Madison reveals experiences working at LMG

[starsmine]

1 hour ago, Bren29 said:

one of the video is the pc build for Madison... the trash talk and sex jokes come from her . I found her very funny and entertaining and was thinking at the time that she would be a very good addition to the team on camera. Unfortunately for her , it doesn t serve her case ...

Yet you brought it up anyways as if it harms her case.

What relevance does it have?

[Bren29]

5 minutes ago, starsmine said:

Yet you brought it up anyways as if it harms her case.

What relevance does it have?

Because it does harm her case from a public opinion standpoint don t you think ?

Some people could see it as she was having a good time not knowing that it was before.

Unfortunately public opinion can do some damage. I can t even imagine what kind of message she received because of this funny video.

That s what i meant

 

edit: you re right starsmine , i just read my previous post and my point wasn t very clear

[starsmine]

Just now, Bren29 said:

Because it does harm her case from a public opinion standpoint don t you think ?

Some people could see it as she was having a good time not knowing that it was before.

Unfortunately public opinion can do some damage. I can t even imagine what kind of message she received because of this funny video.

That s what i meant

No. No it does not harm her case.

Making sex jokes is NOT an invitation for sexual harassment. Stress that point. 

[Erioch]

10 minutes ago, starsmine said:

Yet you brought it up anyways as if it harms her case.

What relevance does it have?

It's an "you should've seen what she was wearing" argument.

[MrSuperb]

1 minute ago, Erioch said:

It's an "you should've seen what she was wearing" argument.

No

 

if someone is wearing a revealing outfit, they should not be offended by others wearing a regaling outfit.

if someone is doing borderline jokes, they should not be offended by others doing borderline jokes.

Completely independent if either party is female, male or whatever else.

 

 

sexual harassment is never ok.

[Someona]

11 minutes ago, starsmine said:

No. No it does not harm her case.

Making sex jokes is NOT an invitation for sexual harassment. Stress that point. 

But who invited her to make sexual jokes? Or she can tell as many as sex jokes as she can at the workplace without it being sexual harassment?

[starsmine]

4 minutes ago, Someona said:

But who invited her to make sexual jokes? Or she can tell as many as sex jokes as she can at the workplace without it being sexual harassment?

Sex jokes =/= sexual harrassment.
Sex jokes is not an invitation for sexual harrassment.

This is not a hard concept. 
Sex jokes CAN be sexual harassment. Its context sensitive.

Just like sex is context-sensitive, sometimes, its passionate and great... other times its rape and traumatizing. Its almost like... Context matters, and Consent matters. 
 

[Someona]

5 minutes ago, starsmine said:

Sex jokes =/= sexual harrassment.
Sex jokes is not an invitation for sexual harrassment.

This is not a hard concept. 
Sex jokes CAN be sexual harassment. Its context sensitive.

Just like sex is context-sensitive, sometimes, its passionate and great... other times its rape and traumatizing. Its almost like... Context matters, and Consent matters. 
 

Ah so when we have videographed evidence she casually tells sex jokes at the workplace you ask for more context, but when we have 0 evidence of any sex talk to Madison it's automatically sexual harassment?

[starsmine]

9 minutes ago, Someona said:

Ah so when we have videographed evidence she casually tells sex jokes at the workplace you ask for more context, but when we have 0 evidence of any sex talk to Madison it's automatically sexual harassment?

Just so you are aware, Spousal rape is a thing. Date rape is a thing.
That you make a joke in one context at work, does not mean a joke in a different context is OK. Or even the same context because... the context is not the same after an issue is communicated. 
Just because you consented once, does not mean you consented the second time. Consent is not perpetual, it can be revoked at anytime. 

When you have an issue, bring it up with that person, and the issue continues, it's harassment, when you bring it up with HR, and it continues ITS HARASSMENT.

It is fine and normal to fuck up once and misread a situation, and when you do that, you apologize and change your attitude, you don't get to go. "HEY, you made a sex joke before at work, so that gives me permission to continue asking about your sex life and be a creep around you."

