How Basecamp Blew Up • Hacker News Board

Re: How Basecamp Blew Up

#771

Post by KittenInABox » Wed, May 05, 2021, 4:14 PM UTC

blacktriangle wrote: post #693

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.

I'm not sure about that, after knowing people at Google who had to sit through HR bullshit like "how to respect your direct reports who sexually identify as Otherkin" the notion of a workplace with a hardline stance on none of this bullshit at work sounds highly appealing. Yes this new policy will cause some devs to avoid Basecamp. But there are many many devs who are sick and tired of woke culture infecting their wo…

> after knowing people at Google who had to sit through HR bullshit like "how to respect your direct reports who sexually identify as Otherkin"

Do you have sources for this, or anonymous blogs? Because I'd be concerned what "like" means here. It's obviously not literally this, otherwise it'd the word 'literal'. But to me, the ambiguity can be read (in bad faith) as "I think LGBTQ identities, broadly, are bullshit, and I shouldn't respect a direct report who identifies as bisexual, it's as ridiculous as someone who is believes they're a wolf sexually".

A little bit of disambiguity would do a long way here, as I genuinely can't tell if this is someone who thinks asexuals, bisexuals, etc. are bullshit not worth respecting (aka, a place of ignorance of the speaker), or if Google is literally saying that unheard-of sexual identities are part of its HR policies (which I've never heard of and would love to know to avoid working at Google in the future.)

Re: How Basecamp Blew Up

#772

Post by [deleted] » Wed, May 05, 2021, 4:14 PM UTC

igneo676 wrote: post #756

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…

Ultimately, no, they're not "bad guys" in the sense that they're irredeemably evil. Unfortunately, the current situation certainly paints them in the "extremely foolish or downright spiteful" territory Once a harmful set of actions comes to light, it's your job as the leadership team to: 1. Apologize 2. Correct the wrong 3. Allow your employees the space to process and heal a. Note: People are messy. Especially hurt…

[deleted]

Re: How Basecamp Blew Up

#773

Post by newacct583 » Wed, May 05, 2021, 4:15 PM UTC

jhanschoo wrote: post #635

newacct583 wrote: post #527

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You lead with an invocation of bigotry. You give some examples. You close with a baldly transphobic sneer. Really?

If it is a reasonable conclusion from the way the person's workplace is structured, and the way their coworkers judge their coworkers, I don't see how it reflects the person's purported transphobia, but rather the bigotry of their coworkers.

Chuckling at the idea that trans identity amounts to "wearing a dress" is not a "reasonable conclusion", it's a hurtful caricature. People care deeply about this stuff. People agonize for years about how to present this to the people they live and work with.

Laughing at them and pretending that they have it easy by "wearing a dress" is absolutely bigoted, sorry.

Re: How Basecamp Blew Up

#774

Post by KittenInABox » Wed, May 05, 2021, 4:19 PM UTC

threeseed wrote: post #285

prawn wrote: post #224

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

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.

IMO Cutting benefits is more unacceptable than cutting politics talk (which IDC about). Replacing it with an equal amount of money doesn't necessarily shore up because I'll need to pay income tax on any direct payments, and if they only give me the money that they would pay (companies get bulk discounts on gym memberships and the like) then I will be given less money than the service was actually worth.

eg. if Basecamp got bulk gym memberships at 20$/employee but each employee would have to sign up at 40$ per person, Basecamp paying each employee 20$ would not be the same as giving each employee a gym membership.

Re: How Basecamp Blew Up

#775

Post by newacct583 » Wed, May 05, 2021, 4:21 PM UTC

shkkmo wrote: post #577

newacct583 wrote: post #516

> 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 tha…

> 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! Um... I completely failed to follow this. Are you talking about Godwins law? What is the logic that literally gave us the Holocaust? > Isn't that an existence proof that your intuition is simply wrong here? I believe you have an error in your modal logi…

If you polled Germans in 1938 about whether it should be state policy to kill six million jews, you would have gotten a hard no. Yet it happened anyway, because (to borrow the upthread phrasing) while sure rounding them up might "suck", it was important to "compartmentalize" and not conflate the injustice suffered by the local jews being interned with the prosecution of the war. So the people prosecuting the war got cart blanche to engage in genocide, because the people who should have stopped it didn't, because of something very much like the "compartmentalization" in the upthread post.

