I can believe the place has some serious workplace culture issues. The background culture in a lot of "laddish" places tends to so it doesn't even really surprise me. Veering into asserting that...
I can believe the place has some serious workplace culture issues. The background culture in a lot of "laddish" places tends to so it doesn't even really surprise me.
Veering into asserting that the CEO is a rapist based on a single accusation--that he has flatly denied--starts to make it look a teensy bit like a pile-on though. After seeing that Contrapoints video on being cancelled I start to wonder if people are being pressured to publicly disavow him to dodge the tarring-and-feathering spectacle that's about to go down.
Anita never asserted "that the CEO is a rapist" and neither did anyone else that I can see talking about this. Anita simply pointed out that there is a rape allegation against him, and called him...
Fostering a toxic work environment is different from personally being a sexual abuser. All the workplace discussion makes it sound like he was an incompetent CEO who didn't know how to rein in bad...
In support of my former Cards Against Humanity team members (written by the former Creative Director of CAH... make sure to click the other names in there for their stories)
Fostering a toxic work environment is different from personally being a sexual abuser. All the workplace discussion makes it sound like he was an incompetent CEO who didn't know how to rein in bad behavior and allowed a noxious culture to root itself. As I said, that doesn't even really surprise me. There are plenty of White brocialists who talk a big game about allyship while being dicks in person.
But, the attacks on Max Tempkin's character and personal virtue, though implications that he is a sexual abuser, definitely have an air of score settling by taking advantage of the moment to pile on. You can't even really blame them since they have reason for being mad at him for making so much of their working lives shitty. But as impartial observers who care about truth and proportionality, we should still keep our critical thinking hats on. You can be a shitty CEO whose weaknesses and incompetence lets a toxic work culture take root--despite your best intentions even--without necessarily being a shitty person. Leadership is hard. Not everyone is cut out for it. And even people who are personally decent enough can end up doing shitty things because they're bad at understanding the long-term impacts that a little shittiness can have when they're magnified by you position of authority.
As an aside, I would also like to note that CAH is an employee-owned company which is, by all accounts, very vocally Leftist in political orientation. This should, I hope, put to rest assertions from certain corners that if LGBT or POCs would just shut up about their issues and focus solely on class then racism, misogyny, LGBT-phobias, etc. would all just go away on their own.
Does this sound like merely an incompetent CEO with the best of intentions to you? And another accusation, which was backed up by another former employee who was there during the mediation: Both...
Does this sound like merely an incompetent CEO with the best of intentions to you?
#CAHisover I was Max’s first direct employee for CAH. I was told if I continued dating a person Max’s friend had a crush on, I’d be fired. I was 25, this was my second professional job in Chicago, and I didn’t just feel powerless, I felt humiliated...
Later I found out when I was hired he debriefed with every man in CAH and the office he ran that no guy was to “hit on” me. Again, the control he wanted to exert over my personal, physical and romantic life still makes me shiver with anger.
Speaking of #CAHisOver, I guess I should mention the time the owners tried to put the N-word into the game and how Max Tempkin tried to have me fired when I complained. I only found that out in a fact-finding meeting the state of Illinois held. They settled, of course.
The head writers Julia Weiss and Jo Feldman convinced my parents I was having a mental break and had me committed for five days, during which time they called other writers and told them not to talk to the hospital so that I would stay there longer. #CAHisOver
When I got out they gas-lighted me, pretended they hadn’t known where I was, and then fired me a couple weeks later. From then on I stopped letting myself be used as a permission structure for faux-progressive, self-enriching white people with Cool Companies TM. #CAHisOver
Both of whose stories were mentioned and linked to by the former Creative Director, before she went on to explain the incredibly toxic and abusive environment at the company "for context":
I stand in support of all the former CAH employees who have bravely come forward to show their stories. As a former employee of CAH and Blackbox, I can speak to the toxic work environment that hurt so many people — myself included. No one was safe from personal and professional attacks, and it’s clear that marginalized team members — most notably Black employees and Black women — were purposely hurt the most. I want to amplify the stories of Theresa, Nico, Ali, Ayla, Kortney, and Elaine and give more context into the treacherous web of power, influence, design, gaming, and community that allowed this to happen for so long. I also want to be clear that it is an effect of white supremacy and white privilege that I have not spoken up about this issue before, and am now doing so after safety has been created by those who I am now standing behind.
Isn't that oversimplifying the issue and a bit of a strawman argument? The theory, as far as I understand it, is that class society is the core creator of racism etc and if we get past that all...
This should, I hope, put to rest assertions from certain corners that if LGBT or POCs would just shut up about their issues and focus solely on class then racism, misogyny, LGBT-phobias, etc. would all just go away on their own.
Isn't that oversimplifying the issue and a bit of a strawman argument?
The theory, as far as I understand it, is that class society is the core creator of racism etc and if we get past that all things like racism and sexism falls by the wayside.
Another counter argument is that by cutting off class from antiracism, antihomophobia, antisexism is just creating a non-movement since the symptoms of cruelty are more relevant than the actual cruelty. That for example an iphone being made through slave labour won't stop being slave labour by focusing on the skin colour of the owners or the inherent racism in that system of slave labour. Basically that colonialism isn't a good catch all for a market problem. Something like that?
([good faith addendum] Please note that this is just my assumption about the criticisms - personally I am kinda prickly about movements who are willing to throw part of it under the bus or ignore real world practical issues in favour of some lofty future utopia so I am not the best person to ask about their opinion. As much as I find that there is to criticize about individual things within the BLM movement and protest wave - that is just individuals being morons, that happens everywhere - but the greater movement and protests are more than relevant and tbh have had good real world effects)
I don't think the argument that class society is the "core creator" of these things holds much water. Most of the arguments for the claim sound to me like "just so" stories without much empirical...
