Live data from Hacker News

Inside the all-hands meeting that led to a third of Basecamp employees quitting

theverge.com

41–50 of 55 posts

Re: Inside the all-hands meeting that led to a third of Basecamp employees quitting

#41
post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm willing to sacrifice my life for my loved ones. But I haven't. Not sure how any sane person can claim that saying you're willing to do something and actually doing it aren't different things. He said he was willing to do something but then... never did it.

This is demonstrably false. He did this at least 20 times. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tug8PoAa7Bg

He didn't do it at the debate.

He did it before, and he did it after. Some times more quickly than other, almost always with that rambling I-don't-even-get-the-question-non-answer sort of thing that people do when they are usually making fun of politicians. But here's the problem.

In a debate, in a high-reward scenario, on national television, Chris Wallace asked if he would denounce these groups and his first response was indignation. Arguing with Wallace over whether or not he'd done it in the past. Asking which groups specifically. Telling the Proud Boys to "stand by." The problem with all of that, right or wrong, is that he could have shut everyone up by denouncing white supremacy in all its forms and all fringe groups associated with it. He could have immediately followed up with "and you know what Chris, I've already done this on these occasions" and listed out all the times he actually did it. He could have dunked on Wallace, dunked on Biden, and picked up 25k votes across the country in the process.

But instead he did exactly what you would do if you were trying to avoid actually saying the thing someone was trying to get you to say. He played right into their hands.

Re: Inside the all-hands meeting that led to a third of Basecamp employees quitting

#42
post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

“This sounded to me like” is the problem. Everyone hears what they want to hear for their narrative. Then it becomes a juicy internet drama rather than some mundane thing.

"If we were to try to get into it as a group discussion it would be very painful and divisive." This sounds more like a threat than a promise. A promise he chose to carry out. Why should it be divisive, if you're actually going to listen? Is it because you'd end up saying things like "white supremacy is a myth" and denying the notion of institutional racism? It sounds a lot to me like the continual "predictions" (thr…

[flagged]

Re: Inside the all-hands meeting that led to a third of Basecamp employees quitting

#43
post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is demonstrably false. He did this at least 20 times. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tug8PoAa7Bg

He didn't do it at the debate. He did it before, and he did it after. Some times more quickly than other, almost always with that rambling I-don't-even-get-the-question-non-answer sort of thing that people do when they are usually making fun of politicians. But here's the problem. In a debate, in a high-reward scenario, on national television, Chris Wallace asked if he would denounce these groups and his first respon…

I don't disagree that he could have handled it better. Hell, he's a horrible debater. I'm sure in part because he's not a career politician and in part because he's arrogant and not used to being questioned. But the idea that he could have said anything that would "shut everyone up" is absurd and we both know it. CNN was caught on tape admitting that they made up stories about Trump and portrayed Biden in a positive light every time they could.

When asked to denounce he said sure I will and then immediately jumped to Antifa. As you mentioned that is horrible for a debate and for the sound bites that all of the MSM will of course use but that's not the same as not answering the question at all or saying "no, I will not denounce them". He put them on the same field as Antifa and we know how he feels about them.

You pick and choose items that fit your narrative but don't fit all of the facts. Indignation seems like a pretty natural response for someone who is not a career politician. Also, he told the Proud Boys to "stand down and stand by". Some people might give him the benefit of the doubt that the second part was a slip of the tongue but either way he clearly said to stand down. For some reason you just pick the part that makes him look the worst. Not sure if that's because that's what you heard and just didn't bother to look into it or you are willfully omitting facts.

Also it's pretty unlikely that the Proud Boys are even white supremacists as they were led by a Latino. But again for some reason these facts get omitted. I'll assume you don't have ill intent and are just misinformed.

Re: Inside the all-hands meeting that led to a third of Basecamp employees quitting

#44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Sure, I'm willing to do it." "So do it!" "Proud boys, stand by."

The Proud Boys were led by a Latino so not sure how they could be a white supremacist group. Also Trump told them to stand down not just stand by. And a more charitable reading could say the stand by was just a slip in a heated debate but either way he clearly told them to stand down.

