Vic Mignogna

[theherodjl]

I am waiting on this going to trial before I make any decision on the matter. A lot of claims have been made with very little evidence to back it up. However, there's the distant chance that there is at least truth to one or more of these claims and that Vic has creeped around even just a little bit which is still inexcusable. Should he have lost his job? I say that would depend on how badly he creeped around and made the work environment uncomfortable for co-workers & fans alike. As far as Funimation is concerned though, they decided to terminate him over it. They take it seriously which is understandable, no company wants to associate themselves with someone accused of so many egregious acts.
Emotions & narratives are running high on both sides here so as I've said, I'll make my decision after the court case. I just cannot make an intuitive or knowledgeable decision until after I see the accusers & the accused take the stand.

[Bryesque]

A lot of claims have been made with very little evidence to back it up.

I'm gonna repeat what I said a few days ago, because I keep seeing "proof" and "evidence" being demanded but don't see this question being addressed:

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.

[Cursed Lemon]

Getting a real strong sea lioning vibe right now.

[PremiumSalt]

People can make fun of me for this if they like, but as an American, I refuse to throw out the principle of "innocent until proven guilty in a court of law" regardless of what the court of internet opinion has decreed. I am not saying that it isn't possible Vic is guilty, in fact I'd say it's quite probable. But again, I refuse to throw out my principles. If that means that I "misunderstand the power dynamics between men and women" (even though I am a woman), then so be it.

[Cursed Lemon]

Literally no one in this thread thinks Vic should be taken to court and thrown in jail.

[theherodjl]

A lot of claims have been made with very little evidence to back it up.

I'm gonna repeat what I said a few days ago, because I keep seeing "proof" and "evidence" being demanded but don't see this question being addressed:

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.

To answer that question, yes. Monica Rial has said that there was an incident or two at conventions, in front of fans, in which Vic tried creeping her. Surely if that happened, someone would come forth with evidence to coroborate such a claim. With how many fans there are in attendance with cameras or their phones, someone is bound to have captured these moments.

[XanatosVanBadass]

People can make fun of me for this if they like, but as an American, I refuse to throw out the principle of "innocent until proven guilty in a court of law" regardless of what the court of internet opinion has decreed. I am not saying that it isn't possible Vic is guilty, in fact I'd say it's quite probable. But again, I refuse to throw out my principles. If that means that I "misunderstand the power dynamics between men and women" (even though I am a woman), then so be it.

So, you think OJ should’ve been welcomed back into society like nothing happened, huh?

[Bryesque]

Literally no one in this thread thinks Vic should be taken to court and thrown in jail.

Bingo. You just can't conflate all matters like this exclusively with criminal law. There are a lot of crimes that unfortunately just aren't provable in court... but that doesn't mean the accused is automatically innocent or blameless. All it means is that the accused can't be punished in a court of law.

Besides which, employers don't follow the same rules as the legal system anyway. If they've received multiple complaints and/or performed an investigation and found their employee at fault, they're completely within their rights to fire them. And any other employer is completely within their rights to refuse to hire them. Hell, anyone can lose their job or have their career derailed for a hell of a lot less than this!

Nobody is legally required to tolerate abusive or shitty behaviour. And based on all the information, Mignogna is the "victim" of his own behaviour, nothing else.

[PremiumSalt]

People can make fun of me for this if they like, but as an American, I refuse to throw out the principle of "innocent until proven guilty in a court of law" regardless of what the court of internet opinion has decreed. I am not saying that it isn't possible Vic is guilty, in fact I'd say it's quite probable. But again, I refuse to throw out my principles. If that means that I "misunderstand the power dynamics between men and women" (even though I am a woman), then so be it.

So, you think OJ should’ve been welcomed back into society like nothing happened, huh?

I mean, that is more or less what happened. And much like Vic, I think it's highly likely that he's guilty, but a court of law decreed him not guilty, so yes, he should be treated as such. Do you think we should throw out the US court system and just let angry mobs decide who's guilty?

Literally no one in this thread thinks Vic should be taken to court and thrown in jail.

Really? Because it sure does seem like it. People can get legal consequences for far less than what Vic has been accused of.

