Vic Mignogna

[Scsigs]

Considering how I was labeled an attention-seeking victim just for being a victim of sexual assault that doesn't agree with a black-and-white, incredibly naive notion of it, the "good people" motto might be lost on them. They want "useful people".

Yeah. I get becoming frustrated with the same counter-arguments being brought up over & over again, but if someone's making a legit point or isn't being disrespectful, there's no real reason to ban them, or just report them. And with someone actually saying that, it reveals the actual mentality of some of these people. Not willing to either try to counter-argue, ignore, or whatever the people who disagree with you is a dangerous mentality to have. It completely makes you look bad & devalues your side. Hell, I've just been blatantly ignored when I bring up legitimate points & sides to make because I don't think anyone here who's on the KickVic side can legitimately argue with what I said. It's only when I don't bring up my points that anyone bothers to respond. Now, I'm not saying their side has no legs to stand on. My previous points show that. BUT when you pick & choose what you respond to, it's just kind of weird. And, the fact that THEY'RE acting like the victims here when most everyone who's been caring to come to this thread agrees with them is just off, but not surprising.

Your viewpoint is also an interesting one I don't think anyone should ignore either. Not everything is black & white in life & I don't think everyone can handle that truth. Oh, you have to continually argue with people who have a different viewpoint? Welcome to reality. Oh, some people have different &/or more nuanced opinions? Well, it's almost as if people are different or more nuanced. I just don't know. I mean, hopefully, we're all adults here. Can we act like that?

[Kinokima]

At this point can we just report people for saying shit like this?

Someone new comes in saying the same ignorant shit every couple of pages.

If people start getting banned for being idiots here they're just going to go to all their twitter warriors and make a rise about "BEAING CENSORRRED" and that that's apparently going to somehow make the whole "ignoring the literal mountain of evidence against the man" approach more valid.

I find it perplexing how you people flip-flop from "Well, we have no evidence, we can't record this shit" to "literal mountains of evidence" whenever appropriate to the argument.

Because there is evidence. Testimonies going back years IS evidence. There just isn’t photographic/video evidence of him sexually assaulting anyone. And I find it pretty disturbing people asking for that. You really think someone is going to have their camera ready when they are being assaulted.

[Scsigs]

Because there is evidence. Testimonies going back years IS evidence. There just isn’t photographic/video evidence of him sexually assaulting anyone. And I find it pretty disturbing people asking for that. You really think someone is going to have their camera ready when they are being assaulted.

No, but what evidence HAS been presented hasn't exactly been completely convincing with the stories presented, especially with the points I & others have brought up. And testimony, while useful, isn't all some people need to throw the book at someone, sorry.

[MasenkoHA]

Because there is evidence. Testimonies going back years IS evidence. There just isn’t photographic/video evidence of him sexually assaulting anyone. And I find it pretty disturbing people asking for that. You really think someone is going to have their camera ready when they are being assaulted.

No, but what evidence HAS been presented hasn't exactly been completely convincing with the stories presented, especially with the points I & others have brought up. And testimony, while useful, isn't all some people need to throw the book at someone, sorry.

Multiple people who have been saying the same thing about the same dude for years isn’t convincing because..?

No good points have been brought up by the other side. Period. Just a complete disregard for others as well as a disregard for common sense

[Zephyr]

So, without any actual evidence he's innocent until proven guilty. I don't care if someone says "I was told that he touched a girl on her private parts" because if you can't provide proof, that doesn't count.

The only people who know what actually went down are Vic and the accusers. As long as no info or a confession is out, both sides are even.

Outside of mathematics and logic, you won't find proof of anything anywhere. Not even science (civilization's most prestigious and rigorous collective empirical enterprise) deals in proof; science deals in evidence, inference, corroboration, and approximation. If it dealt in proof, it wouldn't constantly be open to revision, and if it wasn't constantly open to revision, it wouldn't be science.

We can draw an inference to the best explanation. What do we have to draw an inference from? What evidence do we have? At bare minimum, we have an absurd number of accusations, from people who largely have no indication of knowing one another, across a large expanse of time. Moreover, as a general rule, power tends to corrupt, and in addition to being an adult dealing with children, he's also a man dealing with women, a celebrity dealing with lay people, and a worship leader dealing with worship followers; that's several layers of power disparity. His employer also conducted an investigation, and has fired him.

