[Didymus 34,380]

1 hour ago, HangWang said:

During the segment in which Wade talks about Michael leaving the kids and going upstairs with white wine or something like that getting wasted.Wade claims this is what made him want to testify,but yet Taj (who was actually at the dinner) said that the dinner happened AFTER Wade testified. 

 

Thanks for posting! 

As I thought, he posted this on the day the documentary aired in the UK so the editing thing is not valid

Interesting comment about the dinner though.

[Chickens in Malibu 7,873]

I don't think so.

She's very cautious. She's not going to throw all of his million-worth items out of the window because two men, who don't happen to be credible, made uncorroborated allegations against him.

She will probably be the next recipient of the Michael Jackson Vanguard Award though.

I'm curious to see if MTV will rename it.

[Chickens in Malibu 7,873]

22 hours ago, SpaceAce said:

To the people in this thread who watched the documentary and still don’t understand why Wade Ronson and James Safechuck’s accusations were inconsistent: please find a heart. Thanks. 

Right.

Why do we have trials? Why do we have courts? Let's just judge everything based on our hearts and emotions?

Facts doesn't matter! Let's blame all factual inconsistencies on trauma.

I wonder how trauma made them lie repeatedly under oath as recently as few years ago, yet their memories seems to be perfect when it comes to what happened with MJ! They remember every single detail, and in the most graphic ways!

If only Dr. Ford had a memory as good as theirs. Oh ****, nevermind! She's an actual trauma survivor. 

[Fresco 1,688]

Objection. speculation and hearsay.

[Guest]

No bcs there are no evidence

[Andy McQueen 4,484]

Hopefully.

[DeleteMyAccount 11,881]

Are the allegations in the doc true or? Because I haven't heard any actual advances in any cases being brought up. Honestly I've seen more info being brought up about the inconsistencies and hearsay in testimonies.

[SpaceAce 1,058]

5 hours ago, nicolasrumet said:

Right.

Why do we have trials? Why do we have courts? Let's just judge everything based on our hearts and emotions?

Facts doesn't matter! Let's blame all factual inconsistencies on trauma.

I wonder how trauma made them lie repeatedly under oath as recently as few years ago, yet their memories seems to be perfect when it comes to what happened with MJ! They remember every single detail, and in the most graphic ways!

If only Dr. Ford had a memory as good as theirs. Oh ****, nevermind! She's an actual trauma survivor. 

Ah "why do we have trials?". Great comeback. I didn't think about the courts - of course they're infallible. Just look at OJ. 

Facts do matter. And the facts are they lied under oath as children who were victims of Michael's grooming. They feared for their lives AND for Michael's. How damn hard is that to understand? 

Please continue though, it's great having a delusional fan tell me, another survivor, what a a real victim looks like. 

[SpaceAce 1,058]

4 hours ago, ZacharyMark said:

Are the allegations in the doc true or? Because I haven't heard any actual advances in any cases being brought up. Honestly I've seen more info being brought up about the inconsistencies and hearsay in testimonies.

As is always the case. The abuse happened far too long ago for the courts and the man is dead. You just have to be a functioning adult with a brain to look at the evidence spanning all of those years, look at the victims speak today as grown men with children, to understand Michael Jackson wasn't the martyred saint his fans want him to be. 

[SpaceAce 1,058]

6 hours ago, nicolasrumet said:

I don't think so.

She's very cautious. She's not going to throw all of his million-worth items out of the window because two men, who don't happen to be credible, made uncorroborated allegations against him.

She will probably be the next recipient of the Michael Jackson Vanguard Award though.

I'm curious to see if MTV will rename it.

Not true. And they don't happen to be credible because they perjured themselves to protect Michael. 

Try defending Michael's actions after you drop the legal jargon. Good luck. 

[Chickens in Malibu 7,873]

2 minutes ago, SpaceAce said:

Ah "why do we have trials?". Great comeback. I didn't think about the courts - of course they're infallible. Just look at OJ. 

Facts do matter. And the facts are they lied under oath as children who were victims of Michael's grooming. They feared for their lives AND for Michael's. How damn hard is that to understand? 

Please continue though, it's great having a delusional fan tell me, another survivor, what a a real victim looks like. 

Ever heard of the fallacy called "hasty generalization"?

When you take one example or very small sample and use it to conclude that trials don't always prove guilty, the logic become fallacious.

Just because OJ's trial was a failure, doesn't mean every other trial is also flawed.

Now the "how damn hard is that to understand". Wade continued to praise MJ and defend him even after his death. He only turned against him after he was turned down by MJ's estate for a the lead choreographer lol. So not sure how he was "afraid for his life".