Controversial MJ Documentary Leaving Neverland [GENERAL DISCUSSION THREAD]

ScreenOrigami;4290758 said:
Honest question: Why? To give these people the attention they’re seeking?

Easy answer. To put some seeds into the heads of the neutrals seeing the poll and voting. As someone wrote: "This poll is not going the way I thought". Some neutrals might actually have a think if they vote YES just because they heard of Leaving Neverland and then see the NO is winning by a big margin. And if the person then head down the comment section there is a chance the person will read and take in some of the arguments and evidence that we the MJ fans are making. I have personally myself taken an interest in topics and doing some research and reading after stumbling across some twitter post with comments etc.

If you think this is pointless, then you could ask yourself, why is MJ-fans on twitter and social media arguing with people every day? Should we just stop because we are giving attention to unworthy people? I think not. Besides, that twitter account was not giving his personal opinion away, he just asked a question.
 
Last edited:
Lightbringer;4290759 said:
Easy answer. To put some seeds into the heads of the neutrals seeing the poll and voting. As someone wrote: "This poll is not going the way I thought". Some neutrals might actually have a think if they vote YES just because they heard of Leaving Neverland and then see the NO is winning by a big margin. And if the person then head down the comment section there is a chance the person will read and take in some of the arguments that we the MJ fans are making.

If you think this is pointless, then you could ask yourself, why is MJ-fans on twitter and social media arguing with neutrals and haters every day? Should we just stop because we are giving attention to unworthy people? I think not. Besides, that twitter account was not giving his personal opinion away, he just asked a question.

That’s not a sincere question. If they were interested in the case, they’d look the facts up, not start a poll. At this point, anyone who starts a poll on this topic is doing it for attention, in my opinion. And as for arguments with haters: arguing over and over with the same 5 hater accounts doesn’t really lead anywhere either. Why anyone is still talking to the multiple “Nancy” or “Tiddles” accounts, I really don’t understand. No one’s following them anyway.
 
ScreenOrigami;4290761 said:
That’s not a sincere question. If they were interested in the case, they’d look the facts up, not start a poll. At this point, anyone who starts a poll on this topic is doing it for attention, in my opinion. And as for arguments with haters: arguing over and over with the same 5 hater accounts doesn’t really lead anywhere either. Why anyone is still talking to the multiple “Nancy” or “Tiddles” accounts, I really don’t understand. No one’s following them anyway.

The guy were interested what his followers had to say or was just communicating with his followers, not unseen of. We dont even know still what the twitter account owner thinks or what sources he has taken in, as he did not give an opinion.

The only people that should be completely ignored are the twitter accounts that spend their lifes dedicated to slander MJ, like the ones you mentioned. Everyone should just block them.

But there is no comparison to make between them and the twitter account asking this question. There will be plenty of neutrals reading the comments and seeing this poll, while the haters accounts will have almost zero neutrals viewing because the are irrelevant and without followers. (as you correctly stated)

In fact, its probably more effective to leave information and debate in his comment section than liking, commenting and re-tweeting a tweet within the MJ-fam on twitter as that will mostly reach MJ-fans who are already educated and PRO-MJ!
 
Last edited:
There is often debate about whether 'the truth will ever be told' in terms of significant people from MJ court cases telling the real story.

It seems that sometimes it does happen....I was just reading about a woman in the USA who successfully campaigned for abortion rights, but then after becoming a born-again Christian, changed sides and campaigned against abortion rights. Apparently there's a new documentary due out on Friday, where she confesses to being paid to change sides (to anti-abortion). She has since died. This is NOT the place to debate the pros and cons of abortion rights for women, but it is interesting that in significant legal cases, the truth DOES sometimes come out about why participants in these cases act the way they do.

Plaintiff in Roe v. Wade U.S. abortion case says she was paid to switch sides

LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - Norma McCorvey, the woman known as “Jane Roe” in the landmark 1973 U.S. Supreme Court Roe v. Wade ruling legalizing abortion, said she was lying when she switched to support the anti-abortion movement, saying she had been paid to do so.

