Over a 150 Riot Games Employees Stage Walkout Over Forced Arbitration & Sexist Culture

[ARikozuM]

2 minutes ago, Trik'Stari said:

People need to report sexual abuse and harassment when it happens. If you don't, there's not much the system can do to help you, and it would be illogical and self destructive for society to simply "believe you" and act as though you were speaking fact when you accuse someone of something without any evidence.

Companies should also have to report to the police any and all issues where they have jurisdiction. Forced arbitration and internal investigations will always side with the company's best interests. 

[Nowak]

Riot's going ahead with the forced arbitration plan anyway. Their voices fell on deaf ears.

 

https://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-tn-riot-games-arbitration-sexual-harassment-discrimination-20190517-story.html

 

Unionize the games industry.

[Trixanity]

33 minutes ago, Nowak said:

Riot's going ahead with the forced arbitration plan anyway. Their voices fell on deaf ears.

 

https://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-tn-riot-games-arbitration-sexual-harassment-discrimination-20190517-story.html

 

Unionize the games industry.

Riot doesn't give a shit about anyone so of course it fell on deaf ears. People think this is about the MeToo movement or SJWs but Riot goes beyond gender politics and a bad workplace environment when it comes to fuckery. They're extremely controlling of everyone who is within their sphere whether it's pro players, casters and other talent or team organizations. You name it they'll fuck with it.

 

For instance they tried to ban pro players from streaming any content but LoL - even in their free time. Of course they were forced to backpedal on that one a little bit but that's just one example of the type of company this is.

[Commodus]

1 hour ago, Trik'Stari said:

The problem I have is that the MeToo movement has got the wrong point. We cannot morally take action against someone over an accusation, as a society. Because women are equally as capable of lying as men are. Not saying those women are lying, but I am saying they are capable of being lying to ruin the life or career of someone they simply hate.

 

I'd provide a great example of this, but I feel like it would go beyond the scope of the forum.

 

People need to report sexual abuse and harassment when it happens. If you don't, there's not much the system can do to help you, and it would be illogical and self destructive for society to simply "believe you" and act as though you were speaking fact when you accuse someone of something without any evidence. This would create a system that would be more than easy to abuse.

 

Maybe, as a society, we need to make self defense classes apart of the educational system at some point. Teach people how to actually defend themselves from an attacker.

Here's the thing, though: the percentage of false sexual assault allegations tends to hover around 4-5 percent.  While you do have to be careful, it's generally a good idea to take an accusation seriously, to trust but verify than to be doubtful.

 

One of the main reasons #MeToo exists is that many of the perpetrators of sexual assault count on that distrust to get away with it.  They exploit a combination of their status and society's tendency to trust men over women.  Harvey Weinstein, Bill Cosby, even Brock Turner... they know people will be reluctant to believe that a well-known man (or a man with a potentially bright future) would abuse their position.

 

And it's easy to claim that people should just report these claims more often, but it's rarely that simple.  If it's harassment or non-penetrative assault, it's frequently one person's word against another's.  How do you prove that unless there's audiovisual evidence or an eyewitness?  And then there's the power some of these perpetrators wield.  Weinstein could (and likely did) sabotage careers for women who turned him down -- do you really think an actress during Weinstein's heyday was going to risk ruining her livelihood unless she had an airtight case?

 

This happens on a smaller scale, too.  Girls don't report assault by family or friends because the man could basically ruin their family life; women don't report assaults by coworkers because they know their boss will fire them for being a 'troublemaker.'  Companies like Microsoft and Uber have frequently had cultures that either swept accusations under the rug (such as through forced arbitration, like what Riot is doing) or have done nothing to address accusations.

 

Also, self-defense classes are a well-meaning idea, but they reflect a misunderstanding of how sexual assault happens.  It's seldom an 'ideal' situation where a woman confronts a would-be rapist head-on and gets to use her pepper spray or judo to stalwartly defend herself.  It's frequently an ambush.  It's being cornered in a semi-public situation, possibly including those career threats.  And if it's something like groping, it's often over before there's a chance to confront the attacker (say, a coworker grabbing a woman's ass while passing through the hallway).  If you really want to curtail sexual assault by men in the long run, you teach them to stop thinking sexual assault is acceptable -- asking women to fight harder is just a Band-Aid on a bullet wound.

