tl;dr but...this reveals perfectly the mindset of the insatiable cancel-thirsty libfag.
"it continues to show that vic had such a poor reputation that people would assume..."
somehow the circularity of this is completely beyond them, and therein lies the eternal divide. you cannot explain to such a person that since that is literally how low they've set the bar, it allows for a "bad reputation" to emerge after the flimsiest of accusations (because "victims"), and from there on out everything else is gravy and automatically completely true, EVEN IF CONTRADICTED, because whether or not it's actually true, his reputation is bad enough that it might as well be.
I STAND WITH SURVIVORS!!!
i'm sure somebody else already pointed that out but i just pissed myself right away seeing that. how do they even exist.