Page 44 of 49 FirstFirst ...
34
42
43
44
45
46
... LastLast
  1. #861
    Quote Originally Posted by Valkyrst View Post
    How about not taking what I said out of context? It’s a cheap tactic. What I’m saying is crystal clear. The Suite’s name is irrelevant.
    How about being truthful?

    You weren't talking about the name ("Cosby suite" - which is factually correct) - but about the naming (i.e. the process of giving the item the name - and which the law-suit implies that it was "Cosby suite because of the sexual assaults").

    The latter would be problematic for all that were in on the reason for that naming.

  2. #862
    Quote Originally Posted by Forogil View Post
    How about being truthful?

    You weren't talking about the name ("Cosby suite" - which is factually correct) - but about the naming (i.e. the process of giving the item the name - and which the law-suit implies that it was "Cosby suite because of the sexual assaults").

    The latter would be problematic for all that were in on the reason for that naming.
    What am I lying about? I'm talking about the name. The name is irrelevant. The naming of it is also irrelevant. The fucking suite IS irrelevant.

    Because Alex Afrasiabi didn't just harass women at the suite. Without it, there would still be a host of issues to solve.

    And that's the thing. The court case doesn't live or die by the Cosby suite. But if you think it does, you keep doing that.

  3. #863
    Quote Originally Posted by World Peace View Post
    Who you quoted:



    Your response:



    The right to assistance of counsel for defense is guaranteed. Does that make defense attorneys murder supporters, by your definition? What about representation during the appeal process?



    Not sure where your personal attack tangent came from. You good?

    - - - Updated - - -



    You failed to adequately convey your position in our exchange, so attacking someone for attempting to divine it is pathetic.
    Reading comprehension fails you, meesa thinks. I understood what he meant just fine.

  4. #864
    Quote Originally Posted by Valkyrst View Post
    Are you saying the naming of the Suite was innocent?
    Quote Originally Posted by Forogil View Post
    Exactly, if they didn't do anything it's not weird that they talked about a suite based on some old sweater joke or something! Now you get it!
    Quote Originally Posted by Valkyrst View Post
    The Suite’s name is irrelevant.
    Quote Originally Posted by Forogil View Post
    How about being truthful?

    You weren't talking about the name ("Cosby suite" - which is factually correct) - but about the naming (i.e. the process of giving the item the name - and which the law-suit implies that it was "Cosby suite because of the sexual assaults").

    The latter would be problematic for all that were in on the reason for that naming.
    Quote Originally Posted by Valkyrst View Post
    What am I lying about? I'm talking about the name. The name is irrelevant. The naming of it is also irrelevant. The fucking suite IS irrelevant.
    It specifically named in the law-suit - including the alleged reason for naming it in that way, since the government understands that such a naming would be very bad.

    Searching for "Crosby suite" blizzard gives thousands of web-sites as hits (even more for "Cosby suite"); and the alleged naming of it is a PR-nightmare for Blizzard and everyone pictured in it.

    Why do you then insist that it is irrelevant?
    Why do people insist that everyone knew about Cosby in 2013?

    Quote Originally Posted by Valkyrst View Post
    Because Alex Afrasiabi didn't just harass women at the suite. Without it, there would still be a host of issues to solve.
    The law-suit isn't against Alex, but against Blizzard; and thus it's not only about Alex' misbehavior, but also about how accepted it was, and who else misbehaved (the latter is also relevant for other reasons). The naming of the suite is relevant for understanding that.

    The law-suit is also to a large extent about gender discrimination in pay etc; and we haven't seen the evidence for that (except for the executives and head of HR and CEO isn't comparable, and frankly HR doesn't seem to deserve a higher salary based on the evidence). If parts of the law-suit is based on flimsy speculation we might want more evidence for the other parts as well, and not take the governments word for gospel.

  5. #865
    Quote Originally Posted by Forogil View Post
    It specifically named in the law-suit - including the alleged reason for naming it in that way, since the government understands that such a naming would be very bad.

    Searching for "Crosby suite" blizzard gives thousands of web-sites as hits (even more for "Cosby suite"); and the alleged naming of it is a PR-nightmare for Blizzard and everyone pictured in it.

    Why do you then insist that it is irrelevant?
    Why do people insist that everyone knew about Cosby in 2013?


    The law-suit isn't against Alex, but against Blizzard; and thus it's not only about Alex' misbehavior, but also about how accepted it was, and who else misbehaved (the latter is also relevant for other reasons). The naming of the suite is relevant for understanding that.

