Ah... so the rules don't matter, because excuses.
Look, if Sargon and his ilk did something, fine, punish them. But so far, the only response to my request for evidence is insults.
And side-stepping the topic.
> a broader context (which to be clear, we were blissfully ignorant of until this weekend, and remain inexpert in.)
Which means that they didn't talk to the victim in this case (Sargon). Only the abuser (Anita). Sargon said as much on Joe Rogan's podcast.
i.e. accusation of guilt is assumption of guilt. Evidence be damned.
> which resulted in her being subjected to a hostile environment that she had not signed up for.
People who showed up and did nothing and said nothing to her. OMFG, crucify them.
Look this whole victim complex is appealing. But did any of it happen?
According to everyone in this thread? Nope.
> it boils down to trusting those responsible for rule interpretation and enforcement.
Nope. If they show they're biased, I don't trust them as far as a shit-flinging monkey can throw poo.
Ah... so the rules don't matter, because excuses.
Look, if Sargon and his ilk did something, fine, punish them. But so far, the only response to my request for evidence is insults.
And side-stepping the topic.
> a broader context (which to be clear, we were blissfully ignorant of until this weekend, and remain inexpert in.)
Which means that they didn't talk to the victim in this case (Sargon). Only the abuser (Anita). Sargon said as much on Joe Rogan's podcast.
i.e. accusation of guilt is assumption of guilt. Evidence be damned.
> which resulted in her being subjected to a hostile environment that she had not signed up for.
People who showed up and did nothing and said nothing to her. OMFG, crucify them.
Look this whole victim complex is appealing. But did any of it happen?
According to everyone in this thread? Nope.
> it boils down to trusting those responsible for rule interpretation and enforcement.
Nope. If they show they're biased, I don't trust them as far as a shit-flinging monkey can throw poo.