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

491–500 of 853 posts

Re: Changes at Basecamp

#491

Post by angry_octet »

bitcharmer wrote: post #467
angry_octet wrote: post #457

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh you mean affirmative action for non-Asian minorities is unfair to Asian ones? I don't really think that is unfair, but then I think the whole system of elite university admission is a total disaster for equity.

> Oh you mean affirmative action for non-Asian minorities is unfair to Asian ones? Yes, it objectively is. No matter how you will try to paint it using colourful phrases and invocation of "justice" - this is discrimination.

It is certainly discrimination. Evidence has been collected and judgements made, e.g. that African-Americans are severely discriminated against, and special provision be made for them to compensate.

This is specifically trying to be fair, rather than trying to make access equally difficult. I don't know why that is hard to grasp. I don't think 'righting injustice' is bad way to explain it.

Harvard is also discriminating against Asians because there are 'too many'. This seems quite likely but is a separate issue. The historical injustice is present, but cannot be said to have the same character. I don't think criticism of other minority AA programs is justified, but you can have your own opinion.

Re: Changes at Basecamp

#492

Post by randomsearch »

kiawe_fire wrote: post #242
drewbug01 wrote: post #81

Issues that directly impact me and mine at my workplace are considered “political” by those of more conservative mindsets. That’s the really ugly flip side of this, and I know it’s been said elsewhere but: conservative politics in the US make some people’s entire existence political, full stop. So you do a lot more than just cut out “distracting” conversations this way. You uninvited certain people entirely, and in d…

> 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…

> 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.

As someone on the opposite side of the political spectrum from you, I want to say - I respect your opinions, I can see some of the arguments for them, I'm willing to listen, and I would have absolutely no problem working with you, employing you, or hanging out. I'm really sorry it's come to this, and it is definitely my side of the political spectrum that is more to blame.

I never really get chance to say that to anyone, so there it is FWIW.

Re: Changes at Basecamp

#493

Post by koonsolo »

drewbug01 wrote: post #189
jiofih wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> some people’s entire existence political, full stop > you uninvited certain people entirely Can you elaborate on this? I What makes a person unable to work without bringing those political issues up?

Not unable to work; unwelcome at work. I mentioned it elsewhere, but saying “my husband and I went to [insert benign weekend activity here]” is now a potentially political conversation because there are people in modern, 2021 workplaces who thing that being gay at all is a “political” issue. So again - not that I can’t work, but I’m unwelcome at work. Even if the company would never enforce the policy that way: they…

> I mentioned it elsewhere, but saying “my husband and I went to [insert benign weekend activity here]” is now a potentially political conversation because there are people in modern, 2021 workplaces who thing that being gay at all is a “political” issue.

Well fuck them. Mentioning your partner is not political, it's conversation. They are the ones that make it political, not you. This borders discrimination in my opinion.

Re: Changes at Basecamp

#494

Post by skyzadev »

Whether this change is good or bad is still to be seen, however, what is great is that the elephant in the room is finally being addressed - how are all these social issues REALLY affecting (tech) companies today? So far we have just accepted that it's all good and the way we have been dealing with it is fine and we are better off this way. But are we really?

Let's stop fighting and start figuring out how to properly handle deep social issues troubling the workplace today.

Re: Changes at Basecamp

#495

Post by randomsearch »

pcthrowaway wrote: post #393
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…

> Funny, as a conservative minority in a straight white liberal company, What is a "straight white" liberal company? Are you saying you've asked all your coworkers their sexual orientation, or are you making assumptions based on heteronormativity. Dating people of the opposite gender doesn't necessarily make one straight. As a not-entirely-straight man in tech, I have never discussed my degree of "straightness" at wo…

This sort of over-reaction to throwaway comments is a big part of the problem. Take the most generous interpretation - maybe they just mean "a company where I am in the minority politically", that's all you need to take to follow the point.

Stop being the language police or we'll never make any progress. Tolerance, generosity, always assume the best of someone.

