Activision Blizzard Shareholder SOC Letter, Diablo II: Resurrected Early Access

[arkanon]

Also Equity: all 3 get jailed for watching without tickets

I have always laughed at this picture for that very reason - equity already exists in the scenario presented - a venue like this is already required to be wheel chair accessible, and IF THEY HAD PURCHASED TICKETS, which they all have the same opportunity to do, then the entire scenario falls flat on its face. There is a reason they are outside the fence, and not all sitting in the stadium like everyone else - because if they were, there is no problem at all.

[procne]

How can you stop inequality if you can never make things equal? Because that is what you are saying. That the process of making something equal is actually making it unequal. In many places the scales are already one sided. Bringing it to a balanced state is not inequality. That would be if it goes to far and thus become unbalanced in favor or some one else.

That's totally opposite of what I just said. Make things equal.
Do not make things unequal in opposite way.

Hiring only men was unequal. Which now some people try to fix by bringing this inequality the opposite way - to hire exclusively a woman.
Equality is when sex doesn't matter. Not when you have equal numer of males and females everywhere

[rhorle]

Rubbish - encouraging people to get qualified absolutely is NOT discrimination - and i never said such a ridiculous thing. You literally contradict yourself - encouraging a certain group is NOT giving them preferential treatment at all, what makes you think it is?

So offering extra incentives and oppurtunities to a specific group based on their gender, skin color, whatever is not discrimination. But hiring them is? What is the point of encouraging them to get qualified if once they are qualified they will meet a inequality in hiring practices? I did not contradict anything I said literally or figuratively.

Encouraging a group is literally giving them preferential treatment since you know you are specifically targeting them instead of everyone. You honestly don't see a difference between "Encouraging everyone" and "encouraging a minority group in X job, degree, whatever? Lol. Are you going to tell me that if you are asked to buy an apple from the store you'd think you could bring back a orange? Because you weren't sent to target a specific fruit?

- - - Updated - - -

That's totally opposite of what I just said. Make things equal.

You can't make things equal with out first balancing the scales. Hiring only men was unequal. Hiring only women to balance out the scales is not unequal. Hiring only women after the scale is balanced is unequal. You want equality with out first getting to the equal point.

[arkanon]

So offering extra incentives and oppurtunities to a specific group based on their gender, skin color, whatever is not discrimination. But hiring them is? What is the point of encouraging them to get qualified if once they are qualified they will meet a inequality in hiring practices? I did not contradict anything I said literally or figuratively.

Encouraging a group is literally giving them preferential treatment since you know you are specifically targeting them instead of everyone. You honestly don't see a difference between "Encouraging everyone" and "encouraging a minority group in X job, degree, whatever? Lol. Are you going to tell me that if you are asked to buy an apple from the store you'd think you could bring back a orange? Because you weren't sent to target a specific fruit?

Literally all wrong - you are using the word encourage, and then using an entirely fabricated definition of the word to fit your narrative.

give support, confidence, or hope to someone. - This is encouragement.

persuade someone to do or continue to do something by giving support and advice. - this is encouragement

Extra incentives and opportunities - this is NOT encouragement, this is preferential treatment. Either, you have no idea what the word encourage means, or, you are intentionally flop flopping between different words and making up definitions to fit your narrative - i strongly suspect it is the second example.

Encouraging groups to look at a particular industry is good - offering them preferential treatment is bad. Lastly, it is NOT "instead of everyone" it is "as well as everyone" - VERY different things.

Also, your fruit analogy is absolutely side splitting funny, because you are wrong there as well, because I WAS sent to get a specific fruit - an apple. "weren't sent to target a specific fruit"........"asked to buy AN APPLE". Like i said earlier, you are EXTREMELY confused, and this is yet another example of your confusion.

[rhorle]

Extra incentives and opportunities - this is NOT encouragement, this is preferential treatment.

So what is support and advice that is given only to one specific group based on gender, race, or other criteria? Lol. The only one making up things to fit your narrative is yourself. You won't see one thing as discrimination because you support it while claiming the same thing but done with hiring is. Focusing just on women is just encouraging them to apply in male dominated fields.

Not discrimination according to you while at the same time discrimination according to you.

