: It doesn't but I'd rather have your last reply than a "shut up worthless goldie" type of reply lol
> [{quoted}](name=HommeGoujon,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=b228A87o,comment-id=00010000000000000000000000000000,timestamp=2018-11-20T17:44:50.507+0000) > > It doesn't but I'd rather have your last reply than a "shut up worthless goldie" type of reply lol That's not what I said. I said anyone who doesn't play at a high level doesn't understand the underpinnings of the game mechanics to a sufficient degree to be able to speak with any authority on the matter.
SEKAI (OCE)
: > [{quoted}](name=Unwardil,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=44dK3pqU,comment-id=000000000000000000000000000000000000,timestamp=2018-11-20T16:46:56.010+0000) > > They asked how it was diverse, I gave them the answer. Of course it's incomprehensible, feminism IS incomprehensible. The answers you've given is completely faulty and lack in rational cohesion big time, and that is in reference to your OWN beliefs. You don't get to suddenly blame it on others as if it's their belief's fault that your belief is so messy and unintelligible. The only one who is incomprehensible here is you.
> [{quoted}](name=SEKAI,realm=OCE,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=44dK3pqU,comment-id=0000000000000000000000000000000000000000,timestamp=2018-11-20T16:51:45.436+0000) > > The answers you've given is completely faulty and lack in rational cohesion big time, and that is in reference to your OWN beliefs. You don't get to suddenly blame it on others as if it's their belief's fault that your belief is so messy and unintelligible. > > The only one who is incomprehensible here is you. Ok, what do YOU think feminist mean when they call something "diverse"?
: Condescending much?
> [{quoted}](name=HommeGoujon,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=b228A87o,comment-id=000100000000000000000000,timestamp=2018-11-20T16:48:29.203+0000) > > Condescending much? Doesn't make it less true though does it? Fact is, this game has always been and must always been balanced primarily for top tier play. Garen seems very overbearing at low levels, but once your team learns to work together, he just sucks ass. He doesn't have pentakill potential, he's not even a great splitpusher. He's an OK splitpusher, but he's no Jax.
SEKAI (OCE)
: > [{quoted}](name=Unwardil,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=44dK3pqU,comment-id=0000000000000000000000000000,timestamp=2018-11-20T15:33:16.570+0000) > > Yup, and if you take the position that you ARE what you self identify as, then doesn't it follow? > > And I will not be trolled on the Kayn thing. That was just a good joke and you all know it. You are not making much sense. This is a video game, and not only a video game, but a roster based game where kits are intrinsically tied to a pre-established character. It's impossible that the character you play as is going to be identical to you because you don't make the character to play; I have no idea what you're even asking for here. And the vast majority of people don't pick characters based on personal identification. Your impression of everyone picking their character because they supposedly have some close intimate personal connection with or something is once again, something you've pulled out of the aether. If anything, most people either play a character because they fulfill a certain form of power fantasy of theirs in terms of gameplay elements, just to play the meta-game, or because the character is their waifu or something. And you know this. And also, any fictional story, especially one concerning fucking legends and gods and shit, is never going to involve just humans as characters, as that would be a total waste of the setting. Your implied quest of trying to make League about playing human characters or whatnot is never going to happen in a fantasy setting. And lastly, people who play animal and non-human characters for the very most part have nothing to do with otherkin or whatnot. Because again, the vast majority of the time it's just Anthropomorphism. It's no different to the little activity people sometimes have about finding their spirit animal or something, and it has nothing to do with mentally identifying as a wild animal. It's just "I think that's cool", and that's it. ..... And your post makes even less sense in that last part. So you're saying the Kayn joke "was just a good joke". So you're also agreeing on that Kayn has no factor of sexuality in his design given the only thing that has anything to do with it was that joke... so what was "Kayn is gay" all about? I don't get it.
> [{quoted}](name=SEKAI,realm=OCE,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=44dK3pqU,comment-id=00000000000000000000000000000000,timestamp=2018-11-20T16:17:06.074+0000) > > You are not making much sense. > > This is a video game, and not only a video game, but a roster based game where kits are intrinsically tied to a pre-established character. It's impossible that the character you play as is going to be identical to you because you don't make the character to play; I have no idea what you're even asking for here. > > And the vast majority of people don't pick characters based on personal identification. Your impression of everyone picking their character because they supposedly have some close intimate personal connection with or something is once again, something you've pulled out of the aether. If anything, most people either play a character because they fulfill a certain form of power fantasy of theirs in terms of gameplay elements, just to play the meta-game, or because the character is their waifu or something. And you know this. > > And also, any fictional story, especially one concerning fucking legends and gods and shit, is never going to involve just humans as characters, as that would be a total waste of the setting. Your implied quest of trying to make League about playing human characters or whatnot is never going to happen in a fantasy setting. > > And lastly, people who play animal and non-human characters for the very most part have nothing to do with otherkin or whatnot. Because again, the vast majority of the time it's just Anthropomorphism. It's no different to the little activity people sometimes have about finding their spirit animal or something, and it has nothing to do with mentally identifying as a wild animal. It's just "I think that's cool", and that's it. > > ..... > > And your post makes even less sense in that last part. So you're saying the Kayn joke "was just a good joke". So you're also agreeing on that Kayn has no factor of sexuality in his design given the only thing that has anything to do with it was that joke... so what was "Kayn is gay" all about? > > I don't get it. They asked how it was diverse, I gave them the answer. Of course it's incomprehensible, feminism IS incomprehensible.
: That's funny that your definition of "outplay" is "avoid to fight him" "You ward, you dash, you go over a wall". I agree with the rest. Since I'm in Gold I still have a hard time laning against Garen because he gets mercury's and still deals more dmg than me. If I'm 60% hp or lower under my turret I have to recall or he'll flash+q+ult+ignite (just in case) my face. I know as Renekton it's supposed to be an "easy" matchup but I still struggle so much against him... like out of 12 times I've encountered him, I won twice only because I got carried lol With time I'll understand how to play against him but for now he's permabanned for me :)
> [{quoted}](name=HommeGoujon,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=b228A87o,comment-id=0001000000000000,timestamp=2018-11-20T15:33:17.091+0000) > > That's funny that your definition of "outplay" is "avoid to fight him" "You ward, you dash, you go over a wall". > I agree with the rest. Since I'm in Gold I still have a hard time laning against Garen because he gets mercury's and still deals more dmg than me. If I'm 60% hp or lower under my turret I have to recall or he'll flash+q+ult+ignite (just in case) my face. > I know as Renekton it's supposed to be an "easy" matchup but I still struggle so much against him... like out of 12 times I've encountered him, I won twice only because I got carried lol > With time I'll understand how to play against him but for now he's permabanned for me :) If you're in gold, you dont get to have opinions on what is overpowered and what isnt. If you understood the game on a higher level, you would be able to reach at least platinum.
SEKAI (OCE)
: > [{quoted}](name=Unwardil,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=44dK3pqU,comment-id=00000000000000000000,timestamp=2018-11-20T14:53:52.320+0000) > > You don't understand what feminists mean by "diverse" do you? > > An otherkin is someone who identifies as some kind of mythical creature like a dragon or a Minotaur. It's a thing, look it up. > > Kayn absolutely is gay, play against him for 3 games in a row and you'll see what I mean. Ornn is quite literally a god or at least demi-god in the League-verse. If you haven't noticed, gods in classical legends tend to have pretty wild designs and a lot of animal-human hybrids. This is simple Anthropomorphism and has been with human literature since the dawn of time, maybe you should actually look things up instead of relying your information off your clearly under-informed head. And Kayn's sexuality is unknown. There was only that 1 joke from Riot which they quickly clarified it to be a joke. And in-game, Kayn has 0 mention or reference of his sexuality.
> [{quoted}](name=SEKAI,realm=OCE,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=44dK3pqU,comment-id=000000000000000000000000,timestamp=2018-11-20T15:14:03.499+0000) > > Ornn is quite literally a god or at least demi-god in the League-verse. If you haven't noticed, gods in classical legends tend to have pretty wild designs and a lot of animal-human hybrids. This is simple Anthropomorphism and has been with human literature since the dawn of time, maybe you should actually look things up instead of relying your information off your clearly under-informed head. > > And Kayn's sexuality is unknown. There was only that 1 joke from Riot which they quickly clarified it to be a joke. And in-game, Kayn has 0 mention or reference of his sexuality. Yup, and if you take the position that you ARE what you self identify as, then doesn't it follow? And I will not be trolled on the Kayn thing. That was just a good joke and you all know it.
: So you're telling me that Garen is immobile? Huh?
> [{quoted}](name=IT EnJhineer,realm=EUW,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=b228A87o,comment-id=00020000,timestamp=2018-11-20T14:52:45.422+0000) > > So you're telling me that Garen is immobile? Huh? Compared to literally every champion with a wall-clearing dash, yes. You know, all of them in games above gold.
usul1202 (NA)
: 51% of the population is female, not that diverse. Gender queer? She's specified as female afaik. The fuck is an otherkin? He's a ram. Just like alistar is a cow and rammus is an armadillo, like they made classic champs. Is kayn even canonically gay? Not a single one of his voice lines or interactions gives me that impression, so as someone that plays the game more than spends time on the boards, I don't see how it matters. (if he is, more power to'em, they managed to portray a gay how most are, completely the same as everyone else)
> [{quoted}](name=usul1202,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=44dK3pqU,comment-id=0000000000000000,timestamp=2018-11-20T14:51:19.202+0000) > > 51% of the population is female, not that diverse. > > Gender queer? She's specified as female afaik. > > The fuck is an otherkin? He's a ram. Just like alistar is a cow and rammus is an armadillo, like they made classic champs. > > Is kayn even canonically gay? Not a single one of his voice lines or interactions gives me that impression, so as someone that plays the game more than spends time on the boards, I don't see how it matters. (if he is, more power to'em, they managed to portray a gay how most are, completely the same as everyone else) You don't understand what feminists mean by "diverse" do you? An otherkin is someone who identifies as some kind of mythical creature like a dragon or a Minotaur. It's a thing, look it up. Kayn absolutely is gay, play against him for 3 games in a row and you'll see what I mean.
: How do you outplay him when he's running at you with 400ms while being immune to CC and hitting you with a point and click spell that does half of your hp and silences you, then hits you with another point and click spell that depletes the other half?
> [{quoted}](name=IT EnJhineer,realm=EUW,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=b228A87o,comment-id=00010000,timestamp=2018-11-20T14:47:55.045+0000) > > How do you outplay him when he's running at you with 400ms while being immune to CC and hitting you with a point and click spell that does half of your hp and silences you, then hits you with another point and click spell that depletes the other half? You ward, you dash, you go over a wall, there are a million and 1 ways to outplay a Garen no matter how much money he's got. Garen's simply cannot carry a game single-handedly above Gold. He's in the perfect spot.
DeIli (NA)
: > [{quoted}](name=Unwardil,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=44dK3pqU,comment-id=000000010000,timestamp=2018-11-20T14:44:09.914+0000) > > The last champ they designed that I really wanted to play and played the shit out of was Vi. I loved everything about her. > > Got any more passive aggressive accusations to hurl at me? It's not really an accusation if you straight up say that you think Riot only designs "feminist" champs bud
> [{quoted}](name=DeIli,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=44dK3pqU,comment-id=0000000100000000,timestamp=2018-11-20T14:46:34.257+0000) > > It's not really an accusation if you straight up say that you think Riot only designs "feminist" champs bud Yes it is. The accusation is that I have something against women and minorities. I don't. I have something against feminism. The thing I have against feminism is that it ruins everything good that it touches. They are not the same thing.
SljAm (EUNE)
: Garen is too Strong
Wrong. The fact that he can kill you if you don't outplay him means he is perfectly balanced, because the other thing that's true about Garen is that money is almost completely wasted on him, because it doesn't matter how fed he gets, it is almost impossible for him to win the game except by split pushing and you CAN ALWAYS outplay him.
saltran (EUW)
: Man this is terrible, the feminists are corrupting our vydyagems and putting women and minorities in. We need to RISE UP
> [{quoted}](name=saltran,realm=EUW,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=44dK3pqU,comment-id=00000001,timestamp=2018-11-20T14:28:27.841+0000) > > Man this is terrible, the feminists are corrupting our vydyagems and putting women and minorities in. > > We need to RISE UP The last champ they designed that I really wanted to play and played the shit out of was Vi. I loved everything about her. Got any more passive aggressive accusations to hurl at me?
