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

91–100 of 105 posts

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

#91

Post by spyckie2 »

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…

Author here. If you think that I’m telling people to shut up about important issues then you’re wrong. I think activism has its place in a society that needs a lot of social change.

But if you think that activism is a universally appropriate activity no matter the situation, I respectfully disagree. That’s why I wrote this post. I think pushing activism in a place where you want fellowship is disruptive to fellowship.

I’m sorry my writing doesn’t contribute what you want to hear. I write to gain clarity for myself first and foremost, not for others. I also like discussing the topic with others to form a better opinion and like to use what others have to say to shape how I think. Sorry you don’t feel the same way.

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

#92

Post by Lazare »

mellosouls wrote: post #36
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.

I disagree.

I do disagree with Basecamp's policy, but I certainly wouldn't flag someone for arguing in favour of it. But I'm not sure I'd consider the linked post an argument in favour of it either; that implies that it contained an argument, but this seemed to just be a vague hand wave at popular culture, following by a bare assertion. Okay, how about "the Rebels were good, and the Empire was bad; the Rebels were a group organised for a common purpose, and so is a labour union, so the Rebels are like a union, so you should join your local union, because otherwise Palpatine will win"? Is that all we need?

One reason I wouldn't flag an argument I disagreed with is because the comments would be an excellent place to see people discussing, refuting, or affirming the points being made. But with something like this...what's to discuss? Or refute? The entire post would make at least as much sense (which is to say, not much) if you just flipped the conclusion and left the body alone. ("Fellowship means looking after everyone and not sacrificing people for the greater good, mercenaries just go to work, do their job, and go home without caring about right and wrong or thinking what the job is, etc.")

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

#93

Post by camelite »

ali0sha wrote: post #86
WesolyKubeczek wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Let's be clear, the 'activism' in question (at basecamp) is anti-racism. And if anti-racism is a competing cult, then you might want to switch sides.

Being unable to countenance good faith disagreement is not a persuasive argument against your ideology being a cult.

As an alternative approach, you can cut the gordian knot of being against anti-racism without being in favor of racism by simply noting that the thing is not what it calls itself.

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

#94

Post by camelite »

ali0sha wrote: post #84
cblang wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> improving the material condition of disadvantaged people across society. The average modern activist in software organizations is well educated, underperforming in terms of actual code contributions and a master at forming committees, work groups and assuming power. This activist fights for keeping his/her own job while others are doing the work. Classic leftist/pro-worker policies have been extinct since at least…

This is a strawman, unmoored from evidence or reality. Here's my read, based on your supporting the blog post and your two comments: You've constructed this fantasy as a defence mechanism. You use the classification of those with earnest beliefs that you find threatening as worse at 'actual code' and obsessed with 'work groups', and on that basis you reject those beliefs without having to introspect. As collaboration…

This is extraordinarily vicious, and yet entirely par for the course, a good example of the basically pro forma denunciation OP is arguing should be verboten in the work place.

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

#95

Post by disposekinetics »

spacemanmatt wrote: post #87
Veen wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That assumes the activists are in the right. You’ve chosen a side. Would you say “the division didn’t start with the activists” if it was conservative activists advocating for modest dress codes or similar? Your position assumes that progressive activists are correct, justified in bringing their politics to work, and that if they have a problem it’s the company’s fault. But you have to work with people you might disa…

Activism for modest dress codes? I'll just excuse myself, here. That is a farce compared to the subject at hand.

I believe you understand why someone would object to the above, but are not willing to universalize it.

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

#96

Post by GoodJokes »

spyckie2 wrote: post #83
pavel_lishin wrote: post #55

> A fellowship is "a group of people that join together for a common purpose or interest". You're very explicitly not describing a job or a company here, as most of them exist today. For all the comparisons to the LoTR trilogy, almost none of us here are working on anything that impactful, or anything that important, and neither are our employers. Most of us are going to show up to work tomorrow and work on another e…

I think my point is that some lifestyle companies (basecamp’s one of the originals) want to be a fellowship because they see the ideological joining together in shared mission and culture as a valuable thing. I think it is valuable to people who want to experience more band of brothers in their work. Most companies are mercenaries and most companies are okay with that. Also most individuals are mercenaries and are fi…

[dead]

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

#97

Post by pavel_lishin »

scaryclam wrote: post #73
pavel_lishin wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which beliefs and opinions? What if I'm arguing that our non-white employees are being passed over for promotions, and our women employees are all chronically underpaid compared to the men? How would that be more anti-fellowship than your fellows not being paid equitably?

What if you're arguing that women should stay at home, or that climate change is fake, or immigrants are a blight on society? It works both ways I'm afraid. And many people will think that those opinions are somehow good for society and that they're being good team players by pushing them.

It does not work both ways when the things I'm arguing for are directly impacting my fellow coworkers, and are the results of direct decisions by the higher ups. It's not a question of society at that point, it's a question of what's good for the company.

OP loves his fellowship analogy, but you can't have a fellowship where the halflings are only getting half-rations and Gandalf refuses to let the Dwarves participate in half of their endeavours.

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

#98

Post by pavel_lishin »

spyckie2 wrote: post #85
9dev wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can’t comprehend why someone would submit themselves so hard to the American corporate rhetoric. A workplace is neither a family, nor a fellowship. It should not be the center of your life, and certainly not something to fully submit yourself to. In that sense, I like the mercenary analogy very much.

Lifestyle business is where you want to be to have band of brothers or fellowship ideology and rhetoric. DHH has always been a proponent of lifestyle business. In the corporate world fellowship is rarely discussed and for good reason. I don’t believe most people are blinded by corporate rhetoric; some genuinely want to participate in missions and want to find others who think similarly.

> some genuinely want to participate in missions and want to find others who think similarly.

And some are lucky enough to be in a position to decree that their employees think similarly, or at least shut up about it.

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

#99

Post by username90 »

ali0sha wrote: post #86
WesolyKubeczek wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Let's be clear, the 'activism' in question (at basecamp) is anti-racism. And if anti-racism is a competing cult, then you might want to switch sides.

Self proclaimed anti racists are often pro racism which leads to problems in workplaces where you have to work with a diverse set of individuals.

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

#100

Post by Veen »

threeseed wrote: post #53
Veen wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> But if you're trying to run a company, division is antithetical to your goals Weird because at companies like Apple where I worked diversity in viewpoints was an important part of the fabric of the company. But then again they don't seem to be doing so well.

You know better than I what goes on in Apple, so I’m happy to hear they are committed to supporting and learning from employees with diverse political viewpoints beyond the usual California progressivism, including conservatism. It’s certainly not obvious that’s the case to an outsider.

(If you’ll allow me an irrelevant aside, your snarky sarcasm, point missing, and cleverer-than-thou ironic posturing makes it difficult for me to take you seriously. But perhaps it’s considered polite where you’re from. I’m happy to learn.)

Post reply on HN