Let me stress this once more
Madision, making sex jokes, IS NOT permission to harrass her. It has quite literally ZERO to do with the accusations. 

Lets take this to the extreme because you are not getting it.
SEX workers on SET can be harrassed still. That's why a club or a set has bouncers. They are not inviting or consenting to people being sex creeps.

This is not me comparing Madison to a sex worker, it's the most extreme example of using sexuality for entertainment.

[Cooldoe]

3 hours ago, LukesterFire said:

It appears you still have faith in our legal systems. Many of us do not. This is a reality of workplace regulations. As Linus has expressed himself during the "Trust me bro" incident, the unfortunate reality is that none of the protections matter if you do not have the money, time, or energy to sue

They are both under Canada Labour law that have more protection on labour

 

As many have pointed out, she can contact the authority on this if she wanted to and there would resources provided for her to do so

[Someona]

7 minutes ago, starsmine said:

Just so you are aware, Spousal rape is a thing. Date rape is a thing.
That you make a joke in one context at work, does not mean a joke in a different context is OK. Or even the same context because... the context is not the same after an issue is communicated. 
Just because you consented once, does not mean you consented the second time. Consent is not perpetual, it can be revoked at anytime.

But who gave Madison consent to continuously tell sell jokes if "Just because you consented once, does not mean you consented the second time". Or are you saying she didn't need consent to tell sex jokes?

 

7 minutes ago, starsmine said:

Let me stress this once more
Madision, making sex jokes, IS NOT permission to harrass her. It has quite literally ZERO to do with the accusations. 

 

 

The claim is Madison making sex jokes without permission "perpetual consent" (your words) might be sexual harassment by itself, which we have evidence of.

 

You imply Madison doesn't need consent to tell sex jokes until reprimanded, but then with 0 evidence you claim someone must've been reprimanded cause Madison allegedly reported them

 

 

[Bren29]

This conversation by itself is what i was referring to.

Of course Madison or any woman can make sex jokes all she want and any man can respond to it , right !!??

Some people would see it like she was asking for it which is wrong... she obviously had to endure more than jokes.

 

[starsmine]

1 minute ago, Bren29 said:

This conversation by itself is what i was referring to.

Of course Madison or any woman can make sex jokes all she want and any man can respond to it , right !!??

Some people would see it like she was asking for it which is wrong... she obviously had to endure more than jokes.

 

Yes. a man can respond to it.
That is not what is being argued.

There is a difference between responding in kind, and harassment. 

[Mertrodome]

You don't have any evidence she made sex jokes at work generally, all you have is evidence she made sex jokes on camera. Jokes that are extremely on brand for LTT and are made in plenty of videos across their channels from a broad range of people.

 

These videos range from the highly scripted to off the cuff first impressions. All of them, save for live broadcasts which Madison never appeared in afaik, are produced, edited and signed off by multiple people.

 

Even the rig reboot video, which was before she was employed, went through that process - if anything it was probably vetted more than most, given it was sponsored content.

 

It must have been considered okay because it was published. And, again, that kind of content is very on brand for LTT's humour in general.

 

If you genuinely cannot see the difference between comments in that context and ones said offline in an office environment never intended to be seen or heard by anyone else, then I really don't know what to tell you.

[NavyEmt]

3 hours ago, Bren29 said:

one of the video is the pc build for Madison... the trash talk and sex jokes come from her . I found her very funny and entertaining and was thinking at the time that she would be a very good addition to the team on camera. Unfortunately for her , it doesn t serve her case ...

Carreful. i m not saying she is wrong. to my knowledge she was not working for LMG at this point.

 

Like JAYZ2CENT said " this is now criminal investigation , we have to let it unfold and can't comment on it "

 

 

 

 

How is this a criminal investigation? When did that happen?

