151–160 of 187 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Oh, go away! These links are hardly credible.
It very much seems like KiA is subbreddit of the day. If you have reason to believe otherwise, please bring the links. ;-) (Now, if you don't mind, take a minute to consider what you have just said in your last comments.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Disclaimer: Not defending threatening her. Definitely defending SendGrid for firing her though. > by people that were extremely angered by something that should have been easily dismissed as a mistake. It was a pretty big mistake on her part, going on for days and as far as I am aware she never apologized. > Her apparent pattern of reacting loudly to small offenses ... also isn't something to become angry and outrage…
I don't accept the premise that she cost Hank his job. Conveniently, my argument is that the incident itself didn't deserve all the negative attention it got (it should have mostly been ignored), and in the absence of all that negative attention, Hank probably would not have lost his job. Also, my point was to respond to the comparison you made: And here folks I guess we have a real case of harassment. I think there…
If someone start a fire in a building then they would be stupid to argue that the reason people got hurt was because firemen didn't react quickly enough.
There is no doubt she started it, she could have prevented all this from happening in the first place.
* She took offence over a private conversation between
two others.
* She publicly shamed them by including the picture etc.
That said, yes, a lot of interesting decisions here.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is the same kind of deluded apologism that the gamer gate crowd uses and it is dangerous. How can anyone judge the credibility of a threat made by a stranger on the internet? A threat is a threat.
Can we stop dragging gamergate into this? (Or might I suggest you read up on KotakuInAction on reddit and tell me how it is anywhere borderline close to this?)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It very much seems like KiA is subbreddit of the day. If you have reason to believe otherwise, please bring the links. ;-) (Now, if you don't mind, take a minute to consider what you have just said in your last comments.)
Reddit is not a reliable source of information. Full stop.
And you still haven't provided evidence of anything else.
As the sign next to the radios used to say: think-push-speak.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Completely irrelevant. If you told me that my daughter was "slutting around", then I'd assume she was being forced. I'd be even more likely to consider you a rapist.
What makes something a threat or not is not the conclusions the recipient of the message jumps to.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Reddit is not a reliable source of information. Full stop.
It as the only reliable source on what is subreddit-of-the-day though. And you still haven't provided evidence of anything else. As the sign next to the radios used to say: think-push-speak.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I need to provide credible links to prove that someone didn't do something?
Yep. If KiA isn't Subreddit of the day that should be easy to prove.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Now I'm really confused. You're saying that if Alice is in Bob's blind spot, it is impossible for Alice to see Bob on his phone? Are we talking about the same blind spot?
I probably overstate that point, but it is less likely you can see they are on the phone. My point still stands - it's not the responsibility of the driver to peer into the car next to them to see their behaviour. In fact, that's downright dangerous.
I agree that Alice in my example doesn't have any legal fault for the accident. Maybe this is a cultural difference, but as I see it she does share some responsibility for being in the accident if she didn't make a best-effort attempt using known-good practices to avoid it. All drivers share that responsibility.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It as the only reliable source on what is subreddit-of-the-day though. And you still haven't provided evidence of anything else. As the sign next to the radios used to say: think-push-speak.
What's your point? It's not a reliable source that Zoe Quinn called in a Swot team against someone falsely!
I'm trying to point out that you are acting as if you have already made up you mind: whatever the facts, gg-ers are wrong.
In this case it seems you are, among other things, denying that KiA is Subreddit-of-the-day. Which is very easy to prove.
I suggest you read through this very carefully and find out exactly what you commented on instead of jumping to conclusions[1]. Because, you know, -this isn't reddit.
[1]: Protip: This often a good idea elsewhere as well.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Schilling is just being a crybaby, and you are flat insane. Man up, for Christ's sake, and stop being little babies!
The people who lost their jobs over making some offensive tweets are the crybabies. Get another job! Man up!