How Basecamp Blew Up • Hacker News Board

Re: How Basecamp Blew Up

#421

Post by bhupy » Wed, May 05, 2021, 3:03 AM UTC

michaericalribo wrote: post #393

bhupy wrote: post #364

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Pedantry over definitions distracts from the underlying issues, while new and inventive and nonstandard usage of language can spur critical analysis and jolt us out of our familiar understanding. I understand that that’s the intention behind this strategy, but in practice it actually comes off as a shock-and-awe guerrilla tactic to argumentation that alienates rather than invite collaboration. Again, if the goal is…

> shock-and-awe guerrilla tactic…that alienates rather than invite collaboration That’s a good point, and I’m not sure I have a good answer to it! I believe rhetorical guerrilla warfare is an intentional and important tactic. My gut tells me part of the goal is precisely to make me and others like me feel uncomfortable: I generally have the freedom to not feel alienated, but that’s not a privilege afforded to vast sw…

The point that I’m trying to make is that the biggest beneficiaries of collaborative problem solving here are the very Black engineers you’re talking about.

Playing rhetorical tricks in an attempt to “make people uncomfortable” just muddies the water since everyone sees what’s going on. At best, nothing changes, and at worst this strategy just sets us back.

As long as we continue down the path of polarization and resentment, the further we stray from solving our problems as we remain in the status quo. In the status quo the biggest loser is the very person that stands to benefit the least from the status quo. From what you’ve told me, you’re probably not going to be the loser there.

Re: How Basecamp Blew Up

#422

Post by prawn » Wed, May 05, 2021, 3:05 AM UTC

nemothekid wrote: post #349

didgeoridoo wrote: post #330

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The argument is simply that the behavior everyone claims to decry (e.g. racial violence) starts somewhere, far below violence This is just a rehash of broken-windows theory, whether its proponents know it or not. The Hutus and Tutsis didn’t start with some off-color ribbing and escalate from there. There is zero evidence behind the “pyramid of hate” — it makes a shallow kind of sense, but has no basis in the real w…

> An equally valid hypothesis is that harmlessly blowing off low-level steam prevents the atrocities higher up in the “pyramid”. Things only really get bad when people are encouraged to form and defend identities around characteristics like race, religion, national origin, etc. I'm sorry - I need help in understanding how this "equally valid". To me this seems like a justification ex post facto to defend "jokes", but…

I read both his pieces where he did apologise for the list (that he wasn't directly part of, but had overlooked). And then from my reading, he did try to shut down escalation and move on.

Re: How Basecamp Blew Up

#423

Post by etchalon » Wed, May 05, 2021, 3:06 AM UTC

tomlockwood wrote: post #345

anon7725 wrote: post #298

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Marxism is a basis for critical theory. The critical theory that made a species jump from academia to the mainstream has its roots in the ideas of Gramsci and Marcuse, among others. I call it “cultural Marxism” because unlike plain old Marxism, it has relatively little to say about the redistribution of wealth and other economic interests. In this way it’s made itself innocuous to corporate America, which would other…

What's Marxist about it, then?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_Marxism_conspiracy_th...

Re: How Basecamp Blew Up

#424

Post by mc32 » Wed, May 05, 2021, 3:07 AM UTC

prepend wrote: post #312

thrownaway564 wrote: post #199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

their explanation: it's "gendered and not inclusive"

That seems like they don’t understand the word. I can’t think of many more communities more inclusive than hackers. It’s certainly not gendered either. Are all gendered words banned?

Oh boy! No having cash cows or taking bullshit, or taking a gander, or goosing the numbers, etc., etc.

What the hell happened to us?!

Re: How Basecamp Blew Up

#425

Post by JADev62096 » Wed, May 05, 2021, 3:08 AM UTC

thrownaway564 wrote: post #181

Tainnor wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe. But this is (was) a 60-person company. That's about the size of the company I'm currently working at. In other words, you should know everyone and interact with a sizeable chunk of these people somewhat regularly. It strikes me as very odd that you would suddenly so fundamentally distrust your co-workers with whom you share so much. But I'm also not in the US and maybe this is just the current climate over the…

The culture here is getting bad. We have an "inclusion council" that hands out these diktats. The word ban list (not blacklist!) is approaching 100 words including husband, housekeeping, normal, hacker and meritocracy. Worse part is we're a security company edit: "here" is okta, not basecamp

It's bad where I work too. I'd call myself anti-woke. I just keep to myself. The sad thing is that I feel completely demoralized by it all. Like no one is on my side and I can't express myself at all anymore. I can't understand the people who say quit, because for every Basecamp or Coinbase there are 10,000 other companies who haven't banned it where it's taking over.