DeIli (NA)
: > [{quoted}](name=Unwardil,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=44dK3pqU,comment-id=0000,timestamp=2018-11-20T14:25:05.666+0000) > > I think the answer is very obvious. We will never have another one, because Riot drank the feminist coolaid so if a new champ isn't "diverse" (and you know what I mean by that) there's no chance in hell it even gets off the drawing table. How is Kai'sa diverse? How is Zoe diverse? How is a big fuckin ram (ornn) diverse? Kayn? I'm confused where you're getting this.
> [{quoted}](name=DeIli,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=44dK3pqU,comment-id=00000000,timestamp=2018-11-20T14:28:10.632+0000) > > How is Kai'sa diverse? How is Zoe diverse? How is a big fuckin ram (ornn) diverse? Kayn? I'm confused where you're getting this. Kaisa = Woman Zoe = Gender queer Ornn = Otherkin Kayne = Gay Next question.
: Okay enough of fairy cute crazy champions for now when will we get a classic champ again ?
I think the answer is very obvious. We will never have another one, because Riot drank the feminist coolaid so if a new champ isn't "diverse" (and you know what I mean by that) there's no chance in hell it even gets off the drawing table.
monkSKETO (EUNE)
: When was the last time a REAL WARRIOR has released? all the champs right now are some anime BS
They should just call Neeko what it really is. The fucking gender unicorn. I agree with op.
SEKAI (OCE)
: @OP, The thing you had an outcry about has literally nothing to do with the current lawsuit; in fact, it's basically the direct opposite. The crusade you'd led was you lashing out against Riot's statements earlier that they wanted to foster a more gender-equal environment to promote diversity and inclusive-ness, where you continuously demanded Riot to provide you with evidence that directly shows better working environment translates to better product (and many people spent most of their time in your threads telling you that it is either loosely but not really connected or that it does translate to positive result, which you just ignore all of it and spam 1 thread after another on the same topic), and remained the opinion exactly where you started that this workplace protocol upgrade is utterly unneeded. And this article and the current lawsuit, is the evidence why exact it IS indeed needed. If anything, this article actually destroys your previous argument, and not strengthening it. ........ You may want to stop patting yourself on the back, and actually read the article.
> [{quoted}](name=SEKAI,realm=OCE,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=ws5r6u2w,comment-id=0003,timestamp=2018-11-08T15:10:55.756+0000) > > @OP, > The crusade you'd led was you lashing out against Riot's statements earlier that they wanted to foster a more gender-equal environment to promote diversity and inclusive-ness, where you continuously demanded Riot to provide you with evidence that directly shows better working environment translates to better product (and many people spent most of their time in your threads telling you that it is either loosely but not really connected or that it does translate to positive result, which you just ignore all of it and spam 1 thread after another on the same topic), and remained the opinion exactly where you started that this workplace protocol upgrade is utterly unneeded. > I did mention all this stuff... Though you miss characterize my argument here, but regardless, this was always an adjacent point to the one I was making. My first and most strident point is that you NEVER apologize to ideologues. They use language as a weapon and use your apology as an admission of guilt and the guilty must be punished so you will never stop being punished. The adjacent point to that one that you brought up is that the only way Riot can atone, which I think is the right word with these people, is to go full on woke SJW. Now we can see what happens when they try doing that, you get the PAX fiasco, which will only alienate their player base. Their, and get ready to clutch your pearls on this admonishment, OVERWHELMINGLY MALE PLAYER BASE! Shocker, 95% of the community didn't take kindly to being locked out of an event they put on and when they called Riot on it, the ideologues within their ranks showed themselves for what they really are. Nothing but vindictive and resentful gender bigots who have a chip on their shoulder to rival Gragas' gut. And so Riot was forced to let those people go for the very simple reason that you can't have employees going around telling your customers to kill themselves on social media and how does the media report it? As if Riot isn't taking their pledge to atone seriously enough. My initial point stands, Riot did nothing wrong. It isn't wrong to have 90% male player base. It isn't wrong to have a workforce that is 90% male so long as you are using equal opportunity hiring policies. Don't apologize when you have done nothing wrong. It isn't wrong to have a company culture that some of your employees don't like. Nobody has the "right" to work at Riot. If you're not right for the job, you can find another one. Two ideologically possessed employees out of thousands making allegations of "bro culture" does not a problem make. Christ it doesn't even represent a pattern in the loosest sense of the word. That's like saying that because you saw this game where Jarvan went 15-0-0 as botlane ADC in a silver game that ADC Jarvan should be nerfed. That's stupid and I don't need to explain why it's stupid because it is self evidently stupid. These allegations of sexual misconduct are the same level of self evident stupidity, but it's like Riot immediately put out a press release apologizing profusely for their failure to balance Jarvan for the bot lane in low tier play and promising to overhaul their entire balancing process in the future no matter the cost. Does that sound like a good idea to you? Like, imagine, every time someone had a remarkably good or bad game on a non-meta pick, if Riot immediately started monkeying with the balance? I mean, I guess we shouldn't be surprised they reacted this way, it's actually very much in keeping with their character the more I describe it, but I guess my point is, do you think that will work? Has it ever? Exactly.
: > [{quoted}](name=Unwardil,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=ws5r6u2w,comment-id=00000001,timestamp=2018-11-07T17:10:59.834+0000) > > Well, my initial point after their response to the Kotaku article is that they shouldn't have apologized because they didn't do anything wrong. I argued that they would be continually bombarded with this kind of thing no matter how much they flagellate themselves upon the altar of social justice. As I said, I'm a bloody prophet. You are not a prophet. No matter if they'd apologized or not, this lawsuit would have happened because a lot of the stuff listed in it, such as Riot not firing an employee who raped another employee, along with the unequal pay and gender discrimination, can absolutely be confirmed and taken to court WITHOUT Riot saying sorry. There are some limits that shouldn't be stepped past, even by people trying to defy political correctness, and not firing rapists is one of them.
> [{quoted}](name=Oleandervine,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=ws5r6u2w,comment-id=000000010000,timestamp=2018-11-07T17:18:43.763+0000) > > You are not a prophet. No matter if they'd apologized or not, this lawsuit would have happened because a lot of the stuff listed in it, such as Riot not firing an employee who raped another employee, along with the unequal pay and gender discrimination, can absolutely be confirmed and taken to court WITHOUT Riot saying sorry. > > There are some limits that shouldn't be stepped past, even by people trying to defy political correctness, and not firing rapists is one of them. Yes, but would they be bombarded in the press on a monthly basis for it had they told Kotaku where they could stick it?
: Lol. My wife hates people like that as they are the reason she works 15+ hours a day in order differentiate herself from them. If you work as hard as your male counterparts you will get paid as much as your male counterparts. The problem stems from women being worse at both demanding to be paid what they are worth and doing significantly less overtime which means they get less promotions and merit pay.
> [{quoted}](name=Jorencice,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=ws5r6u2w,comment-id=0000,timestamp=2018-11-07T16:30:21.552+0000) > > Lol. > > My wife hates people like that as they are the reason she works 15+ hours a day in order differentiate herself from them. > > If you work as hard as your male counterparts you will get paid as much as your male counterparts. > > The problem stems from women being worse at both demanding to be paid what they are worth and doing significantly less overtime which means they get less promotions and merit pay. Well, my initial point after their response to the Kotaku article is that they shouldn't have apologized because they didn't do anything wrong. I argued that they would be continually bombarded with this kind of thing no matter how much they flagellate themselves upon the altar of social justice. As I said, I'm a bloody prophet.
Rioter Comments
Rioter Comments
Vekkna (NA)
: >Maybe you could be thankful for the kick in the ass you needed to get your life together. Maybe that pain and suffering did some good, you ever think of that? Obvious every straight-A, well-behaved teenager just needs a little homelessness to get their life together. Most fucking idiotic thing I've ever read. >it's not perfect, but NOTHING'S bloody perfect. It's a hell of a lot better now than it used to be and if you don't believe that, GO TO SAUDI ARABIA! GO TO PAKISTAN! That's obviously true. You'll notice a pattern in the right wing and the left wing. The right wing says that we cannot *afford* any progressive change because it will lead to the catastrophic bottom of a slippery slope. The left wing says that we never *achieve* any progressive change. This is no doubt the source of your frustration with lefties for whom the perfect is always the enemy of the good. On the flipside, I'm sure you can see why I would be frustrated with your position, which is that any grassroots push for equality (polite or not) is nothing but a pretext for the total annihilation of everything you hold dear. On my side, I completely recognize why it's easy to be frustrated with people who seem impossible to satisfy and always want more, more, more. What I just described is literally the entire history of American society in a nutshell. That's how it has always been, and we will all be dead before that cycle has ended. For some minority groups, the end of the cycle is full and seamless integration into society. Just look at how Catholics, Evangelicals, and unpopular European immigrant minorities are off the margins and into the mainstream. Gays have moved further in a shorter period of time than perhaps any other group. Women and racial minorities have also moved a very long way but at an excruciatingly glacial pace. >So what happens when Riot changes their culture to be more inclusive to women? The answer is what we are currently seeing in the game. It's becoming a game that we don't want to play anymore because it doesn't share the values that attracted us to it in the first place. So if Riot chases after that mythological female gamer, they will end up creating a game that men no longer want to play. The teams responsible for the devolution of the game are management, balance, and champion design. That's like 98% men, and you're seriously blaming their awful work on *women?* Are you high? Here's a complete list of champions designed by women: * Lux * Pantheon * Ezreal (rework) * Master Yi (rework) * Ryze (first rework) * Sona (rework) But go ahead and blame them because you don't want to play League anymore. Super logical, bro. What you just said makes me sick for a number of reasons. The first is that any game that appeals to women is automatically *un*appealing to men. We already know that's total horseshit because League already has champions that are exceptionally popular and appealing to women, and none of them destroyed the game...until Zoe. Secondly, I would argue that an enormous number of players were drawn into League in the first place because they saw splash art long before logging into the game. The game looked like dogshit when I started playing it, and there's no way I would have picked it up without spash art hard-selling the fantasy. Guess what - that department is the most heavily populated by women.
> [{quoted}](name=Vekkna,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=ZevgE3fw,comment-id=0005,timestamp=2018-10-16T22:09:59.245+0000) > > Obvious every straight-A, well-behaved teenager just needs a little homelessness to get their life together. Most fucking idiotic thing I've ever read. > > That's obviously true. You'll notice a pattern in the right wing and the left wing. The right wing says that we cannot *afford* any progressive change because it will lead to the catastrophic bottom of a slippery slope. The left wing says that we never *achieve* any progressive change. This is no doubt the source of your frustration with lefties for whom the perfect is always the enemy of the good. > > On the flipside, I'm sure you can see why I would be frustrated with your position, which is that any grassroots push for equality (polite or not) is nothing but a pretext for the total annihilation of everything you hold dear. On my side, I completely recognize why it's easy to be frustrated with people who seem impossible to satisfy and always want more, more, more. > > What I just described is literally the entire history of American society in a nutshell. That's how it has always been, and we will all be dead before that cycle has ended. For some minority groups, the end of the cycle is full and seamless integration into society. Just look at how Catholics, Evangelicals, and unpopular European immigrant minorities are off the margins and into the mainstream. Gays have moved further in a shorter period of time than perhaps any other group. Women and racial minorities have also moved a very long way but at an excruciatingly glacial pace. > > The teams responsible for the devolution of the game are management, balance, and champion design. That's like 98% men, and you're seriously blaming their awful work on *women?* Are you high? > > Here's a complete list of champions designed by women: > * Lux > * Pantheon > * Ezreal (rework) > * Master Yi (rework) > * Ryze (first rework) > * Sona (rework) > > But go ahead and blame them because you don't want to play League anymore. Super logical, bro. > > What you just said makes me sick for a number of reasons. The first is that any game that appeals to women is automatically *un*appealing to men. We already know that's total horseshit because League already has champions that are exceptionally popular and appealing to women, and none of them destroyed the game...until Zoe. > > Secondly, I would argue that an enormous number of players were drawn into League in the first place because they saw splash art long before logging into the game. The game looked like dogshit when I started playing it, and there's no way I would have picked it up without spash art hard-selling the fantasy. Guess what - that department is the most heavily populated by women. I do blame them and I liked the game A LOT better when it looked like dogshit. It looked like a game that knew what was important to me. And yes, it is the case that if you make it a game that more women will like, then less men will like it. Just because it makes you sick doesn't mean it isn't true because facts don't care about your feelings.