[Trik'Stari]

3 hours ago, ARikozuM said:

Companies should also have to report to the police any and all issues where they have jurisdiction. Forced arbitration and internal investigations will always side with the company's best interests. 

I do agree with forced arbitration being a bad thing.

 

3 hours ago, Commodus said:

Here's the thing, though: the percentage of false sexual assault allegations tends to hover around 4-5 percent.  While you do have to be careful, it's generally a good idea to take an accusation seriously, to trust but verify than to be doubtful.

 

One of the main reasons #MeToo exists is that many of the perpetrators of sexual assault count on that distrust to get away with it.  They exploit a combination of their status and society's tendency to trust men over women.  Harvey Weinstein, Bill Cosby, even Brock Turner... they know people will be reluctant to believe that a well-known man (or a man with a potentially bright future) would abuse their position.

 

And it's easy to claim that people should just report these claims more often, but it's rarely that simple.  If it's harassment or non-penetrative assault, it's frequently one person's word against another's.  How do you prove that unless there's audiovisual evidence or an eyewitness?  And then there's the power some of these perpetrators wield.  Weinstein could (and likely did) sabotage careers for women who turned him down -- do you really think an actress during Weinstein's heyday was going to risk ruining her livelihood unless she had an airtight case?

 

This happens on a smaller scale, too.  Girls don't report assault by family or friends because the man could basically ruin their family life; women don't report assaults by coworkers because they know their boss will fire them for being a 'troublemaker.'  Companies like Microsoft and Uber have frequently had cultures that either swept accusations under the rug (such as through forced arbitration, like what Riot is doing) or have done nothing to address accusations.

 

Also, self-defense classes are a well-meaning idea, but they reflect a misunderstanding of how sexual assault happens.  It's seldom an 'ideal' situation where a woman confronts a would-be rapist head-on and gets to use her pepper spray or judo to stalwartly defend herself.  It's frequently an ambush.  It's being cornered in a semi-public situation, possibly including those career threats.  And if it's something like groping, it's often over before there's a chance to confront the attacker (say, a coworker grabbing a woman's ass while passing through the hallway).  If you really want to curtail sexual assault by men in the long run, you teach them to stop thinking sexual assault is acceptable -- asking women to fight harder is just a Band-Aid on a bullet wound.

There's really not much you can do for one time events or events without evidence. In that case it's just "he said she said" and many of us go with "innocent until proven guilty" because we don't want to be led into taking action or doing something, without just cause. That's just the way this has to be.

 

I'm not saying accusations shouldn't be taken seriously, I'm saying that weaponizing social media to use accusations to destroy someones career, should not happen and should not be done. If you're going to accuse someone of sexual harassment or assault, go to the police. They are the ones we pay to look into this kind of thing.

 

I know of no men who think sexual assault is acceptable. I have never met one who did. I really dislike the notion that we need to be taught this considering the overwhelming majority of men aren't running around raping women. I'm also fairly certain anyone who does think sexual assault is acceptable, isn't going to let something like being told "no that's bad don't do that" get in the way of them doing what they want.

 

Please stop believing that all men are guilty or dangerous because of the actions of a few sociopaths.

[Commodus]

26 minutes ago, Trik'Stari said:

There's really not much you can do for one time events or events without evidence. In that case it's just "he said she said" and many of us go with "innocent until proven guilty" because we don't want to be led into taking action or doing something, without just cause. That's just the way this has to be.

 

I'm not saying accusations shouldn't be taken seriously, I'm saying that weaponizing social media to use accusations to destroy someones career, should not happen and should not be done. If you're going to accuse someone of sexual harassment or assault, go to the police. They are the ones we pay to look into this kind of thing.

 

I know of no men who think sexual assault is acceptable. I have never met one who did. I really dislike the notion that we need to be taught this considering the overwhelming majority of men aren't running around raping women. I'm also fairly certain anyone who does think sexual assault is acceptable, isn't going to let something like being told "no that's bad don't do that" get in the way of them doing what they want.