Re: How Basecamp Blew Up

#426

Post by riquito » Wed, May 05, 2021, 3:08 AM UTC

mpyne wrote: post #289

JPKab wrote: post #209

"But Fried and his co-founder, David Heinemeier Hansson, had been taken aback by an employee post which argued that mocking customer names laid the foundation for racially-motivated violence, and closed the thread." Children understand that calling people names isn't the same as violence. At some point can we all admit that the most narcissistic, dramatic people are overly-indulged by this garbage? I'm at a startup n…

> Children understand that calling people names isn't the same as violence. This isn't the argument actually being made here, so if that's what DHH thought when he shut the thread down then that might explain part of the outcry. The argument is simply that the behavior everyone claims to decry (e.g. racial violence) starts somewhere , far below violence. "Funny names" turn into off-color jokes. Off-color jokes turn i…

> The argument is simply that the behavior everyone claims to decry (e.g. racial violence) starts somewhere, far below violence. "Funny names" turn into off-color jokes. Off-color jokes turn into jokes with a darker edge. Then it turns into "just asking questions", and before too long your organization is acting as much as a group radicalization effort as it is a business.

Aren't you (or whoever makes these claims) purposely stopping the "pyramid of hate" where you see fit? You could go on and say "people who joke", "people who talk", "people who meet". You just set the bar where you find a culprit/cause you are willing to demonize, as if it was that clear cut

Re: How Basecamp Blew Up

#427

Post by keithnz » Wed, May 05, 2021, 3:11 AM UTC

markhahn wrote: post #91

Definitions are everything. Consider someone for whom "white supremacy" means "it is right and appropriate to act deliberately to create and preserve white dominance of other races". Versus someone for whom it means "privilege exists in many, though often subtle ways, and advantages white, male, older, cis, het people". It's a lot like how "defund police" means radically different things.

the fact they got into battles over what labels are appropriate and the possible different "definitions" shows they had no idea how to deal with this situation.

Re: How Basecamp Blew Up

#428

Post by ceres » Wed, May 05, 2021, 3:11 AM UTC

Tagbert wrote: post #358

didgeoridoo wrote: post #330

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The argument is simply that the behavior everyone claims to decry (e.g. racial violence) starts somewhere, far below violence This is just a rehash of broken-windows theory, whether its proponents know it or not. The Hutus and Tutsis didn’t start with some off-color ribbing and escalate from there. There is zero evidence behind the “pyramid of hate” — it makes a shallow kind of sense, but has no basis in the real w…

The Ugandan violence started by efforts to make one group feel like the other group was foreign and illegitimate. that then progresses to dehumanizing talk. When the violence started people were already considering the other side to be less than human. I’m not saying that that is where Basecamp was headed but this kind of disrespectful treatment of people does warp people attitudes. It’s also painful when you find it…

> The Ugandan

Surely you mean Rwanda?

Re: How Basecamp Blew Up

#429

Post by ddingus » Wed, May 05, 2021, 3:12 AM UTC

nemothekid wrote: post #362

didgeoridoo wrote: post #356

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I want to help clarify but I’m having trouble parsing your question. Can you please rephrase?

> An equally valid hypothesis is that harmlessly blowing off low-level steam prevents the atrocities higher up in the “pyramid”. On what basis are you making your claim that allowing people to openly make offensive jokes prevents higher level atrocities?

https://youtu.be/B4mM4wP5cMw

Offensive jokes are very highly context sensitive.

People can be offended very, some may argue too, easily.

Other people are very difficult to offend.

Hard to know.

Humanizing the field of play can do a whole lot of good. Can get people talking in real terms and being OK on those terms.

An overly fenced field of play can see building of tension despite the very best intent.

There can be solidarity in all that. Just being people, same as any people is often solid grounding.

Atrocities are harder in such a scenario. Everyone is more human, do unto others makes more sense when the others are similar, humans, wanting, needing similar things, running in similar ways.

"Those other people" can often be the start of something really ugly, depending on just what gets attached to "other."

We are as offended as we think we are. I am not marginalizing it at all! Being uber offended sucks.

But, we do have options. We do manage our response to others. We do have control over how we see others, can relate to them, see it from their view.

Humor is one of the more powerful ways to do that. It can bridge gaps, open doors, humanize others, make the very ugly, foul, something that does not own us.

We have to be careful with "openly" and "offensive."

The subset of expression sure to not offend is quite small.

The scope of possible good, or at the least not nefarious intent is just as large.

Re: How Basecamp Blew Up

#430

Post by [deleted] » Wed, May 05, 2021, 3:12 AM UTC

didgeoridoo wrote: post #374

nemothekid wrote: post #362

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> An equally valid hypothesis is that harmlessly blowing off low-level steam prevents the atrocities higher up in the “pyramid”. On what basis are you making your claim that allowing people to openly make offensive jokes prevents higher level atrocities?

Oh I see, sorry. I’m not making that claim. I’m saying that there is equal evidence (none, as far as I know) for that claim as there is for the claim that certain jokes are somehow the structural foundation of genocide. Neither should be given much credence without evidence. The null hypothesis is that jokes neither promote nor prevent genocide , and I see no reason to reject it.

[deleted]