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

601–610 of 853 posts

Re: Changes at Basecamp

#601

Post by drewbug01 »

rayiner wrote: post #590
drewbug01 wrote: post #568

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

We’ve crossed majority support: https://thehill.com/homenews/news/544500-poll-majority-of-re... . I’m from a Muslim country, and among Muslim Americans same sex relationships are taboo. While Muslim support for same sex marriage crossed the 50% mark a couple of years ago, it’s completely rejected within the community itself. (Almost no Muslim Americans identity as LGBT, and virtually no mosques will perform same sex…

> While Muslim support for same sex marriage crossed the 50% mark a couple of years ago, it’s completely rejected within the community itself.

Honestly, this is one of the reasons I don't like to reach for statistics in this kind of debate - because of what you've highlighted here. The numbers on the survey say one thing, but they paint a rosier picture than reality.

> My aunts don’t want to grant government sanction to same-sex relationships, but it’s unfair to say they’re a danger to the “existence” of gay people.

I consider my relationship with my husband to be a core part of my identity (certainly not the only part, of course). It's a major part of who I am and how I move about the world; how I exist within it and relate to it. And this is what straight people do, as well - and for them, it's considered absolutely normal (and society even encourages it in some ways).

What's unfair, to me, is to say that my "existence" is only relegated to physically living - life is about a lot more than that. We're not talking about killing the gays, here. We're talking about people who'd like to force the gays back into the closet so that they don't have to hear about relationships that they think are an affront to their religion.

Your Aunts aren't calling for the extermination of gay people, and that's good. But we shouldn't pretend that "they can live" is tolerant.

---

As an aside, we're pretty far into the weeds with this, although I think what we're talking about is still important to discuss. My original comment, last night, was about how the policy can harm people, and how it can be abused - not so much about what we're discussing now.

Re: Changes at Basecamp

#602

Post by lupire »

detaro wrote: post #164
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…

> IMO people (even the people in charge of companies) can (and should) have political opinions! _Companies_ shouldn't. I'm not sure how this meshes with this post? Basecamps founder has been politically active in a role representing the company, by talking to congress about big techs market power (i.e. Hey's fight with Apple). That part is not what they are banning here.

Those sent political opinions, those are naked self-interest opinions. They overlap, but the distinction is critical.

Re: Changes at Basecamp

#603

Post by Kye »

koonsolo wrote: post #482
chipotle_coyote wrote: post #191

There's a great blog entry I just read about this, "On Politics At Work". I think the author effectively hits on a real problem with a lot of these discussions. https://json.blog/2021/04/26/on-politics-at.html To some folks, "politics at work" means "endless battle royale political debates among coworkers in a Slack all day long; why wouldn't you be against that? But to others, "politics at work" means "are we paying…

> But to others, "politics at work" means "are we paying women and men the same for doing the same job?" and "are our recruiting practices leading to a non-diverse workforce and missing out on great people who should work here?" and "what problems does our company sole, and for whom?". These are really important questions. Why wouldn't you want to bring them up at work? I really detest such things, and the "problem"…

I've seen too many people say stuff like this then go on to blatantly discriminate to think people who say it are self-aware enough about unconscious biases to not discriminate. There is stuff everyone picks up along the way to becoming an adult that they didn't have any say in picking up, but it's there anyway, and it's not going to go away if you pretend like it's not there.

Personally, there's a part of me deep down that does want to discriminate, and I have to kick that part's ass any time it rears its ugly head. Even being part of several marginalized identities is no guard against it.

Re: Changes at Basecamp

#604

Post by PleaseIgnacio »

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…

The examples you’ve mentioned are quite egregious and I understand how you would hold a negative opinion about such efforts. However, I’d argue they come from leaders in a lot of organizations not understanding why inclusivity is actually important, let alone how to implement it.

The scope of creating a workforce with more representation is not small and probably requires long term planning, constant feedback, and buy-in from stakeholders on all fronts. Companies who only want to appear inclusive are bound to take unilateral, drastic measures in order to meet an observable target without considering the higher order effects.

Basecamp’s approach is just avoiding the problem by pretending it doesn’t exist. Employees who felt unwelcome at work won’t suddenly be happy when they can’t even talk about it. Power to make changes will be concentrated at the top with people apparently determined to keep the status quo.

Re: Changes at Basecamp

#605

Post by lupire »

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).

The Republican party has shrunk substantially (10%?) due to Trump's Presidency. I'm curious how that affects the numbers going forward.

