Update to allegations from last year

[GreatnessRD]

I don't tell me lor baby was outchea lyin'? Or are the comments saying LMG money way too long and bought out the 3rd party commission? Find out next time on DBZ, I guess. 

[wanderingfool2]

4 hours ago, leadeater said:

Well here's the real thing, WE don't need to make an assessment. Contrary to current misguided beliefs people on the internet almost NEVER have any grounds or any possible legitimate reason to get involved with employment matters. The times where that is actually the case is exceptionally few.

 

Like I have to keep pointing this out, we are not involved, it's not our responsibility to get to the bottom of anything. To top that off it will not happen either, nobody is going to discover anything, change anything, redress anything. If it were one of those very few times it would have already happened.

 

The "internet" needs to learn they are not private investigators, they aren't the unofficial arm of the police, they aren't part of employment protection agencies. Sticking your foot in to it starts to very much cross lines and privacy issues.

 

So to quote myself:

Except the thing is people are still taking the LMG thing as being the truth, and worse yet assuming that Madison's claims were false.

 

We cannot assess it either way, and we do not have the 3rd party.  I'm not saying it's our responsibility to get to the bottom of it; but it's also equally bad to let a statement like LMG's be treated as ground truth.

 

It's a public accusation that Madison did, and the response by LMG has been public as well.  Again, my issue with the majority of people here is assuming that LMG's statement accounts for the truth and statement of the 3rd party; which is wrong.

 

Again, asking to publish the findings because they stated it.  Yes they don't have to, but 100% it's a valid criticism and a point to make when judging.

 

2 hours ago, leadeater said:

Someone actually did and the "clarifications"/excuses thus far have not change that in any way. I have read the origin source post, the reply to that and the reply reply to that so I have the full context and while I have no issues and fully agree that a lawyer likely did not write the Tweet what was written was written and it was very clear in the words, the sentence was very short and literal with next to no room for "interpretation". It just wasn't a good point or "question" to try and posit from the information known at the time and there was no real merit to question that specifically.

 

I mean I get it, admitting you said something that wasn't the correct thing to say can be difficult and it may not have been really the point or part of the point trying to be made but potentially starting a whole chain of "lawyers might not actually have been involved in the investigation" when we know they were with the exception of being lied to in the dumbest way possible does not help a rational discussion around this..

If you want to get strict, Lawlz never denied the third party law firm worked on it.  Just mentioned that a lawyer might not have been involved in the investigation.  While that one sentence is "clear", I think with the context of the paragraph and what was being responded to it still was more along the lines of we don't know anything really.

 

Overall as I mentioned before as well, it is actually possible to hire a lawfirm, have the lawyer do the sign-off, but having the paralegals doing the actual investigation.  Investigations can differ wildly depending on conditions, pricing etc.  It's like buying a Seagate HDD for a NAS...you could just shuck drives for cheap or go up to enterprise level stuff.

 

I'm not saying the extent of what Lawlz said wasn't going a bit to the other extreme, but pragmatically it's actually a valid statement.  Again, you can hire a law firm, and have them to the investigation, but the actual investigation part of the investigation could actually have been potentially done by a para-legal and the final portion signed off by a lawyer.  Thus the "investigator" referenced by the tweet might not necessarily be a lawyer; even the investigation itself might have no lawyer present until the report is written [and the investigation is complete].

 

 

Again, the way the tweet was worded and the way it is being presented I feel has created an issue, and one of a public one, as you have news outlets and people utilizing the word "false" in regards to the claim...and the bit that is the troubling bit is I still haven't found where she publicly made that claim.  I'm not saying we are entitled to private stuff, but it's about questioning what was given and making note that it doesn't line up with what was public.

 

The general points of my whole posts are to constantly remind people that again we cannot make an assessment

 

[Taf the Ghost]

1 hour ago, wasab said:

 

GN has nothing to do with this. it sounds like an opportunistic stab to stir up more drama and kick LTT back down while it is doing damage control and trying to get back up. 

 

The Madison Twitter Thread was something like 18 hours after the GN video. Linus' forum post response to the GN video, which was both bad and seemingly out of character for Linus, is what sent the firestorm into a frenzy. That's what allowed the Twitter Thread to happen. They're actually separate things, but they are intertwined. That's why I mentioned it. It was the one true oddity that isn't fairly straightforward to explain from the entire mess.