The theory, as far as I understand it, is that class society is the core creator of racism etc and if we get past that all things like racism and sexism falls by the wayside.
I don't think the argument that class society is the "core creator" of these things holds much water. Most of the arguments for the claim sound to me like "just so" stories without much empirical backing or a very good understanding of the behavioral drivers behind racism et. al.
Well it gets fiddly for me to debate it with you - since its not exactly my opinion - but the argument is an old one, its not exactly a thing that popped up now. Or even recently. The idea being...
Well it gets fiddly for me to debate it with you - since its not exactly my opinion - but the argument is an old one, its not exactly a thing that popped up now. Or even recently. The idea being that colonialism can not exist without the logic of Capital, and class society to support it, or that racisms ideal is tied directly to the split in society.
The issue I find with it is that I'd rather try to fix a problem NOW, even if its "the symptom and not the illness", since waiting for generations for the Great Revolution and sacrificing those generations in that wait seems rather horrid since there is no time frame exactly. So whether the argument is right or wrong, its not a counter argument to BLM or similar.
I think it's more useful to think of these as interrelated, but independent systems that reinforce each other. They can function just fine on their own but grow stronger in concert. That said,...
The idea being that colonialism can not exist without the logic of Capital, and class society to support it, or that racisms ideal is tied directly to the split in society.
I think it's more useful to think of these as interrelated, but independent systems that reinforce each other. They can function just fine on their own but grow stronger in concert. That said, it's not necessarily true that they can only interlock with each other. It's also possible that if the logic of capital was gone, the logic of racism would find some other substructure to attach itself to and feed off of.
You may be right, you may be wrong. I have no idea or bone in that argument, since as I see it even if the main argument is true (Class > Ethnicity), then its pretty irrelevant unless we accept...
You may be right, you may be wrong. I have no idea or bone in that argument, since as I see it even if the main argument is true (Class > Ethnicity), then its pretty irrelevant unless we accept really absurd sacrifices for a distant, non defined, revolution. Since we don't - it isn't.
I've heard about the Logic of Capital, but not the logic of Racism though... I mean isn't racism dependent on the society it exists in as an expression of lower/higher status based on ethnicity?
Racism specifically is, but there's many forms of racism-adjacent discrimination, such as casteism. They mostly have the same inherent logic that there are primordial tribal groups, with distinct...
You may be right, you may be wrong. I have no idea or bone in that argument, since as I see it even if the main argument is true (Class > Ethnicity), then its pretty irrelevant unless we accept really absurd sacrifices for a distant, non defined, revolution. Since we don't - it isn't.
Racism specifically is, but there's many forms of racism-adjacent discrimination, such as casteism. They mostly have the same inherent logic that there are primordial tribal groups, with distinct behavioral/cultural traits, that may or may not be compatible with whatever we think of as "civilized" society. Racism become sort of globalized because the concept started to form at the same time Europe was dominating the world and the scientific method was becoming formalized. But you can see similar types of logic that predates colonialism too in any pluralistic society. The dimensions we use for classification change, but the dynamic is similar.
Again, you aren't arguing with someone but someone arguing for a fictive other since I see the argument as redundant as you may be wrong OR right, but in both scenarios the same set of actions are...
Again, you aren't arguing with someone but someone arguing for a fictive other since I see the argument as redundant as you may be wrong OR right, but in both scenarios the same set of actions are relevant.
I don't see the logic here. Racism, the act of defining social strata based on ethnicity or skin colour, is on the one hand both existing since before in "primordial tribal groups" (which I don't really know what that is, we know of racism in pre-feudal societies though so I am guessing those?), and then globalized at the same time as colonialism (this is me making an assumption based on "Europe dominating the world").
Those two statements don't fit together. Either its an inherently human social trait that can sadly crop up, or something that only existed in the colonialist countries, and set in stone by the Englightenment ("the scientific method [...] becoming formalized"). I mean I agree with the first, not the second personally.
Although how that affect the theory of class societies being the historical norm an eventual "grand revolution" would break with I don't really see either... I mean by that theory racism in pre-feudal societies was as much an extension of class as it, by that theory, is now.
Again, not to hammer this home too hard - its really irrelevant for me personally since both set the need for the same action.
Bro I'm not arguing with you. I'm elaborating on points you're raising. Chill. How we understand "race" today is a social construction based on modernist pop-science around the theory of...
Again, you aren't arguing with someone but someone arguing for a fictive other since I see the argument as redundant as you may be wrong OR right, but in both scenarios the same set of actions are relevant.
Bro I'm not arguing with you. I'm elaborating on points you're raising. Chill.
Racism, the act of defining social strata based on ethnicity or skin colour, is on the one hand both existing since before in "primordial tribal groups" (which I don't really know what that is, we know of racism in pre-feudal societies though so I am guessing those?), and then globalized at the same time as colonialism (this is me making an assumption based on "Europe dominating the world").
How we understand "race" today is a social construction based on modernist pop-science around the theory of evolution. There were lots of attempts to extend Darwin's work into other fields like this around that time. It's slightly anachronistic to refer to pre-modern forms of ethnic discrimination or xenophobia as "racism" because they would have thought about it and rationalized it differently. Rather than phenotypic genetic markers they would have talked about what Gods they worshipped, the kind of diet they ate, or the environmental factors that influenced their ancestors as explanations for their behavior.
