A Letter From CEO Bobby Kotick to All Employees

[DingDongKing]

I don't think white people mind when minorities reach positions of power. What they mind is when they (we're talking about white people who are innocent of racism here, I know not all people are) are discriminated against in order to try and reverse the effects of something that happened a long time ago which they were never a part of. But I think it goes beyond action, it's about language too. It hurts people, in their cores, to be treated like the bad guys and be called victimizers and privileged when they've had a hard time, even if it's slightly less hard than someone else. I think that, if we just treat people like humans, by their individual merits and flaws, things will sort themselves out peacefully. Creating groups of people that get empathy and other groups that don't is no way to create a cohesive society.

Lots of generalisation. Especially since there's enough of an audience for FOX and enough of a voter base for Trump.

And even if you subtract the minorities that vote for him out of either self preservation or misguidance, there's enough white grievance out there.

Same way there's enough Hindu nationalist grievance in India. And so on. Basically where the majority hates losing power.

Personally I have no issue with companies hiring whoever simply based on qualifications and not any other qualities that have nothing to do with the job. That's how it should be, and if that's not yet the case, I definitely agree with changing that.

But I don't think making companies half-commit to some scheme where they target specifically anyone who isn't white, male and straight to be hired is going to solve that. There's two sides, and while I get that the argument here is to compensate for potential previous discrimination, it's best to seek a neutral ground and hold it going forward. That's my opinion.

You're absolutely right. Half-assing it is not the solution. BUT, it's a) better than not trying at all b) shows some awareness of an inequality.

Better situation is to full ass it and actually commit to providing equal opportunity without subconscious biases or preferred candidates based on XYZ.

[TrollHunter3000]

Unconcious bias doesn't exist(only a lack of understanding, a lack of education and an ignorant upbringing - combined to varying degrees - can exist), anecdotal evidence can indeed exist but is irrelevant to what I talked about, systemic issues of the scale that you mention don't exist and I'll give my opinion on the matter every single time, because I'm entitled to it as I have experienced the opposite throughout my life.



I know a lot of people who make such jokes and they haven't raped or sexually harassed anyone. Some people are simply into dark and edgy humour. What the lawsuit indicates is what the lawsuit will have to prove in the end.

Unconscious bias factually exists. What the fuck are you talking about? It's much more complicated then simply an ignorance of the person. Even when you're aware of your bias, it can influence your thoughts without you realizing it. That is literally what unconscious bias means. It has a lot to do with how neural pathways in your brain develop.

You thinking there are no systemic issues is basically you saying you're racist. Either you think one demographic is just worse and that explains the gaps that exist, or you have to accept there is a systemic issue. Which is it?

Honestly at this point you're just a lost cause. You're too far gone and too far stupid.

- - - Updated - - -

Implying you do not believe, that getting hired because you belong to a group that is underrepresented in a given industry to appear more diverse is a thing that happens, especially in a place like SoCal/Silicon valley shows you either are naive, or completely oblivious to what has been happening over the last decade.
I'm not saying they would just hire random person from the street over someone qualified, but someone less qualified if it meant incerasing diversity, then yes.

Incorrect.

[uuuhname]

wow, really telling when the issue of sexual harassment Women and POC face in the work place instantly devolves into hand wringing over about the plight of white men. as if that's never ever taken into account as a baseline.

[Yarathir]

Lots of generalisation. Especially since there's enough of an audience for FOX and enough of a voter base for Trump.

And even if you subtract the minorities that vote for him out of either self preservation or misguidance, there's enough white grievance out there.

Same way there's enough Hindu nationalist grievance in India. And so on. Basically where the majority hates losing power.

- - - Updated - - -



You're absolutely right. Half-assing it is not the solution. BUT, it's a) better than not trying at all b) shows some awareness of an inequality.

Better situation is to full ass it and actually commit to providing equal opportunity without subconscious biases or preferred candidates based on XYZ.

I get you. Just sick of this HR rainbow/woke capitalism barely sugarcoated "We'll hire more of x."

