Activision-Blizzard Sued By California

[Elegiac]

You’re right. What should we do to have more white rappers, basketball players and r&b singers?

IDK.... Give minorities more opportunities so those fields wouldn't be oversaturated given they are some of the few avenues of social mobility open to said people?

- - - Updated - - -

No, I'm just a normal human being who doesn't think turning our society into a Big Brother-based hellhole where everything we say is "curated" to be more "tolerant and inoffensive" is a good idea.

Cool, no one's asking for that.

What we're asking for you to do is stop punching down and pretending it's the same thing as punching up.

[Endus]

Only if you believe in the Marxian redefinition of terms in order to create an Orwellian nightmare state, sure. Hilariously, by your own definition, the Left is racist against white people due to CRT.

It's weird as fuck you're trying to argue that there's a "Marxian" redefinition of terms (the definitions don't have anything to do with Marx and his writings), and you're using a fascist dystopian state as imagined by an avowed socialist and social justice warrior as what that "Marxian" movement is aimed towards.

Orwell was more "Marxian" in his viewpoints than the modern framing of racism is. Particularly as Orwell was not remotely quiet or subtle about his socialist leanings.

I swear to God, nobody who quotes Orwell has actually read and understood Orwell.

Also, kudos for demonstrating a failure to understand what critical race theory even is, to boot. There isn't a single thing "anti-white" about CRT.

[nocturnus]

If I wanted to be precise, I'd describe him as a bigot. If I wanted to be lazy with language I'd call him racist. People would understand it, but it's still an overly reductive way to view the meaning of words.

Luckily, I’m quite proficient at the English language; he was a racist. There is no way around it; he hated white people because they’re white. That’s the proper, ENGLISH definition of racism.

[Grimbold21]

I see you're back to arguing about me rather than the subject.

Should get that checked, bruh. Obsession with a stranger is kind of unhealthy.

Well, you are 50/50 on that, dearest Elegiac.

I am arguing with you because you're representative of what I deem a pervasive and dishonest way of reasoning.

You see, it was in the nuances that our rifts manifested themselves. Much like in many other threads related to social issues, it is never enough for you and yours for one to open declare their disgust, revulsion, anger with a given situation. One must be go beyond and lend their support, only this support needs to be framed in the way you want it to be.

Here's an additional tidbit for you. I can't claim to be an expert but I know a snippet here there. I read Machin & Mayr's How to do Critical Discourse Analysis, since I did a bit of that for my thesis. So I know a little bit of how language - in its various modes of expressions - is used to convey meaning.

That, however, is not synonymous with passing that knowledge for the truth. After all, if my memory doesn't fail me, one of the main criticisms of CDA made in the book is, well, one risks reading too much into smth .

But you do you, keep standing on that shaky pedestal of self constructed superiority.

[Elegiac]

Much like in many other threads related to social issues, it is never enough for you and yours for one to open declare their disgust, revulsion, anger with a given situation.

Whining that other people care too much about injustice in society isn't really the most flattering argument, lol.

[Easo]

Time to rename this thread to "Elegiac and his definition of racism". While it does explain a lot of things he has posted before can we all get back to Blizzard's issues?

[Elegiac]

Time to rename this thread to "Elegiac and his definition of racism".

Or more accurately, "people keep making shitty and bad faith comparisons because they have a chip on their shoulder regarding Elegiac."

I've been trying to steer the conversation back to Blizzard and its cultural problems, take it up with them.

[nocturnus]

Well, you are 50/50 on that, dearest Elegiac.

I am arguing with you because you're representative of what I deem a pervasive and dishonest way of reasoning.

You see, it was in the nuances that our rifts manifested themselves. Much like in many other threads related to social issues, it is never enough for you and yours for one to open declare their disgust, revulsion, anger with a given situation. One must be go beyond and lend their support, only this support needs to be framed in the way you want it to be.

Here's an additional tidbit for you. I can't claim to be an expert but I know a snippet here there. I read Machin & Mayr's How to do Critical Discourse Analysis, since I did a bit of that for my thesis. So I know a little bit of how language - in its various modes of expressions - is used to convey meaning.

That, however, is not synonymous with passing that knowledge for the truth. After all, if my memory doesn't fail me, one of the main criticisms of CDA made in the book is, well, one risks reading too much into smth .

But you do you, keep standing on that shaky pedestal of self constructed superiority.

Self constructed, indeed. Whenever someone presents facts that invalidate 90% of his arguments, he’s high up enough to pretend he never saw them. Quite convenient, I’d say. But that’s not uncommon among ignorant people that have some primitive kind of intelligence.

[Grimbold21]

SNIP

You have to understand this reasoning is somewhat importing from racial studies or whatever the field is dubbed.

-Ism/-Ist situations are not occasional, confined "outbreaks". They are, in fact, the status quo, the normal state of affairs, so we are all complicit in its perpetuation, because we, I dunno, live with our heads buried in the sand, we profit - knowingly or not - from this ordinary oppression.

Whether you like or not, we're all -ists.

- - - Updated - - -

Whining that other people care too much about injustice in society isn't really the most flattering argument, lol.

See now folks, as Elegiac misrepresents or completely reframes what I wrote. Not only that, but in the same swing he manages to reinforce his shaky pedestal.

- - - Updated - - -

"people keep making shitty and bad faith comparisons

Well, well, well....

[downnola]

Luckily, I’m quite proficient at the English language; he was a racist. There is no way around it; he hated white people because they’re white. That’s the proper, ENGLISH definition of racism.

Cool story, tell that to Merriam-Webster.

[Forogil]

https://kotaku.com/blizzard-devs-say...too-1847363241

Well, the "What about the MEN!?" folks can calm down -

Yeah, it's just gross all across the board.

Yes, it seems they were disgusting overall.

And there was already another named male victim that was more the victim of racism than sexism - Julian Murillo-Cuellar, but it seems that was sent to EEOC not DFEH.

But it also makes it even less clear what kind of HR they had, it seemed that HR didn't do anything and gossiped with confidential info, and the article says that Kevin Meier who was a personnel manager at Blizzard confirmed that they allegations were true. I thought that "personnel manager" would be part of HR. So, who leaked at HR? If it's the head of HR it would be ironic.

[Darth Vowrawn]

It's weird as fuck you're trying to argue that there's a "Marxian" redefinition of terms (the definitions don't have anything to do with Marx and his writings), and you're using a fascist dystopian state as imagined by an avowed socialist and social justice warrior as what that "Marxian" movement is aimed towards.

Orwell also hated other Socialists. For the very simple reason that they didn't really "love the poor", they just hated the rich. And, no, while they don't have anything really to do with Marx's writings, they still rewrite words and definitions in order to suite a Marxist worldview. Orwell wasn't just against "Fascism", he was against "totalitarianism" in general. That includes Communism, BTW.

I swear to God, nobody who quotes Orwell has actually read and understood Orwell.

Animal Farm was about how Stalin took over the Soviet Union. 1984 was about a totalitarian dystopia set in a "future" ruled by Fascist superpowers.

Also, kudos for demonstrating a failure to understand what critical race theory even is, to boot. There isn't a single thing "anti-white" about CRT.

Yes, blaming all of our culture's problems on "whiteness" and "white privilege" totally has NOTHING "anti-white" about it. And the KKK didn't dress up their hatred of blacks in an "intellectual" guise, either.

Cool, no one's asking for that.

What we're asking for you to do is stop punching down and pretending it's the same thing as punching up.

No such thing as "punching down". That's a blatantly Socialist way of thinking, with the inference that the only thing that is acceptable is "punching up".

[Easo]

Or more accurately, "people keep making shitty and bad faith comparisons because they have a chip on their shoulder regarding Elegiac."

I've been trying to steer the conversation back to Blizzard and its cultural problems, take it up with them.

Discussion was about you basically saying that the standard definition of racism does not apply to whites, because it needs to be systemic. You were called out on that, and rightfully at that, since the standard definition of racism has not changed. We already have one Themius, do not become the second one.

