Vic Mignogna

[PFM18]

I can confidently say that I don’t find it insulting to have them “lumped in” with me. It’s not a club and exclusivity has no business being part of this subject.

Also, the pictures are only the tip of the iceberg when it comes to the allegations.

Well, I guess you only speak for yourself and I was simply postulating about what I would expect and giving my opinion on the matter.

I didn't see any evidence whatsoever of sexual assault in that article. I only saw inappropriate conduct being labeled as sexual assault when it demonstrably is not.

It meets the legal criteria of being sexual assault whether you agree with it or not. Hugs and kisses can be considered part of sexual intimacy. When it is a middle-aged man and a minor that cannot legally give consent, unfortunately it does meet that criteria and yes, there could be a case for it. It doesn’t matter what his intentions were. These are full-on embraces with young women.

I said it before and I’ll say it again. This really, really sucks. More than anything I want to believe he just got too wrapped up in his ego and pandering to his fans and made some major bad calls, but I’m not about to do or say something to make any victim feel invalidated.

For it to be sexual assault it requires "sexual contact without consent." A kiss on the cheek or a hug dont constitute sexual contact. If they did, then apparently most people are sexually touching their family members constantly.

[Dagon]

"Innocent until proven guilty" only applies in a legal context.

"He's guilty because I want him to be guilty, not because of evidence, but because my heart is a crusty rectum."

[Doctor.]

Nice try, but that wasn't a "gotcha" (more of a passing observation, really) and the circumstances haven't changed at all. You said that you would stop posting in this thread because you didn't care enough about the subject to continue, which, as we now know, is bullshit because you do care. You don't get to whine about people "making assumptions" when you've been doing exactly that against everyone who disagrees with you throughout this thread. Your lack of self-awareness and overall disingenuous attitude is already obvious, but it became doubly apparent when you had the gall to demand we stop painting broad strokes while going on this ridiculous tangent about Americans and non-Americans in the same breath. It's hypocritical and generally just pretentious.

I don't care about the subject. Saying "nuh-uh, you do" won't change that. Why do you think I care about a case happening on the other side of the Atlantic, in a country I despise, concerning a voice actor from a dub I dislike? What kind of investment do I have, on either side? It's not a coincidence I'm mostly replying to the attacks thrown at me.

But if you're this desperate to place me in one of your little boxes, then go for it, my dude. I'm not going to lose sleep over it.

As for this,

but it became doubly apparent when you had the gall to demand we stop painting broad strokes while going on this ridiculous tangent about Americans and non-Americans in the same breath. It's hypocritical and generally just pretentious.

Both you and Kunzait missed the point. I'll reword it in a way you can understand, since apparently you're having difficulty understanding someone who is way out of his depth: when discussing with people one-on-one, don't assume everything about their character and life based on broad generalizations; this, in no way, means I am inherently against every kind of generalization. In case you need a reminder, here's what I said to him:

You Americans always take your online politics so seriously; you don't win anything by calling a random person online a piece of shit for not sharing your, usually, black-and-white worldview. There's nothing to gain by painting people from across the ocean with such a broad brush.

In other words, "you, Kunzait, confirm my belief that Americans generally take online politics seriously" and not "Due to my belief that Americans take online politics seriously, you without a doubt must also be in the same bucket." If you can't see the difference, then I'm sorry, because confirming the generalization through the individual is different from applying the generalization to the individual.

And, for the sake of argument, even if I were being hypocritical, it is still a far-cry from Kunzait's arm-chair psychoanalysis of someone he knows nothing about:

The most GENEROUS possible reading I can conceivably give your mindset in playing contrarian against all of this is that perhaps you're someone who is (by and large overall) socially isolated and somewhere on the spectrum who spends a large chunk of their time online and has watched WAY too many "anti-SJW" rant videos on youtube, and have thus gotten yourself into a knee-jerk conservative reactionary mindset for these kinds of topics.

[...]

"impressionable and socially inexperienced and isolated/alienated loner kid who may or may not have some vague developmental disability is just watching waaaaaaaay too much of the wrong Youtube channels with his surplus of free time"

[...]

"I have no friends and no social life and no real clue whatsoever about how basic social interactions between everyday people in the real world work, and I instead spend all day in front of a computer mainlining videos of people like Ben Shapiro, Stefan Molyneux, Jordan Peterson, and Sargon of Akkad owning the SJWs with 'logic and facts', and thus have mastered the art responding to anything that even VAGUELY smells of libtard snowflakery to me - no matter how obviously serious of a real issue it actually is - with snide, passive aggressive pedantry and concern trolling".

This is different from making an inference on cultural differences based on objective information such as someone's nationality or social class. Saying "because you're part of groups I am not a part of, we think differently" is different from "because I think you're part of a group I am not a part of, you're a piece of shit."

Where are your sources for this?

