r/TheDragonPrince • u/MrBKainXTR Soren • Nov 06 '19

Announcement Harassment Allegations Megathread

Please keep all further discussion of the workplace harassment allegations regarding Wonderstorm and Ehasz in this megathread.

​

Allegations:

https://twitter.com/danikaharrod/status/1191957269774245888?s=20

https://twitter.com/luluryounes/status/1191813982832644096?s=20

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1191924533696950272.html?refreshed=yes

Edit:

Ehasz sort of responded to some of the allegations back in august.
https://twitter.com/generalamayas/status/1192217818965643264

120 Upvotes

96% Upvoted

196 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

6

u/Fandomixture Nov 07 '19

Fallacy ad populum. Careful with that argument there. I’ve seen people getting hurt and accused of stuff they didn’t do just because more than one claimed they did.

1

u/dontthrowmeinabox Nov 07 '19

Misapplication of fallacy ad populum.

Fallacy ad populum refers to asserting that something is true because it is a popular believe within a broad population. For example, "Ten million parents can't be wrong, Huggies is the best brand of diapers," would be a textbook example of the fallacy, while this would not be an example at all.

4

u/Fandomixture Nov 07 '19

“There are many people saying aaron is this, therefore it must be true”. I know it’s not exactly the same, just a similar process of thought and a bit silly. Is like saying: “many people accused michael jackson of doing bad stuff, therefore he’s done them”. That’s also a popular belief, and when you use it as an argument, it can be consider fallacy ad populum. Maybe I’m wrong, tho. Thanks for the correction.

0

u/dontthrowmeinabox Nov 07 '19

The situation with Aaron is more akin to the following: Imagine you're visiting a local news station. You're there to be interviewed for whatever reason, but have shown up early. You go to the front desk, and there's a gentleman there. You say to him, "Hello, I'm here a bit early, but I'm here to be interviewed on the six o'clock news." He replies, "Oh, oh yes, we're expecting you. It's a while, but you can head up to the green room. By the way, your interview might be interrupted. Mia told me that there are some pretty bad storms in the area, and we might have to switch to emergency coverage. But anyway, down the hallway, and to your right you'll find an elevator. Go to the third floor, and follow the signs." You thank him and head along your way. You're just about to the elevator, and you notice the doors start to close. There's a woman inside who notices you at the last moment, and presses the button to hold the door for you. You thank her, and she begins to make some small talk, saying "Hey, you're here for the big interview, right? Hopefully we make it up the elevator!" She laughs for a moment, and then continues, "You see, I was talking to our meteorologist, Mia, and she says that there's going to be some pretty bad storms in the area. Might even lose power!" The doors open and you head off your own ways. You enter the green room, and sit down. Picking up your phone, you play a game for a while. Eventually, the person set to interview you comes in and says, "Hey, you'll be on in an hour and a half, let the staff know if there's anything you need until then. By the way, be aware that we might need to delay your interview a bit. Mia let me know that there's going to be some bad weather, and that might throw things off. If things get too bad, we'll record an interview tonight during the weather coverage, and air it tomorrow."

I’d say that based on the above, a reasonable person would believe that Mia has been telling people about a bad storm. Would you?

3

u/semi-confusticated Nov 10 '19

I had to read this twice before I finally got it, but I think you made a good point. I think you're trying to say something like this: (Is this right?)

3 people claim to have directly witnessed something, and there is clear evidence that they were present in the time and place where they claim that the event occurred. Thus, their statements are good evidence, not heresay.

Others in this thread seem to be incorrectly interpreting the situation as "3 people say x without having direct knowledge of it, so it's just heresay, not evidence", but that doesn't seem to be the case here.

Edit: fixed wording for clarity a couple minutes after posting

2

u/dontthrowmeinabox Nov 11 '19

Yeah, I'd say that's the gist of it. I'm glad the story got the point across.

3

u/Fandomixture Nov 07 '19

Sorry, but I dont’t agree at all. I don’t see the point you are trying to make, and I don’t see any similarities with Aaron’s case. I still stand by what I said on my latter rely.