Vic Mignogna

[WittyUsername]

I heard through the grapevine he's no longer invited, but I've not seen any official source on that myself. Friend mentioned it to me.

So if people are indifferent about it (not saying he is) you treat them as your enemies?

Not at all on a personal level, but being indifferent and not standing up as an ally is an awful thing to be. It's saying that a group of people is not important or worthy enough of your support.

I can’t speak for what Mignogna’s intentions were, but if I was a VA, I personally wouldn’t sign any fanart that’s sexual in nature, especially not if it involves characters who happen to be minors.

[Bryesque]

I guess anything can be turned into sexual assault these days.

...he forcibly put his genitals/genital area against someone without their consent. By what definition is that not sexual assault? Intending it as a "joke" doesn't change anything -- it was still non-consensual sexual/sexualized contact.

Is every "piggyback ride" ever considered sexual by nature? That's literally what he did, but obviously he did it without the other person's consent and that's wrong. But the act of giving/receiving a "piggyback ride" in which someone is on another's shoulders, does not ever have a sexual connotation. If you are going to define it that way, then it would render most fathers pedophiles for giving their kids "piggyback rides." (Again, albeit in those cases it is with consent.)

That's... kind of a bizarre comparison. If a grown man presses his genitals into the back of your neck without warning or your consent, you've got no reason to take that as something "innocent" like giving a child a piggyback ride. Like, this is basic stuff. Whether or not you choose to perceive that as sexual or sexualized, it's very understandable for the person on the receiving end to see it that way.

Keeping your junk away from strangers (and keeping away from strangers' junk) is, like, the bare minimum of human respect. It's pretty easy to not get accused of sexual misconduct by following that one simple rule.

[saiyanhajime]

I heard through the grapevine he's no longer invited, but I've not seen any official source on that myself. Friend mentioned it to me.

So if people are indifferent about it (not saying he is) you treat them as your enemies?

Not at all on a personal level, but being indifferent and not standing up as an ally is an awful thing to be. It's saying that a group of people is not important or worthy enough of your support.

I can’t speak for what Mignogna’s intentions were, but if I was a VA, I personally wouldn’t sign any fanart that’s sexual in nature, especially not if it involves characters who happen to be minors.

Same! Absolutely same. But that's not what people were reporting. Just because something has implied homosexual undertones, does not make it sexual. Characters cuddling, for example?

[EXBadguy]

*snip with mention of legal*

Just curious. Which side of the law do you work? Civil or Criminal? (I work on the Criminal side btw)

Come to think of it, I wonder what happens with Kameha-Con. IIRC he was supposed to be there.

He ain't going

[Marlowe89]

This argument about whether Neil Kaplan was sexually assaulted is both utterly pointless and also a concerning derailment of the problem.

He was assaulted. His personal space was violated. This is consistent with Vic's behavior at cons. This is more evidence to add to the pile, regardless of how you personally define sexual behavior.

Of course the correct answer is that it's very much legally sexual assault, but even if it wasn't, it changes nothing.

[WittyUsername]

I heard through the grapevine he's no longer invited, but I've not seen any official source on that myself. Friend mentioned it to me.


Not at all on a personal level, but being indifferent and not standing up as an ally is an awful thing to be. It's saying that a group of people is not important or worthy enough of your support.

I can’t speak for what Mignogna’s intentions were, but if I was a VA, I personally wouldn’t sign any fanart that’s sexual in nature, especially not if it involves characters who happen to be minors.

Same! Absolutely same. But that's not what people were reporting. Just because something has implied homosexual undertones, does not make it sexual. Characters cuddling, for example?

Well, if the characters who are cuddling happen to be underage, I still wouldn’t sign it. That just seems creepy. I never understood the appeal of shipping characters who aren’t even adults.

[SaintEvolution]

“Innocent until proven guilty" is only for courts of law.

