A Letter From CEO Bobby Kotick Regarding Progress and Commitments Made at Acti-Blizz

[TheWorkingTitle]

This is absolutely disgusting. Hiring people based on what genitalia and skin color they have? And non-binary doesn't exist. There are two biological sexes and no amount of fee-fees or mental health issues change this undeniable, unequivocal fact.

Go woke, go broke. I'm actively rooting for this company to fail now. Fuck "diversity" hirings, what a racist ideology. It should be a meritocracy, not the antithesis.

[Varodoc]

This is becoming a level of nitpicking just to try to justify bias.

If two people are both trained and experienced in a field, they're both still equally qualified for a position then. Claiming "But this one knows a few extra tricks!" doesn't change that they're both qualified for the job.

The only biased people here are Activision, who will now prioritize certain groups over certain others.

But you and all other mods on this forum have always defended Blizzard so I'm not surprised you disagree.

[ClassicPeon]

This is becoming a level of nitpicking just to try to justify bias.

If two people are both trained and experienced in a field, they're both still equally qualified for a position then. Claiming "But this one knows a few extra tricks!" doesn't change that they're both qualified for the job.

This makes no sense whatsoever - and honestly you should know better. You dont really believe this do you?

Do you honestly think companies hire people solely based on their education and experience? I've got a portfolio showing what i can do and what i've learned though the years and most others in my field do aswell. People with the same amount of experience and education have wildly different portfolios simply because people do not absorb the same amoount of knowledge in a given time, and at the same time people arent equally productive in the same amount of time.

The education and experience gets you to the interview. Your portfolio and your ability to vocalize your skills gets you the job(in an ideal situation).

[alturic]

This is absolutely disgusting. Hiring people based on what genitalia and skin color they have? And non-binary doesn't exist. There are two biological sexes and no amount of fee-fees or mental health issues change this undeniable, unequivocal fact.

Go woke, go broke. I'm actively rooting for this company to fail now. Fuck "diversity" hirings, what a racist ideology. It should be a meritocracy, not the antithesis.

I don't think non-binary people dispute there are only two biological sexes? (I hope anyway, ha)

Non-binary is that they don't identify with either of them.

[inafume]

If you wanna see how absolutely sickening this ideology is, go watch this video by Ben Shapiro. It has some really really good points on how forced diversity does nothing but put the civil rights movement for black people back 70 years. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iWgnX84KD7A Diversity is the only institutional racism that exists in America.

Good points and Ben Shapiro are mutually exclusive.

[Manhands]

Queue an instant diversity debate. I need to say my piece.

The most common argument against hiring with diversity in mind is: "If you hire based on gender, you won't get the best applicant". The flaw in that argument is that diversity promotes both creativity and innovation. There are plenty of studies about this. So in the end, you will build a better product if you shape the team (in a reasonable way) toward being diverse. Philosophically, I understand how considering gender in the hiring process feels wrong, but you have to believe that gender already is being considered subconsciously. If most of the team is one demographic, not only does it seem like that's the *correct* demographic for the industry, but it's also tempting to hire more of the same for "culture fit." But you have to push back against that if you want to innovate faster. In the end, you can consider this the right business decision.

[alturic]

Queue an instant diversity debate. I need to say my piece.

The most common argument against hiring with diversity in mind is: "If you hire based on gender, you won't get the best applicant". The flaw in that argument is that diversity promotes both creativity and innovation. There are plenty of studies about this. So in the end, you will build a better product if you shape the team (in a reasonable way) toward being diverse. Philosophically, I understand how considering gender in the hiring process feels wrong, but you have to believe that gender already is being considered subconsciously. If most of the team is one demographic, not only does it seem like that's the *correct* demographic for the industry, but it's also tempting to hire more of the same for "culture fit." But you have to push back against that if you want to innovate faster. In the end, you can consider this the right business decision.

I personally have zero problems with the ratio of M/F, race, etc that any company has on their books - unless it's purposely pigeon-holed into that ratio.