[arkanon]

So what is support and advice that is given only to one specific group based on gender, race, or other criteria? Lol. The only one making up things to fit your narrative is yourself. You won't see one thing as discrimination because you support it while claiming the same thing but done with hiring is. Focusing just on women is just encouraging them to apply in male dominated fields.

Not discrimination according to you while at the same time discrimination according to you.

Having a marketing campaign for engineering featuring females talking about how much they love the industry is marketing designed to encourage more females to look at a career in engineering - this is encouragement.

Having a marketing campaign for engineering featuring females talking about how they got their job because they are a female, and that there are job openings available only to females in the industry, or that they will receive a one off payment of $XYZ if they get a degree in engineering, or having job openings that expressly say no males will be hired - that is discrimination, not encouragement.

One example locally is our Police force - the vast majority of their recruitment ads feature POC and Females - they dont receive any extra incentives, payments, or preferential treatment, but the marketing is designed to ENCOURAGE more minorities (in that industry) to consider a career in the Police.

The fact you cannot, or will not see the difference between the two is a YOU problem.

[procne]

You can't make things equal with out first balancing the scales. Hiring only men was unequal. Hiring only women to balance out the scales is not unequal. Hiring only women after the scale is balanced is unequal. You want equality with out first getting to the equal point.

Hiring only men was unequal. Which now some people try to fix by bringing this inequality the opposite way - to hire exclusively a woman.
Equal point is when sex doesn't matter. Not when you have equal numer of males and females everywhere

Apparently for you balanced scales = equal number of men and women. For me balanced scales = sex doesn't matter.
So yeah, I don't want to get to your point of equality. I don't want to have to care about someone's sex and their numbers
You say I don't want equality because I don't want to artificially inflate women numbers by treating women specially
I say you don't want equality because you want to treat women specially

[rhorle]

Having a marketing campaign for engineering featuring females talking about how much they love the industry is marketing designed to encourage more females to look at a career in engineering - this is encouragement.

It is still focusing on one gender though which is discrimination right? If advertisement and encourage didn't benefit the targeted group then it wouldn't be done. Just like your police example. They advertise to target specific groups which is discrimination. But have people such as yourself pacified so you don't attack them for discrimination by wanting to hire more minorities. Weird right? Discrimination is okay as long as it tricks you into thinking it isn't. But saying you are doing it to get more diversity is bad.

It isn't me that has the problem seeing what is happening here lol.

- - - Updated - - -

Apparently for you balanced scales = equal number of men and women. For me balanced scales = sex doesn't matter.

But you can't get to "Sex doesn't matter" if sex still matters and has mattered for years. That is just resetting what balanced is with out trying to bring any balance. It isn't about having an equal number of genders or any other category. It is about give an advantage where one didn't exist to bring diversity into the company where it didn't exist for years. Eventually it will balance out where you no longer should target specific groups.

[Adamas102]

Not bad faith at all. he is literally trying to fight discrimination with discrimination in the opposite direction. Discrimination is bad regardless. You can't cry about discrimination one way then demand it in the other direction. You are no better than Blizzard was in that regard.

It's not "discrimination in the opposite direction", you're twisting it into something it's not. It's filling a position with the candidate that you need. When you draft a QB you aren't discriminating against the running backs. They still have value and are needed on the team, but you need a balanced team. What's on your resume isn't the only thing that is taken into consideration. It never has been. If it's deemed that a diverse workforce is beneficial to the workforce and the company as a whole then it's something to take into consideration when hiring people. No one is saying that men, or white people, or anyone else is undeserving of a job. If they were suggesting that all white men needed to be fired or that no white men should be on the board then THAT would be discrimination.

[Diaphin]

So, you are perfeclty OK with discrimination based on race got it.

IN oder tyo eliminate discrimination, you stop the discrimination. Dicriminating in the opposite direction is still discrimination. Period.

When a company has a history of predominantly hiring and promoting men, how is hiring a woman discrimination?

[arkanon]

When a company has a history of predominantly hiring and promoting men, how is hiring a woman discrimination?

A history of hiring the most qualified person for the job, or a history of hiring males over equally or more qualified females? What is the ratio of male/female applicants? Hiring a women is not discrimination - not giving the job to someone BECAUSE of their gender is. So if they had a male who was actually a better applicant, but chose to hire the female simply because she is female, that is discrimination.

