What is The Last Movie You Watched?

[Nick Danger]

Jackson, it seems to me, is a criminal on a different level, because he harmed people, because his interest in children was not natural.

Iiiiiiiiiiiiii'm not so sure I agree. Michael Jackson was a victim of society. I've met a LOT of famous musicians - pretty much all of them who were big in the 80's, including Michael (spent 18 years in radio and music promotion). The ones who are new to the game can run the gamut from "still taking it all in" to "obnoxious as hell," but the ones who have been established for many years all have one thing in common - fear of people.

I mean real fear, as in they are afraid to go out in public. Any established superstar knows that as soon as he's recognized his life is in danger.

On the other hand, they are treated like royalty by those lesser mortals whose careers intersect theirs. They like that. Never met a musician yet who didn't enjoy being served by everyone in the vicinity; single exception - Neil Young, but he's an exception to pretty much every rule, I don't think he even has a tour rider.

My point is, though, that kind of separation from reality is unhealthy. Period. I've never seen a single superstar artist who was better off for being famous, they all develop more issues than Sports Illustrated. Forget about egoism, imagine being treated like...a god!

Now imagine being treated that way your entire life, from early childhood to death. That's Michael Jackson. The man was SEVERELY mentally ill. And it was through no fault of his own, he simply followed the path laid out before him by his own father, which is an entirely different story.

I don't hold Michael accountable for his actions any more than I would hold any mentally ill person accountable. I don't think HE is responsible for what WE turned him into.

Regarding his music, well, I don't listen to it either. But I recognize the pure pop genius of it all, and I'm 100% comfortable saying that overall, the world was a better place because Michael Jackson was in it.

[Stavros]

I agree with most of your post, Nick, but not the claim that Jackson acted the way he did 'through no fault of his own'. He was not a zombie, he was capable of engaging in adult negotiations on his contracts for recordings, videos, gigs and so on, and was compos mentis enough to make the commercial decision to buy the Beatles catalogue. If he was indeed capable of acting like the mature adult male that he was, where did all this 'lost childhood' rubbish come from? It was a device by which he justified 'Neverland' as a place where children and he could 'have fun', taking the latter to extremes. We can agree that wealth and fame can distort reality, that rock musicians have wasted/ruined their lives through drink and drugs, but Jackson was not a helpless slave to his past, he was in control of his life, and had the power to change it any time he wanted. He chose his way of life just as he chose his lovers, illegal though those choices were.

[Nick Danger]

I agree with most of your post, Nick, but not the claim that Jackson acted the way he did 'through no fault of his own'. He was not a zombie, he was capable of engaging in adult negotiations on his contracts for recordings, videos, gigs and so on, and was compos mentis enough to make the commercial decision to buy the Beatles catalogue. If he was indeed capable of acting like the mature adult male that he was, where did all this 'lost childhood' rubbish come from? It was a device by which he justified 'Neverland' as a place where children and he could 'have fun', taking the latter to extremes. We can agree that wealth and fame can distort reality, that rock musicians have wasted/ruined their lives through drink and drugs, but Jackson was not a helpless slave to his past, he was in control of his life, and had the power to change it any time he wanted. He chose his way of life just as he chose his lovers, illegal though those choices were.

Yet another perspective is that no mental illness is the fault of the person experiencing it. Otherwise it's not mental illness. If I decide to go prancing through Times Square wearing nothing but a MAGA hat and a carrot hanging out of my butt, that doesn't make me mentally ill. But if I am COMPELLED to go prancing through Times Square wearing nothing but a MAGA hat with a carrot out my butt, I probably need to be evaluated.

Point being that the very concept of mental illness dictates that the person is not in control.

I think you would agree that Ted Bundy was mentally ill - the compulsion to savagely kill and mutilate is certainly an aberration from the norm. But he was also quite capable of having a career and taking care of business while he wasn't obeying his compulsion. Just like Michael Jackson. Of course, we deemed Ted Bundy guilty because his crimes were too monstrous - society needed to kill him to wash the stain of him off the planet. But Michael was no monster. His deeds had negative consequences, but his victims are still alive, and appear to be thriving. I mean, I watched Leaving Neverland too, both Savechuck and Robson are at least functional enough to take care of themselves, they're both good-looking guys, and intelligent. Undoubtedly some of what Michael did to them left emotional scars, but let's not forget that in Ancient Rome, nearly EVERY young boy of good family was sexually "mentored" by an adult man. And they managed to build an empire.

Also, don't ever think it escaped my attention that both Savechuck and Robson thoroughly enjoyed telling their stories. It sounded like their biggest regret about the whole thing was not the sexual abuse itself, but the time when the sexual abuse stopped and another child was getting Michael's attention instead.

Anyway, I can forgive Michael, because I don't think he ever, at any point in his life, had any grip on reality. Maybe other people can't.

[broncofan]

Having mental illness does not mean a person is not in control of any decision they make. The legal standard for it makes some sense of the issue. Under the McNaghten test a person is only not guilty of a crime if he did not know the nature and quality of the act he was doing based on some mental deficiency. In more than 99% of cases of mental illness you would not meet these conditions.

