The Simpsons is pulling the Michael Jackson episode

'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

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.

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.

Michael Jackson

Was badly let down by Sony

They'd signed him for that $ Billion 10 Year contract.

They'd paid out an advance and they had his records to sell.

MJ had his court case.

And he wanted to defend himself in court.

Sony who had signed him up with legal indemnities - settled with his accusers.

That was the point where Jackson fell out with Sony.

Jackson never paid a cent to any of these false accusers nor has his estate.

Prince, George Michael, Michael Jackson.

Had Epic Legal battles with record execs for control of their respective careers and music... publishing... points ...everything.

Prince even changed his name twice.

Theres this album he went and negotiated with a newspaper to release it in The UK for £1

The british newspapers have a lot to answer for.

The Sun had La Toya's husband tying her to a chair and beating her to get her to say something on the telephone to the sun newspaper to collect on their payout for a real juicy story on her brother.

Roll on 2019. Go to the police????? (Seriosly who the F type of father or mother claims their child is abused but its ok it's ok it's ok we'll take cash).

People [Case in point Amber Heard] will say any thing for money

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." [Emphasis mine]

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 [b]our book, and we're allowed to take out a chapter." [Emphasis mine]

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. [/B]

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.