[Anders155]

4 hours ago, wasab said:

a person can feel harassed if you stare at them for long enough. people these days.... 

nothing is black and white. i have heard of people complaining to families/friends that getting chewed out by their boss is a labor rights violation. they should've seen what it is like in the military, good luck with your labor lawsuits in a military court martial

 

 

Have you ever served in the military? 

[Stahlmann]

So basically most of the evidence points towards a former employee who left with a bad taste in their mouth, held a grudge, and saw an opportunity to weaponize cancel culture when the whole Billet Labs thing went down.

 

If she never actually filed a lawsuit against LMG it's probably because either she's lying or she doesn't have any proof. And since none of us have deeper insight than surface-level reports, it's pretty pointless to further go down that road. After all, they're innocent until proven guilty. Otherwise unsubstantiated claims can easily ruin peoples careers or potentially their whole lives. And from what I can see as an outsider, it doesn't seem like LTT has unnaturally high employee turnover, so I doubt there are deep rooted cultural problems in their company.

 

The only way I can see this going any further is if an independent third party goes in and tries to uncover more of it through investigative journalism, similar to what GamersNexus did recently with EK.

[Stahlmann]

4 hours ago, wanderingfool2 said:

Except the thing is people are still taking the LMG thing as being the truth, and worse yet assuming that Madison's claims were false.

I think it's only fair to assume that serious allegations like this are false until there's actual evidence. Most people are far too quick to grab their pitchforks and torches just because someone had a meltdown on Twitter. Never underestimate what people are willing to do just to prove a point, even if their point is completely irrational and unrelated to the issue at hand.

 

4 hours ago, wanderingfool2 said:

We cannot assess it either way, and we do not have the 3rd party.  I'm not saying it's our responsibility to get to the bottom of it; but it's also equally bad to let a statement like LMG's be treated as ground truth.

 

It's a public accusation that Madison did, and the response by LMG has been public as well.  Again, my issue with the majority of people here is assuming that LMG's statement accounts for the truth and statement of the 3rd party; which is wrong.

 

Again, asking to publish the findings because they stated it.  Yes they don't have to, but 100% it's a valid criticism and a point to make when judging.

Either way, I think the fact that they hired an outside law firm to investigate is more than most companies would have done. And an article with their name on it is probably only done with their consent, which further suggests that both parties came to the same conclusion.

 

I never expected to hear anything like this again, so in my opinion LTT did well to respond at all. But in situations like this there will always be people who won't accept the outcome unless LTT as a company is shut down for it, even if there is no evidence to support any of these claims. I like to use the term "Twitter brain rot" for situations like this. There is no winning with these people.

 

The fact of the matter is that most of their audience stopped caring about it a couple of weeks later, and as I said in my previous post, the staff turnover rate doesn't seem to be unnaturally high, which further undermines the claims of a toxic workplace. I've been in toxic workplaces before, both as an outsider and as someone affected, and it's generally pretty easy to tell if that's the case, even from an outsider's perspective.

[starsmine]

1 hour ago, Stahlmann said:

and saw an opportunity to weaponize cancel culture when the whole Billet Labs thing went down.

No that is not what happened. As has been stated multiple times in this thread. There are people who bring up that point with the attempt to discredit her, those people, in the strongest of terms are wrong. 

It was explicitly another party that wanted to do that.  

[Avocado Diaboli]

2 hours ago, Stahlmann said:

So basically most of the evidence points towards a former employee who left with a bad taste in their mouth, held a grudge, and saw an opportunity to weaponize cancel culture when the whole Billet Labs thing went down.

What evidence?

 

2 hours ago, Stahlmann said:

After all, they're innocent until proven guilty.

Is Madison also innocent until proven guilty? Because if not, this statement here forms an interesting contrast.

2 hours ago, Stahlmann said:

If she never actually filed a lawsuit against LMG it's probably because either she's lying or she doesn't have any proof.

 

Just a general question: Why are people so quick to accept the word of LMG (and yes, it's still their word) where they exonerate themselves and treat that as direct proof that Madison must have made it up?