In a new documentary, made before her death in 2017 and due to be broadcast on Friday, McCorvey makes what she calls a “deathbed confession.”

“I took their money and they took me out in front of the cameras and told me what to say,” she says on camera. “I did it well too. I am a good actress. Of course, I’m not acting now.”

AKA Jane Roe,” will be broadcast on the FX cable channel on Friday but was made available to television journalists in advance.

It traces McCorvey’s troubled youth, how she became the poster child of abortion rights and her about-face in the 1990s when she announced she was baptized as a born-again Christian who campaigned against abortion.

The documentary was filmed in the last months of her life before her death at age 69 in 2017 in Texas.

The 1973 Supreme Court ruling has for decades been the focus of a divisive political, legal and moral debate.

The Rev. Robert Schenck, one of the evangelical pastors who worked with McCorvey after her conversion to Christianity in the mid-1990s, looked stunned as he was shown her interview as part of the documentary.

Schenck said the anti-abortion movement had exploited her weaknesses for its own ends and acknowledged she had been paid for her appearances on the movement’s behalf.

“What we did with Norma was highly unethical,” Schenck said in the documentary. “The jig is up.”

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...tent&utm_medium=trueAnthem&utm_source=twitter
 
ScreenOrigami;4290761 said:
That’s not a sincere question. If they were interested in the case, they’d look the facts up, not start a poll. At this point, anyone who starts a poll on this topic is doing it for attention, in my opinion. And as for arguments with haters: arguing over and over with the same 5 hater accounts doesn’t really lead anywhere either. Why anyone is still talking to the multiple “Nancy” or “Tiddles” accounts, I really don’t understand. No one’s following them anyway.

Addition to the bolded part: I am not interested in whether the twitter account is an attention seeker or not, I am looking to influence his followers and neutrals that might see the tweet. Thats more important to me than if a twitter account gets attention or not. The guy would get attention regardless and if all MJ fans ignored it, the poll would be a massacre and it would strengthen the belief of guilt for the people viewing and taking part in the comment section if there is no fight back and facts posted on why MJ is innocent. If everyone in the poll thinks MJ is guilty and all comments are thinking he is guilty, how could anyone seeing that leave thinking MJ is innocent? It would not happen.

In fact, we the fans would be even more effective if we cut down on the hatred and personal attacks, and just left the facts and evidence!
 
Lightbringer;4290762 said:
The guy were interested what his followers had to say (communicating with his followers, not unseen of) not doing his own research on the case. We dont even know still what the twitter account owner thinks as he did not give an opinion.

The only people that should be completely ignored are the twitter accounts that spend their lifes dedicated to slander MJ, like the ones you mentioned. But there is no comparison to make between them and the twitter account asking this question.

OK, if that’s the reason, they will never find out what their followers truly think if we all jump onto the poll, will they? To me, these polls always come across as if someone was trying to turn the topic into a fun pastime, one poll among many on Twitter, and personally I find this very inappropriate. Again, just my opinion, not trying to talk anyone out of voting, of course. :)
 
Last edited:
ScreenOrigami;4290768 said:
OK, if that’s the reason, they will never find out what their followers truly think if we all jump onto the poll, will they? To me, these polls always come across as if someone was trying to turn the topic into a fun pastime, one poll among many on Twitter, and personally I find this very inappropriate. Again, just my opinion, not trying to talk anyone out of voting, of course. :)

Btw, the poll is not visible to me anymore.

Yes, but like I said I dont care about the owner of the twitter account, I care about gettin the truth out there about MJs innocence, and I use whatever channel or platform I am given to try to make a small difference. Suits me just fine if MJ fans opinions are the ones heard most and not his followers as that benefit MJ :cool:

I do agree with you that communicating with his fans on a serious topic like that could be questionable and distasteful in some ways.

But still, he can do whatever he wants and since I cant stop him - I am going to act accordingly in the way that benefits MJ the most from any given situation :)

The guy went private with his account because the MJ-fam came down on him like a ton of bricks. So I followed the guy, voted, left comments. And will unfollow him when the poll ends.
 
Last edited:
Lightbringer;4290757 said:
Lets vote!

