Activision-Blizzard Sued By California

[unfilteredJW]

No, I'm describing being cautious about who you trust. No law or punishment for the perp can replace that.

- - - Updated - - -



I don't know why to be honest with you. I'm basically asking people to be careful with what they do, but I guess telling people to not trust others easily with their privacy, especially if they're sensititive about it, is a bad thing.

At this point it's just going back and forth. I'll just let it rest.

So it’s a problem of your ignorance. Got it.

[Specialka]

In the same way that walking down an alleyway has risks. Or having a shared bank account. Or ordering something online. Or driving a car, well, literally anywhere.

That there are risks does not mean that those exploiting or creating those risks are not at fault for doing so, or that those who have a negative outcome due to said risks are not victims.

You're victim-blaming. That's your entire argument, here. Blame those who made it risky to begin with, not their victims, dude. It's not that fuckin' hard.

So I guess someone walking in the middle of a highway and getting run over by a car is a "victim" and it is victim blaming to tell that it was stupid to walk in the middle of a highway.

[unfilteredJW]

So I guess someone walking in the middle of a highway and getting run over by a car is a "victim" and it is victim blaming to tell that it was stupid to walk in the middle of a highway.

You guys not understanding simple things is a really sad pattern.

[Endus]

Do I really have to tell you that I too believe that anyone who shares someone's private pictures without that someone's consent should be punished? Did this really elude you from everything I wrote above? Seriously.

The point is that people need to draw a lesson from this and that is to be careful. Yes, that includes going down a dark alley in whatever city you find yourself in and yes, this includes having a shared bank account. Try to walk down a path that's well-lit and try to have a private bank account, because no amount of punishment for whoever does you ill in a dark alley will revert the stress not being careful will give you.

And I'm telling you that focusing on blaming the victims and pushing for them to take on responsibility for avoiding risks is not an acceptable alternative to blaming those who present those risks in the first place.

There is no reason you should have to be careful in these instances. The reasons you do are failures of policy and society, and those failures should be addressed.

[Forogil]

And given that the investigation started two years ago means this “frat boy” culture was probably going on long before their investigation,

That's clearly true given that it started two years ago after Blizzard claimed to have fixed the problem.

which makes me wonder about other people that have left Blizzard over the years, that they were maybe trying to get out because they were involved or were innocent and didn’t want to be there when shit inevitably hit the fan.

Or just felt uncomfortable with it. A large set of possibilities.

[Endus]

So I guess someone walking in the middle of a highway and getting run over by a car is a "victim" and it is victim blaming to tell that it was stupid to walk in the middle of a highway.

Yes, they're a victim. Definitively. Guarantee any press coverage of this would be calling them a victim, because they would be.

If there's clear visibility, they do not even have any share of the responsibility for their death. That's 100% on whoever killed them. It doesn't matter that they shouldn't have been in the road in the first place. And in cases where there's poor visibility, that just reduces the driver's culpability, it doesn't shift blame to the victim.

This is pretty basic shit, and I don't see what your confusion is.

[Magnagarde]

And I'm telling you that focusing on blaming the victims and pushing for them to take on responsibility for avoiding risks is not an acceptable alternative to blaming those who present those risks in the first place.

There is no reason you should have to be careful in these instances. The reasons you do are failures of policy and society, and those failures should be addressed.

Of course it isn't an alternative. Those failures should and must be addressed, but they will never be erradicated to the extent that everyone can be careless and carefree about what they're doing.

There's a reason why you lock the door of your home when you go in. You don't pretend the law that forbids someone to break into your home will save you the stress of a possible burglary; you take precaution to avoid it alltogether.

I'm not going to blame you for someone breaking into your home, but I'm always going to advise you to make sure the door's locked when you go to sleep.

[unfilteredJW]

Of course it isn't an alternative. Those failures should and must be addressed, but they will never be erradicated to the extent that everyone can be careless and carefree about what they're doing.

There's a reason why you lock the door of your home when you go in. You don't pretend the law that forbids someone to break into your home will save you the stress of a possible burglary; you take precaution to avoid it alltogether.

So it really is just you not understanding the concept.