    The law-suit is also to a large extent about gender discrimination in pay etc; and we haven't seen the evidence for that (except for the executives and head of HR and CEO isn't comparable, and frankly HR doesn't seem to deserve a higher salary based on the evidence). If parts of the law-suit is based on flimsy speculation we might want more evidence for the other parts as well, and not take the governments word for gospel.
    Again, TO ME the naming of the suite is irrelevant. How hard is that to understand?

    Because the only named individual isn’t the suit so far is Alex. So that’s all we can go on.

    As far as the rest of the suit is concerned, I think in my opinion - to me only and not as far as the facts are concerned, just me - it’ll be quite hard to prove the rest of the stuff they’re talking about.

    So let’s see how it goes.

  6. #866
    Quote Originally Posted by Valkyrst View Post
    Again, TO ME the naming of the suite is irrelevant. How hard is that to understand?
    You started by saying that you didn't understand why the naming is important for others, but now it turns out that you simply don't care about that.

    You are as clear as mud.

    I have explained why the naming is important for the law-suit against Blizzard in terms of how systematic the sexual harassment was, and who else was involved - and the overall strength of the governments case; how much is it just speculation and how much is solid evidence.
    Last edited by Forogil; 2021-07-31 at 06:47 PM.

  7. #867
    Quote Originally Posted by matheney2k View Post
    Reading comprehension fails you, meesa thinks. I understood what he meant just fine.
    They never established their position on defense counsel, instead resorting to name-calling. The comprehension issue isn't mine.

    What's with the warrantless rudeness in this thread?
    TEAM BUYER'S REMORSE
    Avoid the Odyssey NEO G9 Until They Un-Broke the HDR
    Remember: Opinions can't hurt you.
    Woman in Tech. Don't @ me with your vitriol for not agreeing blindly with your position.

  8. #868
    Quote Originally Posted by Forogil View Post
    You started by saying that you didn't understand why the naming is important for others, but now it turns out that you simply don't care about that.

    You are as clear as mud.

    I have explained why the naming is important for the law-suit against Blizzard in terms of how systematic the sexual harassment was, and who else was involved - and the overall strength of the governments case; how much is it just speculation and how much is solid evidence.
    Yeah, I don’t see it as important so I’m rhetorically questioning why anyone else would. I also have little interest in debating this further with you, because for me it’s simple. The harassment happened. How severe it is, we will find out in due course. Good day to you. I have dinner to go to.

  9. #869
    Quote Originally Posted by Eapoe View Post
    You know you are stating that the information was on Google, which, last I checked, was a readily available source of information for anyone that wanted to look anything up. It’s entirely possible that quite a few people knew, other than 1 comedian.
    It’s been stated multiple times that it didn’t become mainstream before him. That doesn’t mean that it wasn’t out there for people to know or find out.
    So you are trying to say that Afrasiabi knew Cosby was a rapist so created a rape room in his honor then got all the guys to go along and take a public picture that the women at Blizzard somehow didn't see? And when the millions of fans at Blizzard saw it didn't call it out at the time because they all thought it was funny and secretly knew that Cosby was a rapist? Also see below response.

    Quote Originally Posted by Magical Mudcrab View Post
    Discrepancies in pay increases, including negotiated starting salaries, are typically factored in when applicable and are used in determining the adjusted wage gap. If you have an actual study that demonstrates that what you are claiming is the case, feel free to post it; however, I've never seen a well-reviewed study that claims such.

    - - - Updated - - -



    Allegations against Cosby were public since before 2014, with public accusations being known as early as 2005 (which I believe is the Constand case, though you could likely find sources from before that point); however, it didn't help that some media outlets like ABCNews opted to lead their audiences by trying to make it appear as though investigators were trying to prove the sexual assault was actually consensual. It should be noted that the back-and-forth between Constand and Cosby was public and went on for over a year. In 2006, there were also publications like People magazine who published additional accounts of sexual assault from victims of Cosby, though at the time it was mostly Jane Does who did not want to come forward publicly. It's hard to believe that more people behind the scenes were simply completely and totally unaware of his behavior given the sheer number of allegations that would eventually come out against him from such a broad range of time, dozens of victims over the course of multiple decades, as well as the fact that these allegations even spilled over into the public. Further to that point, Hannibal Buress' joke wasn't even really a joke, he literally just told people to "Google 'Bill Cosby Rape'", so it's not like the information was even that well hidden from the public. The sad fact of the matter is that it's likely not that people were unaware behind the scenes, but more likely they either were more concerned about their own well being or simply didn't give a shit, such as in the case with people who knew a Weinstein.