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Did Michael Jackson do it?</p>— The Rick Ross fan (@therickrossfan) <a href="https://twitter.com/therickrossfan/status/1262796218742329352?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">May 19, 2020</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

Nope.
 
Lightbringer;4290769 said:
Yes, but like I said I dont care about the owner of the twitter account, I care about gettin the truth out there about MJs innonence, and I use whatever channel or platform I am given to try to make a small difference. Suits me just fine if MJ fans opinions are the ones heard most and not his followers as that benefit MJ :cool:

I do agree with you that communicating with his fans on a serious topic like that could be questionable and distasteful in some ways.

But still, he can do whatever he wants and since I cant stop him - I am going to act accordingly in the way that benefits MJ the most from any given situation :)

The guy went private with his account because the MJ-fam came down on him like a ton of bricks. So I followed the guy, voted, left comments. And will unfollow him when the poll ends.

I understand all the points you&#8217;re making. Just take care of yourself, so that you don&#8217;t burn out in that fight, because there will always be ignorant people, particularly on Twitter, who don&#8217;t want to be convinced, no matter what. :)
 
ScreenOrigami;4290771 said:
I understand all the points you&#8217;re making. Just take care of yourself, so that you don&#8217;t burn out in that fight, because there will always be ignorant people, particularly on Twitter, who don&#8217;t want to be convinced, no matter what. :)

Wise words from you, you dont realize how right you are in that regard. Thank you and big hugs :heart:

5fdbe089b625c55c99f91b7e6ee56b0c.jpg
 
Orpah getting her own taste of medicine. it's not funny isn't it Orpah? it's hurts does it? well that's how Michael, his family, kids, friends, and fans etc feel too Orpah. not to mention i'm pretty sure Orpah family, friends, and fans etc feel the same way for her.

just say sorry to everyone and move on. nah. she probably not because she want that money. like Michael always said money is all roots of evil. he definitely wasn't lying about that. that's for sure.
 
Last edited:
Lightbringer;4290772 said:
Wise words from you, you dont realize how right you are in that regard. Thank you and big hugs :heart:

5fdbe089b625c55c99f91b7e6ee56b0c.jpg

Ha ha, how cute, thank you. :) I know what a burn out is like and it&#8217;s no fun. It&#8217;s hard to pull yourself out of once you&#8217;ve crossed a certain line. Hugs. :)
 
Michael will always have dents in his name but one thing for sure it's doesn't bring him down. as fans I think we should tell about Michael BUT don't come off as rude etc. saying you gonna kill that person because they believe Michael is guilty etc is too much. Michael would be disappointed how his "fans" react to non fans etc. that makes us look bad than we already does.
 
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Omg why is the stupid train station still a topic????? <a href="https://t.co/J9fOpUsFlh">pic.twitter.com/J9fOpUsFlh</a></p>&mdash; Ryan Michaels &#65533;&#65533; (@ReasonBound) <a href="https://twitter.com/ReasonBound/status/1262048987080581120?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">May 17, 2020</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

I think we all can agree with this.
 
I think they already had something bias against MJ anyway long before any accusation came along

Bingo. It's like a justification for their bias/hatred which is rooted in something else and often irrational.

Lightbringer & ScreenOrigami: I enjoyed your debate about the "twitter wars" and I actually agree with both of you :D. It's very important to focus and chose our targets/fights wisely though, as even MJ fans have limited resources. ;)

And if only every debates ended like this one, with L.O.V.E. :D
 
People are not interested in the truth, many people say crude jokes about MJ the "child molestor" without actually understanding the weight of their words. Looking for cheap shots and cheap laughs. It's like that Motley Crew front man who later apologized to Paris because she confronted him.
Joking and laughing about it doesn't necessarily mean they believe he is guilty, most people just want to appear interesting and heavy subjects are laughed away because of insecurity or just a general lack of interest in the person/subject matter.

I mean just go to a bar with friends and talk about MJ there's always at least one guy turning the discussion into a freak show. It are typically always the same guys who laugh everything away. Their ego's tell them to act cool in front of others, their time in a bar consists of generating as many laughs as possibly for a successful evening.
 
