Vic Mignogna

[MajinMan]

I don’t want anything to happen to anyone, but if you happen to get sexually assaulted, I hope you have your camera ready for proof or else nobody will ever believe you. Good luck.

(Sarcasm, just in case someone takes this seriously)

[Bryesque]

Another I have noticed.

The kickvic side has women telling their personal stories to defend their statement. Vic has said nothing to argue these stories false instead of trying to find proof to defend Vic the IstandwithVic is instead attacking and trying to devalue these women.

That tells me a lot there.

Vic Mignogna has been acting professional and mature unlike the so-called victims who have yet to show actual evidence than hearsays. Clinkenbeard has stayed out of it, does this tell you a lot, too? You're going by what people are saying vs facts.

I don't go by what people say or a lie detector test says, concrete proof is required to show that this or that happened, like anything in life.

I'm gonna ask this sincerely: exactly what kind of "concrete proof" would be necessary for you to believe the victims and not assume they're somehow all lying? I'm legitimately curious. I can understand the ideal of "innocent until proven guilty", but some crimes just can't be 100% verified with physical proof. Serial abusers tend to harass and assault when their victim is isolated or otherwise helpless (or unable to speak up or fight back in the moment), or do it in a way that's not obvious or easily provable. If someone were to assault you in private, you'd have no "proof". Does that mean it didn't happen? Does that mean nobody should believe you if you speak up? Because that's the precedent being set with comments like these.

Because it seems to me that the usual way this works is a constant shifting of the goalposts. Testimony is a form of evidence, but if someone comes forward, it's immediately dismissed as "lies". If those testimonies and/or details are corroborated by others, then it's dismissed as a conspiracy to defame the accused. If photos are offered showing behaviour consistent with the accusations, then they're immediately dismissed as being taken "out of context" or "misrepresented". Does every victim need to have crystal-clear video footage of the incidents they've experienced? Would that be enough? Or would that be similarly dismissed as well? Because it seems the level of proof required is completely malleable, almost like the entire purpose of these demands is the protection of the accused abuser.

And I can't help but notice that the testimony of, what, dozens of women seems to mean less to you than one woman not commenting on the issue - why is that?

[Shineman]

Another I have noticed.

The kickvic side has women telling their personal stories to defend their statement. Vic has said nothing to argue these stories false instead of trying to find proof to defend Vic the IstandwithVic is instead attacking and trying to devalue these women.

That tells me a lot there.

Vic Mignogna has been acting professional and mature unlike the so-called victims who have yet to show actual evidence than hearsays. Clinkenbeard has stayed out of it, does this tell you a lot, too? You're going by what people are saying vs facts.

I don't go by what people say or a lie detector test says, concrete proof is required to show that this or that happened, like anything in life.

You are clearly derailing the thread with drivel nonsense. Either you have your head so deep in the sand or you have some blind faith of some Z-list nobody. Or perhaps, just perhaps, you're one of those pizza-face trolls that screams at the top of their lungs on social media from their mother's basement, citing themselves as experts on social issues and sexual assaults topics because you took a course on bullshit in 4chan academy; when in reality, nothing more than a dullard who knows nothing about the actual world outside of your home.

This isn't the time nor the place to throw out some tinfoil hat bullshit right now. If you have any class or an ounce of respect, you'll realized that these women and other victims are constantly being hounded on by these pizza-face bastard who have nothing better to do but scream at them because some nobody got the boot. And for the record, those screenshot of her citing about cutting balls or whatever, I cannot, for the life of me, see how anyone can take that as ANYTHING other than a hyperbole. It's clearly that she was over exaggerating, but these buffoons are so desperate to discredit her, they are willingly going to use anything to do so. That tells you about their actions.

This shit had been going on for a decade, and possibly even more, considering that one record of him assaulting a girl in his home. This isn't even including the fact that he's unfaithful to his wife, the stories were presented to authorities multiple times and were shot down, and the fact that Funimation actually tried to replaced Vic for a while (hence the trailer cast everyone, expect for Vic).