- - - Updated - - -

It's not "discrimination in the opposite direction", you're twisting it into something it's not. It's filling a position with the candidate that you need. When you draft a QB you aren't discriminating against the running backs. They still have value and are needed on the team, but you need a balanced team. What's on your resume isn't the only thing that is taken into consideration. It never has been. If it's deemed that a diverse workforce is beneficial to the workforce and the company as a whole then it's something to take into consideration when hiring people. No one is saying that men, or white people, or anyone else is undeserving of a job. If they were suggesting that all white men needed to be fired or that no white men should be on the board then THAT would be discrimination.

No, but if you are hiring a QB, and you have one with a proven track record and they are an amazing applicant, but you choose an inferior applicant BECAUSE HE IS BLACK, then it absolutely is discrimination.

[Diaphin]

A history of hiring the most qualified person for the job, or a history of hiring males over equally or more qualified females? What is the ratio of male/female applicants? Hiring a women is not discrimination - not giving the job to someone BECAUSE of their gender is. So if they had a male who was actually a better applicant, but chose to hire the female simply because she is female, that is discrimination.

Looking at the lawsuit though, it seems that Blizzard traditionally didn't paid/hired/promoted women based on their qualifications the same way they would men. So now they face a public push to change that imbalance by promiting qualified women. So whats your problem? They want to add one female director, preferably one who has even additional qualifications over what is expected from their male directors, so all that means is that they are looking to add a director spot with a qualified women who has, again, even additional qualifications when prior they would before probably promote just a guy without even taking these additional leadership qualifications into account. They want gender balance for the board until 2025, board positions are usually not applied for, so they will look for qualified women.

Considering that Blizzard is in the need of undertake equity reviews for their company, it strongly indicates that the company itself historically possessed little equity in the past, which indicates the opposite of what you are fearmongering about: That the current company make up is based under lesser qualified men getting positions over more qualified women.

The law suit itself indicates the opposite of what you boys are fearmongering about, the company seemed to have prefered lesser qualified men over more qualified women. Which is supported by many accusations of sexual harassment, drug abuse and playing video games during working hours in the Blizzard offices, which means that the company kept sufficently enough unqualified men that it even could become a widely observed phenomenon. Or do you think a qualified and competent worker would drink, do drugs, harass co-workers or play video games during his working hours? I don't think so, that sounds like a wasteful and highly unqualified worker.

- - - Updated - - -

No, but if you are hiring a QB, and you have one with a proven track record and they are an amazing applicant, but you choose an inferior applicant BECAUSE HE IS BLACK, then it absolutely is discrimination.

Do you have any evidence of something like this happening, especially on a widespread level like hiring lesser qualified cisheterosexual white men for positions as it seems the case at Blizzard considering their law suit and their need to undertake equity reviews? Because this sounds suspiciously like you assume that black applicants are inheritly inferior to white applicants.

[Adamas102]

No, but if you are hiring a QB, and you have one with a proven track record and they are an amazing applicant, but you choose an inferior applicant BECAUSE HE IS BLACK, then it absolutely is discrimination.

You're still ignoring the fundamental idea that a diverse workforce is the goal. In this example, Black = QB and White = not a QB. So you hire the black applicant because that's what you need. If you're trying to avoid having too homogeneous a group, then in your example the black applicant is not an inferior applicant (assuming they meet whatever requirements there are for the position). In fact, neither applicant is inferior. One is just a better fit for the role. There's a big issue with people seeing all diversity hires as completely unqualified individuals that for some reason just randomly applied to these positions that they have no business applying to. It's ridiculous. You can have diversity hiring initiatives without hiring obviously unqualified individuals.

Unless you're saying that you won't hire [fill in race, sex, religion, etc] for ANY openings of a certain position then it isn't discrimination.

[Caerrona]

You're still ignoring the fundamental idea that a diverse workforce is the goal. In this example, Black = QB and White = not a QB. So you hire the black applicant because that's what you need. If you're trying to avoid having too homogeneous a group, then in your example the black applicant is not an inferior applicant (assuming they meet whatever requirements there are for the position). In fact, neither applicant is inferior. One is just a better fit for the role. There's a big issue with people seeing all diversity hires as completely unqualified individuals that for some reason just randomly applied to these positions that they have no business applying to. It's ridiculous. You can have diversity hiring initiatives without hiring obviously unqualified individuals.

