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.
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.
Do you know the “no true Scotsman” fallacy? Because I regret to inform you that I believe you’re falling prey to it.
This is a topic that doesn’t get discussed much, but if you stop and think about it for a moment you might realize that we’re all aware of it, we just basically have a cultural taboo against thinking about it.
Have you ever noticed that sleepovers are almost always gender-segregated? Why do you thick that is?
It’s uncomfortable but true.
Have you ever heard of kids playing Doctor? It’s not like kids routinely engage in sexual acts, but left alone at night it’s very common for them to do things like undress and compare bodies. Often it’s benign, but without an understanding of safe touches, it’s easy for such encounters to be unintentionally harmful.
I hear stories like this, and I think the part people stumble over is that it’s very common for kids to explore their bodies and each other’s at sleep overs.
It’s not that hard to imagine his sleepovers being ordinary, kids sleepovers and also an environment in which he crossed some boundaries. That’s very common at sleepovers.
I do believe he molested children, although I think the reason we have trouble accepting it is that I think there are a bunch of types of molestation, and we as a culture have a poor understanding of what these are, and so we struggle to recognize them.
Epstein, for instance, sought the youngest possible post-pubescent girls in order to get off on taking their innocence.
Jackson, imo, sought out intimate friendships with prepubescent children for companionship, and those unsupervised interactions included nudity and touching of an inappropriate nature.
Both are child abuse. But they look different. Jackson got away with it (and still does, in a sense) because we don’t understand his motivations the way we can for Epstein, so we can’t recognize what happened.
You’re welcome to your opinion, but what’s funny is that I live in Oakland in a household of three on a joint income of $160k. We live in a two bedroom apartment near Lake Merritt that costs $2500 per month. And we’re pretty comfortable.
It sounds like you and I are neighbors. If you’re having a harder time than I am I don’t want to invalidate your experience. But not everyone who feels financially constrained is poor, imo.
I saw it, and it said that a household of eight living on an income of $200k would be “low income”.
First, “low income” is not poor, either legally or in the informal definition of the word. Even according to the chart you’re referencing, $200k is far above the poverty line. It’s more than twice the cutoff for “extremely low income”.
Second, this is also based on an absurd qualifier: It’s only “low” if you’re trying to support seven dependents.
By this logic, $300k a year is poor too (if you’re supporting a household of 12), and a million a year is also poor (if you’re supporting a household of 40 in San Francisco).
This is silly. If your monthly income is $16k you aren’t poor.
You can still be broke. You can be in debt. But no: you are not poor.
I’m not saying that you can’t run out of money if you make $200k. I’m saying that it’s not poor.
If earning well above average in an area with a high concentration of high earners can be poor, the word means nothing.
$200k is not poor in San Francisco.
It’s still significantly above average, even in San Francisco.
I mean no offense, but I don’t think this is true.
I don’t think anyone who makes $200,000 a year is considered poor under legal definitions or under the casual common use of the term.
You could make $200k and be in debt. You could make $200k and be in a precarious situation. But I don’t think you can make $200k and qualify as in poverty, either legally or in the court of public opinion.
Okay, but that’s not what poor means.
No?
This question makes no sense.
I’m reading this now! It’s pretty dope!
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?