JichaelMackson;4290900 said:
People are not interested in the truth, many people say crude jokes about MJ the "child molestor" without actually understanding the weight of their words. Looking for cheap shots and cheap laughs. It's like that Motley Crew front man who later apologized to Paris because she confronted him.
Joking and laughing about it doesn't necessarily mean they believe he is guilty, most people just want to appear interesting and heavy subjects are laughed away because of insecurity or just a general lack of interest in the person/subject matter.

I mean just go to a bar with friends and talk about MJ there's always at least one guy turning the discussion into a freak show. It are typically always the same guys who laugh everything away. Their ego's tell them to act cool in front of others, their time in a bar consists of generating as many laughs as possibly for a successful evening.

Well people who feed off those stupid jokes about Michael, makes them automatically stupid and they can all just f:censored:k off. Would they even like being a joke if when anybody tells jokes about em in a stupid way? Let&#8217;s see if they like it.
 
PoP;4290911 said:
Well people who feed off those stupid jokes about Michael, makes them automatically stupid and they can all just f:censored:k off. Would they even like being a joke if when anybody tells jokes about em in a stupid way? Let&#8217;s see if they like it.

Which is why I said they don't understand the weight of their words
 
Which is why I said they don't understand the weight of their words
It is often a self reflection of what he/she are in his/her life so they make fun of someone else to make themselves feel good. I bet the person who does this have more drama than Michael (far worst).
 
I seriously do not understand the people who joke about that topic. Regardless of whether the people making the jokes believe the accusations, it's just inappropriate. Like I've been saying forever, false accusations aren't funny, and child abuse isn't funny, so there's really nothing appropriate to joke about.
 
JichaelMackson;4290913 said:
Which is why I said they don't understand the weight of their words

They&#8217;re idiots, that&#8217;s why.
 
I'm beginning to think that few people in the US legal system check anything very much (aside from the wonderful T Mez!).

I've been reading further developments in the Tara Reade case (the woman who has made sexual assault allegations against Biden). It now transpires that she has spent years as an 'expert witness' in domestic abuse trials, but may have lied about her qualifications. She claims having completed a degree at Antioch Uni. but a spokeswoman has said she didn't graduate nor was she a faculty member.

Defence attorneys in some of the domestic abuse cases where she acted as an expert witness are now planning to make retrial motions, to try to set free the men who were imprisoned.

People are commenting on social media that 'they could tell she was a liar because she kept changing her story'. Where was all the outcry around the changed stories in R and S's cases? (All we seemed to see was 'But TrAuMa!!').

(Article here sadly not readable in Europe)
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/21/...credentials.html?referringSource=articleShare

https://www.businessinsider.com/con...redentials-as-expert-witness-2020-5?r=US&IR=T

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Edited to add these extracts from another article:

Biden accuser&#8217;s life marred by abuse and financial hardship

.....That accusation, which Reade made publicly for the first time in March, has revived difficult questions about how to evaluate allegations of assault in the era of #MeToo. It also has thrust Reade&#8217;s life story into the 2020 presidential race and, with it, scrutiny of a woman with a winding trail of extreme debt, an unfounded claim of educational attainment and questionable business practices. Along the way, some people who dealt with her found her duplicitous and deceitful, while others found her a heroic survivor.

....It is often not possible to conclusively resolve an allegation like the one Reade has made, where there are no witnesses and no timely police report.
So how her claim is evaluated turns largely on her credibility.

....Another of Reade&#8217;s aspirations was to be an actress, performing in &#8220;school theatre, community and regional theatre, sprinkled with some radio and television commercials,&#8221; according to her blog. She set out for California to pursue acting at age 17 and said she got a referral from a friend to informally train with Robert Reed, an actor best known for his role as the &#8220;Brady Bunch&#8221; father. She also said she scored an audition in New York for The Juilliard School&#8217;s exclusive acting program.

Reade said she learned at the audition that no scholarships were available and returned home brokenhearted when her father said he wouldn&#8217;t pay the tuition. The school declined to confirm whether Reade was selected for an audition.

She wrote in January that her father, who died in 2016, was physically and emotionally abusive throughout her childhood.

&#8220;Thwarting my college dreams was the mild bit, the rejection and the physical assaults set the stage for how I would walk into the world,&#8221; she wrote.

....Months later, Reade was evicted again over $12,750 in unpaid rent. She filed for bankruptcy and listed $406,407 in debts, including nearly $300,000 in unpaid school loans, $1,715 owed to a bail bondsman and $2,100 due to a locally owned grocery store.

&#8212; Reade enrolled in an advanced legal degree program through Southwestern Law School. The school sued Reade in 2016 over $22,000 in loans, which remain unpaid, according to an attorney working on the case.

&#8212; She launched a charity that aimed to provide pet food to impoverished animal owners. The group&#8217;s nonprofit status was revoked in 2017 after Reade failed to submit three years of mandatory tax filings, though she continued to solicit donations. In 2016, Reade tweeted that she was raising money for a nonprofit called Boudicca Rising Legal Assistance, which included a link to a GoFundMe page she created. There is no record of a nonprofit by that name in the IRS database. Reade raised $210 but said she eventually abandoned the effort because it was too difficult to sort out the logistics.

https://apnews.com/67821946538c64c9...=SocialFlow&utm_source=Facebook&utm_medium=AP
 
Last edited:
Nantucket Cat;4290942 said:
I seriously do not understand the people who joke about that topic. Regardless of whether the people making the jokes believe the accusations, it's just inappropriate. Like I've been saying forever, false accusations aren't funny, and child abuse isn't funny, so there's really nothing appropriate to joke about.

Especially all those so-called &#8220;comedians&#8221; in comedy clubs and on TV. There are real traumatized victims of abuse out there. You can&#8217;t go on stage and make jokes about that.
 
myosotis;4290955 said:
I'm beginning to think that few people in the US legal system check anything very much (aside from the wonderful T Mez!).

I've been reading further developments in the Tara Reade case (the woman who has made sexual assault allegations against Biden). It now transpires that she has spent years as an 'expert witness' in domestic abuse trials, but may have lied about her qualifications. She claims having completed a degree at Antioch Uni. but a spokeswoman has said she didn't graduate nor was she a faculty member.

Defence attorneys in some of the domestic abuse cases where she acted as an expert witness are now planning to make retrial motions, to try to set free the men who were imprisoned.

People are commenting on social media that 'they could tell she was a liar because she kept changing her story'. Where was all the outcry around the changed stories in R and S's cases? (All we seemed to see was 'But TrAuMa!!').

(Article here sadly not readable in Europe)
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/21/...credentials.html?referringSource=articleShare

https://www.businessinsider.com/con...redentials-as-expert-witness-2020-5?r=US&IR=T

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Edited to add these extracts from another article:

Biden accuser&#8217;s life marred by abuse and financial hardship

.....That accusation, which Reade made publicly for the first time in March, has revived difficult questions about how to evaluate allegations of assault in the era of #MeToo. It also has thrust Reade&#8217;s life story into the 2020 presidential race and, with it, scrutiny of a woman with a winding trail of extreme debt, an unfounded claim of educational attainment and questionable business practices. Along the way, some people who dealt with her found her duplicitous and deceitful, while others found her a heroic survivor.

....It is often not possible to conclusively resolve an allegation like the one Reade has made, where there are no witnesses and no timely police report.
So how her claim is evaluated turns largely on her credibility.

....Another of Reade&#8217;s aspirations was to be an actress, performing in &#8220;school theatre, community and regional theatre, sprinkled with some radio and television commercials,&#8221; according to her blog. She set out for California to pursue acting at age 17 and said she got a referral from a friend to informally train with Robert Reed, an actor best known for his role as the &#8220;Brady Bunch&#8221; father. She also said she scored an audition in New York for The Juilliard School&#8217;s exclusive acting program.

Reade said she learned at the audition that no scholarships were available and returned home brokenhearted when her father said he wouldn&#8217;t pay the tuition. The school declined to confirm whether Reade was selected for an audition.