 

Please stop believing that all men are guilty or dangerous because of the actions of a few sociopaths.

Oh, here we go, dragging out the "not all men" crap.  I didn't say all men.  Please don't ever accuse me of that again.

 

The point is that there is a systemic problem where those men who do commit sexual assault and harassment count on people giving them a pass, both because they're the trusted male figures and because there often isn't enough evidence beyond the word of the women accusing them.  Hell, even solid evidence isn't enough.  Cosby likely assaulted dozens of women and even admitted in years-old testimony to slipping quaaludes to women, but it wasn't until just recently that there was enough impetus to charge and convict him.  And you wonder why women are reluctant to report these crimes?

 

Anecdotal experience doesn't matter here.  Please don't use it again.  About 18.3 percent of American women have been raped at some point in their lives -- that indicates that it's more than just a tiny fraction of men who are responsible, even if a clear majority are fine.  On top of this, perpetrators rarely advertise themselves in public -- I'm surprised you'd think they would.  They're the frat boys who take advantage of girls behind closed doors at parties, the partners who don't accept "not tonight" for an answer, the bosses who force staff to perform sexual favours.  The culprits aren't always sociopaths, but they always believe they're entitled to sex; they just don't flaunt that belief at every given opportunity.

 

And the whole point of changing cultural attitudes is so that you prevent men from developing that sense of entitlement.  You want boys who grow up learning that "boys will be boys" is not an excuse for shitty behaviour, that they have to respect a "no" when they get it, that being in a position of power doesn't mean the women under them are trophies.  You can't fix the people who are irredeemably broken, but you can sway the people who are somewhat misguided or haven't finished developing.

[Trik'Stari]

36 minutes ago, Commodus said:

Oh, here we go, dragging out the "not all men" crap.  I didn't say all men.  Please don't ever accuse me of that again.

 

The point is that there is a systemic problem where those men who do commit sexual assault and harassment count on people giving them a pass, both because they're the trusted male figures and because there often isn't enough evidence beyond the word of the women accusing them.  Hell, even solid evidence isn't enough.  Cosby likely assaulted dozens of women and even admitted in years-old testimony to slipping quaaludes to women, but it wasn't until just recently that there was enough impetus to charge and convict him.  And you wonder why women are reluctant to report these crimes?

 

Anecdotal experience doesn't matter here.  Please don't use it again.  About 18.3 percent of American women have been raped at some point in their lives -- that indicates that it's more than just a tiny fraction of men who are responsible, even if a clear majority are fine.  On top of this, perpetrators rarely advertise themselves in public -- I'm surprised you'd think they would.  They're the frat boys who take advantage of girls behind closed doors at parties, the partners who don't accept "not tonight" for an answer, the bosses who force staff to perform sexual favours.  The culprits aren't always sociopaths, but they always believe they're entitled to sex; they just don't flaunt that belief at every given opportunity.

 

And the whole point of changing cultural attitudes is so that you prevent men from developing that sense of entitlement.  You want boys who grow up learning that "boys will be boys" is not an excuse for shitty behaviour, that they have to respect a "no" when they get it, that being in a position of power doesn't mean the women under them are trophies.  You can't fix the people who are irredeemably broken, but you can sway the people who are somewhat misguided or haven't finished developing.

Again, you do realize they(rapists and harassers) in all likelihood know that it is a crime and is wrong, and do not care? This is my problem with the idea that we men "need to be taught not to rape". Most of us know, at least those of us brought up in western culture. I can't speak for other cultures where women are demonstrably treated differently.

 

I'm not sure how you think telling them something they already know, is going to change anything. I'm surprised that you take the "they're unaware that this is wrong" attitude towards it honestly.

 

The only solutions I see are fight back, report these crimes to the police as soon as possible, or every single member of society is going to have to wear a bodycam with a microphone.

[mr moose]

6 hours ago, Nowak said:

Riot's going ahead with the forced arbitration plan anyway. Their voices fell on deaf ears.

 

https://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-tn-riot-games-arbitration-sexual-harassment-discrimination-20190517-story.html

 

Unionize the games industry.