Personal experience, but I'm sure you'll discredit that also while in the same breath claiming I'm dismissing the personal experience of those speaking out.

Now there's an actual "gotcha", as well as a rather poor attempt at baiting. For the record, I grew up in a low-class family within a small town neighborhood riddled with crime, drug deals and murder. I have a number of people in my family who have been sexually assaulted, so I'm particularly invested in this subject. I am much better off financially now and currently live in a thriving city, but only because I busted my ass to get here.

Good for you, honestly. I'm glad.

And no, I've been relatively calm with you. You're the one who consistently has all these kneejerk reactions because you're so easily offended about your position being attacked. "Stop being so sensitive".

I don't care about my position being attacked. My positions change. I am not this invested in politics as you believe just because I debate about it. But there's a big difference between saying "Your opinion is idiotic" and "You're an idiot because of your opinions."

I don't think you know the first thing about laws in a multitude of countries around the world.

Now here's another gotcha. Dismissing the second point for the sake of an ad hominem.

I'm arguing with the person who specifically claimed it was innocuous and doesn't consistute sexual assault, i.e. you, because it isn't innocuous and it does constitute sexual assault. Hugging, kissing, and face-cuddling someone without their consent, especially complete strangers, is sexual assault. That's why I say you're not looking at the context. Instead, you isolated the fact that he hugged someone or kissed them on the cheek and then disingenously tried to portray it as an innocuous greeting without taking any of the external factors into account. To be frank, it's quite clear that you're out of your depth.

I'm not isolating anything from its context. It's specifically because of its context, a man meeting his fans, that it's nothing more than an innocuous greeting that does not constitute sexual assault.

[Zephyr]

I'm not isolating anything from its context. It's specifically because of its context, a man meeting his fans, that it's nothing more than an innocuous greeting that does not constitute sexual assault.

Imagine thinking that being someone's fan means you tactictly consent to unsolicited physical contact from them.

[Doctor.]

I'm not isolating anything from its context. It's specifically because of its context, a man meeting his fans, that it's nothing more than an innocuous greeting that does not constitute sexual assault.

Imagine thinking that being someone's fan means you tactictly consent to unsolicited physical contact from them.

No, but it means that you will enter an environment where it is common for voice actors to hug, kiss and generally be playful and friendly with fans in order to take pictures and sign autographs. If you felt uncomfortable, then fair enough, but that doesn't mean there was any malicious and conscious effort to cause discomfort. 'Unsolicited physical contact' is a daily occurrence.

[Cetra]

I'm not isolating anything from its context. It's specifically because of its context, a man meeting his fans, that it's nothing more than an innocuous greeting that does not constitute sexual assault.

Imagine thinking that being someone's fan means you tactictly consent to unsolicited physical contact from them.

If this leads to non-consensual ass grabbing or something in that league that he is accused of, then yes, this B-celebrity, well, "arrogance" and being oblivious to where lines are drawn (and I do not even doubt that, because I said before, the man is extremly excentric, overly physically expressive and passionate and he has no problem being filmed or photographed in public when he is all clingy or flat out argues with a religious protestant in public, furthermore showing that he has a completely different scale as he would not let himself be filmed or photographed otherwise), resulted in sexual assault. That much should be clear. Non-consensual hugs or anything around that league is not problematic in the same way. Disrepectful to the other one, sure and thus also something that he should absolute reconsider, but not the same as non-consensual ass-grabbing (or the likes). "He did such stuff before so every action he does has the same character" is not how one should see that. I for example would not evaluate the situation where one woman said "oh Vic once came to me, talked to me and asked me if I wanted a hug (already showing that he apparently occasionally asks for it) but I said no and he asked 'do you not know who I am' and I said 'I do' but I still wanted no hug" as a case of "Vic is a monster". Such cases could show that he has this celebrity "arrogance" (and even that he could have meant in a harmless way). Anyway, such things are not in the same league either. Of course he totally has to stop anything that comes even close to what could be considered potential"sexual assault", including this whispering at people any flattering compliment because the intention cannot always be clearly recognized but I see no reason to believe that the man is aware (or was aware) of the potential intensity of these things. He is/was oblivious to the concept of this being really such a big deal.

[Cursed Lemon]

lol @ this idea that Vic "didn't mean it"

This shit has been going on for 10+ years with him, and it is 99.99999% likely he knew exactly what the word on the street was about himself.

Normal people would hear the very first accusation and reevaluate their own shit. Yet here we are.

[JulieYBM]

The working class and the owner class are the only two classes.

[Cetra]

Normal people would hear the very first accusation and reevaluate their own shit. Yet here we are.

From my experience the first reaction from people is "No, out of all people I am the one that is not the one you can find a/the mistake with".

[Doctor.]

lol @ this idea that Vic "didn't mean it"

This shit has been going on for 10+ years with him, and it is 99.99999% likely he knew exactly what the word on the street was about himself.

