Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

'The Simpsons' is pulling its Michael Jackson episode

For those who don't want to read the article or don't know what it's talking about: after the recent documentary about MJ molesting kids The Simpsons have decided to pull an episode featuring Michael Jackson voicing a large white guy who is crazy and thinks he is Michael Jackson. It's the episode the song "Lisa It's Your Birthday" is from.

Do people here think this was the right call? It's been over a decade since I've watched the show, but this was one of my favorites.

People like to forget public monsters, Savile, Benoit, Jackson. Easier for them.

Originally posted by Putinbot1
People like to forget public monsters, Savile, Benoit, Jackson. Easier for them.

This part is weird:

"I'm against book burning of any kind," he added. "But this is our book, and we're allowed to take out a chapter."

So then he's really not against book burning of any kind...

Originally posted by Putinbot1
People like to forget public monsters, Savile, Benoit, Jackson. Easier for them.

I think it's more about refusing to celebrate them anymore

Society likes to humiliate and vilify what hurts it, when this ability is removed through say the source of pain seemingly escaping due process and the exhibitionism and vilification through a death society hasn't ordered. It feels cheated and tries to forget, easier to hang draw and quarter or drag a name through the mud via the press, so people see this is what happens and the monster hasn't got away with it. Savile and Jackson took their secrets to the grave as free men.

Originally posted by Bashar Teg
I think it's more about refusing to celebrate them anymore that too, definately.

Have people forgotten the same people that said accused him now said under oath in many court cases he never did anything to them. Then they set up go fund me accounts.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/joevogel/2019/01/29/what-you-should-know-about-the-new-michael-jackson-documentary/#179cd93a640f

Originally posted by BrolyBlack
Have people forgotten the same people that said accused him now said under oath in many court cases he never did anything to them. Then they set up go fund me accounts. I wasn't aware of that, interesting when i watch the second episode I'll bear that in mind along with what Jaden added. Cheers

For me it's like this: you're kind of a piece of dog shit if you say you're against any form of book burning and then you set a book on fire.

It's like saying you hate racism right before you lynch a black dude. Actions speak louder than words ya f*cking dope.

Originally posted by Bashar Teg
I think it's more about refusing to celebrate them anymore

Pretty much.

There's no doubt in my mind MJ was a child groomer and molester/rapist, even if some of the accusations were false as you always get tag-a-longs whenever a large story like this breaks, people wanting in for either money and/or attention.

But I also feel you can still appreciate his music if you like while condemning the scumbag behind it, separating the artist from the monster.

Originally posted by Robtard
Pretty much.

There's no doubt in my mind MJ was a child groomer and molester/rapist, even if some of the accusations were false as you always get tag-a-longs whenever a large story like this breaks, people wanting in for either money and/or attention.

But I also feel you can still appreciate his music if you like while condemning the scumbag behind it, separating the artist from the monster.

Well, this episode was about music in a way. As I recall, he helps Bart write a song.

Er, wait...he *does* take an immediate interest in the children when given the chance. Both Bart and Lisa.

Though for me the "I'm not against any kind of book burning" as he burns a book is weird.

This person explains it well: "But this is our book, and we're allowed to take out a chapter."

He's right, if they wish to not celebrate MJ in any fashion themselves any longer, that's their right as it's their own intellectual property. I personally don't care either way, even if I was still watching the Simpsons, which I haven't in over a decade now.

It seems like you're scraping the barrel to be offended at something that is overall a 'who really cares'. Meh.

Originally posted by Robtard
This person explains it well: "But this is our book, and we're allowed to take out a chapter."

He's right, if they wish to not celebrate MJ in any fashion themselves any longer, that's their right as it's their own intellectual property. I personally don't care either way, even if I was still watching the Simpsons, which I haven't in over a decade now.

It seems like you're scraping the barrel to be offended at something that is overall a 'who really cares'. Meh.

You're scraping the barrel by acting like I'm offended. I'm not. It takes a lot to truly offend me. I just find it strange.

And yes of course it's his, but he does say he's against book burning of *any* kind. So, the person who owns the work burning it would fall under that purview, correctamundo?

I think he explained the decision adequately and it's reasonably sound; this is really a non-issue.

eg Disney edited 'Lilo & Stitch' as it originally had a plane crashing through buildings, they did this as to not offend due to 9/11 happening not long before the film was released. That was a reasonable change, imo.

Originally posted by Robtard
I think he explained the decision adequately and it's reasonably sound; this is really a non-issue.

Yes or no does "the guy who owns it burning it" fall under the purview of "any kind of book burning"? Simple question.