Invoking Occam's Razor here, what is the best explanation here, the best interpretation of the available evidence, the one which draws upon the fewest number of assumptions? Spoiler: "He's innocent" requires a lot more assumptions, mental gymnastics, abject ignorance of how power dynamics work, and conspiracy theorizing. If we apply Occam's Razor, "both sides" couldn't be farther from "even".

I get becoming frustrated with the same counter-arguments being brought up over & over again, but if someone's making a legit point or isn't being disrespectful, there's no real reason to ban them, or just report them.

If someone insists on repeatedly regurgitating weak arguments that have been repeatedly thoroughly addressed, they're not making a legitimate point. They're showing that they're compelled to make redundant contributions to a conversation that they can't be bothered to keep up with. That's lazy spam at best, and bad faith trolling at worst.

[BlueChi]

We can draw an inference to the best explanation. What do we have to draw an inference from? What evidence do we have? At bare minimum, we have an absurd number of accusations, from people who largely have no indication of knowing one another, across a large expanse of time. Moreover, as a general rule, power tends to corrupt, and in addition to being an adult dealing with children, he's also a man dealing with women, a celebrity dealing with lay people, and a worship leader dealing with worship followers; that's several layers of power disparity. His employer also conducted an investigation, and has fired him.

Invoking Occam's Razor here, what is the best explanation here, the best interpretation of the available evidence, the one which draws upon the fewest number of assumptions? Spoiler: "He's innocent" requires a lot more assumptions, mental gymnastics, abject ignorance of how power dynamics work, and conspiracy theorizing. If we apply Occam's Razor, "both sides" couldn't be farther from "even".

I actually somewhat agree to this, if only to an extent. My honest hunch is that he's probably guilty. It's as you've said, the innocent side has a bit more difficulty explaining their side of the argument, hence the conspiracies with the more extreme of them ..yet I still maintain that both sides are even. Why? My hunch isn't a fact. It never was, and it never will be. This applies to everyone's hunches here as well, be they in support of or against Vic. Until a confession is made (because realistically, proof will never come out.), I can't in good conscience say someone's a rapist for sure, because I also know there's a chance he's innocent. And as I've said before, I won't cross that threshold. We can try all we like, we'll never be able to prove he did or didn't do it.

[TKA]

THEN we have people like this. Wanting to ban people just for saying, "I don't think the evidence is conclusive enough" despite their legit reasons for doing so

I've seen you on most of these pages.

I, and many others have provided explanations multiples times for why this "durr video ebidence" idea is stupid, wrong and not based in anything resembling real world logic.

If people are willing to ignore all that and continue with their unlearned inanities, then I think it's perfectly acceptable to consider them trolls. To have so many resources in this thread, yet choose to ignore them to peddle ill-reasoned bullshit just degrades whatever discussion is taking place and corrodes the ideas being passed back and forth.

So yes, I think it's full time these people start getting their posts deleted.

[excelhedge]

If people start getting banned for being idiots here they're just going to go to all their twitter warriors and make a rise about "BEAING CENSORRRED" and that that's apparently going to somehow make the whole "ignoring the literal mountain of evidence against the man" approach more valid.

I find it perplexing how you people flip-flop from "Well, we have no evidence, we can't record this shit" to "literal mountains of evidence" whenever appropriate to the argument.

Because there is evidence. Testimonies going back years IS evidence. There just isn’t photographic/video evidence of him sexually assaulting anyone. And I find it pretty disturbing people asking for that. You really think someone is going to have their camera ready when they are being assaulted.

Testimonies without hard evidence to back them up are nothing but rumors. Plain and simple.

The only hard facts we have (at best) is that Vic was fired from Funimation and Roosterteeth for harassing Coworkers.

[EXBadguy]

I'm starting to think that Funimation might get the same treatment that Lucasfilm received. Who's familiar with the Thr Last Jedi & Solo fiasco?

Call it the Right-Wing/White Super Conservative/Alt-Right/Anti-SJW Revolt!

[Cursed Lemon]

Testimonies without hard evidence to back them up are nothing but rumors. Plain and simple.

lol buddy

If your daughter got sexually assaulted by some guy but had zero evidence to support it, are you just going to pat her head and say, "sorry honey, but until I see the video tape, you're just spreading rumors"?

If not - hopefully not - why is it different for the dozens of women who say Vic was inappropriate with them?

[Scsigs]

I'm starting to think that Funimation might get the same treatment that Lucasfilm received. Who's familiar with the Thr Last Jedi & Solo fiasco?

Call it the Right-Wing/White Super Conservative/Alt-Right/Anti-SJW Revolt!

