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

511–520 of 1001 posts

Re: How Basecamp Blew Up

#511

Post by devoutsalsa »

Trasmatta wrote: post #24
fallenfromgrace wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

for what it's worth, I find the picking on DHH for taking this call from bed unnecessary If he was sick, whether physically sick because of their own actions or otherwise...sick is sick. Seemed like a no-win for him whether he could either refuse to show up because he is sick, or show up to at least listen to what's going on (assuming recording it wasn't an option).

This might have been the most important meeting in Basecamp's history, so it just feels odd that the co founder was apparently so sick he couldn't sit at his desk for an hour or two. Or even just during the initial introductions before he turned his camera off. Maybe he was that sick, but I would be kind of pissed if I were one of the employees. The power dynamic is weird, because if a regular employee were sick they…

After experiencing a pandemic, if someone says they are sick, I’m going to give them the benefit of the doubt.

Re: How Basecamp Blew Up

#512

Post by wombatpm »

prawn wrote: post #319
threeseed wrote: post #285

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You don't seem to be completely across the issue. If it was purely about talking about politics at work then everyone wouldn't have resigned.

Perhaps not - asking honestly, What did I miss? Other than people saying they didn't love working for the founders (and that seems to predate this issue). I said that in another comment, that it seemed the internet beat up is at cross-purposes: employees not loving the employers and founders asserting control (with repercussions) are both reasonable positions. I read the first third-party piece about this and nothing…

You have a problem. I know lets ask HR to get involved. You now have at least two problems.

Re: How Basecamp Blew Up

#513

Post by 1123581321 »

jjeaff wrote: post #501
1123581321 wrote: post #497

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This misconduct happens regardless of the demographics. It just depends on how much abuse and vitriol management allows and encourages.

My point was that i find it laughable that any white man will have a hard time getting a job in the tech industry because he is white considering there isn't a tech company i have ever known that wasn't mostly white guys working there. Maybe wait until white guys make up less than 75% of the workforce in your industry before you start complaining about descrimination.

It seems worth complaining about abuse regardless of the ability to leave.

Re: How Basecamp Blew Up

#514

Post by [deleted] »

freddie_mercury wrote: post #419
Trasmatta wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Can't believe only 21 employees walked The article said they extended the buyout offer indefinitely, so I wouldn't be surprised if more people leave over the next few weeks. Even if you weren't thinking of leaving, 3-6 months severance would be really hard to turn down, especially if you know you can get another job quickly.

If that many employees think they can get another, comparable, job quickly then that is implicitly saying Basecamp's overall compensation package (including how interesting the work is, extra time off in summer, profit sharing, etc, etc) isn't actually especially unique or valuable. Which kind of says something not great about Basecamp in and of itself.

[deleted]

Re: How Basecamp Blew Up

#516

Post by newacct583 »

> One can empathically agree that such injustice, and any injustice, sucks, and still advocate compartmentalizing between institutions of the society writ large.

That depends very heavily on the nature of the injustice, doesn't it? I mean, take Godwin's perspective here: that's literally the logic that gave us the holocaust!

Implicit in your statement is the idea that the "injustice" might "suck", but not so much that it's worth blowing up your employer. Which is to say: you really don't think this injustice sucked very much. Well... some people disagreed. And they were willing to quit over it.

Isn't that an existence proof that your intuition is simply wrong here?

Re: How Basecamp Blew Up

#517

Post by ubercore »

thrownaway564 wrote: post #181
Tainnor wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe. But this is (was) a 60-person company. That's about the size of the company I'm currently working at. In other words, you should know everyone and interact with a sizeable chunk of these people somewhat regularly. It strikes me as very odd that you would suddenly so fundamentally distrust your co-workers with whom you share so much. But I'm also not in the US and maybe this is just the current climate over the…

The culture here is getting bad. We have an "inclusion council" that hands out these diktats. The word ban list (not blacklist!) is approaching 100 words including husband, housekeeping, normal, hacker and meritocracy. Worse part is we're a security company edit: "here" is okta, not basecamp

Anyone work at Okta that can confirm this?

