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

[rhorle]

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

Every job is hired on more then just skills and performance. It is also funny how you think I have something against white males just because I also support diverse hiring. The employee representative should be anyone that the employees pick. Why do you think it should only be a white male?

[Specialka]

Every job is hired on more then just skills and performance. It is also funny how you think I have something against white males just because I also support diverse hiring. The employee representative should be anyone that the employees pick. Why do you think it should only be a white male?

And where did you get that I was thinking that only a while male could represent the employees ? It should be the best person suited for the job, as it should be for new hiring for the devs teams or for a new member on the board.

[rhorle]

And where did you get that I was thinking that only a while male could represent the employees ? It should be the best person suited for the job, as it should be for new hiring for the devs teams or for a new member on the board.

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

You implied it is bad if it is "anything but a white male" which means a white male is preferential. Right? You are the one that brought race into the employee representative so don't back down now.

[Specialka]

You implied it is bad if it is "anything but a white male" which means a white male is preferential. Right? You are the one that brought race into the employee representative so don't back down now.

Moving those goalposts, hey ? I guess that is what happens when you are owned by your own argument.

[rhorle]

Moving those goalposts, hey ? I guess that is what happens when you are owned by your own argument.

How is it moving the goal posts when you brought it up race for employee representation in the first place. I can't move what you've already brought the discussion to. Lol. Nothing about what I said defeats me. What a weird take.

[Specialka]

How is it moving the goal posts when you brought it up race for employee representation in the first place. I can't move what you've already brought the discussion to. Lol. Nothing about what I said defeats me. What a weird take.

You defeated yourself, when you could not recognize that you are advocating for discrimination in chosing the next member of the board. You can twist that as you want, but this is your position.

[rhorle]

You defeated yourself, when you could not recognize that you are advocating for discrimination in chosing the next member of the board. You can twist that as you want, but this is your position.

Bringing about diversity is not a bad form of discrimination if there is a lack of it that needs fixing. Discrimination happens all the time. Some reasons are bad, some reasons are good. Nothing I have said defeats that. We are not playing Euchre so you don't have a trump card like you think you do.

[Specialka]

Bringing about diversity is not a bad form of discrimination if there is a lack of it that needs fixing. Discrimination happens all the time. Some reasons are bad, some reasons are good. Nothing I have said defeats that. We are not playing Euchre so you don't have a trump card like you think you do.

If you are fine with discrimination that's cool but do not twist it and say it out loud. Discrimination is still discrimination, be it positive or negative.

[Inoculate]

If you are fine with discrimination that's cool but do not twist it and say it out loud. Discrimination is still discrimination, be it positive or negative.

This thread has devolved to 'they terk er jerbs' level of mental gymnastics. Find me an example of a single board member of a major corporation that isn't qualified for their job and also explain how they aren't.

You are saying discrimination is putting people into positions they aren't qualified for so the burden of proof is yours and your ilks.

[rhorle]

If you are fine with discrimination that's cool but do not twist it and say it out loud. Discrimination is still discrimination, be it positive or negative.

Discrimination when not used for bad purposes is perfectly fine. Picking one restaurant over another is perfectly fine. Picking one school over another is perfectly fine. Fixing a lack of diversity is perfectly fine. I am not twisting anything and I can assure you I'm perfectly fine with "saying it out loud". Why wouldn't I? Do you routinely lie on the internet where you have to make exceptions for such?

[Talon8669]

Discrimination when not used for bad purposes is perfectly fine. Picking one restaurant over another is perfectly fine. Picking one school over another is perfectly fine. Fixing a lack of diversity is perfectly fine. I am not twisting anything and I can assure you I'm perfectly fine with "saying it out loud". Why wouldn't I? Do you routinely lie on the internet where you have to make exceptions for such?

You don't need to fix a lack of diversity. That is the whole problem. Diversity brings you nothing if you're hiring less qualified people for a position because they meet some diversity quota you're trying to achieve. They should solely hire on the basis of who is most qualified and leave all other issues out of the equation; unless they are specifically trying to hire a woman so they have a woman's perspective but as you already said they have (2) qualified women so this wouldn't be the case.