[Someona]

58 minutes ago, Mertrodome said:

If you genuinely cannot see the difference between comments in that context and ones said offline in an office environment never intended to be seen or heard by anyone else, then I really don't know what to tell you.

Cause we're grasping at straws, we have literally 0 evidence of the alleged controversies/crimes and by grasping at straws that's what we get, her telling sex jokes at her boss. So we can just extrapolate from there,

[ReallyThough]

2 hours ago, starsmine said:

Sex jokes =/= sexual harrassment.
Sex jokes is not an invitation for sexual harrassment.

This is not a hard concept. 
Sex jokes CAN be sexual harassment. Its context sensitive.

Just like sex is context-sensitive, sometimes, its passionate and great... other times its rape and traumatizing. Its almost like... Context matters, and Consent matters. 
 

Thank you! Been trying to make this point, context matters!

Walking into a room and saying what's up to your coworker by saying something disgusting and having them reply with something equally disgusting means that you can't, 2 years later, turn around and take what was said out of context to further your agenda.

 

"Sup bro, you look like dog shit today, not get enough sleep?"

"Naw, your mom kept me up all night, you know she likes it doggy style!"

 

Then 2 years later post on social media that you were told you look like Dog Shit all innocent like you weren't a willing participant in that conversation is a shitty bullshit thing to do.

[starsmine]

7 minutes ago, Someona said:

Cause we're grasping at straws, we have literally 0 evidence of the alleged controversies/crimes and by grasping at straws that's what we get, her telling sex jokes at her boss. So we can just extrapolate from there,

Dude, its not up to you to investigate. and I hope to god it never is. 
When you go into an investigation you are not going in with the assumption the accuser is a big bad lier here to hurt your tiny wittle feelings.

You have ZERO grounds to be dismissing her case.
You have NEGATIVE grounds to continue along the lines of "she asked for it because sex jokes"

You can not extrapolate ANYTHING from the comments made in videos about whether or not sexual harassment happened. 

You DO NOT get to dismiss a person's claim of sexual harassment or assault or a toxic workplace environment.

"Where is the proof" you keep saying. YOU INVESTIGATE to see if there is validity in the claim. You don't just say well fuck off, I dont believe you. And if you are not going to investigate, you believe that they were. 

The only one grasping at straws is a person trying with all their might to find a reason to dismiss the claim by saying she was asking for it. I want to stress this, NO ONE asks to be sexually harassed and it is beyond unhinged to make that claim. It is the literal definition of sexual harassment that it is NOT asked for.

 

Just now, ReallyThough said:

Thank you! Been trying to make this point, context matters!

Walking into a room and saying what's up to your coworker by saying something disgusting and having them reply with something equally disgusting means that you can't, 2 years later, turn around and take what was said out of context to further your agenda.

 

"Sup bro, you look like dog shit today, not get enough sleep?"

"Naw, your mom kept me up all night, you know she likes it doggy style!"

 

Then 2 years later post on social media that you were told you look like Dog Shit all innocent like you weren't a willing participant in that conversation is a shitty bullshit thing to do.

Huh?
you are not arguing context there bud. You are arguing a change after the fact, which we already know is not the case and was never the case. Madison's complaints have been consistent since day one, as proven by the leaked HR meeting, Colin, and Taran. 

What you are implying has STRONG evidence against it. 

What you are implying has zero to do with context or consent. Do not lie like that. 

[ReallyThough]

All you have is 1 person saying what happened. We DON'T know that this was the case, and to seems much more likely that this was a two way street, given what we've seen of Madison on her streams and on her first LTT video.

What you're saying is that it's more likely someone just up and called her a Faggot out of nowhere.

Right.

[Someona]

10 minutes ago, starsmine said:

Dude, its not up to you to investigate. and I hope to god it never is. 
When you go into an investigation you are not going in with the assumption the accuser is a big bad lier here to hurt your tiny wittle feelings.

Why wouldn't you want someone who's due diligent and looking for actual evidence?

