Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

A Policy of Activism in the Workplace Is Anti-Fellowship

antivalue.blogspot.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 105 posts

Re: A Policy of Activism in the Workplace Is Anti-Fellowship

#31

Post by spacemanmatt »

Veen wrote: post #9
spacemanmatt wrote: post #2

I could hardly disagree more with the premise that activism is anti-fellowship. This seems like a very narrow take on activism.

Activism is necessarily divisive unless everyone already agrees on a political ideology and the solutions to issues activists focus on. If you are an activist, you might think this is a good thing—it may please you to create an environment hostile to people you don't agree with. But if you're trying to run a company, division is antithetical to your goals.

If you run a company with problems so deep that people have to turn activist about them, maybe the division didn't start with activists.

Re: A Policy of Activism in the Workplace Is Anti-Fellowship

#32

Post by scruffyherder »

clearcarbon wrote: post #24

Work is political - saying that people should get on with work without discussing "political topics" prevents them from discussing and solving the issues within their own work. Yes there is a need to make sure work that directly brings money into the organisation gets done but part of that work is making sure everyone everyone works equally. "There's no way the ring is getting to Mordor if Gimli is pushing for elf re…

How do I inject this into my SQL?

Re: A Policy of Activism in the Workplace Is Anti-Fellowship

#33

Post by dools »

StavrosK wrote: post #12
aspaceman wrote: post #4

Why is that every, single article that gets posted on this subject at HN completely ignores the “funny names” list that actually caused this incident. Folks keep acting like it was kids screaming BLM on the company message board and it’s kind of infuriatingly disingenuous. It feels almost purposeful that folks are ignoring the specific political grievance that employees had, and they are framing it as activist pressu…

This is probably less about Basecamp and more about the "straw that broke the camel's back" of people being tired of activists being so loud. Semi-unrelatedly, I noticed something interesting: People who try to solve problem X seem to dislike other people who try to solve the same problem in a slightly different way almost as much as they dislike the people who cause X in the first place. I find myself being put off…

“People being tired of activists being so loud” == over privileged people being pissed off that under privileged people keeping ruining their privileged experience by pointing out their privilege

EDIT: unsurprisingly the word privilege is triggering on HN

Re: A Policy of Activism in the Workplace Is Anti-Fellowship

#34

Post by WesolyKubeczek »

tobr wrote: post #6

If you examine any two values that you believe in close enough, you can find a place where they rub against each other. That friction doesn’t mean one is “anti” the other, just that you sometimes need to find a way to compromise. A claim that pro-activism is anti-fellowship is only true if you are dogmatic and uncompromising about putting your fellowship first. Such a fellowship is otherwise known as a ‘cult’.

And activism is when you're pushing a competing cult.

Re: A Policy of Activism in the Workplace Is Anti-Fellowship

#35

Post by gizmo »

aspaceman wrote: post #4

Why is that every, single article that gets posted on this subject at HN completely ignores the “funny names” list that actually caused this incident. Folks keep acting like it was kids screaming BLM on the company message board and it’s kind of infuriatingly disingenuous. It feels almost purposeful that folks are ignoring the specific political grievance that employees had, and they are framing it as activist pressu…

Because all parties already acknowledge that the "funny names" list is inappropriate. The issue isn't contended. The list is bad and they got rid of it. Now Basecamp leadership wants to move on while many employees want to litigate the issue further. The executives don't want this because they see it as unproductive and as contributing to even more tension.

Basecamp is without question in the top 5% of most liberal and progressive companies, but they have no desire to be in the top 0.1%. I think there is plenty to criticize on how basecamp handled the communication, but their demands really aren't unreasonable. Basecamp wants to be pluralistic and have people work together despite their differences, and they want to be progressive and inclusive. But they don't want the equity and inclusion efforts to become a disproportionate time sink and something that distracts from the many other goals they have.

Re: A Policy of Activism in the Workplace Is Anti-Fellowship

#36

Post by mellosouls »

threeseed wrote: post #26

It would have been nice to see a nuanced, thoughtful, insightful look at the various viewpoints that exist within this complex issue. Because many parts of this "activism" are important e.g. how women are treated in IT or what values does a company need to defend in this modern age. Instead we get an utterly cringeworthy "everyone should just be quiet and follow the wisdom of Lord of the Rings" which adds absolutely…

The analogy is unfortunately nerdy, but flagging it is over the top.

That sort of behaviour plays into the hands of those who believe that criticism of social activists is shut down by sympathisers rather than countered with civil argument.

Re: A Policy of Activism in the Workplace Is Anti-Fellowship

#38

Post by HKH2 »

clearcarbon wrote: post #24

Work is political - saying that people should get on with work without discussing "political topics" prevents them from discussing and solving the issues within their own work. Yes there is a need to make sure work that directly brings money into the organisation gets done but part of that work is making sure everyone everyone works equally. "There's no way the ring is getting to Mordor if Gimli is pushing for elf re…

In which company does everyone work equally?

Re: A Policy of Activism in the Workplace Is Anti-Fellowship

#39

Post by drukenemo »

clearcarbon wrote: post #24

Work is political - saying that people should get on with work without discussing "political topics" prevents them from discussing and solving the issues within their own work. Yes there is a need to make sure work that directly brings money into the organisation gets done but part of that work is making sure everyone everyone works equally. "There's no way the ring is getting to Mordor if Gimli is pushing for elf re…

It depends on what you refer as political. Saying a certain president is crap and making an open invitation to a protest against him or her is not the same as discussing your views on things that directly affect your work performance.
Post reply on HN