1. img
    Come join the first ever Café Banner Contest!
    Deadline is September 17th at 11:59 PM EST.
    Dismiss Notice
  2. img
    Voting is live in the Contest Central Drawing Contest!
    Voting threads can be found here and here.
    Polls close Thursday, September the 19th at 10:05pm UTC.
    Dismiss Notice
  3. We're having technical difficulties with regards to support tickets.
    Please refrain from starting any new tickets for now. Thank you.
    Dismiss Notice
  4. Welcome to the forums! Take a second to look at our Beginner's Guide. It contains the information necessary for you to have an easier experience here.

    Thanks and have fun. -NF staff
    Dismiss Notice
  5. Dismiss Notice

Funimation in big trouble! Leaked, incriminating voice clips

Discussion in 'Dragon Ball' started by Juub, Aug 30, 2019.

  1. Lurker

    Messages:
    29,004
    Likes Received:
    2,080
    Trophy Points:
    2,582
    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2012






    Keep in mind that more is out.
     
    • Informative Informative x 1
    • List
  2. Spider-Man

    Messages:
    6,962
    Likes Received:
    2,550
    Trophy Points:
    2,107
    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2013
    Many victims are afraid to come forward. Someone in the industry that comes forward against Vic has something to lose in this. If people do not believe in them, then they might possibly run the risk of losing their job, or being blackballed. Also, there's the fact that we are dealing with a man of power/influence in the dubbing industry. On top of that, people are terrified they'll get attacked by the defenders of Vic. I mean, we had people who had spoken out against Vic's behavior being constantly shamed, doxxed, and threatened by Kiwi Farms.

    Vic was not fired over some jelly bean innuendo though. He was fired because the company felt there had been misconduct by Vic on company property, and cited "the jelly bean" as one of multiple instances of inappropriate behavior that led to that decision. If Chris Sabat has done anything of a similar nature, I am sure Sony would perform a similar inquiry and deal with it appropriately as they did with Vic.

    All the former employees denied any knowledge of a "casting couch" involving Chris Sabat or anyone else working at Funimation. In fact, Chuck Huber's affidavits never specified Sabat was the one with the casting couch and it all got immediately thrown out because they were fraudulent and the signatures were doctored. They were also filed late.

    Ironically enough, there is a probability there could be one with Vic, since it was posted a few pages or so on Chuck's affidavit that he got a girl without any prior known acting credits named Chelsea Beard a role for Juni Taisen, because he was the ADR director. Which in context with the many testimonies under oath about his behavior don't point to him treating anyone well in this hypothetical company.


    Stephanie wasn't fired because she didn't want to have sexual intercourse with Sabat though. She was fired and got replaced because she couldn't drive to work on account of multiple convictions for property theft and DUI, I think even Monica addressed that. The casting couch rumors has been floated around by Stephanie for years ever since she got fired and got debunked by former employees.

    Testimony under oath is admissible evidence. As a matter of fact, 15 years of testimony (which goes back that far, as Vic's alleged creepiness has been an open secret in the con scene for that long) is called 'precedence' in legal terms, which legally is valid to prove long-time behavioral patterns of the accused. Here's the Texas law for hearsay evidence when it comes to "Reputation concerning Character." Rule 405(a)(1) and 803 (21).



    As for the burden of proof, the accusations against Vic do not need to be substantiated at all. Vic's a LPPF (Limited Purpose Public Figure), thus, the defendants do not need to prove anything until Vic can prove their statements is a lie. He has to show (on the balance of probabilities) that they were lying and knew they were lying (actual malice). If he can do that, then the defendants can bring their affirmative defenses to bear, if he can't, he loses this case. If all this lawsuit amounts to is "he said, she said" and Monica can not back up her story, Vic still loses this case because he could not produce any evidence that the stories about him is a lie.

    "The burden is upon the plaintiff to prove falsity, not upon the defendant to prove truth." Van Der Linden v. Khan, 535 SW 3d 179, 198-99.



    I, too, find the Funimation leaks deplorable, but I don't think making a bunch of yikes jokes will justify or exonerate Vic of his own inner demons either, assuming the allegations are true. Making rape/i*c*st/homophobic jokes is pretty bad and not a good commercial on your brand, but sexually assaulting colleagues is worse. Two wrongs don't make a right and it's possible for both parties to be terrible people.

    Honestly, and my apologies if this may seem cold... But Vic brought all of this wrath upon himself. Nobody made him sue, and most people who dealt with him at first-hand didn't want to see his career in tatters or want him in jail either. Vic had an opportunity to seek help and potentially make a comeback, something many of his alleged victims, including Monica, were willing to concede. That's why they hold it against Vic and not Ron despite his previous history of domestic abuse; because of how long it took him to admit he made a mistake and how his reaction wasn't to seek help but to sue the people who finally forced him to admit to his wrongdoings. Had he gotten professional help, and started changing most people would have no issue with him.

    I definitely agree with you that the system is flawed and needs to be revisited. But I do not think that's the biggest problem with this lawsuit or what ruined Vic -- Nick and Beard were the ones who effectively ruined him. Nick was the one who personally picked that idiot of a lawyer Beard and convinced Vic to file this total loser of a suit when he had the chance to bow out and save face. They also took over $240k of other people's hard-earned money, and threw it down the drain. If there's anyone people should be mad about, it's the people who set up the fund and convinced Vic to not only file this suit, but also to take on a lawyer with zero litigation/defamation experience who didn't consider that suing for libel is so hard almost nobody does it, not even the biggest Hollywood stars.

    Yes, he did. Vic basically perjures himself. In the deposition video, Vic repeatedly admitted under oath to pulling Jamie and Monica's hair. On top of that, the guy even went as far as to demonstrate how he pulled Jamie's hair, which fits the description she initially explained back in February. He also admitted he thinks silence is consent. Please read the documents.




    What makes this case even worse for Vic is that his new affidavits basically tries to deny it now (not that it didn't already get any worse for him, as he didn't even show up to his own meeting). Yikes. :Ryuko

    Plus, Chuck Huber makes it very clear that the allegations about Vic goes back at least 15 years before the defendants broke silence, further reinforcing Funi's reply to Vic's lawsuit that he is "libel-proof." Basically them saying he's got such a bad reputation (fair or not) that you can't make it any worse to begin with. Ouch.
     
    Last edited: Sep 9, 2019
    • Winner Winner x 4
    • Disagree Disagree x 2
    • Optimistic Optimistic x 1
    • List
  3. Elric of Melniboné

    Messages:
    16,537
    Likes Received:
    2,082
    Trophy Points:
    2,709
    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2012
    Flag:
    United States
    Reputation:
    Are you for real? :hestonpls

    What you have got is a man admitting that he likes to act like a flamboyantly gay hairdresser. If anything it makes me question if he actually likes women or not. Which means I have a chance. Not bad. This is good news.