Especially when it seems to be used as a way to get back in people's good graces after something as horrendous as this. I hope that makes sense.

[TrollHunter3000]

If there's an inequality of outcome in regards to this, it means that certain people were found to be less adequate for a position. Equality of outcome should never exist. And yes, certain ethnic and racial groups, coupled with sexual identity, often define interests and interests often define skillsets.

So that's the only possibility? It's not possible there are systemic issues?

I've already addressed your second point you fucking moron. Expectations are based on what's available in the labor market.

[Yarathir]

wow, really telling when the issue of sexual harassment Women and POC face in the work place instantly devolves into hand wringing over about the plight of white men. as if that's never ever taken into account as a baseline.

I too like to step into a discussion reading only the footnotes of some people's post and then with a fingernail of knowledge of the topic at hand make a dismissive and judgmental remark in an attempt to shame people.

[Xez]

Lots of generalisation. Especially since there's enough of an audience for FOX and enough of a voter base for Trump.

And even if you subtract the minorities that vote for him out of either self preservation or misguidance, there's enough white grievance out there.

Same way there's enough Hindu nationalist grievance in India. And so on. Basically where the majority hates losing power.

But the political left hates Fox and Trump and wants them destroyed. They don't have the perspective of "the other side ought to exist because their grievances are, to an extent, legitimate, even though my side's are more correct." I, as a conservative, believe that the political left has some good points and ought to exist, and if it did not exist, the political right would get way out of control. But I've never sensed or heard the same from the left.

[Alamhaoingaturlife]

So properly executed diversity is utopia for you? Which means you don't think it's possible?

So what is your solution then? Just make the easy hire and keep Magnagarde happy.

Which is precisely the issue with employment opportunity. It's the convenient hire.

'My son can do the job' says the CEO. End of story. No equal opportunity. For example. Convenient. Comfort. Not equal opportunity.

There is no such thing as properly executed diversity hire.
Either you're hiring the person most qualified for the job, or you're hiring someone worse, but who ticks the quota checkmark.

[Soon-TM]

No, I meant they hire people from Twitter. Like put out hiring advertisements and such. Before, they used to hire gamers, but they were deemed "too toxic" and "too masculine", so they started getting new hires by advertising on Twitter and Fartbook.

You mean gamers such as Afrasiabi and his gang of bros, who caused all this &#$@storm in the first place?

[Eggroll]

Oo, this racism and discrimination discussion is going places... People still get triggered and are offended by diversity.
It's apparently totally ok to get a job because you are a white male over a woman, a poc or a gay person with the same qualification.
But it is totally not ok if the latter group gets the job.

Discrimination and racism exist. Deal with it.

[DingDongKing]

There is no such thing as properly executed diversity hire.
Either you're hiring the person most qualified for the job, or you're hiring someone worse, but who ticks the quota checkmark.

You didn't read what I said OR you just cherrypicked. I didn't say a properly executed diversity hire. I'm discussing properly executed equal opportunity hiring. That doesn't mean hiring the diversity option. It means exploring all options without prejudice or subconscious bias or preference.

[anon5123]

If the goal is a somewhat racist frat-boy culture then fine, I guess not.

Hiring people for their skills and experience rather than their skin color is racist now?

I thought we weren't supposed to judge people by the color of their skin.

[Yarathir]

So that's the only possibility? It's not possible there are systemic issues?

I've already addressed your second point you fucking moron. Expectations are based on what's available in the labor market.

It is possible.

But, and I know this is a cliché, can you tell me why there's fewer garbagewomen than men? Oppression? Societal discrimination? Or might it just be that a lot of women don't really like the notion of that job? Gaming isn't for everyone, film making isn't for everyone, teaching isn't for everyone, sports aren't for everyone, and we have no problem conceptualizing or even acknowledging that except for the industries that seem glamorous. Which, to be honest, I think gamedev isn't all that glamorous in practice. Only on the surface, from a consumer standpoint.

[Magnagarde]

No, that's what YOU think the goal is. Because you're not actually open to understanding what diversity is.