I'm in agreement with deleting posts and banning bad actors that storm in here, puffing up their chest as if they just got an A on a psychology essay in their 100 course and now, suddenly, they understand how the world works. It's clear what their intentions are, it's clear what they're in for and it's clear that they have no intention of changing their stance.

[Thanos]

What's even the point of this thread now??? it seems like it's mostly been reduced to just political/social debates and what not since the majority of the stuff about Vic's conduct has already been revealed at length here. Just an honest observation.

Well, it seems like the thread has invariably devolved into a series of virtue-signalling statements. I've noticed on issues like this, people tend to lean into opportunities to preach and attempt to one up each other.

I'm actually agnostic on this issue. The variables are so complicated that either side being true would not surprise me. Maybe it's the fact that I have no horse in this race (strictly sub watcher here), so I have nothing to gain from either side being correct. I might actually be slightly biased against the man, because I think his Broli kinda sucks.

Anyway... a series of accusations against one person doesn't look good at all, does it? On one hand, a number of probably independent sources (no way of knowing this) have various claims against him. This ought to be damning, right? Weellll, the sheer volume of claims ought to have produced some sort of video evidence. There seem to be many claims that he's short-tempered and pissy, and that he has a habit of assaulting and harrassing... and yet, where's the evidence? Shouldn't there be something? For the hours upon hours of convention footage, with thousands of people in attendance, all over a period of over 10 years, I would expect more damning data. All I've seen is tweets. In fact I saw a video of him acting creepy, but it turned out to be edited and made to have him look worse. Furthermore, if his fellow actors knew all along, then they are complicit for not turning him in, are they not? If I know someone is assaulting people, especially children, I don't care who you are. I'm reporting you... filming your misdeeds... something--I certainly wouldn't turn a blind eye and act like he's my best buddy, which Monica Rial objectively did by sending Vic a kissy emoji tweet back two months ago. Again, I'm not trying to take any sides, but that did actually happen.

I've also seen claims that saying that collusion to bring Vic down is a conspiracy theory. Ooh, that scary term. It's a linguistic bomb, but doesn't have any actual substance. All it means is the assertion that a group of people have come together with a common goal to fulfill an objective. Does that defintion sound as absurd as cOnSpiRaCy ThEoRy? I contend it certainly does not and frankly isn't all that unreasonable.

Let me dial back here... all of that conspiracy stuff is missing one important thing--motive. What possible reason could a group of people in this community have to make up claims just to bring an innocent man down? I find it unlikely, but not impossible. With the right motive, plenty of things can happen. Very few of us (if any) were there and have no more information than some tweets and various claims against him.


tl;dr human beings aren't as good at deciphering the truth as we think, so I pretty much have no clue what to think about this whole mess. I'm about 60/40 in favor of thinking he's guilty, but you honestly never know.


EDIT: Forgot to mention... if there is some kind of obvious evidence out there that I missed (super possible, I'm a big dummy), please set me right.

[eledoremassis02]

Wither guilty or not (i think it's pretty evernt some wont budge) we need to talk have a talk about Vic being a symptom of a larger problem, and that is the overal lack of saftey for con guests. Heck, it took jason david frank almost getting shot to implent prop checks and many conventions. This situation (true or false) needs to open a dialogue of preditors at conventions (and the farthest we've gotten is cosplay is not convent signs). We need adult supervision for minor guests and perhaps pannels on con safty. This is bigger then Vic and things need to change (and this isnt just anime conventions)

[WhowhoYouwho]

Well this is an auspicious start to my joining Kanzenshuu, but I feel this topic is important enough to risk setting a bad first impression with some people. I’ve been following this story since my friend told me about it (I believe this was after about 2 weeks of it going on, but I could be wrong) and have been vastly interested in it since. Part of this is my love of DB (duh), but also the psychological aspects of the whole situation. Outrage, disgust, confusion, indifference, they’re all here and in their extremes too.

