Weeb Wars / AnimeGate / #KickVic / #IStandWithVic / #vickicksback - General Discussion Thread

[saiyajin]

And your first posts are literally today. lmao. Stay mad that the mental gymnastics arguments that didn't convince anyone in 2019 won't convince anyone in 2021.

And you're still wrong about what Vic did being assault, but what else is new.

yeah, I never tried to convince anyone here at the farms of anything back in 2019 cause I never posted anything until today. I specifically made the account to see if I could find anything about ElRariachi aka Jair Saiyan because he threatened me on twitter, claiming he was ex-FBI and had resources to harm me, but it was all hot air.

I respect that you have that opinion about Vic's specific interaction, but I'm not wrong that physical contact that would seem benign to most (like laying a finger on someone or playfully grabbing their hair) could be considered assault according to the Texas statute if the person who was touched decided to press charges even if it'd be ridiculous since it wasn't some kind of violent assault. Hypothetically, if someone were to punch someone else out because they took offense to any physical contact (though benign in nature) and they stated that in their police report, it's be a self-defense claim even if they weren't being hurt, it only matters that unwanted contact was made. In Vic and Jamie's case, it's a little different because they're colleagues who'd had interactions before AND after the incident, but without any proof that she was lying in her affidavit about it, the meaning of their other interactions is moot.

 

[Volmsaiyan]

yeah, I never tried to convince anyone here at the farms of anything back in 2019 cause I never posted anything until today. I specifically made the account to see if I could find anything about ElRariachi aka Jair Saiyan because he threatened me on twitter, claiming he was ex-FBI and had resources to harm me, but it was all hot air.

I respect that you have that opinion about Vic's specific interaction, but I'm not wrong that physical contact that would seem benign to most (like laying a finger on someone or playfully grabbing their hair) could be considered assault according to the Texas statute if the person who was touched decided to press charges even if it'd be ridiculous since it wasn't some kind of violent assault. Hypothetically, if someone were to punch someone else out because they took offense to any physical contact (though benign in nature) and they stated that in their police report, it's be a self-defense claim even if they weren't being hurt, it only matters that unwanted contact was made. In Vic and Jamie's case, it's a little different because they're colleagues who'd had interactions before AND after the incident, but without any proof that she was lying in her affidavit about it, the meaning of their other interactions is moot.

If I'm remembering correctly it's only assault if it was clear the person was intentionally causing harm or distress which obviously wasn't the case. Marchi herself hugged and sat on Vics lap,I guess that's assault as well.

 

[Xenomorphs Are Cute]

View attachment 2795054

Israel on Twitter: "@Burning_Razor Kiwi Farms can say that the gif is…

archived 12 Dec 2021 20:19:51 UTC

archive.md

View attachment 2795077

Israel on Twitter: "Very bittersweet feeling for Mega Man 11 being an…

archived 12 Dec 2021 20:21:41 UTC

archive.md

View attachment 2795081

Israel on Twitter: "At times, I'm scared for my mental health" / Twit…

archived 12 Dec 2021 20:22:22 UTC

archive.md

View attachment 2795083

Israel on Twitter: "I kinda need professional help in regards to my m…

archived 12 Dec 2021 20:22:30 UTC

archive.md

All the time, this is literally the case all the time.

Edit: I'm saying you have mental issues like 99% others who are Anti-Vic.

 

[saiyajin]

All the time, this is literally the case all the time.

the fact that anyone feels the need to dig up irrelevant tweets is telling of their insecurity when presented with opposing ideas. it's so difficult for them to just stay on track with an argument that they need to resort to ad hominem attacks, the basic tell-tale sign that one is more emotionally involved than necessary for simple discourse.

 

[Volmsaiyan]

If I'm remembering correctly it's only assault if it was clear the person was intentionally causing harm or distress which obviously wasn't the case. Marchi herself hugged and sat on Vics lap,I guess that's assault as well.

The people mentioned didn’t help file a lawsuit against Funimation. As a result, they probably don’t view them with hostility. Basically what I’m saying is that Funimation probably would have more issue with Rolon’s source (Rekieta) than with his opinions. I’m not saying Rolon doesn’t have the right to express his views.