The point being (which of course isn't that a modern holocaust is brewing) that if injustice sucks, it should suck for everyone everywhere and it should be allowed to discuss it in any forum. Arguing otherwise isn't arguing for "compartmentalization", it's just arguing for the perspective that the injustice doesn't suck.

Re: How Basecamp Blew Up

#776

Post by FlyingSnake » Wed, May 05, 2021, 4:23 PM UTC

ramraj07 wrote: post #724

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…

You’re missing a crucial bit that changes everything: one of the earliest employees is ostensibly a very, very right leaning person who made super questionable comments unprompted in the townhall, and refused to acknowledge racism as a concept could exist in companies. And one of the founders just couldn’t say anything that would have helped in that moment.

People change their beliefs over time and the current environment of toxic social media makes it easy for people to go to the extremes. I am not defending the racism-denial, but could we give him another chance to explain before we “cancel” him?

Re: How Basecamp Blew Up

#777

Post by ducharmdev » Wed, May 05, 2021, 4:24 PM UTC

dnissley wrote: post #734

ramraj07 wrote: post #724

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You’re missing a crucial bit that changes everything: one of the earliest employees is ostensibly a very, very right leaning person who made super questionable comments unprompted in the townhall, and refused to acknowledge racism as a concept could exist in companies. And one of the founders just couldn’t say anything that would have helped in that moment.

I'm a pretty left leaning person and I mostly agree with the things he's quoted as saying in this article. I hugely disagree with the way that white supremacism has had it's definition widened within certain circles and how those circles are now attempting to push that definition into wider usage through the type of bullying that's on display in this very article. For most people white supremacism conjures up images…

It's tricky though, because I could make a series of arguments that sound reasonable individually or out of context, but when made together in a specific context, they take on new meanings. Without more context, we end up inferring quite a bit based on the info presented to us.

Beyond that, I think it was foolish to prioritize debating language in the first place rather than focusing on making employees feel valued and included. People in leadership positions hold a lot of power in shaping where the conversation goes, and they could've pivoted to a more constructive conversation about company values at any point. But rather than do that, it was more important to be right.

Re: How Basecamp Blew Up

#778

Post by wyclif » Wed, May 05, 2021, 4:33 PM UTC

charlesu wrote: post #736

wyclif wrote: post #727

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My take is informed. Which one of those ethnicities do you believe I made up? Those are real people and real ethnic categories.

So Blacks aren’t a “real people”? Is your actual argument that African-Americans don’t exist as a distinct ethnic group? If that’s your argument you should say so.

You are misrepresenting my position. My comment was to the effect that they are real people and that you are trying to reduce and dismiss their ethnicities.

Re: How Basecamp Blew Up

#779

Post by tha0xa2 » Wed, May 05, 2021, 4:34 PM UTC

foolinaround wrote: post #299

Fun experiment: Take a look at the comments in this thread, and figure out the ones that are created with a throwaway account.

The fact that we have to post with throwaways should speak volumes about how toxic activists are.

No one wants their family to be cancelled because someone posted some wrongthink on the internet.

Re: How Basecamp Blew Up

#780

Post by javagram » Wed, May 05, 2021, 4:38 PM UTC

commandlinefan wrote: post #768

JPKab wrote: post #232

Do what I did in February: Quit. Life's too short to waste time at a company that's forgotten it's purpose. This ideology borders on cult like. A good sign that you are dealing with an irrational ideology is non-sensical, illogical and inconsisten rules. For example, in this article, "Black" is capitalized everywhere its mentioned, and "white" isn't. There's nothing logically consistent about this, because it's a bor…

> Do what I did in February: > Quit. But go where? Where can you go to escape this insanity? It seems to have taken hold everywhere (except, I guess Basecamp?)

Work for a company in red area of a “red state” and perhaps the boss will preach at you about QAnon and the election fraud instead. /s

But seriously if you want a company that bans politics, you can join coinbase, or you can join plenty of companies where they do hold optional DEI meetings and so on but don’t push it on the employees other than having them take a basic written anti-sexual and racial harassment test yearly or whatever.

Ultimately if a company actually is significantly hurting the ability of their employees to get work done effectively they’re going to be out-competed in the marketplace.