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

How Basecamp Blew Up

platformer.news

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 1001 posts

Re: How Basecamp Blew Up

#41

Post by eloff »

DiNovi wrote: post #33
tomschlick wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Singer clarifies in the later follow up to say he was referring to the people at Basecamp, not in reference to the whole country. > To which Singer responded: “I said we have different ways of framing … If you want to debate whether it exists anywhere, then yeah. But not here at this company, not with the people I associate with.” Edit: to add quote

Yes it is a common tactic to back away from an initial claim and pivot after people call you out, but he already let the genie out the bottle.

Or he clarified a position that he didn't think needed it originally. Because who's so dumb as to caricature his argument as saying there's no white supremacy anywhere?

People are just looking for someone to lynch, irony intended.

Re: How Basecamp Blew Up

#42

Post by foobarthrowaway »

Barrin92 wrote: post #23
Threeve303 wrote: post #13

This story is so strange. First of all, it has been considered unprofessional to talk about politics at work for as long as I can remember. It's odd how you would need a rule implemented about that. Is this just a generational thing? On the other hand, when did racial equality become an inherently political topic? Especially racial equality inside the workplace. This also doesn't mean that the Basecamp founders are r…

>Is this just a generational thing? No, it's a class thing. Among unionised labour work has always been a political battlefield. What's new is that you know have a politically activist group of people within upper middle class white collar jobs who, traditionally were conservative in temperament because they were materially well off. Professionals whose values do not align with their management have figured out that…

Maybe, but don't kid yourself that you (or, the average HN'er) are the working blue collar everyman or share much of their politics. A lot of you would brand a lot of them "nazis" for their opinions.

Re: How Basecamp Blew Up

#43

Post by throwawaysea »

This author, Casey Newton, seems to be trying to push a narrative that Basecamp damaged itself by banning politics at work. But the anecdotes in here convince me that Basecamp did the right thing. The people involved in this exchange with Singer seem unhinged - demanding that someone declare that white supremacy exists at work? This type of cultish demand-oriented discourse is unacceptable in professional organizations and even the rest of society. It creates an unnecessarily hostile workplace, and the lack of nuance in their stances really just shows a lack of mental balance or ability to deal with any differences of opinions.

Let’s be honest - the diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) committees that have appeared in companies and governments all over are simply a Trojan horse for far left progressive politics, and a vehicle to take over an institution by making a particular political ideology the official religion of that organization. DEI groups and policies usually serve to prevent any actual diversity, labeling dissenting thought as racist and coating their own racist policies (for example race or gender based hiring/promotion) in vague terms like “justice”. Usually those participating in DEI efforts are so distracted by it that they add no actual value to the business, and I’m sure the third of the company that joined that group at Basecamp were no different.

I’m betting Basecamp will pull through just fine without such toxic employees, and am glad to see companies like Basecamp and Coinbase take steps to keep from having their workplace and company weaponized by activists to serve divisive ideological purposes that have nothing to do with the company’s business.

Re: How Basecamp Blew Up

#44

Post by predaking »

DHH was “so sick” that he was barely present for the most important meeting of his career. Fortunately he was able to post on Twitter several hours later storming at Apple, then going on a twitter blocking spree. What a “miraculous recovery”.

I wonder what things will be like for him when he becomes an adult.

Re: How Basecamp Blew Up

#45

Post by predaking »

fallenfromgrace wrote: post #26
DiNovi wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

he had over 10 retweets and tweets the same day after this call. And did not use those tweets to thank his old team, just more "apple bad" stuff as if nothing had changed. Color me skeptical.

Hear you, but not knowing the exact timeline of events here...and seeing how this is a disaster on so many other levels...I find there is value in showing him grace for being...sick. (There is already so much bad, that his absence/presence is a moot point) But totally hear what you're saying and appreciate your skepticism!

The timeline of events is pretty evident from DHHs twitter feed + this article. They had the meeting in the morning, and by the afternoon he had mustered up the energy to go back on Twitter to fight with Apple. :)

> (There is already so much bad, that his absence/presence is a moot point)

This dude is one of the two founders of the company and has a leadership/ownership responsibility. I don't think his deciding to duck out is a moot point at all. It's that exact attitude that led to what's happened there.

Re: How Basecamp Blew Up

#46

Post by ashtonkem »

Threeve303 wrote: post #13

This story is so strange. First of all, it has been considered unprofessional to talk about politics at work for as long as I can remember. It's odd how you would need a rule implemented about that. Is this just a generational thing? On the other hand, when did racial equality become an inherently political topic? Especially racial equality inside the workplace. This also doesn't mean that the Basecamp founders are r…

I think this is badly missing the point. I think two very specific things happened here:

First, the executives absolutely clamped down hard on a discussion about workplace behavior. I think their attempt to cast this as “political” is deeply cynical; discussing how people behave at work will always be in bounds, even if it touches up against issues that are politicized. The initial trigger here was a discussion about the list of “funny names”; there’s no easy way to sweep that under the rug as off topic, since it’s explicitly at-work behavior.

Second, they did an end run around the employees. Announcing the policy to the world, and implying that the Basecamp workforce was having a problem focusing on their jobs was an asshole move destined to blow up in their face. Nobody likes feeling crapped on by their boss, especially not in public like that.

Honestly, it didn’t have to be about politics. Treating employees like that, especially ones with options, is typically not going to go well.

Re: How Basecamp Blew Up

#47

Post by ashtonkem »

eloff wrote: post #2

There is a great supporting argument for keeping discussions of politics, race, religion, etc out of the workplace to begin with. It's not possible to call it from outside, but there was no actual racist behavior cited, apart from the list of funny customer names, which is not really racist (more culturalist - if that were a thing), but it is a terrible idea anyway. It sounds like a bunch of people got upset and quit…

I think announcing policies on the company blog without telling employees first is always going to go poorly. You don’t have to be an “activist” employee to feel slighted by that.

Re: How Basecamp Blew Up

#48

Post by ashtonkem »

DiNovi wrote: post #6

so they: - Announced a new company policy publicly before telling the staff - Deleted internal threads that would go against their narrative of why they did so - Had a conservative senior employee go off about politics on the call discussing the new no politics policy. - refused to reprimand said employee on the call - had one founder take this extremely sensitive call from his bed with his camera off and on mute. -…

It seems like most of these attention hungry founders have extremely poor impulse or emotion control. I’m increasingly of the opinion that a “thought leader” CEO or founder is a red flag for a company, as tales of these people’s greatness always seems to diminish with distance.

Re: How Basecamp Blew Up

#49

Post by ashtonkem »

tomschlick wrote: post #32
DiNovi wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

like saying white supremacy doesnt exist in the united states

Singer clarifies in the later follow up to say he was referring to the people at Basecamp, not in reference to the whole country. > To which Singer responded: “I said we have different ways of framing … If you want to debate whether it exists anywhere, then yeah. But not here at this company, not with the people I associate with.” Edit: to add quote

Sorry, I think he’s lying here to cover his own ass. Especially if he’s been in the habit of quoting Breitbart, him pulling the “actually racism against whites is the real issue” is entirely believable.

Re: How Basecamp Blew Up

#50

Post by ashtonkem »

tomschlick wrote: post #34
DiNovi wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes it is a common tactic to back away from an initial claim and pivot after people call you out, but he already let the genie out the bottle.

Its also common to not to explain things you think are obvious when initially talking but when someone asks you about it you clarify your position.

He also has every single motive to lie here.
Post reply on HN