    Regarding how this relates to the Cosby Suite, it's possible that some people didn't know. Greg Street gave a plausible answer, as it's true that someone likely wouldn't publicly brag about something called the Cosby Suite if they knew about the allegations; however, it's a little uncanny how the Cosby Suite is tied to Afrasiabi, who was known to sexually abuse women at Blizzard. Even if some people did not know, the connection is a little too suspect to be give everyone a pass.
    Yeah I've stated multiple times that some people knew but the majority didn't. Hannibal told people to google it after Philadelphians got pissed and didn't believe him since thats Cosby's hometown. He had been saying that bit about Cosby for 6 months with people thinking it was a just a joke. Half a year with not a peep until he pissed off Cosby's hometown.

    He was trying to say that because Blizzard is in the "entertainment industry" that its likely they knew, decided to name it the Cosby Room cause they wanted to use it as a rape room, never talked about that fact in the private chats that were leaked and yet posted a public photo, and that even though the women were also part of the "entertainment industry" were somehow completely unaware of the name even after there was a public photo. There are thousands of Employees and Blizzard and they had millions of people see the photo and yet nobody called out Cosby being a rapist until a year later.

    Whats more believable, that Afrasiabi was secretly googling rapists I can look up to and name a room after or that people are projecting future knowledge on an event in order to connect two unrelated events?

  10. #870
    Quote Originally Posted by qwerty123456 View Post
    Yeah but you are speculating by ignoring evidence. The evidence is that the majority of people didn't know in 2013, Cosby was still getting shows planned in 2013, that the Blizzard devs took a public photo in the room with a picture of Cosby and that none of the private chats that were revealed showed any knowledge of Cosby being a rapist.

    I said the majority of people didn't know because all evidence we have points to the majority of people not knowing until Hannibal pissed off a bunch of Philadelphians and they went to prove him wrong and found out he was right. Why was Wikipedia only able to find 2 articles pre 2014 and both were in Philadelphia? Why can't you find any proof otherwise?
    There is absolutely zero evidence that can prove that the majority of people didn't know in 2013. Stop acting like your speculation is gospel.

  11. #871
    Quote Originally Posted by TheRevenantHero View Post
    There is absolutely zero evidence that can prove that the majority of people didn't know in 2013. Stop acting like your speculation is gospel.
    My speculation has evidence. The fact that tons of Blizzard fans saw the photo as did the women working at Blizzard and nobody until a year later talked about Cosby being a rapist. And the fact it took Hannibal 6 months of touring to convince people it was a joke and was only able to do so because he pissed off people in Cosby's hometown.

    Why is it that you can never post any evidence and just keep claiming I'm wrong because my proof isn't a 2013 poll of 6 billion people or what ever the world population was at the time?

    Why do you need them for them to have created the room with the knowledge that Cosby was a piece of crap? What agenda do you have? My agenda is to point out what facts we have and try and get ignorant people to actually think before they speak.
    Last edited by qwerty123456; 2021-07-31 at 10:46 PM.

  12. #872
    Warchief Magical Mudcrab's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Location
    All across Nirn.
    Posts
    2,060
    Quote Originally Posted by qwerty123456 View Post
    Yeah I've stated multiple times that some people knew but the majority didn't. Hannibal told people to google it after Philadelphians got pissed and didn't believe him since thats Cosby's hometown. He had been saying that bit about Cosby for 6 months with people thinking it was a just a joke. Half a year with not a peep until he pissed off Cosby's hometown.

    He was trying to say that because Blizzard is in the "entertainment industry" that its likely they knew, decided to name it the Cosby Room cause they wanted to use it as a rape room, never talked about that fact in the private chats that were leaked and yet posted a public photo, and that even though the women were also part of the "entertainment industry" were somehow completely unaware of the name even after there was a public photo. There are thousands of Employees and Blizzard and they had millions of people see the photo and yet nobody called out Cosby being a rapist until a year later.