I’ve been collecting info on the situation as I’ve gone on, and I believe I’ve been fair as I did so. Having what I have at the current moment, I’m leaning towards Vic being innocent regarding at least the more extreme claims against him (things like him being difficult behind the scenes I’m still not sure of to say one way or the other). I’ve come to this conclusion due to the many pieces of evidence against Vic being too vague, outlandish, or just plain fabricated as I explored them. I admit, I could be wrong. Selective exposure, confirmation bias, a bad anchor point, and more could be the reason I see things that way. I’m fully ready to admit I’m human and could be completely wrong about this situation.

Whether I am wrong or not, I am glad this situation is going to court. I want the truth to come out. If Vic if guilty, then let it be proven in court and have the consequences he deserves. If Vic is innocent, then let it be proven in court and let the accusers have their consequences. If it’s a mix of both, let it be proven in court and have each side exposed for what they really are. Whatever the case, I feel this turn of events could bring a true conclusion to this situation (though obviously not one to everyone’s liking).

If you feel I’m not being fair, truthful, or simply ignoring reality, then I hope we can discuss that in a clam, Socratic manner where we can come to better knowledge together. To show my want to be proven wrong if I am, I’ve put the link to the info I’ve collected so far as a google drive link (if that’s not allowed I can edit this to get rid of it). I’m hopeful that this extremely hostile and divisive period of the fandom, and the anime community in general, will eventually pass and let us enjoy our entertainment together again in harmony. Maybe we can then discuss other topics like “eledoremassis02” suggested, ones that are just as important, if not more so, and needing our attention. I hope that I haven’t come off as confrontational or uncaring in this post and wish to have many fun and interesting discussions on this forum in the future. Thank you for reading.

Google Drive Link to my collected info: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1mYJ658 ... sp=sharing

[Bryesque]

What's even the point of this thread now??? it seems like it's mostly been reduced to just political/social debates and what not since the majority of the stuff about Vic's conduct has already been revealed at length here. Just an honest observation.

Well, it seems like the thread has invariably devolved into a series of virtue-signalling statements. I've noticed on issues like this, people tend to lean into opportunities to preach and attempt to one up each other.

To be fair, any statement that's basically saying "I don't virtue signal" could itself be called... virtue signalling. Any belief that someone declares or publicly supports (even if that's a forceful "centrism") can be dismissed with that line all too easily, so it's not really helpful for anything but confirming the bias of the person using it.

[jjgp1112]

Man, a goddamn 500MB zip file better not be an assortment of batshit ass YouTube videos.

[Kunzait_83]

To be fair, any statement that's basically saying "I don't virtue signal" could itself be called... virtue signalling. Any belief that someone declares or supports (even if that's forceful "centrism") can be dismissed with that line all too easily, so it's not really helpful for anything but confirming the bias of the person using it.

Not only that, but the term "virtue signaling" itself is steeped in a particularly sociopathic framework: use of the term basically denotes a lack of belief in the sincerity of other people's concern for this subject. When you accuse someone of "virtue signaling", you're basically saying "I don't believe that you genuinely care about the people who are hurt here: I think you're only projecting the illusion that you care for purely self-serving reasons".

And while there certainly ARE indeed people out there who genuinely are guilty of doing that (making a loud, public display of disingenuously feigning concern for others so as to self-aggrandize their moral superiority: see a GREAT number of politicians, particularly those on the more conservative side of the political spectrum) - a clearly loaded term like "virtue signaling" being so casually thrown out with such careless abandon in almost EVERY instance and display of public goodwill and charity is basically an admission that one doubt's the sincerity of almost virtually ANYONE AND EVERYONE who shows the slightest ounce of concern or empathy for the well-being of others.

It often comes across like a case of sheer projection: "Well obviously I don't truly care about what horrible misfortune befalls others, so surely EVERYONE ELSE doesn't care either, so the only reason that so many people are acting like they care is because they're faking it to get something for themselves: because that's what I would do if I were them."

