Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 20, 2022 18:00:36 GMT
The Estate promoted Thriller 40 so badly that even the accusers didnt bother to rehash stuff for the release time.
|
|
ash
Wondering Who
![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star.png)
Posts: 86
|
Post by ash on Nov 20, 2022 18:10:24 GMT
I recommend this body language video: I'm usually sceptical about "body language experts" but this guy seems to really know his stuff. He looks for more subtle, less obvious markers in human behaviour. He seems to know very little about MJ or the cases (he'd never even heard of Jordan Chandler for example). He didn't explicity say he believed MJ was innocent, but he has two videos, one analysing MJ's 1996 deposition and another analysing Wade and James's interview with Gayle King. His results are very telling. Well worth a watch. Just moments ago I complained that it's depressing when people don't get certain behaviors. And now, 5 minutes later I'm back to do the same thing. So, I didn't watch the whole video, only this short part at 15:30, but I already completely disagree. For me, Michael is trolling, the smile afterwards even gives "who? I don't know any backstabbers" vibes. Now I'm wondering if other body language videos interpret this moment like I would. I can't remember any details when I watched some of them.
|
|
|
Post by MattyJam on Nov 20, 2022 18:25:23 GMT
As someone that also starts to smile and laugh when I'm uncomfortable, it's always sad to read that most people don't understand this and judge you for that. So comments about this under these body language videos always annoy me. As if everyone acts the same way. The knowledge that I'm acting weird in front of people also puts me under more pressure. So everything gets weirder and weirder. Imagine the struggle being filmed while you getting asked THESE questions. Totally. If I get accused of anything, no matter how big or small (stealing my wife's chocolate bar for example), I give a sheepish guilty grin, even if I've done nothing wrong. It's a reflex and everyone thinks I cheat at games and steal all the chocolate in the house, which is only true like half the time. 😆
|
|
|
Post by WildStyle on Nov 21, 2022 5:59:24 GMT
Love seeing random tweets like this. And then you see where they work and you're like... uuuuhhhhhh 😬
|
|
|
Post by respect77 on Nov 21, 2022 8:07:23 GMT
Love seeing random tweets like this. And then you see where they work and you're like... uuuuhhhhhh 😬 Well, it's very sad that most of the so called "liberal" or left leaning media have so little regard for due process and presumption of innocence and they act like an allegation is immediately a fact. I'd like to cite thoughtful articles in MJ's defense (or in the defense of due process) from liberal establishment media, but unfortunately there's hardly any, if at all. Just virtue signaling nonsense. For example, it's very sad that a publication like Breitbart had a more sensible way of writing about LN (the importance of due process, the presumption of innocence, and the dangers of condemning people based on one-sided television hit pieces) than the so called reputable establishment media, but that's the way it is and it's the shame of the establishment media.
|
|
|
Post by WildStyle on Nov 21, 2022 10:54:58 GMT
And then you see where they work and you're like... uuuuhhhhhh 😬 Well, it's very sad that most of the so called "liberal" or left leaning media have so little regard for due process and presumption of innocence and they act like an allegation is immediately a fact. I'd like to cite thoughtful articles in MJ's defense (or in the defense of due process) from liberal establishment media, but unfortunately there's hardly any, if at all. Just virtue signaling nonsense. For example, it's very sad that a publication like Breitbart had a more sensible way of writing about LN (the importance of due process, the presumption of innocence, and the dangers of condemning people based on one-sided television hit pieces) than the so called reputable establishment media, but that's the way it is and it's the shame of the establishment media. That's fine, and I get the frustration as an MJ fan. But I disagree with platforming horrible people because they say a nice thing about Michael Jackson. I'm not going to ignore all of their other horrible views just because at this particular time it's convenient for their own particular agenda to say something positive about Michael Jackson. Tim Pool is a fascist. I'm a realist about this stuff these days. I put myself in the shoes of a regular person who doesn't care about Michael Jackson one way or the other. Fact is you have to do a lot of research to get a good understanding of the allegations against MJ and all of the best information comes from MJ fans. To an outsider, not exactly an unbiased source. That's assuming you care enough about this one celebrity to do the work it takes, and most people simply don't. The fact is that the vast majority of child sex abuse allegations are true. It's such a touchy subject and not a lot of people are going to be willing to stick their neck on the line and publicly doubt potential victims for a celebrity like MJ who has exhibited plenty of questionable behaviour. Not denying the virtue signalling that goes on, and both sides do it, just in different ways. It's certainly frustrating. We're talking about corporate media here, but most reasonable people on either side of the isle understand and agree with due process. There are no easy solutions to this. Well, there are, but they're extremely unlikely to happen.
|
|
|
Post by respect77 on Nov 21, 2022 11:36:35 GMT
I get it that not everyone is interested in MJ like that, nor they should be. But if you aren't willing to do even basic research in a case, then don't write articles about that case. And you don't even need to know all the ins and outs of the case to identify LN as one-sided and biased and consider trial by media a problem. That's all that Breitbart article pointed out, for example. It wasn't some sort of apology for MJ's innocence, but it was miles better than anything I saw in liberal media. I don't endorse the general spirit of Breitbart but it's a fact that they put liberal establishment media to shame here. And that's saying something about how low establishment media have sunk. I would expect more from them than fucking Breitbart, but here we go.
