The epistemology of Michael Jackson fans

[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

1. 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. 
2. 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. 
3. 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). 
4. 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
5. 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 

 

 

 

 

 

[gettoefl]

I'm 99% certain he carried out these monstrous acts. When people identify with a famous person they will not open themselves to believe they could do such acts, They will rather stay ignorant. So they can still enjoy the past pleasures in peace. These will get forfeited if he is guilty. Like there in no Gary Glitter or Jimmy Saville on YouTube. Let me enjoy the past in peace their subconscious mind says. Let me keep my fantasies of innocence. Mine and theirs. My past gets destroyed not just theirs. Let sleeping dogs lie. You can't convict the dead. People just want money. And so it goes.

[Leo Gura]

MJ fans are pure zombies. All they care about is loving his music and defending him.

It is like a cult. You cannot reason with them.

MJ was a disturbed freak. He openly admits to sleeping with children in the same bed. He doesn't even see anything wrong with that. That is how deluded he is.

Edited 19 hours ago by Leo Gura

[Monster Energy]

52 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

MJ fans are pure zombies. All they care about is loving his music and defending him.

It is like a cult. You cannot reason with them.

MJ was a disturbed freak. He openly admits to sleeping with children in the same bed. He doesn't even see anything wrong with that. That is how deluded he is.

The Epstein files confirm that they were angry at Michael for keeping children away from their island. I believe Michael is innocent, even though his behavior was quite unusual. He was so full of love that he could not see love in a sick sexual way like many others do. But I could be completely wrong. I think people who are absolutely certain that Michael was a pedophile do not understand how difficult it is to judge this. The answer should be “I don’t know” because it is not easy to say yes or no to this.

 

[Monster Energy]

 

[gettoefl]

16 minutes ago, Monster Energy said:

The Epstein files confirm that they were angry at Michael for keeping children away from their island. I believe Michael is innocent, even though his behavior was quite unusual. He was so full of love that he could not see love in a sick sexual way like many others do. But I could be completely wrong. I think people who are absolutely certain that Michael was a pedophile do not understand how difficult it is to judge this. The answer should be “I don’t know” because it is not easy to say yes or no to this.

 

Believe the children. Heal the world. Watch Finding Neverland.

[Consept]

1 hour ago, Leo Gura said:

MJ fans are pure zombies. All they care about is loving his music and defending him.

It is like a cult. You cannot reason with them.

MJ was a disturbed freak. He openly admits to sleeping with children in the same bed. He doesn't even see anything wrong with that. That is how deluded he is.

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. 

35 minutes ago, Monster Energy said:

The Epstein files confirm that they were angry at Michael for keeping children away from their island. I believe Michael is innocent, even though his behavior was quite unusual. He was so full of love that he could not see love in a sick sexual way like many others do. But I could be completely wrong. I think people who are absolutely certain that Michael was a pedophile do not understand how difficult it is to judge this. The answer should be “I don’t know” because it is not easy to say yes or no to this.

 

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 

[vibv]

13 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

He openly admits to sleeping with children in the same bed. He doesn't even see anything wrong with that. That is how deluded he is.

What's deluded is thinking that sleeping with a child in the same bed had anything to do with inappropriate sexual contact.

I mean, it's probably true here. But that says more about our mind than about the act itself.

[Consept]

26 minutes ago, vibv said:

What's deluded is thinking that sleeping with a child in the same bed had anything to do with inappropriate sexual contact.

I mean, it's probably true here. But that says more about our mind than about the act itself.

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. 

[Basman]

Proof that you will give get a pass for being a pedo if your just cool enough. People will just deny, deflect and endlessly split hairs. Gold medal mental gymnastics. Lesser allegations would ruin any other person.

[vibv]

48 minutes ago, Consept said:

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 wouldn't be true in a society with a healthy state of consciousness.

This whole thing about vilifying pedophiles - even the concept of a pedophile itself - is a sign of a huge shadow of our collective mind. We're making it worse, not better.

We think we'd just have to be more against it, more cautious, harder sentences, more paranoia. This paradoxically leads to MORE problems with child abuse, not less.

We don't allow children to be children and at the same time never really grow up while going harder and more brutal against anything that's a symptom of those problems.

That's a sign of a primitive mind, not intelligence.

Edited 3 hours ago by vibv

[Consept]

58 minutes ago, vibv said:

This wouldn't be true in a society with a healthy state of consciousness.

This whole thing about vilifying pedophiles - even the concept of a pedophile itself - is a sign of a huge shadow of our collective mind. We're making it worse, not better.

We think we'd just have to be more against it, more cautious, harder sentences, more paranoia. This paradoxically leads to MORE problems with child abuse, not less.

We don't allow children to be children and at the same time never really grow up while going harder and more brutal against anything that's a symptom of those problems.

That's a sign of a primitive mind, not intelligence.

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. 

[vibv]

10 minutes ago, Consept said:

Its very possible to try and improve the level of consciousness of a society whilst also protecting the most vulnerable. 

Sure, I'm pointing to the larger issue at play that shouldn't be ignored. Protecting is good, but looking deeply at those issues and the darkness within ourselves is even more important.

Not to fight it, but to re-integrate it into our own being with Love.

Edited 2 hours ago by vibv