WingsOfGood posted...
He did what you are supposed to do when sued like this and not stream about it or say things but go silent.
Yeah, regardless of guilty or not guilty, let your lawyers handle it. It might not appease the Twitter crowd because they're not getting content from it, but accusations like can have far worse effects than "people who don't know you not liking you", including prison time if bad enough.
WingsOfGood posted...
Mia Malkova started dating him back in the day and they are still together.
Few people in the streaming world would stay with someone accused of this, especially someone who goes publicly silent, just due to the bad optics. What an absolute ride or die.
WingsOfGood posted...
Everyone in OTK said he needed to go and then he was gone from the internet. Not even a tweet.
This is largely due to what was going on at the time. OTK had just got through drama regarding a friend of OTK allegedly SA someone months prior and one of the OTK founders, Mizkif, being accused of covering it up which resulted in the most dramatic fallout regarding Twitch streamers.
OTK kept being meme'd on as a sex cult, SA org, creepy, ect... so when they finally got clear of the Mizkif drama, only for the Rich drama to happen right after, it makes sense why they'd unanimously side with the victim. Optics alone would make it worth it. And it's not like they were dogpiling him. They simply said, "We stand with the victim" and moved on.
With OTK basically being dissolved at this point, it's not surprising to see people change their tune.
WingsOfGood posted...
He was abruptly canceled due to a sexual assault allegation.
Tbf, it was a weird allegation. It could still be true, but it was never anything but frail.
Her story only made sense if:
A) She was lying
B) She is the dumbest person on the planet
C) She left out important info
Not really much to say about A, as it's self-explanatory, but I hate the idea of believing someone because "it's technically possible if you think she's extremely dumb and ignored all of the extremely obvious red flags she mentioned". It's like making the argument that someone didn't know murder was illegal and ignored people telling them it was because "I thought they were lying". Sure, I'm sure there's some person who is that clueless, it would not surprise me, but I'm not going to treat it like it's a realistic outcome most of the time. It just makes A look more compelling.
As for C, this also makes sense. She could've left out key info because it was embarrassing for her, or something along those lines. It was, afterall, just a declaration to public opinion. Regarding courts, if anything was withheld due to not wanting the public to know about it, it would be better to wait until court. In a way, she gets the same defense Rich gets here. But yeah, I'm not going to make assumptions in her favor based on things that weren't said. I get why she'd omit them, but that doesn't help her in the eyes of the public.
Considering the lack of info, I'm not going to condemn the guy. Sure, she could have been telling the truth, but it seems shitty to think less of him because "it might be possible". By that logic, it's also possible that he's innocent.
She made her claim, failed to prove it or even provide a compelling motive. I see no reason to entertain it further unless more info comes out down the line that makes it more compelling.