Public/personal opinion is a different matter.
You should “believe women” in these cases and err on the side of not continuing to reward bad behaviour financially or otherwise.

If he somehow gets proven innocent beyond a doubt (which I doubt whenever there are multiple accusations by different victims) you can always go buy the artists back catalogue after the fact or something or just start supporting their projects going forward.

Sorry, but no, just no.

I will only believe in the truth, and if there is no truth until now, I will just be skeptical. No, I should not do anything just because you are saying.

As someone who works in the legal profession I feel I’m somewhat qualified to offer the following opinion;

None of you “let’s be cautious” dipshit kids have even the slightest understanding of the power dynamic of a sexual assault case. Bringing an action has a high personal cost in a system heavily skewed toward the accused. For instance in a simple battery offence you don’t have to prove consent, it’s pretty easily to convince a jury that a guy with bloody fists beat the shit out of a guy covered in bruises with some witness accounts and circumstantial evidence.

But proving consent in a sexual assault case involves a jury going through the defendants state of mind and whether the defendant at the time was first advertent to whether or not the victim was consenting and whether under the circumstances that belief was reasonable. This is an incredibly high bar to reach and often a thought process that many jurors struggle with.

This doesn’t even consider the hundreds of procedural indignities visited upon victims where in some jurisdictions if the accused is a self representing litigant they may cross examine the victim if they chose to give evidence.

I’m too frustrated to make this post coherent but its no wonder seeing how in this thread multiple people have not only demonstrated a complete (and concerning) ignorance of the legal system but also an abject lack of humanity. Also some of y’all are powerfully fucking stupid.

Falacy of authority appeal. You're not better than those who disagree with you just because you work with laws. You're also appealing to emotional arguments instead of rational ones.

If Mignogna and Haberkorn are guilty, than time will prove it and they will really deserve to be punished. But yet, there is nothing but words, from any of the sides in this story.

[jjgp1112]

“Innocent until proven guilty" is only for courts of law.

Public/personal opinion is a different matter.
You should “believe women” in these cases and err on the side of not continuing to reward bad behaviour financially or otherwise.

If he somehow gets proven innocent beyond a doubt (which I doubt whenever there are multiple accusations by different victims) you can always go buy the artists back catalogue after the fact or something or just start supporting their projects going forward.

Sorry, but no, just no.

I will only believe in the truth, and if there is no truth until now, I will just be skeptical. No, I should not do anything just because you are saying.

As someone who works in the legal profession I feel I’m somewhat qualified to offer the following opinion;

None of you “let’s be cautious” dipshit kids have even the slightest understanding of the power dynamic of a sexual assault case. Bringing an action has a high personal cost in a system heavily skewed toward the accused. For instance in a simple battery offence you don’t have to prove consent, it’s pretty easily to convince a jury that a guy with bloody fists beat the shit out of a guy covered in bruises with some witness accounts and circumstantial evidence.

But proving consent in a sexual assault case involves a jury going through the defendants state of mind and whether the defendant at the time was first advertent to whether or not the victim was consenting and whether under the circumstances that belief was reasonable. This is an incredibly high bar to reach and often a thought process that many jurors struggle with.

This doesn’t even consider the hundreds of procedural indignities visited upon victims where in some jurisdictions if the accused is a self representing litigant they may cross examine the victim if they chose to give evidence.

I’m too frustrated to make this post coherent but its no wonder seeing how in this thread multiple people have not only demonstrated a complete (and concerning) ignorance of the legal system but also an abject lack of humanity. Also some of y’all are powerfully fucking stupid.

Falacy of authority appeal. You're not better than those who disagree with you just because you work with laws. You're also appealing to emotional arguments instead of rational ones.

If Mignogna and Haberkorn are guilty, than time will prove it and they will really deserve to be punished. But yet, there is nothing but words, from any of the sides in this story.

