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

161–170 of 1001 posts

Re: How Basecamp Blew Up

#161

Post by Tainnor »

gowld wrote: post #159
Tainnor wrote: post #124

Honestly, in this story everyone looks like a big child. I would maybe be more sympathetic to DHH if it wasn't the guy who was so opinionated he pushed through Rails features that everyone else disliked or co-wrote several books on company culture that are glorified ads for basecamp (although "it doesn't have to be crazy at work" is still a thought-provoking read, at least in part). I can only imagine that he might b…

It's weird to criticize someone who wrote several books like "it doesn't have to be crazy at work" as "ads for basecamp" and then proceeded to run basecamp (his workplace) as a not-crazy environment. What else would you expect?

Not sure if I'm understanding you correctly but my criticism of the book is that, while it has interesting ideas, a large chunk of it reads as: "We do this thing at Basecamp. Most other companies don't do that. And because of that, Basecamp is an awesome place to work and other places suck.". Instead of, you know, giving a slightly more balanced account of certain things or acknowledging that even your own company has flaws (every company does).

Re: How Basecamp Blew Up

#163

Post by dools »

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.

I think the point the OP is making is that an overt statement such as "White power!!1 Jews will not replace us!!!sixonetikitorches" directly exposes a white supremacist opinion, whereas there are less overt actions that, if analysed thoughtfully, also expose white supremacy.

It is very similar to people who say "I'm not racist, I don't think I'm superior to anyone and the dictionary definition of racism is to assume superiority based on race" (this is more or less a direct quote from Pauline Hanson, an Australian Senator who is wildly racist).

What I have found in discussions with people who I think are racist, but who deny it, is that they have an emphasis on personal agency and personal responsibility. So while they might be able to happily have black friends, they see, for example, disparaties in incarceration rates not as a social problem but as an aggregation of personal failures. If one believes that a particular race is, on average, more likely to commit the types of crime for which one should be incarcerated, and one sees incarceration as an "inferior" way of life, then the logical conclusion is that they are racist.

An interesting thing to note about analysing racism this way is that it can also uncover racist attitudes in the very minority populations who are being discriminated against.

Also "defund the police" is a shorthand that typically means "reduce direct law enforcement funding and instead fund other community engagement programs". Of course we need cops, but we don't necessarily need them all armed to the teeth in riot gear showing up for a drug bust (sub-question: do we really need drug busts at all?), and maybe they're not the best first responders in domestic disputes, and so on. Most people for whom "defund the police" is a catchcry recognise this, because there are very few true anarchists in society (and anarchy is kind of where "left meets right" in the political spectrum anyway, which is why libertarianism is such a dangerous and insidious ideology).

Re: How Basecamp Blew Up

#164

Post by throaway3141593 »

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.

> Stop entertaining people who redefine words.

I take it you still stick to the original definitions of "fun", "garbled", and "terrible", then? Good on you.

Re: How Basecamp Blew Up

#165

Post by prawn »

gowld wrote: post #159
Tainnor wrote: post #124

Honestly, in this story everyone looks like a big child. I would maybe be more sympathetic to DHH if it wasn't the guy who was so opinionated he pushed through Rails features that everyone else disliked or co-wrote several books on company culture that are glorified ads for basecamp (although "it doesn't have to be crazy at work" is still a thought-provoking read, at least in part). I can only imagine that he might b…

It's weird to criticize someone who wrote several books like "it doesn't have to be crazy at work" as "ads for basecamp" and then proceeded to run basecamp (his workplace) as a not-crazy environment. What else would you expect?

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 easy enough to ignore them.

Re: How Basecamp Blew Up

#166

Post by gowld »

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.

If it's you vs Merriam-Webster, I'll take Merriam-Webster

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/defund

> : to withdraw funding from

and "withdraw" does not mean "remove completely"

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/white%20supremacy

> 1 : the belief that the white race is inherently superior to other races and that white people should have control over people of other races

> 2: the social, economic, and political systems that collectively enable white people to maintain power over people of other races

Re: How Basecamp Blew Up

#167

Post by threeseed »

gowld wrote: post #159
Tainnor wrote: post #124

Honestly, in this story everyone looks like a big child. I would maybe be more sympathetic to DHH if it wasn't the guy who was so opinionated he pushed through Rails features that everyone else disliked or co-wrote several books on company culture that are glorified ads for basecamp (although "it doesn't have to be crazy at work" is still a thought-provoking read, at least in part). I can only imagine that he might b…

It's weird to criticize someone who wrote several books like "it doesn't have to be crazy at work" as "ads for basecamp" and then proceeded to run basecamp (his workplace) as a not-crazy environment. What else would you expect?

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.

Re: How Basecamp Blew Up

#168

Post by x3n0ph3n3 »

abxytg wrote: post #81
throwawaysea wrote: post #43

This author, Casey Newton, seems to be trying to push a narrative that Basecamp damaged itself by banning politics at work. But the anecdotes in here convince me that Basecamp did the right thing. The people involved in this exchange with Singer seem unhinged - demanding that someone declare that white supremacy exists at work? This type of cultish demand-oriented discourse is unacceptable in professional organizatio…

"demanding that someone declare that white supremacy exists at work" I would just love if you could point out this interaction to us. You have wildly mischaracterized it lmao.

Not the person you replied to, but this was a direct quote:

> “The fact that you can be a white male, and come to this meeting and call people racist and say ‘white supremacy doesn't exist’ when it's blatant at this company is white privilege,” the employee said. “The fact that he wasn’t corrected and was in fact thanked — it makes me sick.”

Isn't this employee declaring that "white supremacy" is "blatant at this company" ? His reaction that such "white supremacy" and "white privilege" "wasn't corrected" made him "sick."

It's albeit not a direct demand that Ryan Singer be called out as a white supremacist, but it does seem to both imply it and express a strong grievance that it was not called out or corrected. Maybe you have a different interpretation of this?

Re: How Basecamp Blew Up

#169

Post by dools »

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?"

What other category would you put it in?

Re: How Basecamp Blew Up

#170

Post by bitwize »

AnimalMuppet wrote: post #139
bitwize wrote: post #118

I've worked at a lot of places where politics was discussed casually. In my experience, political discussions at work tend not to be such a bad thing, provided that assholes can keep their mouths shut and not sow acrimony. When I read about the blowup a few days ago, I thought Basecamp had a cryptofascist in there somewhere and when he opened his mouth, shit hit the fan. Sure enough, it was Singer. I'm beginning to u…

> Unfortunately, one participant was stuck on free speech side of the debate. All day the conference has been doing logical programs and term equivalence, but somehow this person didn't deduce the result "free speech fundamentalism == fash", at least within the current evaluation context. Really? Someone who writes that is where you're looking for guidance? Words fail me to describe how appalling this is. Free clue:…

> Really? Someone who writes that is where you're looking for guidance? Words fail me to describe how appalling this is.

Did you read the rest of the blog post? Or did seeing "=fash" stop your thought? As Andy says, free speech really only works in a context where everybody is of equal power. In an asymmetric power context, speech against those with less power is objectively more damaging than speech against those with more power, and is therefore more legitimately subject to restriction. Tolerating speech against the marginalized thus pulls society further in a pro-fascist direction.

You should really consider whether it makes sense to be more appalled by someone calling out tolerance of hate speech as fascist, than by the hate speech itself.

Post reply on HN