[Stahlmann]

1 hour ago, Avocado Diaboli said:

What evidence?

In retrospect, evidence was probably the wrong word. Still, if someone is going to throw around such serious accusations without providing any proof, I'm sorry, but I'm going to assume they're lying. Maybe she was testing the waters to see if the community's outrage would be enough to get her what she wanted, failed, and moved on. But we're just speculating at this point.

 

In that case, I'll use my own judgment, try to apply the accusations, and see if they stick, which they don't.

 

1 hour ago, Avocado Diaboli said:

Is Madison also innocent until proven guilty? Because if not, this statement here forms an interesting contrast.

Innocent until proven guilty always applies to the accused, not the accuser.

 

1 hour ago, Avocado Diaboli said:

Just a general question: Why are people so quick to accept the word of LMG (and yes, it's still their word) where they exonerate themselves and treat that as direct proof that Madison must have made it up?

She didn't press charges. If she's actually been wronged and can substantiate those claims, she's free to do so through civil litigation, not through the court of public opinion.

 

Frankly, this whole thing was a private matter from the start, and I think it was wrong of her to make it public in the first place.

[Thaldor]

24 minutes ago, Avocado Diaboli said:

Just a general question: Why are people so quick to accept the word of LMG (and yes, it's still their word) where they exonerate themselves and treat that as direct proof that Madison must have made it up?

Probably the same reason why people are asking LMG to prove their side but aren't demanding Madison to prove her allegations.

 

This is pretty much the problem of the shitcourt (because the next) of the echo chamber (social) media when it comes to these word against word cases. It always starts to breakdown into groups of "we don't take a side but X should make their stuff public" and "we don't take a side but Y also haven't proven anything" and they will combat against each other because for some reasons both sides believe their demands are rightful and before they have been met the one side should be lynched.

There also hovers the everlasting smoke of "nothing is enough" around these things. I can guarantee that if LMG was to release the investigation report whole without any censoring, the people talking "oh but it's a summary of a summary" would change in to "but it's third party paid by LMG" and the situation wouldn't change at all and the same level of distrust would remain. Same as Madison would need to go through the skies and beyond to prove her words and most likely the people calling her liar would still call her liar.

 

Only thing I'm going to say about this whole case outside of just being example is that I would have also put in the part about taking legal actions if the accusations continue and I think it is right to put it in. I see it as the statement for "if you want to continue this shitshow, make it official, not this echo chamber bullshit, and if you don't do it, we will." This kind of shitshow won't be fairly ended ever in the shitcourt of echo chamber media, unless one side publicly yields or it's made official and taken to an actual court.

I don't know about Canada but I would believe even they have some official (in the last place police) to whom Madison can turn to and who will start official investigation. Something like occupational safety and health officials or some organization or union. It's going to be a problem things might have happened some time ago and there will be some unwillingness to do anything because of that, but that's the thing about these, if you bury them once and don't act then it's all going to be only against you. There might be some problems with employing into companies during the process but if there's still problems after from just starting the process, those companies ain't worth even the time it takes to apply to them and at least then it will be clear to someone that they have problems within them (if someone is afraid of someone looking after their own rights, they most likely actively seek to trample on those rights).

[Avocado Diaboli]

56 minutes ago, Stahlmann said:

Innocent until proven guilty always applies to the accused, not the accuser.

You made an accusation against her. You treat your conclusion as valid without evidence. That's why I'm highlighting it.

 

57 minutes ago, Stahlmann said:

She didn't press charges. If she's actually been wronged and can substantiate those claims, she's free to do so through civil litigation, not through the court of public opinion.

That's easy for someone to say who has never had to litigate themselves. Justice isn't free, you need expensive legal representation and lack of evidence on either side can make this a difficult prospect. Absolute truth is not established within court. The point of a court is to decide on the basis of evidence that is convincing enough. Besides, women have been accused of making up false sexual harassment and assault accusations for decades, always with the caveat that "she could've gone to court if it really happened". So it's not a good look if you wheel out a stereotypical retort that was used as another cudgel to keep women quiet and obedient.

[ToboRobot]

1 hour ago, Stahlmann said:

Innocent until proven guilty always applies to the accused, not the accuser.

