Page 9 of 9 FirstFirst ...
7
8
9
  1. #161
    Dreadlord Pakheth's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2016
    Location
    The cold hell known as Norway
    Posts
    977
    Quote Originally Posted by scubi666stacy View Post
    As a woman, I have to say some things about the QF affair and comments to that:

    1) "Me too" is necessary. Any man who sais otherwise is an accomplice of rapist and sexual abusers.

    2) "Innocent until proven guilty" is a very important ideal, so when accusations come up, wait until the verdict from a court.

    3) One night stands are not a bad thing, and both men and women use their given bonuses (be it attractiveness, money, power, fame, or a combination of some) to get laid. This is totally okay, as long as its consensual and both people are on the same page about their expectations. Just be sensible about STDs and contraceptions.
    What is not okay is to be misleading in order to get sexual contacts - like, if the one person wants to hook up just for a night, and the other would only have sexual contacts with people who aim to get into a relationship. Of course, this is a bit murky - because some people are so much guided by their wishful thinking that they delude themselves, like in the case of this stalker.

    Your know, my solution for that is just not to flirt with any man except the one where I would definitively go to the end. About a decade ago, I have been wrongfully accused to be a seducer who wanted to get a guy and break a relationship. Ironically, he was the one who was constantly chasing after skirts and playfully hitting on me, but his moronic girlfriend seemed to think otherwise (probably also fueled by rumors from other people who wanted to get rid of me). Though I don't like this type of men, I have been friendly to him, because I knew that he was not really serious into me and because I knew that nothing would ever happen. But still - bam, there goes the reputation of being a slut. Thankfully, the only repercussion from that was me losing a raid spot, and no RL issues. Needless to say, I did not want to stay in that guild anymore, not only from this alone, there have been other problems on top (like some gals really using ther sexuality to get favors from guild officers, among others, while being not as good players as I am).

    4) False accusations, especially in such a case where the good reputation of a person is the main prerequisite to get jobs, should be punished. No matter what gender this person has. And if the accusations are true, the culprit has been punished and did truly change their ways to the better, than them deserves a second chance.

    Anyway, I am sorry for Quinton Flynn. He lost though he won at court. This is bitter.
    Well said, sister.

  2. #162
    Quote Originally Posted by Nerovar View Post
    What's even stronger here are the mental hoops you jump through in order to defend Blizzard.

    Everyone here (including you) already knows that Blizzard doesn't simply replace every single voiceline in the game for shits and giggles when there's a big scandal going on involving the original VA.

    The fact that you're muddying the waters by arguing that these two things are even remotely on the same level of plausibility just makes it clear how bad faith your posts really are.
    There are no mental hoops. The mental hoops and bad faith is coming from you and others trying to spin away from your hypocrisy to push your anti-Blizzard agenda.

    All I am asking for is evidence that proves Blizzard removed him due to the allegations. I am also asking you to hold yourself to the same standard you want other to be held to with the VA. You can't scream at people for immediately calling the VA guilty without evidence and then turn around and imediately call Blizzard guilty without evidence. That is a textbook definition of hypocrisy.

  3. #163
    Merely a Setback Queen of Hamsters's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    I commute between Sweden and Crown Falls.
    Posts
    28,001
    Quote Originally Posted by scubi666stacy View Post

    Anyway, I am sorry for Quinton Flynn. He lost though he won at court. This is bitter.
    If Jim Cummings is anything to go by, Quinton should be fine career-wise, unless his career was already in a bad way prior to this event. As for the stalker, I sure as hell hope they're taking precautions. This thing not going as she'd hoped, could trigger her into becoming more aggressive.

    And regarding the rest, I can only agree. Being falsely accused as a seducer or "homewrecker" stinks. Speaking from experience. Luckily, he was made the fool pretty quickly thanks to his own behaviour. ^_^
    Liberté, égalité, fraternité
    ⭑・゚゚・*:༅。.。༅:*゚:*:✼✿ʕ•ᴥ•ʔ✿✼:*゚:༅。.。༅:*・゚ ゚・⭑
    "It's almost as if The Bible was written by racist, sexist, homophobic, violent, sexually frustrated men, instead of a loving God."

  4. #164
    Quote Originally Posted by rrayy View Post
    There are no mental hoops. The mental hoops and bad faith is coming from you and others trying to spin away from your hypocrisy to push your anti-Blizzard agenda.

    All I am asking for is evidence that proves Blizzard removed him due to the allegations. I am also asking you to hold yourself to the same standard you want other to be held to with the VA. You can't scream at people for immediately calling the VA guilty without evidence and then turn around and imediately call Blizzard guilty without evidence. That is a textbook definition of hypocrisy.
    Except the two things aren't really analogous. We also know that Blizzard has done things like this previously with other figures like Swifty.