I am completely chill - I just feel that you where arguing against me and had missed that I wasn't holding those opinions. Since I believe that "assume good intent" needs to rely on transparency I...
Bro I'm not arguing with you. I'm elaborating on points you're raising. Chill.
I am completely chill - I just feel that you where arguing against me and had missed that I wasn't holding those opinions. Since I believe that "assume good intent" needs to rely on transparency I felt I had to reiterate it to not trick you by omission.
I disagree with your idea of racism being inherently different from xenophobia and ethnic discrimination through the classification of the human race in to distinct races (pro tip if you ever get here "races" as defining skin colour is considered a stock racist ideal so again, total transparency, I am having to reread your statements and account for it being different where you are) this classification isn't a Darwin approach but way earlier. Linneus had his own "Homo Africanus" for example.
Racism has to be understood by context and social relations instead of a purely scientific self-justification. I mean again take Linneus who had this "Homo Europae" (something like that) which was described as both "noble" and "thoughtful" and all the other things a 18th century classification nerds would like to have to justify the previously religiously motivated and economically motivated colonialism.
Those actions couldn't exist without the social context they existed within.
I think that racism as an ideology, a politically well defined movement and school of thought, is also completely different from the social racism we have mostly have today. There is very little ideology behind it, just assumptions.
The scientific details didn't differ from earlier details of racism afaik - the only difference was that one is rooted in the post-enlightment ideal of classification and scientific research in to nature as an expression of "the pure" and the other used deities as expressions of "the pure". They are both just expressions of the same root cause - a simplistic way to not only define people, but justify their position (I don't have to mention what Linneus thought about "Homo Africanus" I hope?).
So I don't make a difference between xenophobia, ethnic discrimination and racism per say - since it suddenly gets in to an almost mythical concept of ideology stretching far beyond what its worth. Also it feels to become a self-serving reformation of history to build up the ideologically motivated framework of racism in comparison with ethnic discrimation... Aaaand finally I am not very comfortable with is the social trend of "wokeness" as a code language (for a lot of reasons) but one thing I like is the focus on People of Colour as an expression - simply because it detaches anti-racism from the shared foundation of these ideas of scientific/religiously motivated racism.
Which I like... perhaps mostly as a rhetorical knife twist against racists though :)
I think it's this reason why folks such as myself (who are still a touch ignorant and trying to fix that) are wary of the broader movement often referred to as cancel culture. I 100% agree with...
But, the attacks on Max Tempkin's character and personal virtue, though implications that he is a sexual abuser, definitely have an air of score settling by taking advantage of the moment to pile on.
I think it's this reason why folks such as myself (who are still a touch ignorant and trying to fix that) are wary of the broader movement often referred to as cancel culture. I 100% agree with the core principal... that people who abuse power should be stripped of that power and prevented from perpetuating abuse. It's complicated by several factors...and I think the biggest one is that many people are being subject to mob rule without due process. If there was a proper trial and they were found not guilty, they'll have already been completely discredited by the easily distractable public and the damage is done. It would be far less of a problem if there weren't massive systemic issues surrounding abuse and rape victims not being taken seriously by the institutions that are intended to 'protect and serve' and 'bring justice.' So given that, rape accusations need to be taken very seriously at face value since it's blatantly obvious that they're not being heard otherwise. The flip side of that (having to rely on mob rule over due process), is that it provides powerful tools for powerful people to suppress dissent easily.
Al Franken comes to mind. The first allegation leveraged against him in 2017 was minor (relative to drugging & raping mind), and he profusely apologized in a very honest way that same day (in contrast to Max's non-apology). That first allegation was resolved the same Thursday it came out, numerous women Franken formerly worked with publicly support him on Friday. At the risk of going full conspiracy nut, other allegations don't start flowing in until Monday, and continually flow in every 3-4 days after that (insuring persistent news coverage), slowly increasing in severity. In contrast to the first allegation, Franken (while still being respectful and apologetic) begins denying more of these allegations, which is quite odd given his first apology. I don't want this to be interpreted as a discrediting these women's allegations. But the slow trickle of increasing severity really sets off alarms that while these claims are likely legitimate, they were gathered and released in such a way to inflict maximal reputation damage. But even that conspiracy I would dismiss, if not for the fact this didn't start happening when Franken entered the public eye, but not until Franken was proving to be a substantial thorn in the side of the Trump/McConnell agenda. This was especially problematic since Franken had a track record of being able to gain bipartisan support (in an age where that is becoming rarer), even able to engage Tea Party members with civility. He well may have been able to break the lock-step Republican party-line votes given how far Trump and enablers have gone off the rails. He responded to this scandal in the best possible way: an honest apology, acknowledging his mistakes, promising to do better, welcoming an investigation, and further recognizing that this is a systemic issue that needs addressing. He was still raked over the coals in the public eye far worse than others (of equivalent or higher stature) with far worse allegations coming out. Had it not been for this scandal (which I'm probably not alone in thinking this was politically perpetuated), he likely would have been a great contender for the 2020 election, at least moreso than many of the other 30+ primary contenders.
To circle back around to Max, being so dismissive and condescending of the accusation does want me to join the mob rule. But the path that has been followed so many times now: 'accuse, rally, discredit, and wipe from history without due process' is a very dangerous one, as I've laid out. Even for crimes as vile as child pornography, due process is important to prove that the charges have merit and are not just used as tool to discredit.
