TonyR
The Legend Continues
Posts: 8,469
|
Post by TonyR on Jun 18, 2019 12:10:49 GMT
I don't want my above post to come across as insensitive to genuine victims or people really struggling with this stuff. I guess for me, I view my CSA like anything else in my life, something bad that happened, that I moved on from. People can have all kinds of bad things happen to them in their formative years, from bullying at school, to dysfunctional family relationships, ill health, neglect... I guess I just wonder why we, as a society, put CSA up there as this seperate thing, where anybody who experienced it is sainted in adulthood, and we think it's necessary to award massive financial compensation payments as a way of aiding a victims recovery. Why exactly? Why don't we do this to kids who are bullied at school and have crippling self-esteem issues into adulthood as a result? Why don't we reward kids whose parents were alcoholics and messed them up pyschologically as a result? Sometimes I think the mass hysteria over CSA stems from how taboo the subject was for many years, so as a result of that, society now feels the need to over-compensate. I have many friends and people in my life who were never sexually abused, but who I think were far more damaged from their childhood experiences than I ever was. Why am I saying all this? I guess it just irks me seeing people using the mass hysteria over CSA to their advantage for attention and to aid in the pursuit of huge financial gain. I think it's repugnant if you're a genuine victim and utterly disgraceful when you're a liar like Wade and James. I think this is such an amazing post and if more people thought this way the world would be much, much better. It's not just the bravery shown here by Matt, but the selflessness, the self-awareness, the lack of victim mentality, the compassion is astounding. Plus the realisation that we are not the centre of the fucking universe! Everyone has shit, someone is always worse off. It doesn't make your shit any less, I know that, but having the cognisance of needing to move on and stop playing the victim is so damn healthy. Obviously if there is someone who should be punished then that is one thing, but I don't get the financial recognition thing. How in the world would you feel comfortable spending money you received because you were sexually abused is beyond me. But, yes Matt, don't underestimate how much your posts reflect how brilliant you are.
|
|
|
Post by respect77 on Jun 18, 2019 12:32:31 GMT
Obviously if there is someone who should be punished then that is one thing, but I don't get the financial recognition thing. How in the world would you feel comfortable spending money you received because you were sexually abused is beyond me. In their interview with Gayle King Robson and Safechuck were asked if they would "come forward" with their allegations if MJ was alive. Robson’s answer was interesting (something like: if everything else in my life was the same, possibly, but of course details would be different). That was a weird answer. But I found Safechuck's even more telling and that's what relates to this discussion. He said, he planned to take it to his grave, so he probably wouldn't. To me this shows his cowardice. He would not make these allegations in MJ's face. They claim they are suing the Estate and MJ's companies to have them "listen". Why would you want to have them listen, but not the alleged abuser, if you had the chance? (And in fact, you did have that chance while MJ was alive.) Why would you take it to your grave if MJ was alive, if this is all about serving justice and not about money? If MJ was alive there would be a criminal trial. There's no money to be made with that. Like there wasn't money to be made for Safechuck and Robson in 2005. There is a reason why it's a basic legal principle that anyone accused has the right to face his accuser. It was already in the Roman law and that Roman law is even cited in the New Testament. To me it's very telling that Safechuck wouldn't dare to face the man he's accusing. And he claims he is after "justice"? Then why wouldn't he bring these allegations if MJ was alive?
|
|
|
Post by MattyJam on Jun 18, 2019 13:24:16 GMT
I think this is such an amazing post and if more people thought this way the world would be much, much better. It's not just the bravery shown here by Matt, but the selflessness, the self-awareness, the lack of victim mentality, the compassion is astounding. Plus the realisation that we are not the centre of the fucking universe! Everyone has shit, someone is always worse off. It doesn't make your shit any less, I know that, but having the cognisance of needing to move on and stop playing the victim is so damn healthy. But, yes Matt, don't underestimate how much your posts reflect how brilliant you are. Ha, thanks Tony. That means a lot. I'm not used to you giving me complements, it makes me very uncomfortable. I prefer it when you call me a dickweed. We're British, we don't talk about feelings and stuff. Lol Obviously if there is someone who should be punished then that is one thing, but I don't get the financial recognition thing. How in the world would you feel comfortable spending money you received because you were sexually abused is beyond me. I think the litigeous culture in America is so far gone that most folks don't even see these kind of compensation payments as anything strange. Most people would probably defend it. I'm not 100% against it, I think perhaps there are circumstances where it isn't always bad. For example if someone is proven guilty in a court of law and the victim needs therapy, then by all means, make the perpetrator foot the bill. But when you start talking about enough money to buy a house with, that's just not right and actually really fucking messed up imo. Obviously if there is someone who should be punished then that is one thing, but I don't get the financial recognition thing. How in the world would you feel comfortable spending money you received because you were sexually abused is beyond me. In their interview with Gayle King Robson and Safechuck were asked if they would "come forward" with their allegations if MJ was alive. Robson’s answer was interesting (something like: if everything else in my life was the same, possibly, but of course details would be different). That was a weird answer. But I found Safechuck's even more telling and that's what relates to this discussion. He said, he planned to take it to his grave, so he probably wouldn't. To me this shows his cowardice. He would not make these allegations in MJ's face. They claim they are suing the Estate and MJ's companies to have them "listen". Why would you want to have them