What I think is the goal is to run a succesful business that doesn't fail in its obligations to the customers and employees. Everyone group of people can fail at this.

Even though it's been explained to you by multiple people. Which means you're not interested.

What was "explained" to me is that equality of outcome is good, that in a good world every group of people would apply equally for a job and an equal amount of each would be hired. I know that to be factually wrong and mathematically unachievable without sacrificing efficiency and good business practice.

I would expect us to start from the bottom then, with female miners, farmers, garbagewomen, female carpenters and more. Get that representation going in the sectors that number the most employees in order to hammer that equality in properly and globally, you know?

What you seem to be wanting is a permission structure to say current methods of employment are a-okay.

I actually think they're not okay because, as things stand right now in the gaming industry, someone would be hired over another person just because they have a different reproductive organ or were born with a different skin color.

Especially since you keep waffling on about how all these games and things were by white men only and it worked out just fine. It didn't.

They made antological games and yes, they were almost exclusively all white and male. A part of the employees and some of them are included in a recent lawsuit, which doesn't negate Blizzard's successes of the past and the fact that the majority of them never raped or sexually harassed anyone.

The only thing that I'm getting getting from the last sentence is that you seriously believe that sexual harassment, in a workplace counting thousands, would've been impossible or that there would've surely been less of it if there were less white people at Blizzard and more of everyone else. It is an extremely silly thing to imply.

[Kolvarg]

Not sure why you cut off the rest of my post that literally addresses your point lmao.

Because it doesn't?

If the reason a company has a majority of white male employees is that white males are proportionally more interested in the area/industry, then the problem isn't on the company's hiring practices or in their "outreach efforts". Potentially there isn't even a problem, but if there is it's more likely to be a wider problem drawing from social and economic factors, rather than any given company's practices.

[Yarathir]

There is no such thing as properly executed diversity hire.
Either you're hiring the person most qualified for the job, or you're hiring someone worse, but who ticks the quota checkmark.

I mean, somebody can be just as, if not more qualified than the guy who isn't considered a "diverse hire."

The point is just to not make "diversity" your main goal when hiring.

[anon5123]

It's apparently totally ok to get a job because you are a white male over a woman, a poc or a gay person with the same qualification..

Nobody is saying that.

[Unholyground]

The goblin can't save them now, It's way too late for apologies. I kind of hope this does destroy WoW, maybe they'll sell the IP to a company that deserves it.

[TrollHunter3000]

If 10 whites guys applied for the job and I needed to hire 5 employees, I'd hire the best 5 white guys because those are the people that applied. It is a very simple logic to follow. I'd do the same if 10 black guys applied and I had to hire 5 employees once again; I'd pick the ones most suitable for the job they're being hired for and it would be only black guys. I wouldn't break my head over how many of this or that group applied because that's an inane thing to do.

What you don't understand is that diversity hiring and good business practice don't necessarily go hand in hand. That's why you're immediately spewing buzzword classifications.

What buzzwords am I using? lmao are you fucking stupid?

You not understanding basic math seems to be the issue.

Here let me break it down for you. Let's say I wanna hire a bunch of people for a single work role. Let's say 40% of my applicant pool is female. Let's say we cut down the applicant pool to those with the highest qualifications that are pretty obvious, degree level, work experience, project experience, etc. Now let's say it's 30% female. That's not particular surprising if it's a work role that perhaps has been more historically male dominated as a higher proportion of them may have more work experience. That's even a factor that would likely be calculated to see if the male applicants had more experience on average. Now, of the pool remaining that is 30% female, these applicants are all mostly equally qualified. So, we interview them. After the interviews let's say only 10% of those selected were female. Assuming this was a large enough pool that that 20% gap is statistically significant, it seems like there's some potential issue from interview to hiring stage.

That's how you analyze these issues. they don't just make up some random number quota like you seem to believe.

[phattsao]

I'm sure the timing of this letter has nothing to do with ATVI stock dropping 8% yesterday...