Madison reveals experiences working at LMG

[redf5]

58 minutes ago, Neroon said:

I mean what I've seen from the LMG offices, it would be fairly to do this all in private, hell some of the stuff she claims was not done in private, so unless everyone is willing to cover it all up for her, then there would be enough evidence to corroborate at least part of her story. I cannot believe that everyone would lie for the company, not to mention that people have left since then. They could also hear people anonymously. So how big of a cover up would it have to be?

Yeah, exactly. She should just say the name of whoever allegedly sexually harassed her. Sex offenders rarely stick to a single target throughout their lives, and I bet that if that person is still there, they have probably harassed someone else too, if at all.

[Middcore]

3 minutes ago, DakotaCx said:

3) I don't believe the "hate" she's allegedly getting, overall very mild from what I'm seeing here albeit I'm not looking elsewhere, is going to be a problem for her considering the #JusticeForMadison crusaders and white knights and such that are fanatically supporting her now. She frames herself as an internet personality, she does Twitch streams, she sells her brand on Twitter, she is likely not a stranger to this sort of thing

 

So in the same paragraph, you say that the hate she's getting probably isn't that bad (based only on what you see from his public, moderated forum) and yet also say that as an internet personality she probably gets hate and harassment directed at her all the time so she should be used to it.

 

What's consistent here is you minimizing the moral weight and psychological impact of internet harassment, which has led even public figures who are "not strangers" to it to take their own lives. 

[geo3]

The moment Linus started insisting LMG didn't need a union I knew something was fucky. 

[Sawa Takahashi]

8 minutes ago, 0catt said:

How can we as human beings take side on corporations rather than other human beings? 

Just because some people lie? Like look at the statistics, mostly all the sexual harassment allegations against corporations turn out to be true.

just because someone doesn't have money to pay legal fees doesn't make them untrue.

We can be human beings without taking a side on a whim and without proof. Madison needs help, I agree. Madison needs me to bash on LMG ? This is not what I call help. I like Madison and I like LMG. Why not support both ? As far as I know, Madison did not ask to make LMG bankrupt but that her bad experience does not repeat for anyone else. Also, if she wants compensation or sue LMG for what happened to her, I'm all right with that and this is her right. But it is not for me or any regular reader to declare Madison a victim and LMG as a corporate villain.

[HaddaClu]

Just now, redf5 said:

Yeah, exactly. She should just say the name of whoever allegedly sexually harassed her. Sex offenders rarely stick to a single target throughout their lives, and I bet that if that person is still there, they have probably harassed someone else too, if at all.

Naming names would put her in the crosshairs of defamation suit if she doesnt have any evidence. Just keeping things vague while shady is legally the safest thing for her at the moment.

[zeroality]

I’m all for putting the employee first over a giant corp but clearly hiring them seems to have been a mistake and they were a toxic employee. 


Just my 2 dollar slice of pizza 

[buttpoop]

2 minutes ago, codemak said:

It really depends on how much I would like you with a different screen name.  Would you be operating on a rational plane of existence with that one, or still in your fantasy land?

Fantasy land? I've pointed out specifically how your posts are sexist. They aren't arguably sexist, they are blatantly.

 

You can really go two directions here: "Yes, I was sexist... so?" which you kind-of waffle on with the "sorry if I offend you" comment, but I wouldn't be living in a fantasy land. The other is refuting specifically how your posts aren't sexist. You haven't done that and have said, because of my screenname, you simply won't. 

 

I really need you to understand how obvious this is. In your heart-of-hearts, you know how dumb you are. The pseudointellectual arguments you are making and the snarky dismissals only make this more obvious. You are massively insecure and every post of you flattening women's personalities into either rational or irrational women comes from this.

[Skummel]

4 hours ago, TimedPing said:

The whole hell broke lose when you just read it with emotion and didn't understand my point, this kind of conversation is keeping me to joining is whole fiasco ride.

 

I'm never saying she's "stupid" etc, I'm pointing out that my generation including both Madison and Jake, is a rather having a unique shared traits that affect how we treat professional work in the next paragraph.

 

I'm also pointing out that this is all HR fault because didn't take this as consideration. IM NOT BLAMING OR ATTACK HER FOR THE COMPANY MISTREATMENT. My statement is purely my concerns to LMG HR department to do better.