I don't think so. Last Jedi was a film that was scripted to subvert TOO much while having other bad stuff, but some good things too, which is why it got a bad reception from people. FUNi only fired an employee. A popular one, sure, but what's done is done. They're gonna go on whether or not they have Vic working for them or not. That's always been a certainty.

[Baggie_Saiyan]

I find it perplexing how you people flip-flop from "Well, we have no evidence, we can't record this shit" to "literal mountains of evidence" whenever appropriate to the argument.

Because there is evidence. Testimonies going back years IS evidence. There just isn’t photographic/video evidence of him sexually assaulting anyone. And I find it pretty disturbing people asking for that. You really think someone is going to have their camera ready when they are being assaulted.

Testimonies without hard evidence to back them up are nothing but rumors. Plain and simple.

The only hard facts we have (at best) is that Vic was fired from Funimation and Roosterteeth for harassing Coworkers.

No. FUNimation canned Vic because of an internal investigation, hence why it took a while for the statement. If Vic wasn't guilty he wouldn't be canned. It's that simple. It really is.

I am sure multiple cases have gotten resolved on eye witness testimony when *hard evidence* isn't available.

Multiple allegations surface, an investigation is made, Vic is found guilty and canned that really should be the end of it.

[JulieYBM]

After an internal investigation multiple conventions have banned Mic Vignogna for being a sexual abuser and asshole.

[nato25]

Testimonies without hard evidence to back them up are nothing but rumors. Plain and simple.

lol buddy

If your daughter got sexually assaulted by some guy but had zero evidence to support it, are you just going to pat her head and say, "sorry honey, but until I see the video tape, you're just spreading rumors"?

If not - hopefully not - why is it different for the dozens of women who say Vic was inappropriate with them?

I get your point but that is a poor example, one is your daughter you've raised and most likely trust after years of living together and most likely teaching her value in the truth etc.

I'm in no way lessening the value of the woman's allegations if true, but the way a lot of this has come out (over social media leading to crowds feuding over if allegations are true or not) tied in with the long durations some of these women waited to speak out definitely makes them less believable to me rather than my own daughter. Do I think less of Monica Rial for the way she's handled everything, definitely, even if it is unfair she had to speak out at all if the allegations are true.

There does seem to be too much evidence to ignore at this point so you'd have to argue something definitely has happened. Has Vic outright denied anything or has he just never addressed any specific case? I've seen most of his apologies at that recent convention but while he says he got lazy which his personal affection is that all he's really owning up to? Being too touchy at cons?

[Kinokima]

Testimonies without hard evidence to back them up are nothing but rumors. Plain and simple.

lol buddy

If your daughter got sexually assaulted by some guy but had zero evidence to support it, are you just going to pat her head and say, "sorry honey, but until I see the video tape, you're just spreading rumors"?

If not - hopefully not - why is it different for the dozens of women who say Vic was inappropriate with them?

I get your point but that is a poor example, one is your daughter you've raised and most likely trust after years of living together and most likely teaching her value in the truth etc.

I'm in no way lessening the value of the woman's allegations if true, but the way a lot of this has come out (over social media leading to crowds feuding over if allegations are true or not) tied in with the long durations some of these women waited to speak out definitely makes them less believable to me rather than my own daughter. Do I think less of Monica Rial for the way she's handled everything, definitely, even if it is unfair she had to speak out at all if the allegations are true.

There does seem to be too much evidence to ignore at this point so you'd have to argue something definitely has happened. Has Vic outright denied anything or has he just never addressed any specific case? I've seen most of his apologies at that recent convention but while he says he got lazy which his personal affection is that all he's really owning up to? Being too touchy at cons?

You do realize there are testimonies and people talking about Vic’s behavior at Cons years BEFORE this whole thing blew up.

Something should have been done sooner no one is arguing against that. But the idea that this is something new is simply ridiculous. But do you know why people are suddenly speaking out because when others do you gain courage to tell your story.

And do you know why people don’t speak up at the time:exactly because of the reaction they are getting. Saying they are SJW trying to ruin Vic’s career, saying there is no evidence, believing click bait YouTube videos over actual victims, etc.

[TVfan721]

I believe Vic is guilty.

But damn, Sean looks so fucking bad by deleting everything he posted on Twitter, and the way he conducted himself in general. Not helping this case whatsoever.

[TKA]

I believe Vic is guilty.

But damn, Sean looks so fucking bad by deleting everything he posted on Twitter, and the way he conducted himself in general. Not helping this case whatsoever.