My wish for liberal/left wing media is not to declare MJ innocent. I only wish they'd be fair and balanced, but it seems even that is too much to ask for from them. I'm very disillusioned in them. They are a bunch of sheep who are just following each other's lead without thinking. And I don't even get into their deliberate manipulation. (Like when the LA Times aimed to write an article ridiculing fans and when they didn't get the "crazy fan" angle they were looking for from an interview they did with a fan, they just ignored most of the interview and went to look for extreme tweets from Twitter instead in order to fulfill the agenda they had in mind from the get go.)
|
|
|
Post by WildStyle on Nov 21, 2022 11:54:03 GMT
I get it that not everyone is interested in MJ like that, nor they should be. But if you aren't willing to do even basic research in a case, then don't write articles about that case. And you don't even need to know all the ins and outs of the case to identify LN as one-sided and biased and consider trial by media a problem. That's all that Breitbart article pointed out, for example. It wasn't some sort of apology for MJ's innocence, but it was miles better than anything I saw in liberal media. I don't endorse the general spirit of Breitbart but it's a fact that they put liberal establishment media to shame here. And that's saying something about how low establishment media have sunk. I would expect more from them than fucking Breitbart, but here we go. My wish for liberal/left wing media is not to declare MJ innocent. I only wish they'd be fair and balanced, but it seems even that is too much to ask for from them. I'm very disillusioned in them. They are a bunch of sheep who are just following each other's lead without thinking. And I don't even get into their deliberate manipulation. (Like when the LA Times aimed to write an article ridiculing fans and when they didn't get the "crazy fan" angle they were looking for from an interview they did with a fan, they just ignored most of the interview and went to look for extreme tweets from Twitter instead in order to fulfill the agenda they had in mind from the get go.) Fair points. I don't agree with the framing of certain media agencies as "left wing" though. I mean, in comparison to Breitbart who are far right, then yeah I guess lol. Depending on who we're talking about, if it's mainstream publications there is a publicly liberal leaning presentation because that is more generally acceptable to the broader public, but they certainly aren't what I'd call "left wing." Like The New York Times is liberal leaning at least socially, but they aren't left wing. They are corporate media at the end of the day and end goal is to make money.
|
|
|
Post by respect77 on Nov 21, 2022 12:26:59 GMT
The problem is I wouldn't call them liberal either. I mean they might be on certain social issues, like LGBTQ etc, but on the other hand it's very hard for me to consider it a liberal attitude, for example, when they are only allowing one certain POV being represented. In this case, for example, that MJ was guilty and no other option was even allowed to be given a platform. This wasn't always the case. As horrible as most of the 2005 coverage was, it was still miles better than the 2019. At least you still could see different opinions on TV panels, articles etc, even if the dominant narrative was anti-MJ. Now it got to the point where different opinions aren't even allowed. That's the opposite of liberal. (And I use MJ as just an example here, there are a lot of other topics where diverse opinions are just not allowed any more.)
|
|
|
Post by WildStyle on Nov 21, 2022 12:45:25 GMT
In a climate where people are trying to be more understanding of abuse and ACTUAL abuse victims I can see where an overcorrection may have taken place. It's tricky stuff. However for instance I've seen actual leftists like David Pakman and Hasan Piker who actually WATCHED the Depp/Heard trial have fair nuanced takes on it. It helps when people are well informed on specific cases that they talk about. It's just a shame MJ's name has to brought up in any of this in the first place. It didn't have to be this way.