What I also have a problem with is when companies (and this is basically all of them, due to the result of allegations of things) publicly put this shit out that they are going to increase their numbers and pledge/donate money to causes promoting the increase of said numbers in their industries. I know, it's literally them trying to turn the heat down, get people to forget things, tame the mob, but it's still the fact.

[Very Tired]

Woman are already few and far between in the gaming industry, on top of that, no self respecting woman would ever willingly work for Blizzard after this sandal. So where exactly are they going to scrape the bottom of the barrel to fit their diversity target?

[inafume]

One thing I haven't seen anyone say here is that hiring diverse people is not just a function of who the company chooses, but also whether the candidate chooses to accept. I have no internal knowledge of what Blizzard does in their hiring process, but who the company uses to present as its face is important. I am sure that women having to deal with a series of interviews with dudebros will lead to less job acceptance, even if they are the most qualified. The company has to present an environment that candidates will want to work at. Y'all are treating this like the company is the only one who decides. It's not.

[Gadzooks]

Gz one picking the first google link that showed up

I AM straight. Cis is not a term i use. Just like i dont call myself "this side of". I simply am straight. Just like 98% of the rest of the world. Cis is a lgb+ term thats often used in a derogatory manner(dont believe me? check out its use on SoMe sides) which is why i have no need for it. Just like i dont use words for transgender or non-straight people that they find derogatory.

You posted that someone who uses the term "cis" isn't. That's intellectually bankrupt. And an agenda.

[alturic]

Woman are already few and far between in the gaming industry, on top of that, no self respecting woman would ever willingly work for Blizzard after this sandal. So where exactly are they going to scrape the bottom of the barrel to fit their diversity target?

That's funny, if you look on Twitter there's a pretty big number of people who are being hired by Blizzard (women, non-binary, etc) that are putting up posts it's an honor, they can't wait, super excited, etc.

[Xath]

Sooooo many idiots in this thread.

Diversity hiring doesnt mean that you get a lesser candidate, its means that if all candidates are equaly proficiant, instead of the blatant bias that was used before, the hiring decision is weighted in favour of the diversity candidate.

Also, IF one of the candidates is head and shoulders above the rest, they get hired regardless. No company should be cutting off their nose to spite their face.

Having a diverse workforce target does not mean that every single person that ticks the box is hired off the bat ffs, its a target and may take years to reach.

It literally does. What was used before was merit outside of obvious nepotism cases. There was no blatant bias before that's how companies end up rotting by not hiring the best people for the job. If anything the amount of people who obviously get their values from tumblr now working at blizzard is saying their hiring process was already biased in favor of "diversity" at this point it might as well be quotas.

[Dacia Ultan]

Sooooo many idiots in this thread.

Diversity hiring doesnt mean that you get a lesser candidate, its means that if all candidates are equaly proficiant, instead of the blatant bias that was used before, the hiring decision is weighted in favour of the diversity candidate.

Also, IF one of the candidates is head and shoulders above the rest, they get hired regardless. No company should be cutting off their nose to spite their face.

Having a diverse workforce target does not mean that every single person that ticks the box is hired off the bat ffs, its a target and may take years to reach.

Bingo. But, with that out of the way: good to see confirmation that a lot of the people bewailing the loss of "no homo" jokes in the other thread really weren't arguing in good faith (not that it was exactly difficult to tell).

Yet the actual definition of cis is an antonym for transgender, and the "cis" part of cisgender is from the latin, "Cis", or "On this side of". It's a label, not an identity.

I don't "identify" as "cisgender", I just am, and it's just a label, and your implication that by saying that I'm not, is intellectually bankrupt and more indicative of an agenda on your part.

And...bingo. I'm a woman who was correctly deemed to be a baby girl at birth (which is all that "cis" means); and I feel no need to invalidate women who were misidentified as baby boys before figuring it out, men who were misidentified as baby girls before figuring it out, or anyone else otherwise misidentified. That has fuck-all to do with my orientation (that's between me and my spouse of the past eleven years) or any "political statement" I might be trying to make (that's what my vote is for), and everything to do with just treating people with basic respect.

[Xath]

This is becoming a level of nitpicking just to try to justify bias.

