Saying that you see this "Cosby Suite" as just a stupid joke does not in any way imply that the lawsuit or twitter allegations are not real. The joke might about abuse, but no abuse actually happened in the room. Or the joke might be about sweaters, and despite that still abuse happened in the room. Or any other combination. It's very possible that it's completely unrelated.
Same for defending that it's not known whether they knew about Cosby's reputation back then as we know today.
There's no denial of the alleged abuse in either of those comments whatsoever.
Last edited by Kolvarg; 2021-07-29 at 11:58 AM.
The difference is you've also spent a fair bit of time trying to refute the fact that sexual abuse occurred.
And you've been underscoring that with the idea that the Cosby suite was a joke.
For what it's worth, I ALSO think it was a very edgy joke that continued for longer than it should have.
But I'm also not naive enough to assume that just because that was a joke that Afrasiabi wasn't a creep. He was.
The leading line, whether implicitly or explicitly, for many posters including these two, has been that it's likely that no abuse occurred.
They've oscillated between that and 'oh but it's alleged' 'oh let's wait for proof' 'oh it's still gonna go to court'.
And zorkuus had his zinger of, 'it's only creepy if a woman says it is', implying that it's okay to be a creep if no one says anything.
The chat is fucking irrelevant. Stop trying to die on that hill. It is irrelevant.
He was a sexual predator whether the chat implies it or not.
I have said he was a creep plenty of times and also that he probably is guilty given all that we know. My skepticism was mostly about some other people "involved". Once again you're trying to put words into my mouth.
- - - Updated - - -
The chat matters, because people are saying everyone else was in on it too because of the vague chat.
What's going to be hilarious is when you find out all the people committing these atrocities are the woke leftoids that say they care about women. Also big fuckin LOL @ scarizard saying shit to GC when you had people like Riot Lyte.
Ah here we go. I was assuming you were going there.
Actually, I have seen that happen twice. It´s not untrue, maybe it happens less in your field of work, but it happens. Let´s say the court would actually rule Afrasiabi not guilty and it would be proven he is innocent, there is no chance Blizzard would take him back.
Exactly, “perceived discriminatory practices” as you said. Perceived. That is why, I my opinion, they have no case in hand. Blizzard is a big company with thousand of employees if they treat their workers like crap...why are they not leaving? No one is forcing them to work there. Especially since the company doesn´t even pay well. NOW they have a chance of actually bringing forward suggestions how to make the workplace better, instead they try to attain actual power in the company when it comes to hiring and company policies..in other words they are a little bit insane.
“There are more in the company engaging in similar activity.” That is an accusation that you can´t prove nor do you or anyone have an idea who/how many or what they are supposedly doing wrong.
You are correct when it comes to the leadership. Though, they probably have not much of an idea on what is even going on. Most of them left years ago anyway.
Yes, it is a wide spectrum, and what is appropriate is based on the individual. You may not like a sexual joke, it´s still a joke and not harassment. This is also why it´s a wider civil lawsuit, except the Afrasiabi stuff, it seems more like people screaming harassment for no reason. Now where do we have seen this...oh right...that's your woke culture now.
NO.Your last statement is borderline ridiculous. You just read the Bloomberg article but not the court papers. One(!) person thinks(!) that there was one picture, and said person thinks(!) that this was shared. That is all, it doesn´t say anything that the girl committed suicide because of this. Or that she was traumatized. You are absolutely pulling that out of your ass. Having dealt with more than one suicide and attempts in my closest circle, there is always a longer story to it. No one does it because of one stupid picture. That article was framing and nothing else, especially with the emphasis that her boyfriend (a higher ranking dev) had a sex toy with him….woooah big deal. There was also the alleged harassment in the company, which sounds a bit fishy, you don´t harass the girlfriend of your boss, that´s career suicide.
The fact is, we have no idea why she did it and we have zero context.
And this is why I say that people jump to silly conclusion. And that´s all there is to say, have a nice day
It's extreme, it's misogynistic even. But a man who refuses to have lunch with female co-workers, especially his subordinates, isn't missing out on anything, at least not professionally. No matter how slim the risk, the reward is nil.
That's something that's often missing from this discussion. There's no upside or career advantage to fraternising with female colleagues beyond the coldest professional etiquette.
1. So you've seen it happen twice. As I mentioned, less than 8% of cases involve falsified claims. So there's a margin for it happening. But small.
2. I'm saying perceived in regards to pay, promotions etc etc. That part is pending a civil court's ruling.
3. There is corroborating evidence that has been circulated amongst articles and more. Have a look-see.
4. Wrong again, Josh Allen who has been at the company for ages, is one of many that has come forward and confirmed management chose not to act.
5. It's simple. One joke. Okay, someone asks for it stop. Two joke. Why hasn't it stopped? Repeat occasions. It's harassment. You call it woke because YOU don't like the fact that it's being asked to stop, since your status quo is to say, 'what's the big deal? It's only a joke'. You consider sensitivity to be 'woke', which is laughable.
6. It's not one person. There have been multiple people coming forward to confirm this. I don't have the time to go back and link them all. Go look.
If anyone's jumping to erroneous conclusions, it's you. I'm going on what's available. You're reaching a conclusion that suits you.
I don't WANT harassment to be a thing at ANY workplace. Simple, really. I don't need to be a psychologist to realise the direction you're going in with your conversation, especially since you bring up dumb fucking buzzwords like 'woke'.
I can only speak from experience here and say that I haven't had any issues with having friendships with women.
Because I know boundaries and respect boundaries. Simple as. But you choose the boundaries that suit you, that's okay.
Last edited by DingDongKing; 2021-07-29 at 12:32 PM.
So how many times are they going to say "we will be the change"? Such a manic kind of statement. I can get behind making sure that your work environment isn't infested with dude bros and misogynist assholes but language like that makes me cringe and wonder how self aware the movement is, and what kind of bizarre inflated sense of importance they have for themselves. It's not enough to just be right these days, you have to appeal to extreme emotions using bombastic statements... how about just "We are determined in our cause and we will not stop opposing you until things have permanently, markedly changed for the better"?
Gender based hiring doesn't fix problems. Yes house needs to be cleaned but no gender and ethnicity should play zero role in who replacements are. Hell the current person trying to put a good face on things and push it under the rug so we all forget about it is a woman.
That's defending due process / denouncing witch-hunt mob attitudes, not saying it did or did not happen, not even that it is or is not likely that it happened.
If that's what he meant, it's still unrelated to his other statements, which stand on their own. You can speculate he's a creep and that he might be dog whistling, but that's entirely on you and not an inherent part of what he actually said on what you quoted.
Personally, I think that's not what he was trying to say, from what I glanced at. I could be wrong, but it seemed to me all he was saying was that what is "creepy" is not set in stone, and will vary from person to person and situation to situation. In particular he referenced that identical actions can either be seen as "creepy", if made by someone the receiver is not attracted to in any way, or as "sexy"/"hot" if made by someone the receiver is attracted to. That can be true both for men and for woman.
I won't say he did a particular good job at explaining that, and I didn't follow the whole conversation, but I think at least that was his initial point which you perhaps misinterpreted.
Last edited by Kolvarg; 2021-07-29 at 12:43 PM.