|
|
|
Post by elusivemoonwalker on Nov 21, 2022 17:22:33 GMT
The media and some of society have gone the extreme other direction. The me too movement has become a lynch mob where all victims should be beleived and god forbid if someone decides to question any claims. That is more dangerous than the way it may have been before although a section of society doesnt seem to be taken in as much as the media would like
|
|
|
Post by LindavG on Nov 21, 2022 19:59:30 GMT
Well, it's very sad that most of the so called "liberal" or left leaning media have so little regard for due process and presumption of innocence and they act like an allegation is immediately a fact. I'd like to cite thoughtful articles in MJ's defense (or in the defense of due process) from liberal establishment media, but unfortunately there's hardly any, if at all. Just virtue signaling nonsense. For example, it's very sad that a publication like Breitbart had a more sensible way of writing about LN (the importance of due process, the presumption of innocence, and the dangers of condemning people based on one-sided television hit pieces) than the so called reputable establishment media, but that's the way it is and it's the shame of the establishment media. That's fine, and I get the frustration as an MJ fan. But I disagree with platforming horrible people because they say a nice thing about Michael Jackson. I'm not going to ignore all of their other horrible views just because at this particular time it's convenient for their own particular agenda to say something positive about Michael Jackson. Tim Pool is a fascist. I'm a realist about this stuff these days. I put myself in the shoes of a regular person who doesn't care about Michael Jackson one way or the other. Fact is you have to do a lot of research to get a good understanding of the allegations against MJ and all of the best information comes from MJ fans. To an outsider, not exactly an unbiased source. That's assuming you care enough about this one celebrity to do the work it takes, and most people simply don't. The fact is that the vast majority of child sex abuse allegations are true. It's such a touchy subject and not a lot of people are going to be willing to stick their neck on the line and publicly doubt potential victims for a celebrity like MJ who has exhibited plenty of questionable behaviour. Not denying the virtue signalling that goes on, and both sides do it, just in different ways. It's certainly frustrating. We're talking about corporate media here, but most reasonable people on either side of the isle understand and agree with due process. There are no easy solutions to this. Well, there are, but they're extremely unlikely to happen. Thank you! And this is true not just for child sex abuse allegations but sex abuse allegations in general. False allegations are extremely rare and the odds of someone being convicted based on false allegations are miniscule. There is a much bigger problem of genuine victims who are afraid to come forward out of fear they won't be believed. Michael's situation is exceptional and I am very uncomfortable with using him to promote an "innocent until proven guilty" narrative when it comes to sexual abuse. In most cases, there is no irrefutable evidence to prove that someone was raped. There are rarely any witnesses and it's not like the victim can just say "hold on, let me get the camera so I can record you assaulting me". Even a rape kit only shows that (rough) sex took place but it doesn't necessarily prove non-consent. That's why such cases are incredibly hard to prosecute, let alone convict. In the US, less than 10% of sexual assaults that are reported to police lead to a conviction. Does anyone actually think the other 90% are lying to the police about being abused? In my opinion, there is nothing moral or fair about telling a self-described victim of rape that you will not believe them unless they can prove their allegations in court, knowing what an incredibly high bar that is. And to think fascist or alt-right publications like Breitbart take this position out of a sincere commitment to justice and equality before the law is incredibly naive. Their only concern is with upholding patriarchal power structures in which (white) male domination and violence against women and marginalised men goes unchallenged. When it comes to police brutality for example, suddenly they are not so interested in due process and sharing both sides of the story. On a surface level, it makes sense why people believe Michael was guilty. There are multiple allegations against him, he admitted on camera to sharing his bed with children (even if this was quoted out of context, it just sounds wrong), he was very eccentric and hard to relate to, he had an unusual fascination with children, and the media is incredibly biased and dishonest in their reporting. If I hadn't researched the allegations myself, which took a lot of time and effort, I would probably assume he was guilty too. It doesn't help that the best resources for learning about the allegations are on platforms run by MJ-fans. There is an automatic implication of bias even when they're literally just quoting court transcripts. You are not going to convince the general public of Michael's innocence by repeating this myth of rampant false allegations or pretending like Michael's behaviour was "totally normal" or that Michael was such an angel that could never hurt a child. The most effective way to prove Michael's innocence is by showing why these particular accusers are not credible. Focus on the easily verifiable lies, contradicting statements, impossible timelines, insane and laughable claims ("Michael was planning to kidnap us to South America in a hot air balloon"), the questionable character of the accuser(s parents), and explain why the 1993 settlement happened. Each allegation should be judged on its own merits. You don't need to turn them into MJ fans. They can still believe that Michael was a weird dude who made a bunch of mistakes, as long as they don't consider him a criminal. Best case scenario, you get them interested in learning more about who Michael was as a person and they end up loving him as much as we do
|
|
|
Post by respect77 on Nov 21, 2022 21:58:34 GMT
There are no credible statistics on how rare or frequent false sexual abuse allegations are. I have seen numbers cited from 2% up to 50%! Most frequent was 10%. I'd say every tenth sexual abuse allegation being false doesn't make it rare. Especially when we consider that only sure cases of false allegations will be counted towards false allegations. For example, when the accuser admits to have lied or there is hard cold evidence of it certainly never happening. Not only the bar is high to prove sexual abuse allegations but it is even higher for something to be considered a false allegation. An acquittal in itself won't mean that something will be counted statistically towards false allegations. You basically have to PROVE that it did not happen and that is very rarely provable as it is basically a requirement to prove a negative. For example, just because MJ was acquitted in 2005 statistically that case won't be counted towards false allegations. And I am very sure they WERE false allegations. But it wouldn't show up in false allegations statistics. So how could anyone REALLY tell the prevalence of false allegations? There are very obvious reasons, when you think of it, why this would be impossible to tell. So I view every claim of knowing the true prevalence of false sex abuse allegations, whether it is rare or frequent, with great skepticism.
