The Gutter Monkey 🐒

Pop-culture glutton. Black belt skeptic. Gamer. Cinephile. Primate.

Struggling to remain rational in an irrational world.

📺

[The Gutter Monkey 🐒 @TheGutterMonkey]

After finally getting around to watching the HBO documentary, Leaving Neverland, I decided to throw another appeal to reason into the cyber void. This time I put it in a vloggy/rant form.

#MJInnocent #MichaelJackson #LeavingNeverland

https://t.co/8MV5EQ4PJl

[The Gutter Monkey 🐒 @TheGutterMonkey]

@Quillette No.

[The Gutter Monkey 🐒 @TheGutterMonkey]

Well, firstly, you’ve not actually given any “evidence” against the guy. You’ve relied on unverified claims from a handful of accusers. One of them had a family who settled out of court (never fully investigated, and he certainly wasn’t found guilty). Two others you yourself admitted had inconsistencies in their stories and timelines (never mind other suspicious behavior you didn’t go into). And the last (whose case Jackson insisted go to trial, even though the family also wanted a settlement) comes from a family you admit has a history of lying, fraud, and opportunism.

So, right off the bat, the vast majority of what you talk about in this video is a Gish Gallop of claims, allegations, and rumors derived from extremely questionable people with obvious incentives to lie.

Outside of that? The only “real” thing you have is three artsy books which you frame as if they’re child pornography, despite the fact that they’re all perfectly legal and, even now, are available to purchase online (two of the three are on Amazon right now). That is NOT child pornography. You also leave out the fact that this is three books out of literally about a million, from a very wealthy person’s gigantic library. And you leave out the other relevant context that a massive amount of actual, heterosexual, adult porn was also found (which directly contradicts what you claim Jackson is interested in). What is your explanation for this? A friend accidentally left a truckload of straight adult porn at his place? This was just for his guests? He was merely using all of that for his sinister “grooming” purposes, meanwhile only having the equivalent of three National Geographics in his seedy personal stash? I beg of you, please: step into reality and think about this logically.

And your overall point against him? Well, that just seems to amount to desperate pattern‑seeking, with you trying to validate your own bias. “What if he wasn’t the most famous entertainer on earth… what if he was just a teacher, a scout leader… and the same evidence existed? What would you call him?” you ask.

Well, again, you’ve not given evidence, so your wording is wrong right off the bat. But even beyond that, this is a blatant false equivalence. Because most teachers, scout leaders, etc. aren’t so unimaginably rich and famous that settling a nuisance claim for millions is less damaging than the reputational cost of a dragged‑out court battle. And for most people you’ve ever met, you can’t simply point at them one day and say, “he touched me,” and instantly have a 95% chance of being put on TV, given millions of fans and followers, being paid thousands for your story, or very possibly being offered a life‑changing settlement check just to get you to go away and stop being a problem. Do you not realize how big of a target for scams someone rich and famous is? How huge of an incentive it may be to someone, knowing they can just say something about this guy they know and have it potentially make them rich and famous as well? And the best part? If it doesn’t work, you don’t even get punished for making the false allegation.

Or is that part simply irrelevant to you? Is the fact that your entire argument is based on mere allegations from non‑credible sources not important at all? This is the most charitable pop artist in history, who built a literal amusement park for Make‑A‑Wish kids, who spent all his free time during tours going to hospitals to visit them, who made one hit song after another about topics like charity, anti‑violence, and peace rather than money, sex, and drugs; he’s someone who donated all of his money from certain hit singles and concert tours to charity… and it doesn’t faze you in the slightest that you’re labeling him as the most vilifying thing ever, based on pure accusation. Does the possibility that you’re wrong make zero difference to you?

That’s a rhetorical question, of course. Obviously, it doesn’t. Who needs facts or credibility when you can have clicks and views?

[The Gutter Monkey 🐒 @TheGutterMonkey]

In my opinion, this is textbook 'Saint George in Retirement Syndrome.'