Vekkna (NA)
: >There's a very well documented psychological reason why this happens to women disproportionately to men and it's because women are, on average, higher in a personality trait called Agreeability. It isn't because men are sexist and ignore women, not entirely, it's because temperamentally women will sacrifice their own well being for the sake of others disproportionately to men. So when I talk about "systemic problems with sexism" at Riot, this is what I'm referring to. For whatever reason, the system rewards self-promotion more than *literally doing the job.* You're right about women (as a whole) excelling in certain skills relative to men, but systemic sexism arises when competent, capable women are passed over in hiring/promotion because the male-typical qualities are more heavily favored - not always out of conscious sexism or bias but because we're all trained to associate male-typical qualities with success. Reasonable people can disagree about the solution to this problem, but the problem exists because of sexism layered upon sexism. Girls are ingrained with the spirit of cooperation, and boys are ingrained with the spirit of competition. Girls are taught (or show by society) that aggressive and ambitious women are bitches. Men are taught that those same qualities are necessary to get ahead and win respect. It's worth noting here that this sort of cultural cradle-to-grave sex stereotyping is also unspeakably damaging to men who fail to sufficiently conform. For whatever reason, the anti-"SJW" redpill sort of crowd is perfectly fine with that sort of social self-abuse. But I digress... You can help solve systemic disadvantages faced by women in a variety of ways. The easiest and most applicable to Riot is to simply train their management and HR on how to better recognize and evaluate competency in the absence of self-promotion and self-advocacy. These sorts of things can be done to recognize and compensate excellence for what it is instead of arbitrarily passing over excellence that isn't presented in male-typical ways. I'm not saying that society needs to be completely re-engineered to favor women; not by a longshot. A big part of solving this problem on the macro level begins with allowing women to be ambitious and self-selling without calling it "shrill" and "bitchy." It's also important to do a better job of teaching girls the value of their work and how to better advocate for their own interests. We're getting there in fits and starts, but it's obviously slow going. > It doesn't require the system to be imbalanced in favor of men for that outcome to occur disproportionately to women, quite the opposite, that is what you SHOULD expect to see if the system is completely fair and balanced. I would argue that a fair system recognizes and rewards self-sacrifice in a team-based business model like Riot's. I think you're right that men often *present* as better candidates, despite the fact that every scrap of research on this subject suggests that a team-based cooperative environment is where women excel and thrive. It's sort of like a game of League where the carry asks for honors for a high kill count, but the meat-wall tank and loyal support are actually more responsible for the win.
> [{quoted}](name=Vekkna,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=ZevgE3fw,comment-id=0004,timestamp=2018-10-16T21:17:27.473+0000) > > So when I talk about "systemic problems with sexism" at Riot, this is what I'm referring to. For whatever reason, the system rewards self-promotion more than *literally doing the job.* You're right about women (as a whole) excelling in certain skills relative to men, but systemic sexism arises when competent, capable women are passed over in hiring/promotion because the male-typical qualities are more heavily favored - not always out of conscious sexism or bias but because we're all trained to associate male-typical qualities with success. > > Reasonable people can disagree about the solution to this problem, but the problem exists because of sexism layered upon sexism. Girls are ingrained with the spirit of cooperation, and boys are ingrained with the spirit of competition. Girls are taught (or show by society) that aggressive and ambitious women are bitches. Men are taught that those same qualities are necessary to get ahead and win respect. > > It's worth noting here that this sort of cultural cradle-to-grave sex stereotyping is also unspeakably damaging to men who fail to sufficiently conform. For whatever reason, the anti-"SJW" redpill sort of crowd is perfectly fine with that sort of social self-abuse. But I digress... > > You can help solve systemic disadvantages faced by women in a variety of ways. The easiest and most applicable to Riot is to simply train their management and HR on how to better recognize and evaluate competency in the absence of self-promotion and self-advocacy. These sorts of things can be done to recognize and compensate excellence for what it is instead of arbitrarily passing over excellence that isn't presented in male-typical ways. > > I'm not saying that society needs to be completely re-engineered to favor women; not by a longshot. A big part of solving this problem on the macro level begins with allowing women to be ambitious and self-selling without calling it "shrill" and "bitchy." It's also important to do a better job of teaching girls the value of their work and how to better advocate for their own interests. We're getting there in fits and starts, but it's obviously slow going. > > I would argue that a fair system recognizes and rewards self-sacrifice in a team-based business model like Riot's. I think you're right that men often *present* as better candidates, despite the fact that every scrap of research on this subject suggests that a team-based cooperative environment is where women excel and thrive. It's sort of like a game of League where the carry asks for honors for a high kill count, but the meat-wall tank and loyal support are actually more responsible for the win. Educate yourself on what actually makes men and women different. Search "the Scandinavian gender equality paradox" and you will see what I'm talking about. Here's a hint. It isn't societal pressure that's to blame. Not even close.
Unwardil (NA)
: Still think it was a good idea to apologize Riot?
cont... You make the allusion to women's softball. There's a problem here, which is that Riot doesn't make the equipment to play the game, they make THE ACTUAL GAME of softball. And that's why people really need to be up in arms, because you don't buy the game from Riot, you rent the right to play at the field. So to use a real life example here, it's like what happens when you let Trans-women compete in women's sports. You end up destroying women's sports because Trans-women are actually men and male athletes out-perform female athletes across every dimension of physical performance. There's no way around the fact that on average, men and faster, stronger and more dexterous than women. You plot that on a Bell curve and extend it to the tails of the distribution and you see why women can't compete with men in sports. So what happens when Riot changes their culture to be more inclusive to women? The answer is what we are currently seeing in the game. It's becoming a game that we don't want to play anymore because it doesn't share the values that attracted us to it in the first place. So if Riot chases after that mythological female gamer, they will end up creating a game that men no longer want to play.
Vekkna (NA)
: > [{quoted}](name=Unwardil,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=ZevgE3fw,comment-id=0002000100000000,timestamp=2018-10-16T16:08:40.793+0000) > > Alright, point by point it is. > > First off, why do you immediately assume that because someone is being mistreated that they are also the best and most competent person for the job? It is implied in your question. I don't assume that mistreatment only happens to the best employees. But if sexism is a problem then competent and well-qualified women - who *may* be the best but are at least qualified - are less likely to be hired and more likely to leave due to sexism. A real-life example was the woman at Riot who took on the tasks of her team's departed manager, then the management position was given to a male employee who was less qualified and experienced. She quit. > Not saying this is what happened, I'm saying just because someone complains about mistreatment, doesn't make me immediately believe that they are also the most competent. Good, because that isn't what happened. Enough current employees at Riot have validated the Kotaku stories that you don't have to invent fictional whiny Kotaku-complaining employees to strawman. > Take a look at the actions of the people calling for Riot to reform and ask yourself if these people really want the best for Riot. Look at what they are asking for. They are asking for diversity quotas based on race and gender. No reasonable person wants a quota. Quotas are illegal in the public sector and are broadly disfavored in the private sector. Quotas cut both ways, and minorities are well aware that quotas are a gate that is shut after X number of minorities are allowed in, creating an arbitrary barrier to entry for other well-qualified minorities. You didn't source that statement, but I'm comfortable saying that *anyone* pushing for quotas is ignorant and unqualified. I would ignore those people as well, so it's weird that those people are held up as representative of anyone who opposes sexism. >This is because they believe that the correct level of analysis of a person's character is to separate them by their racial and sexual characteristics. That is what we in the real world call sexism and racism. Now, if you believe that a person's race or gender is a better measure of a person's character than how they act and what they do, then we have nothing to discuss. Again, I'm not accusing you of that, I'm accusing Riot's accusers of that and asking you if you share that assertion. I get the impression that you think any diversity initiative is some kind of quota that labels people based on identity, then use that label as a replacement for judging someone's character. That isn't something that minorities want, like....at all. It sounds like the kind of thing that white liberal allies do when they're trying to help but aren't actually helping. Identity isn't a substitute for qualification or character. Full stop. That said, identity is often inextricably tied to life experiences that can be uniquely character-building. For example, when I was a teenager I was kicked out by my parents and lived on the street. I wasn't kicked out for being straight, ok? And that experience and the ones that followed it were absolutely formative to who I am, how I feel, and my career. I ended up in law because I wanted to do something in the gay marriage fight, so I got a job at a law firm handling a case in my state. You can draw a straight line from my identity to my resume. I share that because it's crucial to understand that you're right that identity isn't everything, but it's also not *nothing.* Creating games is a business of ideas, and ideas are often born from experiences. As long as we live in a society where identity and experience are so tightly knit, identity will matter in businesses of ideas. > This is why I call them SJWs as a pejorative. Because it is accurate based on what they say and what they do. Still doesn't explain why "social justice" is a bad thing. Catholic charities and poverty programs call themselves "social justice" programs. I guess feeding and clothing poor people is bad because it's social justice? >If they had a serious point, they would take it up with Riot in a serious manner. They didn't, they simply shouted a bunch of horrible epithets at Rioters until they retreated in the face of it. Why would you think that the mob wants the best for Riot. Yes, the Irony is thick all around, never the less I ask the question, why do you think a mob wants the best for Riot? Define "serious manner?" If the mob is demanding less sexism from a highly sexist environment, that's a pretty good indication that the mob wants Riot to be better than they currently are. Do you think that sexism should persist because randos on the internet weren't polite enough for you? That's a very strange morality. > If you would like a definition of SJW then I will happily provide one. > > It is a person who tries to affect social/political change through the avenues of public shaming and mob justice. This is a legitimately terrible way to do anything and always ends in the destruction of the thing you were trying to change, unless the destruction of the thing is your actual goal. It happened in France, it happened in Russia and if Riot lets it, it will happen to them too. That's just dysfunctional democracy and consumerism in the age of social media. Surely you do not believe that there is only one ideological group behaving like assclowns on the internet. > Now, you can believe these people are right, you can believe they are misguided or, like me, you can believe that the destruction of the thing is their actual goal and they know it. Or you can hold some other view. That's fine, but I'll lay my cards on the table right now and say I believe SJWs in general, want to destroy the things they criticize, because if they didn't want that, they would use constructive methods of criticism, not destructive ones. And if people like yourself cared about the well-being of actual humans harmed by unfair policies, you wouldn't care more about tone policing than correcting inequity. You would do well to learn history, which shows that minorities *never* earn equal treatment by being respectable enough or nice enough to appease a majority. They got what they have by being so disruptive that the majority would rather concede than deal with the consequence. > So it went like this. The SJWs at Kotaku cobbled together this story about Riot that framed their entire company as sexist and racist and in response to that allegation by the mob, they bent over backwards to apologize and to try to atone, presumably because they thought it would make the mob go away. In other words, Kotaku reported facts, dozens of current Riot employees corroborated the story, and Riot admitted it was true and they needed to fix their shit. > That isn't what happened and that is what I was criticizing them for. Because when you apologize to the mob, not only are you guilty of what they are accusing you of, because an apology is an admission of guilt, but you are now also the kind of person or company who can be manipulated by the mob. The mob will subsequently press even harder because they know you wont defend yourself. Yeah, so keep treating employees like shit instead of admitting guilt and treating them better, right? > Now, you make the claim that Riot's culture is systemically racist, but that's only because you believe the story of the SJWs. But they aren't honest and they don't know what they're talking about, because if they did, they wouldn't have tried to use the mob to get what they wanted. There's a word for people who use power to win instead of reason. Those people are called tyrants. Why would you believe the words of a tyrant? I said sexist, not racist. Because I believe the current and former employees who said there's a problem. Has nothing to do with this fictional SJW mob. I look at the evidence and first-hand accounts, and I don't recall seeing a single employee who said nothing like that ever happens (just a few who didn't experience it personally). > SJWs say that Riot is sexist because they don't have as many women working for them as they have men and so, how else do you explain it? Then someone who's not thinking very hard sees that and says to themselves "Oh yeah, that seems reasonable, it must be so." > > But think to yourself, how many girls play hyper competitive games. And I'm not just talking video games here, I'm talking in general. In the general population, how many women are interested in hyper competitive things, compared to men? If you don't know the answer to that question, then you don't understand anything about what the SJWs are accusing Riot of. I'm not going to tell you the answer, I'm going to let you go and find out for yourself and then you can come to the dawning realization of exactly how right I am that SJWs just want to destroy everything. Let me turn this back on you. If competitive softball is 100% women, does that mean it's justifiable for every company making softball bats, gloves, bases, merch, etc. to employ 100% women? You're also ignoring the chicken and egg situation here. If a game is built entirely by men, it's more likely to appeal to men, thereby self-justifying the male employee imbalance. That isn't a moral judgment, it's just how things tend to work. The 60M League players are 90% male, and those are the same players every company is competing for. If Riot can increase their appeal to female players by hiring more women to target that consumer base, it would be a fucking gold mine for the company. Not only that, but female gamers are by and large new gaming consumers and have high game loyalty. If you build it they will come. It's as simple as that. And just to be clear, nobody is fighting about this because there aren't girls/women interested in gaming and development, it's a fight because they *are*.
