Comments by "Golden Croc" (@GoldenCroc) on "EA Game Dev Explains Why She Doesn't Hire White People" video.

@haven216 Yes, I know. But laws are only words on paper. They are useless unless someone is charged and convicted. Do you believe this will be the case, and that this will affect this person? I certainly dont. Because those that have the authority to do so dont share your morals. Not at all. Thats why I wrote what I did. Nothing personal to your post, mind you. The majority of people dont fully understand how much US as a society has diversed in its cultural and moral standards the last 30-40 years.
45
Is it though? Maybe she is more self aware than you. You think there could be a downside to this, whilst there is a very real possibility there could be only upsides for her, saying what she did. Different people have very different moral standards and you presumably dont interact with her in any meaningful way. Nor does anyonee else that find what she said offensive. This overconfidence and blindspot in that "our" moral standards still hold true in all cases across the country is what got us here.
13
@idofx8722 I would say its not only possible, its all but a certainty the output suffers. That doesnt mean it affects her though. In fact, I find it unlikely. Same with your second concern. The ones "higher up" have so far signed off on this, and I find it likely she is a diversity hire herself. Its doubtful this will change.
8
@TheWorldsprayer You might want to read my second post, it adresses what you wrote.
4
@billbradley4878 I mean circumstances in the overarching legal progression and negative effects way, not in the "evidence" way. I am not, to the best of my ability, using legal terms, but general ones. To simplify, there are at least 4 discrete steps. All of which are unlikely, bringing the total combination to "extremely unlikely". That is the point I was making.
3
@idofx8722 I certainly hope you are correct in what you say shall come to pass. But I very much doubt it. For now, I have seen too much to conclude otherwise.
3
@PaulGuy Who said anything else? Considering you are tagging me, you might want to read my posts again, because I certainly didnt.
3
@billbradley4878 I took all that into account when writing my first post. As I allude to in my second post, and as you write, it needs a combination of circumstances to progress legally. All of which I consider unlikely. Taken as a whole progression, I find any verdict that will effect her personally extremely unlikely. Hence the assumption this virtue signaling might very well be an overall net benefit for her.
2
@idofx8722 Absolutely that is true. As for now, I find it unlikely this specific matter/video will find any real world traction or effect of note. Sadly. Which, again, is why I made my first post.
2
@garethlawton5278 You should perhaps be reading my posts a bit more thoroughly. I am not arguing what you seem to think I am, and it says so in the posts I have made above. Read again and get back to me if anything is still unclear.
2
@bas_ee No, not at all. What in the world gave you that idea?
2
@purpleey Not at all, I stand by exactly what I said from the first post. If I have edited my posts (which I often do, I admit), its to fix spelling mistakes since I admit I am a very sloppy typer and my fingers mostly wont do as I tell them. Jumbling letters in all manner of ways, which is an eyesore. Nothing sinister about it at all. Case in point: this very post. If there is anything you take issue with, state it again and I will clarify to the best of my ability.
2
@seanconnolly5754 You didnt get it, I presume?
2
@Spagyr Considering I have got something like ten replies (look above) that didnt get my comment at all, I think it was sorely needed. I wont apologize for trying to make people think a bit more than surface level.
2
@IronskullGM Thats good then, I will take your word for it. Of course we have yet to seen what the negative consequences, if there will be any, are to befall her for this. its not a certainty at this point in time, as I understand your post? Anyway, which post of mine are you referring to? I made several ones as you can see above... I any case, as you can also see in my comments above I only commented in a non-definitive manner, based on historical precedent on whats seemingly likely or not to happen. Nobody is more pleased than me if this would prove an exception.
2
@bluegamer4210 Absolutely its fair, and I applaud it. I just find it seriously unlikely any real world consequences will bestow her, and thus it may well be as described in my first post; a net benefit for her.
1
@VashTheStampede117 You might want to read my posts again, a bit more carefully. Your conclusion doesnt fit nor is relevant to what I have written at all.
1
@GBValode I would have thought that was pretty obvious from the last part of my first post.
1
@Matty80822 ?
1
@Matty80822 Sure. But that doesnt change that I am right. Which seems kind of relevant.
1
@Matty80822 It seems likely you just misread/misunderstood my first post, as did many others. Not saying thats the case for you, but I blame low attention span on the failure to comprehend it properly by those posters.
1
@purpleey Not at all, it simply seems you failed to comprehend what I was writing properly when you made your reply. Read it again and, if needed, think about it some more and it will hopefully become more clear.
1
@1101-g3k Read above, please.
1
@eiji862 276 comments in total, and quite some time and multiple ones of mine later, I am honestly not exactly sure which one you are referring to. Perhaps the one in which a person stated something like "there are laws about this sort of thing"? If that is the one you are talking about, I am not saying at all what you think I am. He can say what he thinks, thats fine. But almost everyone knows about these laws already, so its mostly irrelevant to the discussion. He also, among many others doint the same, wrote it in a way like any law matters in a vacuum. They do, in fact, not. They matter only as long as they are followed and policed. Which was my point, and I have written of it in my other posts: Unless something concrete and substantial will follow, the law is effectively meaningles and might as well not exist. If it wont change reality in any way, it may as well not be there. There is no god ordained thruth that things must happen just because a law is presumably broken. So again, its fine to speak out. By all means. I do it myself all the time. But people were talking about it as "done deal" that she would have consequences of any magnitude coming her way. Not the case at all, in reality. Same as with any laws, its far from a given. Many people throughout history have gotten away with literal murder, after all. And in this case its much less severe, has a very questionable case for evidence and a need to find tangible proof of any one affected. As well as someone willing to pick up the case and put it through a court. All this points to it being less than likely. Thats all. As I have written in my other posts above as well.
1
@timesup6302 Its described in my comments above, quite clearly I think. If you truly have read them all, quote what part is hard to get and I will get back to you. But I really think the point should be obvious. P.S.: 😁
1
@Chublet123 No, not at all.
1
@deleteduser38179 Its called "understanding reality". Some do a bit better, some do a bit worse. You are welcome to prove me wrong, it would please me to see this some serious ramifications coming her way. Not seen any so far though?
1
@aaronkristo858 I think you must have heavily misunderstood my post, or else you wouldnt be asking me this question. What in one or several of my post(s) is it you took issue with?
1
@NinjaBray Yes? What of it? Hard to shake the feeling that you, as many others didnt get my post(s) at all. Otherwise I dont see why you would post something like that in reply to me, it bears no relevance to anything I have written.
1
@NinjaBray No, as I said you misread/misunderstood it entirely. For example, I have never, since the start said anything to the effect that would contradict the law you are quoting. So what is the relevance in posting it like I have? Try reading again, it seems you mixed up a lot of things for some reason. Not trying to be rude, but thats how it is. Read again and see for yourself. My first and second post already contain all you need to know, and should be easy enough to understand if read with a cool, relaxed mindset.
1
@polocatfan Who said it wasnt? I think you misread.
1
@NinjaBray My last post before this one wasnt that long, surely you can read it if you can type a just as long of a reply? In any case, now read this again: The post wasnt about morals per se. You have misread and misunderstood. It does bear a big relevance, in fact the largest one, since the original comment talked about "lack of self awareness" which means a person does something they wouldnt do if they wre more clever or thought about it more. I then replied how thats not necessarily the case at all, and gave example as to why that may be. Your post shows to me you, sadly, totally misunderstand my posts for whatever reason. I havent implied anything of the sort you seem to think. Its fine not reading everything, but then I would advise not commenting based on a misunderstanding thats easily rectified by reading the text a bit more carefully and taking a step back and truly take in the words that are in it.
1