Consept

So recently I've got into a couple of debates about whether Michael Jackson abused kids or not. My position is that although I was a fan of his especially when i was a kid and still like his music, there is enough smoke to say that its very possible he abused children. I'm probably at 60-70%. My issue is that many people including those I debated would say they're 100% sure he didn't do anything. I'll lay out why I think its possible and why they're so sure below, but what scares me is how people can be so sure about someone they never met but feel love and admiration for to the point where they would dismiss all evidence against this person. To be clear its very possible he didn't do anything at all but the point the only people that know for sure are him, the kids and whoever saw them or whoever he told. This to me is a microcosm of how damaging behaviour can be accepted in society and can lead to generations of abuse, whether its on a small familial scale or a wide ranging dictator, cult leader scale. For me personally this is really to get everything out of my head lol as sometimes its good to lay things out to see gaps in your own thinking. I'm not going to go into crazy detail about all the allegations and the cases but I'm going to give what i would consider the strongest points of evidence for him abusing kids and then counter arguments i've heard to the claims, i will steelman where possible The fact that he admitted to sleeping in bed with many children including the ones that accused him of abuse. It was reported in the first accusation by Jordan Chandler that he would sleep in the same bed with him for up to 30 days in a row without the parents being present. This was a pattern that all his accusers have highlighted. Meaning there was access but not a complete smoking gun, very unusual behaviour though. Counter - He himself said that it was just a kind and loving thing to do and theres nothing wrong with it. His supporters say most of the time the kids slept in his bed and he slept on the floor, this was something he did with family members, adults, girls and boys and was an innocent thing. Jordan Chandler in his testimony to law enforcement, described michael jacksons genitals, including specific markings and discoloration. This was matched to pictures that the police took of him when they raided his property and the description was accurate. Jackson later paid off Chandler for $23 million to drop the case and sign an nda. The police still wanted to prosecute but the case collapsed because chandler refused to be a witness. Counter - Essentially they call Chandler a liar who was put up to it by his dad he was trying to get money and potentially a screen writing career out of Jackson. There doesnt seem to be a direct argument against how he knew the description but there some doubt about him not knowing if Jackson was circumcised or not. In the case that went to trial, the boy Gavin, said to law enforcement that there was a suitcase in Jacksons room that contained porn, including a couple books with young boys in the nude. When police raided his room they found the suitcase that had porn in it and it had 3 books that featured numerous images of young boys partially or fully nude, these books although legal, were apparently produced by 2 convicted pedophiles and have been recommended on NAMBLA which is a boy love group. Counter - Theres nothing wrong with owning porn and the books of the young boys are legal to own. There is an inscription in one by Jackson himself which talks about the joys of being a young child, his defence used this inscription in the trial to make the claim that there was nothing sexual about him looking at these books. Gavin could have found them in Jacksons room without necessarily been shown them by Jackson, that would explain how he knew where they were and the contents, (counter counter, they were reported to have been locked away). Jackson never really showed much sexual interest to women or even men. Lisa Marie his wife for 18 months, claimed that he was a virgin when they were together and he lost his virginity at 35 with her. There are several girls that claimed they had a relationship with him but none confirmed any sexual activity. Of course this doesnt automatically mean you like kids but it adds context. Counter - He was shy and childlike and not really interested in sex He has been accused multiple times by young boys and their families and has paid off a few of them, I believe there around 10 direct accusations. Counter - All of them are trying to get money or fame from Jackson and have taken advantage of his nature. Parents of the children are liars and ruthless. Now keep in mind, in theory hes there isnt enough to prosecute him and there isnt a smoking gun, however a lot of the behaviour and things that have happened are highly suspicious. My point, in the debates is that, if you heard of this behaviour from anyone else, you'd more than likely think something is going on, but in this situation you claim near 100% certainty that nothing is going on. Also 2 things can be true, the parents can be trying to get mone but he could also have abused the kids. The overall point i hear from supporters is that he didnt really have a childhood so he himself is child like which is why his behaviour seems odd. A more extreme take is that he pissed off jewish people so they have slaughtered him in the press and defamed his name. I sincerely hope he didnt do anything but it scares me how willing people are to just believe that he didnt despite all the smoke. I think cases like this are really about sitting in uncertainty to a degree unless undeniable evidence appears. I think for believers its hard and there is a tendency in our mind, to search for certainty. Whats scary though is that by dismissing all the potential victims in cases like this, you are essentially letting abuse happen. You can see how this plays out in families and even in politics as we're seeing with Trump in real time. Curious to get peoples thoughts, i know this is a bit of a controversial subject

