Lake Oswego 👀 pic.twitter.com/yiBymfptz7

— paige (@BonerWizard) May 1, 2026

We're not *just* reacting to what he's done. Mainly, we're reacting to the fact that he's the one being celebrated. It's not rocket science. Sure, there are plenty of pedos out there, and they're all obviously horrible, but only one is the subject of a record-breaking blockbuster that paints him as a saint, that also has fervent fanbase in utter denial that their childhood hero sexual abused multiple under age boys. Especially in a post-Epstein world, it's just kind of crazy to see, that's all. So, yeah, we're going to talk about talk about it on an entertainment message board devoted to talking to about movies.

For me, personally, it isn't just that he did terrible things. It's that his family/estate continues to get rich off his art and is actively trying to rehab his image to continue to financially benefit. Every time I stream one of his songs, his estate benefits. So I don't do it. The box office success of this movie enriches his estate and puts his music back at the top of the streaming charts.

His family has every right to try and capitalize on his art. I just can't myself be a part of it, knowing what we know about how Michael lived and what he did to people.

And if you think it's ambiguous or spurious, then I think you just don't want to dig into the facts of things enough because you don't want to hate him. The basic facts of how he lived make it obvious he was abusing children. Like, what grown man has children sleep over in his bedroom unsupervised on the regular? That is a fact that no side denies.

I get that some people don't care and want to listen to his music or watch this movie anyway. And that is fine. But the people who do care and who choose not to participate are not being crazy.

Was not saying not to talk about it or trying to stifle a conversation, as you so often do. Just pointing out that people doing performative disgust toward MJ while looking the other way in a hundred other instances of the same from the entertainment industry is, interesting. Stage moms who really want little Johnny or Susie to get their big break in Hollywood (at any cost), entrust them to child predators. I suspect it's more common than some realize, sadly. Too many gates in the arts kept by pedophiles.

As I said in my initial reaction to the movie, it's not about anything bad he did/didn't do during the events of the movie. It's the fact that, morally speaking, someone who went on to be one of the most notorious pedophiles of all time shouldn't have a movie celebrating *any* part of their life.

Box-office/business-wise? Sure, I get it.

But we also know, based on the original draft of the script, what the Jackson estate is trying to do with this whole endeavor (originally one movie that is now going to be two). Objectively, they're trying to paint Michael as victim/saint, and the accusers as the predators (while of course placing blame on Joe Jackson for why Michael went on to innocently covet the childhood he was robbed of), so as to continue to profit off of Michael's "good" name/not risk their money machine being cancelled.

It's like writing an inspiring Epstein movie that only covers the part of his life in which he triumphantly rose from lowly math teacher to banking/finance sector titan, ending just before he purchased Epstein island. Except that, in the initial draft of the script, one that was written in cooperation with Epstein's closest ties, the entire third act was devoted to portraying Epstein as a champion of disadvantaged youth, that the island was merely a school to help empower said youth, and that the people accusing him of being a pedophile were only after his money.

No matter how you slice it, it's just so disgusting all around.

I've done various deep dives throughout the years, probably more than most, and ultimately I've never come away with any certainty of his guilt or innocence. I've been "swayed" slightly multiple times, but never definitively.

I would say I'm currently 60/40 on the side of innocent. But his weirdness is certainly inarguable.

Ultimately though, I've decided that I won't ever condemn anyone for their strong belief in either his guilt or innocence. I won't defend him, nor will I accuse his fans of being in denial, because ultimately none of us will ever know for sure.

I will say, this is a good watch that I came across recently. Fairly objective and unbiased.

Just watched the video and it's fair enough. Very level-headed/makes some good points.

Still, believing that Jackson is most likely innocent because *some* accusers potentially - or even likely - had ulterior motives fails to account for the bigger picture.

Simply put, the chances of a grown man in his 30/40s NOT being a pedophile, who, on camera/on the record…

- Collected, framed, and displayed pictures of little boys (this is well documented, and I'm not even talking sexual images, though there are of course those rumors as well)…

- Infamously hung out with/played with/traveled with multiple little boys, at times in unsupervised, one-one-one scenarios…

- Groomed not just the boys, but their families as well (again, I'm not even talking sexually, only what we know on camera/record of him manipulating the boys/families through fame, showering of gifts/trips, encouraging a lack of adult supervisions at times, etc)…

- Publicly, on camera, not just admitting to sleeping in the same bed/bedroom as multiple boys, but defending/promoting it…

… are so astronomically low that it becomes willfully ignorant to believe in his innocence.

People can analyze/pick apart each individual accuser's story six ways to Sunday, point to the supposed fact that the famous (at the time) boys weren't sexually abused (just because he apparently showed restraint with them means nothing), and can rationalize all they want that Jackson was merely/innocently trying to reclaim the childhood he was robbed of by his abusive father. But when you truly take a step back, and objectively look at the entirety of what is on camera for the world to see, I would argue that it's morally irresponsible to give Jackson the benefit of the doubt. I would even go so far as to say that defending Jackson against these odds helps perpetuate pedophelia in general. I'm not at all saying that's what you're doing. Obviously not. It's just that I genuinely believe one has a moral responsibility to take off the rose-colored glasses, look past their nostalgia/love of his music, and admit that the chances are no where near 60/40 that he didn't do it.