If two people are both trained and experienced in a field, they're both still equally qualified for a position then. Claiming "But this one knows a few extra tricks!" doesn't change that they're both qualified for the job.

If you know more tricks and have a better work history than someone else you are not equally qualified. Do you understand what the word equally means?

[ClassicPeon]

Queue an instant diversity debate. I need to say my piece.

The most common argument against hiring with diversity in mind is: "If you hire based on gender, you won't get the best applicant". The flaw in that argument is that diversity promotes both creativity and innovation. There are plenty of studies about this. So in the end, you will build a better product if you shape the team (in a reasonable way) toward being diverse. Philosophically, I understand how considering gender in the hiring process feels wrong, but you have to believe that gender already is being considered subconsciously. If most of the team is one demographic, not only does it seem like that's the *correct* demographic for the industry, but it's also tempting to hire more of the same for "culture fit." But you have to push back against that if you want to innovate faster. In the end, you can consider this the right business decision.

Are these studies peer reviewed and generally accepted? Do you have any links to them?

In general my world(coding) is extremely male dominated but thats because there are so many more males in it then females. The few females we get often just dont really compare in terms of skill, and i dont mean that in a derogatory way, its just a fact. I'm not saying there arent godlike female coders. I'm just saying they are extremely rare. If the company i work for where to start a new project and hire 10 developers where 5 of them had to be female, or even 1/3. The product would, in the end, be worse simply because they would have to hire less talented people.

- - - Updated - - -

You posted that someone who uses the term "cis" isn't. That's intellectually bankrupt. And an agenda.

Thats because its a LGBT+ term. Its not a term a straight person would use about themselves because its often used derogatory.

[glowpipe]

what about the other way around? say for the purpose of this example i had all the qualifications for this job and the other applicants didn't' but i lost out on the job to some1 less qualified just because 1 of them was female?

But that's what I said?

Neither should lose a job or gain one because of their race, gender, or sexual orientation. In my mind, this shouldn't even be a subject. It should be equal for all. Skill, talent, experience, and qualifications should trump all when applying for jobs.

[OrangeJuice]

1) Launching a zero tolerance policy, now? As in, you've been tolerant up until today? I guess thats obvious. Better late than never, or I guess better hold out as long as possible to consider if its actually necessary.

2) Are they creating new positions for these people or are they discriminating against the opposite? Qualified candidates will be turned away because of their gender? Either way this seems insane to me. Welcoming diversity isn't ethically the same as mandating it.

3) Demands. He was given demands.

4) Great, so by trying to eliminate the pay gap between men->women they've created a pay gap between women->men. More discrimination? Women get a special gender differential now?

5) I hear this every year.

6) Obvious pay cut to hide profits loss but ok.

[alturic]

Bingo. But, with that out of the way: good to see confirmation that a lot of the people bewailing the loss of "no homo" jokes in the other thread really weren't arguing in good faith (not that it was exactly difficult to tell).

And...bingo. I'm a woman who was correctly deemed to be a baby girl at birth (which is all that "cis" means); and I feel no need to invalidate women who were misidentified as baby boys before figuring it out, men who were misidentified as baby girls before figuring it out, or anyone else otherwise misidentified. That has fuck-all to do with my orientation (that's between me and my spouse of the past eleven years) or any "political statement" I might be trying to make (that's what my vote is for), and everything to do with just treating people with basic respect.

Not to get too far off-topic, but how can someone with a penis be misidentified as a male and vice-versa? You can't be misidentified as a male if you have a penis*.

*I admit I don't remember too much about health class.

[Daedius]

/gag .

[Xath]

I don't think non-binary people dispute there are only two biological sexes? (I hope anyway, ha)

Non-binary is that they don't identify with either of them.

non binary in my experience is largely people who don't want to admit they are "normal" (no such thing but w/e) however they don't want to actually engage in hrt or say they have gender dysphoria. A dude who is wearing a dress is still a dude unless they are actually claiming to identify as a woman. "non binary" as a designation actually makes me incredibly angry because it makes trans people who deal with real issues a joke.