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

611–620 of 853 posts

Re: Changes at Basecamp

#611

Post by drewbug01 »

yosito wrote: post #552
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…

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.

I think there's some level of "leave your personal life at home" that isn't completely bad. I don't talk about all of my personal problems at the office.

But the other side of "Work just isn't the place for it" is this: sometimes personal problems affect you so profoundly, that they then affect your work performance. Your colleagues (and management) deserve to know about those things, so they can plan and adjust accordingly (and offer any personal or workplace support that is appropriate).

To use a somewhat silly analogy - we understand that if someone is too sick to work, then they shouldn't come to work. We don't tell people "work just isn't the place for your illness," because we know that some illnesses really make it impossible to do any work. And, that if you don't go home and rest, the ultimate impact to the business will be worse in the long run because you can't recover.

I think some personal problems rise to that level. Getting cut off in traffic and being annoyed? I don't know, maybe not. "The cops just shot 3 more black people like me at traffic stops this weekend and I'm having a really hard time concentrating now" might be a "personal problem" that is highly relevant to bring up at work (and coded as "political," to boot). That kind of thing would understandably rattle you, and it takes time to heal from.

I guess my point is: we're not robots, and it's not possible to really "check it at the door" most of the time. It never really has been.

The Basecamp policy isn't going to stop people from bringing their personal problems to work, overall. But it'll silence black people and gay people from bringing their problems to work, because those are "political" problems to some people.

Re: Changes at Basecamp

#612

Post by drewbug01 »

slibhb wrote: post #570
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…

You're not really wrong, on any point. But you did make an interesting connection, that a lot of people are making: "Tolerance is [...] not approving everything."

It's honestly fascinating to me that this keeps coming up. I never asked for approval - the hypothetical I continually stick to is "this policy could allow someone to label me saying 'my husband and I ...' as 'political speech', and silence that aspect of my life." (And, specifically, that I have experienced this before myself and have seen it happen to others and that it's not all that uncommon).

But I'm not asking for approval - but you jumped there anyways. Why is that? To me, that reads as "asking for tolerance" is the same as "asking for approval," but that would contradict what you stated earlier.

There's a logical inconsistency there, and I don't know how you resolve it?

Re: Changes at Basecamp

#613

Post by darthrupert »

mempko wrote: post #606
ekam wrote: post #399

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Do you have any basis for thinking so? What else could explain it?

Re: Changes at Basecamp

#614

Post by drewbug01 »

koonsolo wrote: post #577
drewbug01 wrote: post #566

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 vi…

I don't see the political part in this. If I was gay and somebody would respond to me like that, I would instantly ask "Do you have a problem with me having a husband? Where were you living the last couple of decades? Are you some muslim extremist or something?" Keep it light and funny, and tear the bastard apart. It doesn't need to turn into a political debate, it needs to turn into a "you're a jerk" debate.

> I don't see the political part in this

> it needs to turn into a "you're a jerk" debate.

I think you don't see the political part because you're not a jerk, which is a fantastic thing.

I'm saying "a large chunk of people are jerks and have historically used these kinds of policies to be jerks to me and others like me, so it's probably a bad policy." The problem is that sometimes the jerks have support. Sometimes the managers are jerks as well. Sometimes their managers, too.

It happens. I don't like it, it shouldn't happen: but it happens.

Re: Changes at Basecamp

#616

Post by drewbug01 »

spawarotti wrote: post #499
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…

> I think you jumped to conclusions here by assuming bad intent.

No - just personal experience with similar policies at other places.

Specifically with regards to the gay/husband example I've been sticking to: I don't think they had bad intentions there.

But the problem isn't their intentions; it's what the policy enables. And I've seen what that kind of policy can enable, and it's not good.

> I do think the policy should be explicit about it.

I agree - when you start to stray into silencing speech, you should be explicit about what is silenced and why. Part of the problem with the announcement is that the policy (as described) is extremely broad and overly vague.

