How Basecamp Blew Up • Hacker News Board

Re: How Basecamp Blew Up

#701

Post by username90 » Wed, May 05, 2021, 1:00 PM UTC

type0 wrote: post #678

username90 wrote: post #664

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Humans forms a spectrum of races. The unscientific part are the crude categories USA uses, not the concept that humans from different parts of the world are genetically different enough to be called different races.

> not the concept that humans from different parts of the world are genetically different enough to be called different races. This definition was invented by Nazi Germany and led to countless horrors, are you sure you want to continue to use it?

The definition wasn't invented by Nazi Germany, what are you talking about?

Re: How Basecamp Blew Up

#702

Post by SantalBlush » Wed, May 05, 2021, 1:03 PM UTC

s__s wrote: post #498

SantalBlush wrote: post #464

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I keep reading the term "free speech" being brought up in these discussions. Some people have come to believe that free speech means "I can say what I want and nobody is allowed to respond negatively." But this definition is, ironically, the polar opposite of free speech.

Free speech by necessity requires tolerance. If there are extreme consequences to what you say you’re obviously not free to speak what you believe. Losing your livelihood, being bullied, death threats, mob harassment etc are not acceptable responses to ideas or opinions you don’t like.

>being bullied, death threats, mob harassment etc are not acceptable responses to ideas or opinions you don’t like.

This is obvious, but I'm not sure how it pertains to this discussion.

Re: How Basecamp Blew Up

#703

Post by mumblemumble » Wed, May 05, 2021, 1:08 PM UTC

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…

One possibly missing bullet point from the first list: Disbanding the committee for working on diversity, equity and inclusion. Previously this subject was explicitly a workplace conversation topic at Basecamp. They even sanctioned it with a committee. Apparently right up until the point where the committee found a skeleton in a closet.

And then throw the timeframe on top of it. If this stuff had happened over the course of a year, it might have been fine. But if it unfolds as quickly as it did at Basecamp, people don't have a chance to stop and breathe. It's just react react react.

Re: How Basecamp Blew Up

#704

Post by MattRix » Wed, May 05, 2021, 1:14 PM UTC

prepend wrote: post #440

MattRix wrote: post #327

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are certain issues (like this one) where silence has historically been used as a form of endorsement. It is certainly not irrational to perceive it as being an endorsement.

Perhaps not irrational, but incorrect. I’d like to see whatever evidence means silence is a form of endorsement. It’s hard to know, but I have one data point in my own self in that I really don’t talk much about anything and certainly don’t endorse white supremacy and I actively live my life fighting inequity. Someone saying that I endorse something because I don’t speak about it is incorrect as I know myself better…

I am not talking about silence at all times, but specifically silence at times when someone is given the opportunity to speak up about an issue and chooses not to.

Re: How Basecamp Blew Up

#705

Post by thr0waway99x99 » Wed, May 05, 2021, 1:15 PM UTC

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

Got a good chuckle reading the Twitter Bio of Okta's founder & CEO:

"Co-founder + CEO of @okta, proud husband + father, addicted to exercise."

Similar verbiage on their company site as well haha

Re: How Basecamp Blew Up

#706

Post by vxNsr » Wed, May 05, 2021, 1:16 PM UTC

Huggernaut wrote: post #673

vxNsr wrote: post #557

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is of course the worst take. When I was in 4th grade we had to read a short story about a society that enforced sameness, it wasn’t the giver where they did it genetically, rather if you were smart they’d fix headphones to your ears that played a loud obnoxious noise so you couldn’t think, if you were tall or athletic they crippled you, basically they brought everyone down to the same bad level... That’s the soc…

I imagine the downvotes are mainly because the comparison seems pretty off base, regardless of whether one agrees with the good or bad of the original post. Comparing "you are now in a situation where you may have an opportunity to empathise with difficulties others have had" to "you are trying to build a society where more fortunate people are harmed in the name of sameness" doesn't resonate at all.

Ah, the comparison is coming from the fact that the GP is describing a bad situation he’s in and the response is essentially “you deserve it” and “think of the starving children in Africa”. My point is that sort of thinking creates a less humane society.