> [{quoted}](name=Vekkna,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=ZevgE3fw,comment-id=00020001000000000000,timestamp=2018-10-16T18:55:26.387+0000) > > I don't assume that mistreatment only happens to the best employees. But if sexism is a problem then competent and well-qualified women - who *may* be the best but are at least qualified - are less likely to be hired and more likely to leave due to sexism. A real-life example was the woman at Riot who took on the tasks of her team's departed manager, then the management position was given to a male employee who was less qualified and experienced. She quit. > > Good, because that isn't what happened. Enough current employees at Riot have validated the Kotaku stories that you don't have to invent fictional whiny Kotaku-complaining employees to strawman. > > No reasonable person wants a quota. Quotas are illegal in the public sector and are broadly disfavored in the private sector. Quotas cut both ways, and minorities are well aware that quotas are a gate that is shut after X number of minorities are allowed in, creating an arbitrary barrier to entry for other well-qualified minorities. > > You didn't source that statement, but I'm comfortable saying that *anyone* pushing for quotas is ignorant and unqualified. I would ignore those people as well, so it's weird that those people are held up as representative of anyone who opposes sexism. > > I get the impression that you think any diversity initiative is some kind of quota that labels people based on identity, then use that label as a replacement for judging someone's character. That isn't something that minorities want, like....at all. It sounds like the kind of thing that white liberal allies do when they're trying to help but aren't actually helping. > > Identity isn't a substitute for qualification or character. Full stop. That said, identity is often inextricably tied to life experiences that can be uniquely character-building. For example, when I was a teenager I was kicked out by my parents and lived on the street. I wasn't kicked out for being straight, ok? And that experience and the ones that followed it were absolutely formative to who I am, how I feel, and my career. I ended up in law because I wanted to do something in the gay marriage fight, so I got a job at a law firm handling a case in my state. You can draw a straight line from my identity to my resume. > > I share that because it's crucial to understand that you're right that identity isn't everything, but it's also not *nothing.* Creating games is a business of ideas, and ideas are often born from experiences. As long as we live in a society where identity and experience are so tightly knit, identity will matter in businesses of ideas. > > Still doesn't explain why "social justice" is a bad thing. Catholic charities and poverty programs call themselves "social justice" programs. I guess feeding and clothing poor people is bad because it's social justice? > > Define "serious manner?" If the mob is demanding less sexism from a highly sexist environment, that's a pretty good indication that the mob wants Riot to be better than they currently are. Do you think that sexism should persist because randos on the internet weren't polite enough for you? That's a very strange morality. > > That's just dysfunctional democracy and consumerism in the age of social media. Surely you do not believe that there is only one ideological group behaving like assclowns on the internet. > > And if people like yourself cared about the well-being of actual humans harmed by unfair policies, you wouldn't care more about tone policing than correcting inequity. You would do well to learn history, which shows that minorities *never* earn equal treatment by being respectable enough or nice enough to appease a majority. They got what they have by being so disruptive that the majority would rather concede than deal with the consequence. > > In other words, Kotaku reported facts, dozens of current Riot employees corroborated the story, and Riot admitted it was true and they needed to fix their shit. > > Yeah, so keep treating employees like shit instead of admitting guilt and treating them better, right? > > I said sexist, not racist. Because I believe the current and former employees who said there's a problem. Has nothing to do with this fictional SJW mob. I look at the evidence and first-hand accounts, and I don't recall seeing a single employee who said nothing like that ever happens (just a few who didn't experience it personally). > > Let me turn this back on you. If competitive softball is 100% women, does that mean it's justifiable for every company making softball bats, gloves, bases, merch, etc. to employ 100% women? > > You're also ignoring the chicken and egg situation here. If a game is built entirely by men, it's more likely to appeal to men, thereby self-justifying the male employee imbalance. That isn't a moral judgment, it's just how things tend to work. > > The 60M League players are 90% male, and those are the same players every company is competing for. If Riot can increase their appeal to female players by hiring more women to target that consumer base, it would be a fucking gold mine for the company. Not only that, but female gamers are by and large new gaming consumers and have high game loyalty. > > If you build it they will come. It's as simple as that. And just to be clear, nobody is fighting about this because there aren't girls/women interested in gaming and development, it's a fight because they *are*. I will say, first off, that this is exactly the kind of discussion I wanted to have with people a month ago, but it kept getting censored so, glad it's lasting for a couple go arounds. Here's an alternative interpretation of what happened at Riot. The woman stepped into the leadership role and never demanded of her employers that she be compensated for it. They assumed, therefore that the work she was doing wasn't valuable because she wasn't demanding to be compensated for it and because she didn't speak up, it was invisible to management. I'm not saying management is blameless, but neither is she. There's a very well documented psychological reason why this happens to women disproportionately to men and it's because women are, on average, higher in a personality trait called Agreeability. It isn't because men are sexist and ignore women, not entirely, it's because temperamentally women will sacrifice their own well being for the sake of others disproportionately to men. It doesn't require the system to be imbalanced in favor of men for that outcome to occur disproportionately to women, quite the opposite, that is what you SHOULD expect to see if the system is completely fair and balanced. Yes, quotas ARE illegal, but you know what I think? I think if you took a direct cross section of the population of people who actually play league of legends in the Bay area and lay it across the the population working at Riot, you would see a 1 to 1 correlation. This means they are already employing best practices to get the best people for the job. Actually, I think their working staff would have to be MORE diverse than the population, because a lot of the people working at Riot aren't working on the game, they're working on running the company. So when those best practices don't result in the outcome you desire, what's your next step? They said in their own releases to the public they wouldn't accept anything but the results they were after, so what do they do when the best practices can't get them the results they're after? You mention being kicked out of your house being directly related to you being a lawyer. I would say that's half true. I would say there's a direct line between you being kicked out of your house to being interested in gay rights and becoming a lawyer was the route that you decided was the best way forward for you. That doesn't mean that your gayness has anything to do with your skill as a lawyer. I would say what probably does is your conscientiousness, a trait I think is over represented in gay men, but straight men can be just as conscientious, even more so. What's important is the value you put on it and how far you can take that, not which sex you'd prefer to sleep with. If I want to hire an attack lawyer because I got cheated out of a contract, I don't give a flying fuck who they want to sleep with, what the color of their skin is or how many damn problems they had as a child. I just want a mean mother fucker in my corner who knows his shit better than the defense team so I'll get my money back. Skin color, sex, race, sexuality, none of these things make a lick of bloody difference and it's stupid to believe otherwise. And this brings me to your point about minorities. I get it, you are one and that's tough, well so bloody what! It turned out pretty well for you, the way you describe it. Maybe you could be thankful for the kick in the ass you needed to get your life together. Maybe that pain and suffering did some good, you ever think of that? How much good do you think it does to split the world up into little racial/sexual enclaves all fighting each other and unable to talk to each other because they're not a part of the right tribe? How many things can you say about another gay person that you know to be true absolutely just on the merit of you being gay? Why would I not be able to know those things because I'm straight? Here's a better solution. Assimilate the minorities into the majority. That's what we did with homosexuality and yes, fine, it's not perfect, but NOTHING'S bloody perfect. It's a hell of a lot better now than it used to be and if you don't believe that, GO TO SAUDI ARABIA! GO TO PAKISTAN! People who want more diversity just want to break everyone apart again and that's useless. It destroys everything. So now we get to the crux of the issue. More to follow. Text limit.
: > [{quoted}](name=notFREEfood,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=UqFeOMXM,comment-id=001400000001000000010000,timestamp=2018-10-16T06:29:04.501+0000) > > I don't know of a single impartial person. Everyone has their own innate biases that can get expressed even unconsciously. Newspapermen in particular are rather infamous for being anything but impartial. Sure, they might be impartial on matters they don't have an interest in, but nobody is devoid of interests. Newspaper jingoism is what got us the Spanish-American war. Also, by British standards, US newspapers are tame. > > Bullshit. I've seen you any many others question Riot's new diversity policy, making claims that proactive steps towards diversity will lead to Riot's downfall. The amount of "get woke, go broke" spam coming from the community was horrible. I've said this before, and I'm going to say it again: this claim that your only issue was that men were excluded is nothing but pure whitewashing. > > But you CANNOT look at that tweet in a vacuum. It was out of line, but the lynch mob was out to get him before he tweeted that. > > The community had a godawful, bigoted response to Riot's PAX announcement and trying to say it was anything else is being dishonest. DZK took the bait and said something he deserved to be fired for, but if the community had a mature response, he'd still be at Riot. > > You cannot simultaneously demand that DZK be held accountable while simultaneously claim that the community acted like angels. Doesn't matter if the community acted like angels or a lynch mob. The guy was clearly nuts and couldn't control his temper. If you lose your temper at a job or while representing the company you work for, you have nobody but yourself to blame for losing your job. This victim culture bs has to stop, and people need to take personal responsibility for what their OWN actions. I have customers give me grief all the time, but as an employee its my job to take it, unless it crosses legal boundaries. People yelling at you and calling you names online doesn't cross those boundaries. And the whole get "Get woke go broke" is quite true. It's an admirable goal to promote diversity, but to FORCE it is not, that's just ends up being reverse discrimination (creating a whole new problem that will need fixed later down the road) and if your company goes broke because you start hiring people based on their political views instead of their talent, you deserve to go under as a company. It should always be a meritocracy who gets hired, not a political/racial/gender screening to fill a quota. Riots goal at Pax to get more minorities represented at their company was admirable, but how they went about it was not.
> [{quoted}](name=Cavesloth,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=UqFeOMXM,comment-id=0014000000010000000100000001,timestamp=2018-10-16T14:53:19.408+0000) > Riots goal at Pax to get more minorities represented at their company was admirable, but how they went about it was not. Alright, I'll bite. Why was the goal good? Why is it good and admirable for a company to, as you put it "get more minorities represented at their company"? You already agree that to force it as a goal is bad, so, why does it matter at all? Because you see, if I believe in pursuing a goal, you better believe I'm willing to use a bit of force to achieve it, otherwise why am I valuing the goal? So, convince me that it's a good idea at all. Define your parameters and then make an argument. To lay my position on the table here, I don't think it's bad, I think it's worthless. I don't think it's of any benefit whatsoever that a company be racially or sexually diverse and so devoting any amount of resources in an attempt to change that balance is simply a waste of time and money.
Vekkna (NA)
: > [{quoted}](name=Unwardil,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=ZevgE3fw,comment-id=00020001,timestamp=2018-10-16T13:33:03.096+0000) > > I said nothing of the sort. Not one thing you said accurately describes what I said, what I think or even comes close to the mark. Maybe deal with your own problems before you project them onto me. > > My point is and has always been that it is stupid for Riot to apologize and cow-tow to the SJW mob because it doesn't make the game better and SJWs aren't interested in making the game better, but destroying everything good. It's stupid for Riot to apologize for mistreating people? Correcting that mistreatment is "cow-towing to the SJW mob?" Treating employees and not driving away good people doesn't make the game better?The people you call "SJWs" are the people who want Riot to treat employees fairly and with dignity regardless of their identity. You call that "destroying everything good." If you feel misunderstood, it's because you're using the pejorative "SJW" to describe people with want Riot to reform their culture and practices for the betterment of the game and the well-being of their own employees. You're also using it to describe a newspaper that is shedding sunlight on the issue to a larger audience than Kotaku. That's called accountability, just fyi, not "pissing on the ashes." If you expect to be taken seriously, you need to either define "SJW" as an actual thing or just stop using it. The term is broadly used against literally *anyone*, no matter how reasonable or fringe they are, who opposes the exclusion of qualified minorities from nerd culture and media. The entire concept of "SJW" is made up out of a collection of idiotic, extreme, fringe posts and tweets by random people on the internet, then packaged into a label that's slapped onto anyone who values justice. >This would be very much in line with my views on the matter. So you want Riot to investigate sexism and take action, but you don't want them do change anything about their culture that's creating that environment in the first place? When you have termites, you don't just squash them when you see them. You have to kill the colony that's hidden from view and destroying the house from the inside out. When a company has a *systemic* problem, treating the symptoms will not cure the disease. Also, sexism, harassment, and discrimination are all fairly difficult to prove. By the time they're obvious, provable offenses, a lot of people have already been fucked over in one way or another. The culture issue has to be addressed to prevent that. Nobody is saying that Riot's "entire culture" is wrong. The only thing that's wrong about it is the sexist shit. You realize they can fix that without destroying their identity, right? Or are you suggesting that sexism is so ingrained into their culture that it literally cannot survive without it?
