Madison reveals experiences working at LMG

[Booch121]

1 minute ago, itshurleytime said:

She had one employee confirm hearing unspecified things, and another showing support for her by liking her tweets. Her claims are wide-ranging, many of them happen at fast-paced, high-productivity companies and are fairly innocuous (like some people not being able to do as much work as is asked of them and getting stressed out about it).

Her claims are that she was having to do a large amount of work as a first timer in said position, then when trying to get help was belittled and was never given any support by management.

[yoc]

19 minutes ago, HesCalledTheStig said:

But neither of these give any DEFINITIVE information.  It's all left to assumption.  

What kind of information would classify as "DEFINITIVE" information?

I don't think he means that he literally remembers her saying similar stuff with that tweet, but whatever, let's assume he does.
This whole discussion started with people saying "she is an opportunist, everything is a lie, why come with something like this now?!" (I know you were here but feel free to read the first pages of this topic, lmao)... Ends up she had similar complains years ago (also proved by the glassdoor review that we choose to ignore for some reason), even when she was working there (as she said, actually) and Colin statement proves at least that.

Is it possible that she didn't come public with this issue before because she feared the LTT fanbase... As she said in her tweets, lol?

Linus stated that he was "shocked" to hear such allegations... What the HR meeting proves? At least proves that he is lying. How can he be shocked if he held an extraordinary meeting precisely after she left to address "rumors".
All this without actually hearing the leaked audio so... That's a whole different story.

I honestly think you are arguing in bad faith here.

[HesCalledTheStig]

Just now, Sasha2D said:

 

I'll take "victim blaming" for 500 alex

No.  I am not blaming her.

 

I'm saying by your words, she should have expected it by joining a company of "techbros".

 

Dont project your crap on me.

[Sasha2D]

10 minutes ago, vorg.eth said:

You can probably find some free Bias Recognition training courses on LinkedIn.  If you want, I’ll find some for you and send em your way. It may help you remain impartial in future civil conflicts. 

 

If you think "100 young tech bros are all innocent" is much more likely then "a woman was abused" then you have your own bias recognition problem.

 

Do you have a girlfriend vorg? 

[HesCalledTheStig]

1 minute ago, yoc said:

What kind of information would class "DEFINITIVE" information?

I don't think he means that he literally remembers her saying similar stuff but with that tweet, but whatever, let's assume he does.
This whole discussion started with people saying "she is an opportunist, everything is a lie, why come with something like this now?!" (I know you were here but feel free to read the first pages of this topic, lmao)... Ends up she had similar complains years ago (also proved by the glassdoor review that we choose to ignore for some reason), even when was working there (as she said, actually) and Colin statement proves at least that.

It is possible that she didn't come public with this issue before because she feared the LTT fanbase... As she said in her tweets, lol?

Linus stated that he was "shocked" to hear such allegations... What the HR meeting proves? At least proves that he is lying. How can he be shocked if he held an extraordinary meeting precisely after she left to address "rumors".
All this without actually hearing the leaked audio so... That's a whole different story.

I honestly think you are arguing in bad faith here.

No.  I'm saying for one, the employee confirmed that her story sounds like what he remembers.  It could mean all of it, it could mean only parts.  He didn't specify.

 

As for the meeting, it sounded pretty straight forward to me, except James' dumb joke.

[Uttamattamakin]

58 minutes ago, RatKnight said:

 

This is not an isolated thing, in my experience.  I think that her best bet is a jury UNDER the age of 40, not over.  Getting a jury in their 20's to 30's would be her best bet, because I will tell you now that the older people I have worked with don't believe in things like "mental health" or "mental health days"... obviously this is a generalization.

I didn't say that the older jury would be her best bet.... I don't know about Canada but in the US juries are usually based on voter rolls.

 

Who votes?  

Who is going to actually show up to jury duty and not blow it off?

 

You know the answer to that isn't people of an age known for being less than totally responsible and reliable.

 

You are not wrong about older women they're going to know like I kind of hinted at that a young woman surrounded by so many men might play a little.  But the same older woman that you describe will also be judgmental about younger men laying on hands.

 

58 minutes ago, RatKnight said:

Also of note, I am not sure that defamation trials in Canada actually have the option of a Jury... since they are civil matters, and I am not clear on what the law regarding that is.  If there are no jury's, then it is a simple matter of a judge deciding who is right.

This would not be a defamation case. In a common law jurisdiction like Canada is defamation requires malice.  It pretty much has to be totally impossible made up lies.

 

So far we have statements from her and one other person that she was not being treated quite right there.  That right there means defamation isn't going anywhere.

 

If this goes to a court it will be a sexual harassment lawsuit.

 

 

58 minutes ago, RatKnight said:

That all being said... I don't think this ever ends up in a court unless, somehow, and in the VERY unlikely event that an independent investigation not only finds no evidence of wrongdoing, but that also she was making everything up.  It would be absolutely stupid for LMG to take her to court, even if that was the case... it just makes them look worse.