    More seriously, this is not sexual assault and neither was it his intent for it to be sexual assault. If I was tried for sexual assault every time I grabbed someone's hair I would be Fleece Johnson. It brings me back to what I said before. Drawing comparisons between completely different things, and misconstruing the intent or meaning behind something in a red herring in order to have anything to use against someone. No matter how unrelated it is.

    Yes, silence can in fact be consent because there is such a thing called non-verbal communication. When my boyfriend is cooking me breakfast at his house in nothing but an apron? He doesn't need to tell me he wants to get my Sword of Damocles. I can see by the fact he is teasing me, and biting his lip that he wants it bad. I do not need to ask at that point because he has communicated his intent in a non-verbal way.

    Arguing from authority, population, or poisoning the well are all logical fallacies. Which is what you just described to me. Which further leads into libel if Funimation are doing so with malicious or manipulative intent. The best part is that the people who are accusing him of this are themselves targets of the same accusations. The hypocrisy is astounding. Chris Sabat in particular is guilty of this.



    What I think is that the accusers are projecting their own misdeeds onto Vic Mignogna. It is truly sickening. :wow
     
    • Winner Winner x 4
    • Funny Funny x 1
    • Optimistic Optimistic x 1
    • List
  4. SuperSaiyaMan12

    Messages:
    26,872
    Likes Received:
    463
    Trophy Points:
    1,429
    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2006
    Reputation:
    Honestly the jokes are really overblown. What was there was never meant to be publicly released, it was a staff blooper reel. And hell, its no worse than the stuff that Family Guy puts out on a regular basis.
     
    • Disagree Disagree x 1
    • Ningen Ningen x 1
    • List
  5. Roman

    Messages:
    34,231
    Likes Received:
    1,468
    Trophy Points:
    2,383
    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2009
    Flag:
    United States
    Catdank Faction:






    Indeed. Vic is so incredibly powerful and influential in the industry that he got fired from Funi and got cancelled from all his conventions this year. The three women that came out against him in Funi's investigations risked so much! So brave. So brave!

    The jellybean story and the two unproven accounts from the other two women that Funimation investigated are the only two "concrete" pieces of evidence that they could fire him for though. They had no other evidence of misconduct in their property. And it's also very ironic that Vic would get fired for that when there's actual evidence of misconduct from other VAs, including one of the women who came out against him.

    Acknowledgement that the rumors exist and that someone could've perceived his actions differently than what they actually were and how they were intended is not an admittance of guilt. For example, I might touch a woman I know in the shoulder once to greet her. If she feels that was sexual assault, it doesn't mean that's what it really was. Otherwise, how many of us would be guilty of sexual assault crimes?
     
    Last edited: Sep 10, 2019
    • Agree Agree x 2
    • Like Like x 1
    • Winner Winner x 1
    • List
  6. Spider-Man

    Messages:
    6,962
    Likes Received:
    2,550
    Trophy Points:
    2,107
    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2013
    What. How can you misinterpret a tight fistful of hair Vic himself demonstrated to acting like some flamboyantly gay hairdresser? How can you misinterpret Vic saying she may have perceived the entire thing differently than him? How can you misinterpret the fact he flatly admitted to grabbing Jamie's hair without permission in the first place?

    This is not a matter of opinion on what you feel is sexual assault and harassment, and you do not get to decide it either. Vic himself admitted in his deposition to grabbing a handful of Jamie’s hair, playing and pulling it without asking. That falls under sexual assault and harassment according to the EEOC if Jamie did not want to be touched or felt uncomfortable from Vic doing so.


    Now in his affidavit, he says he didn't. So either Vic is lying in his deposition or lying in his affidavit. Either way, Vic has proven to be a pathological liar and that doesn't look good for him.

    "Silence = consent" is the dog whistle of sexual predators. It's true that silent consent is possible, but treating silence as if it implies consent, is a cornerstone of rape culture. And before you get on the defensive, I am not saying you are a rapist or you are endorsing it by any means, but I do think you're doubling down on the wrong side of a line and voicing an idea that rapists use to appear acceptable. Treating silence as consent creates a standard of behavior whereby a person must proactively opt out rather than opting in. A person must be continually defending themselves, asserting their right to their own space, attention, body, etc.

    Bounding Into Comics is not a news outlet. It's basically the Breitbart of Comicsgate, so their status as a reliable source of information is very questionable. For two, and I already told Gogeta this; the casting couch rumors got debunked pretty much instantly. In fact, the only documented case of a possible "casting couch" going on in Funimation is Vic getting a VA role for a girl .

    "All the former employees denied any knowledge of a "casting couch" involving Sabat or anyone else working at Funimation."

     
    Last edited: Sep 10, 2019
  7. Fang

    Messages:
    170,408
    Likes Received:
    5,502
    Trophy Points:
    6,857
    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2006






    Oh remember those police reports Monica said she filed so many times---oh wait she lied about that too! Man oh man, imagine a jelly bean getting eaten with tongue-in-cheek humor as a Dragon Ball/Majin Buu Saga reference between two voice actors who work on the dubbed localization of the show. Such a monster Vic was!

    Denbow didn't even handle the investigation or auditing correct for that matter. The entire process was her interviewing the two alleged women and then phone-conferencing with some other people in Funimation's management team before calling Vic last and telling him that he was fired. Which correlates to Huber talking about Sabat and others having pull beyond what their jobs as contracted employees should have and nearly 20 years of Vic never getting even so much a warning or notice that he needed to amend or revise his behavior.

    The fact Kara Edwards was also a proven liar really doesn't help these nutjobs cases either.

    Exactly. Any acknowledgement, no matter how banal or twisted KV wants to use, from Vic simply saying he knows rumors exist and people slander him is somehow equated to an admission of guilt in their eyes. I work in HR, it is an absolute slog to deal with people and especially female employees trying to twist any sort of behavior they don't like from a male counterpart as being sexual harassment or unwanted advances since we have to go through everything with a fine tooth and comb on the details, the employees relationship and working history, past reports, demerits, and so on.
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
    • Funny Funny x 1
    • Winner Winner x 1
    • List
  8. Elric of Melniboné

    Messages:
    16,537
    Likes Received:
    2,082
    Trophy Points:
    2,709
    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2012
    Flag:
    United States
    Reputation:
    Did you even read what he said? The way he was acting was not "Come here, bitch. Bend over. I am giving you the pickle surprise." When in reality it was "Oh my gosh, your hair is beautiful." Nigga, he was acting so gay I have no words for it. You're the one interpreting it as some sort of sexual assault when it isn't one. It doesn't matter what she construes as sexual assault. If what she construes as sexual assault? Is not actually sexual assault. She doesn't get to define what it is, and change what it's supposed to mean to suit her narrative.