Re: Changes at Basecamp

#496

Post by disgruntledphd2 »

chii wrote: post #447
SpicyLemonZest wrote: post #373

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In my experience, when people say "I don't want politics at work", what they mean is they don't want what you'd call toxic politics. For example, I consider my workplace generally apolitical despite our large and active DEI committees, because they consistently frame their work in positive terms: lots of "here's how we can make people happier and more successful!", occasional "suchandsuch was a tragedy and we hope to…

There's political activism that's related to your employment/career, and then there's political activism unrelated to your employment/career. Discussing career related political activism at work - such as unionization, or fair pay, because it actively affects you in the workplace - is fine to me. However, woke politics, like gender equality, abortion, or some other trending topic that is unrelated to your workplace,…

Gender equality is the law of the land, it's not (or at least shouldn't be) a "woke" topic.

Re: Changes at Basecamp

#497

Post by drusepth »

astrange wrote: post #433
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…

> Seems like they handled the paternalistic benefits well also by just providing direct compensation instead. This one's odd to me, because I thought the point of non-cash benefits was that it was much cheaper than giving out cash because the employer has more bargaining power than you.

At an individual level, that's often true.

An employer might, for example, negotiate a gym membership or online classes for their employees at 70% of the normal price. If you take advantage of those benefits, you're basically getting a 30% discount on something you'd otherwise pay full price for.

To continue the example, however, if less than 70% of your workforce uses that benefit, the company is now typically paying more in total than the individuals would be paying to just buy that thing on their own. (Obviously, this depends on how your perks are negotiated, but even then you also have overheads in paying someone to acquire/negotiate/maintain these kinds of nontangible benefits.)

Not to mention it falls into the Gift Card problem of dictating what those employees get to spend their money on, instead of giving them the freedom to spend it as they wish, which devalues the per-dollar benefit every time there's a perk that goes unused. (Food for thought: second-hand $100 gift cards often sell for $50-75 cash online.)

I don't have any inside numbers on what % of people take full advantage of all of their company benefits, but I'd venture a guess that there's not as much cost-savings as it seems at first glance.

Re: Changes at Basecamp

#498

Post by throwawayboise »

tshaddox wrote: post #212
mwcampbell wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You uninvited certain people entirely, and in doing so have taken a hell of a stance on that persons inherent worth. I don't understand how banning discussions on politics in official company communication channels leads to that. On the contrary, doesn't such a policy create a safe space for the people you're talking about to work together with other people who have different views?

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…

Why do you think your marriage is of such general interest that you bring it up in a company chat channel? Talk about it in person, with people who give a shit.

Re: Changes at Basecamp

#499

Post by spawarotti »

drewbug01 wrote: post #81

Issues that directly impact me and mine at my workplace are considered “political” by those of more conservative mindsets. That’s the really ugly flip side of this, and I know it’s been said elsewhere but: conservative politics in the US make some people’s entire existence political, full stop. So you do a lot more than just cut out “distracting” conversations this way. You uninvited certain people entirely, and in d…

I think you jumped to conclusions here by assuming bad intent. Perhaps implicitly the new policy assumes it is obvious you can mention your husband and anybody giving you problems because of that is violating the policy.

I do think the policy should be explicit about it. It doesn't help to say "We forbid X" if one side's prominent tactic is to redefine X as they see fit. By analogy, it is not enough to say "We forbid discussions about religious beliefs". One also needs to say "Theory of evolution is accepted here as true".

Re: Changes at Basecamp

#500

Post by drak0n1c »

angry_octet wrote: post #491
bitcharmer wrote: post #467

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Oh you mean affirmative action for non-Asian minorities is unfair to Asian ones? Yes, it objectively is. No matter how you will try to paint it using colourful phrases and invocation of "justice" - this is discrimination.

It is certainly discrimination. Evidence has been collected and judgements made, e.g. that African-Americans are severely discriminated against, and special provision be made for them to compensate. This is specifically trying to be fair, rather than trying to make access equally difficult. I don't know why that is hard to grasp. I don't think 'righting injustice' is bad way to explain it. Harvard is also discriminat…

Earlier in the 20th century, that reasoning was used to limit the admissions of Jewish students. The issue was cast as their being admitted at a disproportionately large rate as compared to the general population, so corrective measures were implemented.

https://www.businessinsider.com/the-ivy-leagues-history-of-d...

Post reply on HN