There's also something to be said about humans being flawed. Nobody is perfect, tons of otherwise upstanding people have skeletons in their closets. Formerly despicable people (myself included) change with time, and while criminals should definitely not walk free and must face proscecution, neither should people be solely judged based on their past selves. I grew tremendously between 2000 and 2020, as I'm sure many others did as well. I benefited from my worst years being before the modern age of 'everybody knows everything about all of us,' and I fear that many that didn't will suffer long term by having their idiot past selves being leveraged against their (much improved) present.
Supposing a person is innocent, why should they apologize at all? It seems to me that Max’s response only seems inadequate if the reader assumes guilt. Plausible and factual may be related but are...
Supposing a person is innocent, why should they apologize at all? It seems to me that Max’s response only seems inadequate if the reader assumes guilt.
Plausible and factual may be related but are also quite distinct.
In normal criminal trials, the burden of proof is on the prosecution to prove that the accused is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. The accused has the opportunity to present dispute validity of...
In normal criminal trials, the burden of proof is on the prosecution to prove that the accused is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. The accused has the opportunity to present dispute validity of the prosecution's evidence. If the accused can poke sufficient holes in the prosecutions evidence (improper handling of evidence, provable alibis, etc), they (should) be declared not guilty, even if that is not factually correct. The reasoning is that letting a guilty criminal roam free is far less tyrannical than imprisoning an innocent person.
Given that that legal system has been entirely dysfunctional as of late, and it never really worked for sexual assault victims since they were rarely believed and often shamed. In light of that, it's immoral not to trust the victim is acting in good faith with the accusation, and the burden of proof now falls on the accused, because the traditional (and IMO proper) system has utterly failed.
So now, it's a court of popularity and subjectivity, largely governed by 'he said/she said,' which until very recently has more often sided with the 'he said' crowd. Being dismissive is not going to fly in this public court, and the burden of proof must be placed on the accused and not the accuser (the opposite of normal prosecution), because in this case the accuser is likely a victim who otherwise would be ignored and shamed by the traditional system. So a response to an allegation, even when denying it, must be handled gracefully, respectfully, and tactfully. Evidence must be provided by the accused to prove their innocence, which the accused can dispute.
It's a complete reversal of the original theory behind criminal prosecution and that makes it dangerous. It's sadly the best option we have until such a time that the traditional legal system functions properly according to that theoretical ideal.
I labeled this as exemplary because it’s an example of excellent reasoning even though I disagree with the conclusion. This is completely absurd and unacceptable even considering the other valid...
I labeled this as exemplary because it’s an example of excellent reasoning even though I disagree with the conclusion.
This is completely absurd and unacceptable even considering the other valid points:
Evidence must be provided by the accused to prove their innocence, which the accused can dispute
The best option is to consider the accusations carefully and seriously, raise concern and demand a full investigation without assuming guilt beforehand. Which is absolutely not equivalent to being dismissive.
And I 110% agree with you, that is how it should work in a just world. But using media exposure over a legal system will unlikely ever function with that level of civility. Mob rule has its place,...
The best option is to consider the accusations careful and raise concern without assuming guilt beforehand.
And I 110% agree with you, that is how it should work in a just world. But using media exposure over a legal system will unlikely ever function with that level of civility.
Mob rule has its place, but it must be tempered with an understanding that it is inherently dangerous, easy to manipulate and abuse, and is not a proper replacement for a just legal system. After typing all this out, I ultimately accept 'cancel culture' (hate that phrase, but it's a useful catch-all for this phenomenon) as a temporary fix to provide some semblance of justice until the deeply entrenched problems with the proper legal system are resolved. And it's not going to be an easy battle.
I understand that social progress is necessarily contentious, but your conclusion came very close to spouse the notion that assumption of guilt is a requirement for this change. This may be...
I understand that social progress is necessarily contentious, but your conclusion came very close to spouse the notion that assumption of guilt is a requirement for this change. This may be inevitable, but is definitely not defensible and I think it’s important to make that distinction.
This wasn't my intention by any means, and I apologize if it ended up coming across as such. It was intended to convey that I don't fundementally like that at all, providing a big example I saw of...
your conclusion came very close to spouse the notion that assumption of guilt is a requirement for this change
This wasn't my intention by any means, and I apologize if it ended up coming across as such. It was intended to convey that I don't fundementally like that at all, providing a big example I saw of it being abused, but understand how and why it is happening as such.
In this modern age, it's easy to discredit people with a scadalist headline, regardless of fact. Because that first impression sticks, and only a small proportion of fhe public will folllow up, andmost will just remember that person as 'cause of scandal' and little else.
It is a tricky problem with no clear solutions. A reasonable start might be having police give half a fuck as much about a rape victim as they do a business owner getting a brick chucked through their window.
Rape allegations are taboo in the Freudian sense (see Totem and Tabu): they transcend logic and impart an immediate judgement that does not require proof and does not cease to produce its effects...
Rape allegations are taboo in the Freudian sense (see Totem and Tabu): they transcend logic and impart an immediate judgement that does not require proof and does not cease to produce its effects even in the face of counter proof. A taboo functions like a curse.
That is why the article, while not positively affirming that its subject is a rapist, ends up conveying that notion. These accusations should of course be taken seriously, but one must forcefully remind itself about the need for evidence before passing judgment on such matters.
Anita Sarkeesian has also been retweeting a lot of former employee’s stories on her Twitter account. This is the crucial part, to me: People fuck up. It happens all the time. Many times, if...
In November of 2019, I confronted Max about the rape allegations and told him that I was being a hypocrite by associating with him, and not living by my feminist principles by continuing the friendship. I told him that, if he genuinely wanted to work towards repairing the harm he’s caused, I would try to help — otherwise we could no longer be acquainted.