Majority of walk outs and protests fall on def ears,  protests are the same as prison hostage situations, if you curtail to one then everyone will protest over anything expecting the same outcome. 

 

If it doesn't already suit an agenda or profitable narrative then it is literally a waste of time.

[TechyBen]

Sad thing is, handing in your resignation and going else where (or setting up independent) is really the only option if reasonable communication breaks down.

[mr moose]

35 minutes ago, Trik'Stari said:

Again, you do realize they(rapists and harassers) in all likelihood know that it is a crime and is wrong, and do not care? This is my problem with the idea that we men "need to be taught not to rape". Most of us know, at least those of us brought up in western culture. I can't speak for other cultures where women are demonstrably treated differently.

 

I'm not sure how you think telling them something they already know, is going to change anything. I'm surprised that you take the "they're unaware that this is wrong" attitude towards it honestly.

 

The only solutions I see are fight back, report these crimes to the police as soon as possible, or every single member of society is going to have to wear a bodycam with a microphone.

The biggest thing I hate about my government at the moment is that they spending millions trying to educate people not to abuse other people.  They have been doing that for the last 20 years at least and nothing has changed.  To most rational people that indicates simple education campaigns are not the solution and maybe they need to rethink the problem.

 

I like our workplace laws, they elevate these issues straight out of the hands of the employer, however they are still open to abuse and people caught abusing the system should be held to the same account as those they wish to see found guilty, sadly they are not.

[Trik'Stari]

9 minutes ago, TechyBen said:

Sad thing is, handing in your resignation and going else where (or setting up independent) is really the only option if reasonable communication breaks down.

That should have been their first move.

 

Just now, mr moose said:

The biggest thing I hate about my government at the moment is that they spending millions trying to educate people not to abuse other people.  They have been doing that for the last 20 years at least and nothing has changed.  To most rational people that indicates simple education campaigns are not the solution and maybe they need to rethink the problem.

 

I like our workplace laws, they elevate these issues straight out of the hands of the employer, however they are still open to abuse and people caught abusing the system should be held to the same account as those they wish to see found guilty, sadly they are not.

It's almost as if people capable of committing certain violent crimes, do so for reasons other than "they don't understand that it's wrong". Maybe, just maybe, they have other motivations and the thought "I can get away with it" is the bigger deciding factor.

 

Fuck it, everyone start wearing a bodycam, and everyone now has to take self defense classes (which is something we need as a society, regardless of the type of crime being discussed. People need to be empowered to protect themselves. Relying on the police or others for protection is a losing proposition, at-best.)

[TechyBen]

26 minutes ago, Trik'Stari said:

That should have been their first move.

 

It's almost as if people capable of committing certain violent crimes, do so for reasons other than "they don't understand that it's wrong". Maybe, just maybe, they have other motivations and the thought "I can get away with it" is the bigger deciding factor.

 

Fuck it, everyone start wearing a bodycam, and everyone now has to take self defense classes (which is something we need as a society, regardless of the type of crime being discussed. People need to be empowered to protect themselves. Relying on the police or others for protection is a losing proposition, at-best.)

Yeah, I'm not saying there are easy solutions. And yes, sometimes an atmosphere does go with an industry. But where do we want to put our effort? I watched complaints and protests over our lunches go on deaf ears. Those who worked through it, got better jobs else where, or just dealt with the change. When it comes to something worse than that, well, if companies cannot make adjustments for small things, why expect them to with the big things, unless the owners wish to? If it's owned by a horrid person, get out!

 

I've technically changed offices/sites before for this reason. Been in horrible situations at work. I'd be lying to myself if I blamed it on sexism... the people treated everyone poorly! (Though I agree it does exist). I ended up working with a lot of female bosses. A lot of my colleagues were female. I tried to never play the victim card, but also not make anything difficult for them. But I can happily say, it's better to build up where possible, than try and fight and knock people down. I'd of got nowhere if I did. In other jobs it was the opposite, and I did feel sorry for those who were the minorities, because of how others treated them.