Already answered HYG again:

Originally posted by Robtard
I think he explained the decision adequately and it's reasonably sound; this is really a non-issue.

eg Disney edited 'Lilo & Stitch' as it originally had a plane crashing through buildings, they did this as to not offend due to 9/11 happening not long before the film was released. That was a reasonable change, imo.

Originally posted by Robtard
Already answered HYG again:

So you know that it indeed does fall under the purview of that, but won't say it. Unbelievable. Okay Rob, real talk indeed

It seems like you just want to say "purview" a lot, tbh

But my response won't change, I think the man explained the reasoning behind the decision well enough and the reasoning is sound. It's also a non-issue for me either way if they instead decided to air the ep. I just don't care, man. I'm not going push hard to be angered over a nothing issue.

Originally posted by Robtard
It seems like you just want to say "purview" a lot, tbh

But my response won't change, I think the man explained the reasoning behind the decision well enough and the reasoning is sound. It's also a non-issue for me either way if they instead decided to air the ep. I just don't care, man. I'm not going push hard to be angered over a nothing issue.

Here is the thing: can you explain how it's okay if someone says they are against book burning of *any kind*? What kind of explanation explains away that going after your own shit falls under the purview of that?

Just acknowledge the contradiction. It's okay, reality will not harm you Rob. Surtur guarantee's your safety

HYG:Originally posted by Robtard
It seems like you just want to say "purview" a lot, tbh

But my response won't change, I think the man explained the reasoning behind the decision well enough and the reasoning is sound. It's also a non-issue for me either way if they instead decided to air the ep. I just don't care, man. I'm not going push hard to be angered over a nothing issue.

Originally posted by Surtur
Here is the thing: can you explain how it's okay if someone says they are against book burning of *any kind*? What kind of explanation explains away that going after your own shit falls under the purview of that?

Just acknowledge the contradiction. It's okay, reality will not harm you Rob. Surtur guarantee's your safety

How is this analogous to book burning? They aren't going around destroying DVDs with the episode, they are merely no longer airing it. It's akin to no longer printing a certain book but not to book burning.

Originally posted by ares834
How is this analogous to book burning? They aren't going around destroying DVDs with the episode, they are merely no longer airing it. It's akin to no longer printing a certain book but not to book burning.

So explain why the guy brought up book burning. He specifically brought it up. If he didn't think it compared I'm open to theories of why he mentioned it. Looking forward to it.

Originally posted by ares834
How is this analogous to book burning? They aren't going around destroying DVDs with the episode, they are merely no longer airing it. It's akin to no longer printing a certain book but not to book burning. Bingo.

The episode will be put in storage, will likely be available at some very distant future date.

Originally posted by Surtur
So explain why the guy brought up book burning. He specifically brought it up. If he didn't think it compared I'm open to theories of why he mentioned it. Looking forward to it.

^Have the shit make sense too

FFS, Surt. He's saying he doesn't believe in censorship, but he reserves the right to censor himself, so to speak. Which is sensible. You're really scrapping hard to find something to be angered over when this is really a nothing issue.

Originally posted by Robtard
FFS, Surt. He's saying he doesn't believe in censorship, but he reserves the right to censor himself, so to speak. Which is sensible. You're really scrapping hard to find something to be angered over when this is really a nothing issue.

If it's about censorship then he's saying he doesn't believe in censorship of any kind, but he did it anyways.

Christ almighty, why can't you admit this? It's his literal words lol. It's getting sad you can't even acknowledge he contradicted himself when he clearly did. Just admit it. It won't hurt I promise.

So you're against someone self-censoring now it seems. Lolz.

See what I mean, you're scrapping long dried dog shit streaks off the pavement to find something to be bothered about here.

Originally posted by Robtard
So you're against someone self-censoring now it seems. Lolz.

See what I mean, you're scrapping long dried dog shit streaks off the pavement to find something to be bothered about here.

See what I mean? You're a piece of trash and lying again. I'm not against it, I'm merely saying he contradicts himself.

Do better Rob. Or CAN you acknowledge the damn contradiction?

Dude, calm down. Saying I'm against censorship and then self-censoring isn't being a hypocrite; that's a personal choice.

Originally posted by Robtard
Dude, calm down. Saying I'm against censorship and then self-censoring isn't being a hypocrite; that's a personal choice.

Saying you're against censorship of *any kind* is the detail that matters.

And just quit with your silly "calm down" shit. Nobody is angry. Real talk kid.

You just called me a "lying piece of trash", not calm guy.

Not really though, it's like saying you're against drug restrictions and want drugs legalized, but don't personally use them yourself. No contradiction as you're not stopping anyone cept yourself. You're done here now; maybe go take a nap?