    Whats more believable, that Afrasiabi was secretly googling rapists I can look up to and name a room after or that people are projecting future knowledge on an event in order to connect two unrelated events?
    And you didn't see people complaining en masse about the Cosby Suite immediately after 2014 either, with it only really becoming public knowledge after the lawsuit was filed, making the "well people didn't talk about it until after 2014" a bit of a moot point. Additionally, the idea that people can know something and not openly talk about it isn't some far fetched concept, we've already seen instances like with Weinstein that thousands of people can know about some open secret and not spread it around, either to save their own skin or because they simply don't care.

    Going to the motives of naming the room, you seriously implying that it's somehow unbelievable that Afrasiabi, who worked in a company whose culture was known for being willing to tell rape jokes around women, would not also have a twisted sense of humor and used the name a room in which they pursued women after a sexual predator? Really? Like, this isn't about googling rapists and choosing one, it's about someone who is in the entertainment industry for around a decade knowing about sick rumors and naming it in homage of that.
    Sylvanas didn't even win the popular vote, she was elected by an indirect election of representatives. #NotMyWarchief

  13. #873
    Quote Originally Posted by qwerty123456 View Post
    My speculation has evidence. The fact that tons of Blizzard fans saw the photo as did the women working at Blizzard and nobody until a year later talked about Cosby being a rapist. And the fact it took Hannibal 6 months of touring to convince people it was a joke and was only able to do so because he pissed off people in Cosby's hometown.

    Why is it that you can never post any evidence and just keep claiming I'm wrong because my proof isn't a 2013 poll of 6 billion people or what ever the world population was at the time?

    Why do you need them for them to have created the room with the knowledge that Cosby was a piece of crap? What agenda do you have? My agenda is to point out what facts we have and try and get ignorant people to actually think before they speak.
    So now you're taking to lying and claiming all these people didn't know about Cosby because you said so. I posted a link that chronicles Cosby's history of allegations. You've done nothing but essentially say "Dude, trust me." You haven't posted ANY facts. I will say this AGAIN, you are posting speculation. You can't speak for every single person. You can't say with certainty that you know that everyone back then didn't know about Cosby's allegations.

    But you will continue your narrative that nobody knew about Cosby to defend Blizzard's utterly awful treatment of women.

  14. #874
    Quote Originally Posted by Magical Mudcrab View Post
    And you didn't see people complaining en masse about the Cosby Suite immediately after 2014 either, with it only really becoming public knowledge after the lawsuit was filed, making the "well people didn't talk about it until after 2014" a bit of a moot point. Additionally, the idea that people can know something and not openly talk about it isn't some far fetched concept, we've already seen instances like with Weinstein that thousands of people can know about some open secret and not spread it around, either to save their own skin or because they simply don't care.

    Going to the motives of naming the room, you seriously implying that it's somehow unbelievable that Afrasiabi, who worked in a company whose culture was known for being willing to tell rape jokes around women, would not also have a twisted sense of humor and used the name a room in which they pursued women after a sexual predator? Really? Like, this isn't about googling rapists and choosing one, it's about someone who is in the entertainment industry for around a decade knowing about sick rumors and naming it in homage of that.
    You're telling me that people in 2014 didn't remember a Cosby photo a year earlier? I remember every photo I see and even when I saw them.

    Weinstein could destroy anyone who knew about him. Afrasiabi could only ruin the lives of people who worked with him. You seriously don't think fans would have called out the photo at the time had they known about Cosby? Weinstein was also a million times more powerful than Afrasaibi.

    I find it unbelievable they would have named the room willingly after a rapist, not mention it at all during their private convos, AND take a public photo of it while working in the "entertainment industry" that all the other men and women in the company work for and have those other people who should also have the same "insider" knowledge because they also work in the "entertainment industry" be blissfully unaware of the real Cosby.

    There's a difference of between a guy telling a holocaust joke to his friend and a group of guys going to a holocaust memorial for work in front of 600 survivors on camera and telling holocaust jokes. I can certainly believe the first would happen. The later could possibly happen but unless there's actual evidence they said the jokes and weren't just there I'm not going to believe it.


    Quote Originally Posted by TheRevenantHero View Post
    So now you're taking to lying and claiming all these people didn't know about Cosby because you said so. I posted a link that chronicles Cosby's history of allegations. You've done nothing but essentially say "Dude, trust me." You haven't posted ANY facts. I will say this AGAIN, you are posting speculation. You can't speak for every single person. You can't say with certainty that you know that everyone back then didn't know about Cosby's allegations.