> [{quoted}](name=Vekkna,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=ZevgE3fw,comment-id=000200010000,timestamp=2018-10-16T15:29:35.967+0000) > > It's stupid for Riot to apologize for mistreating people? Correcting that mistreatment is "cow-towing to the SJW mob?" Treating employees and not driving away good people doesn't make the game better?The people you call "SJWs" are the people who want Riot to treat employees fairly and with dignity regardless of their identity. You call that "destroying everything good." > > If you feel misunderstood, it's because you're using the pejorative "SJW" to describe people with want Riot to reform their culture and practices for the betterment of the game and the well-being of their own employees. You're also using it to describe a newspaper that is shedding sunlight on the issue to a larger audience than Kotaku. That's called accountability, just fyi, not "pissing on the ashes." > > If you expect to be taken seriously, you need to either define "SJW" as an actual thing or just stop using it. The term is broadly used against literally *anyone*, no matter how reasonable or fringe they are, who opposes the exclusion of qualified minorities from nerd culture and media. The entire concept of "SJW" is made up out of a collection of idiotic, extreme, fringe posts and tweets by random people on the internet, then packaged into a label that's slapped onto anyone who values justice. > > So you want Riot to investigate sexism and take action, but you don't want them do change anything about their culture that's creating that environment in the first place? > > When you have termites, you don't just squash them when you see them. You have to kill the colony that's hidden from view and destroying the house from the inside out. When a company has a *systemic* problem, treating the symptoms will not cure the disease. > > Also, sexism, harassment, and discrimination are all fairly difficult to prove. By the time they're obvious, provable offenses, a lot of people have already been fucked over in one way or another. The culture issue has to be addressed to prevent that. > > Nobody is saying that Riot's "entire culture" is wrong. The only thing that's wrong about it is the sexist shit. You realize they can fix that without destroying their identity, right? Or are you suggesting that sexism is so ingrained into their culture that it literally cannot survive without it? Alright, point by point it is. First off, why do you immediately assume that because someone is being mistreated that they are also the best and most competent person for the job? It is implied in your question. The best and most competent people are usually strong enough to handle a bit of criticism and they are strong enough to stand up to work place bullies. It is the worst and most useless people who typically get bitter and resentful and go over the heads of everyone to complain about their situation to Kotaku in order to slander people in the court of public opinion. Not saying this is what happened, I'm saying just because someone complains about mistreatment, doesn't make me immediately believe that they are also the most competent. Take a look at the actions of the people calling for Riot to reform and ask yourself if these people really want the best for Riot. Look at what they are asking for. They are asking for diversity quotas based on race and gender. This is because they believe that the correct level of analysis of a person's character is to separate them by their racial and sexual characteristics. That is what we in the real world call sexism and racism. Now, if you believe that a person's race or gender is a better measure of a person's character than how they act and what they do, then we have nothing to discuss. Again, I'm not accusing you of that, I'm accusing Riot's accusers of that and asking you if you share that assertion. This is why I call them SJWs as a pejorative. Because it is accurate based on what they say and what they do. They also try to harness the power of the mob to shame people into doing what they want. This is not the way reasonable people conduct themselves. If they had a serious point, they would take it up with Riot in a serious manner. They didn't, they simply shouted a bunch of horrible epithets at Rioters until they retreated in the face of it. Why would you think that the mob wants the best for Riot. Yes, the Irony is thick all around, never the less I ask the question, why do you think a mob wants the best for Riot? If you would like a definition of SJW then I will happily provide one. It is a person who tries to affect social/political change through the avenues of public shaming and mob justice. This is a legitimately terrible way to do anything and always ends in the destruction of the thing you were trying to change, unless the destruction of the thing is your actual goal. It happened in France, it happened in Russia and if Riot lets it, it will happen to them too. Now, you can believe these people are right, you can believe they are misguided or, like me, you can believe that the destruction of the thing is their actual goal and they know it. Or you can hold some other view. That's fine, but I'll lay my cards on the table right now and say I believe SJWs in general, want to destroy the things they criticize, because if they didn't want that, they would use constructive methods of criticism, not destructive ones. So, to be specific here, the people I am accusing of being SJWs are the people demanding that Riot impose diversity quotas into their hiring policies and using Riot's alleged bigotry and sexism in order to leverage popular opinion against them. Got that straightened out? Good. So it went like this. The SJWs at Kotaku cobbled together this story about Riot that framed their entire company as sexist and racist and in response to that allegation by the mob, they bent over backwards to apologize and to try to atone, presumably because they thought it would make the mob go away. That isn't what happened and that is what I was criticizing them for. Because when you apologize to the mob, not only are you guilty of what they are accusing you of, because an apology is an admission of guilt, but you are now also the kind of person or company who can be manipulated by the mob. The mob will subsequently press even harder because they know you wont defend yourself. Now, you make the claim that Riot's culture is systemically racist, but that's only because you believe the story of the SJWs. But they aren't honest and they don't know what they're talking about, because if they did, they wouldn't have tried to use the mob to get what they wanted. There's a word for people who use power to win instead of reason. Those people are called tyrants. Why would you believe the words of a tyrant? And no, I didn't say Riot's entire culture was rotten. That's what Riot said to the mob when they apologized in the way they chose to. All I was doing was pointing out that it was a very bad idea for them to do that. Here's the thing the SJWs twist about gender politics. I won't say they don't understand because I think they do. But their line of reasoning is like this and this is why it's important to look at what they're saying and to understand why they want to destroy everything when they say they just want equality. Because it's the same thing. SJWs say that Riot is sexist because they don't have as many women working for them as they have men and so, how else do you explain it? Then someone who's not thinking very hard sees that and says to themselves "Oh yeah, that seems reasonable, it must be so." But think to yourself, how many girls play hyper competitive games. And I'm not just talking video games here, I'm talking in general. In the general population, how many women are interested in hyper competitive things, compared to men? If you don't know the answer to that question, then you don't understand anything about what the SJWs are accusing Riot of. I'm not going to tell you the answer, I'm going to let you go and find out for yourself and then you can come to the dawning realization of exactly how right I am that SJWs just want to destroy everything.
: Oh hey, an LA Times article about how Riot's PAX fiasco violated state and feder-
I would like to point something out here. When the Kotaku article broke, I made a series of threads criticizing Riot for their response to the issue. My threads were un-ceremoniously removed due to the probability that the nature of the discussions was likely to lead into the political sphere and would thereby be unacceptable to the boards. This thread, however, seems broadly supportive of Riot and despite the preponderance of political opinions flying around, I don't see any mods jumping on it with the ban hammer. One of the things I criticized Riot for was the degree to which they sensor their boards to eliminate dissenting opinions. Oh, the palpable Irony.
Drugoth (NA)
: > [{quoted}](name=Vekkna,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=ZevgE3fw,comment-id=0002,timestamp=2018-10-15T21:45:05.235+0000) > > You're saying that Riot should just keep treating a chunk of its employees like shit because treating them better won't 100% eliminate criticism from outside voices. That's like saying it's pointless to stop verbally abusing your wife because she'll never 100% stop nagging. > > You obviously aren't aware that not everything is about "tEh sJWz." Treating employees better, more equitably, and rewarding successful employees fairly is not about "tEh sJWz," it's about the goddam *employees.* You want a better game? You won't get it by having a corporate culture that drives away good people, creates an echo chamber of yes-men, and has a hiring system that totally fails to accurately assess the value/potential of female candidates. > > Riot doesn't need to enforce diversity quotas, they just need better systems that judge individuals on their own merits instead of measuring every individual against the yardstick of gamer nerd stereotypes they call a "culture." They're a global company based in California, and diversity is inevitable in that environment if Riot is truly dedicated to unbiased meritocracy. > > The only ideology here is yours. For some sick reason, you're incapable of admitting that it's a worthwhile effort to treat employee better or that inequity and bias are things that exist and are bad. Instead, your response is "fuck all those employees and fuck fairness because somebody on the internet might post some tEh sJWz fAkE NeWz." Of course professionalism in a company environment is key to happy employees. Iirc, men were also the target of some sexual harassment too (ball-slapping, etc). Like I have said before, meritocracy _does_ work if it is applied correctly. I understand their intention to conserve "gamer culture" but I can assure you, ball-slapping and face-farting are not actions that I would consider representative of gamer culture. When I think gamer culture, I think of the hardcore Dark Souls git gudders, the guys that relish a challenge of their skills. The escapism and good-natured competition of pvp games. I think of the kids sitting on the couch, playing Mario. I remember myself staying up late hours trying to complete A Link to the Past, despite being way past my bedtime. I think of a community of slightly nerdy and geeky guys and girls enjoying and reveling in the awesomeness of _interactive video entertainment_. What I'm trying to say is it is okay to try to conserve and protect a culture, but not at the expense of the professionalism of the workplace, which is what appears to have happened. Policies need to be put into place moving forward to preserve the integrity of meritocracy and equality of opportunity.
> [{quoted}](name=The Yung Sheets,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=ZevgE3fw,comment-id=00020000,timestamp=2018-10-16T01:10:03.767+0000) > > > What I'm trying to say is it is okay to try to conserve and protect a culture, but not at the expense of the professionalism of the workplace, which is what appears to have happened. Policies need to be put into place moving forward to preserve the integrity of meritocracy and equality of opportunity. This would be very much in line with my views on the matter. But there is a massive difference between Riot saying "we've had some reports of sexist behavior and are investigating those allegations to see if they have any validity" and "Oh shit, our entire culture is wrong and we're just so sorry you noticed, please go away and leave us alone, we'll give you anything you want!" Which is exactly what they did. "The Visigoths walked up to the gates of Rome and accused the guards of being Sexist, so the guards let them in to just pillage the city" is a statement no sane person would accept in any history book, so why are people behaving that way at Riot?
Vekkna (NA)
: You're saying that Riot should just keep treating a chunk of its employees like shit because treating them better won't 100% eliminate criticism from outside voices. That's like saying it's pointless to stop verbally abusing your wife because she'll never 100% stop nagging. You obviously aren't aware that not everything is about "tEh sJWz." Treating employees better, more equitably, and rewarding successful employees fairly is not about "tEh sJWz," it's about the goddam *employees.* You want a better game? You won't get it by having a corporate culture that drives away good people, creates an echo chamber of yes-men, and has a hiring system that totally fails to accurately assess the value/potential of female candidates. Riot doesn't need to enforce diversity quotas, they just need better systems that judge individuals on their own merits instead of measuring every individual against the yardstick of gamer nerd stereotypes they call a "culture." They're a global company based in California, and diversity is inevitable in that environment if Riot is truly dedicated to unbiased meritocracy. The only ideology here is yours. For some sick reason, you're incapable of admitting that it's a worthwhile effort to treat employee better or that inequity and bias are things that exist and are bad. Instead, your response is "fuck all those employees and fuck fairness because somebody on the internet might post some tEh sJWz fAkE NeWz."