Sorry, but "appeal to the authority" doesn't work when the person in question is actually using the knowledge and information his "authority" grants him to make a very strong point. Of course somebody actually involved in the legal system will have more knowledge about the messiness of sexual assault cases and how difficult they are, and how subsequently dangerous it is to take an "innocent until proven guilty" approach outside of the courtroom with it.

Please try to actually listen to people instead of shutting your ears.

Fact is, there hundreds of people who have actually been at these cons themselves and have corroborated all of this stuff about Vic. And the people jumping to his defense are just...guys on the internet whose extent of knowledge about Vic are "I like his voice performances."

[saiyanhajime]

I can’t speak for what Mignogna’s intentions were, but if I was a VA, I personally wouldn’t sign any fanart that’s sexual in nature, especially not if it involves characters who happen to be minors.

Same! Absolutely same. But that's not what people were reporting. Just because something has implied homosexual undertones, does not make it sexual. Characters cuddling, for example?

Well, if the characters who are cuddling happen to be underage, I still wouldn’t sign it. That just seems creepy. I never understood the appeal of shipping characters who aren’t even adults.

Just for clarity, I was never talking about underage characters and thought your inclusion in the original comment was weird and ignored it. I was merely talking about Vic not wishing to sign any imagery with gay-coding. I dont know what underage characters have to do with anything?

[ABED]

and how subsequently dangerous it is to take an "innocent until proven guilty" approach outside of the courtroom with it.

Earnest question, what is the danger of the "innocent until proven guilty" approach outside of a courtroom?

[WittyUsername]

Same! Absolutely same. But that's not what people were reporting. Just because something has implied homosexual undertones, does not make it sexual. Characters cuddling, for example?

Well, if the characters who are cuddling happen to be underage, I still wouldn’t sign it. That just seems creepy. I never understood the appeal of shipping characters who aren’t even adults.

Just for clarity, I was never talking about underage characters and thought your inclusion in the original comment was weird and ignored it. I was merely talking about Vic not wishing to sign any imagery with gay-coding. I dont know what underage characters have to do with anything?

I don’t know, isn’t the character he voices on Fullmetal Alchemist a kid or something.

[PFM18]

...he forcibly put his genitals/genital area against someone without their consent. By what definition is that not sexual assault? Intending it as a "joke" doesn't change anything -- it was still non-consensual sexual/sexualized contact.

Is every "piggyback ride" ever considered sexual by nature? That's literally what he did, but obviously he did it without the other person's consent and that's wrong. But the act of giving/receiving a "piggyback ride" in which someone is on another's shoulders, does not ever have a sexual connotation. If you are going to define it that way, then it would render most fathers pedophiles for giving their kids "piggyback rides." (Again, albeit in those cases it is with consent.)

That's... kind of a bizarre comparison. If a grown man presses his genitals into the back of your neck without warning or your consent, you've got no reason to take that as something "innocent" like giving a child a piggyback ride. Like, this is basic stuff. Whether or not you choose to perceive that as sexual or sexualized, it's very understandable for the person on the receiving end to see it that way.

Keeping your junk away from strangers (and keeping away from strangers' junk) is, like, the bare minimum of human respect. It's pretty easy to not get accused of sexual misconduct by following that one simple rule.

They are both piggyback rides. They're literally identical acts, the only difference was one that I already highlighted in my previous post. Something like giving somebody a piggyback ride is simply not a sexual act with any intentional sexual connotations of any kind. If anyone takes it that way, I doubt it was intended that way by the "perpetrator" of it. Like, this is basic stuff.

Obviously, it was inappropriate and disrespectful, but this is not a sexual assault or really sexual in any capacity.

[Polyphase Avatron]

There's too much evidence against him to justify defending him anymore.

[Kunzait_83]

This post offers some interesting insight into the legal process, but you don't do yourself or anyone else any favors by calling people dipshits or fucking stupid. Is your aim to educate or insult? We need more of the former and less of the latter.

