Is it immoral to enjoy artists who committed grave crimes?

Is it immoral to enjoy artists who committed grave crimes?

Attached: michael-jackson.jpg (1200x630, 723K)

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=hFdnhmRpdFE
youtu.be/nxH8Bc0cHok
youtu.be/eXuighay_r8
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

He was found Not Guilty.
youtube.com/watch?v=hFdnhmRpdFE

>Is it immoral to enjoy artists who are alleged to have committed grave crimes?

Attached: 1553307565351.jpg (1241x1241, 126K)

if they're dead, who cares.
if you're funding an active felon, stop paying for their stuff.

Holy SHIT. Based and repdilled

based

Even though Michael Jackson was almost certainly a pedo, no not really.

Only if you're paying for it.

Music is like a baby, once it's out from the womb it's no longer a part of it mother, but a different being altogether. It has nothing related to the composers personal life, crimes or even political ideas (that is unless the song itself has some political message).

Michael molesting children ( though I still don't believe it) is going to make me stop enjoying his music in the same way Bill Cosby molesting some chicks made me stop enjoying The Cosby show. It didn't.

Attached: 2014-12-30 21_25_15-Chappelle's.Show.2004.S01.E01.NTSC.AC3.x264-sJR.mkv.jpg (643x476, 166K)

This same fucking post is reworded in some fashion every single day. If you feel it's wrong and you can't get your mind off of the crime whenever you listen to the music, then by all means don't listen to it. But there's also nothing wrong with the person who can.

>Fucking little boys is redpilled now

Why are you justifying pedophillia?

What pedophilia?

>now

The Cosby Show sucks dude

No, i'm a trans woman and Filosofem is one of the best records i've ever heard.

Forgot the "pic unrelated"

you mean child molestation. pedophilia is a sexuality which individuals have no control over and should not be villainized for. acting on that sexuality is wrong however. but there is a difference.

>i'm a trans woman
>woman
lmao

My opinion.
>There is that potential but it's not the case with Michael.

That's a completely irrational reaction to what I said. I didn't say what he did was justifiable, what I'm saying is that there are some people that don't care about someone as a person in relation to their art. Not everyone is an emotional canvas waiting to be painted by the next tragedy. I've personally seen enough of them to just not fucking care because worse things have happened and do happen every single day.

being white isn't a crime

non sequitur

Michael Jackson in 1996:
>Jew me, sue me, everybody do me/ Kick me, kike me, don't you black or white me
Media companies ever since:
>Constant media coverage, 4 hour documentaries, child actors,exaggerated stories, non-stop slander
Just a coincidence

>trans woman
>woman
But in all seriousness Filsofem is very good

Nah

MJ is not an artist.

Marlon Brando named the Jew why didn't they ruin his career or try to sully his name?

because Marlon Brando

Sean Lennon seems to have conflicted memories of Jackson. He maintains the singer never touched him inappropriately, though he felt betrayed by Jackson tossing himself once he reached his teens and upon reflection seems to think Jackson's behavior in general isn't normal. This video isn't very flattering.
youtu.be/nxH8Bc0cHok

He didn't commit shit lol
When does this newfag MJ posting stop

fucking jews always with the pedo apologism
see polanski

Nah it doesn't alter how it SOUNDS

>who committed grave crimes?
Do you have proof?

Best not get involved.

And it's not like his films were any good.

Yeah, the literal sonic textures are not changed, it is still the same set of vibrations. The context is changed tho, and that is just as important as how an album sounds to some people. Colt .45 by Afroman was purely a sex jam to me when I was twelve because I didn't know shit about drinking or smoking weed, and now that I'm older the context has affected how I hear parts of that song.

Some listeners can't forget the things that Michael Jackson did when they hear his voice and there's a cognitive dissonance to getting joy from someone who did disgusting acts, and it can feel like a moral conundrum to continue to return to the music in the hopes they can enjoy it without the dissonance

No

Attached: X.jpg (960x1200, 249K)

Only other people's versions of events. These claims combined with Michael's known eccentricity make it difficult to consider Jackson wholly innocent of indulging in sexual acts with children, though there will always be a 'what if?' element to the tale which has been Michael Jackson's engine of perpetual motion for decades now. My thoughts personally? That the people involved had better get over it and get on with their lives as a matter of urgency. I am even of the mind that it was immoral of the film producers as there is nothing here but tittle tattle and the grotesque. I don't think it will help these people out in the long run. I am sympathetic to the claimants and their needs are greater of that than the Michael Jackson estate that's for sure, but, it's perhaps best not to look back in these cases.
>the essay.

>pedophilia is a sexuality which individuals have no control over and should not be villainized for
This is complete bullshit. I realize you're shitposting but I feel very strongly about this

But Hitler did nothing wrong?

It is immoral for liking artists that make bad music though.

You know those people that buy those sex dolls and go to prison for it? That's a bit harsh if you ask me. Did you see that other autist? He got 25 years and he didn't touch a soul. I think it's wicked.

If Jonathan Spence, Sean Lennon, Corey Feldman, Omer Bhatti, and Macaulay Culkin come out against Jackson then I will believe he sexually molested children. Those five had the closest and longest relationships with him. For now, I will concede he was a weird man and likely suffered from a bad case of peter pan syndrome. But the inability to find anything concrete against him after decades of close scrutiny and investigations by state and federal agencies makes me think the guy is innocent.

Attached: 80s.jpg (604x410, 57K)

I disagree.
Learn to blackmail and threaten.

>makes me think
Where this collapses for me is that he was an inveterate liar.

he lied, stole and sold his body for heroin multiple times. he also drove while on drugs and just in general, he was a junkie degenerate in his days.

yet he's my favourite artist

Attached: 1.jpg (330x400, 23K)

This is an unfortunate revelation. What makes this case different is that he still defends Michael.
youtu.be/eXuighay_r8

He was a loon.

SHAMONEEE

Attached: 4A5A8DD1-DCAE-4F95-8E69-C5E1507B3520.jpg (1908x1146, 100K)

His solo album is beautiful.

Who is he?

Our boy Pete Doherty.

Attached: Pete-Doherty-Apr-08-1.jpg (300x240, 11K)

No. It's ok, separate that shit.
Roman Polanski's movies are still good and you'd be a cunt to be a moralfag about them.

And MJ didn't do shit.

Holy shit he looks rough.

He's actually seems to be a nice guy.
Still dangerous, though.

Attached: pete-doherty-jail.jpg (365x275, 25K)

El ayuwoki...

HEE HEE

Attached: 9F9567BE-539B-4A28-91D2-2567DB00F565.jpg (636x358, 18K)

fuck you guillible ass bitch

Why is he in the Michael Jackson conspiracy thread?

Whoy noot mate?

Attached: post_image-0611_pete_doherty_jesus_00.jpg (450x675, 90K)

Off topic, which is a supposedly a reportable offence.

The topic
>artists who committed grave crimes
so fok you mate

Attached: pete-doherty-brilliant-clever.jpg (323x316, 42K)

fair does. but ...

FOK OFF

Attached: pete-doherty-kate-moss-engaged-4-15-07.jpg (450x535, 55K)

the thread is yours

I'm actually fucking laughing right now.

Sleeping in your bed with a kid is a grave crime? What exactly is wrong with that?

M-m-muh reel woman = front hole pussy hole

Attached: 1511596520819s.jpg (211x239, 5K)

So was R. Kelly the first time around

Lol

No but I don't know what Michael Jackson has anything to do with this topic.

Attached: the numbers don't lie 2.jpg (417x964, 70K)