    But you will continue your narrative that nobody knew about Cosby to defend Blizzard's utterly awful treatment of women.
    Thats not what I said. I said statically speaking and given the fact they didn't reveal the reason in the private linked convos as being Cosby being a rapist, the fact the women who worked in the same industry still went to the room even after seeing the cosby photo makes it pretty unlikely that the intentionally named it after him because he was a rapist. You linked the history but the history says most people didn't know until Hannibal pissed off Cosby's home town.

    Nor does the Cosby room being unintentionally named after a rapist defend Blizzards awful treatment of women. Pretty sad how you gotta try to say one equals the other to get sympathy.


    Strange how all you can ever do is say "no you are a liar" and attack people. It's almost as if you are doing something thats against the forum rules.......
    Last edited by qwerty123456; 2021-07-31 at 11:27 PM.

  15. #875
    Quote Originally Posted by qwerty123456 View Post
    You're telling me that people in 2014 didn't remember a Cosby photo a year earlier? I remember every photo I see and even when I saw them.

    Weinstein could destroy anyone who knew about him. Afrasiabi could only ruin the lives of people who worked with him. You seriously don't think fans would have called out the photo at the time had they known about Cosby? Weinstein was also a million times more powerful than Afrasaibi.

    I find it unbelievable they would have named the room willingly after a rapist, not mention it at all during their private convos, AND take a public photo of it while working in the "entertainment industry" that all the other men and women in the company work for and have those other people who should also have the same "insider" knowledge because they also work in the "entertainment industry" be blissfully unaware of the real Cosby.

    There's a difference of between a guy telling a holocaust joke to his friend and a group of guys going to a holocaust memorial for work in front of 600 survivors on camera and telling holocaust jokes. I can certainly believe the first would happen. The later could possibly happen but unless there's actual evidence they said the jokes and weren't just there I'm not going to believe it.




    Thats not what I said. I said statically speaking and given the fact they didn't reveal the reason in the private linked convos as being Cosby being a rapist, the fact the women who worked in the same industry still went to the room even after seeing the cosby photo makes it pretty unlikely that the intentionally named it after him because he was a rapist. You linked the history but the history says most people didn't know until Hannibal pissed off Cosby's home town.

    Nor does the Cosby room being unintentionally named after a rapist defend Blizzards awful treatment of women. Pretty sad how you gotta try to say one equals the other to get sympathy.


    Strange how all you can ever do is say "no you are a liar" and attack people. It's almost as if you are doing something thats against the forum rules.......
    Right a man with a history of sexual misconduct at Blizzard definitely didn't name the suite after ANOTHER famous person who had several sexual misconduct cases against him. I can't even take your responses seriously anymore. There is absolutely no evidence proving that nobody knew until 2014. That's nothing but you doing mental gymnastics to defend Blizzard.

    You repeatedly insist that your speculation is facts and disregard every single point that proves your speculation is likely wrong. If this is the hill you want to die on then so be it.
    Last edited by TheRevenantHero; 2021-07-31 at 11:36 PM.

  16. #876
    Warchief Magical Mudcrab's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Location
    All across Nirn.
    Posts
    2,060
    Quote Originally Posted by qwerty123456 View Post
    You're telling me that people in 2014 didn't remember a Cosby photo a year earlier? I remember every photo I see and even when I saw them.
    Where was the outrage? Where are the posts of people lambasting the company for having a Cosby Suite in 2014? There wasn't any. The group had a room called the Cosby Suite and even after the allegations of Cosby became more widely known, everyone at the company was dead silent. That's why I say that people not speaking up prior is a moot point, because even after the actions of Cosby became more mainstream knowledge, people still didn't care, or at least didn't speak up about it.

    Weinstein could destroy anyone who knew about him. Afrasiabi could only ruin the lives of people who worked with him. You seriously don't think fans would have called out the photo at the time had they known about Cosby? Weinstein was also a million times more powerful than Afrasaibi.
    The power differential between Weinstein and Afrasiabi is totally irrelevant. Afrasiabi had a high level position at Blizzard and was actively enabled by the rest of the senior staff. Do you have any concept of how terrifying that is for employees? The fact that speaking out against this person could lead to retaliation (as we saw in other cases in the lawsuit) in the most likely scenario, which could include endangering your position at the company, or humiliation (as per the allegation of someone being forced to apologize for being over sensitive to the person who victimized them), and in the best case scenario will lead to no action whatsoever, as we saw with management taking no action against Afrasiabi and, instead, it just leading to Brack having a 1-on-1 chat with him. Moreover, being fired from a job at a high profile company like Blizzard, and consequently receiving no reference, is a black mark that could heavily damage your career in the games industry. Afrasiabi still had the power to monumentally fuck peoples lives up within the industry.

