Paizo Jessica Price (ex Paizo employee) spills the beans

[Sacrosanct]

*citation needed

The GW things was already cited earlier upthread. So is her tweet claiming Paizo fired two minorities, which also isn't true. Inferring their minority status being a reason, which also isn't true to what we know. She has a history of going right to "you don't agree with me so you must be sexist". Not an isolated thing.

 

[Sacrosanct]

Again, I want to be very clear here because I have a suspicion it's gonna get lost. I believe this situation happened. I believe all of the other women who are making these claims. I'm not trying to disprove women and I agree that sexism is a huge problem in our industry. I'm only saying that THIS ONE person has a history of being untruthful and making claims that aren't true, so I don't believe THIS ONE person automatically without other collaboration. That's all. I'm not making general attacks at women or their credibility in general at all. I believe women as my default response. It's only when someone has given me reason to not believe them do I question it, regardless of gender.

 

[Retreater]

It's a complicated thing. A lot of good people put a lot of hard work into those books through bad conditions to make them really inclusive and progressive. There's a good post in one of the subthreads of that long one that the problem is harder than just abstaining from buying stuff, but rather forcing the change they were selling us to become real rather than illusory.

Do you remember that scene from Clerks about the independent contractors working on the Second Death Star? I think it fits in boycott situations.
In general, if there's a bad company where the leadership from top-down is toxic, then I have no qualms about not supporting them. It will eventually free the lower end employees from that environment.
I'm not saying that I wish ill for Paizo or its employees. I'm saying that if I decide to not purchase a certain fast food chicken, I'm not making that choice to harm the hourly workers.

 

[Gradine]

The GW things was already cited earlier upthread.

See above (I edited the previous post; would've replied with it instead had the forum said there were new posts, which it usually does..._

So is her tweet claiming Paizo fired two minorities, which also isn't true.

She misspoke, and openly corrected herself. This has been stated repeatedly, and you seem to have trouble recognizing that "saying something they thought was true but wasn't, and correcting herself" isn't the same thing as deliberately lying.

Inferring their minority status being a reason, which also isn't true to what we know.

We don't actually know that at all, and everything we've read actually makes that sound more likely than not. Not necessarily just their minoritized status, but we've seen revealed a history of a company retaliating against people standing up for themselves.

She has a history of going right to "you don't agree with me so you must be sexist". Not an isolated thing.

She has a history of calling sexist things sexist. You can agree with a thing that is sexist; that does not make it not sexist.

 

[Parmandur]

I do too, but not because of anything Price said, but I'm basing my opinion on what everyone else is saying. I'm sorry, but Price has a history of being untruthful and trying to make everything sexist when it isn't. And her very first tweet to start this issue was not true (why highlight the gender/ethnicity of the two people who left unless you thought that was the reason they were let go, when nothing suggests that. And the "PoC" she mentions wasn't fired like she claimed either.)

So I'm afraid there are too many red flags there for me to trust her. However, there is plenty of collaboration by others, and it's plausible (sadly all too common in this industry), so I believe this has happened. Which again, blows my mind that something so easily resolved was allowed to blow up. If I were an investor in a company that did this, I'd be peeved.

I understand seeing Price as a perhaps untrustworthy narrator, she certainly can be aggressive on Social Media. That makes this a bit stronger to me, though, because despite not being particularly trusting of her in general my gut says this all true.

 

[Gradine]

Do you remember that scene from Clerks about the independent contractors working on the Second Death Star? I think it fits in boycott situations.
In general, if there's a bad company where the leadership from top-down is toxic, then I have no qualms about not supporting them. It will eventually free the lower end employees from that environment.
I'm not saying that I wish ill for Paizo or its employees. I'm saying that if I decide to not purchase a certain fast food chicken, I'm not making that choice to harm the hourly workers.

This. The goal isn't to screw the employees out of their likelihood; the goal is to create a better work environment from the top down by calling out and removing the folx that are making it a toxic place to work at in the first place.

 

[Sacrosanct]

See above (I edited the previous post; would've replied with it instead had the forum said there were new posts, which it usually does..._

She misspoke, and openly corrected herself. This has been stated repeatedly, and you seem to have trouble recognizing that "saying something they thought was true but wasn't, and correcting herself" isn't the same thing as deliberately lying.

We don't actually know that at all, and everything we've read actually makes that sound more likely than not. Not necessarily just their minoritized status, but we've seen revealed a history of a company retaliating against people standing up for themselves.

She has a history of calling sexist things sexist. You can agree with a thing that is sexist; that does not make it not sexist.

She has a history of calling things sexist when they aren't (like someone simply disagreeing with her)

How many times does someone "misspeak" before it's a pattern? If this was one time? Maybe. But she had done this before. Also, accusations of sexism or racism are serious. She shouldn't be throwing those around unless she knows for sure. Especially with her track record. So I have less benefit of the doubt there.

 

[Parmandur]

You where - I just read through it and that is a lot of...ugh.

Erik Mona's displaying of esoteric white supremacist symbols was particularly squiggly to me, personally.

 

[Gradine]

Again, I want to be very clear here because I have a suspicion it's gonna get lost. I believe this situation happened. I believe all of the other women who are making these claims. I'm not trying to disprove women and I agree that sexism is a huge problem in our industry. I'm only saying that THIS ONE person has a history of being untruthful and making claims that aren't true, so I don't believe THIS ONE person automatically without other collaboration. That's all. I'm not making general attacks at women or their credibility in general at all. I believe women as my default response. It's only when someone has given me reason to not believe them do I question it, regardless of gender.

And I believe you. But you are the one who decided to bring Price's believability up and drag her name through the mud, when the reality is that she has actually done nothing to engender such distrust, if not agreement.

 

[thirdkingdom]

Genuinely sorry for lumping you in with the right-wingers on this one. Basically the worst thing I could assume of someone, so, really, apologies.

But I also think a lot of notions and expectations of professionalism are antiquated, and have been more often used as a way to stifle criticism and protect institutions than to help the people who really need help, particularly those with less power. Same goes for the discourse on civility. Not much worthwhile has ever been gained by people being cautious, civil, or even professional, a term that's hard to define but easy to weaponize. Even if you disagree--which you obviously have every right to--there's no putting all of the genies back in all of the bottles. This is just how the world is now.

Plus, there's a noticeable tendency for women to get far more pushback and demands of evidence then men. There's even a term for this: Holdo-ing.