Max told me that he wanted to do whatever he could to keep our relationship intact. I urged him to take a couple of days to reflect and then to get back to me so that we could make a plan.
I never heard from him again. Instead, he unfollowed and blocked me on social media. Like everyone else who attempted to talk with him about these issues, I was met with silence and dismissal.
People fuck up. It happens all the time. Many times, if someone is able to see their mistake and work on being a better person, I might be able to to forgive them in time. But to just completely shut down all communications and not be willing to own up to your crimes and mistakes shows that he isn’t willing to do anything to change his ways.
I suspect he and CAH will release a statement in the next few days about working on making their work environment more inclusive and use all the right words. But, to me at least, it will mean nothing because there doesn’t seem to be any desire to change on his part or that of his company.
I don’t follow it closely either but as @Deimos said, there are links in the article. Here’s a summary though: A former employee posted on Twitter about her experiences there and then tons of...
I don’t follow it closely either but as @Deimos said, there are links in the article. Here’s a summary though:
Some individual or news organization will probably compile this information in an article soon enough. I truly have trouble putting it together in that fashion.
Some individual or news organization will probably compile this information in an article soon enough. I truly have trouble putting it together in that fashion.
I’ve read the Twitter thread and I cannot understand what’s going on the screenshots. I did understand what Tay Zonday Stan was saying though. It seems that there’s some context that I’m missing,...
I’ve read the Twitter thread and I cannot understand what’s going on the screenshots. I did understand what Tay Zonday Stan was saying though.
It seems that there’s some context that I’m missing, or maybe I’m not versed in Slack corporate lingo.
I’ve read the accounts and found them deeply concerning. I really cannot assert much here at this stage but all accusations of this kind must be taken seriously, and Anita Sarkeesian is someone...
I’ve read the accounts and found them deeply concerning. I really cannot assert much here at this stage but all accusations of this kind must be taken seriously, and Anita Sarkeesian is someone that I admire and I place trust in her. I hope this case is further — and promptly — investigated.
Max Temkin's latest project is a Magic Puzzles KS that just ended, but rumor has it that KS is issuing refunds even though the funding phase has closed. I backed it not knowing any of this and...
I backed it not knowing any of this and feel kind of icky now. I want to see what their response to it is first before requesting a refund, but it's good to know it's an option.
I backed the kickstarter for 12 issues of his Maxistenialism zine. 1 issue per month for one year, that was the pitch. He delivered 5 issues over the course of 18 months. There hasn't been an...
I backed the kickstarter for 12 issues of his Maxistenialism zine. 1 issue per month for one year, that was the pitch. He delivered 5 issues over the course of 18 months. There hasn't been an update since.
I guess this KS was small potatoes, but I don't understand how he gets $3.4M when he couldn't deliver on 12 zines.
Sounds like the CAH fame has gotten to his head, though when reading about how he treated his first employee, I'm not so sure he was a good guy at any point in time...
Sounds like the CAH fame has gotten to his head, though when reading about how he treated his first employee, I'm not so sure he was a good guy at any point in time...
Unrelated Card Game Recommendation: I personally think that Superfight is a blast, the idea being that you create your hero with three attribute cards from a hand of seven, and have them fight the...
Unrelated Card Game Recommendation:
I personally think that Superfight is a blast, the idea being that you create your hero with three attribute cards from a hand of seven, and have them fight the others for fun and glory. Good time if you like that particular play style. Far better than some contemporaries where you need to pull out half the cards to avoid "minority group" as a punchline.
I can believe the place has some serious workplace culture issues. The background culture in a lot of "laddish" places tends to so it doesn't even really surprise me.
Veering into asserting that the CEO is a rapist based on a single accusation--that he has flatly denied--starts to make it look a teensy bit like a pile-on though. After seeing that Contrapoints video on being cancelled I start to wonder if people are being pressured to publicly disavow him to dodge the tarring-and-feathering spectacle that's about to go down.
Anita never asserted "that the CEO is a rapist" and neither did anyone else that I can see talking about this. Anita simply pointed out that there is a rape allegation against him, and called him an "abuser"... which based on all the former (and even current) employees coming out right now with their similar stories of the incredibly abusive and toxic work environment at CAH/BlackBox, I would say is likely an accurate description of him and the culture he fostered there. See: In support of my former Cards Against Humanity team members (written by the former Creative Director of CAH... make sure to click the other names in there for their stories), Theresa Stewart's twitter thread, as well as everything being posted with the #CAHisOver hashtag.
Fostering a toxic work environment is different from personally being a sexual abuser. All the workplace discussion makes it sound like he was an incompetent CEO who didn't know how to rein in bad behavior and allowed a noxious culture to root itself. As I said, that doesn't even really surprise me. There are plenty of White brocialists who talk a big game about allyship while being dicks in person.
But, the attacks on Max Tempkin's character and personal virtue, though implications that he is a sexual abuser, definitely have an air of score settling by taking advantage of the moment to pile on. You can't even really blame them since they have reason for being mad at him for making so much of their working lives shitty. But as impartial observers who care about truth and proportionality, we should still keep our critical thinking hats on. You can be a shitty CEO whose weaknesses and incompetence lets a toxic work culture take root--despite your best intentions even--without necessarily being a shitty person. Leadership is hard. Not everyone is cut out for it. And even people who are personally decent enough can end up doing shitty things because they're bad at understanding the long-term impacts that a little shittiness can have when they're magnified by you position of authority.