 

 

Part of the problem is that people (in general) confuse these topics.

Legal standards and definitions don't always apply outside the court.

In law there is the presumption of innocence... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presumption_of_innocence

 

But there is also a proverb that encourages people to trust and verify the facts.... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trust,_but_verify
 

 

Then we have the legal concept of defamation which could be libel or slander... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defamation

 

But almost all of this is lost on internet mobs who wreck things with their noble intentions.

[Stahlmann]

24 minutes ago, Avocado Diaboli said:

You made an accusation against her. You treat your conclusion as valid without evidence. That's why I'm highlighting it.

Every conclusion can be valid. But with what's currently known about the situation we can only speculate. So it's not really anyone's place to claim they're right. I just stated how I see it. I never claimed my truth is the only truth.

 

24 minutes ago, Avocado Diaboli said:

That's easy for someone to say who has never had to litigate themselves. Justice isn't free, you need expensive legal representation and lack of evidence on either side can make this a difficult prospect. Absolute truth is not established within court. The point of a court is to decide on the basis of evidence that is convincing enough. Besides, women have been accused of making up false sexual harassment and assault accusations for decades, always with the caveat that "she could've gone to court if it really happened". So it's not a good look if you wheel out a stereotypical retort that was used as another cudgel to keep women quiet and obedient.

The problem is, if it's not backed up in some way, it's just slander, and you can be prosecuted for that. You can't just spew out unsubstantiated allegations online and expect no consequences.

 

I'm aware of the statistics that most sexual harassment claims are true, but until proven, they shouldn't be treated as the truth. That's because even if a claim is false, it can still do irreparable damage to a person or a company. Look at the Johnny Depp thing. He was proven innocent in court, yet until the whole process was over he was still out of his roles and basically his whole career came to a halt and people were calling him names online.

 

My point has absolutely nothing to do with "keeping women quiet and obedient". My main point is that you should have something to back up your claims, even if you decide not to go the legal route. When you make such claims, you're subject to scrutiny, which is only fair.

[Avocado Diaboli]

12 minutes ago, Stahlmann said:

Every conclusion can be valid. But with what's currently known about the situation we can only speculate. So it's not really anyone's place to claim they're right. I just stated how I see it. I never claimed my truth is the only truth.

That's such a nonsensical thing to say. You don't have "a truth". You have a baseless opinion that you vehemently defend instead of just admitting that neither side has anything of value to present. That's why I'm riding your ass on this. Just be honest, your opinion doesn't matter and isn't rooted in any objective fact.

 

12 minutes ago, Stahlmann said:

The problem is, if it's not backed up in some way, it's just slander, and you can be prosecuted for that. You can't just spew out unsubstantiated allegations online and expect no consequences.

You mean like people calling you a liar without any evidence, due diligence, process or trial? Yeah, I'm pretty sure women know exactly that unsubstantiated allegations carry consequences. And no, it's not lost on me that you were alluding to consequences for LMG. But hey, let's use your logic: Given that LMG threatened legal action but didn't actually go through with it, it stands to reason that their threat is entirely baseless, that they have no evidence to back up the allegation that Madison's claims were defamatory, etc. 

 

12 minutes ago, Stahlmann said:

I'm aware of the statistics that most sexual harassment claims are true, but until proven, they shouldn't be treated as the truth.

They aren't. Neither should your conclusion that her lack of litigation proves that she made anything up be treated as the truth. Again, be consistent and be honest. 

[Stahlmann]

1 hour ago, Avocado Diaboli said:

That's such a nonsensical thing to say. You don't have "a truth". You have a baseless opinion that you vehemently defend instead of just admitting that neither side has anything of value to present. That's why I'm riding your ass on this. Just be honest, your opinion doesn't matter and isn't rooted in any objective fact.

Didn't I just say that with my last post? I literally stated my conclusion is based on speculation.

 

1 hour ago, Stahlmann said:

Every conclusion can be valid. But with what's currently known about the situation we can only speculate. So it's not really anyone's place to claim they're right. I just stated how I see it. I never claimed my truth is the only truth.

