By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Sony Discussion - Sony donated $50,000 :)

Ryuu96 said:

Idk, Lol.

Maybe it's just a weird Jim thing, Jim was born in Britain right? Though he obviously lives in America now.

To me, it just looks inappropriate to talk about such a sensitive issue and then in the same post bang on about something completely unrelated and ultimately irrelevant in his personal life, it feels like an attempt to shove the issue to the side, he could have sent it in a separate email and that would have been better but at the same time I also think, why does he need to send his employees that email at all?

It's just odd, imagine your boss sending a company wide email about the cake he had for lunch, haha, it's just like, why? He can tell that stuff to employees he's friends with but I for one wouldn't give a crap about my bosses personal weekly life updates being emailed to me, post that crap on Linkedin or Twitter, Lol. Maybe if they were all friends with him but we're talking thousands of employees, unless he only sent the email to the bosses of the studios. 

I did find his obedient dog comment a bit odd too, I can be reading too much into it but I don't like the framing of telling your employees not to do something and then immediately talking about how you like dogs cause they're obedient, if say, CGI came into ModChat to tell us off and then immediately pivoted to "I like dogs, they're obedient" I would also find that pretty suspicious, Lol.

Boss trying to be 'human'. I had one of those, used the company email as well, but that was before Twitter. (Which I hate anyway)

I think you're reading too much in the dog comment lol. That's the world we live in nowadays I guess. Not everything is a metaphor.

Cat people I guess ;)

If you had a cat you would also be jealous of a dog's obedience!


Perhaps Ryan needs a corporate filter as well...



Around the Network
Ryuu96 said:
Chrkeller said:

We interpret Sony's position differently.  I view Sony as saying "keep politics out of the work space."  Which is fair.  Politics shouldn't be in the work space.  Do you job and do whatever you want on your own time.  Fact is a large percent of the US population is Christian, and they don't agree with pro-choice, and that is their right, though I personally disagree.  There is nothing wrong with having a differing opinion but still being respectful.

I don't think that's what they're saying, it looks more to me that they only care about employees being public about it, it's unrealistic to think that Sony could stop all their thousands of employees from talking about it in the work space, I bet even today there's Sony employees talking about it at work. If it was only about that then they wouldn't have banned employees from simply tweeting about the Sony donation in their free time.

But once again, I also don't think we should always keep Politics out of the workspace when it affects the very employees in the workspace, the most important thing here, are the employees, they create the games that we love and banning abortion has much larger consequences on the employees than not banning abortion does.

Most polls I see in America are near 50/50 split on the issue but the worse that can happen to pro-life is they'd be upset for a little while, the worse that can happen to pro-choice is they're stuck with a baby for 9 months, the physical and emotional stress of that and what comes afterwards so it's clear which would hurt corporations more.

As I've said, I don't care if someone is pro-life but don't force it onto others, there's having an opinion but a lot of these "harmless opinions" are leading towards dangerous paths of taking away human rights.

I like our system, given the checks and balances.  People can get what they want via voting.  Even if I don't like the end result, I respect our system.  



SvennoJ said:
Ryuu96 said:

Idk, Lol.

Maybe it's just a weird Jim thing, Jim was born in Britain right? Though he obviously lives in America now.

To me, it just looks inappropriate to talk about such a sensitive issue and then in the same post bang on about something completely unrelated and ultimately irrelevant in his personal life, it feels like an attempt to shove the issue to the side, he could have sent it in a separate email and that would have been better but at the same time I also think, why does he need to send his employees that email at all?

It's just odd, imagine your boss sending a company wide email about the cake he had for lunch, haha, it's just like, why? He can tell that stuff to employees he's friends with but I for one wouldn't give a crap about my bosses personal weekly life updates being emailed to me, post that crap on Linkedin or Twitter, Lol. Maybe if they were all friends with him but we're talking thousands of employees, unless he only sent the email to the bosses of the studios. 

I did find his obedient dog comment a bit odd too, I can be reading too much into it but I don't like the framing of telling your employees not to do something and then immediately talking about how you like dogs cause they're obedient, if say, CGI came into ModChat to tell us off and then immediately pivoted to "I like dogs, they're obedient" I would also find that pretty suspicious, Lol.

Boss trying to be 'human'. I had one of those, used the company email as well, but that was before Twitter. (Which I hate anyway)

I think you're reading too much in the dog comment lol. That's the world we live in nowadays I guess. Not everything is a metaphor.

https://cdn.quotes.pub/660x400/i-remind-myself-that-not-everything-is-a-sign-580541.jpg

Cat people I guess ;)

If you had a cat you would also be jealous of a dog's obedience!

