Madison reveals experiences working at LMG

[starsmine]

6 minutes ago, Reclus said:

This is not the way this works. It is completely the opposite way. Lack of evidence works in favour of the accused and against the accuser. The person may be traumatised and we have every right to question those claims because of it. Empathy and sympathy are not a free pass for accusations. You are literally describing witch hunts. 

Again. 

IM NOT SAYING DAMN THE ACCUSED. Im not saying, lets go hunt down who did it, and oust them from the company. That is just as unhinged of a take. You go, hey man, thats not cool, you made co-workers feel uncomfortable, make sure you know your actions and words can harm people, now adjust your attitude, do better. And if, and only if they are incapable of adjusting or you find proof of harm being so great you can no longer trust them, you kick them out.

Im saying you do not get to make the claim that someone who is abused, or harmed, is not abused/harmed.
You do not get to go up to someone who was harrassed and say, lmao fuck you, you were not harrassed.

If the person had a boy-cried-wolf pattern, fine you might have a reason to be skeptical of the claims, but someone without that history? you believe that they percieved that they were harmed, and they are valid.

[Reclus]

3 minutes ago, starsmine said:

Its polite to ask if they are doing well, its not polite to dig or dismiss.
People exist... who dont belive anxity/depression, are real, or ME/CFS, or countless other syndromes. Like say chrons flair up, and the boss doesnt know what that is. And to have to explain that to a boss or coworker if they dig and then be dismissed out of hand, its just easier to give them a reason, when they dig, show the cut, and walk away and end the conversation.

Its polite to ask if they are feeling better, but when someone does not want to go into details about their health situation, you drop the topic. 
People in the workplace made Maddison feel like they were not dropping the topic at appropriate times. Its easier to just show a cut than having to explain how hypothetical Chrones works, and then being dismissed and having the co-worker/boss be passive-aggressive about it. Or making unwanted jokes about it.

 

  

Health reasons is all management is obligated to know. 

This is just absurd. A persons assumptions of what the boss knows or understands or doesn't know or understand does not justify a lie or more importantly an action of self injury. You don't have to explain if you don't want to, but you can not lie. If you do you are opening yourself to different types of problems at work that will have impact on how you are being managed. Any workplace anywhere will discipline you for that.

 

Health reasons need to be detailed as they impact your performance and you contracted duties. If you can't perform due to your health reasons management has a duty to work with you to resolve the issue.

[starsmine]

1 minute ago, Reclus said:

Health reasons need to be detailed as they impact your performance and you contracted duties. If you can't perform due to your health reasons management has a duty to work with you to resolve the issue.

No.
Management can ask "will your health issues impact your work, and do you need/want accommodations". Anything past that is not their purview. 

[Someona]

2 minutes ago, starsmine said:

If the person had a boy-cried-wolf pattern, fine you might have a reason to be skeptical of the claims, but someone without that history? you believe that they percieved that they were harmed, and they are valid.

This is so so wrong, giving everyone one chance to automatically ruin the lives of innocent people with 0 evidence is mind boggling to me.

 

[starsmine]

1 hour ago, Someona said:

This is so so wrong, giving everyone one chance to automatically ruin the lives of innocent people with 0 evidence is mind boggling to me.

 

Why is your reaction
"Damn the accused"

When I have repeated to you 4 times now, that is not the correct reaction either.

Taking an accusation seriously, and not dismissing/discrediting a potentially harmed party IS NOT and has NEVER BEEN a "damn the accused" response. (remember the accused isn't even a named person, calm the hell down)

THE ONLY THING dismissing a claim like this does is harms people who are already harmed and makes people afraid to come out with their stories because people will go and do everything they can do discredit them. 

[Someona]

7 minutes ago, starsmine said:

Why is your reaction
"Damn the accused"

When I have repeated to you 4 times now, that is not the correct reaction either.

Taking an accusation seriously, and not disiming/discrediting a potentially harmed party IS NOT and has NEVER BEEN a "damn the accused" response. (remember the accused isn't even a named person, calm the hell down)

 

Now we're just running in circles.

 

I'm for innocent until proven guilty, and I feel any sensible person should be for this.

 

You're for guilty until proven innocent lynching of people if the accuser hasn't been caught faking allegations. 

 

I want to point out that is very wrong way of looking  at things.

 

7 minutes ago, starsmine said:

THE ONLY THING dismissing a claim like this does is harms people who are already harmed and makes people afraid to come out with their stories because people will go and do everything they can do discredit them. 

They should come up, and if they have evidence action should be taken, if they don't no one should lynch people? Why aren't you agreeing with this?

[Reclus]

20 minutes ago, starsmine said:

Again. 