Originally posted by Robtard
You just called me a "lying piece of trash", not calm guy.

Not really though, it's like saying you're against drug restrictions and want drugs legalized, but don't personally use them yourself. No contradiction as you're not stopping anyone cept yourself. You're done here now; maybe go take a nap?

If calling you a lying piece of trash equates to anger, any time you've called me a phaggot means the same.

But you know what? You're trolling again. You won't ever acknowledge the truth, you aren't capable of it. Real talk.

Dude, I just explained it with an analogy you can relate to (ie drugs). There's no hypocrisy here as the man is self-censoring and that's his personal choice.

Now if let's say Family Guy was airing an MJ ep and he had said "I'm against censorship, but Seth McFarlane shouldn't air the MJ video", sure, that would be a contradiction on the man's part. So you're done here again, this isn't the hill you want to get eSodomized on.

Originally posted by Robtard
Dude, I just explained it with an analogy you can relate to (ie drugs). There's no hypocrisy here as the man is self-censoring and that's his personal choice.

Now if let's say Family Guy was airing an MJ ep and he had said "I'm against censorship, but Seth McFarlane shouldn't air the MJ video", sure, that would be a contradiction on the man's part. So you're done here again, this isn't the hill you want to get eSodomized on.

Yeah, you're trolling and are trash. You know that saying you're against all kinds of censorship contradicts any kind of censorship, but you wanna argue like you always do. Real talk, right Rob?

It's no different from Rockstar Games removing the ability to fly planes from GTA3 after 9/11. Being against an outside authority forcing you to change your art isn't the same as doing it yourself out of respect for victims of a crime.

Now if he was saying he's against censorship while saying that everyone else who has produced music/TV shows/movies that profit from Michael Jackson should be forced to withdraw their products then that would be hypocritical.

Originally posted by jaden_2.0
It's no different from Rockstar Games removing the ability to fly planes from GTA3 after 9/11. Being against an outside authority forcing you to change your art isn't the same as doing it yourself out of respect for victims of a crime.

Now if he was saying he's against censorship while saying that everyone else who has produced music/TV shows/movies that profit from Michael Jackson should be forced to withdraw their products then that would be hypocritical.

^ Surt, here it's explained again with another analogy. No one is trolling you, you're simply wrong here.

Originally posted by Robtard
^ Surt, here it's explained again with another analogy. No one is trolling you, you're simply wrong here.

Thing is, he's wrong, but I believe he's legit in his ignorance. You...are just a troll. I feel you know better, but pretend otherwise.

Cuz see he didn't say he's against outside authorities changing stuff. He didn't get that specific. So nah, that analogy is done with. You glad or mad over that fact?

So you are saying that authors are not allowed to choose what they put out or they are for some kind of censorship?

Originally posted by Robtard
^ Surt, here it's explained again with another analogy. No one is trolling you, you're simply wrong here.

If I came off hostile I apologize, but I disagree with you.

Originally posted by Bentley
So you are saying that authors are not allowed to choose what they put out or they are for some kind of censorship?

I never once said that. I feel yes an author can do whatever he chooses with his own work. I was simply saying it is contradictory to say you are against all kinds of "book burning" and then do this.

Lol that is all, I am not saying he can't do it. I'm just saying his actions contradict his words. I'm honestly not getting how that is wrong to say. It doesn't mean he can't choose what he puts out. I do disagree with him, but this is his right. I just found his words odd given what he's doing. Maybe people took it the wrong way and thought I meant he can't do it.

Originally posted by Surtur
Yes or no does "the guy who owns it burning it" fall under the purview of "any kind of book burning"? Simple question. Their property they can do whatever they want. You seem determined to be offended. Who cares?

I asume the meaning of book burning in his interpretation must have an stronger meaning than just "censorship". He could be wrong in the technical terms but I also think he IS for certain kinds of censorship.

Also saying he's not censoring others it's kind of a red herring, producing a show is the work of several people. The Simpsons have been translated in several languages and broadcasted in many different countries by different TV stations. I kind of wonder how that would work for those versions of the show.

Originally posted by Bentley
I asume the meaning of book burning in his interpretation must have an stronger meaning than just "censorship". He could be wrong in the technical terms but I also think he IS for certain kinds of censorship.

Also saying he's not censoring others it's kind of a red herring, producing a show is the work of several people. The Simpsons have been translated in several languages and broadcasted in many different countries by different TV stations. I kind of wonder how that would work for those versions of the show.

I guess maybe I interpreted it wrong, but he specifically said "book burning of any kind". So I dunno.

I guess yeah technically if you look at it that way he is censoring people.