Vic Mignogna

[Doctor.]

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.

I'm replying to this because it's an interesting point. Legally, yes. I don't think you're ethically responsible for a stranger's life, no matter the circumstance. We should strive to do good, for an altruistic and empathetic society benefits even the selfish, but you are not responsible for others if you mind your own business. You're not responsible for the homeless man who died because you didn't give him money to buy food; you're not responsible for the drunk driver's murder because you saw him get in the car and didn't stop him; and you're certainly not responsible for any possible real-world effects of what someone you're arguing with on the internet is saying. On a micro-level, you are responsible for yourself, your family and, to a certain extent, your friends.

[ABED]

Zephyr, I hear you, but the difference is the drowning kid is in need of objectively immediate action with specific concrete measures that will save the kid's life.

I can't speak to each individual case, but very often the people taking the "innocent until proven guilty" stance are people who bring up "freedom of speech" in contexts that have nothing to do with government action. Yes, they're wrong, but unless I know the specific reason, which could just be ignorance of how government works, I can't make a judgment of their character.

[PFM18]

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.

What are you talking about? I have no idea who you could even be responding to let alone the point you're trying to refute.

[Captain Awesome]

Falacy of authority appeal. You're not better than those who disagree with you just because you work with laws.

You’re right, I’m not better than you because of my degree. I’m better than you because I’ve actually read the relevant laws.

You could right now go and find the crimes act or corresponding criminal statute (and its procedures) in your jurisdiction and educate yourself and while your there get the Judge’s handbook to get an idea around permissible directions to the jury during a sexual assault case.

Now that I think of it you could also do some research with your state or federal statistics body and see how sexual assault cases are under reported and rarely brought to trial even when they are.

You could do this all for free.

But you won’t. Because idiots like you would rather upchuck indefensible misogynist garbage under the guise of “logic” than just acknowledge the power disparity between men and women, and how a legal system largely built by men does little to compensate for that dynamic.

[KBABZ]

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.

Probably the same place those people who got James Gunn fired meet up, I'd imagine.

[WittyUsername]

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.

Probably the same place those people who got James Gunn fired meet up, I'd imagine.

In the case of James Gunn, that actually was a coordinated effort by trolls like Mike Cernovich. They dug up his old tweets specifically in the hopes that Disney would fire him, presumably as “retribution” for Roseanne Barr’s firing.

[Kunzait_83]

See: the people who got James Gunn fired.

That would be Mike Cernovich: an alt-right, MRA figure who only singled out Gunn due to his MCU ties (and the MCU's popularity among mainstream left-leaning people by extension) as well as various political comments Gunn has made before. When I went on earlier about:

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

Guys like Cernovich are the exact poster children of that description. And if Cernovich were in this discussion right now, it is with an absolute, utmost certainty he'd be arguing in favor of Mignogna's innocence and pillorying the accusers as "lying whores" and whatnot.

[WittyUsername]

Guys like Cernovich are the exact poster children of that description. And if Cernovich were in this discussion right now, it is with an absolute, utmost certainty he'd be arguing in favor of Mignogna's innocence and pillorying the accusers as "lying whores" and whatnot.

I think that depends on Mignogna’s politics. Do we know anything about his political beliefs other than that he’s a devout Christian?

[Kunzait_83]

That depends on Mignogna’s politics. Do we know anything about his political beliefs other than that he’s a devout Christian?

That's a totally fair point. I've no clue (nor do I give a rat's ass) about what Mignogna's politics are myself. But unless Mignogna was a staunch lefty - or is at least largely perceived as one - like Gunn was, then my point still stands that Cernovich (and his ilk) would unquestionably rally to his defense and use every gutterslime tactic imaginable to vitriolically smear his accusers on sheer, reflexive principal alone. If however Mignogna WERE some kind of hardline leftist of whatever degree (or again, at least publicly seen as one), then yeah, a guy like Cernovich would be jumping all over this story to help crucify him (regardless of its veracity): albeit with TOTALLY disingenuous fake-sympathy for the accusers.

And for those who think I'm exaggerating, rest assured: this guy is indeed THAT much of a complete and utter sociopath and dishonest actor.

[ShadowBardock89]

And for those who think I'm exaggerating, rest assured: this guy is indeed THAT much of a complete and utter sociopath and dishonest actor.

I think anyone, ANYONE, with thinking brain cells will agree that this man is a piece of animal excrement. Yuck!

[JulieYBM]

Boys and girls, don't put your cocks on the backnof strangers' necks.

--Julie

[Zephyr]

I'm replying to this because it's an interesting point. Legally, yes. I don't think you're ethically responsible for a stranger's life, no matter the circumstance. We should strive to do good, for an altruistic and empathetic society benefits even the selfish, but you are not responsible for others if you mind your own business. You're not responsible for the homeless man who died because you didn't give him money to buy food; you're not responsible for the drunk driver's murder because you saw him get in the car and didn't stop him; and you're certainly not responsible for any possible real-world effects of what someone you're arguing with on the internet is saying. On a micro-level, you are responsible for yourself, your family and, to a certain extent, your friends.

If a certain action has a certain consequence, and I perform that action, then I am absolutely responsible for that consequence. Not necessarily as a matter of legality or ethics, but purely as a matter of cause and effect. In a metaphysical sense, I am (important to note: in part) causally responsible for every single one of those examples you mention. This is in no way up for debate if you believe in cause and effect.