    Yes, it fucking is. Since you're using the same argument to redefine what sexual assasult is according to each indiviual person's perception of what it should be. You're the one transforming it into a matter of opinion.

    Which is not sexual assasult. Stop egregiously trying to define sexual assault as "whatever a person thinks it is." The definition is not fluid, and it shouldn't be. Since that leads to an environment where people can claim literally anything is sexual assault. It's incredibly toxic behavior.

    Oh, really? So pray tell me this. What evidence do you have that she didn't want her hair to be touched? Did she communicate it in a verbal or non-verbal way, and I don't mean someone's testimony. I mean some sort of concrete evidence that can be trusted.

    :hestonpls

    You're complaining about Vic being a pathological liar? When the other side is clearly fabricating evidence, and trying to use it against him? Then when called on that feign ignorance of the fact it was false evidence? Of course Vic didn't because this wasn't sexual assault.

    Oh, here we go again. Why did I just know you were going to bring that up anyway? No, anyone who says this is not a rapist by default. What they recognize is that there is such a thing as non-verbal communication. By your definition of it mute people should never have sex. Since they can never openly give consent.

    No, I am not on the wrong side here. You are though. I am not doubling down I am noting the fact that the entire argument relies on misconstruing what he said or meant in order to have absolutely anything to use against him. When there is no evidence at all.

    This is not how people behave in real life. When they're about to have sex? They don't suddenly stop, pull out a contract or waiver from their bunghole, and dictate the terms of the sexual intercourse that is about to follow down to the exact detail.

    Yes? You're supposed to say something. If your non-verbal communication is implying something else entirely, and not suggesting as such for whatever reason? It's up to you to convey that feeling properly. People are not mind readers.

    Ad hominem, and poisoning the well. Also, I find it hilarious that you are happy to take the claims against Vic at face value but completely ignore the ones regarding Chris. This glaring hypocrisy is amazing. They are drawing this entirely from Chuck Huber, and what he said. They even cite where it's coming from.

    And you believe them? :kanyelul

    They are on the defensive so freaking hard that it's obvious they are hiding something, and are covering for somebody. A lot of these same people are friends with the guys accusing Vic right now. As if I would trust them to be impartial. Chuck Huber is saying otherwise entirely, and that Chris Sabat is the guilty party here.

    Which side is more credible? The side that brought forth doctored evidence, or the other side that never did?

    Sorry, I don't trust people who fabricate evidence by default. They tend to be pathological liars.
     
    Last edited: Sep 10, 2019
    • Funny Funny x 2
    • Winner Winner x 1
    • List
  9. Fang

    Messages:
    170,408
    Likes Received:
    5,502
    Trophy Points:
    6,857
    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2006






    "I'm not calling you a rapist but I am saying you are basically saying what a rapist says"

    What a wonderful semantic based argument to use to ad hominem the other side.
     
    • Funny Funny x 3
    • Winner Winner x 2
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • List
  10. Roman

    Messages:
    34,231
    Likes Received:
    1,468
    Trophy Points:
    2,383
    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2009
    Flag:
    United States
    Catdank Faction:






    Lol thing is, they already established earlier than hitting on a woman, or appearing to be hitting in a woman is a cardinal sin, hence why they somehow manage to rationalize that it is indeed sexual assault xD

    Considering Vic has a history of hitting on women, these VAs didn't like his compliments thinking he was hitting on them. When to them, being hit on = assault, you know what happens next :lmao
     
    • Like Like x 2
    • Funny Funny x 1
    • Winner Winner x 1
    • List
  11. Suigetsu

    Messages:
    20,478
    Likes Received:
    1,651
    Trophy Points:
    2,184
    Joined:
    May 18, 2006






    Fixed.
     
    • Funny Funny x 1
    • Optimistic Optimistic x 1
    • List
  12. Spider-Man

    Messages:
    6,962
    Likes Received:
    2,550
    Trophy Points:
    2,107
    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2013
    :gokuskully
    I both read and watched the deposition, and guess what? Vic still admitted to putting his hands on Jamie's hair and visually made a fist when addressing Jamie's accusation. He does not say she wanted him to do so, nor does he say he asked first. EEOC law states unwanted hair touching is sexual harassment. This is what killed his defamation claims against Jamie.

    What makes his deposition even more cringey is that we got to see Vic himself torpedo his own case by not giving direct answers and rambling on, admitting that his reputational harm is a "death by a thousand cuts" (i.e not specifically attributable to the defendants), not being able to tie Funi, Monica, Ron or Jamie to any conventions he was uninvited to, etc. Oof. :Ryuko

    No, it is not. And you don't get to decide which laws are enforceable and which aren't to suit whatever narrative. The underlying perception of that event on Vic's part compared to Jamie's doesn't prove falsity. As long as he admitted he pulled or touched her hair without her consent and made her uncomfortable, it is not a lie that he sexually harassed her so perception doesn't play a factor at all.

    Again; touching a co-worker's hair without consent is still sexual harassment according to the EEOC. You can try to spin it however you want, cut it, chop it or whatever anyway you like, that is your prerogative. Doesn't mean the law will necessarily go your way, and perception won't come into play since unwanted touching alone is sexual harassment. On top of that, Vic flipped-flopped about whether it was pulled or not now, which isn't a great move, because that is a sham affidavit, which aren't allowed and arguably perjury.

    Nah, I don't need to produce any evidence for you or any of Vic's defenders. That's why we got the deposition videos and Jamie's tweet + the testimony of many people who dealt with Vic at first-hand. In fact, the only one with something to prove here is Vic, because he started this court case after he was fired from two companies following an investigation. :kanyeshrug

    You really think there's some massive conspiracy going on in Funimation to destroy Vic's life out of personal vendettas and that he might not just possibly be a creep who had a bad reputation in the con scene for 15 years? Let me fill you in on something; the victims being sued whom Vic's fans called liars have not lied at all. When did Jamie lie about her hair being grabbed? When did Monica lie in her depositions? Vic himself validated and confirmed both accounts from both of these women. Not to mention sworn affidavits from the twins he wanted to engage (sexual assault).



