Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Keyser_Soze

Television Michael Jackson Episode of The Simpsons Being Pulled From All Platforms

Recommended Posts

4 hours ago, sblfilms said:

Having been through a long series of courses to be a state certified chaperone for guys convicted of sex crimes against kids, everything in the documentary rang very true. I think a lot of you guys have some misunderstandings of how predators groom and how victims can respond. Getting child sex abuse victims to turn against their abusers is incredibly difficult because the abusers spend sometimes *years* setting the stage for the abuse, creating false realities of care for the child by the abuser.

As someone who was close to being fondled and having a brother who was fondled by our Uncle I can attest to this. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Again, I'm torn by the whole Michael Jackson thing but I have to ask the question, at what point is a person who is accused of of a crime absolved of the crime they're accused of? This guy was thoroughly investigated and was found Innocent and this "documentary" went in with it's mind already made up as to what it wanted to say. It's definitely biased and the director doesn't even deny it. We can all play internet psychologists/detectives but at the end of the day, none of us know definitively what happened and for me, there's enough reasonable doubt here with what I DO know to not convict a dead man posthumously. Conversely,  there is some compelling circumstantial evidence to point towards guilt with Michael as well but again... I don't know. Safechuck is definitely a more believable witness to me than Robson.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In the case of sexual abuse where the victim and perpetrator know each other, there is rarely evidence of the abuse besides the testimony of the victim. We ultimately have to weigh the credibility of the accused and the accuser because their respective version of events are the only evidence in the majority of cases.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, sblfilms said:

In the case of sexual abuse where the victim and perpetrator know each other, there is rarely evidence of the abuse besides the testimony of the victim. We ultimately have to weigh the credibility of the accused and the accuser because their respective version of events are the only evidence in the majority of cases.

Well if you're going by credibility of the accusers vs the accused then it creates more problems for the accusers because both said under oath nothing happened to them. For me, it was less about what they said and more about what they showed. Those phone messages and faxes from Michael were more damning to me than anything either accuser said.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, skillzdadirecta said:

Well if you're going by credibility of the accusers vs the accused then it creates more problems for the accusers because both said under oath nothing happened to them. For me, it was less about what they said and more about what they showed. Those phone messages and faxes from Michael were more damning to me than anything either accuser said.

 

A lot of women with black eyes will say they tripped and hit a door knob too when they feel trapped in a relationship. When they get out and are free of the threat of violence or other repercussions, they are more likely to tell the truth.

 

It is all very complex and there is no right answer for the question of credibility, it’s up to each individual person to hear what the parties have to say and make their best judgement.

 

I don’t find the denial of impropriety by a grown man throwing pajama parties with little boys particularly convincing because a grown many throwing pajama parties with little boys is bad enough :p 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

‘The Simpsons’ Boss Al Jean: Michael Jackson Used the Show to ‘Groom Boys’

The ‘Simpsons’ showrunner opens up to Marlow Stern about why they removed their Michael Jackson episode, the Fox-Disney merger, satirizing Trump, and much more.

 

Quote

The very first episode of Season 3, “Stark Raving Dad,” featuring the voice of Michael Jackson made some news recently when it was revealed that you decided to remove the episode after watching the Jackson documentary Leaving Neverland. That must have been a difficult decision for you, seeing as you wrote it and it was your first episode at the reins.

Yes. It wasn’t something that makes me happy. It’s something I agree with completely. What saddens me is, if you watch that documentary—which I did, and several of us here did—and you watch that episode, honestly, it looks like the episode was used by Michael Jackson for something other than what we’d intended it. It wasn’t just a comedy to him, it was something that was used as a tool. And I strongly believe that. That, to me, is my belief, and it’s why I think removing it is appropriate. I lose a little bit of money financially, it’s not something that’s great personally to lose one of the most successful things I ever did, but I totally think it’s the right move. I don’t believe in going through and making judgments on every guest star and saying “this one was bad, that one was bad,” but the episode itself has a false purpose, and that’s what I object to about it now.

 

And the false purpose was what?

 

I think it was part of what he used to groom boys. I really don’t know, and I should be very careful because this is not something I know personally, but as far as what I think, that’s what I think. And that makes me very, very sad.

 

That...isn't exactly a compelling reason for pulling the episode. And that headline is WILDLY misleading on the strength of the claim being made.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Jason said:

For reeeeaaaals. The headline makes it sound like the episode was featured in the documentary or called out specifically. Terrible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wtf kinda reason is that? What a wild assumption to take. If I was Fox I’d wonder what other kind of nonsensical decisions he’s prone to make. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd get it if the person was alive, but he has already been dead for years and as long as the internet is around it is always viewable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...