 

 

1 hour ago, Avocado Diaboli said:

You mean like people calling you a liar without any evidence, due diligence, process or trial? Yeah, I'm pretty sure women know exactly that unsubstantiated allegations carry consequences. And no, it's not lost on me that you were alluding to consequences for LMG. But hey, let's use your logic: Given that LMG threatened legal action but didn't actually go through with it, it stands to reason that their threat is entirely baseless, that they have no evidence to back up the allegation that Madison's claims were defamatory, etc. 

They can probably put together something to show that these claims have indeed hurt their bottom line, but I don't expect LMG to be interested in escalating this any further.

 

I don't have a problem with other people on the Internet calling me a liar. I've fallen on my face enough times that when I meet new people, I don't trust them. Trust is something you have to earn. And I've seen people escalate shit even further for so much less. That's why I dismiss 99% of the stuff that comes from Twitter and Reddit as nonsensical, useless clutter. They tend to turn small issues into huge controversies, and they generally don't act rationally. When someone acts irrationally, I quickly lose interest in interacting with them.

 

And again, the fact that the accusations came from a woman has nothing to do with my conclusion. I don't know why you're trying so hard to bring the gender debate into the discussion.

 

1 hour ago, Avocado Diaboli said:

They aren't. Neither should your conclusion that her lack of litigation proves that she made anything up be treated as the truth. Again, be consistent and be honest. 

Again, the fact that she didn't press charges is not my only reason for reaching my conclusion. The fact that a 3rd party law firm is willing to put their name on the post tells me that they probably approve of the general message. Also, as I've said several times, it doesn't seem like they have a deep-seated harassment problem that would show up in high turnover or other employees coming out. And no, I don't mean random people on Twitter claiming to have worked at LMG. I mean actual employees who have contacted other media outlets, can prove their employment, and are willing to speak out through another channel. There are ways to do this, make a CREDIBLE statement, and remain anonymous.

[wasab]

8 hours ago, Anders155 said:

Have you ever served in the military? 

Depending on which military you are talking about 

[Anders155]

54 minutes ago, wasab said:

Depending on which military you are talking about 

So no, you have not really. Please stop thinking in the military, whatever countries military mind you, anything goes. And please understand what a court martial is actually before blurting it out. 

[wasab]

1 hour ago, Anders155 said:

So no, you have not really. Please stop thinking in the military, whatever countries military mind you, anything goes. And please understand what a court martial is actually before blurting it out. 

Like I do? Military is an authoritarian workplace. There is no room for you to dissent. It is common sense. You aren't gonna be quitting if you feel like you are mistreated either unless you would like to be charge with desertion. 

[starsmine]

3 hours ago, wasab said:

Like I do? Military is an authoritarian workplace. There is no room for you to dissent. It is common sense. You aren't gonna be quitting if you feel like you are mistreated either unless you would like to be charge with desertion. 

Yea no, that's not really how the military works, yes  its authoritarian, but you are very much encouraged to dissent. Its insubordination that is not tolerated. You are required to follow all lawful orders, but yes if you are harassed in the military, the harasser gets court martialed, if your senior officer is breaking the UCMJ labor laws, that needs to be treated seriously. 

No getting yelled at is not a labor violation, but this is all a non-sequitur to begin with. Military work place violations are still... workplace violations. the UCMJ applies. No one in the military wants to be in an environment where they can not trust those around them to do the right thing when it counts. 

[leadeater]

18 hours ago, wanderingfool2 said:

Except the thing is people are still taking the LMG thing as being the truth, and worse yet assuming that Madison's claims were false.

 

We cannot assess it either way, and we do not have the 3rd party.  I'm not saying it's our responsibility to get to the bottom of it; but it's also equally bad to let a statement like LMG's be treated as ground truth.

 

It's a public accusation that Madison did, and the response by LMG has been public as well.  Again, my issue with the majority of people here is assuming that LMG's statement accounts for the truth and statement of the 3rd party; which is wrong.

 

Again, asking to publish the findings because they stated it.  Yes they don't have to, but 100% it's a valid criticism and a point to make when judging.

And if it were Jim's Plumbers Emporium you'd never have heard about it. So why is it you feel the need to get involved here? Because it's a YouTube company and they have a public presence? You think that is a good reason to poke noses in to HR issues? I don't.

