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

561–570 of 853 posts

Re: Changes at Basecamp

#561

Post by yerwhat01010 »

derex wrote: post #153
DogOnTheWeb wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They also say, "We're in the business of making software, and a few tangential things that touch that edge." Advocacy on the policies of one of the world's foremost software distribution gatekeeper seems well within how they define "their business". I don't think it takes much squinting to see how they can view this sort of advocacy as in their lane, while the popular political discussions of the day are not.

In other words, “some political advocacies are good for our business and some are not. As a result, let’s ban all of them.”

DHH's follow-up post says this:

> Note that we will continue to engage in politics that directly relate to our business or products. This means topics like antitrust, privacy, employee surveillance. If you're in doubt as to whether something falls within those lines or not, please, again, reach out for guidance.

Re: Changes at Basecamp

#562

Post by yerwhat01010 »

starik36 wrote: post #203
theshadowknows wrote: post #159

Hard for me to take it seriously when providing a gym stipend is “paternalistic” but not trusting your employees to discuss certain topics is supposed to be smart business.

I am totally on board with this. I get extra subsidy for health insurance at work if I walk 7000 steps a day - $750 per year. I was already walking over 10k steps daily for years. But what if you have bad knees or live in a dangerous neighborhood or simply don't like walking? That to me is paternalistic behavior. If you want subsidize my health insurance, just do it. But I don't need my employer to be my mommy, no ma…

> I get extra subsidy for health insurance at work if I walk 7000 steps a day - $750 per year.

Really? How does this work? Your company tracks how many steps you take?

Re: Changes at Basecamp

#563

Post by harryh »

drewbug01 wrote: post #556
rayiner wrote: post #481

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

For the record, it's 49% support according to Gallup.

https://news.gallup.com/poll/311672/support-sex-marriage-mat...

And based on the trend, it will cross 50% imminently (if it hasn't already).

Re: Changes at Basecamp

#565

Post by drewbug01 »

koonsolo wrote: post #485
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…

Discrimination in any form should not be accepted. But is this still a political topic? I thought we all already decided that.

I think a lot of people replying have the same mindset: “haven’t we already decided that discrimination is bad?”

I mean... I wish we all had, but evidence seems to suggest otherwise. Many people still tout discrimination as a legitimate political view.

Re: Changes at Basecamp

#566

Post by drewbug01 »

koonsolo wrote: post #493
drewbug01 wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 op…

> Well fuck them. Mentioning your partner is not political, it's conversation.

Indeed. That’s why the policy is bad: it tilts the field in favor of someone acting like this. Because now we first must counter-claim “it’s not politics to mention my husband” and win that fight, and then move on to “and you’re harassing me by weaponizing the politics policy.”

If anti-gay views weren’t legitimately held up as political views by about half the country, this wouldn’t be nearly so bad.

Re: Changes at Basecamp

#567

Post by drewbug01 »

ALittleLight wrote: post #480
drewbug01 wrote: post #222

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m telling you though - that’s not how it plays out. This is something I’ve lived through - I’ve been asked not to talk about relationships at work because they aren’t heteronormative. It’s not a hair-splitting thing, I’m explicitly asserting that there are people who will twist it this way; at least they have in the past and I don’t see how it’ll be different now.

Even if this policy were intended to be used this way, or winds up being used this way, (which I don't support), it still seems better than the alternative. If you reference your husband and somebody says "Aaah, political, can't say that" - do you want to be sharing personal details with this person? Would you prefer they engaged you in a debate about gay marriage or told you their anti-gay feelings? Prefer they sit…

> Would you prefer they engaged you in a debate about gay marriage or told you their anti-gay feelings? Prefer they sit in silence stewing with hatred of you?

I would prefer that corporate policy not give them this new, shiny tool to harass me.

The problem, in this instance, isn’t the banning of political speech per se - rather it is that the ban can be cruelly weaponized against regular speech you just don’t want to hear because it offends your own “political views.”

That’s going to remain true as long as anti-gay views are legitimately held by a mainstream political party here, which is very much still the case today.

Re: Changes at Basecamp

#568

Post by drewbug01 »

harryh wrote: post #563
drewbug01 wrote: post #556

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Maybe in Afghanistan, but not in the US. The majority of Republicans support gay marriage. This just simply isn’t true.

For the record, it's 49% support according to Gallup. https://news.gallup.com/poll/311672/support-sex-marriage-mat... And based on the trend, it will cross 50% imminently (if it hasn't already).

Progress is also good, but it remains true that we aren’t exactly at “majority support” yet. And it’s not guaranteed to keep climbing either. I hope it does, obviously, because that’s a very good thing for me. We’re just not there yet.

Re: Changes at Basecamp

#569

Post by randomsearch »

tcbasche wrote: post #339

Interesting; working at a company with a fairly high degree of psychological safety there is almost no heavy political fighting on Slack or other communication channels (except for the odd comment here or there). There is a high degree of focus on completing actual work and a level of professional behaviour that arguments like these would be very out of place. This is probably due to the size of the org; maybe with m…

Is your company remote or in-person? Because I think the problems that Basecamp might have been having (reading between the lines on twitter) is more likely to occur when people do not have to face each other on a daily basis.

Re: Changes at Basecamp

#570

Post by slibhb »

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…

Your fundamental error is not recognizing the existence of the "tolerant bigot".

Most bigots are tolerant. Most people (in the US) who think homosexuality is a crime against God, a sin, wrong, or just gross are tolerant. They will keep their opinion to themselves and they can be friends, neighbors, coworkers with a gay person with no issues.

People are weird and complicated. It just isn't the case that someone who is against gay marriage is "against your right to exist". Tolerance is putting up with things you disapprove of not approving everything.

Post reply on HN