The degree to which someone's agency and decision-making is altered by their experiences and biology is an interesting question, but morally we do have to assume people are culpable for what they do except in the most extreme circumstances where the defect completely strips them of normal agency.

I don't you could possibly know what effect any crime had on the victim and your sense that they just wanted attention is at best very uncharitable.

[broncofan]

I read more carefully your distinction about wanting to go out with the carrot in your butt vs being compelled to. This looks a bit more like the irresistible impulse test. I'm not saying arguments can't be made, but it's pretty unknowable the degree to which someone might have stopped themselves from a course of action they've provably taken. For that reason, maybe it should only apply to those who have gross injury to the frontal lobe or something and literally don't have the cognitive means to stop themselves once they've begun a course of action rather than to anyone who compulsively abuses other people.

If that test were applied this broadly it could defend any sociopathic behavior.

Edit: to conclude, I haven't seen the Michael Jackson documentary, but probably will at some point.

[Nick Danger]

Having mental illness does not mean a person is not in control of any decision they make. The legal standard for it makes some sense of the issue. Under the McNaghten test a person is only not guilty of a crime if he did not know the nature and quality of the act he was doing based on some mental deficiency. In more than 99% of cases of mental illness you would not meet these conditions.

The degree to which someone's agency and decision-making is altered by their experiences and biology is an interesting question, but morally we do have to assume people are culpable for what they do except in the most extreme circumstances where the defect completely strips them of normal agency.

I don't you could possibly know what effect any crime had on the victim and your sense that they just wanted attention is at best very uncharitable.

I won't disagree with you, I'm aware I am an uncharitable person when it comes to feeling sorry for people who have their health and their youth. Hurt feelings? Everybody's got hurt feelings, we get over it and move on.

I freely admit I do not know what effect Michael's abuse had on these lads, I myself was not sexually abused, though I did get the living shit kicked out of me a few times - and well-deserved IIRC. All I know is that Savechuck and Robson are doing just fine now, and I don't think it's uncharitable of me to state the very truth that they themselves told - the truth about their feelings of jealousy when Michael STOPPED abusing them. It's not as if they're "shells of a human being" now because of what happened. I personally found them to be quite eloquent, personable, and likeable. I have no doubt of their future success.

Anyway, regarding all the legal standards of which you speak, I'm not talking about legal standards here. Michael's gone, there's not going to be a trial. I'm just talking about his legacy in the court of public opinion. I don't know if I'm in the majority or the minority - probably the minority. But I'm sure there will be people who will forgive Michael, and people who won't. And the people who forgive him will be the ones who realize that the poor guy was driven batshit insane by having superstardom thrust upon him at the age of FIVE!! Jesus Christ, look at all the crazy shit Michael did to himself. He turned himself into a freak - not because he wanted to be a freak but because that's just how out of touch he was with the rest of the human race.

I ain't saying it's right. But I am saying it's forgivable, because the perpetrator is Michael Jackson. We ALL created Michael Jackson.

[Stavros]

Yet another perspective is that no mental illness is the fault of the person experiencing it. Otherwise it's not mental illness. If I decide to go prancing through Times Square wearing nothing but a MAGA hat and a carrot hanging out of my butt, that doesn't make me mentally ill. But if I am COMPELLED to go prancing through Times Square wearing nothing but a MAGA hat with a carrot out my butt, I probably need to be evaluated.

Anyway, I can forgive Michael, because I don't think he ever, at any point in his life, had any grip on reality. Maybe other people can't.

You make important points, but the extent to which someone is 'mentally ill' when they behave in a certain way is too complex an issue to resolve given that we don't actually know what Michael Jackson's personal psychology was. There is a confusing debate about what mental illness is, and often the phrase 'mental health issues' is used to by-pass the former: I would refer to the Colombine shooters to try and understand how the mind does or does not work, and yes, it is the case that Michael Jackson did not actually kill anyone, though at least two suicides may be tangential to his influence. There are mental conditions that can be treated: anxiety, depression, paranoia, particularly if the person suffering believes their only remedy is violence against themselves and/or other people, but in the case of Jackson we don't know enough about his private thoughts and just because he was eccentric in some way doesn't mean he was mentally impaired.

I think claiming Jackson did not have 'a grip on reality' is bogus, he was in sufficient control to go on world tours, record albums and so forth -did he suddenly become mentally ill when he was at Neverland? No, it was a programmed environment in which Jackson got the pleasure he wanted which society deems to be both immoral and illegal.

[broncofan]

I won't disagree with you, I'm aware I am an uncharitable person when it comes to feeling sorry for people who have their health and their youth. Hurt feelings? Everybody's got hurt feelings, we get over it and move on.

I came across a bit wooden there Nick. I think you clearly like Michael (I do too) and are more generous with him than those he was accused of hurting. Look for instance at what I quoted. Does this apply to Michael or do his personal traumas entitle him to far more than sympathy, which is all I might have suggested for his victims? edit: obviously Michael doesn't have his health and youth, he's dead...I meant this more for your last sentence.