 

Either do it for everyone, sleuth in to every business, every issue or respect privacy, use some common sense and know when things are appropriate or not.

 

18 hours ago, wanderingfool2 said:

Lawlz never denied the third party law firm worked on it.  Just mentioned that a lawyer might not have been involved in the investigation.

Again as far as I'm concerned that is one and the same. This is no better than conspiracy people. You have a direct statement and law firm named with no legitimate reason to make such a statement ergo making it means denying it.

 

Start and end of. It's facts of situation disputing when it doesn't need to be done. "I'm just questioning" is not good enough, it's a terrible excuse.

 

"We don't know if fire is hot". Yes we do, stop it with that nonsense.

[wasab]

2 hours ago, starsmine said:

You are required to follow all lawful orders, but yes if you are harassed in the military, the harasser gets court martialed, if your senior officer is breaking the UCMJ labor laws, that needs to be treated seriously. 

You and I are not talking about the same thing. Lets apply Madison's grievances to the military, they will have absolutely ZERO merits. 

 

case points: (i am using this articles here for references and i am comparing these to the military)

 

Quote

The upper management, reportedly, described her work as ‘dogshit‘ and termed her as ‘incompetent‘.

This is not illegal. Employer can call your work dogshit and you incompetent if that's how they feel. They can call you lazy and etc if that's how they feel. in fact, I can call you lazy, incompetent and etc here on this forum post if that's how i feel. It might be mean, distasteful, etc but not illegal. I have called people worse names than that, believe me and in the military, i bet that is the least a superior officer will say to you if they are genuinely pissed at you.

 

Quote

 She was subjected to a stressful working environment, being expected to make 3 Tweets, 2 Instagram Posts, and 2 TikToks at a minimum each day.

I have no idea what to make of this. Military can in fact have you fight battles in the rain, sleep deprived if that's whats necessary. go luck asking for a leave of absence during an emergency. Appiles to police officers and firefighters too. 

 

Quote

I was told to "calm my tits", "stop being such a bitch", and other comments to similar effects.

like i said, common verbal altercations, are nothing illegal. People say these to other people daily, happens all the time. I wont be able to call the cops and have people arrested if some assholes said this to me even if i wanted to. Dont people say these in the military as well? you are a liar if you tell me a no.

 

Quote

At one point, Madison was told that here issues were due to ‘sexual tension‘ and she was told to ‘take the co-worker out on a coffee date to ease it out‘.

this is the only part that deserves some merit, some sexual misconduct allegations and etc. However, like all cases, this has to be examine critically. For this to be sexual harassment, it as to be a prolonged occurrence and as genuine attempt at abusing power to gain sexual favors. i can very well imagine people saying this to anyone but not as actual abuse and sexual harassment but just some scornful remarks. Like i said, it has to be real attempt to gain sexual favors by abusing ones power dynamics and it has to be a regular occurrence. so far, I have not seen or heard anything that indicates this.

 

also heard some stuff about onlyfans. these are such ridiculous arguments and i have greatly debunked it in the past, so i will not mention it any more than i have already. 

 

[starsmine]

21 minutes ago, wasab said:

You and I are not talking about the same thing. Lets apply Madison's grievances to the military, they will have absolutely ZERO merits. 

 

case points: (i am using this articles here for references and i am comparing these to the military)

 

This is not illegal. Employer can call your work dogshit and you incompetent if that's how they feel. They can call you lazy and etc if that's how they feel. in fact, I can call you lazy, incompetent and etc here on this forum post if that's how i feel. It might be mean, distasteful, etc but not illegal. I have called people worse names than that, believe me and in the military, i bet that is the least a superior officer will say to you if they are genuinely pissed at you.

bro, that is not true to say it has zero merits. 
SAPR
https://ffr.cnic.navy.mil/Family-Readiness/Fleet-And-Family-Support-Program/Sexual-Assault-Prevention-and-Response-SAPR/
https://www.sapr.mil/
be familiar with it. 

21 minutes ago, wasab said:

I have no idea what to make of this. Military can in fact have you fight battles in the rain, sleep deprived if that's whats necessary. go luck asking for a leave of absence during an emergency. Appiles to police officers and firefighters too. 

