Changes at Basecamp • Hacker News Board

Re: Changes at Basecamp

#311

Post by kiawe_fire » Tue, Apr 27, 2021, 2:26 AM UTC

drewbug01 wrote: post #275

kiawe_fire wrote: post #242

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> conservative politics in the UD make some people’s entire existence political, full stop Funny, as a conservative minority in a straight white liberal company, my entire existence isn’t just political, it’s apparently a moral imperative that I be reminded on a daily basis that people like myself not only shouldn’t have a voice, we shouldn’t be allowed to exist in society at all. Full stop. It’s made quite clear tha…

> Perhaps I’m wrong, but experience tells me you’re perfectly happy if my existence is kept silenced for the greater good of allowing your political side to thrive and speak freely But this isn’t what I’m saying: I’m saying that plainly anodyne workplace chitchat that anecdotally confirms that I am a gay man is coded as political speech by many people. I don’t know if you misread me or not, but if you didn’t then it…

I don’t think I misread you, and I think I fully understand what you mean - to some, simply saying “my husband and I” triggers the feeling that you’re shoving an agenda in their face. I get it, and I don’t disagree at all.

But you immediately lept to “conservative politics” as the one opposition that might object to the very existence of somebody. Clearly, without any context, if ever a word were to be said about this hypothetical scenario, it would be inherently political, and you would already know from which side. So, clearly, you’ve also already ascribed politics to this anodyne chitchat.

But I also think it’s disingenuous to leap from “banning political discussions at work” to “the LGBTQ family has to pretend they don’t exist”. If culture is such that people discuss what they did with their significant other or family over the weekend, then setting an environment where everyone is welcome to discuss that freely falls on leadership.

Somebody finding fault with that is going to have to be dealt with by HR the same way you might deal with a person who constantly shames everyone else for eating sugary donuts every morning - an opinion they can keep to themselves, without attacking or threatening others.

I’m not saying the line is always easy to find, but it’s not nearly as complex as most make it out to be.

Re: Changes at Basecamp

#312

Post by drewbug01 » Tue, Apr 27, 2021, 2:30 AM UTC

kiawe_fire wrote: post #311

drewbug01 wrote: post #275

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Perhaps I’m wrong, but experience tells me you’re perfectly happy if my existence is kept silenced for the greater good of allowing your political side to thrive and speak freely But this isn’t what I’m saying: I’m saying that plainly anodyne workplace chitchat that anecdotally confirms that I am a gay man is coded as political speech by many people. I don’t know if you misread me or not, but if you didn’t then it…

I don’t think I misread you, and I think I fully understand what you mean - to some, simply saying “my husband and I” triggers the feeling that you’re shoving an agenda in their face. I get it, and I don’t disagree at all. But you immediately lept to “conservative politics” as the one opposition that might object to the very existence of somebody. Clearly, without any context, if ever a word were to be said about thi…

> But you immediately lept to “conservative politics” as the one opposition that might object to the very existence of somebody.

It’s not the only one, I suppose. But you’re painting it as if it’s not the primary one. It is far and away a position held by those who also profess conservative political values. I understand the hair you’re trying to split, but I don’t feel it’s worth splitting. The fact that a handful of non-conservative folks might also find my existence offensive doesn’t really change the fact that mostly, it’s “conservative” identified folks.

Re: Changes at Basecamp

#313

Post by jakelazaroff » Tue, Apr 27, 2021, 2:31 AM UTC

sokoloff wrote: post #288

jakelazaroff wrote: post #245

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Good on you (genuinely) but you do recognize that there are plenty of people who would be much more sympathetic to the complainer, right?

Yes, of course. I've seen that number decrease over the decades, but it's obviously not zero (and probably never will be). It's not clear that the presence of those people on the earth requires official work channels to be a political discussion free-for-all. I spend time on a fairly small number of discussion sites. Invariably, the ones with the highest signal-to-noise ratio are the ones which ban gratuitous politic…

I agree that political discussion generates more heat than light, and I agree that the company should be able to prohibit specific topics. At the same time, Basecamp’s definition of “political” is extremely broad (“every discussion remotely related to politics, advocacy, or society at large quickly spins away from pleasant”) and I don’t blame people for worrying that anodyne statements would fall under its umbrella.

To take a few hot-button issues from today: what if you’re Black, and a police officer racially profiles you on your way to work? What if your trans child is taking puberty blockers, or playing sports? Forget taking specific stances — is it acceptable to even let on to your coworkers that these things are happening in your life?

Re: Changes at Basecamp

#314

Post by tshaddox » Tue, Apr 27, 2021, 2:31 AM UTC

imgabe wrote: post #248

tshaddox wrote: post #212

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Compare these two messages that might appear in a company’s casual chat channel: “I’m getting married this weekend and I’m so excited!” “I tried to get a marriage license today but the county clerk refused to give me one because we are a same-sex couple, which is really upsetting!” Both statements involve the same event in a person’s life, and it’s an event that tends to be very important and is a very natural thing…

The blog post specifically mentioned the work chat channel. Talk about whatever you want in other channels. If you were in the middle of a meeting to plan a new product launch and suddenly announced "I'm getting married this weekend!" what kind of reaction would you expect? People might be polite but gently remind you that's not really relevant to what's being discussed at the moment and to get back to work. If you k…

This announcement is discussing specific prohibitions based on the content of workplace discussions, not the specific timing or context-appropriateness of the discussion. Obviously there are times and contexts at work where outbursts or abrupt personal discussions are inappropriate regardless of their specific content, but I think it’s very clear that this is not what this announcement is talking about.

Re: Changes at Basecamp

#315

Post by mwcampbell » Tue, Apr 27, 2021, 2:32 AM UTC

NationalPark wrote: post #308

mwcampbell wrote: post #291

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> but these guys clearly know what they want to say and the only reason they don't say it is because they know how bad it makes them look right now. And as long as we continue assuming the worst in people that we disagree with, the problem of polarization will remain. Why not give them the benefit of the doubt and assume, until we have evidence to the contrary, that they just want to encourage a sane, low-stress work…

I don't think we can ignore that this is happening in the context of current events in the United States.

And, being current events, they're already being discussed in plenty of places. For people who find it stressful to discuss these things, it's good to have a place where you know they won't be discussed, where you can focus fully on something that you can actually do something about.

Re: Changes at Basecamp

#316

Post by imgabe » Tue, Apr 27, 2021, 2:32 AM UTC

drewbug01 wrote: post #302

imgabe wrote: post #289

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't doubt that there are people who will try to claim that any mention of a same-sex relationship is political. Based on everything Jason and DHH have ever said or done, do you think that their intent with this policy is to forbid people from mentioning their same sex partners? Do you believe that they would take seriously any complaint in that regard? There is definitely a spectrum of behavior contained in "poli…

Actually and honestly: I do not know whether or not Jason and DHH would personally do that. I would caution that you never really know what biases people hold simply from reading their Twitter. That said, I would be surprised if they took a complaint like this seriously. But what I’m saying is that people used to take this particular complaint seriously within the past 10 years; and that this complaint is easily gene…

I agree that you shouldn't have to worry about that.

I think people also shouldn't have to worry about losing their job or being pushed aside if they just want to do work and not kneel down with people, or raise their fists, or recite loyalty oaths to certain causes. Some people just want to come to work and do work and go home, and that should be allowed too.

I hope we can find a compromise where neither person needs to worry. I think that is what Basecamp is making an honest attempt at here.

Re: Changes at Basecamp

#317

Post by Spooky23 » Tue, Apr 27, 2021, 2:33 AM UTC

lindy2021 wrote: post #255

villasv wrote: post #251

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> We already have a solution for the issues you described, HR. Surely you must be joking.

If you don't trust your employer's HR department, then why did you accept the position?

If you do, why were you offered a position?

Re: Changes at Basecamp

#318

Post by drewbug01 » Tue, Apr 27, 2021, 2:33 AM UTC

analogdreams wrote: post #292

tshaddox wrote: post #212

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Compare these two messages that might appear in a company’s casual chat channel: “I’m getting married this weekend and I’m so excited!” “I tried to get a marriage license today but the county clerk refused to give me one because we are a same-sex couple, which is really upsetting!” Both statements involve the same event in a person’s life, and it’s an event that tends to be very important and is a very natural thing…

Neither of those messages should be posted in the workplace. And I really don't understand why your sexual preferences should be known to/by your coworkers either. Having recent returned to a corporate work environment I am amazed at how much time is spent focusing on these things instead of, you know, running the business and generating shareholder value.

> And I really don't understand why your sexual preferences should be known to/by your coworkers either.

Well, to be fair - when I say “my husband” that doesn’t talk about sexual preferences any more than saying “my wife.”

I don’t see how that’s talking about sex, do you?

Re: Changes at Basecamp

#319

Post by pg_bot » Tue, Apr 27, 2021, 2:35 AM UTC

kyawzazaw wrote: post #270

pg_bot wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Basecamp is known to have one of the most generous pay/benefits packages in the industry. Generous to the point where I would have no idea what a union would even bargain for. I would highly doubt that this was in response to any effort to unionize.

for pay, i don't think so?

https://m.signalvnoise.com/how-we-pay-people-at-basecamp/

Re: Changes at Basecamp

#320

Post by drewbug01 » Tue, Apr 27, 2021, 2:36 AM UTC

imgabe wrote: post #316

drewbug01 wrote: post #302

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actually and honestly: I do not know whether or not Jason and DHH would personally do that. I would caution that you never really know what biases people hold simply from reading their Twitter. That said, I would be surprised if they took a complaint like this seriously. But what I’m saying is that people used to take this particular complaint seriously within the past 10 years; and that this complaint is easily gene…

I agree that you shouldn't have to worry about that. I think people also shouldn't have to worry about losing their job or being pushed aside if they just want to do work and not kneel down with people, or raise their fists, or recite loyalty oaths to certain causes. Some people just want to come to work and do work and go home, and that should be allowed too. I hope we can find a compromise where neither person need…

If that’s the goal you want, I hope we agree then that this kind of policy isn’t a good way to achieve it because of the really large potential for collateral damage.

Like sure - you can kill an ant with a hand grenade, but is that the best tool for the job?