As an aside, I would also like to note that CAH is an employee-owned company which is, by all accounts, very vocally Leftist in political orientation. This should, I hope, put to rest assertions from certain corners that if LGBT or POCs would just shut up about their issues and focus solely on class then racism, misogyny, LGBT-phobias, etc. would all just go away on their own.
Does this sound like merely an incompetent CEO with the best of intentions to you?
And another accusation, which was backed up by another former employee who was there during the mediation:
Both of whose stories were mentioned and linked to by the former Creative Director, before she went on to explain the incredibly toxic and abusive environment at the company "for context":
It doesn't not sound like it if you apply a layer of skepticism when you're only getting one side of a story.
Isn't that oversimplifying the issue and a bit of a strawman argument?
The theory, as far as I understand it, is that class society is the core creator of racism etc and if we get past that all things like racism and sexism falls by the wayside.
Another counter argument is that by cutting off class from antiracism, antihomophobia, antisexism is just creating a non-movement since the symptoms of cruelty are more relevant than the actual cruelty. That for example an iphone being made through slave labour won't stop being slave labour by focusing on the skin colour of the owners or the inherent racism in that system of slave labour. Basically that colonialism isn't a good catch all for a market problem. Something like that?
([good faith addendum] Please note that this is just my assumption about the criticisms - personally I am kinda prickly about movements who are willing to throw part of it under the bus or ignore real world practical issues in favour of some lofty future utopia so I am not the best person to ask about their opinion. As much as I find that there is to criticize about individual things within the BLM movement and protest wave - that is just individuals being morons, that happens everywhere - but the greater movement and protests are more than relevant and tbh have had good real world effects)
I don't think the argument that class society is the "core creator" of these things holds much water. Most of the arguments for the claim sound to me like "just so" stories without much empirical backing or a very good understanding of the behavioral drivers behind racism et. al.
Well it gets fiddly for me to debate it with you - since its not exactly my opinion - but the argument is an old one, its not exactly a thing that popped up now. Or even recently. The idea being that colonialism can not exist without the logic of Capital, and class society to support it, or that racisms ideal is tied directly to the split in society.
The issue I find with it is that I'd rather try to fix a problem NOW, even if its "the symptom and not the illness", since waiting for generations for the Great Revolution and sacrificing those generations in that wait seems rather horrid since there is no time frame exactly. So whether the argument is right or wrong, its not a counter argument to BLM or similar.
I think it's more useful to think of these as interrelated, but independent systems that reinforce each other. They can function just fine on their own but grow stronger in concert. That said, it's not necessarily true that they can only interlock with each other. It's also possible that if the logic of capital was gone, the logic of racism would find some other substructure to attach itself to and feed off of.
You may be right, you may be wrong. I have no idea or bone in that argument, since as I see it even if the main argument is true (Class > Ethnicity), then its pretty irrelevant unless we accept really absurd sacrifices for a distant, non defined, revolution. Since we don't - it isn't.
I've heard about the Logic of Capital, but not the logic of Racism though... I mean isn't racism dependent on the society it exists in as an expression of lower/higher status based on ethnicity?
Racism specifically is, but there's many forms of racism-adjacent discrimination, such as casteism. They mostly have the same inherent logic that there are primordial tribal groups, with distinct behavioral/cultural traits, that may or may not be compatible with whatever we think of as "civilized" society. Racism become sort of globalized because the concept started to form at the same time Europe was dominating the world and the scientific method was becoming formalized. But you can see similar types of logic that predates colonialism too in any pluralistic society. The dimensions we use for classification change, but the dynamic is similar.
Again, you aren't arguing with someone but someone arguing for a fictive other since I see the argument as redundant as you may be wrong OR right, but in both scenarios the same set of actions are relevant.
I don't see the logic here. Racism, the act of defining social strata based on ethnicity or skin colour, is on the one hand both existing since before in "primordial tribal groups" (which I don't really know what that is, we know of racism in pre-feudal societies though so I am guessing those?), and then globalized at the same time as colonialism (this is me making an assumption based on "Europe dominating the world").
Those two statements don't fit together. Either its an inherently human social trait that can sadly crop up, or something that only existed in the colonialist countries, and set in stone by the Englightenment ("the scientific method [...] becoming formalized"). I mean I agree with the first, not the second personally.
Although how that affect the theory of class societies being the historical norm an eventual "grand revolution" would break with I don't really see either... I mean by that theory racism in pre-feudal societies was as much an extension of class as it, by that theory, is now.
Again, not to hammer this home too hard - its really irrelevant for me personally since both set the need for the same action.
Bro I'm not arguing with you. I'm elaborating on points you're raising. Chill.
How we understand "race" today is a social construction based on modernist pop-science around the theory of evolution. There were lots of attempts to extend Darwin's work into other fields like this around that time. It's slightly anachronistic to refer to pre-modern forms of ethnic discrimination or xenophobia as "racism" because they would have thought about it and rationalized it differently. Rather than phenotypic genetic markers they would have talked about what Gods they worshipped, the kind of diet they ate, or the environmental factors that influenced their ancestors as explanations for their behavior.
I am completely chill - I just feel that you where arguing against me and had missed that I wasn't holding those opinions. Since I believe that "assume good intent" needs to rely on transparency I felt I had to reiterate it to not trick you by omission.
I disagree with your idea of racism being inherently different from xenophobia and ethnic discrimination through the classification of the human race in to distinct races (pro tip if you ever get here "races" as defining skin colour is considered a stock racist ideal so again, total transparency, I am having to reread your statements and account for it being different where you are) this classification isn't a Darwin approach but way earlier. Linneus had his own "Homo Africanus" for example.