IM NOT SAYING DAMN THE ACCUSED. Im not saying, lets go hunt down who did it, and oust them from the company. That is just as unhinged of a take. You go, hey man, thats not cool, you made co-workers feel uncomfortable, make sure you know your actions and words can harm people, now adjust your attitude, do better. And if, and only if they are incapable of adjusting or you find proof of harm being so great you can no longer trust them, you kick them out.

Im saying you do not get to make the claim that someone who is abused, or harmed, is not abused/harmed.
You do not get to go up to someone who was harrassed and say, lmao fuck you, you were not harrassed.

If the person had a boy-cried-wolf pattern, fine you might have a reason to be skeptical of the claims, but someone without that history? you believe that they percieved that they were harmed, and they are valid.

Baseless accusations are not grounds for ANY actions at work or even outside of work. There is no "hey man" because up until now she is referring to the entire company not a person. The more you talk this way the more you show lack of experience in management within a group of individuals where everyone has an opinion and everyone can claim whatever they want. 

15 minutes ago, starsmine said:

No.
Management can ask "will your health issues impact your work, and do you need/want accommodations". Anything past that is not their purview. 

That is exactly what I said. Management has to work with you. If you say health reasons they have to ask how to accommodate them. If you are not cooperating and detailing what is happening and how to fix this the management has the absolute right to investigate and decide on legal steps that might lead to your dismissal due to not being able to fulfil your contracted duties. Lying constitutes deliberate refusal to cooperate.

[EllieCat]

I am shocked that she was treated that way. She did the right thing to quit. Hope Madison will be better soon.

[starsmine]

8 minutes ago, Reclus said:

Baseless accusations are not grounds for ANY actions at work or even outside of work. There is no "hey man" because up until now she is referring to the entire company not a person. The more you talk this way the more you show lack of experience in management within a group of individuals where everyone has an opinion and everyone can claim whatever they want. 

Why do you keep assuming baseless? YOU CANT KNOW THAT without an investigation. You can not be calling the accusations baseless. You can NOT dismiss the claims.

8 minutes ago, Reclus said:

That is exactly what I said. Management has to work with you. If you say health reasons they have to ask how to accommodate them. If you are not cooperating and detailing what is happening and how to fix this the management has the absolute right to investigate and decide on legal steps that might lead to your dismissal due to not being able to fulfil your contracted duties. Lying constitutes deliberate refusal to cooperate.

And guess what was not happening at work?
Someone was not asking just those questions and dropping the topic based on the accusation.

If a person feels they are being pressured into justifying their reason for a day off, and then being dismissed about their justification... they will give management or that co-worker their "valid" reason to get them the fuck off their back.

Maddison felt like she was being harassed about her real reasons for needing a day by someone there. That is a TOXIC workplace environment, and the conclusion you draw from that is that there was some sort of pressure that was completely inappropriate. That implies questions into her health went BEYOND "hey hope you feel better" and BEYOND "let us know if anything will impact your work"

A worker is free to share beyond that, but there should never be a workplace culture that makes anyone feel obligated to go further into sharing their health or justifying anything health related.

[RoseLuck462]

Looks it just got worse for Linus himself v

 

 

 

[Reclus]

1 minute ago, starsmine said:

Why do you keep assuming baseless? YOU CANT KNOW THAT without an investigation. You can not be calling the accusations baseless.

And guess what was not happening at work?
Someone was not asking just those questions and dropping the topic based on the accusation.

If a person feels they are being pressured into justifying their reason for a day off, and then being dismissed about their justification... they will give management or that co-worker their "valid" reason to get them the fuck off their back.

Lack of evidence up until this point means baseless. You are the one assuming they are validated. Proof is on the accuser. Lack of proof works for the accused. There is no argument to be had on this. It is beyond moot.

 

Lying to anyone is a bad choice. By definition of lying.

 

You are basing your entire argument on 2  things:

 

Accusation without evidence.

 

Accusation backed up by admission of lying.

 

Think about that.

[Guest]

6 minutes ago, starsmine said:

Why is your reaction
"Damn the accused"

When I have repeated to you 4 times now, that is not the correct reaction either.

Taking an accusation seriously, and not disiming/discrediting a potentially harmed party IS NOT and has NEVER BEEN a "damn the accused" response.

THE ONLY THING dismissing a claim like this does is harms people who are already harmed and makes people afraid to come out with their stories because people will go and do everything they can do discredit them. 

IMHO when these situations arise and the internet and social media are involved, it's both interesting and disheartening at the same time to see people just pick sides and constantly go around in circles. It's not helping LMG, or Madison in anyway, if anything it's probably stressing both sides out even more...