[Elegiac]

-snip-

Are you quite finished? Cut it out with the off-topic shit.

- - - Updated - - -

Speaking of shitty and dishonest people helping to perpetuate a toxic culture.

In sharp contrast to the open letter criticizing Activision's official statement, Activision leadership held a dissatisfying Zoom meeting with employees today, which called Fran Townsend's poorly received message an "apology" and stated the corporate headquarters intent to fight against the California lawsuit. According to the original reporting by Uppercutcrit.com, only around 500 employees were present in the Zoom call today, purportedly due to some kind of scheduling error, although a larger meeting with the rest of the company is supposed to be scheduled for tomorrow.

--

Taub started the meeting off by saying that he and Bobby Kotick, Activision’s CEO, “have never seen this,” but that “does not mean this behavior does not happen.” Taub went on to say that for him, “zero tolerance means claims are investigated properly,” which apparently also means strictly internally. “We don’t publicize all of these claims, we work with the employee and the person who is accused and try to work on a resolution,” Taub said, according to our source.

When asked about unionization by one of the employees, Taub’s answer was again pushing for internal handling of these situations. “The best way for protection is reaching out to your supervisors, hotline and avenues."

When asked how hard it was to write a company apology, Taub simply responded: “We did,” before adding, “I can’t control how everybody in the company responds.” There seems to be a lot of this going around, as Taub also acknowledged that “the note from Fran (Frances Townsend) wasn’t the right communication.”

Though there were also several mentions of “doing better” and helping employees “find their voice,” it seems Activision is still planning to actively combat the lawsuit being brought against it by the State of California. According to our source, Taub said: “I think the State of California has filed a suit and we said we were gonna fight it.”
“It will go through a legal process but this is an allegation not a conviction.”

"We're going to do better to address the problem while simultaneously arguing in court that the problem doesn't exist, please don't talk to regulators or try to unionise."

[Easo]

Are you quite finished? Cut it out with the off-topic shit.

We are in the Offtopic, in a thread where potential racial discrimination was one of the factors for the lawsuit against Blizzard. If you can debate what is or is not racism, then others can do so as well.

[Forogil]

Cool story, tell that to Merriam-Webster.

They were already told.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/racist

"a person who is racist : someone who holds the belief that race (see RACE entry 1 sense 1a) is a fundamental determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race"

I'm aware that they have multiple definitions of the words, some include systemic some not - but the noun racist only has the definition above (in Merriam-Webster at this moment).

Can we now skip this pseudo-discussion and focus on the actual law-suit?

[Deadite]

Sweetheart, no - it has to have a systemic component by definition.

So a white guy can't be a racist in say China? I guess you being a racist gives you a good insight in the subject.

[downnola]

Orwell also hated other Socialists. For the very simple reason that they didn't really "love the poor", they just hated the rich. And, no, while they don't have anything really to do with Marx's writings, they still rewrite words and definitions in order to suite a Marxist worldview. Orwell wasn't just against "Fascism", he was against "totalitarianism" in general. That includes Communism, BTW.

Orwell didn't hate other socialists. If he did he wouldn't have went to Spain to fight on their behalf. Read "Why I Write" and you can read for yourself that everything he's written was in support of democratic socialism.

Peterson left that part out of his lecture when he oversimplified the reason Orwell wrote "The Road to Wigan Pier," so I get why you're confused.

[Grimbold21]

https://kotaku.com/blizzard-devs-say...too-1847363241

Well, the "What about the MEN!?" folks can calm down -



Yeah, it's just gross all across the board.

This isn't a comment on the content of the article linked.

Oh and disclaimer, y'all: it's a disgusting situation.

Nonetheless, you do realize that "what about men" things are reactionary response right? And, no, not in the derogatory sense of the word that's often used here.

Folks need to make their mind up: either the male trait of bottling all inside is toxic or "fighting" back is.

[Elegiac]

Folks need to make their mind up: either the male trait of bottling all inside is toxic or "fighting" back is.

The answer is they're both toxic reactions and neither of them are inherently male traits.

Being a bro is a function of nurture, not nature.