Perhaps Ryan needs a corporate filter as well...

Maybe.

Though I also like dogs because they're obedient

Ryan needs a PR guy following him around.

^ Also the following above is a joke, that is not why I like dogs.

Last edited by Ryuu96 - on 18 May 2022

OneTime said:

I'm not sure why corporations feel the need to publish an opinion on social/political issues unrelated to the industry they work in. There are a lot of people in Sony/Microsoft. They will have different ideas about a lot of things.

For what it's worth - Sony is a Japanese company and abortion is legal in Japan.

They didn't publish an opinion here.

Importantly corporations should back up their employees. Having employees that are happy and healthy is mutually beneficial to the corporation and the employee.

OneTime said:

Presumably in the USA, half of their employees will be pro-choice and half go to church.  Which half of their employees should they care about?

Plenty of people are both.

OneTime said:

I don't know enough about US politics to comment, but in other democracies, important issues are decided by Referendum of the entire population.  That's how abortion was made legal in Ireland (a traditionally Catholic country)

It is entirely Sony's free speech right to say "We are a Japanese company, we do not want to take sides in a US political issue".   They are also allowed to impose limitations on people who choose to work for them can say if there is a big "I WORK FOR SONY" logo next to it. Sony is Japanese, but I imagine a Russian or Chinese company would be even less wise to start commentating on US politics.

Currently, the reason why this is being brought up is because 5 justices are opting to overturn decades old law. This isn't something that the majority of Americans support, and it's not something that we're voting on.
The US is notably being overrun by minority rule due to gerrymandering, and voter suppression.  



"Respect differences of opinion" should be for things like tax brackets or pineapple on pizza. Not about whether or not an individual is deserving of rights, freedoms and bodily integrity.

Last edited by tsogud - on 18 May 2022

 

Around the Network
tsogud said:

"Respect differences of opinion" should be for things like tax brackets or pineapple on pizza. Not about whether or not an individual is deserving of rights, freedoms and bodily integrity.

In the US woman make up over 50% population.  They can singularly drive every election, especially for the senate, and get the laws they want.  Mid-terms are this November.  There is an easy solution.  



the-pi-guy said:
OneTime said:

I'm not sure why corporations feel the need to publish an opinion on social/political issues unrelated to the industry they work in. There are a lot of people in Sony/Microsoft. They will have different ideas about a lot of things.

For what it's worth - Sony is a Japanese company and abortion is legal in Japan.

They didn't publish an opinion here.

Importantly corporations should back up their employees. Having employees that are happy and healthy is mutually beneficial to the corporation and the employee.

OneTime said:

Presumably in the USA, half of their employees will be pro-choice and half go to church.  Which half of their employees should they care about?

Plenty of people are both.

OneTime said:

I don't know enough about US politics to comment, but in other democracies, important issues are decided by Referendum of the entire population.  That's how abortion was made legal in Ireland (a traditionally Catholic country)

It is entirely Sony's free speech right to say "We are a Japanese company, we do not want to take sides in a US political issue".   They are also allowed to impose limitations on people who choose to work for them can say if there is a big "I WORK FOR SONY" logo next to it. Sony is Japanese, but I imagine a Russian or Chinese company would be even less wise to start commentating on US politics.

Currently, the reason why this is being brought up is because 5 justices are opting to overturn decades old law. This isn't something that the majority of Americans support, and it's not something that we're voting on.
The US is notably being overrun by minority rule due to gerrymandering, and voter suppression.  

I completely disagree with section in bold.  We can make it federal law and/or state law.  We vote for our federal and state representatives.  A federal law was just blocked by the senate, based on who was voted into office...    

Each state gets two senators, gerrymandering doesn't happen with the senate...  the senate blocked the federal law.

And I realize polls say the majority of Americans are against the SCOTUS ruling....  but these same polls also had people not voting Trump in 2016.  Fact is a lot of people are hesitant to give their honest opinion out of backlash fear..  so I would be cautious with how much weight to give these polls.  At the end of the day people vote, and people are voting in pro-life representatives.  

Last edited by Chrkeller - on 18 May 2022

Chrkeller said:

I completely disagree with section in bold.  We can make it federal law and/or state law.  We vote for our federal and state representatives.  A federal law was just blocked by the senate, based on who was voted into office...    

Each state gets two senators, gerrymandering doesn't happen with the senate...  the senate blocked the federal law.

On the contrary, the senate is basically fundamentally gerrymandered at its core.

We have states that have 40 million people with the same amount of representation as states with less than 1 million people.

Sure the lines aren't being actively changed, but it's the exact same outcome as gerrymandering. 