Unless you're saying that you won't hire [fill in race, sex, religion, etc] for ANY openings of a certain position then it isn't discrimination.

If the person hired (regardless of skin color or sex) is the best candidate than you are correct.

But garbage like that sjw investor group wanting a woman on the sole basis she has a vagina and a masters in lesbian dance theory and denying other applicants that are better is 100% discrimination.

If a women applies and is better suited/qualified than a man than good on her. woman need to step up and start getting qualifications/experience in different fields than sitting there and crying "inequality".

[Indigenously Abled]

Nice bad faith discussion skills you have there. I found a picture that might help you understand the difference between equity and equality. What you want is equality which isn't the proper fix at all.

I love this. Hey white folks. I'm brown and in a wheelchair. You guys marched my ancestors across what used to be OUR lands.

Send me money now please.

Just kidding. I'm successful and wouldn't dare grift for sympathy money. Even if it is blood money.

- - - Updated - - -

Also Equity: all 3 get jailed for watching without tickets

Now THAT is equality of outcome

[Adamas102]

If the person hired (regardless of skin color or sex) is the best candidate than you are correct.

But garbage like that sjw investor group wanting a woman on the sole basis she has a vagina and a masters in lesbian dance theory and denying other applicants that are better is 100% discrimination.

If a women applies and is better suited/qualified than a man than good on her. woman need to step up and start getting qualifications/experience in different fields than sitting there and crying "inequality".

You're obviously viewing this from an extremely biased position if the only value you see in a woman is "a vagina and a masters in lesbian dance theory", but whatever, I'll bite...

I'll try another analogy to at least clear up this stupid "reverse discrimination" thing. If you're a casting director and looking for someone to play George Washington in your historical drama, it doesn't matter if Meryl fucking Streep comes in for an audition. The fact that she isn't getting the role because she doesn't fit the desired demographic does NOT diminish the recognition of her acting skills and qualifications OR suggest that because she is a woman she isn't capable of or desirable for a leading role. She isn't being discriminated against because she's a woman. She simply isn't the right fit for that particular role. That makes sense, right?

If you have a company where all the top management positions are held by women and you feel it would be beneficial to hire a man on the leadership team (having a more diverse team could help attract a larger pool of candidates for other positions, a different perspective could lead to improvements in current strategies, etc) then any qualified male candidate is going to be better suited than any qualified female candidate. That doesn't mean the female candidates are being discriminated against, and it certainly doesn't suggest that as women they're not capable or desirable as managers. It just means that they're not the right fit for that particular position.

[rhorle]

But garbage like that sjw investor group wanting a woman on the sole basis she has a vagina and a masters in lesbian dance theory and denying other applicants that are better is 100% discrimination.

That isn't what they asked for or what they want. It is garbage like what you posted that shows how deep hatred runs and how people invent things in order to hate it. The board already has two qualified women. They are asking for more.

[Specialka]

That isn't what they asked for or what they want. It is garbage like what you posted that shows how deep hatred runs and how people invent things in order to hate it. The board already has two qualified women. They are asking for more.

So they want to hire someone based on discrimination. I think we got it.

[rhorle]

So they want to hire someone based on discrimination. I think we got it.

Increase board diversity and equity by adding a woman director – preferably one with a history of advocacy for marginalized people and communities - by the end of 2021, committing to gender-balance on the board by 2025, and reserving at least one board seat for a nominee selected by current employees as their representative.

Are you sure you got it? They want to hire someone based on diversity and not discrimination. Big difference between filling what you perceive to be lacking and hiring just to discriminate. Notice how they also say that there should be an employee selected member on the board. It is about representation and not discrimination. The things are the same but with different motives.

[Specialka]

Are you sure you got it? They want to hire someone based on diversity and not discrimination. Big difference between filling what you perceive to be lacking and hiring just to discriminate. Notice how they also say that there should be an employee selected member on the board. It is about representation and not discrimination. The things are the same but with different motives.

If they hire someone based on anything but skills and performance, it is discrimination. You can twist that however you want, it is still discrimination. You can call that positive discrimination but at its core, it is still discrimination.

And i guess you would prefer if the employee representative would be anything but a white male ?