    :drake
    Dude, that is a terrible analogy, because there are many forms of communication a mute person can express themselves through: Writing. Grunting. Hand-signals. Blink morse-code, just to name a few. Just because the abused didn't say "no" doesn't mean that they said "yes." The text of the law even defines affirmative consent (yes means yes) as follows:

    "(1) An affirmative consent standard in the determination of whether consent was given by both parties to sexual activity. “Affirmative consent” means affirmative, conscious, and voluntary agreement to engage in sexual activity. It is the responsibility of each person involved in the sexual activity to ensure that he or she has the affirmative consent of the other or others to engage in the sexual activity. Lack of protest or resistance does not mean consent, nor does silence mean consent. Affirmative consent must be ongoing throughout a sexual activity and can be revoked at any time. The existence of a dating relationship between the persons involved, or the fact of past sexual relations between them, should never by itself be assumed to be an indicator of consent."



    Now look, I somewhat get what you are trying to say. Obviously someone shouldn't accuse you of sexual assault when the situation seems fine. We all know that shit happens, and it's wrong. But to just throw this giant net of "silence is consent" over every sexual encounter, because you feel like you have to literally be told/forced to stop in order to know when to stop, is incredibly misguided and retrogressive. You shouldn't expect them to fight you, you should read the situation and take nonverbal cues or gestures. Seriously, do you people not understand that the shock from being sexually assaulted can turn into involuntary paralysis? It's not as simple as fighting back.

    This is from Vic's deposition, when asked about whether he pulled Jamie's hair.

    That he went on to describe how he felt about the interaction or how the judge misconstrued Vic's words literally does not matter at all since he is suing Jamie for describing her perception of what he said he did.

    How do you know they don't? I understand that in some cases, arousal happens before desire, but communication is usually a regular part of sex before the "sex" even starts. Me and my girlfriend have established safe boundaries, limits, ways we want to be touched or the type of sex we enjoy. If you've got a partner, why wait until after sex to talk about what your boundaries are?

    That's not really what I was trying to say, I think you took my words out of context here. What I am saying is that you don't need to be told point-black or need clear-cut non-verbal communication to assume consent. You can very much imply your feelings through subtle cues and gestures.

    No, you allude to it. And you calling my assertion a logical fallacy doesn't make it one (see: argument from fallacy), you have to show it is really a fallacy and why. It's no secret among comic fans that Bounding Into Comics keeps trying to present itself as a legitimate comic news outlet despite the fact it regularly uses itself as a source. That's without addressing they never owned up to the act that it pushed a smear campaign against a woman of color in an attempt to get her fired.



    Former employees, may I reiterate. In other words, people that aren't working there any more and have no reason to protect them and nothing to lose. And if the casting couch rumors had been real, they would most likely have been victims of it as their reason for no longer working there.

    Oh for the love of god. Vic's lawyer went as far as to produce an openly fraudulent affidavit that he claimed was from Chuck Huber in order to promote a Chris Sabat conspiracy theory. It was thrown out due to "technical difficulties." He also provided a FB message of Stephanie to Nick that's been proven to be edited.
     
    Last edited: Sep 11, 2019 at 6:45 AM
    • Winner Winner x 3
    • Disagree Disagree x 1
    • Funny Funny x 1
    • List
  13. Keishin

    Messages:
    9,808
    Likes Received:
    585
    Trophy Points:
    1,358
    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2012
    Reputation:
    and he says before and after that he didnt pull.
     
    • Informative Informative x 1
    • List
  14. Spider-Man

    Messages:
    6,962
    Likes Received:
    2,550
    Trophy Points:
    2,107
    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2013
    On another note @Zensuki check this out

    Vic is getting grilled on NBC :bookerskully

     
  15. OLK

    Messages:
    2,752
    Likes Received:
    546
    Trophy Points:
    1,158
    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2018
    Reputation:
    I-I-It doesn't count when Vic's side does it!
     
    • Ningen Ningen x 3
    • Winner Winner x 2
    • Disagree Disagree x 1
    • List
  16. Luiz

    Messages:
    40,467
    Likes Received:
    837
    Trophy Points:
    2,133
    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2005






    HE TOUCHED HER HAIR!

    OHH NOES!!
    :fusain
     
    • Funny Funny x 3
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • List
  17. Lurker

    Messages:
    29,004
    Likes Received:
    2,080
    Trophy Points:
    2,582
    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2012






    :russ
     
  18. BreadBoy

    Messages:
    7,088
    Likes Received:
    890
    Trophy Points:
    1,583
    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2012
    Reputation:
    Just fire everyone, Jurrac Meteor the field and start with a new deck of voice actors.

    Leave no survivors. :argh :gun
     
    • Funny Funny x 1
    • Optimistic Optimistic x 1
    • List
  19. Fang

    Messages:
    170,408
    Likes Received:
    5,502
    Trophy Points:
    6,857
    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2006






    "Fraudulent affidavit"

    KV doesn't know what they are talking about holy shit :rotfl
     
  20. Milliardo

    Messages:
    6,375
    Likes Received:
    333
    Trophy Points:
    1,128
    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2009
    Reputation:
    How is touching hair sexual harassment? If he grabbed her ass thats one thing but her hair?? :sag

    Maybe she should go for assault instead...
     
  21. Keishin

    Messages:
    9,808
    Likes Received:
    585
    Trophy Points:
    1,358
    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2012
    Reputation:
    ive had my hair touched many times... how is that even an assault
     
  22. Milliardo

    Messages:
    6,375
    Likes Received:
    333
    Trophy Points:
    1,128
    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2009
    Reputation:
    Did they pull your head back? :LOS

    I don't know man as I don't know how it went down.. Maybe he pulled her head back and was like "My room in five minutes" :lmao
     
    • Funny Funny x 1
    • Lewd Lewd x 1
    • List
  23. Keishin

    Messages:
    9,808
    Likes Received:
    585
    Trophy Points:
    1,358
    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2012
    Reputation:
    how can there be many victims that are "afraid to come out" if vic has never, ever done any sexual harassment or assault on anyone?
     
  24. Keishin

    Messages:
    9,808
    Likes Received:
    585
    Trophy Points:
    1,358
    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2012
    Reputation:
    my barber does that every 3 months
     
    • Funny Funny x 1
    • Informative Informative x 1
    • List
  25. SuperSaiyaMan12

    Messages:
    26,872
    Likes Received:
    463
    Trophy Points:
    1,429
    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2006
    Reputation:
    Keishin, he admitted to sexual assault. Stop trying to downplay it. We have him making a fist and the yanking motion of HOW he did it. Seriously, its time to either walk away or admit you're wrong.
     
    • Like Like x 2
    • Disagree Disagree x 2
    • Ningen Ningen x 2
    • List
  26. SuperSaiyaMan12

    Messages:
    26,872
    Likes Received:
    463
    Trophy Points:
    1,429
    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2006
    Reputation:
    :facepalm

    He admitted to at least two of the accounts happening. Keishin, stop denying reality at this point.
     
