Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Changes at Basecamp

world.hey.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

411–420 of 853 posts

Re: Changes at Basecamp

#411

Post by cgag »

reducesuffering wrote: post #253
chipotle_coyote wrote: post #191

There's a great blog entry I just read about this, "On Politics At Work". I think the author effectively hits on a real problem with a lot of these discussions. https://json.blog/2021/04/26/on-politics-at.html To some folks, "politics at work" means "endless battle royale political debates among coworkers in a Slack all day long; why wouldn't you be against that? But to others, "politics at work" means "are we paying…

> But to others, "politics at work" means "are we paying women and men the same for doing the same job?" and "are our recruiting practices leading to a non-diverse workforce and missing out on great people who should work here?" and "what problems does our company sole, and for whom?". These are really important questions. Why wouldn't you want to bring them up at work? Because there is only one accepted answer. Anyo…

What the hell is water?

People can't even see politics anymore they're so steeped in it.

Re: Changes at Basecamp

#413

Post by phendrenad2 »

How is this any different from the rules at any company, say Google or Facebook. Can you start a public political debate on the Facebook company chat? This just sounds like 37signals is all grown up and has decided to take the inherent risks in political discussion in the workplace seriously.

Re: Changes at Basecamp

#414

Post by imgabe »

deanCommie wrote: post #403
imgabe wrote: post #329

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To me it seems very clear that merely mentioning the fact of a same sex relationship is not a political statement. If person A mentions they are in a same sex relationship, then person B goes on a rant about how it should be illegal and how dare you bring it up, then to me person B is the one making the discussion political, not person A. I do see how if person B is the boss, this would be a problem, but I don't thin…

Theology-driven (in bio) person starts a "justice-orientated" non-profit while admitting in the same sentence that she knew nothing about "Critical Social Justice" or "Critical Theory". //This would be a little bit like starting a web hosting provider while "knowing nothing about DNS, or HTTP" Gets a lot of criticism on her approach. //Unclear if this is fair or not. We don't know what they did and the criticisms she…

> she knew nothing about "Critical Social Justice" or "Critical Theory". //This would be a little bit like starting a web hosting provider while "knowing nothing about DNS, or HTTP"

Critical Theory != Justice

Critical theory is a niche academic discipline that involves looking at certain issues in a specific way. It has its uses, but it is in no way the end-all, be-all last word on everything. It is not synonymous with every meaning and use of the word justice, and there are certainly many ways to pursue justice without it. It's absolutely nothing at all like running a web-hosting service without knowing about HTTP or DNS.

>If you don't, you stop reading the first time she uses the term "Woke" and realize there will be nothing credible that follows other than non-specific vague allegations of boogymen SJWs and cancel culture.

If you stop reading because of one word and then get mad at assumptions about what you think the rest says, you are not a person who should be taken seriously.

Re: Changes at Basecamp

#415

Post by docmars »

cozuya wrote: post #406
anonfornoreason wrote: post #387

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m pretty sure mainstream republicans are pretty onboard with accepting homosexuality, it’s the trans movement that is currently under scrutiny. Obviously we can find examples of members of the GOP that are against gay marriage, but the last four or five years has seen that toned down a bunch. People change, conservatives pride themselves on changing slower, but it does happen.

> Obviously we can find examples of members of the GOP that are against gay marriage The party platform is the official stance of the Republican party and it is against same sex marriage. It won't change until 2024. Republicans who support it are extreme outliers, not the other way around. https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/rnc-moves-2016-platform-inta... > I’m pretty sure mainstream republicans are pretty onboard with…

>If I was in a same sex marriage I would feel very, very uncomfortable working at a company that "bans politics" when a large number of my peers thinks my spouse is "unnatural".

What's especially important to remember though, is if a company were to limit political discussions, by your same statements/logic, that would also include opinions shared _against_ same sex marriage though, no?