    The logical "leap" from
    There's a scandal involving VA and his work with Blizzard gets redacted -> Blizzard did this because of the scandal (like they've done in the past)
    isn't even remotely similar to:
    There are allegations levelled against this VA -> the VA is guilty.

    The fact that you aren't even willing to see the qualitative difference between those two despite one of them being infinitely more closely correlated is actually pretty funny to me. You're basically saying that any inference you make is equally unlikely and if you think one is more likely than the other but can't establish causation because you don't have a written statement you're automatically a hypocrite.

    On a sidenote, why should someone give Blizzard (a company) the same benefit of the doubt to begin with when they stand to face no consequences whatsoever either way? People don't complain about "cancel culture" because it's "illogical" to assume someone's guilty before it has been proven in court but because of the very real negative outcomes that person will face even if they might be innocent.
    The absolute state of Warcraft lore in 2021:
    Kyrians: We need to keep chucking people into the Maw because it's our job.
    Also Kyrians: Why is the Maw growing stronger despite all our efforts?

  5. #165
    Quote Originally Posted by rrayy View Post
    There are no mental hoops. The mental hoops and bad faith is coming from you and others trying to spin away from your hypocrisy to push your anti-Blizzard agenda.

    All I am asking for is evidence that proves Blizzard removed him due to the allegations. I am also asking you to hold yourself to the same standard you want other to be held to with the VA. You can't scream at people for immediately calling the VA guilty without evidence and then turn around and imediately call Blizzard guilty without evidence. That is a textbook definition of hypocrisy.
    You're asking for the impossible and you know fully well that you're doing so in a stage where speculation and logical inference are the only tools we have. Then you're making the claim that correlation =/= causation which is a very scientific based answer. You're committing intellectual dishonesty and arguing in bad faith.

    You're also conflating the concept that two ideas are as equally likely to be occurring when it is based on probability especially when it comes to PR in the current modern stage. You're refusing to take any context of the world into consideration.

    We have no proof and we will likely never have proof, but the probability that they were removed as a VA due to allegations is much more likely based on the history of events than some random event that we currently do not know anything about.

    Not all hypothesis are equally as valid. Yes there is a probability that your hypothesis is valid, but it is not nearly as equality valid as the likelihood that the two events were connected based on the timeframe.

    If you cannot understand those concepts then you likely don't have the ability to understand my below suggestion in the first place.

    You should touch up on your Occam's Razor and Bayes Theorem.
    Last edited by Spokenlastchance; 2021-04-27 at 12:46 AM.
    "If you want to play the game how you want, do so, but don't do it with me. If you wanna play super mario brothers and just jump up and down until the clock runs out and you die, by all means do it when I'm not player two and waiting for you to stop being an asshole."

  6. #166
    Quote Originally Posted by rrayy View Post
    There are no mental hoops. The mental hoops and bad faith is coming from you and others trying to spin away from your hypocrisy to push your anti-Blizzard agenda.

    All I am asking for is evidence that proves Blizzard removed him due to the allegations. I am also asking you to hold yourself to the same standard you want other to be held to with the VA. You can't scream at people for immediately calling the VA guilty without evidence and then turn around and imediately call Blizzard guilty without evidence. That is a textbook definition of hypocrisy.
    There are exactly zero people that believe you, why are you even trying.

  7. #167
    Quote Originally Posted by rrayy View Post
    I am none of that. I am showing that you are guilty of exactly what you accuse Blizzard of. You are declaring them guilty of something with no evidence to back it up. You and others keep screaming "Innocent until proven guilty" with the VA guy but you do not extend the same standard to Blizzard. Talk about intellectually dishonest and also hypocritical.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Correlation does not = causation. Funny how you get mad at Blizzard and claim they immediately declared the VA guilty without evidence, yet you immediately declare Blizzard guilty without evidence. The hypocrisy here is strong.
    I don't need a direct announcement from blizzard to infer that they were trying to cover their ass here, deduction is quite the powerful tool. And I think most people in this thread would agree that blizzards motivation for removing that VA was because of the controversy surrounding him.

  8. #168
    Quote Originally Posted by panda040 View Post
    I don't need a direct announcement from blizzard to infer that they were trying to cover their ass here, deduction is quite the powerful tool. And I think most people in this thread would agree that blizzards motivation for removing that VA was because of the controversy surrounding him.
    Deduction is not proof or evidence. All I am asking is for evidence. All I get is a variation of "They did it because I said so". And I am also calling out the rampant hypocrisy. You can't sit and scream at Blizz for not holding to a standard of "Innocent until proven guilty", and then not hold yourself to the same standard when you immediately declare Blizz guilty.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Spokenlastchance View Post
    You're asking for the impossible and you know fully well that you're doing so in a stage where speculation and logical inference are the only tools we have. Then you're making the claim that correlation =/= causation which is a very scientific based answer. You're committing intellectual dishonesty and arguing in bad faith.