    • Disagree Disagree x 2
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • List
  27. Gogeta

    Messages:
    14,675
    Likes Received:
    480
    Trophy Points:
    1,354
    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2011






    @Spiderman

    You really wanted to have a wall of text face off? Against me?




    Spoiler: I'm laughing

    I agree. I really do, i think the issues you bring up are very real. But the same potential issues the accusers might face coming forward is also the case for the victim. Infact, even if the accused turns out to be innocent, not only does the accuser not face punishment, but a significant number of people STILL think of the accused as whatever the accusation was, and his life will STILL be ruined. The problem isn't men getting away with shit they shouldn't be, it's powerful people in general, which happen to be mostly men.

    And i never said nor implied that sexual harassment doesn't occur, or that due to the past few years of the metoo movement, that there aren't still (even as we speak) places where sexual harassment occurs, and that either the main or only reason we don't hear about it is because of the fear of various likely repercussions on the side of the woman accusing. I'm fully aware sexual harassment is still an issue.
    And i'm all for making it easier for victims to come out, to share, to want to have their working environment, and subsequently life improved. My problem is that society needs to learn and understand, mostly the metoo movement as they are the loudest about it, that the victim isn't always the accuser.

    And in situations where the accuser IS the victim, society as a whole, and mostly the metoo movement advocates, have to learn and understand that there are levels to this shit. Most metoo advocates have unironically placed Louie in the same category of improper sexual behavior as Cosby and Weistein. Even the most "compassionate" advocates have put him at literally "He isn't Cosby level, but he is close". How the fuck are they even comparable?

    Louie fucking asked, asked, women, who had come (that i read, in MOST of the times his jerking off happened) to his apartment of their own volition, IF he could masturbate in front of them. Not once did he tell them they can not leave, block/lock the door or anything like that. There is no account, either verbally or physically, for which that "But they felt threatened" could be used. And it's not like such situations where the women is legitimately threatened don't happen. But it's something that can be used by anyone in any situation that doesn't have to further proven by the accuser, and can't be disproven by the accused. It's a fucking feeling. I could feel threatened around my 1 year old kid, doesn't mean i'm correct/in the right to feel that way, nor that he should go to jail cause i feel like that.

    Tell me the exact list of actions that a man is required to do to a woman so that the argument "But i was threatened due to his power" doesn't hold true? And what the man can do to prevent possible lies of such nature to be completely, justly disregarded in every manner by both the law and society? What Louie did is weird, creepy and IMO disgusting stuff, but what in the actual fuck should he have done MORE to make sure those women were okay with his masturbation? Have them sign a legal document? Video proof of their verbal agreement whilst also having body language experts determine whether the women only agreed because they were under distress/fear?

    IIRC one of Louis CK accusers have said that due to Louie masturbating infront of them, it ruined their dream to be a comedian. Let me quote Chapelle on my response to that "Word? Well then i daresay madam, you may have never had a dream". You can't tell me those women haven't had various sexual interactions where they've had many of their holes probed. Yet seeing a dick is what gave them nightmares and ruined them for years or decades to come? That's unadulterated bullshit.

    And i'll address this with Vic himself. What fucking power did he have over the fans he hugged/kissed who came at a convention specifically to see him? If i'm with a girl, and after some time we both start liking each other and we hug, am i exerting my power over her? Is me charming her, my words and actions having the effect of causing her to like me, considered me using my blasphemous despicable POWER over her? Do you realize the weight/effect/impact this notion has? It implies every fucking Male/Female interaction is automatically heavily male-favored because the men always hold power over the women and thus all of women's responses are/have to be adjusted and filtered HEAVILY due to their fear of the "constant" physical/verbal/professional abuse.

    That's a complete horseshit notion. As if there isn't a fucking immense portion of both relationships and marriages where the women is the one who screams, insults, berates, and even hits the man while the husband is BOTH unwilling (be it kindness/principle, fear of severely/permanently hurting her, or actual fear, etc.) to hit her back, and is in fear of getting heavily punished (both by getting beat up by other men, and in court) even though he might have legitimate reasons to at least self-defend. And not just in sexual relationships, how many popular chicks will have like 5+ beta whimps on standby, making them do whatever she wants? How many friendships and work-situations are there where the relationship is completely friendly-natured by both sides, and people have normal conversations?

    Also, what "power" did Vic have, when Monica is the one who got him fired over unproven hearsay?




    On average, yes, men are more physically powerful and more aggressive than women. But it's completely retarded to apply that sentiment to EVERY man who is accused as an absolute, indisputable fact. And i'll give you a fitting example ;

    Lets say i'm at a bar, having a good time, and it's my lucky day, some girl comes to me and hits me up, so i have legitimate reasons to believe she is into me. We have a talk some time, rapport/attraction increases, i ask her if she wants to come to my place. You are a fucking liar and a shithead if you tell me you, or any other person in that situation wouldn't understand what that at least implies. So, we go to my place, and soon as we come in, she even engages on me and starts making out with me, and it quickly leads into sex. Now, let's say we finish, and the girl just didn't like my size, technique, duration, or whatever, and was at that point disappointed/dissatisfied, even to the point she says she wants to leave ; and she does.

    My problem with the current ongoing situation is, the very next day, she can just say she was forced to come to my place, and despite her numerous protests to any kind of sexual activity with me, i forced myself on to her, basically raping her.
    In this situation, even if the following day she says "Hey i was kidding, he did nothing bad i just had a bad day, sorry for saying that i went too far", not only will a large, large amount of people STILL believe i was guilty AND my life AT LEAST professionally is forever ruined, but a portion of that large group will actually be even more "certain" of my guilt, and therefore aggressive (either via verbal/written harassment, or even ddos/people coming to my home, beating me up on the street etc.) towards me, thinking that i threatened/blackmailed/forced her to write that.

    And that's best case situation. Worst case situation im now in jail, for 5/10/15 years, maybe more. How the fuck is this acceptable? Not only that, you are delusional that only 0.00000000000000001% of women do this, or would do this. Much, much more women falsely accuse than men. There have been numerous cases like this, but right now i remember this one case where the guy was falsely accused, and after 15 whole years it was discovered he was innocent. Do you think the woman got any repercussions? Had to pay the man for the 15 years he spent in jail? Actually had to spend 15 years, or even a portion of that, in jail herself?

    Also, are you telling me that NO women has ever (including today/this age) liked more aggressive men, men who take charge, men who also sexually take the lead? Are those women brainwashed and indoctrinated, and their actions/responses are only based on fear, fear of being physically or otherwise abused? If i am a man like that, but she is also in to it and we have a good night, but then she for whatever reason decides to say "he was aggressive, forced himself unto me, raping me" HOW THE FUCK is ANYONE in that position as a man going to, or supposed to be able to defend himself?



