Technology
This is the official technology community of Lemmy.ml for all news related to creation and use of technology, and to facilitate civil, meaningful discussion around it.
Ask in DM before posting product reviews or ads. All such posts otherwise are subject to removal.
Rules:
1: All Lemmy rules apply
2: Do not post low effort posts
3: NEVER post naziped*gore stuff
4: Always post article URLs or their archived version URLs as sources, NOT screenshots. Help the blind users.
5: personal rants of Big Tech CEOs like Elon Musk are unwelcome (does not include posts about their companies affecting wide range of people)
6: no advertisement posts unless verified as legitimate and non-exploitative/non-consumerist
7: crypto related posts, unless essential, are disallowed
view the rest of the comments
This reads like every rape apologist asking why the person didn't react like your idea of an "ideal victim".
To be clear I'm NOT saying that you would ever help create a permissive environment that passively encourages the type of behaviors described in her post, my question is just why you'd feel compelled to write 750 words of "I'm just asking" around your structural dismissal?
Wouldn't you realize that you're parroting a rhetorical style that has been used to justify and paper over mistreatment of women in business and personal settings? If this were a good faith statement why would it repeat every trope trotted out by Joe Tacopina?
I just don't know, I'm not saying I do or do not think that OP's statement is an example of unwitting enrollment in institutional sexism, or whether I do or do not think it's trolling.
I just don't know.
I don't think OP has any reason to side with Linus here, I think the thrust is just that there's only two pieces of evidence here, and both from people with opposite motives.
I'm more likely to believe Madison here, but I think there's a good chance she's overreacting too. It seems she was treated poorly, and that makes it easier to justify exaggeration.
I'm not particularly hopeful that an external investigation will really help here (after all, they're likely being paid by LMG), so I'm hopeful that some current or previous employees can corroborate at least some of the claims.
So I guess I'm kind of siding with the OP here, I'm going to reserve judgement until I have more evidence. If I had to pick today, I'd probably side with Madison because her motives to lie are weaker.
Even if the external investigators are good and it is truly the intention of upper management to get to the bottom of it and they are fully prepared to fire anyone who did something wrong, (I'm not casting doubt on their motives) I truly believe that the external investigation will clear them or they'll point to 1 person and fire them.
Reason being is memories fade, fear of reprisals, people make excuses or believe certain things weren't as they were, and there is likely not a lot written down.
Unfortunately, it's likely to be a he said/she said situation.
True. However, I can hope that, as a small-ish SM company, they'll care enough to be more transparent than that.
$100M sounds like a lot for a company, but that's still pretty small potatoes when it comes to companies. Some bad press could see a lot of viewers leave and the company could go under (or drastically scale back) very quickly. That's just the nature of SM.
I think you're probably right, but I'm optimistic that LMG will do more than most larger corporations do. I'm not expecting it though, just hopeful.
I never said that OP was "siding with Linus", I said OP was using a rhetorical style that can be used to dismiss/minimize claims from pretty much anybody, regardless of the situation.
I wanted to call OP's attention to the fact that that style of argumentation is used in bad faith more often than not.
More than a couple people in my life have been sexually assaulted and if you've ever actually been close to somebody who has, the callousness of the "well why didn't you..." line of nitpicking is glaring.
Oh, I completely agree. I think the default should always be to side with the victim, even if there's a good reason to doubt them.
I just think we sometimes go too far and ignore the other side when it doesn't line up with what the victim says. Weigh the evidence and the motives of each party before making a decision. The bigger the power difference between the two, the more you should suspect the larger party of malice.
I'm more reacting to the strength of the language here, not the general idea.
I had a false accusation of sexual assault leveled against me in a court filing (as soon as we got in front of a judge it got tossed). It is pretty awful to have something like that stated about you in an official document, even when the outcome is "Dismissed".
And fwiw, to take the Carroll case in NY, I thought the line of argument "she can't remember what year it was?" was a pretty reasonable thing to have doubts about.
I'm talking about social media reactions here, not police policy.
The police should always assume innocence unless you have proof to the contrary, because the opposite is a potential loss of liberty for innocent people. If you're a regular joe, you should side with the victim until the other side posts evidence to the contrary, because the opposite is potentially normalizing bad behavior of people in power.
I wasn't trying to dismiss what Madison said she went through, I want her to get justice if she went through it. I was trying to just say there are a few pieces of concrete evidence and the rest is he said she said, and I was also just trying to think aloud about what factors could have coalesced into the current situation.
The 750 words of "I'm just asking" are just from a combination of I talk/explain a lot and I also just wanted to be very clear that I wasn't dismissing the subject because I am staunchly anti-harassment and abuse (also people on the internet notoriously can misinterpret/misunderstand things, including me)
Did that address everything?
Yup.