You don't get it.  A court case IS the real investigation. LTT or any company paying someone is CYA ... no matter what the investigator being paid by LMG means a conflict of interest. Can you can be appearance of a conflict of interest is just too much.

[vorg.eth]

1 minute ago, HesCalledTheStig said:

No.  I am not blaming her.

 

I'm saying by your words, she should have expected it by joining a company of "techbros".

 

Dont project your crap on me.

I get what you’re saying, but to be fair,  she may not have had that same bias as Sasha. She could have joined and it seemed fine, then wasn’t. 
 

But the timing and her statements in tweets have me suspicious of the accuracy of her recount. 

[Kisai]

19 minutes ago, StevesHair said:

Gender and race quotas lead to lesser performance.  You hire the best person for the job, that applies for the job.  This is especially true in start-ups and businesses that rely on performance and profit, you need the best performer regardless of identity, there is no time or room for waste.

 

This kind of stuff is great in government type jobs, where it is known and expected that performance will be sub par, the job will take 10x as long, and get done 10x shittier, for 10x the cost.  Its unfortunate that is the case, but everyone knows it happens.  So you can virtue signal all day by having every gender, race, and identity equally represented in these fields.  When you want to get shit done, that all does out the window.  Elon cut Twitter's staff by what, more than 50%?  Who did he keep on?  A bunch of dudes, skewed pretty heavy toward Asians.  And somehow, it didn't collapse as the media said it would (as they are all still on it, non stop), because it turns out they kept the people who can actually do the job.

I don't know what koolaid you've been drinking, but that's absolutely not the case. 

 

19 minutes ago, StevesHair said:

Tech is going to be more weighted toward men because men and women are different, and dudes like tech and tech jobs more.   Thems the breaks.  Lumberjacks, garbage men, engineers, the list goes on and on.  Men have more proclivity and interest in these fields.  You aren't going to get better results by ensuring 50% of lumberjacks are female for diversities sake.

 

That is also not the case.

 

There are less women in STEM fields because men PUSH THEM OUT and make it hostile right from the hiring phase. Because of people like you who believe this nonsense.

 

Meanwhile companies that have gender balance and diverse hiring practices, have healthier teams that better understand the needs of their customers and clients. 

 

You eventually kill your company by not having diverse staff. 

 

 

 

[vorg.eth]

Just now, Sasha2D said:

 

If you think "100 young tech bros are all innocent" is much more likely then "a woman was abused" then you have your own bias recognition problem.

 

Do you have a girlfriend vorg? 

What are you trying to say here?  It’s more likely that 100 men all conspired to sexually harass this woman or this woman is taking advantage of a moment of bad press for her former employer?

 

Not currently, Sasha, but you don’t seem like my type. Maybe if you take those bias courses and change your life around I’ll consider

[HesCalledTheStig]

1 minute ago, vorg.eth said:

I get what you’re saying, but to be fair,  she may not have had that same bias as Sasha. She could have joined and it seemed fine, then wasn’t. 
 

But the timing and her statements in tweets have me suspicious of the accuracy of her recount. 

I'm just saying the TechBro thing is irrelevant basically.  Of course they are TechBros.  Its friggin LTT, lol.

[Middcore]

6 minutes ago, Booch121 said:

WHAT???? WHAT IS BRO SPOUTING RN

 

Thread is full of people attacking Madison to grind their personal political axes. This one is at least sort of an amusing changeup from all of the ones ranting about "wokeness" and "snowflakes." 

[Bingodingo]

does this forum lock threads? because we've reached that point.

[RatKnight]

3 minutes ago, Uttamattamakin said:

 

This would not be a defamation case. In a common law jurisdiction like Canada is defamation requires malice.  It pretty much has to be totally impossible made up lies.

 

 

You are incorrect on this point.  I mentioned this in an earlier post, but in Canada this is, specifically under the law not the case.

 

As for the rest of your statement, I cannot speak to most of that.

[HesCalledTheStig]

Just now, Bingodingo said:

does this forum lock threads? because we've reached that point.

Why?  Because you said so?

 

There is still discussions going on here that are relevant to the topic.  For the most part it's civil.  No need to lock anything.

[mikaelus]

1 hour ago, Booch121 said:

It means that she hasn't added anything to the story, and has stuck with it for years. Adds credibility.

 

Most people who lie about things like this always add more and more to the lie as they go on

There's enough in it already. It is not proof of anything, particularly coming from someone with mental problems.

[xg32]

huh looking at colin's post i just realized colin, jono AND brandon all left LMG, that's the kinda talent u cant just replace. Anyway, sorta off topic.

 

But at the very least it's likely someone was extremely toxic toward her. 

 

Anyone know if it's standard practice for HR to tell the parties to talk to each other? I find it a bit weird. If madison was as emotional as she seems then it's not a good idea, and obvious the part about going to HR failed.