 

From what I can see and heard, Madison is a great person, and have lot of more patience than me. I'm sorry if my takes is missunderstood, english is not my first language and I'm suck at it.

I didn't read it with any kind of emotion, read what you wrote. You labeled her as a gen-z girl that shouldn't have been hired in the first place. That's not the problem here. It's how they treated here while she was employed. And I really hope it's your english that is the issue here. Since if you are thinking the same about your own staff, then I would hate to work at your company. Even if she wasn't the perfect fit for the position she should still have the support of her manager and her co-workers if she is strugling with her job. From her tweets that's not what happend here. 

[DakotaCx]

2 minutes ago, RWxAshley said:

If she released the names publicly she would be doxxing, and causing harassment towards them by the internet. I fully expect this to be handled privately, and internally so as to not cause an internet man hunt. (Something that many in this thread would be accusing her of doing if she did release names of staff, and doxxed them.)

Her ultimate issue is with the culture that lead to her being harassed, and its why she made it clear she reached out to senior management in her post. She wanted these issues fixed internally and to be resolved. LMG failed to resolve her issues.

Doxxing implies malicious intent, as well as a release of personal information. That information involves her, she is entitled to speak about it. If she's being honest it would not constitute doxxing. 

As mentioned in the screengrab she posted: "No NDA or other agreement can prevent a Canadian from reporting workplace mistreatment including (but not limited to) harassment, discrimination or unlawful termination. They can post it publicly, submit a statement to the authorities, or do both for good measure. As long as it was true it wouldn't be  defamatory." 

Instead of posting tweet after tweet after tweet all these allegations, including that statement with the assertion that Linus had the intent of saying "hehe no one has come out against us, therefore we have done no wrong" then provide the info. Otherwise, why draw this on?

[DaytonaDragon]

5 minutes ago, RWxAshley said:

Alright. This discussion has derailed into whataboutisms, and fragile attempts at finding a means of discrediting her through such wild claims of "Being unprofessional, young, immature, mentally unstable, asking for it, shouldn't dress/act like that" And so many other really sexist and disturbing takes on this forum from members of this community.

As a woman working in the the industry these are the exact issues I see that cause this shit to go untalked about, and then when we do eventually feel safe talking about it we get accused of "Why wait so long? Seems sus with the timing. Must be for clout, or must be another Amber heard. I didn't take these seriously before, but now I can use that case for the next 20 years to rationalize why I'll never take any woman seriously ever again. It must just be that time of the month, or her being crazy"

This forum thread only serves as an example of why this shit happened, continues to happen to woman in the industry, and why it doesn't get talked about as nobody is actually ready to have this discussion. They just want to continue pretending nothing is wrong with the industry in general, and can't fathom the tech industry is a boys club with many men holding poor views on woman.

This is why it takes so long to even attempt to talk about this serious topic. This forum is exactly why I believe Madison so much more thanks to visiting this thread because folks in here are quick to dismiss any claims instead of thinking about it, and take them seriously. This is the exact culture the tech industry breeds, and why most want nothing to do with it.

1) I guess I imagined the metoo. I guess the multitude of women screaming about rape is just in my imagination. I'm a web developer. There wasn't any case of sexual misconduct, for the duration of my employment at multiple companies. I began as an intern when I didn't know the established conventions when it comes to talking to women at the workplace and asked a woman something on her birthday (I think it was about age, don't remember exactly) that wasn't quite 100% great for a workplace. You know how the guys responded? "What a fucking weirdo". So no, the tech industry doesn't have this huge problem regarding treatment of women in the workplace. Do these things happen? Yes. Is it a huge problem like you want to paint it as? No. Now, more than ever before, it's really easy to punish a guy for this. Even if he does not go to prison, he's ruined. For life. 

2) And your last paragraph is exactly why I DON'T believe her. Or at least I don't believe beyond doubt LMG is guilty. Lately, women are believed more and more about this beyond doubt (look at reddit, there's at least a few hundred who believed her without question and anyone asking for the least bit of proof is made to look like Hitler) when it comes to this and the number of false accusations has been rising. It's not every women, of course it isn't. That's why if you make an accusation show some proof. 

 

BTW, you'd make a horrible member of jury in such cases. 

 

[Middcore]

3 minutes ago, redf5 said:

Yeah, exactly. She should just say the name of whoever allegedly sexually harassed her. Sex offenders rarely stick to a single target throughout their lives, and I bet that if that person is still there, they have probably harassed someone else too, if at all.

