Just a thought. If shes new, how would she know? Other than hearing what we hear, she wasnt there.
1 Like
What?
So, I’ve laid out point by point why I think the DFEH has a good case. What you’ve provided in return is a long ramble of what-ifs, general nonspecific speculation because “government bad” and “lawyers bad” and “what if they didn’t really investigate thoroughly though” and “women lie”.
But nothing about how in this specific case, anything at all about why you think the evidence isn’t there, or why you think that the California DFEH didn’t do their job appropriately. In other words, you have nothing but speculation that is in no way connected to the known facts of this particular situation so far.
Then again, it’s not surprising since your approach to the case is that we should all stick our fingers in our ears and “LA LA LA” until the judge comes down with a final decision, at which point I suspect your reaction will be more “governments are bad, women lie, judges have agendas for some reason, bias”.
Myeah. I’m not going to bother debating someone who can only debate in buzzwords and generalities instead of laying out what they think is flawed in the specifics of the case.
2 Likes
No, but, you see, there was this one time, when those people, yeah, they had a petition to ban drinking water LMFAO
1 Like
It’s just a bunch of deflection. The people you are arguing with are trying to make people stop thinking/talking about the fact that Blizzard did these things, and they’re doing it by getting lost in the weeds.
Who cares? I don’t care what the weeds are. These people are guilty, and they know it.
2 Likes
You dont trust what blizzard says but you are selectively trusting these people saying that they cooperated and using it as evidence.
Yes, what ifs is why things are the way they are. The purpose is to get rid of the what ifs. How do you know that these people arent lying and just trying to get some money, or get Blizzard back for doing layoffs? You dont. And its a plausible explanation, especially in California.
I think california is a corrupt cesspool that doesnt know what they are doing based on rampant homelessness, allowing theft and much more. Its a failing state and ive seen government bodies do things for money because they overspend. Does that mean that they have done that? No, but its a possibility and why im waiting for more evidence.
There are no known facts of the case right now. Its just allegations and belief. Thats it. Thats all you or anyone else has.
1 Like
That should be everyone’s view of the case.
You should not pass judgment without facts, or condemn innocent people.
Thats exactly why we are where we are with Women Lie, ect. Because people just assume guilt constantly without any reason, evidence or even knowledge.
You don’t know, I don’t know, No one Knows. And that’s why articles like this shouldn’t even exist. Innocent until proven guilty Remember?
1 Like
There were three individuals earlier that were discussing things with me on an objective factual basis, and gave me cause to re-evaluate some of my points and counter arguments. By and large the rest are certainly as you describe.
The point of my last statement though is, there are 254 replies to this topic. If a person new to the convo isn’t going to read them all then they have no real useful, relative info to add to it and are only rehashing points that have already been discussed. I’m certainly not going to repeat circular debates/discussions in this thread that have already been resolved with every newcomer.
1 Like
Oh shut up. You dont even know how to have a coherent argument with someone. That petition to ban drinking water since you dont know how to think rationally, was explaining how people can just band together based on little to nothing. Oh signatures on this petition it must be something worthy let me sign. Its called mob mentality.
Its a very real possibility that ex employees that were laid off jumped on the band wagon as well. Its a very real motive but theres no way someone claiming they are a victim would be anything other than a victim. Just shut it, seriously.
You can think whatever you like, but if you voice your opinion and frame it as fact when it is not, I am going to point it out.
I explained earlier why I disagreed with you, you never responded.
1 Like
Well, good. We definitely need more people focussing on the wrong things and help Blizzard cover up their wrong doings. Hope you feel good about that. 
This. 10/char
There is 110% possibility that people claiming they are a Victim are not a Victim.
This happens ALL the time lol. ALL the time. Especially in today’s world, where people jumping on the Guilt Badwagon, have weaponized being a Victim.
1 Like
While sexism torward women should never be tolerated it seems that at least 90% of the outrage for it was from obvious trolls on low level alts.
This also.
Mm. That’s one reason the lawyers I worked with were absolutely hated by the State. They did not agree with weaponizing the law simply to bankrupt individuals or force settlements in the State’s favor.
They often would take on cases which would be a financial loss and take them all the way to court, absorbing the costs of litigation themselves either with a promise of later attorney fees, or by declaring a loss at tax time on the business and using their investments to subsist on and buffer the losses.
9/10 times the cases were won as well which infuriated the state.
California can be a hateful place if the State deems you an enemy. Case and point when one senior partner at that firm died they kept his body at the morgue for 3 months. They did so to simply prevent the family from having an open casket funeral.
The claim? “Oh we’re really backed up. We apologize, but we promise we’re working as fast as we can!” A well scripted exchange, but for one thing. One of the Coroners actually was heard making a joke after he hung up with the son of the deceased. “Heh… In life that f—r was a worthless j–, in death he’s becoming bodybag stew. That little bastard spawn of his can wait longer.”
So the son sued and won for negligence by the coroner’s office. A true pity the law did not allow him to take recording he made and use it in court however. He wanted to, but the two party consent rule would never allow it in court.
Another good example came when a judge actually asked one of the lawyers after a hearing, “Mr. X. Why do you represent ‘these’ people?” and it was not in a endearing or even impartial manner. That attorney smiled and said. “It’s my job your honor.” The Judge had nothing to say. He still ruled against our client, but we knew that would happen when he asked such a question with just the 3 of us in the Courtroom after hours. We appealed and won.
So no, I have to be frank. Yes the State of California can and does file things for good cause sometimes, but in some areas the court systems and accompanying state positions from D.A. and Public Defender, to institutes like the DFEH and even the police are beyond corrupt.
In Madera County there’s a running joke: “This is where the cops too stupid and too corrupt to make it in L.A. come to serve. As smart as the term their county is named for. Wood.”
Remember folks, all people are fallible. That goes for Blizzard as much as it does for employees of the State. When both sides are equally prone to have dirty hands; this is why it is so important to see what evidence is raised in the court. That is also why no one should rush to judgment, yet.
1 Like
No dude that’s where your wrong.
Sexism should not be tolerated, not sexism towards women. Stating it the way you did, is in itself Sexism.
You people never cease to amaze.
Probably because it wasnt worth responding to just like that last one technically wasnt worth responding to.
2 Likes
Its a possibility sure. But I wouldnt say its 110%.
Its been happening more because there isnt a consequence to lying.
I am not a court of law. I am a human being, with fingers and toes and a driver’s license. I can’t assess penalties or pass legally binding judgment on a company.
That does not mean that I’m barred from looking at the evidence so far and forming an opinion on it.
I’m not assuming guilt without evidence. I’ve got a six-point essay above on the evidence that I’ve judged to be relevant that goes over my thought process on deciding “yeaaaaah this probably happened”.
Is it possible that with new evidence, it’ll turn out that things weren’t as they seemed and actually everything was on the up and up? I mean…I guess it’s technically possible, albeit improbable given that many people have non-anonymously confirmed the stories in the charges. But since I am a human being bearing teeth and eyelashes and a social security number, my personal opinion had no consequences for the company’s structure and didn’t force them to do anything legally, so no one cares what I thought!