[Bryesque]

A lot of claims have been made with very little evidence to back it up.

I'm gonna repeat what I said a few days ago, because I keep seeing "proof" and "evidence" being demanded but don't see this question being addressed:

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.

To answer that question, yes. Monica Rial has said that there was an incident or two at conventions, in front of fans, in which Vic tried creeping her. Surely if that happened, someone would come forth with evidence to coroborate such a claim. With how many fans there are in attendance with cameras or their phones, someone is bound to have captured these moments.

But even that expectation is leaving a hell of a lot to chance. It's entirely possible, even probable, that nobody was filming them or photographing them directly at that moment. Or even if they were, maybe he was being subtle about it, hiding his actions, or avoiding being clearly photographed? And/or maybe she didn't draw attention to it because she didn't want to disrupt or upset the fans?

You see what I mean? It's not as simple as having clear "evidence" of any given incident. And the vast majority of these accused incidents likely occurred in private where even that expectation can't possibly apply.

[Cursed Lemon]

Really? Because it sure does seem like it. People can get legal consequences for far less than what Vic has been accused of.

With evidence of misdeed, yeah. Which everyone in this thread has steadfastly maintained from the start doesn't exist in this case.

[theherodjl]

But even that expectation is leaving a hell of a lot to chance. It's entirely possible, even probable, that nobody was filming them or photographing them directly at that moment. Or even if they were, maybe he was being subtle about it, hiding his actions, or avoiding being clearly photographed? And/or maybe she didn't draw attention to it because she didn't want to disrupt or upset the fans?

You see what I mean? It's not as simple as having clear "evidence" of any given incident. And this kind of speculation opens up a million what-if scenarios that only stand to muddy the waters.

I don't work in chances when it comes to serious allegations. With not even eyewitness testimony, that Vic allegedly grabbed her by her hair and pulled her back while touching her in front of fans, anywhere to be found then I just take it to be an exaggeration at best and a total lie at worst. She could merely think she was victimised but may not have actually been.

[PremiumSalt]

Really? Because it sure does seem like it. People can get legal consequences for far less than what Vic has been accused of.

With evidence of misdeed, yeah. Which everyone in this thread has steadfastly maintained from the start doesn't exist in this case.

Then what, may I ask, are we even discussing at this point? This whole thing is about a month old (no, I do not need to be lectured for the millionth time about how old these accusations are, you know what I mean), has anything really changed? Is the purpose of this thread for people to just continuously stroke each other's egos about how "woke" you all are about sexual assault, and shut down anyone with a remotely different view? What the hell does that even have to do with Dragon Ball? Seriously, this is a Dragon Ball forum, and this thread is under "General Franchise Discussion". Vic voiced literally 1 major character in this franchise, and if we're only counting canon appearances, said character has 1 appearance. This subject is only connected to the DB franchise in the vaguest of ways.

[Cursed Lemon]

Then what, may I ask, are we even discussing at this point?

Not everybody is as quick on the uptake as you, apparently.

[XanatosVanBadass]

I mean, that is more or less what happened. And much like Vic, I think it's highly likely that he's guilty, but a court of law decreed him not guilty, so yes, he should be treated as such. Do you think we should throw out the US court system and just let angry mobs decide who's

Except he was treated like an outcast. He was found not guilty in a court of law, but that doesn’t save him from the court of public opinion.

[SuperSaiyaManZ94]

Really? Because it sure does seem like it. People can get legal consequences for far less than what Vic has been accused of.

With evidence of misdeed, yeah. Which everyone in this thread has steadfastly maintained from the start doesn't exist in this case.

Then what, may I ask, are we even discussing at this point? This whole thing is about a month old (no, I do not need to be lectured for the millionth time about how old these accusations are, you know what I mean), has anything really changed? Is the purpose of this thread for people to just continuously stroke each other's egos about how "woke" you all are about sexual assault, and shut down anyone with a remotely different view? What the hell does that even have to do with Dragon Ball? Seriously, this is a Dragon Ball forum, and this thread is under "General Franchise Discussion". Vic voiced literally 1 major character in this franchise, and if we're only counting canon appearances, said character has 1 appearance. This subject is only connected to the DB franchise in the vaguest of ways.