 

Having a more neutral respectful approach is more appropriate. Like you said no one should discredit, or brush aside Madison's allegations by any means. They need to be taken seriously and properly and thoroughly investigated (which LMG is doing). LMG is not even denying anything happened, so to me there must be some truth to the matter. That being said the true facts needs to come forward and proper action needs to be taken. I agree that asking to cancel and getting rid of Linus is very excessive. At the end of the day, this needs to be a teachable moment not only for those involved, but the company as a whole. The frat boy tom foolery needs to stop and they all need to grow up and act like adults. I personally don't feel that they are evil people, but they do need to own their mistake and never do it again. Furthermore, they needs to work and support each other to ensure it never happens again if someone else were to ever try.

[satzmann666]

1 hour ago, Reclus said:

The fact that nothing about this has been done by anyone for 2 years is a contradiction of the claims in the post to begin with.

Bold assumption that nothing has been done (not even sure what thing would you expect to be done), but even then the amount of time passed since the incidents does not contradict anything anyway.

1 hour ago, Reclus said:

Second, my perception after reading her claims is that she was unprepared for the workload as this was her main complain.

Pure speculation, rightfully indicated by your choice of words.

1 hour ago, Reclus said:

The harassment claims are superficial and considering her participation in quite a lot of jokes about this during her time there are weakening her claim.

Subjective interpretation of what is superficial, and for what seems to be millionth time in this thread can we please differentiate between on camera personality and real human being? Would you say that porn actress that does some r**e fantasy film has weaker claim when she reports actual r**e?

1 hour ago, Reclus said:

Third: This simply doesn't work that way. If you claim or accuse something or someone the burden of proof is on you. Not the person you accuse...

But it works both ways. If someone wants to disproove her testimony, they should provide proof that literally any part of it is factualy wrong. Again as I have said we only have small amount of evidence, none of it contradicts any part of her story and some of it helps to corroborate parts of it.

2 hours ago, Reclus said:

Lastly. Do not jump me with assumptions that I hate women or that I'm calling her a liar. I have already went through this with other angry knights in shining armour I will not recycle the conversation again.

Dont worry, I am not the kind of person to jump to conclusions.

[Guest]

14 minutes ago, RoseLuck462 said:

Looks it just got worse for Linus himself v

 

 

 

It appears that this is in relation to the Naomi Wu situation where she wrongly accused Linus of being inappropriate over a misunderstanding where Linus wanted to talk to her in the Lobby of the hotel and she thought he meant his room. So I can fully understand why Linus flew off the handle, I think most people would if they were in his situation in regards to this story. As for Madison, I support her and want to see the results of the investigation, but I think she also needs to be careful about what she is posting as to not compromise her situation. When it comes to these situations context is everything and if someone over heard Linus discussing this, but has zero context of what he is talking about, speculating in the face of Madison's allegations isn't helpful by any means...

[Someona]

10 minutes ago, satzmann666 said:

But it works both ways. If someone wants to disproove her testimony, they should provide proof that literally any part of it is factualy wrong. Again as I have said we only have small amount of evidence, none of it contradicts any part of her story and some of it helps to corroborate parts of it.

No, it doesn't work both ways. You can't prove a negative.

 

Let's say I allege you raped someone in your life.

 

Prove to me you haven't committed a rape ever.

 

Come on do it, uh-oh, you can't.

[starsmine]

2 minutes ago, Someona said:

No, it doesn't work both ways. You can't prove a negative.

 

Prove to me you haven't committed a rape ever.

 

Come on do it, uh-oh, you can't.

Lmao what?
This is pure strawman. Literal textbook definition of a strawman.

Stop that, get some help.

[Someona]

Just now, starsmine said:

Lmao what?
This is pure strawman.

Stop that, get some help.

You're wrong, "proving a negative" is a well known concept, now stop with the personal attacks.

[starsmine]

1 minute ago, Someona said:

You're wrong, "proving a negative" is a well known concept, now stop with the personal attacks.

No one is talking about proving a negative here, we all know the concept, its not applicable here. I never made a personal attack.

You made a pretend argument that is easy to defeat. The pretend argument that anyone here is talking about proving the negative.
 

[Sasha2D]

The allegations are false because you can't prove that they are true.

 

Argument from ignorance - Wikipedia

[Someona]

4 minutes ago, starsmine said:

No one is talking about proving a negative here, we all know the concept, its not applicable here. I never made a personal attack.
 

It is completely applicable here since the above poster claimed that someone must give proof of negative claim. (That no one has ever sexually harassed her) That's asking to prove a negative.

