How Basecamp Blew Up • Hacker News Board

Re: How Basecamp Blew Up

#971

Post by conductr » Fri, May 07, 2021, 4:52 PM UTC

JPKab wrote: post #874

SantalBlush wrote: post #844

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From the first website you link: >Black people were 28% of those killed by police in 2020 despite being only 13% of the population. You basically just proved the point you were replying to, that racial inequality exists in policing.

Apparently gender inequality exists in policing as well. Why do police almost exclusively murder males, in your opinion? I'm asking in good faith, because I think you have insightful comments and I'm curious, even if I disagree with you on a few things.

I don’t have data to link to but I’m almost certain that if men and women are 50/50 then crime, or police interactions, are more like 80/20. Add onto that math that males have a higher level of aggression and physical ability to pose a threat and I feel the majority of your delta is explained.

Just knowing the percentage of men owning guns is way higher than women owning guns would change your perceived threat level based on sex.

https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/06/29/how-male-an...

Also feels safe to assume men murder at a higher rate, are cereal killers, and generally a more dangerous type of human than a female.

Re: How Basecamp Blew Up

#972

Post by notSupplied » Fri, May 07, 2021, 5:21 PM UTC

notSupplied wrote: post #943

newacct583 wrote: post #520

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We don't know the context, but as to your second item... when did denouncing white supremacy become something controversial? I know what you're really saying, which is that people on the right feel persecuted by being implicitly accused of being racists. And... y'know, that's fair. Probably 90% of the time in arguments like this that's an unfounded accusation made in bad faith just to score points. But still... the t…

The most typical reason people don't like to answer that question is because they believe it is as setup for a followup: "Then why aren't you doing X?!" where X in this case could be "Fire this person", "Setup a committee overseeing all hires", "Commit to quotas", "Donate money to this cause." Also reminds me of this "Yes Prime Minister" skit about leading questions: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G0ZZJXw4MTA

Actually, an even more obvious reason that I missed:

Politics have become so tribal, that even simple sentences no longer mean what they mean at face value. Instead, they more often signal membership in a group who holds a certain bundle of beliefs.

Do you think human lives matter...as in...all of them? Do you think men should have basic rights...as in...mens rights?

Did you cringe a little at the last few words of those sentences? Even though at face value, they are very agreeable sentences? I think similarly, middle/right leaning people who aren't actually racist, think that parroting a political phrase on demand at work, is signaling a bunch of other "bundled ideologies" that they don't want to be a part of.

Re: How Basecamp Blew Up

#973

Post by hnfong » Fri, May 07, 2021, 6:46 PM UTC

Igelau wrote: post #211

S_A_P wrote: post #131

I think what we are seeing is the Gen X folks becoming the "old guys" to the latest generation and having the same struggles boomers had with Gen X.

Hmm... So do you reckon this is just something that happens with age? Or has each generation inadvertantly provided an ideological framework for the next one to strangle it with?

I consider the fundamental issue being a paradox between trusting lessons learned from past experiences and adopting to new circumstances.

When you grow older, you gain more experience, and if you're intelligent, probably gain some wisdom along the way. You either trust that inherently imperfect knowledge, or you throw it away and learn everything anew together with the younger generation.

We're mostly trained to treasure knowledge and experience, even if the errors accumulate and times change.

Re: How Basecamp Blew Up

#974

Post by BobbyJo » Fri, May 07, 2021, 6:49 PM UTC

ceejayoz wrote: post #854

BobbyJo wrote: post #850

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Then what does the word 'systemic' even mean?

