|
Post by elusivemoonwalker on Aug 23, 2019 15:23:16 GMT
Im glad all the people who talk shit about mj are ppl ive hated from the begining😀 he was always an annoying pr@#$ made me realise it even more when he came sucking around fans outside the high holborn hotel in june 2002.then to use that numbnut george in his documentry which was then totally overshadowed by bashir. He will accuse mj if he thinks it will inhance his career. He doesnt care about the truth or justice only what will help him. Typical lynchmob mentality.
|
|
|
Post by respect77 on Aug 23, 2019 16:17:47 GMT
Just read the article. He doesn’t seem open to the idea that MJ is innocent. He feels he has a duty to stick up for accusers. Shame. I used to enjoy his shows over the years although I always found him to be a bit of a moron. He strikes me as a very naive guy who’s unable to take the other side of this situation into account because he’s emotionally invested in it because of misplaced guilt, and also probably because he sees the abuse Dan Reed has gotten online as an attack on journalism which is his livelihood. I mean with or without LN, Dan Reed is just a massive cunt! Makes you think though, people who believe MJ is guilty because of this horrible modern ethos of 'believe all accusers'. I've always put them down as MJ haters but really it could be anybody. Makes you think though, people who believe MJ is guilty because of this horrible modern ethos of 'believe all accusers'. I've always put them down as MJ haters but really it could be anybody. I think hatred plays a part. He became too famous. He did too much. He was too nice. They resented the fuck out of him for everything. Talent, Beatles Catalog, Owning half of Sony etc. It’s just jealousy turned to hatred turned to evil. It makes me fucking sick! All these White rock magazines snubbing him, looking down on him, looking down on his fans! Tossers! The lot of em!!
I think it is all of the above.
A hate and disdain for MJ was always there. Tall poppy syndrome, I guess. And that they could never really grasp him. He was always beyond their reach. Even compared to other big pop and rock stars he was kind of other-wordly. And MJ just never needed them. He became so huge and remained so huge almost despite of the media, not because of them. And I think that they don't have control over his popularity bothers them.
But at this time it is also a bigger culture war that is going on. The "believe the accuser" dogma, this whole madness that is going on on the left with feminism and apparently war on everything that has made society work so far, because apparently it is a part of the "patriarchy". The presumption of innocence is apparently a part of the "patriarchy" now.
2005 was bad in terms of media coverage, but in the hindsight and what we have now, it was still a lot better. You did have some pundits on CNN vouching for MJ, or you had Fox News publish Roger Friedman's articles. Now it is simply not allowed for anyone to take MJ's side (or just the rational side of presumption of innocence) in the leftist media. (Fox News at least did report about Lies of LN the other day. Or Breitbart of all things actually published an article critical of LN!) That you have more open-mindedness on the right (not really MJ's most natural allies) regarding this than on the left is telling about how ideologically driven it all is. And it is not just about MJ, but about the bigger culture war.
|
|
|
Post by Liberian Girl on Aug 23, 2019 17:48:11 GMT
This idiot! So he bashes MJ because of his guilt about Savile. SMDH That's the second negative Guardian article about MJ this week. They love to pick villains and routinely and obsessively post vitriol about certain public figures, usually the ones who pose a threat to the status quo of the extreme left. They also hate Morrissey. I wrote an article about The Guardian and Morrissey and reading back on it, it could easily have been about MJ. Just replace the names.... Here's an extract: Here's the full article if anyone cares to read what dipshits they are over at The Guardian: www.tremr.com/Fiona-Dodwell/the-guardian-and-the-morrissey-vendetta
|
|
TonyR
The Legend Continues
Posts: 8,468
|
Post by TonyR on Aug 23, 2019 18:01:06 GMT
This idiot! So he bashes MJ because of his guilt about Savile. SMDH That's the second negative Guardian article about MJ this week. They love to pick villains and routinely and obsessively post vitriol about certain public figures, usually the ones who pose a threat to the status quo of the extreme left. They also hate Morrissey. I wrote an article about The Guardian and Morrissey and reading back on it, it could easily have been about MJ. Just replace the names.... Here's an extract: Here's the full article if anyone cares to read what dipshits they are over at The Guardian: www.tremr.com/Fiona-Dodwell/the-guardian-and-the-morrissey-vendettaJust read that article. Really good. And yes very interchangeable with Michael and in some parts Madonna.
|
|
|
Post by Thriller on Aug 23, 2019 19:15:44 GMT
I loved Theroux's old documentaries, but he's an absolute clown. He said this...