Racism has to be understood by context and social relations instead of a purely scientific self-justification. I mean again take Linneus who had this "Homo Europae" (something like that) which was described as both "noble" and "thoughtful" and all the other things a 18th century classification nerds would like to have to justify the previously religiously motivated and economically motivated colonialism.
Those actions couldn't exist without the social context they existed within.
I think that racism as an ideology, a politically well defined movement and school of thought, is also completely different from the social racism we have mostly have today. There is very little ideology behind it, just assumptions.
The scientific details didn't differ from earlier details of racism afaik - the only difference was that one is rooted in the post-enlightment ideal of classification and scientific research in to nature as an expression of "the pure" and the other used deities as expressions of "the pure". They are both just expressions of the same root cause - a simplistic way to not only define people, but justify their position (I don't have to mention what Linneus thought about "Homo Africanus" I hope?).
So I don't make a difference between xenophobia, ethnic discrimination and racism per say - since it suddenly gets in to an almost mythical concept of ideology stretching far beyond what its worth. Also it feels to become a self-serving reformation of history to build up the ideologically motivated framework of racism in comparison with ethnic discrimation... Aaaand finally I am not very comfortable with is the social trend of "wokeness" as a code language (for a lot of reasons) but one thing I like is the focus on People of Colour as an expression - simply because it detaches anti-racism from the shared foundation of these ideas of scientific/religiously motivated racism.
Which I like... perhaps mostly as a rhetorical knife twist against racists though :)
I think it's this reason why folks such as myself (who are still a touch ignorant and trying to fix that) are wary of the broader movement often referred to as cancel culture. I 100% agree with the core principal... that people who abuse power should be stripped of that power and prevented from perpetuating abuse. It's complicated by several factors...and I think the biggest one is that many people are being subject to mob rule without due process. If there was a proper trial and they were found not guilty, they'll have already been completely discredited by the easily distractable public and the damage is done. It would be far less of a problem if there weren't massive systemic issues surrounding abuse and rape victims not being taken seriously by the institutions that are intended to 'protect and serve' and 'bring justice.' So given that, rape accusations need to be taken very seriously at face value since it's blatantly obvious that they're not being heard otherwise. The flip side of that (having to rely on mob rule over due process), is that it provides powerful tools for powerful people to suppress dissent easily.
Al Franken comes to mind. The first allegation leveraged against him in 2017 was minor (relative to drugging & raping mind), and he profusely apologized in a very honest way that same day (in contrast to Max's non-apology). That first allegation was resolved the same Thursday it came out, numerous women Franken formerly worked with publicly support him on Friday. At the risk of going full conspiracy nut, other allegations don't start flowing in until Monday, and continually flow in every 3-4 days after that (insuring persistent news coverage), slowly increasing in severity. In contrast to the first allegation, Franken (while still being respectful and apologetic) begins denying more of these allegations, which is quite odd given his first apology. I don't want this to be interpreted as a discrediting these women's allegations. But the slow trickle of increasing severity really sets off alarms that while these claims are likely legitimate, they were gathered and released in such a way to inflict maximal reputation damage. But even that conspiracy I would dismiss, if not for the fact this didn't start happening when Franken entered the public eye, but not until Franken was proving to be a substantial thorn in the side of the Trump/McConnell agenda. This was especially problematic since Franken had a track record of being able to gain bipartisan support (in an age where that is becoming rarer), even able to engage Tea Party members with civility. He well may have been able to break the lock-step Republican party-line votes given how far Trump and enablers have gone off the rails. He responded to this scandal in the best possible way: an honest apology, acknowledging his mistakes, promising to do better, welcoming an investigation, and further recognizing that this is a systemic issue that needs addressing. He was still raked over the coals in the public eye far worse than others (of equivalent or higher stature) with far worse allegations coming out. Had it not been for this scandal (which I'm probably not alone in thinking this was politically perpetuated), he likely would have been a great contender for the 2020 election, at least moreso than many of the other 30+ primary contenders.
To circle back around to Max, being so dismissive and condescending of the accusation does want me to join the mob rule. But the path that has been followed so many times now: 'accuse, rally, discredit, and wipe from history without due process' is a very dangerous one, as I've laid out. Even for crimes as vile as child pornography, due process is important to prove that the charges have merit and are not just used as tool to discredit.
There's also something to be said about humans being flawed. Nobody is perfect, tons of otherwise upstanding people have skeletons in their closets. Formerly despicable people (myself included) change with time, and while criminals should definitely not walk free and must face proscecution, neither should people be solely judged based on their past selves. I grew tremendously between 2000 and 2020, as I'm sure many others did as well. I benefited from my worst years being before the modern age of 'everybody knows everything about all of us,' and I fear that many that didn't will suffer long term by having their idiot past selves being leveraged against their (much improved) present.
Supposing a person is innocent, why should they apologize at all? It seems to me that Max’s response only seems inadequate if the reader assumes guilt.
Plausible and factual may be related but are also quite distinct.
In normal criminal trials, the burden of proof is on the prosecution to prove that the accused is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. The accused has the opportunity to present dispute validity of the prosecution's evidence. If the accused can poke sufficient holes in the prosecutions evidence (improper handling of evidence, provable alibis, etc), they (should) be declared not guilty, even if that is not factually correct. The reasoning is that letting a guilty criminal roam free is far less tyrannical than imprisoning an innocent person.
Given that that legal system has been entirely dysfunctional as of late, and it never really worked for sexual assault victims since they were rarely believed and often shamed. In light of that, it's immoral not to trust the victim is acting in good faith with the accusation, and the burden of proof now falls on the accused, because the traditional (and IMO proper) system has utterly failed.