> [{quoted}](name=Vekkna,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=ZevgE3fw,comment-id=0002,timestamp=2018-10-15T21:45:05.235+0000) > > You're saying that Riot should just keep treating a chunk of its employees like shit because treating them better won't 100% eliminate criticism from outside voices. That's like saying it's pointless to stop verbally abusing your wife because she'll never 100% stop nagging. > > You obviously aren't aware that not everything is about "tEh sJWz." Treating employees better, more equitably, and rewarding successful employees fairly is not about "tEh sJWz," it's about the goddam *employees.* You want a better game? You won't get it by having a corporate culture that drives away good people, creates an echo chamber of yes-men, and has a hiring system that totally fails to accurately assess the value/potential of female candidates. > > Riot doesn't need to enforce diversity quotas, they just need better systems that judge individuals on their own merits instead of measuring every individual against the yardstick of gamer nerd stereotypes they call a "culture." They're a global company based in California, and diversity is inevitable in that environment if Riot is truly dedicated to unbiased meritocracy. > > The only ideology here is yours. For some sick reason, you're incapable of admitting that it's a worthwhile effort to treat employee better or that inequity and bias are things that exist and are bad. Instead, your response is "fuck all those employees and fuck fairness because somebody on the internet might post some tEh sJWz fAkE NeWz." I said nothing of the sort. Not one thing you said accurately describes what I said, what I think or even comes close to the mark. Maybe deal with your own problems before you project them onto me. My point is and has always been that it is stupid for Riot to apologize and cow-tow to the SJW mob because it doesn't make the game better and SJWs aren't interested in making the game better, but destroying everything good.
: That article was nothing but a rehash of the Kotaku article, most likely in an attempt to create controversy or sensationalism to draw in readers. I mean, you triggering about it and posting it here has certainly been hand in hand with what it's goal was. Anyone can see that, especially since the scandal only happened a little over a month ago. It's absurd to expect them to have completely reformed their company culture in such a short time frame. Your attempt to use it as "SJWS WILL BURN THE PLACE DOWN SEE?!" are rushed and a sensationalism tactic on your own end. This article is largely ignorable because it's not telling us anything we don't already know or haven't already seen last month. If such articles continue to pop up like a year later, then yes, you may have some validity in your conservative beliefs, but just a month later - it's all media circlejerking at this point.
> [{quoted}](name=Oleandervine,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=ZevgE3fw,comment-id=0000,timestamp=2018-10-15T18:53:03.507+0000) > > That article was nothing but a rehash of the Kotaku article, most likely in an attempt to create controversy or sensationalism to draw in readers. I mean, you triggering about it and posting it here has certainly been hand in hand with what it's goal was. > > Anyone can see that, especially since the scandal only happened a little over a month ago. It's absurd to expect them to have completely reformed their company culture in such a short time frame. Your attempt to use it as "SJWS WILL BURN THE PLACE DOWN SEE?!" are rushed and a sensationalism tactic on your own end. This article is largely ignorable because it's not telling us anything we don't already know or haven't already seen last month. If such articles continue to pop up like a year later, then yes, you may have some validity in your conservative beliefs, but just a month later - it's all media circlejerking at this point. No, the only reason I posted about it was because I promised to be back to point out their stupidity when it happened again. It happened again and here I am.
Rioter Comments
: A pinned post on your thread gave a formal warning that the content was getting too political. The posts after that descended into discussion neo-marxism, accusations that actions were "very Maoist", discussions of "weakening the western population by addicting them to video games," and discussions of the evolution of political ideology in western society and how people view Marxism. That's a very clear violation of our rule against the discussions of real-world politics, and doubly so after a direct warning on that very thread.
> [{quoted}](name=The Djinn,realm=NA,application-id=6heBIhQc,discussion-id=5xbb2WPA,comment-id=0001,timestamp=2018-09-13T19:08:26.008+0000) > > A pinned post on your thread gave a formal warning that the content was getting too political. The posts after that descended into discussion neo-marxism, accusations that actions were "very Maoist", discussions of "weakening the western population by addicting them to video games," and discussions of the evolution of political ideology in western society and how people view Marxism. That's a very clear violation of our rule against the discussions of real-world politics, and doubly so after a direct warning on that very thread. That was a joke and you know it. You're not doing a good job of proving you're not the ministry of truth.
SEKAI (OCE)
: "Affirmative action is racism towards everyone involved."
Well since this is obviously directed at me specifically and since it absolutely SHOULD get closed because it is purely political, I'll answer before it gets shut down. You're equating it to medical science where things like vaccines can be used to inoculate people against diseases so they don't suffer the consequences of contracting that disease later in life. That's fine insofar as the metaphor goes. Here is what I demand of my medical science. In order for your treatment to be considered valid, you need to prove in a double blind study that employing your treatment is more effective than doing nothing. Affirmative action has been proved to have a net negative effect on what it was intended to do. Do you understand that? It's not just ineffective, it's counterproductive. So it's not like giving someone a flu shot, it's like giving them cancer to cure their aids. Better put me in my place quick before this gets shut down dude but that should be easy because of how obviously wrong I am about everything. Right?
: Probably that you're being a brick wall and that you're threads don't go anywhere because anytime someone disagrees with you, you ignore their input in favor of your own. Then you make another thread...
> [{quoted}](name=AnAggravatedPimp,realm=NA,application-id=6heBIhQc,discussion-id=5xbb2WPA,comment-id=0000,timestamp=2018-09-13T19:05:31.198+0000) > > Probably that you're being a brick wall and that you're threads don't go anywhere because anytime someone disagrees with you, you ignore their input in favor of your own. > > Then you make another thread... Well if someone would reply to my points and not to strawman versions of what I said, maybe we'd move along faster.
Rioter Comments
Vekkna (NA)
: > [{quoted}](name=Unwardil,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=eX9xIAY5,comment-id=00030001,timestamp=2018-09-13T12:12:02.692+0000) > > When you figure out how to do that, then you might have some kind of a point to make. Until you do, you need to consider the possibility that I actually do have a very strong point. You can't fix your primary focus on two things at the same time. You can only exchange one focus for another or you can split your attention between them. You cannot simultaneously focus on more than one thing. Everything else you said is pointless because it's predicated on the notion that focus is an infinite resource. Why would I consider your "strong point" when I have the experience in business management to know that you are definitively wrong? I focus on my own work, which is practicing law. I do not focus on the operations side of running a firm, but all of that work still gets done. By your logic, if I work on my cases it means the finances, staff management, building maintenance, clerical work, client reception, and phone answering is *not getting done.* Keeping with your analogy, it doesn't matter if my personal focus is limited to one thing at a time (which is still inaccurate because multitasking is a thing that exists). What matters is that both hands are being watched. I am paying someone a salary to do nothing but stare at my left hand, thereby allowing focus on both hands even if I am looking only to the right. How is it possible to guard a building with more than one entrance? How does a hospital perform surgery on more than one patient at a time? How does a school teach more than one subject at one grade level in a single hour of the day? How does a military use tanks, jets, and battleships at the same time? By hiring a guard for each door, a surgeon for each operating room, a teacher for each subject at each grade level, and soldiers with a wide array of specialized training. Riot has already indicated that they have brought in outside experts to address this problem - another set of eyes, if you will - and have dedicated in-house employees working on their problems. Although, if we're being honest, the game would probably improve if they reassigned the balance team to diversity training. It's not lost on me that you ignored the historical examples discrimination leading to competitive disadvantage, and, in the reverse, inclusion and diversity leading to the best candidates.
> [{quoted}](name=Vekkna,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=eX9xIAY5,comment-id=000300010000,timestamp=2018-09-13T18:33:31.008+0000) > > Why would I consider your "strong point" when I have the experience in business management to know that you are definitively wrong? I focus on my own work, which is practicing law. I do not focus on the operations side of running a firm, but all of that work still gets done. By your logic, if I work on my cases it means the finances, staff management, building maintenance, clerical work, client reception, and phone answering is *not getting done.* > > Keeping with your analogy, it doesn't matter if my personal focus is limited to one thing at a time (which is still inaccurate because multitasking is a thing that exists). What matters is that both hands are being watched. I am paying someone a salary to do nothing but stare at my left hand, thereby allowing focus on both hands even if I am looking only to the right. > > How is it possible to guard a building with more than one entrance? How does a hospital perform surgery on more than one patient at a time? How does a school teach more than one subject at one grade level in a single hour of the day? How does a military use tanks, jets, and battleships at the same time? By hiring a guard for each door, a surgeon for each operating room, a teacher for each subject at each grade level, and soldiers with a wide array of specialized training. > > Riot has already indicated that they have brought in outside experts to address this problem - another set of eyes, if you will - and have dedicated in-house employees working on their problems. Although, if we're being honest, the game would probably improve if they reassigned the balance team to diversity training. > > It's not lost on me that you ignored the historical examples discrimination leading to competitive disadvantage, and, in the reverse, inclusion and diversity leading to the best candidates. You are not a company. A company acts as an individual does by prioritizing it's resources according to it's needs. Obviously a company has many resources it can draw upon, but it can still have only one primary focus. That primary focus what determines how they will distribute those resources. When you change the focus, you change the way in which those resources are distributed. In order for a company to function, everyone within that company must be made to understand how their job relates to the company's focus. Therefore the guard at the hospital understands that his job, to keep out potentially dangerous people is in line with the hospital's goal of providing care to the patients. The Warship and the Plane and the Tank all understand their individual missions as being part of a greater national security focus. Are you with me so far? How then does a Dev's job at Riot change when the company's focus shifts from that of making a great game, to fostering inclusion and diversity? Do you see the problem here? Suddenly the Dev's job becomes more about how he interacts with the women in his department than it is about how good of a game they are making.
El Doj (NA)
: ***
> [{quoted}](name=El Doj,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=fVhEdtXR,comment-id=000000000002000000000000000100000000,timestamp=2018-09-13T18:24:59.338+0000) > > if im being honest.... i have a very strong suspicion that Riot is nothing more than a front supplanted in the US by tecent with the expressed purpose of disturbing western society by the systematic implementation of Neo-Marxist ideology. > > we've already seen Russia subverting our society Ala the past elections; I see no reason why China wouldnt be doing the same. This is the most reasonable response I've seen all day. I knew something was fishy when they started censoring in-game chat. Felt very Maoist to me. But I can see the angle, weaken the western populations by addicting them to video games? Something like that?
El Doj (NA)
: ***
> [{quoted}](name=El Doj,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=fVhEdtXR,comment-id=000200000000,timestamp=2018-09-13T18:18:13.497+0000) > > its not a strawman nor is it slander. its a term used to describe the new iteration of marxism as its evolved moving into the west. > > and i dont think you can really "slander" an ideology that was responsible for millions of deaths in the past century; it pretty much does that by itself This.
: > [{quoted}](name=Unwardil,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=fVhEdtXR,comment-id=000000000002000000000000,timestamp=2018-09-13T18:03:39.495+0000) > > Ok, I have 5 white male applicants who can do the job right now. I need the spot filled. Instead of hiring any of them, I'm going to keep looking until I find the black person or woman I'm really looking for, no matter how many highly qualified white men I have to push out of the way in order to find them. According to your reply to The Djinn "it is physically impossible to simultaneously focus 2 things at the same time," so this scenario is already impossible in your eyes. According to you, you can't be focused on filling the job promptly *and* getting the best person for the job at the same time. If those 5 applicant's can't wait a few more weeks while you gather applicants then that's on them. From what I've seen there's almost never a situation in a company Riot's size where they absolutely need to hire someone ASAP because the only person who could do that job is leaving. > Besides, I already said what I predicted would happen if they did that. It wasn't white men who they would end up employing. According to your response to my first post, statistics doesn't work in a way that allows Riot to wait a few extra weeks to find someone who as "the best" and not a white man. If you honestly believe that then you must also believe that there would be job openings where only white men would apply, and thus that white men would get positions. Once again, you've backed yourself into a corner with your own reasoning. > You are miss-representing my arguments. Until you can state my argument back to me, I'm not going further with you. I'm representing your arguments just as accurately as you are. I'm just seeing straight through the lies you're trying to use to disguise them.