No, Captain Awesome (in once more living up to his handle) is absolutely and unequivocally dead to rights on the money in his assessments, both professional/legal as well as personal with regards to the characters of some of the particular posters in here.

Like EX also perfectly put it: there's a time and a place for civility. When we're all waxing opinions about something as ultimately trivial and ridiculous as a silly martial arts fantasy manga/anime from the 80s and 90s, then ABSOLUTELY should general politeness and civility be the norm we all strive for.

But both generally speaking as well as moreover ESPECIALLY in today's particular social/political climate, where bad faith actors, psychologically disturbed internet personalities, straight up grifters, opportunists, and con artists of a dizzying array of specific categories and niches have been purposefully and deliberately weaponizing tactics like "civility policing" as an intentional double standard to use to silence and shame into submission any sharp or incisive opposition against their bullshit rhetorical games...

...when it comes to SERIOUS life and death issues that genuinely impact the tangible well being of the lives of countless millions of people (particularly those within such marginalized and overly-scrutinized and preyed upon groups as women, people of color, and LGBTQ and so forth) then I couldn't agree more that there comes a certain threshold where "civility" is basically useless and counter-productive, the gloves need to come off, and you take a hard line-in-the-sand stand and call a fucking spade a spade and a knuckle-draggingly moronic viewpoint a knuckle-draggingly moronic viewpoint whose mere proliferation as simply just "another legitimate opinion" in and of itself does tangible and all too real damage and harm to the lives of others.

Because oftentimes, within the contexts of these sorts of generally gravely serious matters, the calls for "civility" and attempts at "tone policing" typically tend to most often come from either cynically calculating interests who disingenuously use "impoliteness shaming" as a purposeful tool to stifle and kneecap legitimate and cutting criticism of their horrifically damaging and selfish agendas, or they come from people that are simply (to one extent or another) naive, gullible, guileless nitwits and useful idiots who stupidly fall for that particular ruse/scam and play along into it. And as with anything else obviously, which of those two is which in a given argument boils down to a case-by-case basis.

And rest assured, THIS is indeed one of those cases where at a certain point, we absolutely NEED to dispense with the - in this context - absurd pretense that "everyone's entitled to their opinion" and lay down hard and fast that "No, you're not only factually, objectively, and morally wrong, you're destructively, damagingly, and ghoulishly backwards".

The whole "culture of silence and shame" that surrounds sexual abuse cases and their victims, is among the most inhumane and life-destroying social issues plaguing modern society, and its been genuinely holding back progress in the fight against sexual abuse and outright rape as a pervasive crime, where the victims of it have historically often been cowed and brow-beaten by broader society around them into keeping the reality of what happened to them locked away and bottled up. "Think of the damage to the reputation of this fine, upstanding gentleman and to his family that you'll be causing if you inconvenience us all with your petty grievances with his dating mannerisms!" and all that assorted nonsense.

And the sad thing is, its not like there aren't indeed SOME actual instances where the sexual assault charges ARE false and the person making the accusations IS a liar or bad faith actor and the accused is being put through hell and having their reputation destroyed for no good reason: the problem lies in how insanely often that - in actual practice - typically very rare occurrence gets trotted out to be used as a deliberate weapon against REAL abuse victims. How often the "this person isn't an actual victim, they're just a lying opportunist trying to get money and attention" line gets used a boogeyman scare tactic to stifle away the overwhelmingly LARGE majority of REAL sexual abuse victims from ever coming forward and to keep their cases from ever going anywhere. As is often the case, many of the biggest lies told have at least some SMALL inkling of truth sprinkled into them to give them more credibility.

This horribly destructive problem is primarily still so pervasive due to mass belief in what is and has long been a TOTALLY bullshit idea of "perfect equilibrium": that when someone makes a claim, that regardless of context the odds of those claims being true or false are ALWAYS inherently 50/50. And of course, as always, CONTEXT MATTERS, and you CANNOT just judge EVERYTHING in life as if its 100% in an ahistorical vacuum.