    You're also conflating the concept that two ideas are as equally likely to be occurring when it is based on probability especially when it comes to PR in the current modern stage. You're refusing to take any context of the world into consideration.

    We have no proof and we will likely never have proof, but the probability that they were removed as a VA due to allegations is much more likely based on the history of events than some random event that we currently do not know anything about.

    Not all hypothesis are equally as valid. Yes there is a probability that your hypothesis is valid, but it is not nearly as equality valid as the likelihood that the two events were connected based on the timeframe.

    If you cannot understand those concepts then you likely don't have the ability to understand my below suggestion in the first place.

    You should touch up on your Occam's Razor and Bayes Theorem.
    I am asking you to hold yourself to the same standard you accuse Blizzard of not holding to. If Blizzard has to be held to a "innocent until proven guilty" standard, they you can't ignore the same standard yourself. You and everyone else condemning Blizzard is guilty of what you accuse Blizzard of. Just own it. You are not going to be thought of any differently if you just cop to the hypocrisy.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Nerovar View Post
    Except the two things aren't really analogous. We also know that Blizzard has done things like this previously with other figures like Swifty.

    The logical "leap" from
    There's a scandal involving VA and his work with Blizzard gets redacted -> Blizzard did this because of the scandal (like they've done in the past)
    isn't even remotely similar to:
    There are allegations levelled against this VA -> the VA is guilty.
    There is no logical leap here. You are declaring Blizzard guilty of removing a VA because of allegations without evidence while shaming everyone who declared the VA guilty without evidence. So, you just made it clear that you are OK to shame whoever you want without evidence, but other people are wrong when they do it. Hypocrisy.

    The fact that you aren't even willing to see the qualitative difference between those two despite one of them being infinitely more closely correlated is actually pretty funny to me. You're basically saying that any inference you make is equally unlikely and if you think one is more likely than the other but can't establish causation because you don't have a written statement you're automatically a hypocrite.
    I showed how they are equal. This is nothing more than a bunch of spin to deflect from hypocrisy.

    On a sidenote, why should someone give Blizzard (a company) the same benefit of the doubt to begin with when they stand to face no consequences whatsoever either way? People don't complain about "cancel culture" because it's "illogical" to assume someone's guilty before it has been proven in court but because of the very real negative outcomes that person will face even if they might be innocent.
    EVERYONE should be given teh benefit of the doubt. If you want Blizzard to be held to a standard of "Innocent until proven guilty" when they act on something, then you should be holding yourself to the same standard when it comes to Blizzard's motivations. Don't scream "Innocent until proven guilty" if you aren't going to follow it yourself.

  9. #169
    Quote Originally Posted by rrayy View Post
    Deduction is not proof or evidence. All I am asking is for evidence. All I get is a variation of "They did it because I said so". And I am also calling out the rampant hypocrisy. You can't sit and scream at Blizz for not holding to a standard of "Innocent until proven guilty", and then not hold yourself to the same standard when you immediately declare Blizz guilty.

    - - - Updated - - -

    I am asking you to hold yourself to the same standard you accuse Blizzard of not holding to. If Blizzard has to be held to a "innocent until proven guilty" standard, they you can't ignore the same standard yourself. You and everyone else condemning Blizzard is guilty of what you accuse Blizzard of. Just own it. You are not going to be thought of any differently if you just cop to the hypocrisy.

    - - - Updated - - -

    There is no logical leap here. You are declaring Blizzard guilty of removing a VA because of allegations without evidence while shaming everyone who declared the VA guilty without evidence. So, you just made it clear that you are OK to shame whoever you want without evidence, but other people are wrong when they do it. Hypocrisy.

    I showed how they are equal. This is nothing more than a bunch of spin to deflect from hypocrisy.

    EVERYONE should be given teh benefit of the doubt. If you want Blizzard to be held to a standard of "Innocent until proven guilty" when they act on something, then you should be holding yourself to the same standard when it comes to Blizzard's motivations. Don't scream "Innocent until proven guilty" if you aren't going to follow it yourself.
    you're right I don't have evidence to prove blizzards actions in a court of law, and i don't think any of us will get access to that. But sometimes the simplest answer is often the right one. I going to stand by what I said, that blizzard removed him as a PR move due to the drama related to him. I just hope that girls lies don't ruin his career any further.

  10. #170
    cancel culture at its finest.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •