tata-mic


























  1. I tried to get info about whether this was a temporary or permanent change and the chat agent was USELESS. just kept repeating over and over that IC has "no control" over companies loading deals to their system, it's 100% walmart's choice and cannot say whether it was temp or permanent.

  2. Wow congrats on this really terrible take, truly above and beyond!

  3. Well apparently Ned and Alex hooked up last year, Will found out and told Ned to back off. I imagine since nothing really happened back then, the guys were unaware and Will kept it to himself. But people had seen Alex and Ned together in May, so there's a possibility they cooled it off (or didn't) after Will found out and jumped right back in when they thought it was safe. Although, I'd hardly call brazen PDA and dates in public safe.

  4. can we stop repeating deux moi blinds as some sort of credible source?

  5. Sorry but I had no idea it was from there and it was circulating a lot. I repeated the comments that I heard and is also the very reason why I said apparently. I didn't even know what deux moi was until I saw screenshots circulating about Ned being spotted at that restaurant and nothing else.

  6. fact/source checking is a thing you can and should engage in as someone on the internet, yo

  7. this person made a very good post covering the legalities of this situation from a business/corporate standpoint

  8. - i honestly don't see anyone here literally wishing ned or alex to have horrible lives and never ever be happy again lol.

  9. Theres also the fact that open and poly relationships are a thing, the main difference between open/poly and cheating is communication, one has it the other doesn't.

  10. i mean.... yes? not sure how that is relevant to my comment tho?

  11. I will fully admit my comment made sense as a response when I typed it but now it doesn't, my bad.

  12. honestly i am not expecting us to get much more info from the guys/company, ned, or alex.

  13. i see that lol. idk why the mod didn't choose the 1st one posted. maybe this one had more comments or something

  14. buzzfeed purposefully tanking its own investment is an unbelievably idiotic proposition.

  15. https://ca.news.yahoo.com/try-guys-built-hugely-successful-120000971.html

  16. and the number of upvotes these complete numpties get..... incredibly disheartening tbh. we are truly in the darkest timeline when it comes to the "progression" of feminism

  17. Excellent post. One thing to add regarding the power dynamic bit: even if Alex had thrown herself at Ned, I think it would have been incumbent upon him to deny her advances and inform the other guys.

  18. oh dang. rachel isn't one to bait or stir pots etc

  19. absolutely no way in hell this is a remote possibility lmfao

  20. https://giphy.com/gifs/k56oRtCg218Z2

  21. Why wouldn’t I understand why employer/employee relationships are problematic? Obv they can be.

  22. i was not casting any assumption, i was providing further reading/resources if the given information wasn't enough "evidence"/info for you to understand. you yourself asked for clarification/what you were missing.

  23. no, bro. they're talking about it the way they are because there's a whole team of HR/PR/lawyers directing them how to talk about it lmao

  24. The reality is that even if Alex said an enthusiastic YES to a relationship, she never really had the power to say an enthusiastic NO. Ned had the power to control her paycheck. He could fire her. He would be contacted by future jobs to give a reference. Whether or not he would have done any of that doesn’t matter: he could have, and they both knew it.

  25. I have this elsewhere, but I’m not convinced if she stays with Ned their friendships will stay the same / recover. She will be married to the person who hurt them both professionally and personally in such a profound way, and at this point (at least professionally) there is no way to gauge exactly how much damage has been done.

  26. this is pretty much my thoughts as well.

  27. But then you have to think about the whole thing of "believe all victims." When someone comes forward with those kinds of accusations, it almost never looks good for the people who might second guess them.

  28. public opinion vs court reality are very different landscapes. there is a reason beyond public opinion why more women don't come forward and it is exactly because it is exceedingly difficult to get anywhere legally on grounds of sexual misconduct without solid proof.

  29. When it's "he said, she said" it's not a clear outcome. But she is more likely to win based on the fact that legally her ability to consent is reduced by coercive factors (he can fire her, reduce hours/appearances). In reality I believe she is just as culpable. But the courts don't see it that way. She does not need proof. The presence of the relationship itself and any potential damage to her reputation is all that is needed since the court considers any action which involves coercive factors to subvert the idea of consent. And we are talking civil court where there does not need to be a preponderance of evidence.

  30. the courts in this country would unfortunately not be likely to side with her without substantial evidence based purely on the power imbalance. the burden of proof would be on her as the pursuant here in a civil case, not on the "defendant" as with a criminal case, unless she were trying to get the police to press charges on a criminal level which honestly she'd have an even harder time with, considering the rampant misogyny with the court system.

  31. just say you're 12 years old and hate women and go lol

  32. ngl i did not see any "pure rage" from anyone but eugene lol

  33. i'm not sure it "derailed" it as it was never anything but this tbh!

  34. OP is not asking what code of conduct or policies exist within the Try Guys company. They’re asking to what extent California law protects employees in situations such as this one, and already mentioned specific concerns (such as maximum number of work hours, at will firing etc).

  35. Thank you, this gave me some context. The concept of a power imbalance is talked about even in cities I've lived in with human rights standards. In America, where the stakes (continued employment, healthcare, holidays, etc) are so much higher if you even mildly displease your boss, how can there not be a power dynamic? Not asking a rhetorical question but a real one, I'm just genuinely really bewildered.

  36. regardless of ned's wishes i really highly doubt eugene's remark was aimed at him and not to point out the shitty societal norm and how they want to rise above it, which is smart, as it's literally their brand message these days, and a clever way to both distance themselves from from ned's mess/decry his actions but also drive home that they stand by their brand message, it's still applicable to THEM (ie the company) if not to ned, and that they can and will do/be better.

  37. It could be cause A LOT of people accused them of knowing prior to September or that they were trying to bury it but the leak forced their hands

  38. there is absolutely zero indication they were attempting to bury this. their timeline 100% checks out. upon the info being given to them they immediately hired outside HR/legal, had an investigation conducted (this is not a task that takes a couple days, it takes usually a minimum of 7-10 business days even in a small company), consulted with their legal HR/legal team regarding the results of the investigation, made a decision, and immediately began putting that decision into action with removing him from upcoming/current content actively about to be released.

  39. I am very confused because you and I have commented on many posts that seem like we have the same thought process. My response was very tongue in cheek. Clearly many people do not know the try guys or have been keeping up with this subreddit. It is true every state has different laws on how they rule on contracts, different counties sway different ways on how a jury will perceive an issue. My intention was to never say this is legal or illegal. All I’m saying is without reading the contract they produced in the state of California it is a l l speculation.

  40. apologies, i don't really keep track of usernames in such a gigantic sub that is currently so active. i didn't read your comment as sarcastic/tongue in cheek as it's something i've seen a ton of people saying in earnest. tone often lost in text etc etc.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Author: admin