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

691–700 of 853 posts

Re: Changes at Basecamp

#691

Post by apple4ever »

drewbug01 wrote: post #608
docmars wrote: post #428

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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…

> Then why are we still debating, in the US, whether or not different groups should have equal rights?

We are not.

> Why are conservative legislatures throughout the country still trying to roll equal rights back ?

They are not.

Re: Changes at Basecamp

#692

Post by xpe »

anm89 wrote: post #102
PascLeRasc wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A friend of mine is a software engineer in a conservative industry, and their company brought out the same "no politics at work" last summer. Their benefits package has some language specifically referring to only extending health insurance coverage to hetero spouses, and only permitting time off for a new child if the employee gave birth to it, so nothing for adoptions, fathers, or surrogate births. People have been…

Right, this is how it should be. If that is a deal breaker then find a different employer. Work is not a forum to compete for your personal views. It is a forum to exchange your time for money or equity as per your contract. If you feel it should be different, make sure you are holding enough equity to set the rules or as I mentioned, find a new job that agrees with you.

> If you feel it should be different, make sure you are holding enough equity to set the rules or as I mentioned, find a new job that agrees with you.

This is a false dichotomy.

It is analogous to people who say "love it or leave it" with regards to patriotism for a country.

In my experience, when I hear a person say "if you don't like X about what Y does, find a new Y", I also find evidence that they often lack the ability to observe without judgement. Because of this, they may lack compassion.

Would you say the same thing to someone who doesn't have much leverage to find a better job?

I wonder, would you tell them "to just deal with it"? Or would you simply admit that there are many paths to addressing issues?

There are people in the world that are rule-followers to a fault.

1. Say your partner has a life threatening emergency and you must drive them to the hospital. Do you run a stop sign if there is no cross traffic? Rule followers might say no. However, a higher standard of ethics might say that saving a life is more important.

2. Say your company has a policy that says "don't talk about your concerns about the company on the message board". Let's say you have concerns and have raised them via "proper" channels but the result in unsatisfactory. Do you raise them more generally? Rule followers might say no. Wise people weigh the issue and consider the pros and cons.

The world is about actions and consequences. In my view, that is what the rules tell you. The rules don't always simplistically define ethics. Rules, like any formal system, are not adequate substitutes for guiding principles and conscience.

Re: Changes at Basecamp

#693

Post by [deleted] »

faitswulff wrote: post #593
kiawe_fire wrote: post #242

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> conservative politics in the UD make some people’s entire existence political, full stop Funny, as a conservative minority in a straight white liberal company, my entire existence isn’t just political, it’s apparently a moral imperative that I be reminded on a daily basis that people like myself not only shouldn’t have a voice, we shouldn’t be allowed to exist in society at all. Full stop. It’s made quite clear tha…

Your potential... embarrassment? at being outed as a conservative is nowhere near as threatening as being outed as a gay or trans person.

[deleted]

Re: Changes at Basecamp

#694

Post by bingbingbong »

marbletiles wrote: post #532
thu2111 wrote: post #513

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's hard not to escape the conclusion that the goal of Basecamp's new policy is to quietly suppress or ultimately evict people who think like you. There is no connection whatsoever between diversity and building product. Note: you haven't tried to explain your claim there is, just implied it's obvious, probably because you can't. I've seen people try to honestly intellectually defend a connection between employee di…

There is an absolute wealth of connection between more diversity and better products: it’s not that a monoculture can’t make products for everyone, it’s that it’s easier for a team that has wider representation to do so: it’s a competitive advantage for them. Want examples beyond hand driers? Apple missed menstrual cycle tracking in the Health app. NASA offered to send 1,000 tampons with the first woman in space - an…

Is the implication here that Apple had no women working on the Health app, Google Photos has no black team members (and if they did, they would have explicitly checked this case?), Snapchat has no asians, etc? Or that some magic ratio would have caught these issues?

There's some serious assumptions buried there that don't pass the smell test.

Re: Changes at Basecamp

#695

Post by 1123581321 »

ryanbrunner wrote: post #571
koonsolo wrote: post #482

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"…

"How well you fit in our team", especially when applied to things like interviewing and hiring, often has a strong correlation with "are you not a member of an underrepresented group", often unintentionally.

It seems not in this case, as this person hired a diverse team as measured by gender, race and sexual orientation. I'd venture there are multiple approaches to seeking interpersonal compatibility and some of those approaches tend to have better outcomes than others. It seems good to try to learn from people who practice those more successful approaches.

Re: Changes at Basecamp

#696

Post by 1123581321 »

tylermenezes wrote: post #303
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…

> I'm giving Basecamp the benefit of the doubt I'm not, especially as the post then moves straight into dissolving the DEI committee and moving its responsibilities to HR.

They moved it back to an employee who cares and was doing a good job without being a toxic coworker. That seems good for future hires as well as current employees of all kinds.

Re: Changes at Basecamp

#697

Post by izgzhen »

spondyl wrote: post #327
izgzhen wrote: post #287

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What is banned is discussion of society and politics, not their existence.

I'm making a silly, unfair comparison to be sure. It's just an interesting line of thought, not necessarily a credible one ;) I can imagine that the first time such policies came up could have come from security or legal teams discussing foreign politics around the water cooler and thinking "We should perhaps have some policy in place, just in case". Fundamentally, that's no different than say; implementing a D&I pol…

Thanks for this reply!

Re: Changes at Basecamp

#698

Post by slibhb »

drewbug01 wrote: post #676
slibhb wrote: post #643

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People, including me, are making the "tolerance is not approval" connection because we look at society and see a lot of tolerance and then we see lots of people who conflate tolerance with approval, sometimes explicitly, e.g. if someone says "I am very tolerant, I support gay marriage," they are using the word "tolerant" wrong. Your argument is basically "my relationship is political because I am gay". I disagree. I…

> Your argument is basically "my relationship is political because I am gay". I disagree. I think that reasonable people understand that your marriage is not political. My argument is "my relationship is political because I am gay" and part of why I make that argument is because people have told me they think it's political. So - you disagree. About what, precisely? If you don't want to believe me that this has happe…

My point is not what has or hasn't happened to you. My point is that, if someone tells you your marriage is political, they are wrong. They don't know what politics is and the law is on your side. I don't see what else you can really ask for (besides approval).

Re: Changes at Basecamp

#699

Post by busterarm »

busterarm wrote: post #418
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…

I loved everything about what I read here. I'm not surprised at the backlash as most of the Ruby community in the west has been extremely political.

#ruby-lang is famous for K-lining people who say "guys", for example.

Re: Changes at Basecamp

#700

Post by anm89 »

katbyte wrote: post #437
anm89 wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right, this is how it should be. If that is a deal breaker then find a different employer. Work is not a forum to compete for your personal views. It is a forum to exchange your time for money or equity as per your contract. If you feel it should be different, make sure you are holding enough equity to set the rules or as I mentioned, find a new job that agrees with you.

so a conservative employer gets to just discriminate against blacks/gays/women/ect and that's ok with you? do you see the problem here when employees can't speak out and are shut down with "no political speech or your fired" "if your not christian you shouldn't work here"

Go read Title 7 of the Civil rights act. That's not how any of this works.
Post reply on HN