Of COURSE its certainly VERY POSSIBLE that a sexual assault charge is bullshit and part of a scam, and that HAS indeed happened before: but historical, legal, and societal precedent for COUNTLESS years have shown, time and time and time and time again, that when a sexual abuse victim comes forward, its OVERWHELMINGLY likely that there is at least SOME actual merit to their claim, at a bare-most minimum.

Within the context of sexual abuse cases specifically, this paradigm in actual, day-to-day reality, is NOT nearly as flipped as so many clueless people seem to think it is, where there's this whole "culture of scheming, money-grubbing harpies out to scam innocent people by filing false sexual abuse charges against them":that idea is a COMPLETE and utter myth (and one that has been used cynically and disingenuously to keep actual abuse victims quiet), and the reality is very often the EXACT polar, diametric opposite.

And yes, it is ABSOLUTELY 100% justified to call out the people who STILL in goddamned 2019, actually live under the absurdly naive and delusional notion of "its either just as equally likely, or much more likely, that sexual abuse victims are simply lying for money or media attention" as being both contributing to a VERY large and damaging problem against actual sexual abuse victims, as well as being total fucking stupid, belligerent morons and chumps for not being educated enough at THIS absurdly late point in history and lacking the intellectual and moral curiosity and wherewithal to educate themselves better with SO MUCH information widely available at their literal fingertips.

And this assessment HARDLY just goes for sexual abuse cases: there's a whole LITANY of just as serious societal and political issues that this same metric also VERY much keenly applies to: but the further delving into those is not for this thread (and generally speaking, not this forum).

So yes: absolutely, Captain Awesome is 100% in the right to call these people "powerfully fucking stupid". They are, and they should absolutely feel ashamed of themselves, as the idiotic shit that they believe and mindlessly parrot out into the wilds is helping contribute (societally speaking) to a LOT of the incredible pain and misery that abuse victims are still going through as they're continually made to feel as if THEY are somehow in the wrong for bringing the reality of what had been done to them to light.

In a court of law (particularly in a criminal case), obviously its still tremendously important to scrutinize, to have due process and maintain "innocence until proven guilty", and to still make sure that the accused is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt before handing down an actual, life-altering sentence: but this is a Dragon Ball forum, not a courtroom or a criminal trial's jury room. From all available evidence presented, the odds don't look particularly kindly upon Mignogna.

Further critical reading on this subject (particularly with regards to the myth of how "pervasive" false rape/sexual abuse accusations ACTUALLY are and how much of a "danger" they pose to most men):

https://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov ... ors293.pdf

https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/237582.pdf

https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/vnrp0610.pdf

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28213722

As usual, those who are quickest to make the counter-argument "You're just appealing to emotion rather than logic and facts!" are doing some IMMENSE amounts of projecting, and are in fact the ones who are arguing from a knee-jerk emotional framework and reactionary perspective that is quite bereft of "logic and facts".

As someone who works in the legal profession I feel I’m somewhat qualified to offer the following opinion;

None of you “let’s be cautious” dipshit kids have even the slightest understanding of the power dynamic of a sexual assault case. Bringing an action has a high personal cost in a system heavily skewed toward the accused. For instance in a simple battery offence you don’t have to prove consent, it’s pretty easily to convince a jury that a guy with bloody fists beat the shit out of a guy covered in bruises with some witness accounts and circumstantial evidence.

But proving consent in a sexual assault case involves a jury going through the defendants state of mind and whether the defendant at the time was first advertent to whether or not the victim was consenting and whether under the circumstances that belief was reasonable. This is an incredibly high bar to reach and often a thought process that many jurors struggle with.

This doesn’t even consider the hundreds of procedural indignities visited upon victims where in some jurisdictions if the accused is a self representing litigant they may cross examine the victim if they chose to give evidence.