 

If she said the name, and someone else that individual harassed came forward, then a bunch of the people posting in this thread would be saying "WHAT SUSPICIOUS TIMING, WHY DIDN'T THIS OTHER ALLEGED VICTIM COME FORWARD BEFORE HMMM?"

[HesCalledTheStig]

1 minute ago, HaddaClu said:

Naming names would put her in the crosshairs of defamation suit if she doesnt have any evidence. Just keeping things vague while shady is legally the safest thing for her at the moment.

Seeking legal advice would be the best course of action.  Not posting on Twitter.

[cmndr]

1. Randos on the internet went crazy over her. I totally believe that. That wasn't fair to her, but it's also partially her own fault. 
2. There was probably a reason why the quality of her work was critiqued and why she was asked to stop being a drama queen. 

She definitely gave me vibes to someone I knew and that person got through work by politicking and complaining more than by doing work. 

[Booch121]

1 hour ago, DaytonaDragon said:

Are you seriously trying to paint someone who cuts herself as normal? That’s absolutely not normal and is a sign of a pretty serious mental issue. I don’t think depression covers this. 

What? i never even said anything remotely close to this. The original claim was that some of her mental illness could of been effecting her perception of what was happening to and around her. I replied by stating that there is few mental illness that could genuinely effect her perception of reality that much, and i stated that depression does not change your perception of reality.

[DaytonaDragon]

7 minutes ago, Adept_Austin said:

While this post confuses me, I see now that we are talking about different uses of the word "fact". I was meaning something that is true whether believed or substantiated or not. I don't want to put words in your mouth, but I believe you're meaning "fact" as in the facts of a case which DO need to be substantiated and investigated before being taken as fact. Apologies for the confusion. I look forward to the proper authorities investigating these matters and the facts coming out.

I doubt the authorities will have much luck investigating. It's been 2 years (as far as I understand). That's why actual victims should try and report this as soon as possible. 

[RWxAshley]

Just now, DakotaCx said:

Doxxing implies malicious intent, as well as a release of personal information. That information involves her, she is entitled to speak about it. If she's being honest it would not constitute doxxing. 

As mentioned in the screengrab she posted: "No NDA or other agreement can prevent a Canadian from reporting workplace mistreatment including (but not limited to) harassment, discrimination or unlawful termination. They can post it publicly, submit a statement to the authorities, or do both for good measure. As long as it was true it wouldn't be  defamatory." 

Instead of posting tweet after tweet after tweet all these allegations, including that statement with the assertion that Linus had the intent of saying "hehe no one has come out against us, therefore we have done no wrong" then provide the info. Otherwise, why draw this on?

Because people want to see change at LMG. It worked for GN getting Linus to react and then make a video publicly address it so now he will be held accountable for video quality issues publicly.

Why shouldn't it work for her too in getting LMG to publicly hold themselves accountable to ensuring workplace harassment doesn't happen?

[Neroon]

6 minutes ago, redf5 said:

Yeah, exactly. She should just say the name of whoever allegedly sexually harassed her. Sex offenders rarely stick to a single target throughout their lives, and I bet that if that person is still there, they have probably harassed someone else too, if at all.

Not to mention that we could see if that person/those people, still work there. For all we know that person got fired.

[0catt]

2 minutes ago, buttpoop said:

Fantasy land? I've pointed out specifically how your posts are sexist. They aren't arguably sexist, they are blatantly.

 

You can really go two directions here: "Yes, I was sexist... so?" which you kind-of waffle on with the "sorry if I offend you" comment, but I wouldn't be living in a fantasy land. The other is refuting specifically how your posts aren't sexist. You haven't done that and have said, because of my screenname, you simply won't. 

 

I really need you to understand how obvious this is. In your heart-of-hearts, you know how dumb you are. The pseudointellectual arguments you are making and the snarky dismissals only make this more obvious. You are massively insecure and every post of you flattening women's personalities into either rational or irrational women comes from this.

There is literally a employer on LMG called Butt

That guy clearly has some issues that needs to be resolved lol

Imagine downgrading that person's existence because they are goofy regularly

The amount of people I know that are older than me that are like that is a lot. And it does not take away their credibility and seriousness.

