20s century had 3 big terrible events for humanity: world wars, hispanic flu and feminism.
4 Likes
Unrelated, but I just noticed we have the exact same number of achievement points… spooky lol 
4 Likes
Lmao, true.
Coincidence? I think not!
2 Likes
What’s the alternative? Do you really want a world where employers don’t even have the freedom to choose who they associate with?
Brave New World indeed the day the government begins to meddle in such. You MUST keep this actress on and YOU ARE NOT ALLOWED to fire them in case people think you were doing it because of X.
Freedom is a zero sum game. You increase the freedom of that accused actor in being allowed to retain their current contract by making it so it’s unlawful for employers to terminate them under such circumstances? Congratulations, you have just reduced the freedom of employers.
You take away the rights of employers and creatives to take decisions about their own work such as “rewriting history and recasting”? Congratulations, you are now advocating for a world where the government now tells you what you are, and are not allowed to do when making a creative project or enterprise.
I personally find the whole retrospective removal thing to be distasteful on a personal level, but i’d sure as heck prefer that to exist than to enable a world where you make it so people “aren’t allowed” to do it, because I don’t think many people here realise the implications of such a decision.
If I make a film, it’s my film. So long as I have broken no laws in making it, it is totally up to me what I do with it, who I cast, who I swap out and whether I “recast it” or not, and the idea that I shouldn’t have the right to do that is bizarre.
Disagree all you want with people who do it, boycott them and punish them in ways they recognise, but a very dangerous precedent is set if we try to stop people being able to do it. Stuff like this is simply the end-result of a society that is mad about “individual freedom” and the only remedy to it is to remove the level of individual freedom we have.
1 Like
Oh sweet summer child… In current time all it takes to cancel whole production is few outraged blue-pink haired genderfluid bodypositive wopersons.
How it should be done? Person X found guilty, his contract is terminated, his previous work should be left untouched. Thats it.
3 Likes
clearly you are the same person talking to yourself!
Yet when I do it, people call me crazy.
Life is unfair.
3 Likes
Let’s focus on that last part.
“If person X found guilty, he fired” yes?
So am I allowed to fire him, if he is not guilty of this alleged crime?
If yes - then how is that any different from now?
If no - does that mean i’m not allowed to fire this person UNLESS they commit said crime? Seems a bit extreme to me.
Or is it some middle ground where i’m allowed to fire someone for “reasons” normally, but if they’re currently embroiled in a criminal trial, i’m suddenly not allowed to fire them unless they’re found guilty?
Because the fact of the matter is, all we know is the interaction between blizz and the VA ended, but we don’t know exactly why, so it easily could have been any number of reasons as to why, and so long as that is true, so long as we wish to maintain a world where employers can fire people for reasons other than them being a criminal, what happened was okay.
And I don’t happen to think "well, it was obviously because of that, come on " is good enough. Yes we may know this through commonsense intuition and gut feeling, but this kind of thing has no place within a court of law, which is ultimatley where it would have to be decided whether a company did indeed fire someone for Y reason or X reason. So we’d need definitive proof that he was fired because of the allegation and the allegation alone on the basis of the rumours and I do not think you will find it.
He made a statement:-
https://twitter.com/quintonflynn/status/1384197994120028171?s=20
Gives the impression it was he who went after her for a protective order, rather than him being taken to court.
1 Like
Uhm, my post was a reply about a comment on methodjosh, but ok 
Sorry I didn’t realise discussions had moved on.
My bad.
The tweet paints him as an individual whom probably isn’t interested in “making her life hell” as opposed to just being able to get away from her and prevent her bothering him, so I don’t imagine we’ll see this insistence from him on her “being thrown in jail”.
It mad me sad to read the end about his shock of reading of replacement - all i’ve done in this thread is offered a descriptive account of what happens (and is the case in how these things are handled) but in this case (and i’ve said as much in other replies about the fallout) I do think it would be sensible for blizzard to reach out, apologise for the damages caused (although I believe they still took a reasonable step) and try to offer remediation.