What you make of it is that you have literally no idea what the job entails. The point isn't to post, the point is to make engaging novel content inside of a brand scope. You can distill any job into sounding easy. 

There is a reason LMG who only posts 1-2 videos a day has dozens of writers and editors, because you need new ideas for those and you still see them regularly recycle content. 

21 minutes ago, wasab said:

like i said, common verbal altercations, are nothing illegal. People say these to other people daily, happens all the time. I wont be able to call the cops and have you arrested if some assholes said this to me even if i wanted to. Dont people ever say these in the military as well, you are a liar if you tell me a no.

They CAN be illegal in certain situations. But this is also the weakest defense. Toxic workplace is toxic but not toxic enough to be illegal so its alright to be toxic? no. Toxic is toxic, get out of here with that. when you are trying to be productive, what is the OPPOSITE of productive? toxic shit. and workplace harassment that gets to the level of a hostile workplace environment IS illegal anyways. 

21 minutes ago, wasab said:

this is the only part that deserves some merit, some sexual misconduct allegations and etc. However, like all cases, this has to be examine critically. For this to be sexual harassment, it as to be an prolonged occurrence as genuine attempt at abusing power to gain sexual favors. i can very well imagine people saying this to anyone but not as actual abuse and sexual harassment but just some scornful remarks. Like is said, it has to be real attempt to gain sexual favors by abusing ones power dynamics and it has to be a regular occurrence.

Cool you don't even know what harassment even is. That might be the fundamental issue here. 

I dont know I read this and im just tired, its just a firehose of meh. 

[wasab]

21 minutes ago, starsmine said:

bro, that is not true to say it has zero merits. 
SAPR
https://ffr.cnic.navy.mil/Family-Readiness/Fleet-And-Family-Support-Program/Sexual-Assault-Prevention-and-Response-SAPR/
https://www.sapr.mil/

dude, you did not read the whole posts before typing this. i clearly said I don't believe these are sexual assaults. 

 

21 minutes ago, starsmine said:

What you make of it is that you have literally no idea what the job entails. The point isn't to post, the point is to make engaging novel content. You can distill any job into sounding easy. 

you are telling me either she does not have the skills hence incompetent or that is "overworked" which I can easily compare to worse jobs with no such bad response from the public crowd. 

 

21 minutes ago, starsmine said:

They CAN be illegal in certain situations. But this is also the weakest defense. Toxic workplace is toxic but not toxic enough to be illegal so its alright to be toxic? no. Toxic is toxic, get out of here with that. when you are trying to be productive, what is the OPPOSITE of productive? toxic shit. 

right, i can call you an asshole and toxic. Do you think that merits a witch hunt, a public outlash, and a criminal persecution like what the drama mobs are seeking here? I will laugh you out the windows in a court room

 

21 minutes ago, starsmine said:

Cool you don't even know what harassment even is. That might be the fundamental issue here

only the ignorant calls another ignorant. 

[starsmine]

11 minutes ago, wasab said:

you are telling me either she does not have the skills hence incompetent or that is "overworked" which I can easily compare to worse jobs with no such bad response from the public crowd. 

they have a whole team for social media now, rather then one person. Shocker, its almost like it was a job for more then one person. 

[wasab]

18 minutes ago, starsmine said:

they have a whole team for social media now, rather then one person. 

To make 3 Tweets, 2 Instagram Posts, and 2 TikToks? I doubt it. 

 

Lastly, if she can't get along with so many of her bosses and coworkers, I doubt the company workplace culture is the issue considering there are other females employees besides her. I am gonna take a neutral stance and say there isn't anything wrong with her either but she just doesn't fit in. The company culture isn't for her. It is not a toxic culture but is one that doesn't fit her. Like what those job seekers should say in a new job interview when asked why they were fired. "I get along with other people mostly fine. It just happened to be one of those rare bad cases of people chemistry I suppose." Don't go badmouthing a former employer or a former employee. That is more of a ground for a legal lawsuit if anything. 

 

i would say LMG handled everything properly and in the ethical and proper manner in the case of Madison. GN's initial response is a different matter but that's a different topic.