And the reality often is: no, plenty of people are often MORE than capable of showing genuine, sincere empathy and concern for the well-being of others without "getting something out of it" in return or "proving" some sort of asinine, childish "moral dominance". Often the people who throw around terms like "virtue signaling" at every other turn are ultimately saying WAY more about themselves and their own personal issues with feeling empathy for others than they are about the people that they're aiming the "virtue signaling" label at (who more often than not, very likely ARE just regular people who are genuinely concerned and are trying to look out for others who are hurting or vulnerable).

Its a kind of self-reinforcing fallacy where a person presumes that THEIR OWN lack of moral concern for others translates out onto the vast majority of everyone else around them: and while it obviously SOMETIMES certainly does in some cases, in a great many more cases overall it oftentimes actually doesn't. An average person, when confronted with another person who is clearly in some kind of personal pain (be it physical or emotional) will more often than not feel a genuine and natural sense of concern and a desire to help - those who do not are, generally speaking, the aberrations.

And one of the byproducts of the very nature of the internet is the particular kind of "personality types" it often attracts: namely a lot of very young, socially alienated guys with a lot of spectrum-based cognitive disorders (Aspergers, autism, bipolar, narcissistic personality disorder, manic depressives, etc) often with a history of having been victims of bullying growing up and who didn't have many friends or a lot of healthy social experience, and who are EXTREMELY overly self-conscious and deeply insecure about their "intellect" and how its perceived by others.

Pretty much EXACTLY the sorts of people who are innately predisposed to lacking any personal context or frame of reference throughout their lives for why or how anyone else could innately care so much about some faceless stranger who is going through some kind of personal pain, struggle, or tragedy.

[WhowhoYouwho]

To jjgp1112:
Yeah, sorry about the file size. I do have some videos in there (mostly to preserve them in case they get taken down), but for the most part I just have photos and a word doc that has links to a lot of videos and people's twitters who discuss the situation regularly. It's possible I should only keep the small videos to make it a smaller download, as the two big videos are probably fine and I'm just worrying over nothing about "preserving" them.

[miguelnuva1]

Once again if this is all a conspiracy againts Vic and these women are making up lies to attack him and take his jobs why him, why not Sabit for example. Sabit is in almost every funi dub and Broly is a guest character compared to Goku and Vegeta. Seems like he's the person who's job you would want to take.

[KBABZ]

Once again if this is all a conspiracy againts Vic and these women are making up lies to attack him and take his jobs why him, why not Sabit for example. Sabit is in almost every funi dub and Broly is a guest character compared to Goku and Vegeta. Seems like he's the person who's job you would want to take.

I agree, or target Sean as a much easier target due to his not-always-appropriate behaviour in the past. Aside from his fan club (which would arguably make it more difficult), Vic is hardly the best target if you were to try and defame a Funimation VO.

[Thanos]

words (sorry, I’m on mobile)

First of all, I’m not sure why you’re conflating removing emotionality from the situation with not having emotions at all. Of course I empathize and feel poorly for victims of assault. In fact, in my above post I expressed as such in saying that if I knew someone was victimizing others, I’d make it my mission to see they be brought to justice. You seem to have also ignored my statement that I lean slightly toward Vic being guilty of these charges. Buuut, my personal feelings are neither here nor there. Plain and simple.

Next, your premise that anyone who uses the term “virtue signal” is projecting their own issues and insecurities (and lack of morality???), I’m sorry to say, is an actual illusion and fabrication of your mind. How can you actually presume to have access to my inner thoughts based upon two words that I’ve used? Just amazing stuff. Does trying to put me in a box fulfill your superiority quota for the day as an apparently enlightened, 100% stable master of empathy and intellect?

You end your post mentioning the importance of empathy toward strangers as if I don’t 100% agree with you. When did I say “fuck feelings altogether in all situations because I’m (apparently) autistic?” Our positions really aren’t that different.

[Kunzait_83]

First of all, I’m not sure why you’re conflating removing emotionality from the situation with not having emotions at all. Of course I empathize and feel poorly for victims of assault. In fact, in my above post I expressed as such in saying that if I knew someone was victimizing others, I’d make it my mission to see they be brought to justice. You seem to have also ignored my statement that I lean slightly toward Vic being guilty of these charges. Buuut, my personal feelings are neither here nor there. Plain and simple.