I mean, i don't get as much as the next person why this thread is even still going with all of the vitriol, flaming and blasting between some members that i have personally seen over the span of multiple pages and how it's basically devolved into mostly a mix of political and social debates about this that and the other. It doesn't really make a lot of sense when this is about something that doesn't really have much to do with the greater Dragon Ball franchise itself, and considering that he is/was the voice of Broly but that's it in terms of his involvement other than the one dubbed song or two for GT and Kai.

If you as me, this discussion could be held just as easily on another place besides here on Kanzenshuu.

[jjgp1112]

Yeah, I'm struggling to see why this thread is still open. The last 30 or so pages have essentially been the same thing over and over again on loop, and quite honestly is getting needlessly ugly and broaching places I'm not at all comfortable with. At the end of the day, we're on a Dragon Ball forum

[SuperSaiyaManZ94]

Yeah, I'm struggling to see why this thread is still open. The last 30 or so pages have essentially been the same thing over and over again on loop, and quite honestly is getting needlessly ugly and broaching places I'm not at all comfortable with. At the end of the day, we're on a Dragon Ball forum

Beats the hell out of me too, and judging from some of the horrible attacks and stuff i have seen posted here over many pages it appears like there is really not anything more useful that this topic can possibly provide at this point.

[Kunzait_83]

Yeah, I'm struggling to see why this thread is still open. The last 30 or so pages have essentially been the same thing over and over again on loop, and quite honestly is getting needlessly ugly and broaching places I'm not at all comfortable with. At the end of the day, we're on a Dragon Ball forum

I agree. This should've been locked ages ago. As it stands, all it seems to be doing is acting like a beacon for attracting bad-faith trolls and guileless "I'm objective, lets hear out both sides!" pedants to continually gnaw at this open cold sore of a topic. Leaving this thread open isn't doing anyone any favors at this point.

Getting a real strong sea lioning vibe right now.

Yeah, I'm inclined to agree very much with this assessment. Though to be fair, I also think its highly possible that there is some genuinely naive, sincerely childlike "I just want to get to the bottom of this!" pedantry at play here as well. Which, while better than the bad-faith trolls, is still something that definitely shouldn't be entertained.

To be fair, he’s not the one who’s been accusing others of being on the spectrum.

On the off-chance that this was referring to me:

None of my references to spectrum disorders throughout my posts here contained the slightest intention at "shaming" or mocking those who have such disorders: its been something of a known fact for awhile now that a lot of the current rash of online alt-right/neo nazi/and general anti-feminist hate groups have been deliberately recruiting from people who are somewhere on the autism spectrum via taking purposeful advantage of their disabilities (particularly as it pertains to social isolation/alienation and difficulty with reading certain emotions) to instill their ideology and worldview into their thinking.

Former Neo Nazi figures who now run anti-hate organizations that work to helping de-radicalize young hate group members, like Christian Picciolini of Life After Hate, have commented fairly often on this and about the noticeably high percentage of young radicalized men that they work with who turn out to have spectrum-based cognitive disorders like autism/aspergers that have played a strong role in their radicalization. There's been a fair share of research that's gone into this, including by the Journal of Forensic Psychology.

No, that DOESN'T mean that "anyone who's on the spectrum is probably a Nazi" or something similarly ridiculous: just that when it comes to the current rash of online hate mobs, autism and other spectrum-based cognitive disorders DO actually play a fairly vital factor into how their worldview has been (in many cases, quite purposefully) warped by malicious online groups.

It doesn't even mean that people with such disorders somehow have a higher likelihood of being hateful people: what it means is that such people are more vulnerable and susceptible to indoctrination into cult-like thinking and behavior, and that's something that I strongly believe is a VITAL key factor in the current fucked up online political climate that FAR more people need to be taking WAY more seriously if we're ever going to see any real progress on these fronts.

[Broly深蓝]

Okay so someone on Discord just told me the 1989 story was frauded.

Wow, what is happening here. I am not denying there are accurate claims but why are so many people recycling stories from different parts of the internet