listen, but not the alleged abuser, if you had the chance? (And in fact, you did have that chance while MJ was alive.) Why would you take it to your grave if MJ was alive, if this is all about serving justice and not about money? If MJ was alive there would be a criminal trial. There's no money to be made with that. Like there wasn't money to be made for Safechuck and Robson in 2005. To me it's very telling that Safechuck wouldn't dare to face the man he's accusing. And he claims he is after "justice"? Then why wouldn't he bring these allegations if MJ was alive? I think what strikes me most about Wade and James, is how disingenuous they are about their motivations behind making this public. Wade says it's about speaking the truth as loud as he spoke the lie etc, but isn't it funny how the need to speak that truth simultaneously occurred with his filing of a multi-million dollar lawsuit? I mean, c'mon man, do you think we were born yesterday? Not even the MJ guilt believers can deny that Wade and James are doing this for the money. It's an indisputable fact (and one conveniently not covered in Leaving Neverland). You can't sue someone for hundreds of millions of dollars and not be out for money. Of course, the Wade/James believers will counter that argument by saying that just because they're seeking compensation, it doesn't mean it didn't happen. That's actually true. But it does however paint a picture of the kind of people we're dealing with here. It does show you that they believe they are entitled to millions of dollars that they didn't work for or earn. To me, that is hardly the actions of a morally-sound individual. If Wade had just claimed compensation for his therapy costs and two or three years of lost earnings due to his mental breakdowns then fair enough, but we know he is seeking way, way more than that. By his own admission, Wade stopped being a millionaire at least 15yrs ago, so how would three years of lost earnings and therapy amount to more than a couple of hundred thousand dollars at the most (and that's being generous)? They are both out for a big payday here. The kind of money where you'd never have to work again for the rest of your life. Do the LN sympathizers really believe that this kind of ruthless and obscene pursuit of hundreds of millions of dollars is purely to help Wade and James "heal"? Do they really believe that this kind of behavior is helpful to other CSA survivors, whose credibility is often called into question due to the prevalence of false allegations? Even if they were telling the truth, they would be doing a massive disservice to all survivors of CSA by partaking in such an obscene, money-grabbing lawsuit. It could potentially make others afraid to come forward for fear of not being believed like Wade and James aren't by many people. It's us MJ fans who get it in the neck for this, we are called victim shamers etc, but it's the actions of Wade and James that are really at the heart of why we don't believe them. If Wade had just gone on the Today show back in 2012 and said his story, but maintained he didn't want a dime for it, then he would've had instant credibility and not even the fans would be able to call him out on it. They have acted like they are entitled from the get go, and just when you think they can't get any more opportunistic or shameless, they sink to a new depth. And then people wonder why the fans have a hard time believing them?
|
|
|
Post by SmoothGangsta on Jun 18, 2019 17:42:04 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Vega on Jun 18, 2019 18:40:18 GMT
|
|
|
Post by amaya on Jun 19, 2019 2:27:59 GMT
Only about 2000 people polled... pretty small sample size to represent ALL of the UK. Also, the company behind this poll is apparently some company you pay to do a poll, so someone paid money to have this poll conducted. Hmm...
|
|
|
Post by respect77 on Jun 19, 2019 4:10:29 GMT
|
|
|
Post by respect77 on Jun 19, 2019 17:02:18 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Snow White on Jun 19, 2019 17:19:25 GMT
Bravo Korean people for doing the right thing, the media there has morals! 👏 I wish the media in the rest of world weren't rating hungry whores but sadly it's not the case.
|
|
|
Post by respect77 on Jun 21, 2019 5:08:29 GMT
Another lie by the Safechucks. Read the whole thread.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 21, 2019 5:26:11 GMT
Another lie by the Safechucks. Read the whole thread. Remind me, what way was this portrayed in the movie?
|
|
|
Post by respect77 on Jun 21, 2019 15:56:01 GMT
Another lie by the Safechucks. Read the whole thread. Remind me, what way was this portrayed in the movie?
"We wanted to buy another house, and Michael gave us a loan at a very low percentage rate. My husband had already had a deposition. We were on Michael's camp. My son also for Michael. And after that was all said and done is when Michael forgave the debt. Michael said, "No, I don't want you to pay me anymore," um, "It's a gift." So, he did buy us a house. It's just coincidental, he wasn't buying us off, but the timing's right there. Just sounds bad. Yeah."
|
|
|
Post by respect77 on Jun 21, 2019 15:59:09 GMT
While she didn't go as far as claim that he bought them off (she says he did not), but she had to create innuendo: "...but the timing is right there. Just sounds bad. Yeah" as if MJ had ulterior motives with it.
From what we have learnt now, the timing wasn't "right there". MJ forgave the loan 3 years later, not anywhere around their testimony.
|
|
|
Post by WildStyle on Jun 21, 2019 17:25:33 GMT
While she didn't go as far as claim that he bought them off (she says he did not), but she had to create innuendo: "...but the timing is right there. Just sounds bad. Yeah" as if MJ had ulterior motives with it. From what we have learnt now, the timing wasn't "right there". MJ forgave the loan 3 years later, not anywhere around their testimony. This is why it's so distressing and tragic that people are buying into this thing. You literally can't take anything in the movie at face value even beyond just the molestation allegations. It misleads you at every turn. Unfortunately the voices fighting against it are too small.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 21, 2019 17:39:24 GMT
While she didn't go as far as claim that he bought them off (she says he did not), but she had to create innuendo: "...but the timing is right there. Just sounds bad. Yeah" as if MJ had ulterior motives with it. From what we have learnt now, the timing wasn't "right there". MJ forgave the loan 3 years later, not anywhere around their testimony. Jesus wept... i hope their appeals win do you know that? See them explain this shit. No accountability so far.
|
|