Anyhow, I agree the difference between morality and legality is important. The reason I used a legal standard is because for this issue it is consistent with intuition. You'll see Stavros used the word zombie above....to me it looks like the Mcnaghten test...are we talking about someone who merely had problems or someone who couldn't do anything other than what he did? He must have been traumatized, but if he really did visit that trauma on others, it's terrible and I think unforgivable.

[Nick Danger]

I came across a bit wooden there Nick. I think you clearly like Michael (I do too) and are more generous with him than those he was accused of hurting. Look for instance at what I quoted. Does this apply to Michael or do his personal traumas entitle him to far more than sympathy, which is all I might have suggested for his victims? edit: obviously Michael doesn't have his health and youth, he's dead...I meant this more for your last sentence.

Anyhow, I agree the difference between morality and legality is important. The reason I used a legal standard is because for this issue it is consistent with intuition. You'll see Stavros used the word zombie above....to me it looks like the Mcnaghten test...are we talking about someone who merely had problems or someone who couldn't do anything other than what he did? He must have been traumatized, but if he really did visit that trauma on others, it's terrible and I think unforgivable.

Well, lets look at what he did, without getting too specific, but also without getting too judgmental. Obviously this was a sexual compulsion, but, had you seen the movie, as I'm sure you will, you would know that it was also a very strange compulsion toward childishness. Michael viewed himself as a child, he could only feel love for other little boys. A lot of the stories - MOST of them even - are about Michael and the children playing at childish things. Neverland was well-named, it was a paradise for children. But it was not there as a lure for children to victimize, it was there for Michael. He was the child. He was A child. That was the overriding characteristic of his unique disease - he'd lost his childhood, he wanted it back, and he could afford to buy it back.

I call it a disease, but it's more like a poison. I've been around these people, I've seen the poison and I've seen the effects. The poison is adoration of the masses. The effects are a life taken over by the human ego. In Michael's case, multiply by a hundred and divide by a lost childhood.

You make important points, but the extent to which someone is 'mentally ill' when they behave in a certain way is too complex an issue to resolve given that we don't actually know what Michael Jackson's personal psychology was. There is a confusing debate about what mental illness is, and often the phrase 'mental health issues' is used to by-pass the former: I would refer to the Colombine shooters to try and understand how the mind does or does not work, and yes, it is the case that Michael Jackson did not actually kill anyone, though at least two suicides may be tangential to his influence. There are mental conditions that can be treated: anxiety, depression, paranoia, particularly if the person suffering believes their only remedy is violence against themselves and/or other people, but in the case of Jackson we don't know enough about his private thoughts and just because he was eccentric in some way doesn't mean he was mentally impaired.

I think claiming Jackson did not have 'a grip on reality' is bogus, he was in sufficient control to go on world tours, record albums and so forth -did he suddenly become mentally ill when he was at Neverland? No, it was a programmed environment in which Jackson got the pleasure he wanted which society deems to be both immoral and illegal.

Try putting yourself in Michael's position, Stavros. It isn't easy to do - it's a hard position to imagine oneself in. Michael was more than just a celebrity, he was a celebrity OTHER celebrities wanted to meet. Kings, queens, and presidents hosted Michael. It would not be an exaggeration to say he was the biggest star, from any genre of art, of the 20th century.

And he'd been this GOD his entire life - from earliest childhood; literally from kindergarten. You think this guy had any chance of growing up to be just a normal guy? No fucking way. He had no frame of reference on any other way of life than being the undisputed master of the universe. Was that the life he chose for himself? I don't know, he was 5. Did he volunteer for a lifetime of unimaginable fame at the age of 5? Did he "consent" to it? I don't think so. I think his father chose it for him.

So I'll forgive him. You don't have to.

[broncofan]

This will be my last post on this not because it's not an interesting conversation but because it is such a far ranging topic and it really relates to one docu on this thread.

I see what you're saying but take someone like Andre Agassi who undoubtedly had a hard upbringing and a stolen childhood in the same sense. His Dad forced him to hit one million tennis balls from a machine as a kid, gave him illegal stimulants before a match when he was a child, and had him beat adults in high stakes money matches when he was like 6 years old.

The worst he did was wear a wig, take crystal meth with a guy named Todd, endorse tennis shorts that had spandex tights coming out of the bottom that my mom thought were cute and tried to make me wear, and a few other transgressions. He once spat on the pant leg of an umpire, denied it, but was fined when video showed it. He once hit a ball at the end of his match with Rafter at a linesperson he didn't like to scare them. Mostly primadonna stuff.

I bring this up to say this is the kind of allowance I think people should make for someone who clearly had a tough time. He was damaged by his upbringing. Michael likely was too. Agassi was emotionally unstable and did a few provocative, stupid things. Jackson is accused of horrible crimes. I accept that you forgive him and there is reason to think about the things he experienced, but I can't see it making a difference in how people should view child abuse. Just my take. Thanks for the good discussion.