Leaving Neverland- Michael Jackson Paedophile Doc

[danny la rouge]

Take care, Reno . All the best.

 

[Sue]

(((Reno))) Hope you feel able to come back soon -- we need you on the film threads. X

 

[D'wards]

In a while, crocodile

 

[scifisam]

Yes, take care of yourself. You were defending Streisand and it's a bit weird that you're denying it.

Think I'll piss off too though since I'm clearly not welcome here, hideous virtue signaler that I am.

 

[editor]

I’ve decided to self-ban for a while, being here is not good for my mental health right now. I’ve deleted the very personal post on the previous page for reasons of privacy. There are lurkers on Urban who known me in real life but I’m not close to them, so I don’t want to share that with them.

I’d appreciate if you don’t quote previous posts of mine on this thread without me being able to answer back.

Cheers, see you in a while!

Hope you're back soon!

 

[editor]

On a different note. Michael Jackson is off my DJ playlist until such a time that the awful allegations are credibly dismissed. Shame, because he recorded some bloody amazing tunes.

 

[campanula]

I'm not on board with always presuming that sex abusers must have been sexually abused. I'm pretty sure it's more complicated than a theory which makes it sounds like vampirism, this inevitable fate of the abused. Some abusers were, many weren't abused and most of those who were abused, don't go on abusing.

There has been recent research which proposes that paedophilia is a sexual orientation, which paedophiles can do little about.

I jumped from Reno's post and didn't read any further because it is, I think, entirely fair to examine the often glib claim of recurring and cyclical abuse. Because the corollary of the abuser having been abused must follow that those who have been abused (I have) must grow up to become abusers themselves (I fucking know I haven't).
So, apols if I am being crass or insensitive...but the often repeated claim of repetition down generations is almost as punishing as the dreadful adjustments which have to be made to simply negotiate a life.
Likely backing away now.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Yes, take care of yourself. You were defending Streisand and it's a bit weird that you're denying it.

Think I'll piss off too though since I'm clearly not welcome here, hideous virtue signaler that I am.

Not true. fwiw I like both of you enormously. I totally agreed with you on this, but I hope neither of you leave because it was a really stupid argument.

 

[existentialist]

I jumped from Reno's post and didn't read any further because it is, I think, entirely fair to examine the often glib claim of recurring and cyclical abuse. Because the corollary of the abuser having been abused must follow that those who have been abused (I have) must grow up to become abusers themselves (I fucking know I haven't).
So, apols if I am being crass or insensitive...but the often repeated claim of repetition down generations is almost as punishing as the dreadful adjustments which have to be made to simply negotiate a life.
Likely backing away now.

No, you raise an important point, campanula. It can be easy for some people to unthinkingly reverse cause and effect and assume that, if most abusers were abused, then most abused people become abusers, and it is a point which cannot be challenged often enough.

One of the biggest problems is that people often want to "other" sexual abusers and the like - to distance them as far from their own experience as possible. Which means that the whole notion of exploring what the causative factors in people becoming such abusers becomes fraught, because many people don't even want to go there, far less get into some nuanced discussion about how someone whom they would prefer to see as a monster can also have been a victim, too. Effectively, to the simplistic mindset, it becomes an all-or-nothing deal - either you're touched by abuse and thus potentially a monster, or "it never happened to me, guv", and you've never been a victim, and of course you're not a perpetrator.

Real life, as we know, is a bit more complicated. Which is not - and I always end up saying this, but perhaps it isn't necessary - to excuse in any way the behaviour of the perpetrators. Explaining, and exploring the causes of, people becoming abusers is not the same thing as excusing them for being so.

 

[TopCat]

We don't explore the mind sets of other rapists so why do so with MJ? Savile just got vilified once people let the scales fall from their eyes.
Oh and Jordy Chandler's accusations against MJ were enough for me and how long ago was that?

 

[existentialist]

We don't explore the mind sets of other rapists so why do so with MJ? Savile just got vilified once people let the scales fall from their eyes.
Oh and Jordy Chandler's accusations against MJ were enough for me and how long ago was that?

Who is this "we" of whom you speak? Part of my own rehabilitation was a wish to try and understand the mindset of my abusers, and by extension, that of people who abuse generally. I cannot pretend that I have been hugely successful in this, but I've learned a lot along the way.

And part of my desire to do that was my own internalisation of the abused/abuser duality myth - I wanted to know what made me, as an abuse survivor, different from my abusers, who, for all I know, were also abuse survivors. I didn't get very far with that, but nobody can say I didn't try

 

[Micro]

We don't explore the mind sets of other rapists so why do so with MJ? Savile just got vilified once people let the scales fall from their eyes.
Oh and Jordy Chandler's accusations against MJ were enough for me and how long ago was that?

Documentaries and books about what makes rapists and serial killers tick are hugely popular. There were several on Saville.

 

[rekil]

Yes, take care of yourself. You were defending Streisand and it's a bit weird that you're denying it.

Think I'll piss off too though since I'm clearly not welcome here, hideous virtue signaler that I am.

How nice of mister cinema to deploy the far right term "virtue signalling" which like "globalism" and "cultural marxism" has never been used by anyone other than irredeemable bellends.

 

[scifisam]

How nice of mister cinema to deploy the far right term "virtue signalling" which like "globalism" and "cultural marxism" has never been used by anyone other than irredeemable bellends.

TBF, he didn't use those terms himself, I don't think.

Do you know what, it was a bit galling pointing out that someone was defending a paedophile excuser and then seeing them be told come back, we love you! when I got no back up at all and was unfairly called out for supposed virtue signalling when nothing like that was going on. I mean, I like Reno too, but man, I was right (for once) and still nobody backs me up. Just how disliked am I? But fuck it, today I am bored and it's not all about me anyway.

Imagine the amount of shit Jackson's current accusers have to live with. Not just them, but their families. And they would have seen very early on how bad it was going to be; that's one of the reasons they testified. No amount of "fame" or money would compensate for the lives they must be living now, harangued online and in real life by MJ fans, forever. They saw it happening to other people and at first they chose not to put themselves through that. Jordy Chandler seems to live under an assumed identity and these accusers already knew what happened to him. What a shitty way to have to exist.

I do think that speaking out in those circumstances is brave. I don't think that not speaking out is cowardly, though. There's a middle ground.