Wouldn't that create a safer environment where 1) people are mostly insulated from people sharing their views against it, and 2) if someone were to share something about their same sex spouse, any publicly expressed opposition against it at the workplace would be considered breaking that workplace norm.

Re: Changes at Basecamp

#416

Post by anonfornoreason »

cozuya wrote: post #406
anonfornoreason wrote: post #387

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m pretty sure mainstream republicans are pretty onboard with accepting homosexuality, it’s the trans movement that is currently under scrutiny. Obviously we can find examples of members of the GOP that are against gay marriage, but the last four or five years has seen that toned down a bunch. People change, conservatives pride themselves on changing slower, but it does happen.

> Obviously we can find examples of members of the GOP that are against gay marriage The party platform is the official stance of the Republican party and it is against same sex marriage. It won't change until 2024. Republicans who support it are extreme outliers, not the other way around. https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/rnc-moves-2016-platform-inta... > I’m pretty sure mainstream republicans are pretty onboard with…

28% in 2014 to 49% today. Sorry I missed the majority by 2%. This is a huge change in a short period of time. Sure it’s slower than liberal acceptance, but it’s happening.

This is exactly why I don’t want these conversations in my company’s chat channels. I am not advocating against gay marriage, but I get downvoted because I say something to the effect of “hey maybe you might have an outdated view of many of your conservative voting peers”. This despite the fact that my personal views are probably more in line with yours than you’d expect. I’m just not willing to toss half the country under a bus before I even have a conversation with them.

Re: Changes at Basecamp

#417

Post by csa »

imwillofficial wrote: post #401
Naracion wrote: post #390

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I realize your heart is in the right place, but I just want to call out that what you're saying is actually propagating the stereotype of Asians scoring high / other PoCs not scoring as much in exams. This can create undue expectations which can lead to feustration, anxiety, and depression amongst people that are stereotyped to be high performers. Add to that the layer of being systemically discriminated against, and…

This has been covered to death wrt the Harvard discrimination scandal. Asians do (on average) score higher. Asians were discriminated against due to this.

As if admission into Harvard (and most other elite schools) is solely based on test scores (and even grades). Give me a break.

For reasons folks may or may not agree with, most elite schools look at a wider range of factors than just scores and grades. Does this lead to there being room for discrimination? Yes. Does it guarantee that discrimination is happening? No.

Just as a simple example, there are plenty of non-Asian folks with high scores and high grades that get rejected too, often for similar reasons — namely, being narrowly focused on academics and not even being world-class at that.

Re: Changes at Basecamp

#418

Post by busterarm »

drusepth wrote: post #139

I wasn't expecting to like these changes after seeing a ton of tweets from rubyists I respect criticizing them, but after reading them... I love them all. Companies becoming vocal political entities over the past few years has been mind-blowing and I'm glad to see companies starting to reel it back and get back to, well, being companies. They make products; they don't need to have opinions on unrelated things. IMO pe…

I loved everything about what I read here.

I'm not surprised at the backlash as most of the Ruby community in the west has been extremely political.

Re: Changes at Basecamp

#419

Post by lindy2021 »

litoorachure wrote: post #384
lindy2021 wrote: post #255

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

That question doesn't really make sense in the context of a US workplace. The employee:HR relationship is fundamentally adversarial over here. HR's job is to protect the company, including from its own employees. They will throw you under the bus if it benefits the company. Most people won't run into issues with them, but if you think that someone important to the company's bottom line is behaving inappropriately and…

What's the point you're trying to make? That irredeemable companies are a nightmare to work for?

Well of course they are. And just like irredeemable relationships, you need to move on and improve your judgement to avoid a repeat. Bemoaning on Slack achieves nothing.

Re: Changes at Basecamp

#420

Post by astrange »

jakelazaroff wrote: post #295
lindy2021 wrote: post #255

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Why would you trust any employer’s HR department? Their job is to reduce the company’s liability, not help you with your problems.

If you're hiring people or using your employer benefits their job is to help you with that.
Post reply on HN