>but y'all are in full deflect mode. and for what? i damn
>glitter glove and some wiggling?

and you're in here mining material so you can post all skepticism of this latest "revelation" as the fantastical deflection of fans for the lulz to posit yourself as "above the bullshit".

There are some legitimate reasons to be skeptical of the subjects of this film. they have nothing to do with MJ moonwalking, "heeheeing" or whatever else the fuck.

the problem is, no one with a check by their name, or getting a check from a big publishing house is brave enough to be "the villain" on this topic. at least not anymore. the closest we've gotten is a piece in Slate, and another piece in Pitchfork.

you're making some obscure allusions to a Vanity Fair piece built by Maureen Orth, who has been verifiably publishing lies, and is once again doing so because the subject is being brought up.


this film is being presented, possibly intentionally, absent of context, bereft of corroborating stories, or the kind of "receipts" that sunk the likes of Cosby and especially are in the process of finally sinking R. Kelly.

and much of the viewing public is either unaware of that context or already has their mind made up. people that thought Mike was a pedo because he basically had all the outward signs of one and was just living a circus life, and people (mostly the Stans) who believe he is 100% innocent without question.

and then you have people like me (because I know this post is gonna end up being about me eventually), who, wanted to learn for himself what actually happened in 1993, in the early 2000s, particularly in legal proceedings. and again, 7 or so years ago, when the allegations detailed in this film first appeared, waited to see what would come out in court before commenting.

and I can say the reporting on MJ's allegations are not particularly good from many mainstream outlets. one of the few pieces, in GQ by Mary Fischer in 1994, put those allegations in proper context. there were other pieces in recent years Huffpo has published that also address this reporting and how narratives have been built that conflict with reality.

Mike was investigated without his knowledge for a decade by the FBI at the behest of law enforcement that were already investigating him. they have hundreds of pages of what they found. because "ain't no one gonna read all that shit", it's ignored. and because of that, Radar Online was able to lie about him, people ran with the headlines and the circus started all over again. motherfuckers said he had shit from books that weren't even published until AFTER he was dead.

and that's my thing with Mike: if he did the shit, you ain't got to LIE. and yet, so many people in high places are doing just that, and rarely get checked on it. I don't get it.

but yeah, "Mike did it (because he adopted a queerish image, probably was gay, was around kids a lot, and you know them niggas are pedophiles...)" <---- that's how you sound with that "glitter glove" talk.

I personally don't dismiss the notion that Mike could be a pedo. but so far, each time the subject's been approached, the actual receipts, not the circumstance, point toward reasonable doubt of those claims. this film doesn't change that. in fact, not unlike the Smollett matter, this could have a much more pernicious effect in the long run.