She wrote in January that her father, who died in 2016, was physically and emotionally abusive throughout her childhood.

&#8220;Thwarting my college dreams was the mild bit, the rejection and the physical assaults set the stage for how I would walk into the world,&#8221; she wrote.

....Months later, Reade was evicted again over $12,750 in unpaid rent. She filed for bankruptcy and listed $406,407 in debts, including nearly $300,000 in unpaid school loans, $1,715 owed to a bail bondsman and $2,100 due to a locally owned grocery store.

&#8212; Reade enrolled in an advanced legal degree program through Southwestern Law School. The school sued Reade in 2016 over $22,000 in loans, which remain unpaid, according to an attorney working on the case.

&#8212; She launched a charity that aimed to provide pet food to impoverished animal owners. The group&#8217;s nonprofit status was revoked in 2017 after Reade failed to submit three years of mandatory tax filings, though she continued to solicit donations. In 2016, Reade tweeted that she was raising money for a nonprofit called Boudicca Rising Legal Assistance, which included a link to a GoFundMe page she created. There is no record of a nonprofit by that name in the IRS database. Reade raised $210 but said she eventually abandoned the effort because it was too difficult to sort out the logistics.

https://apnews.com/67821946538c64c9...=SocialFlow&utm_source=Facebook&utm_medium=AP
I think people, who cared to watched that LN trash, thought these guys were liars but did not say nothing due to the Metoo movement was high last year but since then metoo has taken a hit with people lying and that belief "believe all victims" is a prove lie (people can be HEARD but not believed as I said; now many are saying this now.). With Jussie Smollett, things started changing along with others who started being accused. When Dave Chappell made his comment, it was like a Thank you, that is what we think as well" to people. And now people who people like are being accused and people want to be back away from believe all so called victims because everyone is not truthful about being a so called victim PLUS the lies of these losers are being expose. You can believe the lies people are posting are being read. That is why MJ is still on the radio whereas R kelly is not.
 
I think people, who cared to watched that LN trash, thought these guys were liars but did not say nothing due to the Metoo movement was high last year but since then metoo has taken a hit with people lying and that belief "believe all victims" is a prove lie (people can be HEARD but not believed as I said; now many are saying this now.). With Jussie Smollett, things started changing along with others who started being accused. When Dave Chappell made his comment, it was like a Thank you, that is what we think as well" to people. And now people who people like are being accused and people want to be back away from believe all so called victims because everyone is not truthful about being a so called victim PLUS the lies of these losers are being expose. You can believe the lies people are posting are being read. That is why MJ is still on the radio whereas R kelly is not.

Absolutely. I totally agree.

I was interested to see this tweet about the Tara Reade case (it got a fair number of 'Likes'). - I thought exactly the same should happen for MJ regarding LN (we can but hope!)

i am just waiting on the inevitable netflix documentary of how these hack "journalists" all got taken for a ride by tara reade.
 
People been making jokes about Michael for years. it's got real bad in the 90's and early 2000's. i remember seeing movies, tv shows, comedy shows, etc all over Michael. while Michael did have a good sense of humor. those jokes was off the change. poor mike. they said he cried everytime he saw or heard those jokes. i'm so sorry he had to go though that. talk about being embarrassed and bullied. :(

People didn't like Michael and they still don't like him today. that okay because everyone has haters. but bullying is never okay to anyone.
 
NatureCriminal7896;4291108 said:
People been making jokes about Michael for years. it's got real bad in the 90's and early 2000's. i remember seeing movies, tv shows, comedy shows, etc all over Michael. while Michael did have a good sense of humor. those jokes was off the change. poor mike. they said he cried everytime he saw or heard those jokes. i'm so sorry he had to go though that. talk about being embarrassed and bullied. :(

People didn't like Michael and they still don't like him today. that okay because everyone has haters. but bullying is never okay to anyone.

Well that makes me hate them even more for bullying Michael with all those stupid @$$ jokes, not just the lies and the backstabbing. One of these days they&#8217;ll get a taste of their own medicine like some of them and see how they like when it happens among them.
 
Back
Top