 

You want an executioner who'd lynch people that are deemed guilty until proven innocent on 0 evidence?

 

10 minutes ago, starsmine said:

You have ZERO grounds to be dismissing her case.
You have NEGATIVE grounds to continue along the lines of "she asked for it because sex jokes"

Dismissing? There's 0 evidence? You keep repeating "she asked for it", when no one is claiming that, you're fighting an imaginary strawman.

 

I'm claiming that's the only evidence there is currently, is that she casually told sex jokes, both publicly and in the work place.

 

10 minutes ago, starsmine said:

You DO NOT get to dismiss a person's claim of sexual harassment or assault or a toxic workplace environment.

Me: "We need more evidence"

 

You: "You DO NOT get to dismiss a person's claim of sexual harassment or assault"

 

Does this mean I'm dismissing her case by asking for actual evidence?

 

How does this work?

[starsmine]

19 minutes ago, Someona said:

Why wouldn't you want someone who's due diligent and looking for actual evidence?

 

You want an executioner who'd lynch people that are deemed guilty until proven innocent on 0 evidence?

 

Dismissing? There's 0 evidence? You keep repeating "she asked for it", when no one is claiming that, you're fighting an imaginary strawman.

 

I'm claiming that's the only evidence there is currently, is that she casually told sex jokes, both publicly and in the work place.

 

Me: "We need more evidence"

 

You: "You DO NOT get to dismiss a person's claim of sexual harassment or assault"

 

Does this mean I'm dismissing her case by asking for more evidence?

 

How does this work?

So stop bringing up the fact she made jokes. It's not relevant, it's not evidence of ANYTHING involving her claims.

So I have to ask, What is your purpose to bring up the fact she made jokes on camera? Explicitly WHAT are you trying to imply? Is there any reason that you keep bringing it up? As far as I can tell, there is one singular reason to bring it up. You say I'm straw-manning this, what POSSIBLE other explanation do you have for bringing it up?

When you bring something up as evidence, you make the claim it implies or informs something. 

Be explicit about what you think that something is for the crowd. 

As for the second point. You are a strawmaning here, no one is asking for or looking for an execution. We have this weird grey issue of harassment is a SERIOUS issue that needs to be taken seriously, but holy fucking shit it's not a damnable offense, it's a learning opportunity. I don't want this to come off as minimizing harassment in any way, it NEEDS to be addressed, it does not mean lynching a person. For a company's culture, that means addressing the issue however it needs to be addressed so it does not happen again. Heads do not by definition need to roll. 

Yes if I was accused of harassment or assault, I would tell you to kick dirt, touch grass and not investigate, anyone who makes a real accusation of such a thing deserves to be heard and listened to, not to be dismissed. (yes I have been in the middle of wrongful Title IX accusations, I am aware of how much the whole thing sucks major ass, and do not wish that experience on anyone)

[starsmine]

Time-stamped for the comment directed at some of yall. 

<removed>

Edited August 24, 2023 by SansVarnic

[Someona]

17 minutes ago, starsmine said:

So I have to ask, What is your purpose to bring up the fact she made jokes on camera? Explicitly WHAT are you trying to imply? Is there any reason that you keep bringing it up? As far as I can tell, there is one singular reason to bring it up. You say I'm straw-manning this, what POSSIBLE other explanation do you have for bringing it up?

Sex jokes* not just jokes. And I'm not implying. I'm explicitly saying that many include unwanted workplace sexual jokes as sexual harassment (Including the criminal law in Canada). So how do you define sexual harassment without implicating her, the person who alleges sexual harassment with 0 evidence. How isn't this related?

 

17 minutes ago, starsmine said:

As for the second point. You are a strawmaning here, no one is asking for or looking for an execution. We have this weird grey issue of harassment is a SERIOUS issue that needs to be taken seriously, but holy fucking shit it's not a damnable offense, it's a learning opportunity. I don't want this to come off as minimizing harassment in any way, it NEEDS to be addressed, it does not mean lynching a person. For a company's culture, that means addressing the issue however it needs to be addressed so it does not happen again. Heads do not by definition need to roll. 