Now, am I ethically responsible in these examples? Put another way, do I have an obligation to prevent others from starving? Do I have an obligation to reduce the chances of murder occurring? Do I have an obligation to help someone recognize the logistical errors in their beliefs, and their justifications for those beliefs? That's obviously less cut and dry. In each case, it depends. Every action has consequences, both positive and negative, and we have to weigh them.

If my giving the homeless man food or money would result in myself, or someone who more consistently and directly depends on me, starving instead, it wouldn't make sense to say I have such an obligation. However, if it's a meager amount of money that would in no way impact my ability to put food on the table, then it's unclear why "minding my own business" in this case would be ethically sound.

If my trying to stop a drunk person from driving would clearly result in something worse, or just as bad, happening, then it wouldn't make sense to say I have such an obligation. However, if there are no perceivable negative consequences, then it's unclear why letting someone drive drunk, and even only maybe kill someone, would be ethically sound.

If my trying to explain to someone why the justification they provide for their assertion does not actually justify their assertion, results in me not getting to work on time, or cooking dinner for my children, or completing a homework assignment, then it wouldn't make sense to say that I have such an obligation. However, if I'm doing this in my free time, and I'm more knowledgeable on the subject matter than the other party appears to be, and I'm more experienced in sniffing out bullshit than the other party appears to be, and I'm more accustomed to the ins and outs of properly justifying beliefs (ie: logical reasoning) than the other party appears to be, and if these beliefs are of a certain nature that will result in them supporting and contributing to harmful political movements, then it's unclear why "minding my own business" would be ethically sound.

Broadly speaking, in so far as I am able to prevent (or contribute to) something, and it does not inhibit my ability to prevent (or contribute to) other things that I am already obligated to prevent (or contribute to), then I do indeed have an obligation to prevent (or contribute to) those things. I'm aware that this has very inconvenient and discomforting implications. Most people aren't doing things when they could be, and bad shit happens as a result. Yes, there's only so much time in the day; however, there's a difference between saying "there's only so much one individual can do, so why bother?" and saying "there's only so much one individual can do, but we have to do as much as we can".

It's one thing to assert that "we only have an obligation to ourselves and those we are close to", but it's another thing entirely to actually justify that assertion.

[WittyUsername]

And for those who think I'm exaggerating, rest assured: this guy is indeed THAT much of a complete and utter sociopath and dishonest actor.

I think anyone, ANYONE, with thinking brain cells will agree that this man is a piece of animal excrement. Yuck!

At the very least, he was responsible for the greatest AMA in the history of Reddit (https://www.avclub.com/mike-cernovichs- ... 1821539564).

[coola]

Seems like it might be the end of Mignogna carrer in Funimation https://twitter.com/NeKap/status/1092430306739511297

Monica Rial
‏This behavior has been going on for 15+ years. We’re not going to allow it anymore.

[ruler9871]

[ABED]

I'd warn people to steer clear of him.

[ruler9871]

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

People have been saying this stuff about him for years, long before #MeToo.

[Doctor.]

then it's unclear why "minding my own business" in this case would be ethically sound.

Why is it not? You certainly don't know if your good intentions will have any negative repercussions. It is preferable to save yourself the consequences your direct actions may have than it is to save yourself the consequences that come indirectly, no? It is absolutely preferable to act in your own self-interest in the choice between action and inaction, and acknowledge this fact, as opposed to falling for the pretense of fulfilling a higher cause and deal with the moral responsibility you've brought upon yourself.

The counter-argument would be, as I said above, "an altruistic and empathetic society is good even to the selfish," but what does that matter when applied to individualized examples such as this?

And no, I am not an egoist anarchist before you ask.

[ruler9871]

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.

Vic Mignogna is guilty, but the claim that false rape accusations are "rare" (especially when it comes to wealthy males and African American males) is clearly bullshit: https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/20 ... ed-studie/
https://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/ec ... pe-culture
https://slate.com/human-interest/2014/0 ... appen.html

[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.

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."

It's still a falacy. He said that sexual harassment cases are very difficult and I actually agree with that, but this doesn't refutate any kind of skeptical vision about those cases.

And yeah, a lot of people have corroborated the stuff about Vic. I never said he is innocent, he being guilty is a strong possibility, but again, a possibility, and not a true and proved fact until now.

Falacy of authority appeal. You're not better than those who disagree with you just because you work with laws.

You’re right, I’m not better than you because of my degree. I’m better than you because I’ve actually read the relevant laws.

You could right now go and find the crimes act or corresponding criminal statute (and its procedures) in your jurisdiction and educate yourself and while your there get the Judge’s handbook to get an idea around permissible directions to the jury during a sexual assault case.

Now that I think of it you could also do some research with your state or federal statistics body and see how sexual assault cases are under reported and rarely brought to trial even when they are.

You could do this all for free.

But you won’t. Because idiots like you would rather upchuck indefensible misogynist garbage under the guise of “logic” than just acknowledge the power disparity between men and women, and how a legal system largely built by men does little to compensate for that dynamic.

It's still a falacy. And also, I'm here to hear arguments, and not hear "I'm superior to you because I read laws" bullshit. You calling me an idiot actually proves my point. You do not want to discuss, you want to silence and snub any kind of different opinion.