Rekieta didn't help file a lawsuit,he's not vics lawyer. The others have been just as provocative toward the fanbase & creating controversy in regards to the situation yet are not bullied or publicly called out by other vas. You entire argument is "well so and so is a Christian conservative & they are still at funi so bullying doesn't occur" when multiple sources & examples have shown that if you offend,stand up to,or go against "the clique" you are bullied,ostracized or basically denied work.

 

[saiyajin]

If I'm remembering correctly it's only assault if it was clear the person was intentionally causing harm or distress which obviously wasn't the case. Marchi herself hugged and sat on Vics lap,I guess that's assault as well.

no, the statue says "intentionally or knowingly causes physical contact with another when the person knows or should reasonably believe that the other will regard the contact as offensive or provocative", nothing about "harm" nor "distress". That was what TheClappening said without providing the statute to support that claim. The only intent "assault requires" is the intent to make the physical contact. when he says "If Vic didn't reasonably believe his contact with Marchi would cause her distress" he should be saying "if Vic didn't reasonably believe his contact was Marchi was offensive or provocative, that's not assault" but that isn't accurate either. It's not whether Vic did or didn't reasonably believe it, the statute says "when the person knows or SHOULD reasonably believe the other will regard the contact as offensive or provocative". This is why I asked BurningRazor on twitter if they didn't think a hair-grab was at the least provocative, but they posted my tweets here instead of replying back, so here I am. You guys can thank BurningRazor for my presence.

Lmao. He can't even read the statute correctly. Assault requires intent. If Vic didn't reasonably believe his contact with Marchi would cause her distress, that's not assault.

I can, of course, predict their argument. "Vic should know that yanking someone's hair would cause them distress, therefore assault."

Except he denied the contact as Marchi alleged it. Gee whiz, that sounds like a fact question for a jury to determine.

this is where TheClappening intentionally misinformed y'all about what the statute says. I posted the statute before, but here it is again https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/docs/pe/htm/pe.22.htm

>Marchi herself hugged and sat on Vics lap,I guess that's assault as well.

if Vic did not want her to, then yes, especially in Texas. of course, if I said that him not taking her to court over it is evidence that he welcomed her to hug him and sit on his lap, it'd be the same as me saying that Marchi not filing a complaint to Funi is evidence she was okay with that hair-grab interaction. Neither is necessarily true. HOWEVER, I won't argue that it's suspicious that she would do that if it happened after the hair-grab, suspicions are not evidence of anything tho.

also, >Rekieta didn't help file a lawsuit
he literally recommended his family friend to represent Vic. that's not helping file a lawsuit?

Marchi herself hugged and sat on Vics lap,I guess that's assault as well.

https://i.gyazo.com/1b42cd0bbca41cc340c4f22042e1fc10.jpg

was that Marchi or Clinkenbeard? I would like to see a picture or video of the incident you're referring to if possible.

 

[TheClappening]

lmao. Read the statute, you sped.

"intentionally or knowingly causes physical contact with another when the person knows or should reasonably believe that the other will regard the contact as offensive or provocative."

Tugging/brushing/fluffing/otherwise touching someone's hair is not what a reasonable person would consider offensive or provocative. This is especially in light of the fact that Jamie herself admitted Funimation was huggy, as well as the fact that Jamie initiated the encounter by hugging Vic first.

Now, if you make the assumption that Vic did what Jamie accused him of (grabbing her hair at the roots, wrenching her head back, restraining her movement, whispering something Shrodinger's sexual into her ear), then yes, you can make the assumption that a reasonable person would reasonably believe that would cause alarm in someone else. But that was never admitted to.

If anything, you're making a case of defamation per se for Vic, since your idiotic reading of the statute would mean Marchi was accusing Vic of a crime. Falsely accusing someone of a crime is defamation per se. And since Marchi's and Vic's account of the events are in conflict, this should be brought before a jury to determine whose story is true. Which means the defamation claim against Marchi should never have been dismissed by the TCPA.

 

[Volmsaiyan]

https://i.gyazo.com/1b42cd0bbca41cc340c4f22042e1fc10.jpg

was that Marchi or Clinkenbeard? I would like to see a picture or video of the incident you're referring to if possible.

I'm not searching for the video as it was posted on twitter

 

[Eggplant Wizard]

Yeah, most of the normies have stopped attending.

More degeneracy to go around then.

There were never normies but there did used to be at least a slightly better class of weirdo.

The problem is that most of the more “normal” people are trying to find new venues to attend. The usual places are being stuffed with the usual suspects more and more, so everyone is either finding a plan B, only hanging with friends, or not going at all.