'He suggested that Jackson fans, who claimed the accusers had made up the stories for publicity reasons, were suffering from a combination of “ignorance and a sort of self-grooming” which left them unable to understand that it could take a person years to recognise that they were a victim of sexual abuse.'
He's calling fans who actually know about these cases. Claiming we suffer from 'ignorance and a sort of self-grooming'. I really don't see him doubting the pair in any way. He's tweeted about MJ and deemed him guilty so...
Also, I am sick of the 'it could take a person years to recognise that they were a victim of sexual abuse'. It's garbage. MJ was the most famous man on the planet. The whole world knew he was on trial for child molestation. And the penny didn't drop? Wade even testified and we're to believe the penny still didn't drop?
It also shows he knows nothing given both James and Wade have totally contradicted their claims of 'we didn't realise'.
He decided to side with the pair because he thinks Savile is guilty. That is one of the the most dumb things I have ever read relating to MJ... and I've read a lot. 'This other man is guilty therefore, a man whom I never met, is also guilty.'
|
|
|
Post by elusivemoonwalker on Aug 23, 2019 19:34:24 GMT
He decided to side with the pair because he thinks Savile is guilty. That is one of the the most dumb things I have ever read relating to MJ... and I've read a lot. 'This other man is guilty therefore, a man whom I never met, is also guilty.'
------------------
He prob just trying to cover his ass.those two have been shown to be nothing but lairs. So its like i have to believe hes guilty cause im on a savile guilt trip and thats my excuse regardless of the facts. The only time hes been in the press lately is by talking crap about mj. Its all aboit boosting his career and getting attention. Sometimes i think they dont even believe what they are saying but they are saying what will get them attention and support. Immoral and corrupt
|
|
|
Post by Liberian Girl on Aug 24, 2019 5:47:30 GMT
He decided to side with the pair because he thinks Savile is guilty. That is one of the the most dumb things I have ever read relating to MJ... and I've read a lot. 'This other man is guilty therefore, a man whom I never met, is also guilty.' ------------------ He prob just trying to cover his ass.those two have been shown to be nothing but lairs. So its like i have to believe hes guilty cause im on a savile guilt trip and thats my excuse regardless of the facts. The only time hes been in the press lately is by talking crap about mj. Its all aboit boosting his career and getting attention. Sometimes i think they dont even believe what they are saying but they are saying what will get them attention and support. Immoral and corrupt I used to love Louis Thereoux. He's really the first public figure to speak out against MJ who I'm really disappointed about. His reasoning is majorly flawed. For those who don't know, Louis got major heat for his Savile association. It wasn't just about the documentary, he actually became friends with Savile and they were very chummy, he even stayed at his house. I actually think it was unfair that Louis got criticism for that, but he's obviously still feeling sheepish about it and is desperate to save face. The fact that he connects MJ to Savile at all says to me that he doesn't have much in the way of critical thinking, as judging each case on its own merits seems beyond his comprehension.
|
|
|
Post by respect77 on Aug 24, 2019 5:59:58 GMT
This idiot! So he bashes MJ because of his guilt about Savile. SMDH That's the second negative Guardian article about MJ this week. They love to pick villains and routinely and obsessively post vitriol about certain public figures, usually the ones who pose a threat to the status quo of the extreme left. They also hate Morrissey. I wrote an article about The Guardian and Morrissey and reading back on it, it could easily have been about MJ. Just replace the names.... Here's an extract: Here's the full article if anyone cares to read what dipshits they are over at The Guardian: www.tremr.com/Fiona-Dodwell/the-guardian-and-the-morrissey-vendetta
The Guardian seems to be fishing for anything negative on MJ: first the Sheryl Crow thing, then trying to get Kiaran Culkin say something negative, now Theroux. They have always HATED MJ. Charles Thomson has some experience with them from the inside:
From your Morrissey article:
This reminds me of when HIStory came out and the reviews that were negative and the criticism was ad hominem, rather than focused on the music.