There's a pretty good definition on Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institutional_racism > Institutional racism was defined by Sir William Macpherson in the UK's Lawrence report (1999) as: "The collective failure of an organization to provide an appropriate and professional service to people because of their colour, culture, or ethnic origin. It can be seen or detected in processes, attitudes and behaviour t…

If you define any amount of discrimination as a failure to provide an appropriate professional service, then, mathematically, any amount of racism will become 'systemic' or 'institutional' so long as there is an uneven population distribution:

Let's say there are 3 groups. One group is 60% of the population, another is 30%, and the last is 10%. If all three groups have the exact same predisposition to favoring members over outsiders, the 60% group will experience prejudice from 40% of the population. The 10% population will experience it from 90% of the population. The 10% group will experience >10X the incidence of prejudice unless group favoritism is If that's what you mean when you say systemic/institutional, it feels like a completely useless thought to me. I, and I think many other people, hear 'systemic', and think 'coming from processes, rules, or procedures defined as part of a system', not from the people operating it. To make a better analogy, when I hear systemic car problem, I think the engine, transmission, or some other component of the car, not the driver.

Re: How Basecamp Blew Up

#975

Post by tasuki » Fri, May 07, 2021, 6:53 PM UTC

jarek83 wrote: post #963

tasuki wrote: post #962

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> He was very hesitant to learn, he always knew better, and any PR feedback ended always with 2 hours-long calls, trying to explain him the comments there. After this, it's totally clear where this is headed. Why were you surprised? You said he was hesitant to learn and always knew better. That struck me as a little incongruous? He was opinionated, and his opinions were different than yours. You wanted to do things y…

I was surprised because he said we didn't do what actually did for him many times. Not sure if that answers your question. For more context: I'm 8 years at the project, it's multi-stack, we have some conventions worked out through years that more or less work for us. You don't want to adapt new ideas with every new developer as that would become a mess. But we are also open for changes, but they have to be reasonable…

That makes more sense to me, thank you.

With the attitude "fine but I will do it my way anyway" I'm surprised you didn't fire him. Probably a good thing he left? It wasn't a good fit.

Re: How Basecamp Blew Up

#976

Post by throwaway789256 » Fri, May 07, 2021, 7:05 PM UTC

comte7092 wrote: post #928

throwaway789256 wrote: post #900

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> With that framing, the perception of whether the list was racist does matter as it explains their motivation. I don't think we know their true motivation. Anyone can claim to perceive something as racist. We cannot control their sense of offense. The act they claim to be racist may or may not be racist. But what advocates of critical race theory have found is that, by claiming that something is racist, they can bri…

You claim not to know their true motivation, yet your entire argument relies on the assumption that they had malicious intent. You also note that “the act they claim to be racist may or may not be racist” and yet it is clear that you have assumed that it is not throughout your post. And this is the crux of the issue. Ones entire interpretation of these issues relies on whether or not one believes racism exists as a s…

> Ones entire interpretation of these issues relies on whether or not one believes racism exists as a structural problem or not.

I think you are right that that belief shapes how we interpret these issues. By racism as a structural problem, I assume you mean this:

> “people are treated differently by society as a whole, based on their race”

Society is not an actor. It is a collection of people, and the people are actors. Some of them are racist, and some are not.

I do not believe that every situation is permeated with structural racism that must be corrected, but I suspect that people who believe in structural racism tend to find it everywhere and use it to justify the changes they propose.

I don't assume that they had malicious intent. But I do think that they perceive situations through a distorted lens, which often leads to behavior that is harmful to the organizations where they work.

I think that Basecamp and Singer and most organizations and individuals deserve an assumption of innocence.

Racism has to be proven. Accusations must be backed up with evidence. And the burden of evidence is on the accusers. I think critical race theorists start with the assumption that racism is shaping the interaction.

It is not enough to say that structural racism exists and therefore we should believe that it shaped the behavior of people at Basecamp. You have to prove it case by case. Simply claiming structural racism does not justify enormous change.

Statistically, people of different races experience different outcomes in the US on average. But there is a huge standard deviation in those outcomes by race or gender; that is, any given individual may be doing relatively well or poorly relative to the average.

And I think that applying assertions about society and societal ills to individuals, their actions and specific situations is often misguided, because they may deviate wildly from the average.

But that is exactly what critical race theorists tend to do. They treat individuals as representatives of a larger social trend. A male represents the patriarchy. A Caucasian represents white supremacy.