[Azzychan]

7 minutes ago, yoc said:

Linus stated that he was "shocked" to hear such allegations... What the HR meeting proves? At least proves that he is lying. How can he be shocked if he held an extraordinary meeting precisely after she left to address "rumors".
All this without actually hearing the leaked audio so... That's a whole different story.

I honestly think you are arguing in bad faith here.

It doesn't mean anything of the sort.  The meeting proves that he knew she had harassment issues, and that is why she quit.  it doesn't say anything about the extent of what he was told.

He could have been totally shocked about the intentional self harm and about what exact comments and other things were said/done.

Many people have come out stating that trying to get Linus for even 5 minutes outside of videos has been very difficult.

[wanderingfool2]

7 minutes ago, vorg.eth said:

Nice reactionary nonsense. 
 

I hope you also get baselessly accused. You and the other person are terrible people. 
 

Vultures, really.  

With that kind of attitude, there would not be anyone coming forward with SA/SH claims.  I'm advocating to wait for the 3rd party, and not to judge either side without more facts or tales of the events.

 

To dismiss someone's claim because your only assumption being something like them wanting the spotlight is exactly the mentality why MANY sexual assault survivors don't come forward.

[Sasha2D]

13 minutes ago, vorg.eth said:

What are you trying to say here?  It’s more likely that 100 men all conspired to sexually harass this woman or this woman is taking advantage of a moment of bad press for her former employer?

 

Not currently, Sasha, but you don’t seem like my type. Maybe if you take those bias courses and change your life around I’ll consider

 

When did I fucking say this HMM? Putting words in my mouth? 

 

I'm saying statistically out of 100 surely its plausible that at least one or a couple did something.

 

Well you don't seem to be my type either, I'm assuming your a guy? 

[vorg.eth]

1 minute ago, wanderingfool2 said:

With that kind of attitude, there would not be anyone coming forward with SA/SH claims.  I'm advocating to wait for the 3rd party, and not to judge either side without more facts or tales of the events.

 

To dismiss someone's claim because your only assumption being something like them wanting the spotlight is exactly the mentality why MANY sexual assault survivors don't come forward.

I’ve never dismissed her claims; I’m questioning her recollection and intent. 
 

Nice try. 

[Uttamattamakin]

11 minutes ago, Kisai said:

You eventually kill your company by not having diverse staff. 

Case in point LMG.  Not dead... but it has Aidsbolavid. 

 

@StevesHair once an organization is over a certain size one can expect proportional representation of different groups to occur naturally. It does not mean lowering standards. It said something that an organization based in Vancouver, which is a pretty diverse place for Canada, is overwhelmingly White and male. 

 

I don't completely blame this company for that part of it.  They need to appeal to people who are biased. It is a reflection of the biases and expectations of the audience. 

 

The people I teach are the same demographic.  I've had them think that they knew more math than me even though they literally failed an entrance exam to get into my remedial / developmental class.  So it's not that white males are necessarily qualified to talk Tech but on YouTube one of the qualifications is being a face that a biased audience will trust.

[Azzychan]

1 minute ago, xg32 said:

Anyone know if it's standard practice for HR to tell the parties to talk to each other? I find it a bit weird. If madison was as emotional as she seems then it's not a good idea, and obvious the part about going to HR failed.

I can only state by my own experiences, but you go up the chain of command.  If your boss is the one causing the issue, you go to the person above them, etc.  If you cannot go through the chain of command, then you go to HR.

[HesCalledTheStig]

5 minutes ago, xg32 said:

huh looking at colin's post i just realized colin, jono AND brandon all left LMG, that's the kinda talent u cant just replace. Anyway, sorta off topic.

 

But at the very least it's likely someone was extremely toxic toward her. 

 

Anyone know if it's standard practice for HR to tell the parties to talk to each other? I find it a bit weird. If madison was as emotional as she seems then it's not a good idea, and obvious the part about going to HR failed.

Its not really that weird.  We had to take a course on sexual harassment and we were taught to tell the offending party to step down and speak to management about it.  So that would constitute as talking to each other wouldn't it?  A lot of people dont realize their advances or actions are unwanted because it's unclear what is and isn't considered harassment these days,  It should be common sense but, not everyone has common sense.  Most back off when it's pointed out to them.

[Middcore]

4 minutes ago, xg32 said:

Anyone know if it's standard practice for HR to tell the parties to talk to each other? 

 

I can see this occurring sometimes with an HR representative present as a mediator and witness. Telling employees who have an issue with each other they should try to work it out amongst themselves first just between the two of them is a different matter. I mean, there are situations where depending on the nature of the issue that might be worthwhile; what Madison alleges would not fall into that category, and a blanket HR policy of "Always talk to the person you have a problem with one on one before you go to HR regardless of the nature of the issue" is ridiculous. 

[vorg.eth]

Just now, DJ3thenew23 said:

Lmao nice "no u" response. Really struck a nerve calling you out huh?

DJ, did you even read my response?  You keep saying the sky is falling.  Screwing over anyone in the future that tells the truth when it does.