Thread: Michael Jackson: dead at age 50

Originally Posted by nvoigt

MJ has called jews leeches in a private conversation. If that makes him an antisemite, what would we be by that standards?

It depends on whether or not you've called Jews "leeches" too. I don't recall ever having done so. If you have, I guess you're an antisemite. And it looks like MJ was one too. You are free to defend him or excuse him at your leisure.

Furthermore, if you've criticized or attacked Obama, that doesn't make you a racist in the same vein. I could spend all night attacking the guy, his personality and his politics (not a fan) but that wouldn't make me a bigot just so long as I didn't try to attribute any of it to his physiological characteristics. Likewise it's perfectly OK to attack or criticize feminism or anything else that's a political ideology comprised of ideas and hence subject to scrutiny and criticism.

But if you were to claim that Jews were "leeches" then sure, you're an antisemite and that remains true whether you said it in public or in private. It doesn't matter whether the tape surfaced randomly or as part of suit - if he said it he said it. You might not have a problem with it, but to me it pretty much puts paid to this whole "he broke down racial barriers and united people" nonsense. He was just a pop star who made some largely mediocre music which happened to sell like hotcakes due to the fact that the market for well-marketed mediocre music is, well, the largest market of all. And he wasn't too keen on Jews.

Originally Posted by maxorator

Wait a moment. Are you trying to make this connection:

MJ said stupid things. => MJ is a bad person => Bad people cannot make good music. => MJ made mediocre music.

That's so basic demagogy that it won't fool any one of us.

No, that particular chain of reasoning was neither asserted nor insinuated and is in fact nothing more than a figment of your imagination.

Originally Posted by Mario F.

I see... So Woody Allen, Mel Brooks or Alfred Einstein are anti-semite then.
And forget about context, or choice of words, or even a moment of anger. If anyone says black are ignorant, they are a racist.

Your logic keeps impressing me. Hope we never become neighbors.

If Woody Allen or any other Jewish person has called Jews 'leeches' then there is another term for that - 'self hating'. Are you *seriously* suggesting that someone non-Jewish can get away with calling Jews a bunch of leeches without being an antisemite?
Or that it's OK to 'call blacks ignorant' as long as its 'in the right context?' I too hope we never become neighbors.

Originally Posted by Mario F.

Precisely. I'm *seriously*suggesting exactly that. It all depends on context and emotion.

Your politically correct drivel just hides another form of intolerance. That which makes you believe you can point fingers and tag people based on incomplete information. Tea party gossip and scandal addicts who can only see the worst in people and pretend their are the sole owners of ethics and morale.

It all depends on context and emotion? Tell me - is it alright for a man to beat his wife if it's "in the right context"? Can we excuse his actions as long as he was "really really angry?"

What about abusing a child? Is that OK in "some circumstances"?

Disapproving of antisemitism or any other form of primitive tribalism (racism) is not "politically correct drivel." And while the argument that intolerance of bigotry is "intolerance itself" may be an interesting curio and technically correct, it misses the point that the existence of a moral code in itself guarantees the intolerance of at least something. Specifically, that which is immoral. To tolerate everything is to have no values.

And it's all very easy to dismiss the bad side of someone by saying things like "it's just gossip" or "you only want to see the worst in people," but what you are arguing for really boils down to the abolition of morals. Such a path will tie you into pretzels of self-referential logic. For example, in attacking my assertion of a moral code, you are in fact yourself moralizing. All that is possible then is to separate the two sides of the argument and see which one stands:

1) Me condemning antisemitism
2) You condemning me for condemning antisemitism

It doesn't take much intelligence to work it out. And a forum for C programmers is the last place I'd expect to miss it.

Originally Posted by MK27

I say it's all OK if he was really doing that much drugs! Whew!!

If he was doing that much acid his eyesight was probably screwed up since LSD abuse damages the eyes. That would partly explain his appearance.

Originally Posted by whiteflags

You know who else was an anti-Semite and is now dead, and professed in music? Herbert von Karajan. So dead people hate Jews, are you going anywhere with this? Living people still hate Jews and that's probably a lot more important. And no one's thoughts about Jews had any impact on either person's musical career.

Wagner also wrote some beautiful music but that doesn't change despite the fact that he was a Nazi-sympathizing piece of Hitler-loving scum. But since Michael Jackson's fame and notoriety was 30% music and 70% personality (or insanity) then I would say his character, his opinions and attitudes are a valid topic of discussion. Quite frankly I'm finding some of the blind worship of the man a little scary in much the same way as I find the blind worship of anyone - from Obama to Che Guevara to Oprah - a little scary.

Che Guevara shot a pregnant woman in the stomach at point blank range and had thousands of innocent people executed yet I still see naive kids wearing his image with pride. Obama spend over 20 years sitting in the pews of a church led by a close friend of his who preached anti-white and anti-Jewish hatred, yet a blind cult-like worship caused millions to completely ignore that side of him. Heck, Stalin murdered tens of millions of his own people and yet you'll STILL find Russians who speak of him affectionately. Blind worship is a very dangerous and unhealthy thing.

Originally Posted by Sharke

Wagner also wrote some beautiful music but that doesn't change despite the fact that he was a Nazi-sympathizing piece of Hitler-loving scum. But since Michael Jackson's fame and notoriety was 30% music and 70% personality (or insanity) then I would say his character, his opinions and attitudes are a valid topic of discussion. Quite frankly I'm finding some of the blind worship of the man a little scary in much the same way as I find the blind worship of anyone - from Obama to Che Guevara to Oprah - a little scary.

OK but I'm keeping in mind that you brought up anti-Semitism to discredit Micheal as an artist.

Originally Posted by Sharke

But if you were to claim that Jews were "leeches" then sure, you're an antisemite and that remains true whether you said it in public or in private. It doesn't matter whether the tape surfaced randomly or as part of suit - if he said it he said it. You might not have a problem with it, but to me it pretty much puts paid to this whole "he broke down racial barriers and united people" nonsense

Your earlier arguments didn't use personal attacks for support; those were better. Judaism is not a race. And he did unite people under the banner of Micheal Jackson fans, as the Pope unites people under the banner of Roman Catholicism, for example; that being the extent to which anyone can unite. Point to a lyric or measure that identifies with anti-Semitism and you will have a reason to connect these very different ideas. Musicians are frequently dicks and influential to people, through music, at the same time. Frank Sinatra had mob connections; Elvis Presley raped underage girls; you cannot claim that they weren't influential, didn't break barriers, because of these things.

Che Guevara shot a pregnant woman in the stomach at point blank range and had thousands of innocent people executed yet I still see naive kids wearing his image with pride. Obama spend over 20 years sitting in the pews of a church led by a close friend of his who preached anti-white and anti-Jewish hatred, yet a blind cult-like worship caused millions to completely ignore that side of him. Heck, Stalin murdered tens of millions of his own people and yet you'll STILL find Russians who speak of him affectionately. Blind worship is a very dangerous and unhealthy thing.

Nice appeal to emotion. Just because others here think Micheal was an influential artist does not mean that people worship him blindly, only not pretentious enough label someone an evil person beyond the grave because he didn't do enough for music. "Down to earth realism" left you a long time ago, this is you being spiteful full force. Now kindly shove that opinion of yours where it belongs in this "debate."