Next, your premise that anyone who uses the term “virtue signal” is projecting their own issues and insecurities (and lack of morality???), I’m sorry to say, is an actual illusion and fabrication of your mind. How can you actually presume to have access to my inner thoughts based upon two words that I’ve used? Just amazing stuff. Does trying to put me in a box fulfill your superiority quota for the day as an apparently enlightened, 100% stable master of empathy and intellect?

You end your post mentioning the importance of empathy toward strangers as if I don’t 100% agree with you. When did I say “fuck feelings altogether in all situations because I’m (apparently) autistic?” Our positions really aren’t that different.

Switching to decaf might work wonders. I wasn't talking to you, or even about your post specifically: I was talking about the term "virtue signaling" itself and the predominance of its use online and in current culture and what it often signifies with most people overall who tend to casually throw around the term. Nowhere did I even VAGUELY reference your post specifically or anything relating to any of the substance that you said in it.

Though the fact that you seem to have had an apparently fairly delicate nerve rattled pretty hair-trigger easily by this might raise some questions and doesn't exactly make your rebuttal there come across as particularly convincing to a casual observer. I'm certainly not getting the slightest vibe of someone who is "removing their emotionality" from this discussion with a sudden and very hyper-defensively self-conscious snapback like that.

In fairness though, I do sort of get it: I was responding to a response to something you said, so I guess I can see how you might have thought I was going after you with that. I wasn't necessarily. Though there's certainly stuff you've said in that post that I very much disagree with, if I wanted to comment on it I'd simply tackle the meat of it very directly and go point by point through it: in case I haven't made it abundantly clear enough in just this thread alone, I'm not exactly shy about just bluntly telling someone up front that I think what they're saying is bullshit and why. I wasn't speaking to your post specifically though: I just have VAST issues with not only the term virtue signaling itself, but more specifically with the broader cultural context surrounding the rise of its use in online discourse.

On that note, as a general word of advice: given the broader social context and the clear connotations that the term "virtue signaling" has itself wrapped up in, I'd probably steer clear of using it in most circumstances, unless its for something where its VERY clearly and beyond blatantly warranted.

[Cursed Lemon]

Man, a goddamn 500MB zip file better not be an assortment of batshit ass YouTube videos.

I'm gonna save you the trouble and say "don't bother". Zero of it is evidence of anything, none of the actual accusations are included, it's just screenshots trying to make certain people involved look bad (why is there a random shot of Chris Sabat saying a homophobic slur from 2015 in there).

[Bryesque]

Next, your premise that anyone who uses the term “virtue signal” is projecting their own issues and insecurities (and lack of morality???), I’m sorry to say, is an actual illusion and fabrication of your mind. How can you actually presume to have access to my inner thoughts based upon two words that I’ve used?

This kind of proves the point, though - if it bothers you this much that someone else would make claims about your morals and inner thoughts, then you should hate using the term "virtue signalling" about anyone else, because making that claim is inferring that the person expressing a belief or standard isn't being genuine, or has selfish, vain, and/or deceitful motivations behind what they're saying. To use the term "virtue signal" about someone else is to "presume to have access to their inner thoughts" based solely on your own personal interpretation. The entire purpose of the term is to dismiss their argument and their intentions outright, almost always used in bad faith.

Basically, it's a garbage term and nobody who wants to have a genuine conversation should use it.

[Thanos]

Switching to decaf might work wonders.

You just can't help yourself in throwing out needlessly snipey comments, can you? While we're at it, you come across as a wholesale pretentious know-it-all. Learn that.

I wasn't talking to you, or even about your post specifically: I was talking about the term "virtue signaling" itself and the predominance of its use online and in current culture and what it often signifies with most people overall who tend to casually throw around the term. Nowhere did I even VAGUELY reference your post specifically or anything relating to any of the substance that you said in it.

