[Gemme]

Originally Posted by charley

...Yikes, which brings up the interesting dilemma, does one listen to Jackson's songs (i.e. Thriller, which we all know), or do we boycott?

Originally Posted by charley

I'm glad you see the difference between child molestation and being gay, but I'm not sure that what Rembrandt did (art) and what Jackson did (pop) are the same thing. While I love art that expresses love (not lust), I (like many others) liked Jackson's music, but it's not the same thing. And if the Sistine Chapel fell into ruin, I wouldn't care. Actually, I might breathe a sigh of relief, considering all the damage that the Catholic Church has perpetrated on women throughout thousands of years. Art is something which moves the heart, and pop music is something which moves the loins. Such art never causes any damage, and never incites stupidity.

Btw, bringing up Britten is the classic straw-man fallacious argument, which seeks to confuse the issue by bringing up an idea that has nothing to do with child molestation and pedophilia. Clever but not intelligent.

One of the victims in that documentary said that Jackson said: "This is the way we show love."

I think that one of the consequences of the dark cancer that is spreading worldwide is that the boundaries between right and wrong are being eroded by people who are evil, to the extent that many people no longer understand the difference. This I agree with wholeheartedly and it's gotten significantly worse the past few years. I have a theory, as many do, but it's not really "breaking news".


The inheritors of Jackson's fortune are putting up a big backlash, because every time someone does the right thing and decides not to click on one of Jackson's songs (say on Spotify), they risk losing millions.

...

The Catholic Church has done damage to men as well. The secrecy and shame and denials have torn their victims of all genders and orientations apart. We should be careful when we say "never" as in the portion of your post that I underlined.

Art makes people passionate. You are passionate right now with your opinion. Passion makes people do stupid things, which can be damaging so I have to disagree with you there. Here's a link to the 10 most criminal artists that I found. There's murder, seduction, adultery and arson in this list. By your stance, we should boycott the works of all of these artists as well, no?

Some people can separate the artist from the art and the maker from the product. Some cannot. I don't think someone is doing something wrong if they listen to whatever music they choose to, despite what the artist has or has not done. I believe there might be better options to expose yourself to, but it's still a free country.

MJ is not the first nor the last musical artist/icon that has done questionable and/or illegal and/or unethical things. R Kelly is currently dealing with repeated issues about this. To be transparent, I don't like R Kelly or his music (outside of "I Think I Can Fly") but it's the same thing. Demonize the person, not their work. So many people throughout the decades have found solace and grace in the work of people that turned out to be pretty darn shitty. That doesn't take away from the value of the work. Just the person. And it, in no way, reflects upon listeners of that music or the viewers of that art.