170
Am I "too woke" for thinking the upcoming Michael Jackson biopic is disgusting? (lemmy.world)
submitted 6 months ago by to c/asklemmy@lemmy.world
217 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 9 points 6 months ago (8 children)

those unsupervised interactions included nudity and touching of an inappropriate nature.

This is unproven, right?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
    •
  • [–] 6 points 6 months ago (3 children)

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leaving_Neverland

    Safechuck allege that Jackson sexually abused them when they were children–Safechuck from 1988 to 1992 and Robson from 1990 to 1996. They give graphic descriptions of Jackson's alleged sex acts, including masturbation, oral sex and anal sex, which they say took place at his home, Neverland Ranch, and other locations.

    Robson and Safechuck claim that Jackson said these acts were "romantic," and that they did not realize they were inappropriate until adulthood.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 6 months ago (2 children)

    Yeah, never proven nor convicted. I think Culkin is more trustworthy.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (1 child)

    I'm curious what people make of the broader allegations of a history of child endangerment and irresponsible behavior with kids beyond the lurid sexual accusations.

    For instance, do you consider the claims that he held his new born over the railing of a balcony credible? Is that part of a broader rumor mill? What do you make of that?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 4 points 6 months ago (3 children)

    None corroborated in any meaningful way that I was able to find

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 4 points 6 months ago (2 children)

    Do you know the "no true Scotsman" fallacy? Because I regret to inform you that I believe you're falling prey to it.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 6 months ago (1 child)

    Are you saying that me remarking the lack of verifiable sources is in somehow a logical fallacy?

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman

    Read again, in case you needed the refresher

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 3 points 6 months ago

    I'm saying that considering the availability of credible accusors, I think you're defining who counts as a credible accusors in a selective way to maintain your prior assumptions.

    I'm not saying this to be snide or disrespectful. I'm just asking if it's possible you're letting a bias go unnoticed.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent