Vic Mignogna

[Broly深蓝]

Lol as if all “dark-skinned” people were the same color

I don’t think she was making a reference to anyone like that

[MasenkoHA]

Lol as if all “dark-skinned” people were the same color

I don’t think she was making a reference to anyone like that

She wasn’t. She was mocking some shitty third rate #IStandWithVic lawyer who proudly wore black face

[SaintEvolution]

We have literal photos of Mic Vignogna touching little girls across a decade. We have testimonies out the horse shitter from both fans, con staff and his colleagues. When a goddamn mother fuckin' adult repeats the same mistake for decades it isn't a mistake it's a certifiable declaration that he is a sociopathic piece of shit.

There are a lot of different sociopathic behaviors. Being a pedophile is not the only one kind of sociopathic behavior.
There are also different levels of sociopathic behaviors.

He maybe is a sociopath, that is a possibility. But until now, what with we have, he is not a pedo.

"Sure, he touches little girls in inappropriate ways but that doesn't make him a sociopath and a pedophile, just a sociopath!"

I could argue that, but it will just be a loop of what other users said before in this same topic.
But no, he is not a pedophile. Not for what we know until now. If kiss some child/teenager in the cheek makes him a pedophile, so every european and south american dad is a pedophile as well, witch is obviously not true.

That not excuses Vic from anything he did, also since he is not in Italy or in Angentina. But he is not a pedophile.
We can say Scott Freeman is a pedophile, but the same doesn't apply to Vic as far as we know. You hating him so much doesn't change that.

[MasenkoHA]

He’s not a pedophile because as far as we know he’s not attracted to little kids

[Broly深蓝]

Lol every culture knows what is wrong and what is right. That is a terrible excuse.

[Fionordequester]

And point about Marchi is her own credibility. Even if she was harassed, it still looks bad and immature for her to doing this kind of tweet.
It's the kind of thing that makes her lose credibility, even if her version of the entire thing is the true one.

...You really don't seem to get how bad sexual assault is.

Just imagine me getting beaten up to the point of hospitalization by the High School jock and his friends. Then imagine me trying to tell the school principle, only to have him criticize me for "using bad language" in regards to those punks... Then, since he was so disgusted by my "rudeness", he decides that there's no point in listening to me...

That's about how ridiculous your statement would sound to a survivor of sexual assault. Now if you don't believe her, fine. But don't qualify your statement with "even if her version of the entire thing is true" if you're going to make your point.

[Polyphase Avatron]

We have literal photos of Mic Vignogna touching little girls across a decade. We have testimonies out the horse shitter from both fans, con staff and his colleagues. When a goddamn mother fuckin' adult repeats the same mistake for decades it isn't a mistake it's a certifiable declaration that he is a sociopathic piece of shit.

There are a lot of different sociopathic behaviors. Being a pedophile is not the only one kind of sociopathic behavior.
There are also different levels of sociopathic behaviors.

He maybe is a sociopath, that is a possibility. But until now, what with we have, he is not a pedo.

"Sure, he touches little girls in inappropriate ways but that doesn't make him a sociopath and a pedophile, just a sociopath!"

Just out of curiosity, where is that picture from?

[Fionordequester]

Another thing.. we're not saying Mignogna is a liar. There's a good chance that what he said are his honest feelings. If asked, he would probably give you what he thought was the truth; that he truly did not.

...That does NOT mean he's innocent. That just means he believes his own nonsense.

Despite being Christian, he was comfortable cheating on the woman he was engaged to. This we know for a fact. The Bible gave him a clear cut commandment on what was right, his body wanted to do what was wrong, and so he justified VIOLATING ONE OF THE 10 COMMANDMENTS to do what his body wanted.

So how could he not have done the same thing to all the women whom he's hurt? We've already seen what wins when it's his Bible vs. his Body, haven't we? Perhaps as long as he didn't actually "do anything" (whatever "do anything" means), that he was in the clear? That his only sin was being "too affectionate"?

Don't let his tears blind you. Don't ignore all these women just because Vic is hurt. Look at all the accusations there've been for more than a decade. Look at what he's already admitted to. Look at the photos. Consider how "sexual assault" falls under what's already a proven weak spot for him (his penis). Consider how badly Monica Rial and others have been harassed on their Twitter feeds; and notice how overwhelmingly positive most of Youtube's channels are towards him. Monica and her friends practically got a bulls-eye on their head, and have gotten nothing in return.

Why would they do that to themselves, unless they thought Vic's crimes were serious enough to be worth the heartache?

[Dr. Casey]

There are a lot of different sociopathic behaviors. Being a pedophile is not the only one kind of sociopathic behavior.
There are also different levels of sociopathic behaviors.

He maybe is a sociopath, that is a possibility. But until now, what with we have, he is not a pedo.

"Sure, he touches little girls in inappropriate ways but that doesn't make him a sociopath and

Just out of curiosity, where is that picture from?

That's from Hugtto Precure, the Precure series that aired last year.

[Kunzait_83]

And point about Marchi is her own credibility. Even if she was harassed, it still looks bad and immature for her to doing this kind of tweet.
It's the kind of thing that makes her lose credibility, even if her version of the entire thing is the true one.

...You really don't seem to get how bad sexual assault is.

Just imagine me getting beaten up to the point of hospitalization by the High School jock and his friends. Then imagine me trying to tell the school principle, only to have him criticize me for "using bad language" in regards to those punks... Then, since he was so disgusted by my "rudeness", he decides that there's no point in listening to me...

That's about how ridiculous your statement would sound to a survivor of sexual assault. Now if you don't believe her, fine. But don't qualify your statement with "even if her version of the entire thing is true" if you're going to make your point.

Do you really need to prove you're a nice person before you're allowed to say you've been harassed?

If so... is it any wonder why the #MeToo movement has gained so much traction?

Jamie Marchi has been pretty vocal as a supporter of the KickVic campaign which she wanted head's and ball's but if that wasn't bad enough, one of her more recent comments came out rather really offensive and racist. She compared dark-skinned folks (of African/Arab/Indian/Asian ancestry) to, well, just read below.



Yet she still has fans who'll vouch for her. Sigh.

Twitter has a lot of flaws but the stupidity and immaturity of its users, that's not Twitter's fault. The KickVic supporters keep on giving more proof of how unstable they are.

I don't see the comparrsion in her tweet.

Yeah, I'm pretty lost on that one too. I mean yeah that was horrendously offensive what she said but that doesn't justify her being sexually harassed.

When it comes to victim-blaming psychology, there's an incredibly old, well-worn "trope" of sorts known as "The Perfect Victim Fallacy". Basically it means that when someone is looking for ANY kind of an "out" for the perpetrator in their own minds, no matter how ridiculously flimsy, they'll over-scrutinize EVERY aspect of the victim's personal life, and if they find that the victim isn't a flawless saint of a human being in just about every single facet of life, then it MUST therefore mean that they're lying and the perpetrator is in fact innocent.

Its an extremely loaded premise, because literally NO ONE on the planet is "perfect" enough to meet the criteria: almost EVERYONE gets "short" and temperamental with someone in a heated-enough conversation (which yeah, if the conversation is about your own sexual assault, is GONNA get pretty damn heated for sure), no one has 100% perfect manners in 24/7 in ALL aspects of life, people are fundamentally flawed to their core.

An unreasonable amount of onus is put on the VICTIM to be absolutely, 100% flawless at all times and any SLIGHT deviation from what is perceived as (in the mind of a victim-blaming onlooker at least) completely and utterly perfect morality is seen as an "Ah HA!" gotcha moment to show that "Well if this person doesn't have their 'please' and 'thank yous' in PERFECT order, then they MUST therefore be a malicious liar trying to smear the good name of the innocent accused individual!"

Its not only an easy mental "escape hatch" for people that are in-denial about an accused's guilt (no matter how obvious it is), its also oftentimes an indicator of an almost puritanical and child-like ethical worldview: which is ultimately what's at the heart of victim-blaming. Its tied deeply into a much broader psychological issue known as the "Just World Fallacy" a self-delusion that many people willfully believe in as a coping mechanism which indicates that "everyone deserves and is somehow responsible for whatever bad things might happen to them in life". Which of course is fundamentally not true at all.

For more reading on both the "perfect victim" and "just world" fallacies, click the following links:

The Psychology of Victim Blaming by Kayleigh Roberts for The Atlantic

A quick and dirty overview on the topic by Claire Andre and Manuel Velasquez for The Markkula Center for Applied Ethics at Santa Clara University

A much more thorough research paper by John T. Jost (Department of Psychology at NYU), Mahzarin R. Banaji (Department of Psychology at both The Radcliffe Institute for Advanced Study and at Harvard University), and Brian A Nosek (Department of Psychology at The University of Virginia)

Another quick historical rundown of the Just World Fallacy by David McRaney

[Kokonoe]

And point about Marchi is her own credibility. Even if she was harassed, it still looks bad and immature for her to doing this kind of tweet.
It's the kind of thing that makes her lose credibility, even if her version of the entire thing is the true one.

...You really don't seem to get how bad sexual assault is.

Just imagine me getting beaten up to the point of hospitalization by the High School jock and his friends. Then imagine me trying to tell the school principle, only to have him criticize me for "using bad language" in regards to those punks... Then, since he was so disgusted by my "rudeness", he decides that there's no point in listening to me...

That's about how ridiculous your statement would sound to a survivor of sexual assault. Now if you don't believe her, fine. But don't qualify your statement with "even if her version of the entire thing is true" if you're going to make your point.

Do you really need to prove you're a nice person before you're allowed to say you've been harassed?

If so... is it any wonder why the #MeToo movement has gained so much traction?

I don't see the comparrsion in her tweet.

Yeah, I'm pretty lost on that one too. I mean yeah that was horrendously offensive what she said but that doesn't justify her being sexually harassed.

When it comes to victim-blaming psychology, there's an incredibly old, well-worn "trope" of sorts known as "The Perfect Victim Fallacy". Basically it means that when someone is looking for ANY kind of an "out" for the perpetrator in their own minds, no matter how ridiculously flimsy, they'll over-scrutinize EVERY aspect of the victim's personal life, and if they find that the victim isn't a flawless saint of a human being in just about every single facet of life, then it MUST therefore mean that they're lying and the perpetrator is in fact innocent.

Its an extremely loaded premise, because literally NO ONE on the planet is "perfect" enough to meet the criteria: almost EVERYONE gets "short" and temperamental with someone in a heated-enough conversation (which yeah, if the conversation is about your own sexual assault, is GONNA get pretty damn heated for sure), no one has 100% perfect manners in 24/7 in ALL aspects of life, people are fundamentally flawed to their core.

An unreasonable amount of onus is put on the VICTIM to be absolutely, 100% flawless at all times and any SLIGHT deviation from what is perceived as (in the mind of a victim-blaming onlooker at least) completely and utterly perfect morality is seen as an "Ah HA!" gotcha moment to show that "Well if this person doesn't have their 'please' and 'thank yous' in PERFECT order, then they MUST therefore be a malicious liar trying to smear the good name of the innocent accused individual!"

Its not only an easy mental "escape hatch" for people that are in-denial about an accused's guilt (no matter how obvious it is), its also oftentimes an indicator of an almost puritanical and child-like ethical worldview: which is ultimately what's at the heart of victim-blaming. Its tied deeply into a much broader psychological issue known as the "Just World Fallacy" a self-delusion that many people willfully believe in as a coping mechanism which indicates that "everyone deserves and is somehow responsible for whatever bad things might happen to them in life". Which of course is fundamentally not true at all.

