Cinema is not a valid reference source, even “documentaries” aren’t required to be 100% true.
FFS, even penguins were propagandized for generations before the public was allowed to learn that they’re ridiculously homocidal rapists, etc. 🤷🏼♂️ The latter came from the field journals penned during the first excursion through their territories, way back when. The cover up that swiftly followed said expedition’s report was bankrolled by the running class & its academic policy makers.
Neither is Wikipedia. It’s even less trustworthy outside of America because of the strong bias toward the US narrative. But fuck all of you that defend the child molester Michael Jackson. May you never know what if felt like for all his victims. No, sleeping in the same bed with minors and having them be in underwear is not appropriate and is paedophilia. So fuck you .
Not accounting for the international conspiracy to cover up penguin behavior characteristics, the film interviews two men who were boys at the time as well as their family, friends, and archival materials.
Eyewitness testimony is legally valid, and it’s hard to imagine two different people had the same story, but the other - 50? 100? kids didn’t.
The film says it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck and demands the bloody underwear be retrieved out of the trash before the cops find it like a duck.
He was phenomenally talented, there’s no doubt. But very troubled as well, and part of that was sexualizing young boys.
Again, you seem to be founding a lot on outdated and/or debunked views/methods like eyewitness testimony, and I’m hoping you take your experience from this thread to make some changes, fellow pleb. 🙇🏼♂️
Documentaries do not exactly have the best track record when it comes to choosing between accuracy vs the more salacious story, I think a documentary is uniquely poorly suited to being a meaningful source on this subject in my eyes 😅
Ideally we would collect ALL primary sources and defer exclusively to what those primary sources say, but thats not exactly feasible for us to do.
On Wikipedia, subjects with very high visibility and interest tend to mean that people must be able to make a strong case for the information that makes it into the article. On a platform like Wikipedia, that means you need primary sources, meaningful evidence, to support what gets to be written when everyone has a strong opinion. If we’re to take a single tertiary/secondary source collating information to be a useful indicator, I think Wikipedia is, in kind of the opposite fashion, uniquely well suited to presenting an understanding of what happened
And the extraordinarily long article on Wikipedia doesnt suport the idea that he wanted to have sex with children. It points to him wanting very badly to vicariously experience the innocence of youth that he never got to, in a similar way to how some parents want to vicariously experience the accolades or ability of their child (mothers putting their child through pageants, fathers caring too much about their kid’s victory in sports). And I don’t think that’s a healthy thing to do to a child- it mirror grooming and normalizes that as a way for a relationship with an adult to look, and that is potentially extremely damaging. But the evidence doesnt really support the idea he wanted to have sex with children.
Just watch “Leaving Neverland”. It’s spelled out very plainly.
Just watch the music video to " Smooth Criminal". Absolute masterpiece.
Cinema is not a valid reference source, even “documentaries” aren’t required to be 100% true.
FFS, even penguins were propagandized for generations before the public was allowed to learn that they’re ridiculously homocidal rapists, etc. 🤷🏼♂️ The latter came from the field journals penned during the first excursion through their territories, way back when. The cover up that swiftly followed said expedition’s report was bankrolled by the running class & its academic policy makers.
Neither is Wikipedia. It’s even less trustworthy outside of America because of the strong bias toward the US narrative. But fuck all of you that defend the child molester Michael Jackson. May you never know what if felt like for all his victims. No, sleeping in the same bed with minors and having them be in underwear is not appropriate and is paedophilia. So fuck you .
Not accounting for the international conspiracy to cover up penguin behavior characteristics, the film interviews two men who were boys at the time as well as their family, friends, and archival materials.
Eyewitness testimony is legally valid, and it’s hard to imagine two different people had the same story, but the other - 50? 100? kids didn’t.
The film says it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck and demands the bloody underwear be retrieved out of the trash before the cops find it like a duck.
He was phenomenally talented, there’s no doubt. But very troubled as well, and part of that was sexualizing young boys.
“Legal” ≠ “factually correct”, though. ☝🏼
Again, you seem to be founding a lot on outdated and/or debunked views/methods like eyewitness testimony, and I’m hoping you take your experience from this thread to make some changes, fellow pleb. 🙇🏼♂️
Seriously you people are way up in that tree with no interest at all in getting down, so. Ok. Have fun thinking MJ didn’t rape boys.
OJ wasn’t guilty either right
Point of order: it’s you that seems to get really excited about exactly that. Par for the course, though. 🤣
I just like the truth. And it’s the truth.
Documentaries do not exactly have the best track record when it comes to choosing between accuracy vs the more salacious story, I think a documentary is uniquely poorly suited to being a meaningful source on this subject in my eyes 😅
Ideally we would collect ALL primary sources and defer exclusively to what those primary sources say, but thats not exactly feasible for us to do.
On Wikipedia, subjects with very high visibility and interest tend to mean that people must be able to make a strong case for the information that makes it into the article. On a platform like Wikipedia, that means you need primary sources, meaningful evidence, to support what gets to be written when everyone has a strong opinion. If we’re to take a single tertiary/secondary source collating information to be a useful indicator, I think Wikipedia is, in kind of the opposite fashion, uniquely well suited to presenting an understanding of what happened
And the extraordinarily long article on Wikipedia doesnt suport the idea that he wanted to have sex with children. It points to him wanting very badly to vicariously experience the innocence of youth that he never got to, in a similar way to how some parents want to vicariously experience the accolades or ability of their child (mothers putting their child through pageants, fathers caring too much about their kid’s victory in sports). And I don’t think that’s a healthy thing to do to a child- it mirror grooming and normalizes that as a way for a relationship with an adult to look, and that is potentially extremely damaging. But the evidence doesnt really support the idea he wanted to have sex with children.