> [{quoted}](name=DrCyanide,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=fVhEdtXR,comment-id=0000000000020000000000000001,timestamp=2018-09-13T18:16:52.558+0000) > > According to your reply to The Djinn "it is physically impossible to simultaneously focus 2 things at the same time," so this scenario is already impossible in your eyes. According to you, you can't be focused on filling the job promptly *and* getting the best person for the job at the same time. > > If those 5 applicant's can't wait a few more weeks while you gather applicants then that's on them. From what I've seen there's almost never a situation in a company Riot's size where they absolutely need to hire someone ASAP because the only person who could do that job is leaving. > > According to you're response to my first post, statistics doesn't work in a way that allows Riot to wait a few extra weeks to find someone who as "the best" and not a white man. If you honestly believe that then you must also believe that there would be job openings where only white men would apply, and thus that white men would get positions. Once again, you've backed yourself into a corner with your own reasoning. > > I'm representing your arguments just as accurately as you are. I'm just seeing straight through the lies you're trying to use to disguise them. You won't say it because you know I'm right and you cant stand it. You can't stand that I'm describing a racist hiring policy can you? That's what you're advocating and you hate it so much, but you know I'm right. If I have spots available, that need to be filled and I have qualified applicants but I pass them over because of their skin color or the type of genitals they have, I would be a massive racist and sexist wouldn't I? Is that what you want Riot to be? More sexist? More racist? It sounds like that's what you're saying, tell me how it isn't what you're saying. Where did I get it wrong. Did you not just say "Riot should pass over the potential white employees to give the blacks and women a chance, even if it's against their best interest to do so"? Do you see how I'm trying to state your position back to you in order to foster better understanding? As for the focus thing. Well just try it and see how it works out. Try to put a key into a lock while focusing on the ceiling, then try it while focusing on the lock. Assuming that your goal is to open the door, tell me which is the more appropriate focus.
: > [{quoted}](name=Unwardil,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=fVhEdtXR,comment-id=000000000002000000000000,timestamp=2018-09-13T18:03:39.495+0000)Ok, I have 5 white male applicants who can do the job right now. I need the spot filled. Instead of hiring any of them, I'm going to keep looking until I find the black person or woman I'm really looking for, no matter how many highly qualified white men I have to push out of the way in order to find them. Nowhere has Riot said this is going to be their policy. It seems pretty heavily implied that their policy is to hire people from their candidate pool, but work on encouraging a more diverse pool of applicants. If you need a job filled, look at the candidate pool. If the pool of great candidates is more diverse, the odds of the best applicant being more diverse increase. This is why the focus is on increasing the candidate pool, and the important thing you seem to be missing. At no point is anything in Riot's statement about suppressing individuals, passing over qualified individuals, or forcing hiring procedures to meet diversity quotas. Those are all things you seem to be assuming. Their statement was pretty exclusively about ensuring that Riot is a place where a more diverse community feels comfortable applying, so that the candidate pool (and thus the qualified candidates) represent a larger spread of the global community. That's really it.
> [{quoted}](name=The Djinn,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=fVhEdtXR,comment-id=0000000000020000000000000000,timestamp=2018-09-13T18:08:55.082+0000) > > Nowhere has Riot said this is going to be their policy. > > It seems pretty heavily implied that their policy is to hire people from their candidate pool, but work on encouraging a more diverse pool of applicants. If you need a job filled, look at the candidate pool. If the pool of great candidates is more diverse, the odds of the best applicant being more diverse increase. > > This is why the focus is on increasing the candidate pool, and the important thing you seem to be missing. At no point is anything in Riot's statement about suppressing individuals, passing over qualified individuals, or forcing hiring procedures to meet diversity quotas. Those are all things you seem to be assuming. > > Their statement was pretty exclusively about ensuring that Riot is a place where a more diverse community feels comfortable applying, so that the candidate pool (and thus the qualified candidates) represent a larger spread of the global community. > > That's really it. Read the OP. Read what THEY said. I don't think you did, so I'll re-post the pertinent line to make sure you don't miss it again. "Our goals relate to topics like culture and climate perceptions, turnover, job candidate demographics, **headcount**, performance ratings, and compensation, among others." What do you suppose they meant by Headcount now? You seem to be under the impression that simply by casting a wider net, the diversity problem will just sort it's self out because the only reason that women and minorities haven't been hired is because they felt intimidated to do so. That the reason had to do with social pressures at Riot and more generally in society at large. The problem you don't understand and seem unwilling to look at or even acknowledge which I keep bringing up is the Scandinavian Gender Equality Paradox. Studies have shown that as you reduce societal pressures, women's engagement in the STEM fields goes DOWN not UP. Do you understand the implications of that? If Riot casts a wider net, then equality will go DOWN, not UP! So, how then are they to meet their HEADCOUNTs?
SEKAI (OCE)
: > [{quoted}](name=Unwardil,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=fVhEdtXR,comment-id=0000000000010000,timestamp=2018-09-13T17:57:13.559+0000) > > Actually I think I explained how their new HR directives WOULD destroy them. I think I was very clear about it in the OP actually. If you have a specific problem with the argument I laid out then have at it. I'm not going to re-iterate it if you can't even acknowledge it in the first place. > > You did make the connection between workplace productivity and engagement of employees and all that, so here's what I have to say regarding THAT bucket of worms. > > You have a company that is 80% Male yeah? You publicly declare that your workplace is sexist and then you go around policing the tone of all your male employees and tell them EVERYTHING THEY HAVE BEEN DOING FOR YEARS is oppressive to women, up to and including, having opinions in meetings. Now then. Do you think this is a move likely to have people say MORE THINGS in meetings, or LESS THINGS. > > So you have now told 80% of the people working for you to shut up. It is now, presumably up to the 20% to come up with 100% of the ideas for the company. Does this sound like an inclusive workplace to you? No, they aren't telling anybody to shut up. Telling others to speak up is not the same as telling those who are already speaking to shut up, that's such a bad logic. If A is talking and you tell the timid B to speak up as well, it just means A and B would both be speaking; it's a farcry from B speaking and A is now silenced as you'd presumed. What Riot is doing is just inviting more people to hit them up. And since Riot's total positions are limited, this declaration about being open to more different employees opens up the job market with double-slide, and if anything this means the employee-hopefuls would probably result in higher employee qualities due to the now increased competition. We can play this rationalisation game, too. But ofc, speculation and rationalisation is utterly meaningless, especially if you're also following a rather bad school of logic while you're at it. This HR stuff would not destroy League, you can bet your asses on it. If there is any mortal enemy that would eventually kill Riot, it would be the LCS.
> [{quoted}](name=SEKAI,realm=OCE,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=fVhEdtXR,comment-id=00000000000100000000,timestamp=2018-09-13T18:06:40.344+0000) > > No, they aren't telling anybody to shut up. Telling others to speak up is not the same as telling those who are already speaking to shut up, that's such a bad logic. If A is talking and you tell the timid B to speak up as well, it just means A and B would both be speaking; it's a farcry from B speaking and A is now silenced as you'd presumed. > > What Riot is doing is just inviting more people to hit them up. Since Riot's total positions are limited, this declaration about being open to more and different employees opens up the job market with double-slide, and if anything this means the employee-hopefuls would probably result in higher employee qualities due to the now increased in competition. We can play this rationalisation game, too. > > But ofc, speculation and rationalisation is utterly meaningless, especially if you're also following a rather bad school of logic while you're at it. > > This HR stuff would not destroy League, you can bet your asses on it. If there is anything mortal enemy that would eventually kill Riot, it would be the LCS. Yes. That WAS pure speculation wasn't it. Get back to my original point about racial and gender quotas. You know, like what I was talking about in the OP which you so completely ignored and have been unable to come up with a single justification for. Remember, it's not me saying Riot will do this, it's RIOT saying it. By their own admission!
: > [{quoted}](name=Unwardil,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=fVhEdtXR,comment-id=0000000000000000,timestamp=2018-09-13T17:48:29.166+0000)Riot cannot simply decide to focus on ANOTHER THING because by definition, your focus is the thing you are aiming at. SINGULAR THING. Again, this is the bit people cannot convince you on, and why there will not be any further value in discussion. Multiple people feel that a company of multiple individuals, some of whom do *not* work on the game, is able to meet multiple goals simultaneously. You do not. The only thing that will confirm one or the other is right is time. For some of us, expanding your candidate pool simply gives you more opportunities to find great employees, which leads to a better game, and can be done while still having those designers work on MAKING that better game. You disagree, but, frankly, that's okay. People (including Riot) don't have to answer to your disagreement. *-shrug-*
> [{quoted}](name=The Djinn,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=fVhEdtXR,comment-id=00000000000000000000,timestamp=2018-09-13T17:53:59.110+0000) > > Again, this is the bit people cannot convince you on, and why there will not be any further value in discussion. Multiple people feel that a company of multiple individuals, some of whom do *not* work on the game, is able to meet multiple goals simultaneously. You do not. The only thing that will confirm one or the other is right is time. > > For some of us, expanding your candidate pool simply gives you more opportunities to find great employees, which leads to a better game, and can be done while still having those designers work on MAKING that better game. You disagree, but, frankly, that's okay. People (including Riot) don't have to answer to your disagreement. *-shrug-* There is nothing wrong with expanding their candidate pool. That wasn't what I took issue with. That was never my argument. Address my ACTUAL Argument!
: > [{quoted}](name=Unwardil,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=fVhEdtXR,comment-id=0000000000020000,timestamp=2018-09-13T17:51:44.891+0000) > > Nope. Not what I said. Not even remotely what I said and also your answer displays your complete ignorance on the subject of statistics. > > If you pass up a white male employee because you are holding out for a black or female one, what does that make you? > > Try again. It's exactly what you've said every single time, you haven't deviated from it. And there's nothing wrong with the statistics. Holding out longer to see who applies (and thus who you compare to) doesn't make you anything except patient, and shows that you're not satisfied with the first person who comes along and checks off the boxes.
> [{quoted}](name=DrCyanide,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=fVhEdtXR,comment-id=00000000000200000000,timestamp=2018-09-13T17:55:44.552+0000) > > It's exactly what you've said every single time, you haven't deviated from it. And there's nothing wrong with the statistics. > > Holding out longer to see who applies (and thus who you compare to) doesn't make you anything except patient, and shows that you're not satisfied with the first person who comes along and checks off the boxes. Ok, I have 5 white male applicants who can do the job right now. I need the spot filled. Instead of hiring any of them, I'm going to keep looking until I find the black person or woman I'm really looking for, no matter how many highly qualified white men I have to push out of the way in order to find them. Besides, I already said what I predicted would happen if they did that. It wasn't white men who they would end up employing. You are miss-representing my arguments. Until you can state my argument back to me, I'm not going further with you.
Ifneth (NA)
: > [{quoted}](name=Unwardil,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=puFAEy1h,comment-id=000200010000000100000000000000000000000000000000,timestamp=2018-09-13T17:12:02.128+0000) > > Yes it does mean they don't exist, because what they interpret as sexist or racist or whatever is actually THE OPPOSITE of what those words are commonly understood to mean. That someone has some unreasonable beliefs does not mean that all their beliefs must be unreasonable, and even if it did, then not everything an unreasonable person says must be false. Your argument just doesn’t hold up. > If anything, the fact that Kotaku reported on Riot's sexist behavior was proof they were not being sexist. What about all the Rioters who have publicly said that Riot has one?
> [{quoted}](name=Ifneth,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=puFAEy1h,comment-id=0002000100000001000000000000000000000000000000000000,timestamp=2018-09-13T17:43:19.610+0000) > > That someone has some unreasonable beliefs does not mean that all their beliefs must be unreasonable, and even if it did, then not everything an unreasonable person says must be false. Your argument just doesn’t hold up. > > What about all the Rioters who have publicly said that Riot has one? First, if you cant agree on terminology, you can't have a discussion about it and second, Riot didn't define their terminology so how do you know what they were talking about was really sexist behavior. Also, it was less than 1% of the people at the company complaining. Which is more likely, that 100% of a massively left leaning company were all a bunch of sexist pigs, or that 1% of the people had a stick up their ass for one reason or another and wanted to get one over on Riot out of revenge?