Re: Changes at Basecamp

#606

Post by mempko »

ekam wrote: post #399
Naracion wrote: post #390

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I realize your heart is in the right place, but I just want to call out that what you're saying is actually propagating the stereotype of Asians scoring high / other PoCs not scoring as much in exams. This can create undue expectations which can lead to feustration, anxiety, and depression amongst people that are stereotyped to be high performers. Add to that the layer of being systemically discriminated against, and…

That’s not a stereotype- it’s true. Racial disparities is why the SAT got cancelled.

There is nothing in Asian brains that makes them different than non-Asian brains. SAT does not capture people's innate ability but something else.

Re: Changes at Basecamp

#607

Post by kalleboo »

lindy2021 wrote: post #244
chipotle_coyote wrote: post #191

There's a great blog entry I just read about this, "On Politics At Work". I think the author effectively hits on a real problem with a lot of these discussions. https://json.blog/2021/04/26/on-politics-at.html To some folks, "politics at work" means "endless battle royale political debates among coworkers in a Slack all day long; why wouldn't you be against that? But to others, "politics at work" means "are we paying…

We already have a solution for the issues you described, HR. Defiling work communication channels with political opinions only serves to distract, deride, and divide.

HR is on your employer's side and in most companies gets nothing done aside from avoiding liability.

As a European person, I'd say keep the political discussion to your union. Unions also often have much better political affiliation and can make things happen on a broader scale.

Re: Changes at Basecamp

#608

Post by drewbug01 »

docmars wrote: post #428
wry_discontent wrote: post #395

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It’s made quite clear that my only means of survival are to keep my mouth shut and present myself as entirely apolitical. That's because most conservative politics is fundamentally opposed to the rights of any given minority group, pretty much via definition. You're right, I want you to shut the hell up and be ashamed of your views. I want you to not feel free to speak freely about your bigoted opinions.

>That's because most conservative politics is fundamentally opposed to the rights of any given minority group, pretty much via definition. This is a common misconception of conservative views toward minority groups. I find it much more common that conservatives are totally down with the rights, but annoyed or put off by strong activism among minority groups; the preachy nature of advertising, comedy, and other entert…

> I find it much more common that conservatives are totally down with the rights, but annoyed or put off by strong activism among minority groups

Then why are we still debating, in the US, whether or not different groups should have equal rights? Why are conservative legislatures throughout the country still trying to roll equal rights back ?

This point can't possibly be true, in light of what conservative groups are actually doing. The actions highlight the truth.

Or, to put it Biblically, "ye shall know them by their fruits."

Re: Changes at Basecamp

#609

Post by mempko »

thu2111 wrote: post #511
SNosTrAnDbLe wrote: post #425

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How many woman engineers are in your team as a percent of total?

More importantly: who cares? The point of classical equal rights is the MLK, "my children won't be judged by the colour of their skin". The moment you ask a question like that, you are deliberately rolling back his vision by implying that a 100% male engineering group is a severe problem that needs a solution. It's not. It's an entirely expected statistical outcome given the demographics of people who study the profe…

> which is very much a political and left-wing stance

Then I have to ask, is it then a political and right-wing stance NOT to ask these questions?

Re: Changes at Basecamp

#610

Post by vertis »

rayiner wrote: post #590
drewbug01 wrote: post #568

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

We’ve crossed majority support: https://thehill.com/homenews/news/544500-poll-majority-of-re... . I’m from a Muslim country, and among Muslim Americans same sex relationships are taboo. While Muslim support for same sex marriage crossed the 50% mark a couple of years ago, it’s completely rejected within the community itself. (Almost no Muslim Americans identity as LGBT, and virtually no mosques will perform same sex…

I want to commend you both for having a civilized conversation about something that can get very heated.

Speaking from my own (ex-Christian) upbringing, I got only the vaguest references to people being gay as a child/teen except that they were all sinners. I certainly couldn't have held a rational conversation about it because, aside from references inside the church I didn't know any gay people (maybe I did, who could know).

It wasn't until I reached adulthood and left that community behind that I began to realize the way LGBTQ* people are and were demonized within certain christian circles.

The argument that marriage is solely for procreation, and/or the property of religions doesn't really hold water. Christians I have come across, seem to think they invented marriage, which is just not even close to historically accurate.

As to procreation only, this is fraught with the way laws treat things like next of kin, power of attorney and tax benefits. None of those things, have anything to do with procreation and yet they're a big part of marriage.

On the positive side @drewbug01, over the course of 15 years I have gone from incredibly uncomfortable with the whole thing (because of upbringing), to some of my best friends being from those communities. There is progress, and with any luck there will continue to be progress.

Post reply on HN