But attacking an individual to remedy a larger statistical discrepancy is in itself a form of injustice. Especially when we diagnose the supposed cause of that discrepancy with vagueness, as a culmination of ways that society acts.

That is not enough to convince me of the claims being made against Singer and Basecamp, or of the rightness of the Basecamp employees in rebellion.

Re: How Basecamp Blew Up

#977

Post by wmoxam » Fri, May 07, 2021, 7:07 PM UTC

arp242 wrote: post #890

wmoxam wrote: post #886

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If only jokes were made the genocide wouldn't have happened Well no shit. But it did happen, and there's plenty of proof that 'jokes' contributed to the culture that made genocide possible > A joke about "niggaz in da hood" by a white person is very inappropriate and insensitive, but it's not the same as some joke where the punchline is that "niggaz too lazy to work" or whatnot You really don't think that the first…

> You really don't think that the first desensitizes some to the point that they think the 2nd is acceptable?? No, why should it? It seems to me that the difference is extremely clear for everyone. Is there any good argument beyond "but it obviously does!" – or even better, research – which demonstrates that it does? You are just refuting what I'm saying without any actual arguments.

You made claims without evidence first pal

Re: How Basecamp Blew Up

#978

Post by comte7092 » Fri, May 07, 2021, 7:38 PM UTC

throwaway789256 wrote: post #976

comte7092 wrote: post #928

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You claim not to know their true motivation, yet your entire argument relies on the assumption that they had malicious intent. You also note that “the act they claim to be racist may or may not be racist” and yet it is clear that you have assumed that it is not throughout your post. And this is the crux of the issue. Ones entire interpretation of these issues relies on whether or not one believes racism exists as a s…

> Ones entire interpretation of these issues relies on whether or not one believes racism exists as a structural problem or not. I think you are right that that belief shapes how we interpret these issues. By racism as a structural problem, I assume you mean this: > “people are treated differently by society as a whole, based on their race” Society is not an actor. It is a collection of people, and the people are act…

You’ve made it clear that there is no evidence that can be brought forward that would get you to accept that there exists diffuse but consistent behavior that creates structural hierarchies within society.

It would appear then, that we are at an impasse.

Re: How Basecamp Blew Up

#979

Post by throwaway789256 » Fri, May 07, 2021, 8:04 PM UTC

comte7092 wrote: post #978

throwaway789256 wrote: post #976

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Ones entire interpretation of these issues relies on whether or not one believes racism exists as a structural problem or not. I think you are right that that belief shapes how we interpret these issues. By racism as a structural problem, I assume you mean this: > “people are treated differently by society as a whole, based on their race” Society is not an actor. It is a collection of people, and the people are act…

You’ve made it clear that there is no evidence that can be brought forward that would get you to accept that there exists diffuse but consistent behavior that creates structural hierarchies within society. It would appear then, that we are at an impasse.

> there exists diffuse but consistent behavior

I think that is possible and that one could prove it statistically.

I do not think that, just because such behavior can be shown to exist on average, that is necessarily exists in specific situations. If you want to apply an anti-racist remedy in a specific situation, you should have to prove racism in that situation.

And I think that the remedies to specific situations will differ a great deal, depending on unique variables. That is, if a person proposes a remedy, they should show how it will fix the specific problem.

I do not agree with one-size-fits-all remedies that try to fix a social ill by turning a specific company on its head without factual evidence of racism in that company.

Re: How Basecamp Blew Up

#980

Post by bmm6o » Fri, May 07, 2021, 8:16 PM UTC

riquito wrote: post #952

bmm6o wrote: post #461

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What does "people who talk" even mean here? I gather it's supposed to parallel "people who joke about the 'funny' names of people different from them", but how does the phrase end?

Sorry, not my mother language. I meant "people who meet and talk to each other"

Are you really asking why the line is drawn between "just making harmless jokes" and "making jokes at the expense of another group"? You don't have to agree, but I think the difference and why someone would suggest that's where the line should be drawn is obvious.