    I find it unbelievable they would have named the room willingly after a rapist, not mention it at all during their private convos, AND take a public photo of it while working in the "entertainment industry" that all the other men and women in the company work for and have those other people who should also have the same "insider" knowledge because they also work in the "entertainment industry" be blissfully unaware of the real Cosby.

    There's a difference of between a guy telling a holocaust joke to his friend and a group of guys going to a holocaust memorial for work in front of 600 survivors on camera and telling holocaust jokes. I can certainly believe the first would happen. The later could possibly happen but unless there's actual evidence they said the jokes and weren't just there I'm not going to believe it.
    If someone is blatantly and openly sexually abusing women in the workplace, including at events and has targeted both employees and fans (albeit enabled by senior staff), you think he's going to have the sense to not make a public joke like that? Like, where do you think this conceptual line is for someone like him? He's OK with public sexual abuse, but public jokes about it are no-go zones?
    Sylvanas didn't even win the popular vote, she was elected by an indirect election of representatives. #NotMyWarchief

  17. #877
    Quote Originally Posted by Magical Mudcrab View Post
    Where was the outrage? Where are the posts of people lambasting the company for having a Cosby Suite in 2014? There wasn't any. The group had a room called the Cosby Suite and even after the allegations of Cosby became more widely known, everyone at the company was dead silent. That's why I say that people not speaking up prior is a moot point, because even after the actions of Cosby became more mainstream knowledge, people still didn't care, or at least didn't speak up about it.



    The power differential between Weinstein and Afrasiabi is totally irrelevant. Afrasiabi had a high level position at Blizzard and was actively enabled by the rest of the senior staff. Do you have any concept of how terrifying that is for employees? The fact that speaking out against this person could lead to retaliation (as we saw in other cases in the lawsuit) in the most likely scenario, which could include endangering your position at the company, or humiliation (as per the allegation of someone being forced to apologize for being over sensitive to the person who victimized them), and in the best case scenario will lead to no action whatsoever, as we saw with management taking no action against Afrasiabi and, instead, it just leading to Brack having a 1-on-1 chat with him. Moreover, being fired from a job at a high profile company like Blizzard, and consequently receiving no reference, is a black mark that could heavily damage your career in the games industry. Afrasiabi still had the power to monumentally fuck peoples lives up within the industry.



    If someone is blatantly and openly sexually abusing women in the workplace, including at events and has targeted both employees and fans (albeit enabled by senior staff), you think he's going to have the sense to not make a public joke like that? Like, where do you think this conceptual line is for someone like him? He's OK with public sexual abuse, but public jokes about it are no-go zones?
    Everything about what you say is completely accurate. People who abuse people openly and never face punishment get bolder and bolder because they now view themselves as untouchable. Blizzard did NOTHING about Afrasiabi's abuse for years so he thought that he could do anything he wanted. That's what so many people just don't understand. People also gloss over the fact that Afrasiabi was in a pretty high position so most employees likely felt they couldn't say anything because if they did, they probably thought they'd just get fired. I've been in that position with a company before and it SUCKS.

  18. #878
    Quote Originally Posted by Magical Mudcrab View Post
    So just as a forward, what I'm about to say isn't meant to be insulting: as a layperson, any factor you could consider has likely already been considered by a professional. When they conduct these studies it's not a simple univariate analysis that hyper-focuses on a single factor and tries to measure its effects, instead they're multivariate and contain complex rationales using a mix of both cross-sectional (i.e.: essentially the results of a single study) and longitudinal (i.e.: essentially sets of cross-sectional results on the same data points, carried out over time) data. These studies are complex, they are comprehensive and simple factors like hours worked (incl. overtime) will be taken into account if relevant for that study.

