MovieChat Forums > Leaving Neverland (2019) Discussion > Ugly Bald-Headed British Prick

Ugly Bald-Headed British Prick

posted 5 years ago by [deleted]
24 replies | jump to latest

Apparently the director of this sensationalist film is "shocked that people still don't think Michael Jackson is an abuser".

What a pompous arrogant dipshit.

Maybe you’re documentary simply wasn't effective enough pal. Maybe you’re not as good a filmmaker as you think you are. I've spoken to several, quite rational, people who have told me they weren't convinced by the documentary and found it to be one-sided, and that bias caused them to question it.

I chose not to see the documentary, but I was prepared to believe the posters here who told me they were convinced by it. However speaking to people in the real world, people with very good jobs, wives, children, and rational beliefs and politics, I was surprised to discover that they were left unconvinced. I trust these people. They're more rational than me (and yes, I was inclined to believe Jackson's guilt based on the media response and posts here, without having seen the film).

Anyway, it's not for this stocky bald-headed British prick (and why are these pompous mudslingers always white British assholes?) to judge the people who weren't convinced by his film. He should take the criticism with more dignity instead of taking it personally, as if anyone who still likes Jackson's wonderful music is making a negative judgement on his, apparently mediocre, abilities as a documentation. Asshole.

[–] Catbookss (13664) 5 years ago

WHY do you think it's okay to post these hate-filled words about someone you don't know, will in all likelihood never meet, and has done nothing to you?? Why are *you* judging *him*, even sinking so low as to taking shots at his appearance, and calling him names?

You're the one who was complaining about hate. Take a look in the mirror.

[–] [deleted] 5 years ago

Because he's being a jerk.

I'm not attacking Jackson's accusers. I feel bad for them, especially if they're telling the truth.

But I do find this self-important exploitative 'filmmaker' to be a jerk. He's trying to make a name for himself by destroying the name of one of the most beloved and highly-regarded musicians of the 20th Century, and he seems completely unable to understand or empathise with the millions of people trying to come to terms with the allegations.

And forgive me if the sentiments of taking a look at 'the man in the mirror' aren't ones I really want to process right now. Those sentiments now have VERY toxic associations for me...I wonder why...

[–] dmac8 (5050) 5 years ago

And he's bald and stocky too!

[–] [deleted] 5 years ago

He's taking umbrage at anyone who still likes Michael Jackson. He should therefore expect some vitriol.

[–] dmac8 (5050) 5 years ago

About his appearance? How high-minded of you!

[–] [deleted] 5 years ago

I'm not pretending to be high-minded on this occasion.

But "let he who is without sin cast the first stone".

[–] Catbookss (13664) 5 years ago

"But "let he who is without sin cast the first stone"."

Read these words, then read your OP again.

[–] [deleted] 5 years ago

Dan Reed cast the first stone. He's 'offended' that he hasn't turned more people off Michael Jackson's music.

This piece of shit is basically measuring his success by how many millions of people (not one or two individuals) he can make miserable. People like that make me sick.

[–] Catbookss (13664) 5 years ago

What is your source that he's so offended he hasn't turned more people off to Michael Jackson's music?

Where did he "strike out at another and make them feel smaller, or weaker, or lesser, or judge their tastes and ideas"? How has he measured his success by how many millions of people he can make miserable?

He made a film that focused on two (alleged) victims of pedophilia, and their families, by someone who also happened to have been a musical superstar. He believes them. That's what you call the "first stone" he "threw," according to you. What if he's right, and you're defending a pedophile, castigating the person who brought light to this, including reviling him for his appearance, race, and nationality?

You complained about people speaking hatefully, yet here you are doing exactly what you complained about in others! That's being a hypocrite. That *isn't* being positive or empathetic. Remember when I said on another thread, on an unrelated topic, about acting in kind? Except in this case this person hasn't done any of the things *you* are doing.

I doubt I'm going to get any rational response from you and no doubt you'll, again, avoid addressing the things I say to you.

You made it abundantly clear in other posts the real reason you're lashing out is entirely selfish -- you want to be able to listen to MJ's music, unconflicted. So anyone who gets in the way of that -- MJ's (alleged) victims of his years of molestation, or the filmmaker who brought this to the attention of the public once again -- will be the target of your vitriol.

[–] [deleted] 5 years ago

I'm specifically referring to where the filmmaker complained about people who still believe Michael Jackson is innocent.

I'm not attacking him for his film. I'm criticising him for attacking everyone else simply because his film hasn't had the desired effect on him.

I'm sorry you are angry with me, since I respect your opinions, but I don't think I'm being unreasonable here.

[–] Catbookss (13664) 5 years ago

I asked you what your source is for his complaining. You've given none. I looked for it.

Bottom line, if you want positive and empathetic, do not contribute negativity and hatred yourself.

[–] [deleted] 5 years ago

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/mar/10/dan-reed-shocked-those-wont-accept-michael-jackson-abuser

"I'm shocked by those who still won't accept Michael Jackson as [an] abuser"

[–] Catbookss (13664) 5 years ago

That's what this whole diatribe of hatred is about, that one simple line?! There's not even a single other thing about him in that whole article, just that one sentence in the headline.

FFS!

[–] [deleted] 5 years ago

I couldn't read the rest of the article, in the same way I couldn't watch the documentary. It was too upsetting, and I didn't want to be offended anymore.

I thought you'd commend me for avoiding any offence.

But I read the Guardian on a daily basis to know what's going on in the world. I endeavour to be informed. That unfortunately means I can't avoid headlines like these that appear on the main page.

So, even though I do all I can to avoid offence, it appears it follows me wherever I go.

[–] Catbookss (13664) 5 years ago

That doesn't change that you directed this strange, hate-filled diatribe at this man for making ONE simple statement! How can you not see this?!

Obviously I had no way of knowing you only read that one sentence.

[–] [deleted] 5 years ago

I did only read that one sentence. I apologise if my response is wrong, but can you now see that when a person makes you feel bad about yourself, and what's more seems intent on doing so, it is a natural human response to take offence and lash back?

[–] dmac8 (5050) 5 years ago

As opposed to all your other posts where you do pretend to be high-minded?

We now know what you think of bald heads/stocky frames whenever you see them.

Please tell us more about how "Society Needs to be More Positive" from the balcony of your glass house.

[–] [deleted] 5 years ago

Dan Reed is the man pushing negativity. It's precisely his type that I take exception to.

He has specifically complained about people who still refuse to believe Michael Jackson is an abuser.

What fucking business is it of his whether people think a man who died ten years ago is an abuser or not? What possible good will it do anyone, including Michael Jackson's victims, if people start hating on Jackson and his music? Please tell me.

The only logical conclusion one can reach is that this 'filmmaker' has an ego problem or is a complete misanthrope, and will only be satisfied when he's made everyone who like Jackson's music miserable. In other words, it's him who is making society more negative.

[–] Otter (24464) 5 years ago

Just a general comment about debating tactics:

If you attack your opponent's looks, everyone listening assumes you have no arguments.

[–] [deleted] 5 years ago

Maybe I don't have any arguments.

Maybe I'm just angry.

But as a side point, I'll leave you this to all ponder: whenever a person strikes out at another and makes them feel smaller, or weaker, or lesser, or judges their tastes and ideas, guess what? That person/people they're striking out at are going to be a tad pissed, and guess what? They're going to strike back.

This is precisely what I am talking about when I call for more positivity and empathy.

We all need to stop judging one another and we all need to start being nicer to one another. But if we can't do that, don't be too fucking surprised when people snap back. It's called human nature.

[–] Pomacea (14) 5 years ago

"I chose not to see the documentary"

Tells me all I need to know about your dumb ass.

[–] Robbie008 (8) 5 years ago

How do we know FOR SURE that Robson Wade &
James Safechuck are telling the truth about
their abuse claims by Michael?

In 2013, these abuse claims Wade & Safechuck
are now making, were rejected & dismissed by
a Law Court in Los Angeles, and their case
was closed.

Also, the FBI investigated Michael Jackson
for 10 years and found nothing.

So what are now the motives of Wade & Safechuck
in this TV documentary? Are they telling the truth
about Michael? Or is this all about money?

Is this a planned conspiracy and extortion attempt,
on their part, to destroy Michael's reputation and
then claim a huge cash payout from Michael's estate?

The only way we will ever know FOR SURE if Robson Wade
James & Safechuck are telling the truth is to:

MAKE THEM TAKE A LIE DETECTOR TEST
AND A POLYGRAPH TEST!

We will then see in a clear light, if they have been
telling the truth, or wether they are money-obsessed
parasites who have lied to the world!

[–] [deleted] 5 years ago

If they are victims, it would be unfair to victimise them again by putting them through such a process.

I don't think these are the people we should be holding to account anyway. Perhaps they're telling the truth, in which case it would be unfair to put them through such an ordeal.

The people I question are the ones who automatically believe them. I'm not saying they're wrong, but if they are 100% convinced Jackson was guilty, they should be asked to account for their position.

[–] MovieFan00 (211) 5 years ago

Insulting his appearance when Jackson looked the way he did?