I’m too frustrated to make this post coherent but its no wonder seeing how in this thread multiple people have not only demonstrated a complete (and concerning) ignorance of the legal system but also an abject lack of humanity. Also some of y’all are powerfully fucking stupid.

Just wanted to once more give this post the round of applause it deserves.



Its an all-too-rare delight when an actual adult walks into this place and lays down some sobering reality onto the fantasy-land babblings of some of the unbelievably childish nonsense that gets casually thrown around here.

[PFM18]

There's too much evidence against him to justify defending him anymore.

Nobody is defending him, dude. Obviously hes in the wrong and should be reprimanded for his actions, but it just isn't sexual assault and it's disgusting to call jumping on someone's back in the context of a "piggyback ride", sexual assault or anything he did, as sexual assault. As far as I'm aware based on the evidence we have, the phrase "sexual assault" does not apply. Again, it marginalizes actual sexual assault victims and isn't fair to Vic.

Can one be empathetic towards the victim and acknowledge that Vic is wrong while simultaneously trying to be fair to Vic? Or is that now allowed?

[Zephyr]

I understand that Doctor. has decided to conclude his participation in this conversation. That's fine, this isn't necessarily response to him personally. However, he brings up arguments here that hinge on premises that are false, puzzling, or otherwise troubling. As food for thought, for the sake of others still reading, I find it prudent to highlight these problems. I also had most of this finished a few days ago, but didn't have the time to finish it until now, which is why it's so long after the fact. Regardless!

I said I don't consider this specific example, of this specific case with these specific people, to be a case of sexual assault. And that I couldn't understand why you, and others, would get this heated over an online discussion about something I consider almost to be a non-issue; it's an old man being creepy with young fans, definitely disturbing and inappropriate, but nothing more. I said the circumstances surrounding our discussion were petty nonsense, not sexual assault as a concept.

If something is "almost a non-issue", then it isn't a non-issue, which means it is an issue. You acknowledge this. The issue is that an old guy is consistently, for over a decade, performing disturbing and inappropriate sexual acts with children. How is this "almost" not an issue? What does that even mean?

As for my apathy, be it a serious issue or not, you should have the self-awareness to realize that discussing an issue on an online Dragon Ball forum won't make much difference. That's why I struggle to get invested anymore and can't understand the sheer amount of hatred, rage and disdain shared by both sides of the political spectrum when it comes to political discussions; the fate of the world doesn't hang in the balance, relax. An ignorant kid being ignorant online won't have real-world repercussions, and even if it did, you're not responsible for him. If you want to change the world, get into politics or activism

Cause and effect. Every single thing that every single person does contributes to the future state of the world, however small. A drop in a bucket is indeed just a drop, but drops add up. Even if you "aren't doing anything", you're still doing something. If a child is drowning in front of you, and you are the only one in a position to save them, and you do not, you are in part responsible for that child's death. Inaction is still a type of action (much like how apathy and indifference regarding social/political disputes is itself a type of social/political position on those issues). Actions, when not reflex or instinct, arise from thoughts and attitudes, so the conclusions we reach as a result of conversations on these matters very likely will influence the actions we take regarding such matters in the future.

In other words, shit adds up, and it begins in our minds. So, conversations like these, no matter where they take place, have an impact, however small, that does and will have real, physical, tangible consequences for others in the future. If an ignorant kid being ignorant online would have real world repercussions, and I have the ability to talk with him and change his mind, then I absolutely am (in part) responsible for him. The fate of the world may not necessarily (with this issue at least; there are plenty of others where it certainly does) hang in the balance, but the quality of life for those around us, those far away from us, and those who will inherit this Earth from us down the road, definitely does. I'd think of it less as "saving or changing" the world (that the Sun has a finite amount of energy means that there is no permanently saving the world, and things are always changing for better or worse), and instead as "helping to steer it". Jimmy can opt out of steering it with everyone else because he's jaded and apathetic, but trust me, much like not saving the drowning child, not helping to steer toward a better path with everyone else makes it more likely, that we'll stay closer to the worse path, than it otherwise would have been with Jimmy's (however small) assistance. Because like drops in the bucket, there are a lot of Jimmies out there, and they add up big time.