Pardon me for responding to a post referencing a term I used only like three posts prior followed by a summary of stereotyping people who use it. Let's say you use the word 'onomatopoeia', and then two posts later I state, "onematopoeia is a terrible word and people who use it are completely autistic sociopaths. I feel sorry for them up here in my ivory tower, ohoho." I would most definitely expect a response from you. And seething as you like, I've just come after you. It was underhanded at best.

Though the fact that you seem to have had an apparently fairly delicate nerve rattled pretty hair-trigger easily by this might raise some questions and doesn't exactly make your rebuttal there come across as particularly convincing to a casual observer.

How have you inferred delicacy or hair-triggering? I responded beat-for-beat, as I tend to do when targeted (as it appeared at the time). You didn't see my face or my emotional state when making the post. Again, mind-reading.

In fairness though, I do sort of get it: I was responding to a response to something you said, so I guess I can see how you might have thought I was going after you with that. I wasn't necessarily. Though there's certainly stuff you've said in that post that I very much disagree with, if I wanted to comment on it I'd simply tackle the meat of it very directly and go point by point through it: in case I haven't made it abundantly clear enough in just this thread alone, I'm not exactly shy about just bluntly telling someone up front that I think what they're saying is bullshit and why. I wasn't speaking to your post specifically though: I just have VAST issues with not only the term virtue signaling itself, but more specifically with the broader cultural context surrounding the rise of its use in online discourse.

Well, I will concede that I am perhaps not well-versed in the history of the term. I tend not to pay much allowance to how words and terms are bastardized by very modern groups. Knowing what I know, I have similar issues with the way the term is thrown around, but I can honestly say I've never actually used the term until just now... though it must be said while we're talking of hair-triggers, that one was a doozy for you and a few others, no?

[WhowhoYouwho]

To Cursed Lemon:

I had a lot to say in response to you, and didn't want to flood the forum with it or and make everything look all crappy. Thus, I put my response in a word doc and have put a google drive link for you to look at it. I hope it doesn't come off as condescending or mean, I truly want us to have a good debate on the situation and the learn things from each other. Anyone else is of course welcomed to look at the response as well, as I feel I was able to communicate some of my thoughts on the situation in a manner that makes sense to others (if unfortunately more wordy than I would have liked). In any case, hope you have a good time, or at least not a bad time, reading it, and I know your response will be a good one !

Google Drive Link: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1IU8Ss9 ... sp=sharing

[Kunzait_83]

Pardon me for responding to a post referencing a term I used only like three posts prior

I acknowledged and took that into account within my last post. You yourself directly quoted and responded to that very part of it:

In fairness though, I do sort of get it: I was responding to a response to something you said, so I guess I can see how you might have thought I was going after you with that. I wasn't necessarily.

Yes I get it: you thought that my rundown of the term "virtue signaling" was a direct personal attack on you (and thus your own character) because I was responding to someone else's response to your use of the term. I just tried to explain to you that wasn't the case, and that you were jumping to conclusions. I apologize for not thinking to put some sort of disclaimer "Note: this isn't about Thanos' personal integrity/character, but about the broader issues with the term "virtue signaling" itself" - I thought that that was fairly self-evident, given the fact that I NOT ONCE referenced you or a single, solitary point you made in that post, and was responding to someone else entirely.

Trust me: if I wanted to insult you, I'd quote you directly, address you by name, and I'd make my intentions in NO WAY mistakable. Just like I've already done with several people within this very thread. I'm simply NOT a subtle person.

followed by a summary of stereotyping people who use it.

Yeah, no. What I wrote wasn't me "stereotyping" in the slightest. The term "virtue signaling" has a VERY recent (like we're talking only as recent as 2015 here) and extremely particular and distinctive history surrounding its use and prominence online within just the past few years. It has VERY solidly clear and distinct ties to a VERY particular strain of people in online discourse.

Contrary to what you might think, it isn't in any remote way some "innocently neutral" expression, nor has it been for the past 4 or 5 years now: when you use the term "virtue signaling" today, ESPECIALLY in a discussion surrounding a topic like "whether or not to believe victims of sexual assault", that has a VERY neon-blaringly loud and obvious set of connotations (with a VERY specific and clear political-slant) surrounding the framework and perspective that you are arguing your position from.