    The reason why I say the Uber article was not broadly applicable is because the Uber findings aren't even that surprising. The idea that a system that merits long working hours and speeding would result in men earning more, who work more hours on average and are more likely to speed (which is one of the reasons why men also get in more car accidents) is not new information, it's just Uber covering for themselves to avoid having their payment practices called sexist. Moreover, their algorithm is basically a closed system (i.e.: the only relevant factors are quantitative metrics provided by the application). This is not comparable with the real world, which is realistically more of an open system and is prone to tampering due to things like implicit bias. Also, just to clarify, the problem isn't the gap, it's an unexplainable gap, which is why Uber's results aren't interesting while those found by studies that are more broadly applicable are.
    I'm aware it's been considered. I've read studies on both sides (one that stated part of the problem was women weren't assertive enough with pay raises, etc). I'm also aware it's multifactorial, there's not one specific reason that it's one way or another. I was pointing out that in a completely merit based system that women came out behind. I do understand it's just a single study, but I definitely think it's a very interesting study.

    First, to optimize $/hour, you wouldn't necessarily want long hours (and I don't know that Uber necessitates long hours, it depends from driver to driver). I don't see how their algorithm could be called sexist. It's entirely based on getting someone from A to B so I doubt it was trying to cover anything (nor have I ever heard any idea that the Uber algorithm was considered sexist).

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Forogil View Post
    No it doesn't. It states that he was known to harass women and that it was named the Cosby suite because of that (whether that is true is unclear; none of the explanations seem to paint the whole picture). It doesn't say that it was the harassed woman that invented the name.
    It seems clear that some knew and went to the Cosby suite, and didn't think it was a reference even to sex (and surely not rape). DFEH implies that some thought differently; I'm not sure we will ever get the true story.
    Fair, I shouldn't have specified the women specifically (I knew Afrasiabi allegedly only harassed women from the accusations I read). It was more that the harassers (or others) considered calling him Cosby, what better way to cover for it then get a giant Bill Cosby picture and make a joke out of it. It'd explain a lot.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Valkyrst View Post
    It doesn't state that women gave it the name.



    Doesn't say by who. So either you're intentionally misleading people or don't know how to read.
    I assumed it was given by the women since they were the ones being harassed. My mistake.

    More or less my point was I wondered if Alex found out about it, bought a giant Bill Cosby picture and the people that didn't know why thought it was because of the picture. Definitely a stretch, but then again, it would've been rather clever.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Mojo03 View Post
    I’m not sure I buy it being a case of them getting it wrong. There’s so many people that knew about it. Hundreds from reports. Hard sell that DFEH wouldn’t of known what it really was. It seems intentionally misleading.

    Alex for sure seems like a womanizer, but I’m not sure we’ve seen anything to suggest more than that. Like he’s not drugging women, or aggressively harassing, or anything like that from what they’ve said so far. Realistically more just a guy thats a little too friendly with women for the tech world, not a serial sexual predator like people are making it out.

    But, maybe there’s more. We’ll see.
    He did allegedly grope one chick at Blizzcon 2013. Her allegation is on Twitter.

  19. #879
    Really no need for antisemitism. That’s disgusting.

  20. #880
    Quote Originally Posted by Valkyrst View Post
    Yeah, I don’t see it as important so I’m rhetorically questioning why anyone else would.
    And you have gotten several answers for why it is important, despite your feigned uninterest.
    Having a different reason for the name doesn't make the known sexual harassments less severe, or remove the pay gap - but it reduces the air of suspicion around some others.

    Thinking more I remember one more thing, and realized something.

    First and foremost the only clear statement that it was named after Cosby's allegations is a speculation in the Kotaku article (and that speculation could, as previously stated, have happened late in 2014 or even later). The law-suit only implies that it was due to Cosby rape allegations, but it can be read as if it was named for other reasons.

    Second - if the government know it was based on Cosby's allegations that indicates that one of the persons who were in on the naming is talking (otherwise it is just speculation); if it were women who were assaulted at a previous conference who named it, then there will be more information about these sexual assaults which makes it systematic (but we haven't seen any such indication) - if it were men who were proud of it (Alex?) it seems at least one of them are spilling the beans (we haven't seen that; but it's possible).

    So, why are people so insistent that it must be based on Cosby's sexual allegation, without any real evidence, and despite the obvious inconsistencies?
    The only reason I can see is that they want to view all who discussed the Cosby suite as part of some sexual harassment ring, including Dave Kosak, Greg Street, Olivia Grace, ...

    The idea that everyone in show-biz knew is so ridiculous that it can be dismissed directly: all of Cosby's victims didn't know about the other cases until 2014; so clearly not everyone knew.
    Last edited by Forogil; 2021-08-01 at 10:10 AM.

Posting Permissions

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