Also btw the money angle goes both ways, his estate has millions on MJ not being guilty, there is a whole industry behind it, many jobs etc. From the films, theatre shows, streams, record sales etc. There is money to made discrediting him as well but i think it pales in comparison

Sheriff who raided neverland. Notice the comments automatically dismissing her

This is definitely true although i think in the case of MJ its not just the music, there is a parasocial love for him as a person, they almost see him as pure innocence and a model for how everyone should be. Any questioning of that is a questioning of innocence and goodness itself, which is ironic considering that if he has done committed these crimes, he wouldve actually destroyed the innocence of these kids. But also this isnt really unique to MJ, its basically what happens when you elevate someone to an almost god like level, which MJ definitely played into with how he was presented. All these people can do no wrong to their followers Trump, Manson etc. Even now people are excusing Russell Brand for sleeping with a 16 year old when he was 30. Its funny because one of the 10 commandments specifically says dont make false idols of me, you can see the wisdom in that and the damage that can be done with false idols. Man is to flawed to have that much reverence and power.

@Hojo (cant get this tag off) @Monster Energy i think its quite telling in that video how he puts the blame on the kid, hes like 'the kids want to stay with me, what could i do?'. Any normal adult would know that there has to be boundaries, imagine on a school trip, a 10 year old kid said to their teacher 'i want to sleep in the bed with you' and the school teacher was like 'what could I do, they wanted to do it'. That would not fly anywhere. Separately I found this video really interesting from his ex-publicist who doesnt seem to have anything to gain financially from telling his story -

@Hojo looking into it briefly gandhis behaviour was very problematic even at the time, apparently a lot of staff quit in protest and people thought that he'd gone crazy. People probably felt similar to how they felt with mj. Specifically it cant be 0% or 100% from our perspective because theres no silver bullet, theres a lot of smoke. If there was a video or some indisputable proof then you could be 100%. Its harder to be 0% because something else could always come out and theres enough things that are murky. Its not really black or white pun intended.

Interesting, theres definitely a narrative where he could be innocent. The issue is the parents of the initial accusers are not credible at all, he has very weird and eccentric behaviours. Were they taking advantage of a rich eccentric guy, was he taking advantage of them? This is why so many rape cases are hard to prove, it does come down to one narrative vs the other

Well i mean he wasnt completely crazy, he obviously knew how it would be seen and that its illegal. It would be more along the lines of him telling the boys that people wont understand our love and that they shouldnt tell anyone, which is what pedophiles would say. Its kinda if you were gay and your family was homophobic and they would disown you if they found out, you're not going to come and say youre gay. Testimony from his case. The flight stuff is in this news report - https://www.cbsnews.com/news/jackos-wine-only-in-soda-cans/ Found the passenger profile - https://www.reddit.com/r/interesting/comments/1hbcgan/a_passenger_profile_on_michael_jackson_the_king/

Yeah all the accusers say that he gave them porn and wine, plus some of his staff has have corroborated it. He called it Jesus Juice apparently and used to give to them in soda cans. Theres also records from a chartered flight that he took where there was a request for wine served in diet coke cans. Gavin, one of the accusers knew exactly where his porn stash was in a suitcase in mjs room, which was raided and matched what he said

This is the thing, pedophiles feel romantic love for children, they dont think theyre harming them. There are some people that abuse children because of domination or cruelty but thats a different mentality. A true pedophile would feel romantic and sexual love the same way you might for someone you love of the opposite or same sex. MJ if we take the perspective that he was a pedophile, would admit it because he sees nothing wrong with it and doesnt want to lie about his love for whichever kid he was talking about. Also if you look at the patterns, he would have a 'favourite kid' for a certain amount of time, then that kid would get replaced when they got a bit older for a younger one. This seems very distinct from just playing around with kids that might visit the neverland ranch. The treatment for pedophiles is to make them realise that they cant have a 2 way relationship with a young person and that that young person can not consent or love them in the way they think they can. So if you happen to have been one of the most famous people in the world and a pedophile and can have access to young kids it would be extremely likely they you may abuse them because you can. As @Leo Gura says and I've pointed out in the op he didnt seem to have any meaningful relationships with adult women or men, his brothers and sisters definitely did despite them all being jehovahs witnesses. So the options are either asexual or pedophile, its not impossible that hes asexual i guess but i think with all the other information its unlikely

I dont agree with vilifying pedophiles, but obviously they need either to be isolated from kids if theres a risk of abuse and/or need psychological help. A lot of them have been subject to abuse themselves, which creates a cycle. We can say yeah in a perfect society no one would want to abuse or attack someone else but we have to deal with the reality of what life is now. Protecting children by having safeguards with adults that arent related to them is not vilifying pedophiles. The fact is they do exist, its like saying we should have no security at banks because we don't want to demonise thieves. Its very possible to try and improve the level of consciousness of a society whilst also protecting the most vulnerable.

I think its about risk management and safety not about our 'minds' and society itself is aware of this danger which is why it protects against it. Objectively, in society, we acknowledge that we cant have random adults around young people this is why even to work with kids there has to be a dbs check and safeguarding procedures in place to protect the kids. It doesnt mean that if a random adult is around a kid they'll definitely abuse or manipulate them but it heightens the risk as there is opportunity. This is also why so much abuse comes from the home because the adults in the family, in theory dont have to undergo any checks, whereas in professional environments there are more guard rails. So in the case of MJ, having kids stay in an adult males room without parents and behind a locked door is something that is incredibly risky from a child protection point of view. It doesnt mean something definitely happened but its not something that should really be allowed to happen because of the risks involved.

This is what i thought was quite deluded in that he felt free to say it and the very least wasnt even aware of how it might look and the fans have gone along with that. In no world is that normal behaviour even if he did nothing wrong. Ive worked in youth services before and that would honestly be a safeguarding nightmare if someone around kids had them alone in a room, you cant even give them a ride in your car by yourself. Im not so much gonna debate in terms of did he do it or not but I appreciate you saying the more honest position is I dont know. What I would say is this narrative about the epstein files, as far as I know isn't true, but its interesting how these theories are propagated as a way to make mj look better. Im not saying youre doing that on purpose but when I looked into it there is nothing in the files like that. Where I would also push is that in all the reports from the boys they said that mj said to them this is how people show love. Probably he truly believed that (if its true), the boys all say they wanted to make him happy, so I dont think it was ever a case of aggressively abusing them. But I do agree that we cant be 100% i just think we tend to give celebrities a hell of a lot of leniency, if this was your neighbour and you heard the same things I dont think youd be as understanding esp if you had kids

A massive flaw with the manosphere is that the most popular figures dont actually teach how to become valuable men, they teach how to mimic the perceived, material attributes of a valuable man. Meaning they teach you how to change on the surface rather than internally which is the true value. On the flip side, these women spaces you mentioned do the same thing, they mimic the behaviours of a 'high value' woman ie being hard to get. So essentially it becomes an arms race to see who can pretend the best and get what they want from the other side, sex or resources. Of course this can work on others playing the game or those that dont value themselves or aren't aware of the game. Both sides are essentially trying to trick an actually valuable person preferably, to give them what they want. So a unicorn would be someone of high value who's ignorant to the game. This has been working in capitalism for years, you lower people's worth through perceived lack and then offer a material solution that costs money. 'Youre not happy because youre not beautiful, buy these products', 'youre not happy because your status is low, buy this car'. Its a golden formula, influencers have jumped on it because theres so many people lacking internally. This is the golden age for easy solutions to deep problems, hell, Trump is in power because of this. Back to dating though, do you think actual valuable, authentic people have to pretend? It doesnt mean they get every person they want but they value themselves enough to be highly selective for the right person. Theres no playing hard to get, its just is this person right or wrong for me. If you value yourself then automatically there is no desperation because you dont need someone to fulfil you, that lack of desperation is in of itself attractive

The four things you stated definitely yes do them esp working out and fashion, but all will make you feel more confident and make you look better. The key is dont obsess over them just make them part of your routine. When you start getting into black pill territory focusing on mandible tilts and whatever else, this is basically body dysmorhpia. Also the roi is not even worth it, women dont care past a certain point, in fact it would in most cases be off putting that you care so much

If we just look on a practical, micro level ie your day to day relationships, treating people as disposable doesnt really work long term unless you're able to have a never ending turnover of people to exploit. In reality your reputation will determine a lot of success in business and relationships, once it gets around in either domain that you've screwed someone over youve burnt yourself for that network of people. Lets say you cheat someone in business, that person will never work with you and theyll also tell whoever is in that industry that they know that youre not good to work with, if you then do this to a few people you could be screwed for a whole industry. The flip of that is if you over deliver and give someone a great a experience of working with you, theyll also tell people which will then get you more business. So in theory it is bad business, not even on a moral standpoint but just on a pragmatic standpoint, to screw people over. Yes you can do it for a while and do well but it soon will mess you up. There are lots of stories of con artists making loads of money and then spectacularly getting caught or failing. It does also happen on a global scale it just takes a lot longer.

OK but i would counter this by saying in your life you would've gone through different stages, from child to adult your worldview has expanded and evolved and that is just in one human, this is also the case on the macro level as well. So really think about your own lived experience, I know with mine initially i only cared about myself and then family, society and so on. We can also track how society has developed, 500 years ago my country the UK looked very different, it was run by kings basically authoritarian rule which would be classed as red and they would kill anyone who disagreed with them. Now we have a more democratic setup which would be orange/green in sprial dynamics terms, that evolution is very clear to see. So in that sense i dont how at least some tracking of this evolution wouldnt make sense you dont have to use the spiral dynamics model but evidently theres been some change. I do agree that if you took a human born 500 years ago and have him grow up in our time he would of course adapt to our time.

No problem, always good to have a discussion and sharpen ideas. All these are true but again its a value judgement you're putting on it. You would have to use the word higher or previous or evolved, I couldnt think of other words to use personally. As i said if you think of school, if you're in a 'higher' grade you're not necessarily superior to someone in a 'lower' grade but you have learnt what the people in the lower grade have learnt and now you're learning whatever you're learning in your grade. This is just how knowledge works, you include and transcend. If we take it to spiral dynamics, someone who is it yellow has most likely gone through stages of blue, orange or green, but then someone whos orange hasnt been through green thats why its harder for them to understand it or give it value. People may use it in egoic ways but i think the central point is that someone who is at say tier 2 does have an understanding of tier 1 but tier 1 doesnt really have an understanding of tier 2. So essentially its like saying someone who is a professor of higher maths has a very good understanding of basic maths but knows that thats not all there is, someone who only knows basic maths may not even be aware of whats involved in higher maths. The professor could think hes superior but that would just be an ego thing as in reality hes just further along in the journey.

I dont think it claims this, one stage is not superior to the other its just that the higher stage includes and transcends the previous stage, it doesnt replace it or is not necessarily at odds with it. If you think about it this is how knowledge and development tend to work, if you learn basic maths its not then replaced by more complex mathematical ideas. This would only be threatening if you made an identity out of knowing basic maths and thinking thats the only maths that should exist. If you dont have an identity around your 'stage', however you want to label it, you wouldnt think there is a problem with different stages. Not necessarily, there could very easily be countries or states at the same level for however long. The model shows that countries have evolved however, as humans there are very few that are purple and not many western countries are majority red. This shows that there has been a change from the past and spiral dynamics is a way to map that. This is a value judgement you might put on it but its not stating its better. Better just depends on what you value, so for example red and blue might be more ethnocentric, meaning they only care about their ethnic group, whereas green would be more worldcentric where there care about humans across the world and animals, purple will only care about their tribe. To all these groups what they value is the most important to them, you may see that and think 'oh because green is worldcentric they think theyre better than everyone else' but the truth is so do the other stages. Spiral dynamics again just maps all this out. Its very clear that even through an individuals life you go through these stages, first you may just care about yourself, then family, tribe, ethnic group, country etc. No humanity is free to hold whatever paradigms they wish, the whole point of spiral dynamics is that we can know or at least have an idea of what makes each paradigm or stage tick, that way we can have a more clear idea of how to work with each other. Otherwise it will just lead to conflict which it has done in the past as everyones confused as to why others act so seemingly unreasonably. So finally its not about spiral dynamics being right or wrong its just if its useful in mapping human consciousness. If it is even roughly then its just a tool to use, of course be aware of its limitations as well, but i think overall it is very useful.

Id disagree just because I dont think extremes in any sense are usually positive. My central point is that this isn't something shes just doing and happens to film and monetise it, shes aware of the ragebait she will receive and is actively courting it. Her interviews are almost a character designed to annoy people that may have a moral issue with her. My point isn't a moral one necessarily im just countering your point that theyre somehow sexually liberated, I think this is a complete marketing ploy and if it didnt get any attention she wouldn't do it or even if it got the same attention as your average porn film she wouldn't do it. Shes not taking into consideration the effect it could have and probably is having on girls where now boys may expect this kind of behavior and girls feel like they have to perform this behaviour. These are real things that happen and shes happy to do them because of the money and fame not for sexual liberation

First thing you need to decide is are you happy to do this even if you dont make anything for say 10 years? Is it something you just love doing and feel like its a real calling? The actual mechanics aren't crazy, work out who you are as a rapper, what type of music and fan base you might appeal to. Hone your craft make sure youre a quality rapper. Then market yourself do free shows, everything you can with the goal of getting 10,000 fans who are willing to pay £10 per year on your music and projects. If you do this your income would be 100k but its a lot of work. You might do a show and convert 5 people, so that would literally be 2000 shows you might have to do. So its a grind but there is a route. Post some music here as well so we get an idea

Funny story, I saw Bonnie Blue on a flight a few months ago, she was on the first row as well, so I had to walk right past her. She did not look comfortable in her skin, she had a hood up, was holding on to a teddy bear and aggressively colouring in her colouring book. She took pics with whoever asked but I did kinda feel sorry for her imagining what it must be like everyone looking at her and whispering behind her back but then less sympathy because she really courted this notoriety. A wider point what shes doing in her career isn't really a case of sexual liberation, its really just marketing, its a gimmick. She's smart in that she knows what to say and what to do to get attention but I dont think its representative of what she would do if money and fame weren't involved. She still could be sexually free and get that side of her out with swimgers parties or orgies or whatever, but sleeping with 1000 guys at a time is not something anyone really craves to do realistically. Its like someone who does eating challenges and puts them online, yeah they probably love food but if content wasn't involved they wouldnt eat that much.

What it comes down to is that the masses are not aligned with or seek truth, they seek validation of a reality that makes them feel good. So in terms a person being truth aligned and dating, its not really a selling point, but it comes down to quality over quantity. If you were to meet another person and they could recognise that you were aligned with truth you would be high quality to them as you would be rare and vice versa in how you would feel about them, but the trade off is that you wouldnt have as wide a variety as if you weren't aligned with truth. If you think of it like coca cola is the most popular soft drink in the world but the truth is water is infinitely better for you, do you drink coca cola to fit in with the masses or do you drink water which is good for you? This choice exists in every domain of life, politics, work, social etc. What i think is that in the dating or social sphere you can stay grounded in your truth, that doesnt mean you have to explain what that is every 5 mins, but you can embody what that is and if someone asks you can tell them, but I dont believe you have to be on the same level to connect with someone. It may not be as deep a connection but thats when you have to be honest with yourself.

Im looking at building a community based around mental health, ive come across skool which looks interesting, just wondered if there are a y opinions on it or if anyones built something on there. Also if there are any alternatives that people have had success with, patreon, teachable etc

I was thinking about this the other day, I think a big problem in the western world is we dont have that many environments where we're just around people regularly and have to get to know them. Traditionally a people would mostly meet romantic partners at school/college, work or friend of a friend. Once out of education that option dissappears and is even hindered more because young people spend more time online and less socialising irl. Remote work or work from home is more prominent and if your friend network isn't great then you wont meet friends of friends. As youve said attraction (esp for women) grows the more they get to know someone but its really difficult if theres no where to do that. Personally as im single I had to make a real effort to increase my community and network and even now I dont think its that good but has improved. Before it was almost automatic in society because there wasn't that much of an alternative, but I think now with porn, OF, basically everything online, there are easy ways to avoid the hard work (maybe not as satisfying)