[deleted]

Re: Inside the all-hands meeting that led to a third of Basecamp employees quitting

#46
post #21

Well I guess they were right in a way. Political stuff did indeed not pan out well for the company

Yup that's the crux of the matter - saying that you don't want to talk politics is a political statement in favor of the status quo.

Re: Inside the all-hands meeting that led to a third of Basecamp employees quitting

#47

The most striking thing here has got to be that for some people being told they worked at a company riddled with white supremacy and racism would have been a relief. I know the stock response is that denying the existence of a problem is worse than admitting it, but if the gravamen of the issue is not whether or not the company is built on the most murderous ideology in history but whether or not the founders will af…

> ... company riddled with white supremacy and racism

You're taking it to the other extreme. As I understand it, the employee's issue is with Singer's statement “I strongly disagree we live in a white supremacist culture”.

If Singer had just admitted that there is indeed some element of white supremacy, the discussion could have proceed about its extent and how to address it. But by denying it wholesale and trying to quash the discussion, he denied the experience of some of the other attendees, no longer making it comfortable for them to voice their concerns at a company forum.

Re: Inside the all-hands meeting that led to a third of Basecamp employees quitting

#48
post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"If we were to try to get into it as a group discussion it would be very painful and divisive." This sounds more like a threat than a promise. A promise he chose to carry out. Why should it be divisive, if you're actually going to listen? Is it because you'd end up saying things like "white supremacy is a myth" and denying the notion of institutional racism? It sounds a lot to me like the continual "predictions" (thr…

> This sounds more like a threat than a promise Rather it sounds like a person afraid to share his views for fear they would be misconstrued or met with emotional outbursts. Employees were claiming Basecamp has a white supremacist culture, an indictment against anybody working there. The idea that you can't reject such preposterous accusations without being "complicit", or without the denial somehow serving as furthe…

Let me ask this in a more general way: If a member of a weaker minority group tells a member of a powerful majority group that they feel they've experienced a supremacist culture, is that on its own a `preposterous accusation`? What would be a valid thought and fact-gathering process for that member of the majority group to decide whether to take the concern seriously or dismiss it?

Re: Inside the all-hands meeting that led to a third of Basecamp employees quitting

#49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This sounds more like a threat than a promise Rather it sounds like a person afraid to share his views for fear they would be misconstrued or met with emotional outbursts. Employees were claiming Basecamp has a white supremacist culture, an indictment against anybody working there. The idea that you can't reject such preposterous accusations without being "complicit", or without the denial somehow serving as furthe…

Let me ask this in a more general way: If a member of a weaker minority group tells a member of a powerful majority group that they feel they've experienced a supremacist culture, is that on its own a `preposterous accusation`? What would be a valid thought and fact-gathering process for that member of the majority group to decide whether to take the concern seriously or dismiss it?

> What would be a valid thought and fact-gathering process for that member of the majority group to decide whether to take the concern seriously or dismiss it?

The onus is on the accuser to provide evidence of their claims. Management agreed that a list of funny names does not count.

Yet the employee continued to make unfalsifiable assertions such as:

"the silence in the background is what racism and white supremacy does...It doesn’t require active malice".

So denying an accusation of white supremacy is evidence of guilt, and remaining silent in the face of such an accusation is also evidence of guilt.

It's impossible to work with such people.

Re: Inside the all-hands meeting that led to a third of Basecamp employees quitting

#50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Let me ask this in a more general way: If a member of a weaker minority group tells a member of a powerful majority group that they feel they've experienced a supremacist culture, is that on its own a `preposterous accusation`? What would be a valid thought and fact-gathering process for that member of the majority group to decide whether to take the concern seriously or dismiss it?

> What would be a valid thought and fact-gathering process for that member of the majority group to decide whether to take the concern seriously or dismiss it? The onus is on the accuser to provide evidence of their claims. Management agreed that a list of funny names does not count. Yet the employee continued to make unfalsifiable assertions such as: "the silence in the background is what racism and white supremacy…

>Management agreed that a list of funny names does not count.

But why? What process led those people to decide it doesn't count? And why would only the management have a voice in that decision?

Post reply on HN