651–660 of 853 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> "Can we sponsor Django Girls?" Sure, just do it with your own money, not company money
> Django Girls is an international non-profit organization started to inspire women from all backgrounds to get interested in technology and to become programmers, offering a safe and friendly environment. It's something that most tech companies would be willing to sponsor, not political at all.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
While I hear the, "But anything could be viewed as societal and political discussion", it's kind of a straw man argument. We all know what types of discourse Jason and David are referring to and they augmented their request with, "But if you make a mistake, it's not the end of the world. Someone will gently remind you of the etiquette, and we'll move on. This isn't some zero-tolerance, max-consequences new policy." F…
I don't feel like it's a strawman. I don't know the culture there, but what about: - Talking about unions, or pay equity (Might be illegal to ban either) - "Hey Jodie, my partner and I are marching in a Gay pride parade this weekend, wanna come?" (Is that political at Basecamp?) - Some ex-military employees form an informal group to welcome and mentor new employees coming out of the military. (Is that political?) - O…
Veteran here. Yes it is. It's identity politics, especially in hyper liberal areas. I'll express some thoughts I have around this.
Some veterans, especially campaign veterans which are a protected class, will struggle when being introduced to the workforce. When I got out, shortly after a year long stint in Afghanistan and subsequently more combat training, I was given a class called SEPS & TAPS. TAPS is an acronym here, but let me remind you foremost of what "taps" is.
Taps is the bugle song played every night at base. When taps plays you are under military order to stand at attention and salute the flag. Taps is a reminder of those who lost or sacrificed their lives that day. It is a daily reminder that your choices are often dangerous ones much less ones that don't just involve your life. For that minute, you are relegated to appreciating their sacrifices in utter silence.
In my course (SEPS & TAPS) the first power point we received covered a page filled with telemetry data about Marines you didn't want to be. The drunk, the drug user, the domestic abuser, the college drop out, the person with anger problems. I wish I had screenshot this slide because words cannot capture how uphill that battle would seem. When I finally did get out, I realized why all these shocking statistics make sense. I've heard people talk about "hero worship" and I'm from the South where veterans have a decent reputation. Where Southerners probably do give a lot of credence to the military because most of the military is generational servitude from the Midwest and the South, likely due to a perceived lack of opportunity in many areas. Hero worship is little more than lip service to veterans though. The real substantive outcome of me getting out was watching all my friends lives reset, facing a lack of opportunity (again), and more bills, pressures, and externalities like school all while trying to return to being a normal human being. It was immense and for a time my life would fall apart in one way while bounding forward in another. It felt like I was literally Flubber, and it was killing me.
If you've followed my posts on this forum life is okay now. But I can see why veterans may need a group at work where they can be veterans or talk about issues. What I don't agree with is if these groups tried to influence the work force. I wouldn't agree with them sending out lecturing messages about veterans or memorial day, even if they're right. I wouldn't be comfortable with them making statements for the veteran community. I wouldn't be okay if they set hiring parameters on top of what is required by law.
I also understand there are people who hate veterans. Some people at work I actively ensure that I don't bring up being a veteran, that I'm particularly good at marksmanship, that I've been to Afghanistan (or any sub-experiences thereafter). No amount of advocacy that a veterans group can do will change that person's mind. I cannot overcome people who equate military service with fascism, nationalism, or even the train of thought that leads people to believe all or most veterans are conservative. I can't fix a broken mind like that; only personal experiences that challenge the thinkers opinions will, which means likely, one day, some veteran will be on the other end of that. Maybe someone like me who can listen to a dissenting view that feels dehumanizing, but maybe not. That's just the way personal growth goes; thinkers don't really plan on who or how their minds will eventually be changed. I accept that reality as a fact of life. I embrace it to some degree and actively work to avoid it in another.
So, is that group political? Yes, but there are things they can choose to do that are decidedly more political and that is where you'll get disagreeance from me as a member of said group.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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"…
That's a position of privilege. Only people who aren't discriminated against can afford to take a position of indifference.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Then I think their problem is not “politics” but being unable to deal with individual employees who are being unreasonable and uncivil.
That's easy to say until you see how it actually happens. Basecamp would likely still be in the news, just instead of being about banning politics talks, it would be because they're somehow preventing their employees from supporting some cause or another.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's true, but you can't separate them when making donations. If I donate to Candidate X, I'm taking her economic and her social policies at the same time. In practice, this means that many large companies have to choose between issues they support. Microsoft may want lower taxes from Republicans, but they also want easier immigration and gay rights from Democrats. If a company takes only an economic perspective, t…
> Microsoft may want lower taxes from Republicans, but they also want easier immigration and gay rights from Democrats. That's probably why they donate to both parties: https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/microsoft-corp/recipients?i...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's easy to say until you see how it actually happens. Basecamp would likely still be in the news, just instead of being about banning politics talks, it would be because they're somehow preventing their employees from supporting some cause or another.
This move is generating even more unrest and publicity for them
They clearly didn't. Saying that was dumb would be the understatement of the week.
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…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
By most people. You know, non-activists. We just want to come to work, do our jobs, hang out with other people passionate about what they do. Just enjoy this time and not engage in political activism. Is this too much to ask?
Yes, because that's a privilege that many people don't get. By saying that you are saying that your comfort is more important than the safety and values of other people that don't get your privilege. If you really don't want to interact with these discussions then don't, but don't silence other voices.
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.
I don't even understand what "privilege" means anymore. I used to, but it now just seems to be a word that gets thrown down to try to end the conversation, whenever someone's arguing with a white guy. How did we get to this point where you can't even have a valid opinion about something if you're coming from some position of privilege?
Is kind of like a Credit Score, but determined by Twitter. The process is opaque and you cannot dispute it. You also can't get your Privilege Score beforehand, but you WILL be told your relative Privilege Position compared to other people if you say something wrong.