 

[KittyLoaf]

Here's the hug video, it was someone else sitting on Vic's lap (maybe Chickenbeard, I dunno).

 

[saiyajin]

lmao. Read the statute, you sped.

"intentionally or knowingly causes physical contact with another when the person knows or should reasonably believe that the other will regard the contact as offensive or provocative."

Tugging/brushing/fluffing/otherwise touching someone's hair is not what a reasonable person would consider offensive or provocative. This is especially in light of the fact that Jamie herself admitted Funimation was huggy, as well as the fact that Jamie initiated the encounter by hugging Vic first.

Now, if you make the assumption that Vic did what Jamie accused him of (grabbing her hair at the roots, wrenching her head back, restraining her movement, whispering something Shrodinger's sexual into her ear), then yes, you can make the assumption that a reasonable person would reasonably believe that would cause alarm in someone else. But that was never admitted to.

If anything, you're making a case of defamation per se for Vic, since your idiotic reading of the statute would mean Marchi was accusing Vic of a crime. Falsely accusing someone of a crime is defamation per se. And since Marchi's and Vic's account of the events are in conflict, this should be brought before a jury to determine whose story is true. Which means the defamation claim against Marchi should never have been dismissed by the TCPA.

>Tugging/brushing/fluffing/otherwise touching someone's hair is not what a reasonable person would consider offensive or provocative
in your opinion, maybe not. some people would take offense to someone touching on them without consent even if they've been friendly before. I guess it'd be up to the judge to decide whether the circumstances

>Jamie initiated the encounter by hugging Vic first
no no, Vic clearly stated how it went down in his deposition. he says:

"I had come in to record one day for Funimation, and I was in the lobby, she was there, and she had just changed her hair somehow...probably as far away as I am from Casey and she said 'HEY HON!' and I'm like 'OH MY GOSH, I LOVE YOUR HAIR!' and she's like 'I knooow, I just got it-' and I walked around the counter and I was kinda standing there, kinda flipping it like 'oh my gosh, it's really beautiful, I love it' and I put my hand up in the bottom of it like 'ouuhh, this is great"' (this is when this GIF takes place https://tenor.com/view/vic-vic-mignogna-mignogna-gif-18653766?_r=g )

Nowhere did Vic say she initiated the interaction with a hug, that's you putting words in his mouth. I think Vic made it clear how it started, there is no need to be dishonest.

>Falsely accusing someone of a crime is defamation per se
if she had taken him to court, her case wouldn't have held water at all and she would've made a fool of herself. since Vic took Jamie to court, he was then legally required to present more evidence than just his own testimony that would prove the conflict in their stories stems from her lying. If your testimony was good enough to prove your case as the plaintiff in a defamation case, you could easily lie to the court and tell them the defendant is lying because their story doesn't add up with yours, I'm sure any reasonable person could see the problem with that.

View attachment 2795973

Here's the hug video, it was someone else sitting on Vic's lap (maybe Chickenbeard, I dunno).

thank you! If this was indeed after the hair-grab incident, I'd lean towards the idea that it's suspicious she was so friendly with someone who'd made her feel so uncomfortable. Vic also maintains that just barely 7-10 days before the allegations were posted on social media, he had another friendly interaction with Jamie. However, these clips don't negate the possibility that she was saving face for the sake of keeping an appearance in front of the audiences, so again, it's a moot idea as long as it's possible. If it's impossible, I'd like to know why. and yes, it was Clinkenbeard who sat on Vic's lap, it seems that her sitting on his lap and Jamie's hugging him are being conflated.

 

[KittyLoaf]

However, these clips don't negate the possibility that she was saving face for the sake of keeping an appearance in front of the audiences, so again, it's a moot idea as long as it's possible. If it's impossible, I'd like to know why.

I refute this simply because Jamie Marchi has had a long LONG history of having foul-mouthed temper-tantrums - read "outspoken" to the woke crowd. She doesn't shut up about imagined slights, there's no way in hell she would keep her mouth shut about something like this.

Edit: clarifying my response
Edit 2: ALSO, since Jamie is ASSERTING battery SHE'S the one that has to prove it and none of her behavior supports that. She didn't report it at the time, nor did she report it when Funimation was running that investigation in 2019. She said nothing until the bandwagon took off and she wanted to play victim because that's her fucking hobby.