[Inoculate]

You don't need to fix a lack of diversity. That is the whole problem. Diversity brings you nothing if you're hiring less qualified people for a position because they meet some diversity quota you're trying to achieve. They should solely hire on the basis of who is most qualified and leave all other issues out of the equation; unless they are specifically trying to hire a woman so they have a woman's perspective but as you already said they have (2) qualified women so this wouldn't be the case.

Can you provide a concrete example of someone at that level that isn't qualified and explain how they arent? I feel you're lookimg for a big foot here.

[rhorle]

You don't need to fix a lack of diversity. That is the whole problem. Diversity brings you nothing if you're hiring less qualified people for a position because they meet some diversity quota you're trying to achieve.

It is a false assumption that hiring for diversity requires a less qualified candidate.

[Specialka]

This thread has devolved to 'they terk er jerbs' level of mental gymnastics. Find me an example of a single board member of a major corporation that isn't qualified for their job and also explain how they aren't.

You are saying discrimination is putting people into positions they aren't qualified for so the burden of proof is yours and your ilks.

Not really what I am saying. That group wants to put on the board a woman because she is a woman, not because she is suited for the job. If she has the skills and such, and and on top, is a woman, who cares ? But that is not how they see that nor present that.

[rhorle]

Not really what I am saying. That group wants to put on the board a woman because she is a woman, not because she is suited for the job. If she has the skills and such, and and on top, is a woman, who cares ? But that is not how they see that nor present that.

Except they didn't say that. You are the one equating "adding a woman" with "will be unqualified". You obviously care about a qualified woman being added because you are objecting to exactly that. Lol. Did you even read the demands are did you just use inherent bias to attack?

[Talon8669]

It is a false assumption that hiring for diversity requires a less qualified candidate.

I never made an assumption, I made a statement that if you have (2) people and one of them meets a diversity quota and the other does not but is more qualified you should hire the more qualified person because they are more qualified for the job. I don't see how that is an assumption at all.

[Specialka]

Except they didn't say that. You are the one equating "adding a woman" with "will be unqualified". You obviously care about a qualified woman being added because you are objecting to exactly that. Lol. Did you even read the demands are did you just use inherent bias to attack?

Never said that or implied that. You are projecting it seems. I want a qualified person on that board, and not specificaly because it is a woman. If it is, it is a bonus.

[rhorle]

I never made an assumption, I made a statement that if you have (2) people and one of them meets a diversity quota and the other does not but is more qualified you should hire the more qualified person because they are more qualified for the job. I don't see how that is an assumption at all.

You are again making the assumption that the other has to be more qualified. Lol. You keep saying you are not doing exactly what you are doing. Hiring for diversity does not mean you will have to pick a lower qualified candidate just to meet what you are looking for. It means that from a pool of qualified candidates the "diversity" one gets weighted more.

[Talon8669]

Can you provide a concrete example of someone at that level that isn't qualified and explain how they arent? I feel you're lookimg for a big foot here.

I think it's pretty simple if you have (2) people you're interviewing for a position and (1) meets a diversity quota and the other is more qualified but does not meet that diversity quota then you should hire the more qualified person because they are more qualified. Diversity quotas are all nice and dandy but honestly why you would every hire someone that is less qualified over someone that is more qualified is just not good business and make zero sense; unless there is something that less qualified person specifically brings to the table that your current team or business is lacking which offsets the difference in quality. For example if you have a board of directors that is all male and you want a female perspective I could see hiring her instead because she brings something else to the table that makes up for the lack of qualification. Just just blatantly hiring less qualified people because you have set some internal diversity quota is silly. And honestly if it degrades the quality of the product then as a consumer you really shouldn't support it because at the end of the day you're paying for the product and a diversity quota simply isn't going to just make that an inherently better product. I understand if you want to take some SJW approach to this and claim that it does some how make it a better product, it's you're right to believe that but it honestly doesn't. And all of these companies trying to look Woke again is just silly unless it actually pays off in the long run in profits in which case they aren't "Woke" they are just using a business strategy to take advantage of this type of consumer.

[rhorle]

Never said that or implied that. You are projecting it seems. I want a qualified person on that board, and not specificaly because it is a woman. If it is, it is a bonus.

That group wants to put on the board a woman because she is a woman, not because she is suited for the job.

It is not projection if you actually said it. You claim the group wants to put a woman on the board because she is a woman and not because she is qualified for the job. What part of the groups statement states that?