He deleted everything because the same crowd that went after Monica started coming at him for saying he stood with her and that nobody attacking her knows anything about the kind of person she is.

It says nothing about him other than he doesn't want his @s flooded with people harassing him.

[prince212]

Why they covered him all this years ? Co workers , Funimation, all sucks . Doing that with lots of people around , why ?
Those things happened long ago , why did he voice broly last movie .
I don’t understand, it’s not like all this blow up because something he did 1 month ago
Funimation and co workers could avoid some cases and reduce the amount of victims . They are guilty of cover him

[Marlowe89]

My honest hunch is that he's probably guilty. It's as you've said, the innocent side has a bit more difficulty explaining their side of the argument, hence the conspiracies with the more extreme of them ..yet I still maintain that both sides are even. Why? My hunch isn't a fact. It never was, and it never will be. This applies to everyone's hunches here as well, be they in support of or against Vic. Until a confession is made (because realistically, proof will never come out.), I can't in good conscience say someone's a rapist for sure, because I also know there's a chance he's innocent. And as I've said before, I won't cross that threshold. We can try all we like, we'll never be able to prove he did or didn't do it.

Hunches are based on nothing more than feelings and intuition. This isn't a hunch. Stop calling it a hunch.

If multiple people come forward, including those with years of experience in the industry, then you know we've gone far beyond the point of guesses and rumors. It's infuriating when all these stories about the same person build up over the course of a decade only to be met with "ummm guys we need HARDER EVIDENCE" and "muh essjaydoubleyews" because it doesn't meet the unreasonable demands of political reactionaries on Twitter.

I wish you people would just drop the pretense already. You're not looking at this realistically. You've already admitted that what you're asking for is nearly impossible to obtain, so proceeding to say "Well both sides are even until I get a CONFESSION!" is absurd. You know that predators don't tend to confess. You know they obviously wouldn't allow themselves to be caught in the act, especially on tape, which is why it comes down to testimony and corroboration. Which is what we have, and again, you know we have it.

I absolutely support the idea of removing bad faith posts from this discussion. It's beyond exhausting to read this shit.

[BlueChi]

My honest hunch is that he's probably guilty. It's as you've said, the innocent side has a bit more difficulty explaining their side of the argument, hence the conspiracies with the more extreme of them ..yet I still maintain that both sides are even. Why? My hunch isn't a fact. It never was, and it never will be. This applies to everyone's hunches here as well, be they in support of or against Vic. Until a confession is made (because realistically, proof will never come out.), I can't in good conscience say someone's a rapist for sure, because I also know there's a chance he's innocent. And as I've said before, I won't cross that threshold. We can try all we like, we'll never be able to prove he did or didn't do it.

Hunches are based on nothing more than feelings and intuition. This isn't a hunch. Stop calling it a hunch.

If multiple people come forward, including those with years of experience in the industry, then you know we've gone far beyond the point of guesses and rumors. It's infuriating when all these stories about the same person build up over the course of a decade only to be met with "ummm guys we need HARDER EVIDENCE" and "muh essjaydoubleyews" because it doesn't meet the unreasonable demands of political reactionaries on Twitter.

I wish you people would just drop the pretense already. You're not looking at this realistically. You've already admitted that what you're asking for is nearly impossible to obtain, so proceeding to say "Well both sides are even until I get a CONFESSION!" is absurd. You know that predators don't tend to confess. You know they obviously wouldn't allow themselves to be caught in the act, especially on tape, which is why it comes down to testimony and corroboration. Which is what we have, and again, you know we have it.

I absolutely support the idea of removing bad faith posts from this discussion. It's beyond exhausting to read this shit.

Why do I get the sinking, depressing feeling that you lot are almost interpreting this as a competition rather than what it actually is? "NO SIDE IS EVEN, MY SIDE WINS. PLS BAN THOSE WHO DISAGREE PLS k thx". This is potentially a case about sexual assault. Nobody fucking wins when it comes to this. Important reminder that while stories have been circling around for years, those stories pertained to Vic's unprofessional behaviour and not his alleged sexual assaults. Those are more recent accusations which are being discussed. All bad faith that comes from this is from people like you who want to shut other people up by force instead of realizing that you can't have it your way because life just isn't going to bend over backwards for you.
Oh and yes. It's a hunch. No matter how sure you think you are. If you don't have a concrete way of proving it but you feel strongly about it, it's a hunch. It is what it is. You're not above people here who are just as bothered as you are about it, but go about it in a different way.