 

I agree sexism exists. I cannot change the world, but I can change what I do and how I respond. Hopefully that has an effect on others. Hey, I'm typing here hoping someone will think "perhaps I should be kinder to this person/all the staff" at some point. Who knows?

 

I just want to spend my time helping those who are victims, helping those who want to change... and possibly leaving the companies who are not, to rot and burn themselves to the ground. I don't want to waste my time fighting those/them. But in building up others.

 

(And as said, I worked in a few jobs with massive gender imbalances... look at LTT for an example, and as far as we can see, they treat all their staff well... just they have the mix they have, of people they have)

 

PS, "Self defence" is also not the only option. Things that some of my jobs/bosses prefered was not leaving staff alone in awkward situations. Don't leave people open to attack, and they can be safer. But that does need a good boss/company and not one driving people into the ground. When costs are cut, peoples needs and safety (even morally) go out the window!

[Derangel]

43 minutes ago, Trik'Stari said:

That should have been their first move.

Upping and quitting isn't always an option. If people have families to support they can't just up and leave their job, especially in an industry as volatile as the game industry. Having a nearly guaranteed steady paycheck over the long term is not exactly the most common thing in that industry. People get tossed aside in the thousands all the time. Its not like they can just walk out the door and get handed another steady, long term, position at some other studio. Most likely they'd end up in a temp spot where they work for a few months-couple years before being kicked out the door with several dozen/hundred others when the job is finished.

[TechyBen]

17 hours ago, Derangel said:

Upping and quitting isn't always an option. If people have families to support they can't just up and leave their job, especially in an industry as volatile as the game industry. Having a nearly guaranteed steady paycheck over the long term is not exactly the most common thing in that industry. People get tossed aside in the thousands all the time. Its not like they can just walk out the door and get handed another steady, long term, position at some other studio. Most likely they'd end up in a temp spot where they work for a few months-couple years before being kicked out the door with several dozen/hundred others when the job is finished.

True. But the alternative is getting new management in [in this case]. Is that possible?

Where as I know it is possible to get other jobs. Those do exist. But getting say, Valve or Apple or LTT to change their manager/owner, is not something (for example myself) I would be able to do if I worked for them and they treated me badly (not saying they do or I do). But I *could* change jobs. Working for LTT* would be amazing, but if they ever turned around and bullied me, being in the "best job in the world", I'd still drop it for mopping floors with no hassle.

 

As a theoretical, as they'd be better to work for than Riot Games.

 

[Commodus]

14 minutes ago, comander said:

The 4-5% figure would be "provably false". It's a lower bound. It's like saying 4-5% of UFO sightings are provably false - the actual figure is likely to be higher. 


Looks like you used the Spohn's NIJ study, which I've read in its entirety. 
They're using probable cause as their baseline for guilt. 

Here's the paper she published. 
https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/237582.pdf

The Los Angeles District Attorney's office, which participated in the study, responded to it after that fact tearing it apart, essentially stating that the LADA was misrepresented and that Spohn came in with ideologically predetermined conclusions. Essentially that the data's collection and interpretation was biased. The LADA actually noted that after seeing Spohn's work they regret working with her as the "research" is counterproductive to society. 

To quote the LADA: "The perspective, conclusions and policy recommendations are inconsistent with American constitutional principles of justice, due process protections and the ethical obligations of prosecutors."

They go on for a bit. Bear in mind that the LADA is arguably one of the most prosecution-happy offices in the nation, in the state with some of the strictest laws. 

I was covering a range of studies, including Ferguson/Malouff, Lisak, Burman/Lovett/Kelly and the UK Ministry of Justice.  It varies, but the typical rate hovers in that region.  And I think we should focus on figures where the claims are demonstrably false, since cases can easily fall apart for reasons other than lying (they might be years old, the victim could be pressured into dropping the case, and so on).  Remember, #MeToo was spurred by women addressing ages-old behavior that they can't necessarily prove in court, but likely happened based on the sheer number of consistent stories.

 

Besides, while there's a chance the actual figure is higher, it's unlikely to change the core argument: that the clear majority of sexual assault allegations are sincere, and it's better to offer a degree of trust (with verification) than to be immediately skeptical.  The perpetrators of sexual assault depend on us exaggerating worries about false accusations; let's not give them what they want.