He comes across as the kind of guy who would understand “why” blizz did what they did, but I suppose it has to be gutting to have this long-time role of yours see a replacement. Maybe dialogue can be reopened and the “new guy” moved elsewhere in agreement with him?
1 Like
so I just stare, at the stain on the wall where the tv’d been, but ever siiince yada yada
1 Like
It happened to method before and it worked and guess what, as long as it is working in America it will be repeated over and over.
this is one of the reasons i avoid working around / getting to know woman in my workplace, not losing my income just because some woman might not like me for xy reason
3 Likes
Workplace relationships are generally a bad idea, at least in my books. Doesn’t matter what gender you are, you’ll still have to work with an ex if things doesn’t work out. If you split on amicable terms it might not be a huge deal, but I can almost taste that awkwardness just by thinking about it.
This thread derail brought to you by Draenei Inc.
1 Like
One doesn’t need to avoid them, you just need to be somewhat sensible.
I work in a sphere which is female dominated (education) and I am a male. Part of my job involves working with lots of female colleagues but also female learners, and they can range from ages 16 all the way to above my own.
Sometimes my role has me having to have 1:1s with them regarding progress or other forms of mentoring etc etc.
Never in my well over a decade of employment have I ever fallen foul of such accusations (and this includes a couple of incidents where a student became somewhat fixated on me so to speak) because whenever I was meeting a student for a 1:1, I would always take sensible precautions such as:
a) other people would know where I would be and what time.
b) it would always be held in a place where we weren’t concealed from everyone.
c) There would always be strict start and finish times which I follow religiously.
Same for male learners (the idea that only women would do it is patently false). These are very small steps, easy to do, and haven’t resorted to me having to “purposefully avoid” women in my workplace or any other nonsense, because my experience has taught me to that contrary to certain hysterical rumourmongerings, unless you’re doing stuff that exposes you (like ignoring my above points) the mere fact that some random person says “you did X” does not mean you’re instantly fired, because off the bat there is no evidence what they’re saying could be true because you were never in a position to do it.
The only people in my workplace (2 during my tenure) whom have fallen foul of this kind of thing were gentleman whom were indeed “getting down and dirty” in manner of speaking with some of their charges, so their dismissal was rightful anyway.
Maybe my workplace is just pretty good on it, or maybe most of the blokes just have some common sense. I don’t know.
it could just be me for example. When i’m at work (even before I was married) the idea of brazenly flirting with colleagues or whatever “on the clock” is just something i’ve always viewed as unprofessional. If ever that sort of thing arose, an arrangement could be made to catch up “off the clock” as it were.
Where i’ve spoken to guys whom lamented about the whole “having to avoid women” and “that workplace gender police tho” one common thread became clear between them and that was that what they viewed as “okay” regarding how they talk to colleagues and what I regarded okay on the same topic was very, very different. For example one of them saw no issue with telling a female colleague that she looked nice by “You look banging, I would.” (implying he’d have sex with her) and making these kinds of comments whenever he saw her.
My advice to him was - if you seriously can’t see how what you’re doing might be interpredted as unwelcome you need to give your head a wobble.
Never in my well over a decade of employment have I ever fallen foul of such accusations
so far
1 Like
Honestly, half the people here should found a Jimmy Saville fan club. After all, he was never convicted (because he was dead) buy heyho, technicalities right!?
Shame the internet (and you lot) weren’t around back then to all jump to his defence when there were whisperings. You would have been great weapons against the truth with your faux outrage and ability to jump to conclusions without facts.
2 Likes
I understand how the law works, how commonsense works and more importantly enough about other people to understand that just because I think something might sound okay, doesn’t mean everyone else agrees or has to.
Either way, if you feel like you need to avoid interactions with women in the workplace to weather such, then be my guest if it makes you happy. Just pointing out that my experience has taught me otherwise and I see no reason why it would change.
People were ranting about this sort of thing near a decade ago, truth be told for a vast majority of the world it changed nothing, because when at work, we work, and contrary to the internet, workplaces are not full of women just randomly accusing men “for the Lols”
1 Like