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

551–560 of 853 posts

Re: Changes at Basecamp

#551

Post by koonsolo »

thu2111 wrote: post #519
ck425 wrote: post #488

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a position of privilege. Only people who aren't discriminated against can afford to take a position of indifference.

Most guys I know in the tech industry see it rather differently. The way they (we) see it is simple: there is rampant illegal discrimination in tech, and it's all against straight white guys like us. That's Europe. In the USA you'd probably include Asians too. Nonetheless I don't know a single guy who argues for affirmative action in favour of straight white guys: everyone argues for simply caring only about who does…

> where 40% of all recruitment efforts have to be for female

This is a huge insult to any woman that is good at their job.

In my team we hire the best. That means that any woman in my team is on average as good as any man in my team.

If we had quotas, that would mean that the men in my team are on average better than the women, since they pick the best of both segments, but one segment has way less candidates. How do those women feel to be places into the bucket of "filling seats"? How do project managers select who they want on their team? And then they cry that people are getting discriminated. Self fulfilling prophecy.

Re: Changes at Basecamp

#552

Post by yosito »

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…

I've learned from experience that it's never a good idea to bring your personal problems to work, no matter what they are or how unjust they are. Work just isn't the place for it.

Re: Changes at Basecamp

#553

Post by madeofpalk »

koonsolo wrote: post #545
madeofpalk wrote: post #542

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"not giving a fuck about differences" is 100% the goal. But there are differences, so ignoring them is just sticking your head in the sand.

I agree that there are differences. I also agree that minorities deal with discrimination. But the solution is relentlessly not giving a fuck, and now comes the big part: also making sure everyone else doesn't give a fuck (about the differences). This last part is crucial for not being indifferent or sticking your head in the sand. We ignore the differences, but we don't ignore the bastards that do take those differe…

I don't know, sounds pretty political. Talk of this is probably banned at Basecamp.

Re: Changes at Basecamp

#554

Post by koonsolo »

koonsolo wrote: post #545
madeofpalk wrote: post #542

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"not giving a fuck about differences" is 100% the goal. But there are differences, so ignoring them is just sticking your head in the sand.

I agree that there are differences. I also agree that minorities deal with discrimination. But the solution is relentlessly not giving a fuck, and now comes the big part: also making sure everyone else doesn't give a fuck (about the differences). This last part is crucial for not being indifferent or sticking your head in the sand. We ignore the differences, but we don't ignore the bastards that do take those differe…

> I don't know, sounds pretty political. Talk of this is probably banned at Basecamp.

I'm sure discrimination is banned at Basecamp.

Re: Changes at Basecamp

#555

Post by jiofih »

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’m sorry but I don’t quite get how company policy would impact this interaction with a coworker, in practice.

If they are showing prejudice or treating you unfairly it is them that should be reported. It must be a pretty fucked up workplace for the opposite to happen?

Re: Changes at Basecamp

#556

Post by drewbug01 »

rayiner wrote: post #481
drewbug01 wrote: post #312

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 o…

> 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. Maybe in Afghanistan, but not in the US. The majority of Republicans support gay marriage. Out of those that don’t, few would find “the existence” of a…

> Maybe in Afghanistan, but not in the US. The majority of Republicans support gay marriage.

This just simply isn’t true.

Re: Changes at Basecamp

#557

Post by drewbug01 »

ALittleLight wrote: post #472
drewbug01 wrote: post #312

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 o…

Nothing about the policy seemed to suggest to me that gay people would have to conceal their sexuality at work or avoid mentioning it. I think you can read it as protecting conversations around gay people. Consider the following hypothetical: You: "... my husband..." Me: "You know, I don't think gay people should be married. Marriage is blah blah blah" ------------------------ By my reading of the OP "my" comment the…

> Nothing about the policy seemed to suggest to me that gay people would have to conceal their sexuality at work or avoid mentioning it.

You fundamentally misunderstand what I’m trying to say, though: it’s not that the new policy explicitly says “gays must hide again”. It’s that a large number of people think “being gay” is political; any mention that you are gay is inherently “throwing it in their face,” and so a policy banning “political discussion” gives significant cover to those who’d like to pretend gay people don’t exist. They can claim, legitimately in many people’s minds, that hearing about someone’s “sexual preferences” is political speech.

Of course it all feels contrived and silly, because popular opinion is legitimately (yet slowly) moving toward the position of “gay people existing is not political.” But we are far, far from that position today. The things I’m describing are not a fever dream, but things that actually still happen to LGBT people in the workplace.

Re: Changes at Basecamp

#558

Post by drewbug01 »

throwawayboise wrote: post #489
drewbug01 wrote: post #312

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 o…

I find about 50% of my coworkers offensive in one way or another. Doesn't mean I make it an issue or throw it in their face or try to sabotage their work or anything like that. A lot of people who would never be friends in their private lives work together in tolerance and cooperation at the office. Expecting everyone to approve of every aspect of how you live is unrealistic.

> Expecting everyone to approve of every aspect of how you live is unrealistic.

Who asked for that, though? This is precisely my point: my existence is being conflated with “approving every aspect of how you live.”

That’s the entire problem, right there. People can and will and do cause problems for LGBT people in the workplace just for existing, for saying boring things like “my husband and I went to the movies.”

Re: Changes at Basecamp

#559

Post by drewbug01 »

skinkestek wrote: post #444
cozuya wrote: post #326

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

I think we are in this mess because we are mixing up state and religion. Marriage was a religious thing. There is no reason any part of the state should mess with it. But, for a while it so happened that it was useful for the state to rely on marriage to mean "two people living together" for whatever that should mean in tax codes etc. With that came the rules that followed the mainstream religion at the time. Today t…

> Call the new thing what you want: around here it is something like "civil marriage" as opposed to "(implicit: religious) marriage".

I think the major problem here is that most conservative Christians who propose it still want “religious marriage” to count as a “civil marriage.” Fundamentally separating the two isn’t actually a bad idea in my opinion, but in practice it seems like most people who suggested it (from the conservative side of things) didn’t actually want that. They wanted “separate but equal” in a sense, and they also didn’t particularly care if it actually happened or not - it was a delaying tactic here in the US.

Re: Changes at Basecamp

#560

Post by yerwhat01010 »

throwawayboise wrote: post #498
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…

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.

Oh, c'mon. You think he should never mention his spouse to his coworkers, even in passing? You can't think of any situation in which it would be totally ordinary to say something about "my husband" or "my wife" in a work channel?

Anyway, I need to get off HN, I'm working from home and my wife just told me that lunch is ready.

Post reply on HN