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

681–690 of 1001 posts

Re: How Basecamp Blew Up

#681

Post by jgwil2 »

JPKab wrote: post #648
jgwil2 wrote: post #388

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you have an agenda and you're shading the story to fit your narrative. I would bet that other people would describe it differently. I notice you didn't reply about the name-calling.

I disagree with name calling. And I think you are arrogant and probably young. You form an opinion and cling to it. This ideology probably suits you.

> ...white people were uniquely tainted by the slave trade that some of their ancestors engaged in.

Is that a quote? It sounds like you are paraphrasing your perception of someone's point in the least favorable possible way. If the guy really said "white people are tainted," then he might suck and I hope you pushed back.

Re: How Basecamp Blew Up

#682

Post by whywhywhywhy »

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.

What word do they suggest in place of 'hacker'?

Re: How Basecamp Blew Up

#683

Post by moduspol »

etchalon wrote: post #456
moduspol wrote: post #397

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How do you avoid being framed as “us vs. them” when you are being openly called a white supremacist? What you’re describing is “appeasement.” Presume they’re operating in good faith and that maybe they’re kind of right. So you cut a compromise, and sure enough, the white supremacy is still there! And what do they recommend? More appeasement. I agree it was a management problem, but the problem is it wasn’t identified…

No one was calling anyone a white supremecist in the conversation. They were likely talking about white supremacy as a cultural and political force in the context of how the policy could perpetrate it.

That doesn’t change the fact that leadership then must either:

* Accept the claim that the company is and has been supporting white supremacy, de facto surrendering decisions on anything an employee suggests might support white supremacy

* Disagree with the claim

The redefinition of white supremacy (as you’ve defined it) is a bad faith rhetorical tool designed to create these kind of situations. Leaders are under no obligation to appease employees acting in bad faith.

Re: How Basecamp Blew Up

#684

Post by yunohn »

randompwd wrote: post #677
yunohn wrote: post #666

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> South American countries which were huge destinations for African slaves This is a gross misrepresentation of events. They were colonized by European countries, who imported African slaves, to work alongside the SAmerican slaves for their economic exploitation.

Actually, they were colonised by a relatively tiny group of individuals. And the profits were kept by a relatively tiny group of individuals.

> tiny group of individuals

Where did they come from? Europe.

The elite/exploiters are never the majority, in fact, they kind of need to stay “tiny”. That’s how power and leverage work, and even the concept of scalability in capitalism.

Re: How Basecamp Blew Up

#685

Post by jakelazaroff »

JPKab wrote: post #580
jjeaff wrote: post #542

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I grew up middle class, rural, and southern. So I don't have all the privileges in the world. But at the same time, I know that the privilege I lack is not because I am white. That is why when someone makes a negative comment about white people, it has very little affect on me. But hearing offensive comments/jokes about rednecks when I moved out west, that hurt a little, because there is some history behind that and…

Context always matters but context isn't fixed at your national level. If you get jumped by several guys from an oppressed group at that moment in time and in that place they have a lot more power than you do. Just like in code that context exist within the broader global context where you correctly point out that there are power differentials. I also grew up in the south like you did but I grew up in a trailer park.…

It’s not true that class is necessarily more predictive of failure and success than race. Black boys, for example, are more likely than not to fall from upper class to lower classes. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/03/19/upshot/race-c...

Re: How Basecamp Blew Up

#686

Post by ryanbrunner »

prawn wrote: post #224
threeseed wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The idea that it is "his" workplace belongs in the Mad Men era of business. If you want to attract and keep talent you need to listen to their views and involve in them defining the values of the company.

Is it possible that they were doing exactly that in trying to focus the staff on work itself? I'd guess I lean politically with the founders and their departing staff, and I don't love the "silent majority" that gets spoken of, but DHH talked about having people approach him who were uncomfortable with having a workplace they felt was politicised. As a personal example, I work in a shared office space. If a vocal ten…

I think if you ask a lot of the people who were advocating for things like the DEI committee, the reason they were doing those things is because their lack of comfort with certain things (the name list is an example, but I'm sure there's others) made it more difficult to focus on work. They weren't looking to just argue about unrelated political topics.