I find it difficult to believe that you're COMPLETELY and totally ignorant of that background and those connotations (considering that at this point, it is VERY common knowledge around most corners of the internet): but that being said however...

Well, I will concede that I am perhaps not well-versed in the history of the term. I tend not to pay much allowance to how words and terms are bastardized by very modern groups. Knowing what I know, I have similar issues with the way the term is thrown around, but I can honestly say I've never actually used the term until just now... though it must be said while we're talking of hair-triggers, that one was a doozy for you and a few others, no?

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you're being honest with me and are genuinely clueless of all the context.

Trust me then: if you don't want people to think that you're arguing your position from a VERY bad faith, malicious, and corrosively antagonistic perspective, then you simply DON'T want to just blithely throw that term around in 2019. ESPECIALLY within the context of a topic like this one. Its... not a good look. To put it mildly.

I would most definitely expect a response from you. And seething as you like, I've just come after you. It was underhanded at best.

Like I said before: I WASN'T coming after you. I don't know you from a hole in the wall, and honestly much of what you wrote before wasn't terribly interesting enough for me to comment on (See? Direct and unsubtle!). You jumped to conclusions, and I didn't put a disclaimer up front (which is my fault). I don't do "underhanded". I do blunt and unsubtle. As much as I loathe resorting to quote something like Firefly in the context of a dumb, petty internet dork squabble, there's a quote in there that best sums up my general philosophy when it comes to attacking someone (verbally or otherwise):

"If I ever kill you, you'll be awake, you'll be facing me, and you'll be armed."

How have you inferred delicacy or hair-triggering?

Oh I don't know: let's see.

In the previous "beat for beat" post, you REALLY ran pretty hard and extreme with the idea that somehow every single solitary word I just wrote was specifically talking about YOU as a person, despite the fact that, once again, you were NOT ONCE referenced or acknowledged in the absolute slightest, and like I said the term "virtue signaling" is simply NOT some neutral or generic turn of phrase, but one that has in the past few years come to have a very, very exactingly specific set of ideals and social context behind it (something which is not in any way some obscure factoid at this juncture).

Then on top of that, in this post of yours that I'm responding to right now you've now also added in:

Let's say you use the word 'onomatopoeia', and then two posts later I state, "onematopoeia is a terrible word and people who use it are completely autistic sociopaths. I feel sorry for them up here in my ivory tower, ohoho."

And...

You just can't help yourself in throwing out needlessly snipey comments, can you? While we're at it, you come across as a wholesale pretentious know-it-all. Learn that.

Yeah gee, why oh why WOULD I have inferred delicacy or hair-triggering? Call it a hunch.

[Thanos]

Let's say you use the word 'onomatopoeia', and then two posts later I state, "onematopoeia is a terrible word and people who use it are completely autistic sociopaths. I feel sorry for them up here in my ivory tower, ohoho."

And...

You just can't help yourself in throwing out needlessly snipey comments, can you? While we're at it, you come across as a wholesale pretentious know-it-all. Learn that.

Yeah gee, why oh why WOULD I have inferred delicacy or hair-triggering? Call it a hunch.

Uhh, you said I was hair-triggered before even making those statements. And they were specifically made in response to your various underhanded comments. So is responding when I'm attacked considering being hair-triggered? I'm sorry, let me just sit here and take it while you go after my character (as it appeared to me at the time, which evidently wasn't the case). Again, this whole exchange seems to be predicated on a misunderstanding, so I would be totally cool with nipping this in the bud here and now. It's probably more productive going forward to engage discourse which highlights common ground as opposed to nuanced differences in approach, wouldn't you say? I'm far from being a alt-right Vic apologist, as you know. I'm simply invested in getting down to the bottom of this issue because honestly it's just kind of fascinating (and being able to see justice served for potential victims if he is guilty would of course be a nice bonus).