TCTTS said:

---

Just watched the video and it's fair enough. Very level-headed/makes some good points.

Still, believing that Jackson is most likely innocent because *some* accusers potentially - or even likely - had ulterior motives fails to account for the bigger picture.

Simply put, the chances of a grown man in his 30/40s NOT being a pedophile, who, on camera/on the record…

- Collected, framed, and displayed pictures of little boys (this is well documented, and I'm not even talking sexual images, though there are of course those rumors as well)…

- Infamously hung out with/played with/traveled with multiple little boys, at times in unsupervised, one-one-one scenarios…

- Groomed not just the boys, but their families as well (again, I'm not even talking sexually, only what we know on camera/record of him manipulating the boys/families through fame, showering of gifts/trips, encouraging a lack of adult supervisions at times, etc)…

- Publicly, on camera, not just admitting to sleeping in the same bed/bedroom as multiple boys, but defending/promoting it…

… are so astronomically low that it becomes willfully ignorant to believe in his innocence.

People can analyze/pick apart each individual accuser's story six ways to Sunday, point to the supposed fact that the famous (at the time) boys weren't sexually abused (just because he apparently showed restraint with them means nothing), and can rationalize all they want that Jackson was merely/innocently trying to reclaim the childhood he was robbed of by his abusive father. But when you truly take a step back, and objectively look at the entirety of what is on camera for the world to see, I would argue that it's morally irresponsible to give Jackson the benefit of the doubt. I would even go so far as to say that defending Jackson against these odds helps perpetuate pedophelia in general. I'm not at all saying that's what you're doing. Obviously not. It's just that I genuinely believe one has a moral responsibility to take off the rose-colored glasses, look past their nostalgia/love of his music, and admit that the chances are no where near 60/40 that he didn't do it.

---

The argument to make against anyone who claims Micheal is undeniably innocent is to simply ask them, "If Micheal Jackson asked if your child could spend the night at his house, would you let them?"

"The worst part is the hypocrisy."

AustinAg2K said:

---

TCTTS said:

---

Just watched the video and it's fair enough. Very level-headed/makes some good points.

Still, believing that Jackson is most likely innocent because *some* accusers potentially - or even likely - had ulterior motives fails to account for the bigger picture.

Simply put, the chances of a grown man in his 30/40s NOT being a pedophile, who, on camera/on the record…

- Collected, framed, and displayed pictures of little boys (this is well documented, and I'm not even talking sexual images, though there are of course those rumors as well)…

- Infamously hung out with/played with/traveled with multiple little boys, at times in unsupervised, one-one-one scenarios…

- Groomed not just the boys, but their families as well (again, I'm not even talking sexually, only what we know on camera/record of him manipulating the boys/families through fame, showering of gifts/trips, encouraging a lack of adult supervisions at times, etc)…

- Publicly, on camera, not just admitting to sleeping in the same bed/bedroom as multiple boys, but defending/promoting it…

… are so astronomically low that it becomes willfully ignorant to believe in his innocence.

People can analyze/pick apart each individual accuser's story six ways to Sunday, point to the supposed fact that the famous (at the time) boys weren't sexually abused (just because he apparently showed restraint with them means nothing), and can rationalize all they want that Jackson was merely/innocently trying to reclaim the childhood he was robbed of by his abusive father. But when you truly take a step back, and objectively look at the entirety of what is on camera for the world to see, I would argue that it's morally irresponsible to give Jackson the benefit of the doubt. I would even go so far as to say that defending Jackson against these odds helps perpetuate pedophelia in general. I'm not at all saying that's what you're doing. Obviously not. It's just that I genuinely believe one has a moral responsibility to take off the rose-colored glasses, look past their nostalgia/love of his music, and admit that the chances are no where near 60/40 that he didn't do it.

---

The argument to make against anyone who claims Micheal is undeniably innocent is to simply ask them, "If Micheal Jackson asked if your child could spend the night at his house, would you let them?"

---

But honestly, how many dudes would you let your kid go spend the night with? Probably a very short list.

Cliff.Booth said:

---

Was not saying not to talk about it or trying to stifle a conversation, as you so often do. Just pointing out that people doing performative disgust toward MJ while looking the other way in a hundred other instances of the same from the entertainment industry is, interesting. Stage moms who really want little Johnny or Susie to get their big break in Hollywood (at any cost), entrust them to child predators. I suspect it's more common than some realize, sadly. Too many gates in the arts kept by pedophiles.

---

Megan Fox grooming her boys to be chicks, and Charlize Theron grooming two adopted African boys to be chicks is celebrated widely in Hollywood (And all liberal enclaves in California in general). It really is a "thing" out there to have "trophy" trans children. White liberals see you with a cross dressing child and pump their fist and say "friiiick yahhhh I want oneee".

I get that the alleged actions from Michael Jackson are perceived as worse, but how much worse, really, if we are being honest with ourselves?

I can't take anyone seriously who doesn't put them in the same ballpark at least.