How Basecamp Blew Up • Hacker News Board

Re: How Basecamp Blew Up

#461

Post by bmm6o » Wed, May 05, 2021, 3:35 AM UTC

riquito wrote: post #426

mpyne wrote: post #289

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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) p…

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?

Re: How Basecamp Blew Up

#462

Post by Ygg2 » Wed, May 05, 2021, 3:35 AM UTC

wmoxam wrote: post #398

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 Hutus and Tutsis didn’t start with some off-color ribbing and escalate from there Perhaps it didn't "start" with "off-color ribbing" but the usage of 'jokes' (see: Radio Télévision Libre des Mille Collines) to desensitize people to hatred towards the Tutsis is well documented. It was unpopular to speak out against this sort of thing, and certainly was something that got worse over time. Further, racial violence…

> Perhaps it didn't "start" with "off-color ribbing" but the usage of 'jokes'

Hutus and Tutsi violence didn't start at jokes. It started with German and Belgian colonists literally preferring one group over the other. Raising animosity between two groups of essentially genetically same people.

Hutus used the identity cards colonists left to target their purges.

I'd say those influenced genocide way, way more, than some radio jokes.

Edit: I think it's easier to believe that if we didn't make a jokes here and there we could have prevented an atrocity. It's an easy and quick solution to a complex question.

I think the situation was way more messy and way more muddy. Jokes didn't help but stopping them wouldn't have stopped the genocide.

Re: How Basecamp Blew Up

#463

Post by otde » Wed, May 05, 2021, 3:35 AM UTC

Bit of a fool’s errand to try and avoid politics at work — like a fish trying to avoid water in the ocean. The ways companies are built and maintained, the relationship between employers and employees, workplace requirements and benefits — all of these are shaped by and and built from political systems, to say nothing of how politics surrounding a person’s identity might affect their worldview. You’re never going to shut all of that out of your company.

Lots of fearmongering in the comments about “woke mobs” here, and I want to offer a counterpoint to the characterization of the Basecamp employees who left as some kind of shrill hypersensitive scolds. Put yourself in their shoes.

You notice the company you work at has a circulated list of customer’s names, some of which make fun of your race — have been used to make fun of you since you were young. You go “hey this sucks” and it gets taken down. You point out that this is part of a pattern of societal behavior you’ve known your whole life, and that pattern has affected your life negatively and materially. This is not received well — combating a single incident is easy, but unraveling a pattern of behavior is an arduous, years-long, and sometimes unprofitable path. At an all-hands meeting, a higher-up not only denies this pattern exists, but any action taken to unravel it would instead target him instead. The Big Bosses do not refute this until much later, and only partially. Would you feel respected? How would you react if someone said you were acting like a child and demanding something unreasonable? How would you feel if someone told you that you’re only doing this to perform “wokeness?”

Re: How Basecamp Blew Up

#464

Post by SantalBlush » Wed, May 05, 2021, 3:36 AM UTC

stjohnswarts wrote: post #274

avs733 wrote: post #249

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s coded language.

Pointing out that cancel culture is toxic and that free speech still has a place in polite isn't a bad thing. Academia really has a problem with siloing those of a different opinion and apparently it is extending to tech companies as well. I mostly just refuse to talk about that stuff at work. If it's not work related or "guess what I did last weekend" I'm not really interested.

I keep reading the term "free speech" being brought up in these discussions. Some people have come to believe that free speech means "I can say what I want and nobody is allowed to respond negatively."

But this definition is, ironically, the polar opposite of free speech.

Re: How Basecamp Blew Up

#465

Post by etchalon » Wed, May 05, 2021, 3:37 AM UTC

freddie_mercury wrote: post #419

Trasmatta wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Can't believe only 21 employees walked The article said they extended the buyout offer indefinitely, so I wouldn't be surprised if more people leave over the next few weeks. Even if you weren't thinking of leaving, 3-6 months severance would be really hard to turn down, especially if you know you can get another job quickly.