    Simply told, my issue isn't, and never was, that women nowadays/since the metoo movement have too many rights, namely on this topic. Infact, i agree with you that because, unfortunately, sexual harassment is STILL occurring, they need even more right and freedom to be able to open up and speak up and against the perpetrators. My issue is that, especially nowadays once the men are accused, they have basically no rights. And it would also be an objective lie to say by you or anyone else that this wasn't EVER the case, even a 100 years back (i read in early 20th century some girl accused some guy of raping her, they captured him and just a day or two afterwards killed him, then some years, IIRC like 10-15 later she admitted to making that story up), just that it's even more prominent since metoo occured.

    Even if you show me somehow completely adequate, proper, and indisputably objective study that shows that women do the aforementioned lying in only 5% of all sexual harassment cases vs. men, and in 95% the accuser is lawfully, morally and factually right, it still doesn't, in any reality, make it right to automatically assume ALL accused EVER are in the wrong. It HAS to be a case by case basis, and right now it isn't.

    And what you are saying IS possible, that someone who might've had legitimate sexual harassment case or evidence could've been nefariously silenced by the StandWithVic group, without more than single-digit amount of people ever knowing about the whole ordeal. Even though i personally think it is a very small chance of exactly that occurring, i admit it is still possible.

    But do you not see the hypocrisy? Yes, on the standwithvic side, there might have been cases that unfortunately have not come to light that would indicate they are doing something wrong and/or nefarious.

    But your hypocrisy is showing when there has been ACTUAL proof that the Kickvic side has, or wanted to, organize a ddos attack on Vic (or some variation of it, don't know all the technical terms), intended to actually forge evidence/claims against him, has also (both sides are guilty of this though) heavily flamed/berated him on twitter and elsewhere, and there was early on even evidence of Monica, in a private conversation, saying that she/they have been waiting for someone to come out, with essentially proof/proper case that they can actually use in court against Vic.

    This bitch knew she had no real case, and STILL accused him based on that alone. If she gathered up proof/evidence then did it, sure, that's very different. But she didn't do that. She went after him then looked for evidence after the accusation, and as i already explained, an accusation ALONE has guaranteed irreparable negative impact on the accused. And what i mentioned is just a small portion, just off the top of my head, of the bad publicly revealed shit the kickvic side has done.

    Why are these acceptable/excused behaviors? And going by your logic, there could've also been even worse shit done that has not yet been revealed/leaked, or never will be, by the kickvic side.

    Why are the worst possible and also UNJUST scenarios/actions done only to the kickvic side? And you are completely in your right to look at both sides and STILL find the kickvic side more in the right. But none of what you say even takes into account the various threats and actual actions done against standwithVic. It's as if nothing bad and unjust has ever happened to the standwithvic side, only to the kickvic side. Do you honestly believe that?


    I am really, really, sincerely hoping you are not trolling me at this point, and are saying what you are saying for more innocent, or at least understandable/excusable reasons.

    The majority of my post, and one of my main reasoning and explanation is how the system, be it on personal, corporate, or law-wise is corrupt and broken. The system could be most objectively fair and just in 90% of the cases, but it still means that 10% of it is corrupt, unjust and unfair. I mention how others can be accused with no evidence, let alone concrete, solid evidence, and how Monica instigated the accusations with no such proof. Now, the company, which has had leaks/evidence of, at least a significantly high enough portion, being essentially ran by Sabat and whoever is in his gang, in your eyes, could only ever tell the complete, unadulterated truth?

    Even if there was no such evidence ever publicly leaked, ever, that would at any point in time be able to give anyone even the idea that this branch of Funimation was ever corrupt, unjust or unfair, do you seriously believe that ANY company (under which Funi ALSO falls into) could not, would not and does not lie to the consumer? Seriously? Infact, the larger/more powerful/more influental the company, the more likely they are to lie at any given time they speak. What reason do you have for blindly trusting what they said? And continuing on to that - you tell me Vic was not fired for the jellybean shit, but funnily enough the very next sentence you say how that was indeed a part of the reason, also calling this specific incident "inappropriate behavior" as if it's either inappropriate behavior, or inappropriate behavior worthy of the punishment. Jesus christ, i just addressed this. "Inappropriate behavior" cover anything from speaking over someone else who is in the middle of speaking, up to fucking rape. How do you not understand this concept? But i see what you are doing. By using "inappropriate behavior" to describe him, you are willfully misrepresenting the situation in order to paint Vic in a bad/worse light.

    Also, please, show me both what others have said, and also any kind of proof they might have or have used in their accusations, and subsequently in court. They accused Vic with no evidence, and Vic is saying "no, you are wrong/lying". What reason do you have for instantly, automatically believing the accusers and not the accused, when they have equal amount of proof for either of their respective case?

    I saw a fucking shitload of pictures and stories, mostly on twitter but also on reddit, of people who shared the positive experience they've had with Vic, and no, they were not all men, infact, at least picture-wise, majority of them were women, some who had visited and interacted with him at a con before they were 18. But none of this matters right? It was just a ploy, a manipulative tactic to gain the trust of his eventual victims while he laughs villain-like whilst sitting in a chair in his office in his mansion, whilst stroking a cat. You are so fucking dead-set on Vic being the villain that you see and hear nothing else.

    Both Sabat and Schemmel said in an interview (IIRC right before either Super started airing, or right before the Super dub started airing) that they got word from the higher ups in Funi HQ that they are very impressed and satisfied with their work on the DB franchise, and that the very same higher ups also told them they felt that Sabat/Schemmel were a large contributor to the DB franchise being so popular in the west. Does this not give you more than enough reason and proof that Sabat in particular, has a huge amount of power and pull for this branch/part of Funi? He not only voices a shit-ton of lines in DB, not only does he decide what goes in the script, and i'm not sure what the exact job title for this task is, but he basically instructs and decides how lines told by voice actors will be acted out ; how the final product ends up sounding. To explain this even further by an example - if you hear some character do a power-up scream, and the scream sounds like shit, it's both the actress's fault for doing it badly, but also Sabat's fault for allowing and deciding on such a bad take to go through. A LOT of shit is dependent on him.

    And he doesn't do either one, or all of these jobs JUST for DB. He has varying roles/jobs in many, many of Funi's numerous series they dub. You are out of your mind if you think he has no significant power/pull within the company, at least this branch, although that's all that matters, and thus that he couldn't, even if it's somehow eventually proven to not have been the case at all, just walk up himself or at least with Sean, ask whoever has the power to do so, to be able to fire Vic. At absolute most, he'd just have to say "A number of our female voice actresses said they've had unpleasant encounters with him" and it would be done. As if millions of people have never been fired for a bullshit reason, with the real reason being that the higher up in charge didn't like them for a petty reason and was just waiting for an excuse.