So now, it's a court of popularity and subjectivity, largely governed by 'he said/she said,' which until very recently has more often sided with the 'he said' crowd. Being dismissive is not going to fly in this public court, and the burden of proof must be placed on the accused and not the accuser (the opposite of normal prosecution), because in this case the accuser is likely a victim who otherwise would be ignored and shamed by the traditional system. So a response to an allegation, even when denying it, must be handled gracefully, respectfully, and tactfully. Evidence must be provided by the accused to prove their innocence, which the accused can dispute.
It's a complete reversal of the original theory behind criminal prosecution and that makes it dangerous. It's sadly the best option we have until such a time that the traditional legal system functions properly according to that theoretical ideal.
I labeled this as exemplary because it’s an example of excellent reasoning even though I disagree with the conclusion.
This is completely absurd and unacceptable even considering the other valid points:
The best option is to consider the accusations carefully and seriously, raise concern and demand a full investigation without assuming guilt beforehand. Which is absolutely not equivalent to being dismissive.
And I 110% agree with you, that is how it should work in a just world. But using media exposure over a legal system will unlikely ever function with that level of civility.
Mob rule has its place, but it must be tempered with an understanding that it is inherently dangerous, easy to manipulate and abuse, and is not a proper replacement for a just legal system. After typing all this out, I ultimately accept 'cancel culture' (hate that phrase, but it's a useful catch-all for this phenomenon) as a temporary fix to provide some semblance of justice until the deeply entrenched problems with the proper legal system are resolved. And it's not going to be an easy battle.
I understand that social progress is necessarily contentious, but your conclusion came very close to spouse the notion that assumption of guilt is a requirement for this change. This may be inevitable, but is definitely not defensible and I think it’s important to make that distinction.
This wasn't my intention by any means, and I apologize if it ended up coming across as such. It was intended to convey that I don't fundementally like that at all, providing a big example I saw of it being abused, but understand how and why it is happening as such.
In this modern age, it's easy to discredit people with a scadalist headline, regardless of fact. Because that first impression sticks, and only a small proportion of fhe public will folllow up, andmost will just remember that person as 'cause of scandal' and little else.
It is a tricky problem with no clear solutions. A reasonable start might be having police give half a fuck as much about a rape victim as they do a business owner getting a brick chucked through their window.
Rape allegations are taboo in the Freudian sense (see Totem and Tabu): they transcend logic and impart an immediate judgement that does not require proof and does not cease to produce its effects even in the face of counter proof. A taboo functions like a curse.
That is why the article, while not positively affirming that its subject is a rapist, ends up conveying that notion. These accusations should of course be taken seriously, but one must forcefully remind itself about the need for evidence before passing judgment on such matters.
Anita Sarkeesian has also been retweeting a lot of former employee’s stories on her Twitter account.
This is the crucial part, to me:
People fuck up. It happens all the time. Many times, if someone is able to see their mistake and work on being a better person, I might be able to to forgive them in time. But to just completely shut down all communications and not be willing to own up to your crimes and mistakes shows that he isn’t willing to do anything to change his ways.
I suspect he and CAH will release a statement in the next few days about working on making their work environment more inclusive and use all the right words. But, to me at least, it will mean nothing because there doesn’t seem to be any desire to change on his part or that of his company.
Could you maybe provide a summary/backstory for those that do not follow news about this game?
I don’t follow it closely either but as @Deimos said, there are links in the article. Here’s a summary though:
A former employee posted on Twitter about her experiences there and then tons of people started coming out of the woodwork, sharing their experiences at CAH as minorities. Needless to say, they have not been positive.
It’s a very similar timeline to what happened at Bon Appétit yesterday.
Some individual or news organization will probably compile this information in an article soon enough. I truly have trouble putting it together in that fashion.
I also read the twitter. The grievance seems legitimate but I don’t understand what’s happening in the screenshots.
Take a look at the #CAHisOver hashtag to see some examples of the issues people are raising.
Their work environment seems pretty fucked up.
The article links to all of it in the third paragraph ("In addition to stories like Theresa's...").
I’ve read the Twitter thread and I cannot understand what’s going on the screenshots. I did understand what Tay Zonday Stan was saying though.
It seems that there’s some context that I’m missing, or maybe I’m not versed in Slack corporate lingo.
I also read the links you mentioned and they’re quite confusing.
I’ve read the accounts and found them deeply concerning. I really cannot assert much here at this stage but all accusations of this kind must be taken seriously, and Anita Sarkeesian is someone that I admire and I place trust in her. I hope this case is further — and promptly — investigated.
Max Temkin's latest project is a Magic Puzzles KS that just ended, but rumor has it that KS is issuing refunds even though the funding phase has closed.
I backed it not knowing any of this and feel kind of icky now. I want to see what their response to it is first before requesting a refund, but it's good to know it's an option.
I backed the kickstarter for 12 issues of his Maxistenialism zine. 1 issue per month for one year, that was the pitch. He delivered 5 issues over the course of 18 months. There hasn't been an update since.
I guess this KS was small potatoes, but I don't understand how he gets $3.4M when he couldn't deliver on 12 zines.
Sounds like the CAH fame has gotten to his head, though when reading about how he treated his first employee, I'm not so sure he was a good guy at any point in time...
Unrelated Card Game Recommendation:
I personally think that Superfight is a blast, the idea being that you create your hero with three attribute cards from a hand of seven, and have them fight the others for fun and glory. Good time if you like that particular play style. Far better than some contemporaries where you need to pull out half the cards to avoid "minority group" as a punchline.