Re: How Basecamp Blew Up

#707

Post by MattRix » Wed, May 05, 2021, 1:19 PM UTC

rsyring wrote: post #446

MattRix wrote: post #327

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are certain issues (like this one) where silence has historically been used as a form of endorsement. It is certainly not irrational to perceive it as being an endorsement.

Arguments from silence are, by definition, illogical fallacies. There could be any number of reasons why someone might choose to remain silent. It's possible they are endorsing it, but you don't really know without additional statements or context. https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/logicalfallacies/Argumen...

If someone asks you “do you denounce white supremacy?”, and you stay silent… many people (myself included) would see that as a form of endorsement. I don’t need any additional context, and I don’t see it as being any kind of logical fallacy.

Re: How Basecamp Blew Up

#708

Post by moduspol » Wed, May 05, 2021, 1:19 PM UTC

mumblemumble wrote: post #700

moduspol wrote: post #683

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

So, two thoughts: First, you're creating such a stark false dichotomy that it's hard not to wonder if it's somehow deliberate. Second, saying that white supremacy is present in the company is not the same thing as saying that the company is run by white supremacists. The term functions very differently in the noun sense than it does in the adjective sense.

> First, you're creating such a stark false dichotomy that it's hard not to wonder if it's somehow deliberate.

Perhaps you might enlighten us as to why this is a false dichotomy, and what other options there are.

> Second

You cannot run a company that perpetuates white supremacy without implicitly supporting that white supremacy, whether you know it or not. I've already been clearly told that malice and intent are not required.

Or are you genuinely going to make the case that "someone who supports white supremacy" is not interchangeable with "white supremacist?" I'm not interested in debating your personal redefinitions of terms.

Re: How Basecamp Blew Up

#709

Post by SantalBlush » Wed, May 05, 2021, 1:29 PM UTC

vxNsr wrote: post #557

rsanheim wrote: post #483

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Congratulations, you have an opportunity to experience what it feels like to work in tech as a person of color, or a woman, or any of the many other underrepresented groups in tech. Only those people experience every day at almost all companies, and can't escape it by leaving their existing company. Maybe see it as a chance to learn and grow instead of something to resent and run from?

This is of course the worst take. When I was in 4th grade we had to read a short story about a society that enforced sameness, it wasn’t the giver where they did it genetically, rather if you were smart they’d fix headphones to your ears that played a loud obnoxious noise so you couldn’t think, if you were tall or athletic they crippled you, basically they brought everyone down to the same bad level... That’s the soc…

I am on the other side of this debate, and I have plenty of downvotes from my comments in this thread without counter arguments. That's HN in a nutshell. My advice to you is to get over it.

Re: How Basecamp Blew Up

#710

Post by ryanbrunner » Wed, May 05, 2021, 1:32 PM UTC

arp242 wrote: post #396

kenjackson wrote: post #357

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The BLM organization and the movement are two different things. You’d be lucky to randomly be able to find a single black person who knows any of the founders of the org or any of their principles except to reduce police brutality.

Yes, and people keep saying this, and people keep being confused by this. I don't understand why people are so resistant, or even outright hostile, in making the social justice movement (including the sentiments BLM expresses) more effective. If you truly care about social justice then being as effective as possible should be the #1 priority, no? I don't care much for BLM not because I don't care about their goals, b…

Popular movements almost never are the ones to actually institute policy, only influence it, so there's not really much advantage to finding compromise at the level of activism. It's not BLM or the Defund movements job to write legislation that actually achieves their goals, and there's almost no chance what they argue for won't be watered down anyway.

It's best to think of any popular movement as directional - for sure there are individual people in the Defund movement calling for 100% abolition, and others calling for demilitarization, or redirecting of some funding - as of right now, they want the same thing as far as first steps go. If they're successful in redirecting some funding away from police, the non-abolish crowd will move away from the movement and they'll become increasingly irrelevant when it's 10 anarchists arguing for no police instead of massive protests.