For more reading on both the "perfect victim" and "just world" fallacies, click the following links:

The Psychology of Victim Blaming by Kayleigh Roberts for The Atlantic

A quick and dirty overview on the topic by Claire Andre and Manuel Velasquez for The Markkula Center for Applied Ethics at Santa Clara University

A much more thorough research paper by John T. Jost (Department of Psychology at NYU), Mahzarin R. Banaji (Department of Psychology at both The Radcliffe Institute for Advanced Study and at Harvard University), and Brian A Nosek (Department of Psychology at The University of Virginia)

Another quick historical rundown of the Just World Fallacy by David McRaney

Bravo. Very well put.

[TKA]

I like how you ignored me saying 1 or 2 people with changing stories vs several more women with constant stories against Vic.

Hi. I don't need to quote your entire post and make the page even longer to scroll through.

You took my post too literally. I used "rapist" as an analogy. I could also say "just because someone is a serial killer doesn't mean they kill everyone they see."

Predators like MJ choose their victims. Safechuck and Wade have literally nothing to gain except stress, and harassment by coming out this late and after Michael Jackson died.

As for your "weird things," according to them, he would have them bend over and spread their cheeks so he could insert his tongue into their anuses, and masturbate. Both also recounted that he performed oral sex on them and they did the same to him. Wade specifically recounted 2 occasions where MJ tried to penetrate him with his penis.

So this goes far past "weird things".

[SaintEvolution]

And point about Marchi is her own credibility. Even if she was harassed, it still looks bad and immature for her to doing this kind of tweet.
It's the kind of thing that makes her lose credibility, even if her version of the entire thing is the true one.

...You really don't seem to get how bad sexual assault is.

Just imagine me getting beaten up to the point of hospitalization by the High School jock and his friends. Then imagine me trying to tell the school principle, only to have him criticize me for "using bad language" in regards to those punks... Then, since he was so disgusted by my "rudeness", he decides that there's no point in listening to me...

That's about how ridiculous your statement would sound to a survivor of sexual assault. Now if you don't believe her, fine. But don't qualify your statement with "even if her version of the entire thing is true" if you're going to make your point.

I know how sexual assault is bad, but I have an especific mistrust with Rial and Marchi's stories. Not with most of others, but with theirs, since I've saw some of their previous personal interaction with Vic before (witch doesn't apply to what he did with unknown women in cons, for example, and I believe those women). Also, I didn't called her as a liar, I don't know if she is a liar. I just prefer the facts to being cleared in court.

And, I need to say, but Twitter and other social media will never be the best places to talk about this kind of stuff. Never. Being rude in social media is different of being rude in real social interaction.

Also, my answer is valid to other users that quoted this comment as well.

[The Tori-bot]

I will go out on a limb here and say, I personally don't buy into Robson and Safechuck's claims and I find them extremely fictitious.

I'm glad you're here to share your impartial viewpoint rooted firmly in logic and critical thinking. Nice avatar.

Bansho64, I couldn't agree more. I have many reasons to believe that neither of them are telling the truth in addition to the fact that there would be far more victims coming forward if Jackson was a predator. Vic made that clear when he was accused numerous times by his students and colleagues.

Tori-Bot, that was completely uncalled for. Grow up.

We've established before that you are happy to argue against the most basic of math, but you don't hear me telling you to go back to primary school. I stand by my glib sarcasm. The fact that you seem to take more issue with me being rude to a Michael Jackson fan than literally anything else in this thread is enough to convince me that I should probably seek advice on how to "grow up" outside of an environment such as a kids' cartoon forum.

[JulieYBM]

I know how sexual assault is bad, but I have an especific mistrust with Rial and Marchi's stories. Not with most of others, but with theirs, since I've saw some of their previous personal interaction with Vic before (witch doesn't apply to what he did with unknown women in cons, for example, and I believe those women). Also, I didn't called her as a liar, I don't know if she is a liar. I just prefer the facts to being cleared in court.

And, I need to say, but Twitter and other social media will never be the best places to talk about this kind of stuff. Never. Being rude in social media is different of being rude in real social interaction.

Also, my answer is valid to other users that quoted this comment as well.

"Listen, Rosa, doing this in public is not a good idea. Go to court first. Wait for your day. You have to be patient! Besides, it's just a bus seat!!"

[Fionordequester]

I know how sexual assault is bad, but I have an especific mistrust with Rial and Marchi's stories. Not with most of others, but with theirs, since I've saw some of their previous personal interaction with Vic before (which doesn't apply to what he did with unknown women in cons, for example, and I believe those women).

If you knew how sexual assault was bad, you wouldn't follow that up with "I saw some of their previous personal interactions with Vic".

Again, most victims would prefer to pretend everything's ok...for a little while, at least. They prefer to stay silent and shut up precisely because of what's happening now. They don't want to see their assailant's face in court, they don't want people poking and prodding them about what happened, and they don't want to ruin a man's life if they're not 100% sure they meant badly.

Hence, they sit on their stories until they start hearing about how other people have suffered the same way. Maybe it's their sister that's ALSO being harassed by the same person. Maybe it's their friends who're also being mistreated by their colleague. Or, in Monica Rial's case, maybe it's when they hear all kinds of anonymous stories about other folks who've been victimized by Mignogna.

Regardless, it's only then that they'll finally have the courage to speak out. When they realize others are suffering the same way they are, and will continue to do so till they've spoken up.

[JulieYBM]

When you're in an abusive relationship with no out you learn to make excuses to yourself simply to be able to function. "It'll stop!" you try to convince yourself. "They're just under a lot of pressure!" you rationalize. You can't get out but you want to. How are you going to operate if not under the guise of simply not acknowledging it? Then...you snap. You can't hold it back anymore. You cannot lie to yourself anymore. The pent up trauma from the abuse numbs you first then when you realize how it's affected your own ability to socialize with others and yourself you snap. Shatter. Break. Your heart rots and festers in that rot until you resent the source of abuse with every fiber of your being and find yourself with two options: destroy it or kill yourself.

#KickVic is about deciding to destroy it and take back their smiles.

[Gligarman]

We've established before that you are happy to argue against the most basic of math, but you don't hear me telling you to go back to primary school. I stand by my glib sarcasm. The fact that you seem to take more issue with me being rude to a Michael Jackson fan than literally anything else in this thread is enough to convince me that I should probably seek advice on how to "grow up" outside of an environment such as a kids' cartoon forum.

The only thing we've established is that you're incapable of making a valid point so you resort to hurling insults like an irate child. How about just not being rude at all? Why take issue with a Michael Jackson fan defending someone they admire from being compared to an actual sexual predator?

[SaintEvolution]

I know how sexual assault is bad, but I have an especific mistrust with Rial and Marchi's stories. Not with most of others, but with theirs, since I've saw some of their previous personal interaction with Vic before (which doesn't apply to what he did with unknown women in cons, for example, and I believe those women).

If you knew how sexual assault was bad, you wouldn't follow that up with "I saw some of their previous personal interactions with Vic".

Again, most victims would prefer to pretend everything's ok...for a little while, at least. They prefer to stay silent and shut up precisely because of what's happening now. They don't want to see their assailant's face in court, they don't want people poking and prodding them about what happened, and they don't want to ruin a man's life if they're not 100% sure they meant badly.

Hence, they sit on their stories until they start hearing about how other people have suffered the same way. Maybe it's their sister that's ALSO being harassed by the same person. Maybe it's their friends who're also being mistreated by their colleague. Or, in Monica Rial's case, maybe it's when they hear all kinds of anonymous stories about other folks who've been victimized by Mignogna.

Regardless, it's only then that they'll finally have the courage to speak out. When they realize others are suffering the same way they are, and will continue to do so till they've spoken up.