Re: Changes at Basecamp

#617

Post by drewbug01 »

vertis wrote: post #610
rayiner wrote: post #590

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 co…

> 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.

I'm happy to hear that; it is actually good to hear. I really do think things are getting better, albeit perhaps too slowly.

My own background is similar to yours (ex-Christian, not knowing LGBT people growing up, etc). What you said resonates with me quite a bit.

Re: Changes at Basecamp

#618

Post by sidlls »

angry_octet wrote: post #448
sidlls wrote: post #340

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One can object to a proposed solution to a problem without contributing to the problem or being part of the problem. Opposing the explicit carve out of 25% of a recruiting pipeline specifically for HBCU candidates, for example, does not imply one is racist.

One can offer an opinion, and if the motivation is not inherently racist it may have weight. But to your contention: HBCUs have significant underrepresentation in tech -- despite graduating many talented individuals, they never seem to get hired. A company could see a competitive advantage in recruiting there, where competition for talent is less. The mgmt might also think that the resulting diversity of thought is b…

"You're arguing for the status quo, against setting targets for HBCU grads."

I'm not, and this is a real problem with the kind of thinking in this area these days. Opposition to a quota system is not the same as support of the status quo.

"I only made one contention: graduates of HBCUs are under-represented in tech."

> The mgmt might also think that the resulting diversity of thought is beneficial.

The implication that diversity in ethnicity, gender, etc., is the same as diversity of thought is not a good quality assertion. It certainly isn't uniformly true.

> work at such a forward looking company.

"Forward looking" is certainly an assertion, here. Not everyone would agree that quotas are "forward looking."

Re: Changes at Basecamp

#619

Post by randomsearch »

hn8788 wrote: post #585
randomsearch wrote: post #575

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's wrong with a benefit that some employees cannot or choose not to use? I'm genuinely curious as to what your thinking is. If my company provides free coffee and I don't drink coffee, is that also a problem, for instance?

If you don't use the benefit, it's effectively compensation that you don't get. I'd much rather a company just pay everyone an extra $30 a month than include a free gym membership that most people won't use. Stuff like coffee is used by enough people and is so cheap that it's a negligible cost, but I've had jobs that included gym memberships, personal financial counseling, unlimited re-imbursement for new certificati…

> it's effectively compensation that you don't get.

Agreed. I'm not sure why that's a big deal though?

If you don't drink coffee, are the other employees getting compensation via their free coffee? Coffee can really add up.

Re: Changes at Basecamp

#620

Post by drewbug01 »

meowface wrote: post #465
drewbug01 wrote: post #275

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Perhaps I’m wrong, but experience tells me you’re perfectly happy if my existence is kept silenced for the greater good of allowing your political side to thrive and speak freely But this isn’t what I’m saying: I’m saying that plainly anodyne workplace chitchat that anecdotally confirms that I am a gay man is coded as political speech by many people. I don’t know if you misread me or not, but if you didn’t then it…

>But this isn’t what I’m saying: I’m saying that plainly anodyne workplace chitchat that anecdotally confirms that I am a gay man is coded as political speech by many people. I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure Basecamp is not at all saying people should not reveal, let alone actively hide, their sexual orientation, gender identity, or anything like that. I think anyone else at the company who considered such a thi…

> I think anyone else at the company who considered such a thing political and tried to tell that person or the chat that what they're doing is political would be the only individual who's violating the "no politics at work" policy (perhaps in addition to other policies, too).

You'd think, wouldn't you? :)

This is the problem though: it all depends on who hears the complaint, and what biases they hold. There's nothing in the policy that's definitively banning this kind of harassment-labeled-as-politics, and so it could easily still happen.

And I'm so adamant about the possibility because I've seen this happen! It's not a hypothetical to me. It's really gross, but it still plays out this way today. The US has made a lot of progress in this particular area, but it's still not a given that your management will support you or that you're going to end up in a workplace where bias is the exception, and not the norm.

Post reply on HN