Sexual harassment is crime  1 year, up to 10 years in jail in Canada.

 

It's not a learning opportunity it's a straight up crime needing of a serious evidence.

 

So tl;dr you're advocating lynching guilty until proven innocent people. You're the lion that's attacking the gazelle in the analogy in the video you sent, not us, and not LTT without evidence.

 

Quote

Sexual harassment can include discriminatory comments, behaviour, and touching. It may take the form of jokes, threats, comments about sex, or discriminatory remarks about someone's gender (Ontario Human Rights Commission)

And 'form of jokes' fall into this line. See above, and define me sexual harassment.

[Bren29]

1 hour ago, Mertrodome said:

You don't have any evidence she made sex jokes at work generally, all you have is evidence she made sex jokes on camera. Jokes that are extremely on brand for LTT and are made in plenty of videos across their channels from a broad range of people.

 

These videos range from the highly scripted to off the cuff first impressions. All of them, save for live broadcasts which Madison never appeared in afaik, are produced, edited and signed off by multiple people.

 

Even the rig reboot video, which was before she was employed, went through that process - if anything it was probably vetted more than most, given it was sponsored content.

 

It must have been considered okay because it was published. And, again, that kind of content is very on brand for LTT's humour in general.

 

If you genuinely cannot see the difference between comments in that context and ones said offline in an office environment never intended to be seen or heard by anyone else, then I really don't know what to tell you.

you didnt read or you are trolling

 

1 hour ago, NavyEmt said:

How is this a criminal investigation? When did that happen?

I m quoting jayz2cents but this is an investigation now . she accused LMG of some seriously bad stuff so it has to be investigate

[starsmine]

15 minutes ago, Someona said:

Sex jokes* not just jokes. And I'm not implying. I'm explicitly saying that many include unwanted workplace sexual jokes as sexual harassment (Including the criminal law in Canada). So how do you define sexual harassment without implicating her, the person who alleges sexual harassment with 0 evidence. How isn't this related?

Quote

unwanted

Let me pull out the part for you
unwanted

let me repeat this for you
unwanted

Let me stress this for you
UNWANTED

 

The fact that she made sex jokes on camera, or even in person in certain contexts does not mean she can not receive unwanted and unappreciated sex jokes.

Literally, NOTHING about making sex jokes means a goddamn thing about receiving unwanted and unappreciated sex jokes.

If Anyone on the team complained about MADISON making unwanted sexual jokes, then yes, she needs to be corrected to. BUT NO ONE HAS CLAIMED THAT. So again, why are you bringing it up as evidence?

15 minutes ago, Someona said:

So tl;dr you're advocating lynching guilty until proven innocent people. You're the lion that's attacking the gazelle in the analogy in the video you sent, not us, and not LTT without evidence.

 

TL:DR, "I someona, when explicitly told we are not advocating lynching anyone, will insist and lie about people wanting to lynch people"

 

15 minutes ago, Someona said:

Sexual harassment is crime  1 year, up to 10 years in jail in Canada.

 

It's not a learning opportunity it's a straight up crime needing of a serious evidence.

They are not doing a criminal investigation
Harassment does not have to be addressed in the criminal courts.
Criminality literally has zero to do with what is going on until the point that it does.... which is not today.

Toxic workplace environments are not criminal, they are toxic. Can some be criminal? sure we are not talking about that. 

Dog whistling and catcalling, for example, is sexual harassment, you don't go to prison over that usually. even with proof. 
 

10 minutes ago, Bren29 said:

you didnt read or you are trolling

 

I m quoting jayz2cents but this is an investigation now . she accused LMG of some seriously bad stuff so it has to be investigate

An investigation. Literally nothing about criminal is involved at this current moment. If jay mentioned criminality, then he is wrong.