[Reclus]

3 minutes ago, satzmann666 said:

Bold assumption that nothing has been done (not even sure what thing would you expect to be done), but even then the amount of time passed since the incidents does not contradict anything anyway.

Pure speculation, rightfully indicated by your choice of words.

Subjective interpretation of what is superficial, and for what seems to be millionth time in this thread can we please differentiate between on camera personality and real human being? Would you say that porn actress that does some r**e fantasy film has weaker claim when she reports actual r**e?

But it works both ways. If someone wants to disproove her testimony, they should provide proof that literally any part of it is factualy wrong. Again as I have said we only have small amount of evidence, none of it contradicts any part of her story and some of it helps to corroborate parts of it.

Dont worry, I am not the kind of person to jump to conclusions.

I come to conclusions when presented with evidence. 

Madison not reporting the incident when it happened and not working on it is self evident. The moment I say to the police (which I have said many times) the argument is immediately thrown that the police will do nothing. That is an assumption. Not going to the police, not finding legal help or even(however strongly I disagree with it) going to Twitter with those allegations at the time of the incident constitutes not doing anything about it.

 

It is not speculation when she is pointing out over and over how stressed she was with the workload and how overworked she felt. I appreciate that you don't like the words I have used but you have not provided an argument against it.

 

The on camera evidence is currently all we have. Superficial meaning that she has not pointed to any time or date and not named any person/people. Again, why isn't the argument here that she needs to prove what she is accusing LMG of? As I have stated a million times in here. The investigation is now organised by LMG.

The porn actress can't use the term actual rape until she provides evidence. This is literally the same rule. That does not say she is lying. That says she is accusing a person of rape and  needs to provide evidence for it.

 

Also conveniently it's always this argument being used rather than a more complicated one. Why isn't a real life case of Amber Heard being quoted?

 

I don't "want" to disprove her testimony. I just find it until now full of holes and lack of evidence. The claims I am reading I can explain using my own experience and knowledge on the subject of management in a corporate environment, hence my opinion. If there will be more evidence and her claim is backed up by it, then LMG and any person involved needs to face consequences of their actions.

 

No I do not need to provide proof that I haven't raped anyone. I think this is as simple of an idea as it can be.

 

The small amount of evidence to me so far is an argument that she was not fit for the job and was very unhappy in it. We do not have an opposing view as to how her performance was viewed by LMG(although I could be wrong, If there is please feel free to correct me)

 

I really appreciate the civility of your arguments

 

Also apologies but not the quickest in typing and can see that there are several replies already lined up...

 

[LinoLear]

I wonder why all people focusing on the supposedly almost non existent sexual harassment, which clearly are not the main problem. The girl true problems seen from her tweet, are her skills which are always belittled by her peers.

Lets be real here, in any group of people, when someone make mistakes, there will always some people make jokes about it, that's it. No matter the place or situation.

This is not a big matter at all, it just a complaint of an employee that clearly didn't know how real world works.

[satzmann666]

6 minutes ago, Someona said:

No, it doesn't work both ways. You can't prove a negative.

 

Prove to me you haven't committed a rape ever.

 

Come on do it, uh-oh, you can't.

So your claim boils down to "You have committed a rape". Kinda pales in comparison to the lengthy detailed testimony Madison has given dont you think?

[Someona]

4 minutes ago, satzmann666 said:

So your claim boils down to "You have committed a rape". Kinda pales in comparison to the lengthy detailed testimony Madison has given dont you think?

My claim boils down to the fact that you can't prove a negative/general claim.

 

I gave the rape example just to illustrate the point, you literally need to have videographed every single moment of your life to be able to prove it.

 

Hence you asking for proof for Madison's negative/general claims fail in the same way.

 

How can Linus prove that he never sexually harassed Madison, he needs to provide a video of every single moment of his life while she was employed at LTT to do it.

 

It's just isn't possible.

[Mertrodome]

She didn't accuse Linus of sexual harassment, she accused Linus Media Group of having a hostile work evenironment, the form of which was bullying, undermining her dignity, and sexual harassment.

 

You're right that you can't prove a negative. However, what they can prove is that appropriate measures were taken in response to any reports she made (she claims to have made several), that they exercised their duty of care within the bounds of what they were made aware of, etc.

 

I doubt we'll ever get a definitive answer on the specifics, because anything that was done privately and unrecorded is, by definition, impossible to prove. What we might get a definitive answer on though is whether LMG acted appropriately and strongly enough to the reports they received and whether their working environment left open the possibility for this kind of thing happening.

 

If someone accuses you of negligence you can't just say "you can't prove a negative", you have to demonstrate that you did what was necessary to not be considered negligent.