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

821–830 of 1001 posts

Re: How Basecamp Blew Up

#821

Post by dang »

kisstheblade wrote: post #564
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…

"On the other hand, when did racial equality become an inherently political topic? Especially racial equality inside the workplace." When you have "Black employees" who are racist, that's when. You know, "bend the knee" etc. Everybody white "does X" and are white supremacists.

Even in a flamewar thread on a flamewar topic, this comment stands out as particularly hellish. We ban accounts that do this on HN. No more of this, or https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27046293, please.

If you wouldn't mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and taking the intended spirit of the site more to heart, we'd be grateful. Note this one: "Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive."

All: HN's guidelines apply irrespective of whether other people are following them or not. When commenting here, please consider your own behavior first, and make sure it's in the intended spirit.

Re: How Basecamp Blew Up

#822

Post by SideburnsOfDoom »

anm89 wrote: post #805
SideburnsOfDoom wrote: post #656

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Singer alternated saying "white supremacy does not exist at BaseCamp" and posting articles off Breitbart into the company chats. Yeeesh.

Yes, the well known unforgivable crime of referencing that a publication you do not like exists. I think this is a pretty good basis for upending someone's career.

Promoting, not referencing. Whether I "like" it is irrelevant, it has a very specific political viewpoint. Your "explanation" is entirely misdirection.

Re: How Basecamp Blew Up

#823

Post by themacguffinman »

threeseed wrote: post #175
prawn wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Seems OP's reaction is like what is rife in Australia as 'tall-poppy syndrome' and cutting down prominent achievers. We collectively dislike promoters, but isn't doing something like writing a book to draw attention to your SaaS product exactly the sort of thing a founder should be doing? Especially given it worked in bringing them customers and attention. If you think they're too confident in their assertions, it's…

We celebrate sports stars, CEOs from Atlassian/Canva/etc. It's not about being successful. It's about not having an ego and acting like you're better than everyone else just because you are successful. Americans are much more willing to tolerate this behaviour than Australians.

To the credit of Americans IMO. Ego is quite common among high achievers and often beneficial as a motivator or confidence booster. Unexamined and disproportionate egos are self punishing as they directly harm chances of success. AFAICT any additional social stigma accomplishes nothing except perhaps the soothing of egos by less successful people. There are real disparities in ability & quality between people for which proven success is the strongest (and perhaps the only real) signal.

Re: How Basecamp Blew Up

#824

Post by lp0_on_fire »

MattRix wrote: post #707
rsyring wrote: post #446

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

All civilized people condemn ethnic/racial supremacists so frankly if someone asks me if I denounce white supremacy I'm going to ignore it.

My choice not to dignify that question with a response is not an indication that I endorse white supremacists any more than my choice not to dignify a question like "do you believe the earth is round" indicates my belief that the planet is flat.

Re: How Basecamp Blew Up

#825

Post by dang »

xenophonB wrote: post #187
darkwizard42 wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Laughing at names did not lead to genocide and no one implied that. What someone did was share why it was important to treat this seriously and not let it slide... lest the offending behaviors continue to escalate. An example was shared from social science on a pyramid of normalization where such behavior eventually gets normalized. Classic and indisputable example might be Germany in WW2. It wasn’t like citizens wok…

Yeah, weirdly this ludicrous standard is never applied to leftist politics, for example suggesting that any criticism of inequality could "escalate" into the Holodomor or the Killing Fields of Cambodia, so therefore its important not to "normalize" such behaviour.

We've banned this account for using HN primarily for ideological battle, which is an abuse of the site and explicitly against the rules: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html.

Please don't create accounts to do that.

Re: How Basecamp Blew Up

#826

Post by dang »

seriousquestion wrote: post #148

white su·prem·a·cy; the belief that white people constitute a superior race and should therefore dominate society de·fund; prevent from continuing to receive funds Courtesy of the dictionary. This is not hard. Stop entertaining people who redefine words.

"Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith."

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Edit: it's clear from your comment history that you've been using HN primarily for ideological battle. We ban accounts that do that, regardless of what they're battling for. (Actually a lot of the time we don't know, or care, what they're battling for. We care about HN not becoming a flamewar hell site.) If you would please stop doing that and use HN in the intended spirit, we'd appreciate it.

We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27044182.

Re: How Basecamp Blew Up

#827

Post by MattRix »

lp0_on_fire wrote: post #824
MattRix wrote: post #707

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

All civilized people condemn ethnic/racial supremacists so frankly if someone asks me if I denounce white supremacy I'm going to ignore it. My choice not to dignify that question with a response is not an indication that I endorse white supremacists any more than my choice not to dignify a question like "do you believe the earth is round" indicates my belief that the planet is flat.

The word “civilized” is doing a lot of heavy lifting for you there.

White supremacy is still very real in America and throughout the rest of the world. The idea that you’d brush off someone asking about white supremacy in the same way as a flat earth denier is absurd, and says more about your own position of priviledge.

Re: How Basecamp Blew Up

#828

Post by MattRix »

dang wrote: post #815
MattRix wrote: post #336

Earlier quoted context omitted.

any time I find someone like you complaining about “getting cancelled” or “cancel culture”, I just replace “cancel” with “consequences”, since that’s what it really is. They wanted to protect employees from the consequences of their words and actions.

Please don't cross into personal attack. You can make your substantive points without swipes like that. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

There is no personal attack here, I am referring to anyone who uses “cancel culture” as a bad thing.

Re: How Basecamp Blew Up

#829

Post by SantalBlush »

vxNsr wrote: post #819
SantalBlush wrote: post #743

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not your fault, and besides, I received a more recent reply to one. These are heated topics that likely won't be resolved on HN comments sections. Edit: I read your edit. It appears that in your mind, comments that disagree with you resemble a Twitter flame war, and comments agreeing with you are well articulated and thoughtful. In reality, your comments are just as negative and one-sided as the others you dispa…

> Edit: I read your edit. It appears that in your mind, comments that disagree with you resemble a Twitter flame war, and comments agreeing with you are well articulated and thoughtful. In reality, your comments are just as negative and one-sided as the others you disparage. Just the opposite, I welcome disagreement. I just don’t like being attacked without knowing why.

Not sure who downvoted you, but the fact that you characterize a downvote as an "attack" gets to the core of the problem. Namely, you seem to think even the most minor form of disagreement (a downvote) makes you some sort of victim.

Re: How Basecamp Blew Up

#830

Post by anm89 »

SideburnsOfDoom wrote: post #822
anm89 wrote: post #805

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, the well known unforgivable crime of referencing that a publication you do not like exists. I think this is a pretty good basis for upending someone's career.

Promoting, not referencing. Whether I "like" it is irrelevant, it has a very specific political viewpoint. Your "explanation" is entirely misdirection.

Yes, the well known unforgivable crime of referencing that a publication with "a very specific political viewpoint" exists. I think this is a pretty good basis for upending someone's career.
Post reply on HN