I do think that accusers in sexual abuse cases need to be treated with tact and of course, they need to be taken seriously by law enforcement and authorities. But innocent until proven guilty should apply to the accused. It is the very fundamental of our legal systems and it is very dangerous to throw that out or turn it around and make it "guilty until proven innocent" in sex abuse cases. That doesn't mean the accuser shouldn't be taken seriously. Taken seriously however doesn't mean that you should automatically consider the accused guilty. Investigators, need to take up a neutral stance, and not take sides immediately.
|
|
|
Post by LindavG on Nov 21, 2022 23:35:51 GMT
There are no credible statistics on how rare or frequent false sexual abuse allegations are. I have seen numbers cited from 2% up to 50%! Most frequent was 10%. I'd say every tenth sexual abuse allegation being false doesn't make it rare. It does mean that there is an overwhelming chance (90%) that the allegation is true, and if there are no other factors to discredit the accuser I don't think it's fair or reasonable to presume that the accuser is lying (because yes, that's exactly what you're saying when you insist that the accused is innocent unless convicted in a court of law). Besides, while there are no exact statistics for this, we know that many people who are sexually assaulted never speak out about it for a variety of reasons. I have thought about what I would do if something like this ever happened to me and I honestly don't know if I would go to the police or deal with the trauma privately. I'm sure that's true for a lot of people, especially when it's obvious that going public with an allegation rarely leads to justice being served and the punishment in case of a conviction is often minimal. The issue of sexual assault is much bigger than the number of allegations, true or false, would suggest. Yes, this a very complex issue. I wouldn't even say that an accuser retracting their allegation means that it's for sure a false allegation even if it's counted that way statistically. There are many reasons why an actual victim could choose to do this: fear, a misguided sense of guilt or culpability, distrust in the judicial system, bribery, protecting the perpetrator (especially if it's a family member, partner or friend, which is often the case), etc. I understand where you're coming from and I agree that "innocent until proven guilty" is a wonderful concept in theory. I just don't think it applies, at least not as dogmatically as you hold it, to cases that are by their very nature almost impossible to prove. Even if the victim does everything "right" and collects as much evidence as possible, a skilled lawyer can cause reasonable doubt. Everything from a rape kit, a recording of the assault, witness testimony, pictures of cuts and bruises on the victim's body, can be explained away with a little creativity (1. we just had rough consensual sex; 2. we're into rape roleplay and agreed to this before the tape starts; 3. they're biased; 4. fake or self-inflicted). What is a genuine victim supposed to do then? Go to court on the 10% chance that their attacker is convicted or risk a far bigger chance that their attacker walks free and is forever declared innocent by people such as yourself? Sorry, I know this is a very unpopular view in the fandom and on this forum but I will never agree to this black-and-white view of justice. [/quote]
|
|
|
Post by respect77 on Nov 21, 2022 23:59:56 GMT
So what are you suggesting instead of innocent until proven guilty? Guilty until proven innocent? How is that more fair to you to consider and treat someone guilty who wasn't proven guilty? With all the shame and all the social consequences that it comes with?
I don't think I'm necessarily dogmatic about this as I don't think every time a court's decision is correct. For example, I don't think OJ Simpson was innocent, despite of his acquittal, but I do understand why he was acquitted and it wasn't that the jury was stupid or wrong. It was that the prosecution fucked up and gave enough room for a reasonable doubt. If you pay attention to a court case you can form your own opinion on whether you think the accused is guilty or innocent. But thing is people don't pay attention to the details of most cases and I'm not interested in following every court case either. I think people need to realize that it's okay to say "I don't know. I haven't followed this case. I take a neutral stance in it". You don't have to pick a side in everything. And that's simply what "innocent until proven guilty" means to me in those cases that I don't follow, not that the accuser is lying, as you have interpreted innocent until proven guilty.
|
|