I guess, in Morrissey's case it's because of his political views why they can't stand him.
Just like they are asking anyone and their momma about MJ (Sheryl, Kieran etc), hoping to get a negative comment.
Same with MJ. I think the media really are annoyed that they don't have the power to "mute MJ".
Yes, and this seems to be a general problem with today's left. They don't debate. They don't see nuances in your argument. In this case, you criticize Islam (which is NOT a race, it's an ideology!) and you are a "racist". Of course, the same leftist publications have no problem with any criticism of Christianity, which shows the double standards.
Similar things with what is happening re. LN. No room for debate. The premise is immediately that MJ was guilty and if you don't agree you are a "truther" and a "victim shamer". I noticed for a long time that the new left doesn't rationally debate. They put labels on their opponents, so that they don't even have to debate them.
How familiar. With Morrissey it seems to be his dissenting political views why they hate him. With MJ it is because his difference and how they can't put him in any of their little identity politics boxes.
Familiar.
|
|
|
Post by respect77 on Aug 25, 2019 5:48:21 GMT
I'm surprised MTV Europe actually tweeted this this March at the height of the LN frenzy. But fans say MTV USA is a different animal.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 25, 2019 6:38:51 GMT
I'm surprised MTV Europe actually tweeted this this March at the height of the LN frenzy. But fans say MTV USA is a different animal. Wouldn't read too much into it, seems to be a fake account
|
|
|
Post by HIStoric on Aug 25, 2019 7:57:03 GMT
I'm surprised MTV Europe actually tweeted this this March at the height of the LN frenzy. But fans say MTV USA is a different animal. Wouldn't read too much into it, seems to be a fake account It is fake. If you look them up on Twitter, all of their accounts are verified.
|
|
|
Post by respect77 on Aug 25, 2019 8:59:51 GMT
Oh, OK.
|
|
|
Post by Russg on Aug 25, 2019 11:02:55 GMT
Taylor Swift seems to be on the believe-all-victims bandwagon.
From an interview with The Guardian:
Are these people a bit simple or something? How can you make blanket statements about sexual abuse? What, just because someone groped your bum eight years ago, suddenly you have the authority to play judge and jury and it now means everyone who comes forward is telling the truth and everyone who is accused of something is guilty? How arrogant have you got to be to think like that.....
|
|
|
Post by HIStoric on Aug 25, 2019 11:15:34 GMT
Taylor Swift seems to be on the believe-all-victims bandwagon. From an interview with The Guardian: Are these people a bit simple or something? How can you make blanket statements about sexual abuse? What, just because someone groped your bum eight years ago, suddenly you have the authority to play judge and jury and it now means everyone who comes forward is telling the truth and everyone who is accused of something is guilty? How arrogant have you got to be to think like that..... I don't think it's a good idea to apply that to everyone, but when it comes to a serial abuser like Harvey Weinstein or Bill Cosby or such, yeah I'm going to believe someone if they come forward and say they were abused by them.
|
|
|
Post by Russg on Aug 25, 2019 11:17:46 GMT
Taylor Swift seems to be on the believe-all-victims bandwagon. From an interview with The Guardian: Are these people a bit simple or something? How can you make blanket statements about sexual abuse? What, just because someone groped your bum eight years ago, suddenly you have the authority to play judge and jury and it now means everyone who comes forward is telling the truth and everyone who is accused of something is guilty? How arrogant have you got to be to think like that..... I don't think it's a good idea to apply that to everyone, but when it comes to a serial abuser like Harvey Weinstein or Bill Cosby or such, yeah I'm going to believe someone if they come forward and say they were abused by them.
Yeah, but Swift is speaking in more general terms, not just about Weinstein.
|
|