Now, no, I've never had to deal with any sexual assault of any kind, fortunately. I've known people who have, and my sympathy goes out to them and anyone who has. But have I ever been subjected to women, older and younger, who get all too comfortable and close as soon as they meet you? Yes, some of my male friends too. My best friend has a girlfriend he loves dearly, yet a girl in one of his classes keeps hugging him, holding his arm and putting her head on his shoulder against his will, but he takes it as nothing more than a minor nuisance. I've given, and received, unsolicited kisses on the cheek and hugs to female friends. Now, I realize the difference; there's no dynamic of power in the first example as there is with Vic and his fans, and the second example is an entirely different level of intimacy at play. But I'm not providing these examples to say "these women need to grow thicker skin" as you're implying; everyone deals with flirting, or a show of platonic affection, or what have you, differently, and if these women felt uncomfortable, then I understand. I've also felt uncomfortable when some women have hit on me. But this is also to say that sometimes there's no maliciousness, if you can put yourself on the other person's shoes and understand where they're coming from, an urge or want to get close to someone else doesn't necessarily mean they want that person to be uncomfortable, even if it can lead to that as a side-effect. Owing to the age difference between Vic and his fans, I admit I was too callous in saying he deserved nothing more than a slap on the wrist, but ostracizing him as a borderline rapist is crossing the line when these interactions should, in theory, leave no long-lasting emotional trauma; even some of my progressive female friends recall experiences with touchy and creepy men as nothing more than an awkward nuisance, perhaps terrifying in the moment, but not enough to seriously affect their psyche from that moment onward.

One layer of the "power dynamics" at play in the Mignogna situation is mentioned here (that between a celebrity and his fans), but another is left out entirely: that between men and women. In a patriarchal society, a man receiving unwanted sexual advances occurs with reference to a different set of social conditions than a woman receiving unwanted sexual advances. It is more likely for these things to happen to women, it tends to be a more ubiquitous component of their experience, and thus it results in a different kind, and degree, of trauma. I agree that these things indeed should leave no long-lasting emotional trauma. Unfortunately, these things do not occur in a vacuum, and because of the social conditions in which they do occur, they do leave long-lasting emotional trauma.

[ABED]

Like EX also perfectly put it: there's a time and a place for civility.

And trying to have your cake and eat it too helps no one. He's trying to both insult people while giving an informed opinion. At best, he's preaching to the converted. I'm all for telling an evil person or a bad faith actor to fuck off, but why stop to tell them reasons why they're wrong if you don't think they are reasonable?

I found his perspective pretty illuminating, but I was already in agreement.

[KBABZ]

Like EX also perfectly put it: there's a time and a place for civility.

And trying to have your cake and eat it too helps no one. He's trying to both insult people while giving an informed opinion. At best, he's preaching to the converted. I'm all for telling an evil person or a bad faith actor to fuck off, but why stop to tell them reasons why they're wrong if you don't think they are reasonable?

I found his perspective pretty illuminating, but I was already in agreement.

Hey ABED, it's usually quite helpful to leave the username in a quote so that the person in question gets a Notification about it. It's very helpful!

[Cursed Lemon]

I'd like to know when the next clubhouse meeting is for these unassociated sexual assault co-conspirators that apparently all get together and decide who their next unwitting target is for false accusations.

[Captain Awesome]

Just curious. Which side of the law do you work? Civil or Criminal? (I work on the Criminal side btw)

Civil, I have a little bit of experience in Crim with some some placement in a criminal law clinic prior to graduation but admittedly it is far removed from my forte.

Most of my insight into how traumatising the process is sadly comes from helping a family member through it last year. Which is probably why I don’t really have any time for all of the armchair lawyers and moral absolutists here.