Normal people would hear the very first accusation and reevaluate their own shit. Yet here we are.

It is perfectly reasonable that he heard them and thought they were not legitimate accusations. Nobody's saying he isn't an insensitive ass.

The working class and the owner class are the only two classes.

Definite "no." The middle class doesn't have the right to be lumped in together with the working class.

[ABED]

"Innocent until proven guilty" only applies in a legal context.

"He's guilty because I want him to be guilty, not because of evidence, but because my heart is a crusty rectum."

That's quite the stretch from what I wrote to you believe my statement means.

[Cursed Lemon]

Normal people would hear the very first accusation and reevaluate their own shit. Yet here we are.

From my experience the first reaction from people is "No, out of all people I am the one that is not the one you can find a/the mistake with".

That would be the outer narrative, yes.

[ruler9871]

The working class and the owner class are the only two classes.

That sounds like some Marxist nonsense. Its false on so many levels.

[Shaddy]

This thread is revealing a lot about the members of this forum.

[ruler9871]

People have been making these claims about Vic for years, so he's likely guilty. But still, his removal from RoosterTeeth and Funimation was poorly handled since he was never actually legally charged with abuse by anyone. What ever happened to Due Process? Accusations alone shouldn't cost anyone their careers.

[Marlowe89]

I don't care about the subject.

You cared enough to make several posts on the subject after explicitly telling people you didn't care enough to make another post on the subject. This isn't rocket surgery. It's a contradiction. You're a contradiction.

Why do you think I give even the faintest shit about your preferences, guy? It doesn't alter what you said. It doesn't change the fact that your repeated attempts to bring America up out of nowhere, even just now, reiterates your bizarre need to put people in boxes based on nationality and class. You're being insanely immature, intellectually dishonest, and mostly insensitive right now. Don't act like I'm the only person noticing this or commenting on it.

If you can't see the difference, then I'm sorry, because confirming the generalization through the individual is different from applying the generalization to the individual.

I'm gonna need to put a weight on this goalpost so you can stop moving it.

The difference doesn't matter; the point is that you were generalizing your perceived opponents while telling those same opponents not to generalize people. I shouldn't have to explain why the individual "confirming" your generalization obviously means you're applying that generalization to that individual, but whatever. I don't even recall anyone talking about nationality until you started rambling about it for no reason.

This isn't fucking /pol/, buddy. Not every discussion needs to devolve into a shitflinging contest of potshots at another person's country. Grow up.

Personal experience, but I'm sure you'll discredit that also while in the same breath claiming I'm dismissing the personal experience of those speaking out.

I think you're discrediting yourself at this point because this is such a terrible false equivalency I'm not even sure where to begin. How about the fact that a person directly experiencing assault is dramatically different from a person generalizing an entire wage class and society of people based on a few interactions you had?

This is the goddamn epitome of a sheltered attitude. I'm honestly surprised you posted it, considering how dedicated you were to proving the opposite.

I don't care about my position being attacked.

I think you do, given how you've misinterpreted it as a personal attack at least twice now in this thread.

Now here's another gotcha. Dismissing the second point for the sake of an ad hominem.

No, it's me telling you that I think you're very, very ignorant about all of this. The second point doesn't relate to your first point, and every point you make is fair game. If you can't take the heat, get out of the kitchen.

No, but it means that you will enter an environment where it is common for voice actors to hug, kiss and generally be playful and friendly with fans in order to take pictures and sign autographs.

Wow.

Imagine thinking that the vast majority of voice actors interact with their fans to anything remotely resembling the same degree or even the same fucking vicinity as the inappropriate level of behavior and discourse Dick Lasagna made with his underage fans without their permission.

Did you see the photographs? Have you read the accounts of those who posted them? Are you aware of his behavior for going on 15 years now? How many other voice actors have done this, and which ones?

[ruler9871]

For it to be sexual assault it requires "sexual contact without consent." A kiss on the cheek or a hug dont constitute sexual contact. If they did, then apparently most people are sexually touching their family members constantly.

Exactly

[KBABZ]

For it to be sexual assault it requires "sexual contact without consent." A kiss on the cheek or a hug dont constitute sexual contact. If they did, then apparently most people are sexually touching their family members constantly.

Exactly

I'm fairly sure I covered this a few pages ago: hugging and kissing can be considered sexual contact, and if it's not with consent, then it constitutes groping. And groping can be sexual harassment.

[JulieYBM]

The working class and the owner class are the only two classes.

That sounds like some Marxist nonsense. Its false on so many levels.

Our current system is un-democratic. The owner/donor class being able to make decisions that directly influence the working class' lives ahows how broken our system is. Workers must seize control of the system so that it works for all American's, not just the wealthy owners.

[Cursed Lemon]

I'm pretty sure "physical harassment/assault" is just battery.

Since what Vic did clearly isn't battery...it's sexual harassment/assault.