[Endus]

There's a reason why you lock the door of your home when you go in. You don't pretend the law that forbids someone to break into your home will save you the stress of a possible burglary; you take precaution to avoid it alltogether.

My front door's mostly unlocked all day, and often open with just the unlocked screen door keeping bugs out.

No, I don't live in the boonies, I live in a normal subdivision.

So, super terrible example that just goes to prove my point, really.

[jonnysensible]

woman are like doors, im so smart.

[Magnagarde]

My front door's mostly unlocked all day, and often open with just the unlocked screen door keeping bugs out.

No, I don't live in the boonies, I live in a normal subdivision.

So, super terrible example that just goes to prove my point, really.

It's a perfectly fine example that wasn't aiming at how you live specifically.

[Evilfish]

I believe the victims after they go to the state and ask the state itself to do an investigation to where they find sufficient evidence of systemic sexual abuse. which is exactly what happened here. YOU assuming they have ulterior motives is you projecting your own biases of the subject onto people who as far as ANY of us know have done exactly what they should have done in this circumstance.

It's funny to me how easy it is for you people to believe one side is capable of being so evil and the other one so innocent. The law says we are all equal in it's eyes. Maybe we should wait for the actual trial to take it's course before we decide who is what, which is what I suggested initially, to look at the whole situation from an unbiased perspective which you people won't do cause being a self righteous stallion is much easier, still does not make you a good person, by the way.

[Magnagarde]

woman are like doors, im so smart.

Reply doesn't express outrage and gives advice - regardless of the outcome of this lawsuit - on how to be careful because humans can be bad and no amount of punishment by any court will rectify the hurt the victim goes through? Outrageous. /s

[Specialka]

Yes, they're a victim. Definitively. Guarantee any press coverage of this would be calling them a victim, because they would be.

If there's clear visibility, they do not even have any share of the responsibility for their death. That's 100% on whoever killed them. It doesn't matter that they shouldn't have been in the road in the first place. And in cases where there's poor visibility, that just reduces the driver's culpability, it doesn't shift blame to the victim.

This is pretty basic shit, and I don't see what your confusion is.

And we can still say it is stupid to walk in the middle of a highway.

[Sorrowseer]

It could also be that dreamhaven was created as a way of getting away from the 'frat boy' culture.

Or it might have nothing to do with this.

Indeed, would be good to know.

[Endus]

And we can still say it is stupid to walk in the middle of a highway.

I can tell you've never lived anywhere rural where it snows heavily. Since if you've got to walk (say, your car broke down), you don't have any choice.

[uuuhname]

It's funny to me how easy it is for you people to believe one side is capable of being so evil and the other one so innocent.

again, this is you projecting your distrust of the victim's motivations onto said victims. how many god damned times does it need to be pointed out that the state, went though 2 YEARS of investigating before they believe they found sufficient evidence to take this to court? like seriously dude I do not get where you think the people who took this to the CA government are being malicious other than your assumption to not believe the victim's. its fucked up.

still does not make you a good person, by the way.

no it DOES in fact make me a better person because I'm not saying a faceless corporation that has been credibly accused of fostering an unsafe work environment are somehow equally the victims here.

[Specialka]

I can tell you've never lived anywhere rural where it snows heavily. Since if you've got to walk (say, your car broke down), you don't have any choice.

So you walk in the middle of the road and not on the side ?

[Endus]

So you walk in the middle of the road and not on the side ?

Like I said; you've clearly never lived anywhere rural where it snows heavily. Good luck "walking" through powder 3 feet deep or more. Rather than the clear roadway, where it's either blown off or tamped down by traffic.

[Ripster42]

I don't see that statement as confirming that that he was actually sexist, but read it as there were jokes about him being sexist (and likely sexist against women as part of machista culture) due to racial prejudice - while neither confirming nor denying that he was sexist.

Especially as the statement isn't "joke about my sexism" but "joke about my sexism, or natural inclination to be sexist, ..."

Basically assume he wasn't sexist - but there were jokes about him being sexist, wouldn't you find that statement sort of natural in that case? Or how would you describe it - without coming off as a try-hard.

Read it again. In what context could those comments made by the unnamed female employee be uttered, and why would that complaint lead to the 2 year long investigation which resulted in this case (according to steve)?