Ok, gonna be breaking my silence for this and only this, in large part because I knew that it would be talked about here.
First and foremost, sexual assault is not a crime that has been taken seriously at any point, and that is the biggest point of the MeToo movement: to FINALLY get it to be taken seriously. And as a major crime, it damn well should be. If a police report is filed, it damn well should be followed up on. If an accusation is made, it should be taken seriously, regardless of any personal beliefs. That being said, when a claim is made, proof should be provided to back it up. It has NEVER been the case that the accusation is proof in and of itself, even from a first-hand account of the events. If all that is offered is an account of events by the accuser, it will eventually become a "he said-she said" situation. At the same time, cross-analysis of those stories might reveal some hole in one or both of them, which makes the concept of seeking evidence to back up the claim even more important, as well as the right for the accused to defend themselves. And this is true, no matter how many people stand up and make the accusation.
That being said, while the goals of the MeToo movement are noble and just, the methods behind them are flawed, and actually create fertile ground for a false accusation. The thought process is that you should always believe the victim. While a noble sentiment, this relies on the logical fallacy that, as I stated earlier, that the accusation is proof in and of itself; that the witness testimony is proof on its own. This is an example of the "misleading vividness" fallacy, or as its more commonly known, anecdotal evidence. I'm going to provide a link to the wikipedia page on anecdotal evidence for your own reading: Anecdotal Evidence. One paragraph stands out in particular, under the "Law" sub-entry on that page:
"Witness testimony is a common form of evidence in law, and law has mechanisms to test witness evidence for reliability or credibility. Legal processes for the taking and assessment of evidence are formalized. Some witness testimony may be described as anecdotal evidence, such as individual stories of harassment as part of a class action lawsuit. However, witness testimony can be tested and assessed for reliability. Examples of approaches to testing and assessment include the use of
questioning to identify possible gaps or inconsistencies, evidence of corroborating witnesses, documents, video and forensic evidence. Where a court lacks suitable means to test and assess testimony of a particular witness, such as the absence of forms of corroboration or
substantiation, it may afford that testimony limited or no "weight" when making a decision on the facts."
Please take note of this line: "Legal processes for the taking and assessment of evidence are
formalized. Some witness testimony may be described as anecdotal evidence, such as individual stories of harassment as part of a class action lawsuit." This is EXACTLY what is going on here: people are sharing individual stories of their own experiences with Vic, and very few, if any, are commenting on the same story, with limits them severely as corroborating evidence. In addition, the MeToo movement relies heavily on the appeal to emotion, both as an integral part of the anecdotal evidence, but also in pushing back against anyone who either comes in on the side of the accused, or asks (correctly) for proof, emphasizing how hurt the victim is by just coming forward. In addition, the MeToo movement cites that very few sexual assault accusations are false, citing several studies on the topic, as well as the idea that the accused essentially have nothing to gain and everything to lose by coming forward. I cannot really comment on the latter, but the former says everything that needs to be said as to why the accusation should be properly investigated for accuracy: that very few sexual assault accusations are false. That implicitly means that some accusations are false. The scenario does exist that this accusation, and possibly the one that Pridemore made against Todd Haberkorn, is false. Now, remember what I said about the methodology actually making it fertile ground for a false accusation? Here's where it comes in. Again, the very thought process is that you automatically believe the victims without needing concrete proof. So what happens if, say, you or I make an accusation against another person, for whatever reasons only known to us? We would be believed without needing to provide proof, we would be complicit in the tarnishing of the accused's reputation and life. And while it objectively (and ideally) should not do so, one confirmed false accusation will make any others lose credibility, more so if any of Pridemore's accusations are proven false, ALL of her accusations will lose credibility if either one against Vic or Haberkorn are proven false. All of this illustrates exactly why the people who are asking for proof beyond the accusations are objectively correct, and why there should be even more vigilance paid towards the idea of a false accusation than ever before. Again, while I fully agree with the goals of MeToo, the methodology and tactics employed by them have massive potential to backfire on them. All it takes is one person falsely accused for ANY reason, more so if that false accusation leads to a wrongful conviction.
Now, and I cannot say this enough: I HAVE NO PERSONAL STAKE IN THIS WHATSOEVER. I fully support the investigation of any accusation of sexual assault, and if it turns out that Vic Mignogna is guilty, then he should be appropriately punished. I also think that, despite my own beliefs towards RT, that they did the best thing that they could do in this circumstance. There really wasn't any "good" choice to make here. However, I am also prepared for the possibility that this accusation is false, and if it is so, then Vic is well within his rights to counter-sue for slander.