    And you are telling me their presented reasons for firing Vic are indisputably, unquestionably noble, just, correct, and proper? Fuck outta here.


    Also, i don't know how many other women in Funi made accusations as you say, but let's say even 10 different women said that. Your reasoning must be "It's 10 women saying this over just this 1 guy saying his thing, how could they ALL lie?". I will tell you this, with great certainty and confidence, that within a week, i can have even more, real, actual women, all with their own accounts, gather up, for example, here, and make wild and constant seriously incriminating accusations that you've sexually harassed/assaulted them. From then on, you should go to jail right? Come on, it's like 15 different women all saying you did nasty shit to them. No way they are lying.
     
    • Funny Funny x 4
    • Winner Winner x 1
    • List
  28. Gogeta

    Messages:
    14,675
    Likes Received:
    480
    Trophy Points:
    1,354
    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2011






    Spoiler: STILL laughing

    Also, had a good chuckle at the following part ;

    Now it's much clearer to me. You are just bewilderingly naive. You actually believe these companies are objectively fair, just, noble. You believe they have the best interest in heart... for you. They care for you. They would never lie to you. Everything they say or do is for YOUR, the consumers, benefit.

    Even people who have imagined, written about, or explained their versions of Utopia's wouldn't dare try to sell you that utter nonsense. Companies care, first and foremost, and this becomes the case exponentially more true and relevant the larger AND richer a company gets, for money. For profits. You really think the people responsible for the financial growth of a company honestly, truly care and believe in movements like metoo or any fucking trend? If they can either gain the most or lose the least through appealing to/appeasing that portion of their customers, they will fucking do that. In this particular case with Vic, the company made the decision they did on AT LEAST two levels - 1, not firing Vic could've led to Sabat, Schemmel, and very, very likely a significant portion of the other voice actors they have quitting in either protest, or just as a threat they did not want to risk. 2, they thought firing Vic for even potential sexual misconduct would cost them less, both in short-term financial gain AND long-term general consumer opinion/view on the company.

    And if you don't believe this is the case, that's fine, just explain yourself. Give me reasons why you believe what i said above is bullshit or not the case here, or why you believe your reasons are stronger/more relevant.

    If Sabat + whoever in his gang did fire/get rid of everyone who didn't do or act the way they wanted them to, wouldn't a majority, or at least a significant enough portion of the company be corrupt enough to have banded together to deny such notions? Again... if the people with significant power/pull are corrupt, or at least theres sufficient evidence to at least question and discuss this point, why the fuck is it still, STILL your motto to follow and believe every word they are saying?

    You could be right, there could be nothing there. But what kind of fucked up horribly mutated and twisted preconceived notions/beliefs would you have to have acquired that would make you believe they HAVE TO be the ones in the right? I am honestly not sure at this point if you have just been indoctrinated, which is crazy to me because i honestly didn't get this impression of you when you posted in directly DB-related threads. You believe these soulless corporate entities over Vic just because you do. At this point i honestly feel like none of what i say has or will reach you in any capacity.

    I know the wonderful, forgiving, graceful lord and savior Jesus Christ is testing me right now, intending to strengthen me as a whole. I find it curious how you completely ignored anything i said regarding what Sabat did to Stephanie Nadolny. That's all passable and excusable to you? Since i haven't followed basically 95% of the court hearings and what not, i will accept what you are saying concerning Vic hiring an actor with no previous notable experience.

    Not that it makes it right, but that could've been Vic doing a friend, or a friend of a friend, or some relative a favor. Which, again, it's nepotism and it's not right. There's even the possibility that he wanted to give a random/more unknown person a chance, and simply made a mistake. At worst, that's incompetence. But i'll even help you out in this case and go with the worst possible reason/choice, regardless of how unlikely it might be.There's a possibility that Vic slept with her before hiring her. There's a possibility that Vic hired her after sleeping with her as either a reward or threat from her. There's also a possibility that he told her the only way she would EVER get hired is if she first slept with him.
    This is the worst possible sequence of actions Vic would've taken regarding this manner.
    And you'd have to go through all these hoops just to have this action of his equal Sabat's action of giving Stephanie an ultimatum of sleeping with him or getting canned.

    I bet your post could be considered for a case study. I am trying real hard Ringo, to be the shepherd. How do you look at an accusation by a voice actress, in specific, Stephanie Nadolny, accusing Sabat of giving her an ultimatum that is both sexual harassment AND discrimination, that actually has more evidence (I admit, it's not undeniably or heavily incriminating, but it's still MORE than what these kickvic broads have given) regarding the likelihood of its occurrence (as i said in my previous post, Sabat TRASHING her in the same announcement where he says she is fired), and think responding with "A-ha! But there has been evidence of Vic hiring some random girl with NO proof of any kind regarding an incriminating/malicious intent!" in any sane reality either invalids or counters the shit i posted.

    Is this a case of a large ego? Even with the freedom to still choose to stand with the kickvic side, are you still unable and unwilling to recognize and accept the shortcomings of your side? It's "us vs them" situation, ain't it? Well, have seen it enough to tell you - they are willing to eat and devour one of their own with no second thought. Try to be more wary, eh?


    Show me these multiple convictions. Far as i could find, she was arrested for theft once in 2000, and the DUI happened after her firing, in 2016. And i am not excusing or defending either, mostly the former action of hers. But even if it was truly the only or main reason for her firing, do you not think she would've been fired back in 2000?

    Do you know why she wasn't fired back then? Because both she wasn't on his bad side, and because they knew for the purposes of producing and selling the anime, that shit didn't matter. Pick a reason, it's 2000s and very few people have internet, very few if anyone thought it relevant or in any negative way correlating to her performance, west anime voice actors as a whole not being known nor particularly cared about aspect. And then randomly one day he decides to fire her for shit that happened like 10-15 years ago? And he leaves a heated, negative comment concerning her ability as both a voice actress and the voice for Kid Goku/Teen Gohan, because he realized her 15 year old crime of theft is suddenly unacceptable?


    Oh, and by the way, how come you so blindly believe the accused in this situation and not the accuser, when with Monica/the rest and Vic, you believe the accuser and not the accused? I could very easily argue that their reasons for firing Stephanie are less valid and plausible than Vic's defense, or at most, equally as possible. Now we've gone to an even more intriguing question - if it's not the company as a whole, why have you chosen to defend those 2 (since we are going piece by piece, i am in specific addressing the paragraph i'm replying to right now) over Vic? I don't blame you if hearsay is how you, at least initially, decided on being on kickvic's side. I blame you for not thinking it over further in any meaningful capacity.