[Commodus]

Just now, comander said:

There certainly is poor behavior that needs to improve.

I don't doubt that the majority of accusations are valid or mostly valid. Many of the more recent studies are done by ideologues though. The presumed goal is to sweep up everyone who is accused whether or not there's merit - that is to validate a shotgun approach to justice where there is little concern for false positives.  

It's important that the notion of Fair Play is not removed from the legal system. 

Ah, but we're not necessarily talking about the legal system in every case, we're talking about the overall credulity of victims.  The courts need a strict standard for a conviction, of course -- but that doesn't mean you can't make reasonable assessments as an individual about guilt or innocents.  In the case of Riot, it's likely there's a systemic problem based on the number of consistent reports.

[Commodus]

30 minutes ago, comander said:

Context matters though. 
If you are talking about "is it a good idea to give support to purported victims?" the answer's probably a yes. 
If it's "should the accused be fired?" that depends and I'd error on the side of transferring one or both people away - do no harm. 
Then there's the whole Title IX thing. Low burden of proof(51% belief and the committees are generally filled with ideologues who are concerned about keeping their numbers up) and the likely result is expulsion. I'd argue that there should be a much higher burden for expulsion... but that it probably doesn't hurt to separate the two people in question - do no harm. 

I don't think transferring people away really fixes the problem.  In Riot's case, for instance, there are men who allegedly downplayed female candidates or prevented women from getting promotions if they refused sexual advances.  If you simply move them to other positions, that's not a solution -- you're just moving the problem somewhere else.  You investigate the problems seriously, and if you find reasons to believe the claims are accurate (say, multiple reports or conversation records), you fire the accused people with enthusiasm.

[Commodus]

2 hours ago, comander said:

I agree those things are problems and that a light touch doesn't necessarily fix them. It's a tourniquet - additional actions probably need to be done. Those further actions, should they venture from "do no harm", need to be carefully weighed. If the misdeed in question was "Bob made jokes and Sally laughed, one day the jokes went too far" is FAR different from "Bob felt up Sally the day before she was to get married" and ought to be treated differently. Proportionality of action matters. 

 

The flip of it is - who pays the terrible price if the fixes are misapplied? Do you, Commodus, stand to suffer if someone who is innocent (or not entirely innocent but is disproportionately affected) ends up suffering wrongly? Most people calling for vengeance (revenge?), have no skin in the game and face no repercussions if things go wrong. That's not fair. I don't think you're evil. I believe you have the best of intentions... it's just really easy to not be worried about people in an out-group. In my case my in group would probably be socially awkward geeks who are well intended but sometimes oblivious and who respond well to being told "hey, cut it out". 

If taken to an extreme you end up in a situation where people are afraid, walking on egg shells and are unable to be their genuine selves at work. I'm in a position where I'm afraid to make jokes or speak up on certain issues that my female colleagues can make as I'm in a hyper-progressive "Which Ivy league university did you go to?" culture. Not everyone is readily offended but I'm not able to speak openly if there's more than 2-3 people around, lest a "warrior for justice" overhear and become offended on behalf of someone other than themselves. I'm defining speak openly as in "civil conversation, similar to this discussion".

Of course I think it's important to make sure the fixes are right.  But it sounds like you're more concerned about the theoreticals than the situation on the ground.  If there's a systemic problem with sexual assault or harassment, you investigate and you find probable cause that they've done this and will do it again, then you're not harming an innocent person or using excessive punishment.

 

Also, I don't entirely buy the claim that you're living in a climate of fear.  It sounds a lot like those men who say they're afraid to talk to women coworkers or go on dates because 'anything' could be considered harassment... if you're really as reasonable as you think you are, you shouldn't be in trouble.  Women are not setting out traps to get you.

[Trik'Stari]

On 5/8/2019 at 10:52 PM, Results45 said:

[why] The Games Industry is Toxic by Austin Kelmore

Yeah based on the title alone I searched "masculinity" throughout that article. Hits all over the place. Along with searches for "white" and "masculinity"

 

I wish I could go back and respond sooner to let people know that the article will be filled with mental gymnastics, sexism, racism, and complete and total intellectual dishonesty.