[DakotaCx]

4 minutes ago, Middcore said:

 

So in the same paragraph, you say that the hate she's getting probably isn't that bad (based only on what you see from his public, moderated forum) and yet also say that as an internet personality she probably gets hate and harassment directed at her all the time so she should be used to it.

 

What's consistent here is you minimizing the moral weight and psychological impact of internet harassment, which has led even public figures who are "not strangers" to it to take their own lives. 

No, that's not the takeaway. 

The takeaway is she is well-equipped for, and aware of, what she's bringing on herself for better or worse. Otherwise, it's logical to believe she wouldn't take the avenue she is taking in this grand reveal. It's not a pass on internet harassment, that's a leap. 

[HesCalledTheStig]

2 minutes ago, Middcore said:

 

If she said the name, and someone else that individual harassed came forward, then a bunch of the people posting in this thread would be saying "WHAT SUSPICIOUS TIMING, WHY DIDN'T THIS OTHER ALLEGED VICTIM COME FORWARD BEFORE HMMM?"

This is why I say she should have spoke to legal council rather than posting it to social media. 

[digitalscream]

2 minutes ago, Zodiark1593 said:

My own concerns are not necessarily the court of public opinion, but the potential that LMG may pursue a defamation suit. In which case, Madison would have to provide some sort of documentation or evidence, that her comments have merit, or were made in good faith, to successfully defend the (currently hypothetical) suit. 

No, you have it backwards. If LMG wanted to pursue a defamation suit, they would have to prove that her statements were false (that's one of the pillars of a successful defamation claim). Only if they were in the UK would Madison have to prove that her statements were true.

 

That's why I think this might actually be her goal in the first place - simply to force LMG to carry out a thorough investigation the way she believes they should've done in the first place. They'd be forced to do that prior to any defamation claim in order to build a case, otherwise they'd just be wasting their time and money. This way, she doesn't have to go litigating it over a period of years in a civil court, or go through the criminal courts etc.

 

I am, of course, assuming that she's not dumb enough to put that kind of thing out there without it actually being true.

 

So, that being the case, the next step after the investigation and the discovery that she's telling the truth (substantially) would be for LMG to approach her and ask what her end game is - what she thinks would be appropriate reparation (financial or otherwise - it may just be an admission that they fked it and she was bullied, for example, and getting rid of anyone involved).

 

Point is, if she's right then it'll never go to court, and even if it did she'd never have to prove a thing.

[wanderingfool2]

5 minutes ago, coopa said:

The ideal outcome here would be for LMG to hire an impartial third party investigator to investigate these accusations, to the degree possible (talking to current/former employees, looking at any records that might either support or disprove the narrative that like HR records or emails, etc.) to determine specifically what happened to Madison, and if it is still a problem in the workplace at LMG currently.

This ^^^ and in this case, it should be a public report at the end.

 

5 minutes ago, Zodiark1593 said:

My own concerns are not necessarily the court of public opinion, but the potential that LMG may pursue a defamation suit. In which case, Madison would have to provide some sort of documentation or evidence, that her comments have merit, or were made in good faith, to successfully defend the (currently hypothetical) suit. 

I'm not sure LMG could really do anything.  If I'm not mistaken, they would have to prove that the words she says are actual lies.  So if she's telling the truth, there is no threat at all.  Even if she's telling a lie, LMG would likely still have an uphill battle in defamation as they would have to prove it didn't happen (which is pretty hard to prove)

[post_screen]

21 minutes ago, kurangak said:

from what i see, shes probably being treated as 'one of the bros' and she obviously dont like it.

Bad take. Do you ask your bros casually how they like to fuck and if they can twerk for you?

[DakotaCx]

Just now, RWxAshley said:

Because people want to see change at LMG. It worked for GN getting Linus to react and then make a video publicly address it so now he will be held accountable for video quality issues publicly.

Why shouldn't it work for her too in getting LMG to publicly hold themselves accountable to ensuring workplace harassment doesn't happen?

Well, I think that's a good question. The answer from my perspective would be GN using actual evidence to make their claims. What they provided can be verified, they have third-party statements, and they do more than just make an accusation or allegation without backing it up. That's why it hit as hard as it did. 
 

[HesCalledTheStig]

Just now, post_screen said:

Bad take. Do you ask your bros casually how they like to fuck and if they can twerk for you?

I believe they are commenting on the "calm your tits" statement.  Either way, it was in bad taste.