If you came across a list that contained names that were being laughed at because of their ethnicity, and you shared that ethnicity, would you feel comfortable working with the people making those jokes?

Re: How Basecamp Blew Up

#687

Post by ryanbrunner »

prawn wrote: post #400
FireBeyond wrote: post #383

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Is it possible that they were doing exactly that in trying to focus the staff on work itself? A lot of the complaints or commentary I've seen across a few issues, leaving aside this more acute issue was that DHH and JF were entirely comfortable espousing _their_ opinions and feelings on things, but a lot less interested in hearing other people's.

In the sense that they are ultimately responsible for the business/brand, legal repercussions, etc. It's their baby - Jason's run it for 20+ years. Seems like they're effectively saying, by all means push your opinions on your private channels, and we'll do the same. Obviously if someone feels it's handled poorly, they bail (as some have), but I'm guessing the severance and political polarisation could be factors the…

I think 20+ people leaving demostrates that it's not solely theirs. When trust and confidence in a company's leaders erodes far enough, the business can not function effectively.

They're also within their rights to say all employees will only make minimum wage, and that their products will now be marked up 1000%, but that doesn't mean employees or customers have to accept that.

Re: How Basecamp Blew Up

#688

Post by arp242 »

MisterBastahrd wrote: post #667
arp242 wrote: post #612

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"I'm oppressed more so it's okay for me to say horrible things!" Who wins with this? No one wins, no one has anything to gain. It's just venting and only breeds resentment. People turn this in to a "I'm oppressed more! No I'm oppressed more!" contest. That leads to nothing good. Accepting that racism exists, is bad, and should be addressed _and_ opposing this kind of stuff are not mutually exclusive. I think it's ent…

You tried to play the "treat people as individuals" card, followed it up with the "poor white person is gonna resent you" card, and finished off with the "I want decency" trope. Congratulations, you hit the white supremacy apologia trifecta. You could have scored bonus points if you had also included "not all white people" in your reply. Did it ever occur to you that the reason that we have civil rights movements in…

Sigh; discussing these things always seems to lead to this. Could you be any more smug, condensing, and patronizing?

But yeah, I'm a racist "white supremacy apologist". Sigh. Do you not realize how massively toxic you're being here? For all your talk about "diversity" and "inclusivity" ya'll seem very quick to exclude people.

> You could have scored bonus points if you had also included "not all white people" in your reply.

Yes, "not all white people" is perfectly valid. Just as "not all men" is, or "not all Muslims are terrorists", or "not all blacks are criminals".

We're on the same damn team for crying out loud, I already said these problems need addressing, repeatedly, we just don't agree on some aspects regarding the best messaging and strategy to solve this problem.

This is like a football match where people keep tackling members of their own team. Maybe it would be better if I just succumb to the "violence" of staying silent if this is what you get if you do try and speak up but don't agree on some comparatively minor aspects. Your comment is certainly a lot more "violent" than any form of silence is.

Re: How Basecamp Blew Up

#689

Post by [deleted] »

simondotau wrote: post #496
dosethree wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Resigning over a random employee refusing to say that "white supremacy exists" is absurd" The founders effectively took everyone's voice away. I think that's a very consistent way to get people to leave - especially people who for whom having a voice is more important than working at basecamp

> The founders effectively took everyone's voice away Setting aside the merits of all the underlying arguments, the founders were clearly only talking about their "voice" within the context of their employment at basecamp, not their ability to have a voice in all other possible contexts. And thus the following is a non sequitur: > having a voice is more important than working at basecamp Being an employee at basecamp…

[deleted]

Re: How Basecamp Blew Up

#690

Post by emrah »

jarek83 wrote: post #675

I'm among those with mixed feelings. - list of funny names that is kept in some persistent form and circulates the company with full acknowledgment of the head people: Childish and extremely unprofessional, but still a typical mistake rather than a colossal disaster; - politics and racism issue: looks like typical misunderstanding but on a very fragile subjects. Very easy to get into drama scenarios with this mix. Ve…

I agree with you too. Jason and DHH draw a lot of attention, especially DHH, and some of it is not favorable. This incident just gave fodder to those who already had a pet peeve with them.
Post reply on HN