If that many employees think they can get another, comparable, job quickly then that is implicitly saying Basecamp's overall compensation package (including how interesting the work is, extra time off in summer, profit sharing, etc, etc) isn't actually especially unique or valuable. Which kind of says something not great about Basecamp in and of itself.

They also made their overall compensation package a lot loss less attractive with 10% profit sharing as a replacement for lifestyle subsidies.

Re: How Basecamp Blew Up

#466

Post by anm89 » Wed, May 05, 2021, 3:38 AM UTC

MattRix wrote: post #317

thrownaway564 wrote: post #281

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You - "one of the senior management team said white supremacy does not exist" article - "he questioned the existence of white supremacy at the company" Not the same

The article contains multiple interpretations of what was said, including the one the parent comment used.

The employee has made it abundantly clear through multiple channels that that the parent interpretation is not a belief he holds

Re: How Basecamp Blew Up

#467

Post by duxup » Wed, May 05, 2021, 3:38 AM UTC

ashtonkem wrote: post #157

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…

> I think that, no matter your political views, if a situation gets out of hand that bad over matters that aren't even really directly related to workplace concerns, something must have gone fundamentally wrong much earlier. Remember, the proximate cause here was something that directly related to what happened at work.

The funny names list?

Yeah that seems to have been the trigger but I'm not sure that such a list should lead to everything described in the article.

How that lead to demanding someone denounce white supremacy at a meeting seems like things have long since disconnected from the funny names list.

Re: How Basecamp Blew Up

#468

Post by pcthrowaway » Wed, May 05, 2021, 3:39 AM UTC

x3n0ph3n3 wrote: post #201

gowld wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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, an…

>> : to withdraw funding from > and "withdraw" does not mean "remove completely" It certainly _can_ and usually _does_ mean remove completely. Examples: - "I'm withdrawing my student from this school" - "The peer review committee has decided to withdraw this erroneous paper from publication" - "I would like to withdraw $100 from my checking account" (It means the _whole_ $100) - "He is experiencing heroine withdrawal…

We're talking about withdrawing funding, not a specific amount (like in your $100 example)

If I withdraw money from my bank account, I still usually have money in my bank account also. If we withdraw funding from a authoritative service that serves a public function but has also been leveraged oppressively, it doesn't mean there is no funding

Re: How Basecamp Blew Up

#469

Post by arp242 » Wed, May 05, 2021, 3:40 AM UTC

jjeaff wrote: post #409

arp242 wrote: post #253

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Nor did he see the irony in the fact that holding a person responsible for horrible action of people who look like them is the same way of thinking that leads bigots to blame all Arabs for the actions of the 9/11 hijackers. I like to do the "Muslim test" on these things: replace "white people" (or "men", or any other group) with "Muslims" and see how it sounds then. If it sounds yikes then it's probably not a good…

I agree about trying not to say things that are hurtful, but surely you understand the difference in making a defamatory remark about a minority or oppressed group vs a similar remark about a majority group that holds most of the wealth and power?

I think this entire mindset is wrong. I have no wealth nor power, I'm just a bloke trying to get by and struggling in life just like everyone else, not always equally successful I might add.

Groups of people are comprised individuals, with large degrees of variation in any group. Using averages can be important for some things, but context and nuance matters a lot. Not every white person "holds most of the wealth and power". Most don't have any. Perhaps it increases you chances of acquiring wealth or power, but that's a completely different thing than supposedly holding it just because of some "membership" based on ethnicity, religion, sex, or anything else.

This is such a narrow view of the world; undoubtedly it makes sense if you're raised in some urban middle-class family, but a lot of white people's experiences are vastly different from that, and not only are these experiences ignored, they're met with strong hostility. Why do you think rural US, often impoverished white communities who certainly didn't get the best deal, are so hostile to all this kind of stuff? Hell, even "racism" (for lack of a better term) is a thing, "three nippled inbred cousin fucker from Alabama" and all that.

Re: How Basecamp Blew Up

#470

Post by whatever1 » Wed, May 05, 2021, 3:41 AM UTC

Why is the whole tech world talking about Basecamp? It is literally a shop smaller than a local grocery store. Pretty sure you can find there way more serious labor rights violations.