 

Basically your bog standard SJW shitshow. A lot of faux intellectualism, written by the usual sort of self hating white male SJW that colleges seem to produce these days.

 

The person who wrote that article, is a symptom of the very toxicity facing our society today, and a part of the reason for the resurgence of the extreme right.

 

Hate, begets hate.

[Trik'Stari]

2 minutes ago, comander said:

How to get into an elite undergraduate institution, law school or MBA program
1. Have "good enough" raw stats (GPA, SAT, LSAT, GMAT, GRE, etc.)
2. Have extracurriculars related to either being a "victim" OR an advocate for "victims"
3. ????
4. Profit. 

It's literally a formula for filtering out "icky" people who hold different values (basically whatever was trendy among the elites 30 years ago). 

Of the people I've met at game companies in strategic roles - 3 from UChicago Booth, 2 from Yale SOM, 1 from Northwestern-Kellogg, 1 who hustled during undergrad to get into Microsoft and then bounced to Activision/Riot/EA

There are a LOT of activist types who are being elevated to roles of influence. At some companies, like Google, you actually have "diversity, inclusion and equity" as a criteria for your performance evaluation. If you think the wrong way, you won't get promoted because you "aren't inclusive enough" or have a different opinion on what constitutes fairness (e.g. thinking that the immigrant from China or India faces higher struggles than the URM from the US). 

What's tragically hilarious is that the SAT's are now going to include an "adversity score". Because that's obviously not another method for the extreme left to exclude a specific race and gender they don't like.

 

"Inclusivity" my ass.

[Trik'Stari]

3 minutes ago, comander said:

I'm actually FOR this. It doesn't include an individual's race. It does include income and demographic data. As a white dude who lived out of his car for the sake of affording tuition, I'm sick of the assumption that how you look is all that matters. 

The main concern I do have is that it might hollow out the middle class - donors's kids still get in, poor kids get in, the middle class gets shanked. It could also be gamed but the net of that might be better economic integration.  

While I agree that might be beneficial, there's no way in hell I am going to believe they will see "white/male and poor" and put that ahead of "not white and not male".

 

I have zero trust in that system. AT ALL.

[Trik'Stari]

5 minutes ago, comander said:

The current approach is:
Ideal applicant = Black guy with a posh accent who went to a $50k a year HS, who interned at a fortune 500 company, who has a Harvard JD as a father who is head of legal at a Fortune 500 company... the same F500 company that the kid interned at. 

I met that guy for what it's worth we were in the same group as interns. He's not a bad person, but there are other people who are just as smart and did a better job of using what resources they had available to themselves. 

50k a yeah HS? Who pays for HS?

 

Also, welcome to the working world. My dad has spent the last 35 years in the shopping cart manufacturing and refurbishing industry. He knows how to run a plant, and every time a company has decided to kick him out over their own mistakes, an replace him with some college educated moron, you know what happens?

 

A year or two later, the customers leave that company en-masse to switch to whatever company picked him up. Because they know he will work his ass off to get them the best deal and the best service imaginable.

 

It's been proof to me that anyone with a "business degree" is a complete fucking moron who prioritizes immediate quarterly profits over long-term viability as a company.

[Stefan Payne]

150 People of Riot Games is what? 1%? 5%??

That's not that many...

 

And if a small amount of your people cause Trouble, maybe its a good time to get rid of them?

[Commodus]

33 minutes ago, Stefan Payne said:

150 People of Riot Games is what? 1%? 5%??

That's not that many...

 

And if a small amount of your people cause Trouble, maybe its a good time to get rid of them?

They had 2,500 employees as of 2018, so that's 6 percent of their staff.

 

I hope you mean that it's a good time to get rid of the sexists causing problems, not the people protesting sexism...

[Stefan Payne]

17 minutes ago, Commodus said:

I hope you mean that it's a good time to get rid of the sexists causing problems, not the people protesting sexism...

No, I mean the people who are up to no good and only do bad stuff, have the mindset of a Daenerys Tagerian and are total egomaniacs...