 

[TheClappening]

>Tugging/brushing/fluffing/otherwise touching someone's hair is not what a reasonable person would consider offensive or provocative
in your opinion, maybe not. some people would take offense to someone touching on them without consent even if they've been friendly before. I guess it'd be up to the judge to decide whether the circumstances

>Jamie initiated the encounter by hugging Vic first
no no, Vic clearly stated how it went down in his deposition. he says:

"I had come in to record one day for Funimation, and I was in the lobby, she was there, and she had just changed her hair somehow...probably as far away as I am from Casey and she said 'HEY HON!' and I'm like 'OH MY GOSH, I LOVE YOUR HAIR!' and she's like 'I knooow, I just got it-' and I walked around the counter and I was kinda standing there, kinda flipping it like 'oh my gosh, it's really beautiful, I love it' and I put my hand up in the bottom of it like 'ouuhh, this is great"' (this is when this GIF takes place https://tenor.com/view/vic-vic-mignogna-mignogna-gif-18653766?_r=g )

Nowhere did Vic say she initiated the interaction with a hug, that's you putting words in his mouth. I think Vic made it clear how it started, there is no need to be dishonest.

>Falsely accusing someone of a crime is defamation per se
if she had taken him to court, her case wouldn't have held water at all and she would've made a fool of herself. since Vic took Jamie to court, he was then legally required to present more evidence than just his own testimony that would prove the conflict in their stories stems from her lying. If your testimony was good enough to prove your case as the plaintiff in a defamation case, you could easily lie to the court and tell them the defendant is lying because their story doesn't add up with yours, I'm sure any reasonable person could see the problem with that.

Jamie Marchi's TCPA, page 3

Note that this was submitted on July 19, 2019, almost a month after Vic's deposition on June 26, 2019. She could have omitted that she gave the hug and no one would have been the wiser, yet she admitted to initiating contact.

Also, not in "my opinion." It's in a reasonable person's opinion, and a reasonable person wouldn't find touching someone's hair that you've been friendly with for years to be offensive, especially after they've given you a hug.

You're wrong, again, about testimony. Testimony is evidence, and in the absence of a physical evidence or an additional witness, it's Marchi's word against Vic's. At the TCPA stage, the non-movant is given deference on conflicts of fact, which mean Vic's story is considered true while Jamie's is considered false, Additionally, as seen in Van Der Linden, since it's he-said she-said, it would mean she knowingly lied for purposes of the TCPA and actual malice.

When it comes to trial, the jury would have to determine who is telling the true. And, again, in the absence of video evidence or additional witnesses, it'll boil down to who the jury finds more convincing, Vic or Jamie.

Why are you so bad at this.

 

[saiyajin]

I refute this simply because Jamie Marchi has had a long LONG history of having foul-mouthed temper-tantrums - read "outspoken" to the woke crowd. She doesn't shut up about imagined slights, there's no way in hell she would keep her mouth shut about something like this.

Edit: clarifying my response

>there's no way in hell she would keep her mouth shut about something like this
you might not be wrong, you might not be right, I can't really argue against that cause I'd be projecting.

 

[KittyLoaf]

>there's no way in hell she would keep her mouth shut about something like this
you might not be wrong, you might not be right, I can't really argue against that cause I'd be projecting.

Well, in this country, we operate on innocent until proven guilty. The benefit of the doubt is given to the accused.
Not one of these people can prove anything that they're claiming.

Their stories are constantly changing.
They've been caught in so many lies.
And they pretended to be this man's friend, all the way up until they stabbed him in the back.

They went to the court of public opinion and smeared him with generic and vague accusations until they were forced to come up with something specific. BIGGEST RED FLAG is that none of these people went to the police, although, Monica lied and said they did (no reports were ever actually filed).



And Vic, to this day, is smeared as a rapist and sexual predator, even though he hasn't been credibly accused of rape or anything close. The worst is Monica's accusations (a forced kiss) and that story keeps changing. And Monica is a serial liar. AND that story wasn't reported to Funimation, either.

 

[saiyajin]

Jamie Marchi's TCPA, page 3
View attachment 2795990

Note that this was submitted on July 19, 2019, almost a month after Vic's deposition on June 26, 2019. She could have omitted that she gave the hug and no one would have been the wiser, yet she admitted to initiating contact.

Also, not in "my opinion." It's in a reasonable person's opinion, and a reasonable person wouldn't find touching someone's hair that you've been friendly with for years to be offensive, especially after they've given you a hug.

You're wrong, again, about testimony. Testimony is evidence, and in the absence of a physical evidence or an additional witness, it's Marchi's word against Vic's. At the TCPA stage, the non-movant is given deference on conflicts of fact, which mean Vic's story is considered true while Jamie's is considered false, Additionally, as seen in Van Der Linden, since it's he-said she-said, it would mean she knowingly lied for purposes of the TCPA and actual malice.

When it comes to trial, the jury would have to determine who is telling the true. And, again, in the absence of video evidence or additional witnesses, it'll boil down to who the jury finds more convincing, Vic or Jamie.

Why are you so bad at this.

>She could have omitted that she gave the hug and no one would have been the wiser, yet she admitted to initiating contact.
what about Vic? he didn't mention it during his deposition, why not?

>Also, not in "my opinion." It's in a reasonable person's opinion
who is this reasonable person? a hypothetical person?

>At the TCPA stage, the non-movant is given deference on conflicts of fact, which mean Vic's story is considered true while Jamie's is considered false
but you said in an earlier post that "since Marchi's and Vic's account of the events are in conflict, this should be brought before a jury to determine whose story is true" why would there need to be a jury if Jamie's testimony is just considered false already? not to mention they both testified under oath, so the court presumes both statements to be true anyways, so it's not like Vic could be considered a liar even if he truly was unless there was evidence of perjury, it's just that the plaintiff is required to bring more evidence besides testimony for a defamation case. Obviously testimony is evidence, it just isn't enough to win a defamation case.


>Why are you so bad at this.
you can stop taking personal jabs at me and just stick to the arguments at hand.

 

[TheClappening]

but you said in an earlier post that "since Marchi's and Vic's account of the events are in conflict, this should be brought before a jury to determine whose story is true" why would there need to be a jury if Jamie's testimony is just considered false already? not to mention they both testified under oath, so the court presumes both statements to be true anyways, so it's not like Vic could be considered a liar even if he truly was unless there was evidence of perjury, it's just that the plaintiff is required to bring more evidence besides testimony for a defamation case. Obviously testimony is evidence, it just isn't enough to win a defamation case.

At the TCPA stage, you mong, not the trial stage.

Also where is this rule that a plaintiff must bring more evidence than pure testimony to prevail at trial?

You're still bad at this.

If you don't like being made fun of, go back to twitter and tweet about the mean Kiwifarmers.

 

[saiyajin]

Well, in this country, we operate on innocent until proven guilty. The benefit of the doubt is given to the accused.
Not one of these people can prove anything that they're claiming.

Their stories are constantly changing.
They've been caught in so many lies.
And they pretended to be this man's friend, all the way up until they stabbed him in the back.

They went to the court of public opinion and smeared him with generic and vague accusations until they were forced to come up with something specific. BIGGEST RED FLAG is that none of these people went to the police, although, Monica lied and said they did (no reports were ever actually filed).

View attachment 2796032

And Vic, to this day, is smeared as a rapist and sexual predator, even though he hasn't been credibly accused of rape or anything close. The worst is Monica's accusations (a forced kiss) and that story keeps changing. And Monica is a serial liar. AND that story wasn't reported to Funimation, either.

>innocent until proven guilty. The benefit of the doubt is given to the accused
right, in a criminal case. This was a civil case and the ones being accused of anything were the defendants, the accusation being that they were defaming Vic, thank you for pointing that out. "innocent until proven guilty" is the standard for court, not for social media and people who immediately believe in #MeToo stories. If they had taken Vic to court for sexual assault, then Vic would be innocent until proven guilty, but people would probably still think he's guilty anyways and they could legally exercise that opinion. It's why anyone can claim that the defendants are still defaming Vic even though the case was dismissed and defamation is ultimately a matter of what the court decides.

 

[Dumb Bitch Smoothie]

Another day, another reminder that anime was definitely a mistake but nothing else can corral the sheer amount of autism that anime does besides maybe furries.

 

[KittyLoaf]

Another day, another reminder that anime was definitely a mistake but nothing else can corral the sheer amount of autism that anime does besides maybe furries.

This. I'm not even sure it's worth it to still engage this weirdo.