SEKAI (OCE)
: > [{quoted}](name=Unwardil,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=fVhEdtXR,comment-id=00000000,timestamp=2018-09-13T17:32:59.361+0000) > > You're still not addressing my point and nobody has yet. > > I've had my character attacked repeatedly, been called outrageously ignorant and bigoted but you see, those don't address the point I raise. The point I raise has nothing to do with the quality of my character. It has everything to do with Riot's imminent collapse as a company and the destruction of League of Legends as a result. > > At no time did I make an appeal to morality, yet every single response was about how immoral I was if I was against inclusivity and diversity. > > Let me make this perfectly clear. > > My question is not about how MORAL it is for Riot to adopt this D&I initiative as their new primary focus. I don't CARE how moral it is. MY QUESTION is about HOW DO THEY INTEND TO SURVIVE AS A COMPANY if they adopt that as their focus. I have addressed your point, you just refused to take it for some reason. This is a workplace quality matter, and not a product quality one that you seem to get your head out of for some reason; a matter of HR, and not a matter of products. I'd also explained again and again that a company is more than just their products, and there are multiple aspects within the company that have little and sometimes nothing to do with the products. I'd also used analogy to illustrate this by comparing your outrage to say that it's as if you're being angry over a company deciding to upgrade their hygiene protocol, and you want to know how that has any causality over the improvident the products; to which I simply said that they are not related and you shouldn't expect everything to be linked directly to the quality of the product. You also refuse to take the idea that upgrading HR protocols does not immediately spell doom of the company, or vice versa, as you're dead-set on the notion that upgrading a comapny's HR protocol is the downfall of them for whatever reason. Ironically, for someone who is supposedly so meticulous on the details, you've never bothered to explain how exactly a HR protocol upgrade directly results in the "destruction" of Riot and League of Legends, given you rarely, if ever, went past the stage of rhetorical questions and personal yet questionable statements there as if it's a common fact but without any prior dispute. My dude, HR protocols, much like other protocols, are upgraded all the time. And PR statements are handed out all the time too, this isn't the first time any company gives out a PR statement, or do something in attempt to improve the existing HR or any other company protocols. Riot would be just fine.
> [{quoted}](name=SEKAI,realm=OCE,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=fVhEdtXR,comment-id=000000000001,timestamp=2018-09-13T17:44:33.673+0000) > > I have addressed your point, you just refused to take it for some reason. > > This is a workplace quality matter, and not a product quality one that you seem to get your head out of for some reason; a matter of HR, and not a matter of products. > > I'd also explained again and again that a company is more than just their products, and there are multiple aspects within the company that have little and sometimes nothing to do with the products. > > I'd also used analogy to illustrate this by comparing your outrage to say that it's as if you're being angry over a company deciding to upgrade their hygiene protocol, and you want to know how that has any causality over the improvident the products; to which I simply said that they are not related and you shouldn't expect everything to be linked directly to the quality of the product. > > You also refuse to take the idea that upgrading HR protocols does not immediately spell doom of the company, or vice versa, as you're dead-set on the notion that upgrading a comapny's HR protocol is the downfall of them for whatever reason. Ironically, for someone who is supposedly so meticulous on the details, you've never bothered to explain how exactly a HR protocol upgrade directly results in the "destruction" of Riot and League of Legends, given you rarely, if ever, went past the stage of rhetorical questions and personal yet questionable statements there as if it's a common fact but without any prior dispute. > > My dude, HR protocols, much like other protocols, are upgraded all the time. And PR statements are handed out all the time too, this isn't the first time any company gives out a PR statement, or do something in attempt to improve the existing HR or any other company protocols. Riot would be just fine. Actually I think I explained how their new HR directives WOULD destroy them. I think I was very clear about it in the OP actually. If you have a specific problem with the argument I laid out then have at it. I'm not going to re-iterate it if you can't even acknowledge it in the first place. You did make the connection between workplace productivity and engagement of employees and all that, so here's what I have to say regarding THAT bucket of worms. You have a company that is 80% Male yeah? You publicly declare that your workplace is sexist and then you go around policing the tone of all your male employees and tell them EVERYTHING THEY HAVE BEEN DOING FOR YEARS is oppressive to women, up to and including, having opinions in meetings. Now then. Do you think this is a move likely to have people say MORE THINGS in meetings, or LESS THINGS. So you have now told 80% of the people working for you to shut up. It is now, presumably up to the 20% to come up with 100% of the ideas for the company. Does this sound like an inclusive workplace to you?
: > [{quoted}](name=Unwardil,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=fVhEdtXR,comment-id=00000000,timestamp=2018-09-13T17:32:59.361+0000) > > Let me make this perfectly clear. > > My question is not about how MORAL it is for Riot to adopt this D&I initiative as their new primary focus. I don't CARE how moral it is. MY QUESTION is about HOW DO THEY INTEND TO SURVIVE AS A COMPANY if they adopt that as their focus. Your question boils down to "how could the best people for the job be anything *other* than white men?" You've dressed it up differently each time, but you keep coming back to this core concept. Do you really think if they waited long enough they couldn't find a black applicant who was just as qualified as their top white applicant? Or that they couldn't find a female applicant who was just as qualified as their top male applicant? The answer is of course they could. We live in a nation with millions of people, it's naive to think that they can't find people who are both "the best" *and* more diverse to round out their staff that's primarily "the best" and stereotypical.
> [{quoted}](name=DrCyanide,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=fVhEdtXR,comment-id=000000000002,timestamp=2018-09-13T17:45:50.940+0000) > > Your question boils down to "how could the best people for the job be anything *other* than white men?" You've dressed it up differently each time, but you keep coming back to this core concept. > > Do you really think if they waited long enough they couldn't find a black applicant who was just as qualified as their top white applicant? Or that they couldn't find a female applicant who was just as qualified as their top male applicant? The answer is of course they could. We live in a nation with millions of people, it's naive to think that they can't find people who are both "the best" *and* more diverse to round out their staff that's primarily "the best" and stereotypical. Nope. Not what I said. Not even remotely what I said and also your answer displays your complete ignorance on the subject of statistics. If you pass up a white male employee because you are holding out for a black or female one, what does that make you? Try again.
: > [{quoted}](name=Unwardil,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=fVhEdtXR,comment-id=00000000,timestamp=2018-09-13T17:32:59.361+0000)My question is not about how MORAL it is for Riot to adopt this D&I initiative as their new primary focus. I don't CARE how moral it is. MY QUESTION is about HOW DO THEY INTEND TO SURVIVE AS A COMPANY if they adopt that as their focus. A question NOBODY has been able to answer. People have answered it. You just don't personally believe a company can pay attention to two issues simultaneously without compromising one. Others disagree, but that's pretty much the fundamental point and, since you cannot agree on that possibility, there is an automatic impasse in the conversation. At this point the only way to get an answer is to wait and see if Riot is or is not able to focus on two goals simultaneously.
> [{quoted}](name=The Djinn,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=fVhEdtXR,comment-id=000000000000,timestamp=2018-09-13T17:40:01.503+0000) > > People have answered it. You just don't personally believe a company can pay attention to two issues simultaneously without compromising one. Others disagree, but that's pretty much the fundamental point and, since you cannot agree on that possibility, there is an automatic impasse in the conversation. > > At this point the only way to get an answer is to wait and see if Riot is or is not able to focus on two goals simultaneously. Yes, but that's because their answer was "A wizard will take care of that problem". No, just because other people don't understand that it is physically impossible to simultaneously focus 2 things at the same time doesn't mean my question has been answered. It would be like if you asked me, "How could we go about changing the rate at which the earth revolves around the sun" and I replied "Easy, you simply change the gravitational constant of the universe". Do you see how that isn't an answer? Riot cannot simply decide to focus on ANOTHER THING because by definition, your focus is the thing you are aiming at. SINGULAR THING. Now, it could be possible, I am leaving this as a possibility you understand, that two things can be in the same line of focus. So imagine you're sighting down a rifle. You can either keep the sights in focus, or your target, however, if you line them all up in the same direction, you will hit the thing you're aiming at. So. It is POSSIBLE that Riot's D&I initiatives are a point of focus BEYOND that of make League of Legends the best example of what it is, however, it is not obvious to me how that could be. It seems to me as if it is a completely separate goal that is in no way related to the other. That's why I have a problem with it, so, somebody, please explain to me how those two things, D&I initiatives and making a great game are somehow in perfect alignment with each other.
SEKAI (OCE)
: > Edit: You know, I see a lot of down votes. You know what I don't see? A lot of people able to demonstrate how I'm wrong about any of this. Except a quick trip to all of your previous posts on the same topics, there are quite a few people who did just that. If you hold the kind of belief that people are wrong just because you say so, then I've got bad news for you. The main reason why people don't bother to reply and just downvote you now (juts so it's clear, I have not downvoted any of your recent post) is because you've made like what, 10 threads on this exact same topic all within a SINGLE day, each seemingly more accusatory and radical than the last but ayyy. But put on some brake, man. You're literally just spamming at this stage. Also, just so you know, spamming is a bannable offence on the Boards so you may want to put on a brake or else your forum account may face bans over it.
> [{quoted}](name=SEKAI,realm=OCE,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=fVhEdtXR,comment-id=0000,timestamp=2018-09-13T17:26:20.243+0000) > > Except a quick trip to all of your previous posts on the same topics, there are quite a few people who did just that. If you hold the kind of belief that people are wrong just because you say so, then I've got bad news for you. > > The main reason why people don't bother reply and just downvote you now is because you've made like what, 10 threads on this exact same topic all within a SINGLE day, each seemingly more accusatory and radical than the last. > > Why, people are literally just downvoting you and moving on because you're basically spamming. Also, just so you know, spamming is a bannable offence on the Boards so you may want to put on a brake or else your forum account may face bans over it. You're still not addressing my point and nobody has yet. I've had my character attacked repeatedly, been called outrageously ignorant and bigoted but you see, those don't address the point I raise. The point I raise has nothing to do with the quality of my character. It has everything to do with Riot's imminent collapse as a company and the destruction of League of Legends as a result. At no time did I make an appeal to morality, yet every single response was about how immoral I was if I was against inclusivity and diversity. Let me make this perfectly clear. My question is not about how MORAL it is for Riot to adopt this D&I initiative as their new primary focus. I don't CARE how moral it is. MY QUESTION is about HOW DO THEY INTEND TO SURVIVE AS A COMPANY if they adopt that as their focus. A question NOBODY has been able to answer.
Ifneth (NA)
: > [{quoted}](name=Unwardil,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=puFAEy1h,comment-id=0002000100000001000000000000000000000000,timestamp=2018-09-13T16:33:25.113+0000) > > But you can't convince them of your side by using their language, because they aren't talking about the same thing that you are. The words they use don't mean what you think they mean and so if you let them use words as if they can mean anything they like, you will never convince anyone of anything. > > You need to ask them what they mean when they say "Inclusion" and what they mean when they say "diversity" and then you need to determine why they think there is a problem at Riot with a lack of these things. > > Because I can tell you the answers to all of those things from their perspective. They think of the world as being fundamentally a power battle between groups. Define the groups however you like and then define the opposite of that group. Then, they determine the balance of power between those groups, again, in an arbitrary fashion. Not everyone who thinks that Riot needs to solve its sexism problems believes in Critical Theory, which is what you’re talking about. For instance, I don’t. A little consideration, please. :/ > Is this all starting to explain the things Kotaku says? The often rauocous behavior of those Crit Theory people when they become activists does not mean that the problems they reference must not exist. Just think of how convenient it would be to just trick them into complaining about something and then see it instantly disappear, right? Kotaku’s done a pretty good job so far. They were the ones who broke the original story, interviewing employees to paint a picture, the accuracy of which not even Riot disputes. Now it’s the follow-up, standard for investigative journalism, done again the same way.
> [{quoted}](name=Ifneth,realm=NA,application-id=yrc23zHg,discussion-id=puFAEy1h,comment-id=00020001000000010000000000000000000000000000,timestamp=2018-09-13T17:05:35.758+0000) > > Not everyone who thinks that Riot needs to solve its sexism problems believes in Critical Theory, which is what you’re talking about. For instance, I don’t. A little consideration, please. :/ > > The often rauocous behavior of those Crit Theory people when they become activists does not mean that the problems they reference must not exist. Just think of how convenient it would be to just trick them into complaining about something and then see it instantly disappear, right? > > Kotaku’s done a pretty good job so far. They were the ones who broke the original story, interviewing employees to paint a picture, the accuracy of which not even Riot disputes. Now it’s the follow-up, standard for investigative journalism, done again the same way. Yes it does mean they don't exist, because what they interpret as sexist or racist or whatever is actually THE OPPOSITE of what those words are commonly understood to mean. It's just like in Catholicism. You are created broken, but commanded to be well and the very thoughts you have can be used against you. Under critical theory it is sexist to not give a woman special accommodation on the basis of her genitalia. In other words, it is sexist to treat people equitably, if you are a member of the oppressive group. If anything, the fact that Kotaku reported on Riot's sexist behavior was proof they were not being sexist.
Rioter Comments
Show more

Unwardil

Level 30 (NA)
Lifetime Upvotes
Create a Discussion