Chrkeller said:

And I realize polls say the majority of Americans are against the SCOTUS ruling....  but these same polls also had people not voting Trump in 2016.  Fact is a lot of people are hesitant to give their honest opinion out of backlash fear..  so I would be cautious with how much weight to give these polls.  At the end of the day people vote, and people are voting in pro-life representatives.  

Except Trump didn't win the majority of votes in 2016, he lost by 3 million votes.

When I looked at the state by state difference between the polls, what I found is that in general, the blue states went bluer than expected, and red states tended to go redder than the polls expected. It was not a case where people across the board voted more highly for Trump than expected.

Take Texas, 538 projected that Trump would win 51-42.5, instead he won 52.2-43.2. Both candidates got a higher share than expected, but Trump got even higher of a boost. 

Or California, expected to get 58.5-35.5, they ended up underestimating Clinton's win which ended up being 61.7-31.6. With a few exceptions this trend tends to hold. Bluer states like Colorado, Nevada tended to vote more heavily for Clinton than aggregated polls suggested, and redder states like Texas, Mississippi tended to vote more heavily for Trump.

The data doesn't suggest that people were afraid of backlash for their survey answers. If anything it suggests that more people than expected just didn't bother voting if they knew their candidate would, or you could argue that people ended up voting differently than they were polled because they were convinced or intimidated by family/friends.

Chrkeller said:

At the end of the day people vote, and people are voting in pro-life representatives.  

Rule by minority is still a thing. Democratic Senators represented almost 185 million people in 2021, and Republican Senators represented about 143 million, despite that both had 50 senators.

Second issue is that just because people say they're pro-life, doesn't mean they agree on the issue equally. A lot of people don't think there should be any exceptions, some people call themselves pro-life but do think there should be exceptions.



the-pi-guy said:
Chrkeller said:

I completely disagree with section in bold.  We can make it federal law and/or state law.  We vote for our federal and state representatives.  A federal law was just blocked by the senate, based on who was voted into office...    

Each state gets two senators, gerrymandering doesn't happen with the senate...  the senate blocked the federal law.

On the contrary, the senate is basically fundamentally gerrymandered at its core.

We have states that have 40 million people with the same amount of representation as states with less than 1 million people.

Sure the lines aren't being actively changed, but it's the exact same outcome as gerrymandering. 

Chrkeller said:

And I realize polls say the majority of Americans are against the SCOTUS ruling....  but these same polls also had people not voting Trump in 2016.  Fact is a lot of people are hesitant to give their honest opinion out of backlash fear..  so I would be cautious with how much weight to give these polls.  At the end of the day people vote, and people are voting in pro-life representatives.  

Except Trump didn't win the majority of votes in 2016, he lost by 3 million votes.

When I looked at the state by state difference between the polls, what I found is that in general, the blue states went bluer than expected, and red states tended to go redder than the polls expected. It was not a case where people across the board voted more highly for Trump than expected.

Take Texas, 538 projected that Trump would win 51-42.5, instead he won 52.2-43.2. Both candidates got a higher share than expected, but Trump got even higher of a boost. 

Or California, expected to get 58.5-35.5, they ended up underestimating Clinton's win which ended up being 61.7-31.6. With a few exceptions this trend tends to hold. Bluer states like Colorado, Nevada tended to vote more heavily for Clinton than aggregated polls suggested, and redder states like Texas, Mississippi tended to vote more heavily for Trump.

The data doesn't suggest that people were afraid of backlash for their survey answers. If anything it suggests that more people than expected just didn't bother voting if they knew their candidate would, or you could argue that people ended up voting differently than they were polled because they were convinced or intimidated by family/friends.

Chrkeller said:

At the end of the day people vote, and people are voting in pro-life representatives.  

Rule by minority is still a thing. Democratic Senators represented almost 185 million people in 2021, and Republican Senators represented about 143 million, despite that both had 50 senators.

Second issue is that just because people say they're pro-life, doesn't mean they agree on the issue equally. A lot of people don't think there should be any exceptions, some people call themselves pro-life but do think there should be exceptions.

Right, but you are missing the point.  Red states via having over 50% of the population being female can have the senate being blue....  



SegaHeart said:
Mnementh said:

This right there is what a company need to do: support their employees.

If only Sony was Created in American soil they understand what it means to be American and say the right things in USA politics. But yes, Sony is not well versed in American politics I understand the world doesn't revolve around USA.Japan has their line of thinking, Ukraine has their line of thinking,"China has their line of thinking like 1 child per parent and eating human babies if theirs a second child also eat and rob pets from USA and bring them in China to butcher and eat :("

What?!