    I don't know if you are unironically serious in posting this legal shit when i have not shown at any point since the beginning of the first thread, any interest, willingness, or indepth knowledge regarding this topic. I don't know if you've missed my point entirely, or are intentionally using this as you have nothing else to respond with.

    First of all, i guess it's both fitting and consistent with your previous replies that you very selectively choose which allegations to believe, all based on what fits your narrative. You initially present these allegations as such, yet instantly afterwards, you use them in an argument which is entirely reliant on the allegations being a true, proven fact. And unlike you, i accept the possibility that those assumptions COULD be true.
    I think about them through at least a little. How ridiculous (or likely) does this (all these allegations towards being both true and actually indicative of a nasty, despicable person) case sound, whether and what each side has to gain from winning/losing, the likelihood as well as the extent of possible corruption, the underlying possible agenda, is there any "human" driving factor behind each side (such as greed, selfishness, jealousy, envy, simple power trip etc.).

    I am not blind to the shortcomings of the side i support. But for now, at this moment, i consider, be it for moral reasons or any other, the case to be in Vic's favor. I, for now, believe that either Vic has done less, or less egregious actions than the other side, or i think the shortcomings of the kickvic side are more egregious and inexcusable than the other side. You don't. It's just fuck Vic and nothing else matters, and anyone who disagrees is a shitbag.


    Oh, and i love the second part of your post. My original post was all about how, at the very least SOME parts of the legal system are completely fucked, unjust and corrupt, and you give me evidence of that exact issue, yet try to use that to prove me wrong. I go on about how anyone, with most of the perpetrators being women, can accuse anyone with no proof and be considered correct both by law, and by society even if disproved legally, yet it somehow motivated you to prove my point.

    Tommorow a woman, god forbid multiple women, accuse you of either heavy sexual harassment, or just flat out rape. Since you are so legally educated, how do you prove your innocence? What are the exact steps you take to do that?

    Do you not realize how much easier it is to set up, bait out, and manipulate people into a situation where they come out as the guilty one, in comparison to having the magical foresight to realize all this, and prepare in advance for it. And no one on the kickvic side, at any point, thought of making even a 10 second visual or audio recording of him doing that "nasty" shit? And they couldn't even bother to do that. And they still have a massive automatic legal advantage.

    Why are you so adamant about Vic's standing on a legal basis? As i said, i know very little in regards to law, but what if there is another state or country where the burden of proof is on the plaintiff instead. Does Vic's guilt and actions, if true, suddenly disappear entirely if the court hearing occurred in said state/country?
    What then? Would you have argued for Vic's side and his rights based entirely on whether he holds the advantage legally?
    Does it make Vic morally correct if he wins legally, and morally wrong if he loses legally? Let's say that Vic is, and for a long time has been entirely and completely guilty of all these accusations and behaviors (and also making Monica and the rest not guilty of anything), but instead of Monica and the rest suing Vic, he managed to gain Bardock's premonition ability and instead decided to sue them for sexual harassment instead say 2-3 months before their first post about it came about. Do you consider Vic the correct party in this situation just because in this case the law favors him?

    Stop talking on this subject on a legal basis, and start doing it from a human/person basis.


    "Exonerate Vic of his inner demons", do you hear yourself man? You can bullshit me and maybe even yourself, but i can see what the fuck you are doing. You're already convinced and have firmly accepted that Vic is guilty here. Fucking nothing i say will convince you of otherwise. I won't even go into the stupidity and madness behind finding ANY type of jokes to be an issue worth firing over. There are jokes about everyone. Grow the fuck up and learn to accept types of input other than positive.

    But lets go past that. Show me where he made these racist/homophobic/rape jokes. I've fucking seen a video of him, angrily arguing with a lunatic Christian who held up a sign of, and screamed constantly, negatively and angrily about homosexuals at one of these cons. He defended homosexuality. Show me where he bashes it. Show me how these awful jokes somehow super-cede his actions which go completely against the notion that he is homophobic.

    Yeah, it's possible that both parties have done shit to be blamed for. But you don't seem to believe, or would be happy with anyone but Vic being the guilty one.

    God damn, i even tasted the blatant contempt present in this paragraph.

    Thankfully we are nearing the end of your post, cause i've honestly lost most of my interest and will in responding to you. Are you forgetting how many cons cancelled his appearance immediately after Monica's accusation? Same for VO roles?

    Argue with me that legally he couldn't win from the beginning all you want. If he chose not to fight, both you and a lot of others would've figured he chose not to because he is infact guilty and is accepting that. He would've lost even more on every front if he chose not to fight. Fucking incredible you think they wouldn't fake "HE COULD'VE BEEN GREAT, I TRIED TO HELP HIM" moments that you say Monica mentioned. Fucking incredible you pass over proven, objectively factual domestic abuse because publicly the guy is regretful and "changed". Fucking incredible you believe accepting his "guilt" (Ha, good one, you got me man!) and "promising to seek help and reform" would've meant he would've gone scot-free and that everything would've been nice and dandy instead for everyone. If only he made that simple decision, everything would've worked out, and now, deservedly, he should and will fall and be crushed like the evil monster he is.

    gigasigh


    Again, i don't know how good either of them are, nor how the proceedings went in detail, let alone how much of a detriment his lawyers actually were regarding his case. I did hear some things that they are either not really good, or are at least not handling this case nearly as well as they should.

    But your entire post up to this point has been "Vic is this nasty person who deserves to lose, be proven as, and then widely regarded as such" to "Oh no, it's his lawyers that are really the issue". Basically, your entire post has been you arguing that Vic is both wrong morally, and how inevitable his legal defeat is/was. Sure, the bad lawyers hurt his case. But your case has been that even with really competent lawyers, he still would've lost legally. This lawyer argument also doesn't in any way change the fact that you find him guilty. What, you would've found him and his case to be correct/in the right if he had competent lawyers instead?

    If a person rapes someone, he can be lets say dependent on his lawyer, to either get imprisoned for over a decade in jail, or get out of it as an innocent man. His legal verdict/judgement/outcome is entirely irrelevant to whether he actually raped the person and what kind of person he is. How you are unable to understand this and apply it to Vic is beyond me. As if, in your view, his likelihood of legal victory also determines his objective guilt, as well as the kind of person he is.
     
    • Funny Funny x 3
    • Winner Winner x 2
    • List
  29. Keishin

    Messages:
    9,808
    Likes Received:
    585
    Trophy Points:
    1,358
    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2012
    Reputation:
  30. SuperSaiyaMan12

    Messages:
    26,872
    Likes Received:
    463
    Trophy Points:
    1,429
    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2006
    Reputation:
    His own deposition, he did.
     
Loading...