Re: How Basecamp Blew Up

#518

Post by [deleted] »

FooBarBizBazz wrote: post #360
thrownaway564 wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The culture here is getting bad. We have an "inclusion council" that hands out these diktats. The word ban list (not blacklist!) is approaching 100 words including husband, housekeeping, normal, hacker and meritocracy. Worse part is we're a security company edit: "here" is okta, not basecamp

> husband Yup. Pro tip: If you're at a SV-influenced company and you find yourself talking about your personal life, don't say "husband," "wife," "boyfriend," or "girlfriend;" say "partner." That signals that you're an Ally rather than an Enemy. You'll notice other weird speech patterns too. Pay attention to them; they're meaningful.

[deleted]

Re: How Basecamp Blew Up

#519

Post by vxNsr »

nemothekid wrote: post #349
didgeoridoo wrote: post #330

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The argument is simply that the behavior everyone claims to decry (e.g. racial violence) starts somewhere, far below violence This is just a rehash of broken-windows theory, whether its proponents know it or not. The Hutus and Tutsis didn’t start with some off-color ribbing and escalate from there. There is zero evidence behind the “pyramid of hate” — it makes a shallow kind of sense, but has no basis in the real w…

> An equally valid hypothesis is that harmlessly blowing off low-level steam prevents the atrocities higher up in the “pyramid”. Things only really get bad when people are encouraged to form and defend identities around characteristics like race, religion, national origin, etc. I'm sorry - I need help in understanding how this "equally valid". To me this seems like a justification ex post facto to defend "jokes", but…

> The adult thing to do when you come across a rather juvenile list of "funny" names to accept that you were wrong and move on.

This is exactly what he did.

> To try and defend this kind of juvenile behavior leads to nonsensical arguments about why it's someone's right to make lavatorial jokes during standup.

He didn’t try to defend the list he just didn’t believe the idea that this list had some sorta deep seated root in racism. There were just as many “funny” Anglo/European names as Asian/African/etc from what I understand. He called out ppl trying to act self righteous when they themselves participated in the list making in the recent past and said this list is not proof of deep-seated racism in the company. That wasn’t good enough for the activists so they revolted.

ETA: people are logging their disagreement in downvotes but I haven’t seen a counter argument to this at any point in this thread, I’m ok with the dv, just interested in hearing the opposing view.

Re: How Basecamp Blew Up

#520

Post by newacct583 »

duxup wrote: post #473
otde wrote: post #463

Bit of a fool’s errand to try and avoid politics at work — like a fish trying to avoid water in the ocean. The ways companies are built and maintained, the relationship between employers and employees, workplace requirements and benefits — all of these are shaped by and and built from political systems, to say nothing of how politics surrounding a person’s identity might affect their worldview. You’re never going to…

I can understand being hurt and more about the funny names list. But I think things have gotten out of hand when at an all hands meeting people are debating topics like: "we live in a white supremacist culture" Or demands from one employee to another at all hands meetings to denounce white supremacy. I doubt many companies could handle that right... and I'm sure many people would come away more hurt.

We don't know the context, but as to your second item... when did denouncing white supremacy become something controversial?

I know what you're really saying, which is that people on the right feel persecuted by being implicitly accused of being racists. And... y'know, that's fair. Probably 90% of the time in arguments like this that's an unfounded accusation made in bad faith just to score points.

But still... the treatment is to point out that, yes, you guys might disagree with us woke hippies politically but you're still on the light side of the force and care about the same basic morality so of course you denounce white supremacy. Right?

What's horrifying to us hippies is the extent to which so many of you simply won't, and want to turn it around into an argument instead. But you do, right? Denounce white supremacy? If your coworker demanded it, you might roll your eyes a bit but you'd do it? Right?

Post reply on HN