Marchi and Rial's didn't pretended they were ok just for 'a little'. They interacted for years and years with Vic as being good friends with him, in many times. If someone harasses you and you pretend to 'be okay', it's weird to comment kissy faces in that person's photos, exactly as Rial did. At least, you would try to show indiference to the abuser (is what I saw from the victims in the most sexual abuse cases that I know), but that was not what I saw from both of them, Marchi and Rial. I did not saw indiference, but a very friendly behavior with him, before this entire thing.

But, okay, I was not there to see their personal interactions in reality. I will never say, with we have now, that they two are liars, but different of the anonymous women that talked about it, that I actually believe, I prefer to be neutral with them two.

I can believe most of the anonymous women that talked about that in the last weeks because their words didn't seemed to have any incoherence and they have nothing to really gain if they are lying about it; and even Vic apologized to them admiting his bad behavior.
But is not the especific case with Rial and Marchi, I'm sorry. Again, I will wait the court for their cases, and then, say something more explicit about it.

I know how sexual assault is bad, but I have an especific mistrust with Rial and Marchi's stories. Not with most of others, but with theirs, since I've saw some of their previous personal interaction with Vic before (witch doesn't apply to what he did with unknown women in cons, for example, and I believe those women). Also, I didn't called her as a liar, I don't know if she is a liar. I just prefer the facts to being cleared in court.

And, I need to say, but Twitter and other social media will never be the best places to talk about this kind of stuff. Never. Being rude in social media is different of being rude in real social interaction.

Also, my answer is valid to other users that quoted this comment as well.

"Listen, Rosa, doing this in public is not a good idea. Go to court first. Wait for your day. You have to be patient! Besides, it's just a bus seat!!"

You are being ironic, but actually that is the correct choice. Search for the law instead of publishing it on Twitter before.
As the law do it's job, the public repercussion naturally appears, and the criminals are punished.

I agree that many crime victims are afraid of some consequences, and because of that they don't call the authorities. But looking for the other side, the extremist/aggressive/mob behavior that you approve in those cases doesn't help this reality to be fixed, it just makes it worse.

Also, Rosa Parks's fights and legal context were totally different of the mob mentality that happens today with internet.
She was a brave woman, and your unhappy and ironical comparison is totally out of proportion.

[XanatosVanBadass]

We've established before that you are happy to argue against the most basic of math, but you don't hear me telling you to go back to primary school. I stand by my glib sarcasm. The fact that you seem to take more issue with me being rude to a Michael Jackson fan than literally anything else in this thread is enough to convince me that I should probably seek advice on how to "grow up" outside of an environment such as a kids' cartoon forum.

The only thing we've established is that you're incapable of making a valid point so you resort to hurling insults like an irate child. How about just not being rude at all? Why take issue with a Michael Jackson fan defending someone they admire from being compared to an actual sexual predator?

Because your views are based entirely on your emotions rather than looking at the man honestly. Thus, it’s hard for others to find any value in your perspective. I mean, I talked to someone who was a dub fan and he told me (I’m paraphrasing here) he didn’t care if Vic is guilty or not. He wants Mr. Mañana to get away with it so the feminists will cry. Shitty as that guy may be, he’s at least honest with himself. I respect that more than someone pretending.

Anyway, https://cnn.it/2TDsS55

The Simpsons staff is planning to pull the MJ episode from reruns, streaming, and physical media in the future. Not sure how I feel about this. I get removing it from reruns, but I think it’s wrong to keep it from people who might WANT to watch it. It’s a part of the show’s history, right or wrong.

This does potentially reopen the conversation about whether or not they will recast Broly in the new movie or the old trilogy.

You are being ironic, but actually that is the correct choice. Search for the law instead of publishing it on Twitter before.
As the law do it's job, the public repercussion naturally appears, and the criminals are punished.

I agree that many crime victims are afraid of some consequences, and because of that they don't call the authorities. But looking for the other side, the extremist/aggressive/mob behavior that you approve in those cases doesn't help this reality to be fixed, it just makes it worse.

D-did you just say (unironically) that it would have been better for Rosa Parks to give up her seat and “know her place” because the law is more important? Fucking WOW.