During peak wokeness, @BretWeinstein (and similar figures) became hugely popular as some of the few seemingly sane voices amid a flood of mainstream insanity. They built their entire identity around being these sorts of brave, anti-mainstream warriors. It became their whole niche, what they were respected for, why everyone loved them, and it significantly elevated their social status.

Now that the culture has calmed in that arena, though (with many of their views on gender, race, etc., becoming more mainstream), what made these people "special" became no longer special. The fight was won, which is great, but it's left these anti-mainstream warriors in a position where they have no purpose left to serve — a position which is a nightmare for human cognition and sense of self. So, unconsciously, they end up desperately hunting for new fights to wage that will give them an excuse to continue being the person they want to keep being. And when they come up empty, they simply dial up the pattern seeking until something finally fits... whether it's a legitimate fight or not.

Ironically, it's the exact same mentality that plagued much of the woke crowd. They were warriors against injustice who, after winning the big, legitimate fights, felt lost and purposeless. They couldn't just retire from the fight, because the fight was who they were. Without it, they're nothing. So, they began cranking their injustice detectors to 11, inadvertently accepting any real or imagined allegation under the sun as an example of a worthy fight against oppression they could wage.

[The Gutter Monkey 🐒 @TheGutterMonkey]

@BretWeinstein Persecution narratives give the conspiracy theorist a sense of self‑importance they can’t get from facts.

[The Gutter Monkey 🐒 @TheGutterMonkey]

@BretWeinstein You trying to date this guy or something?

[The Gutter Monkey 🐒 @TheGutterMonkey]

@BretWeinstein In my opinion, the lot of you have become addicted to the special, rebellious allure of contrarianism. It's intellectual hipsterism.

[The Gutter Monkey 🐒 @TheGutterMonkey]

@piersmorgan @benshapiro The fact that you prioritize being "a star" is the issue.

[The Gutter Monkey 🐒 @TheGutterMonkey]

@ComicDaveSmith @benshapiro You literally couldn't even hold your own in a battle against Chip Chipperson.

[The Gutter Monkey 🐒 @TheGutterMonkey]

@DefectingGrey @michaelshermer "You don't blindly abide by the simple narratives of my preferred tribe or demonize the opposition."

[The Gutter Monkey 🐒 @TheGutterMonkey]

@HustleBitch_ They tell me that our hindsight bias has been fully activated.

[The Gutter Monkey 🐒 @TheGutterMonkey]

I think it's a positive. I'm not religious, so I don't take the Jesus angle, but practically, I've always thought hate was counterproductive and clouds judgment. It's better to understand why people do what they do rather than stew in anger over it.

[The Gutter Monkey 🐒 @TheGutterMonkey]

@gmiller I'm still trying to figure out why everyone randomly started caring about Dave Smith's opinion in the first place. 🤷‍♂️

[The Gutter Monkey 🐒 @TheGutterMonkey]

@LeadingReport Oooh. That gaps just big enough to squeeze my theories into.

[The Gutter Monkey 🐒 @TheGutterMonkey]

@RealCandaceO Dunning–Kruger effect + argument from incredulity = claims of conspiracy

[The Gutter Monkey 🐒 @TheGutterMonkey]

@LeadingReport ATAB?

[The Gutter Monkey 🐒 @TheGutterMonkey]

@RealCandaceO Meanwhile, in Gaza...

[The Gutter Monkey 🐒 @TheGutterMonkey]

@Breaking911 People always share these polls as if they mean something. They reflect the demographics of a user's audience, not broad public opinion.

[The Gutter Monkey 🐒 @TheGutterMonkey]

@LeadingReport Alan Turing believed in telepathy.

[The Gutter Monkey 🐒 @TheGutterMonkey]

@michaelshermer Contrarianism is an addictive and highly profitable drug.

[The Gutter Monkey 🐒 @TheGutterMonkey]

@steven_chell @Naughty_Dog I don't think there's any saving what they did to Ellie's story. lol