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

721–730 of 853 posts

Re: Changes at Basecamp

#721

Post by dmatech »

agd wrote: post #22
aaronbrethorst wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

With employees cancelling each other Can you explain what this means without using the word "cancel"?

I'll assume this question was asked sincerely and in good faith. By cancelling in this context I mean trying to ostrasize those they disagree with. Talking negatively about them, excluding them as much as possible from social and professional activities. Ignoring their advice and opinion at work. Being rude or negative when they do have to engage with them etc. In short, acting without the respect and courtesy we wou…

Where I work, that sort of behavior is classified as "workplace bullying", and I think that's accurate. My concern with political discussions being common is that people will be expected to conform to whatever happens to be dominant in that workplace in order to remain on everyone's good side. I don't know if it would be possible to refrain from participating without being called out, because people will think you're hiding something.

Re: Changes at Basecamp

#722

Post by educaysean »

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…

If the status quo was that we were already living in a gender-blind, race-blind society, your comment would be correct.

The truth is that we don't know if the 100% male engineering group is a result of perfectly executed meritocratic interview process or a result of systematic bias. It's probably wrong to make blind assumptions either way, but if we're going to make assumptions anyways then we should lean towards the latter.

Re: Changes at Basecamp

#723

Post by educaysean »

ryandrake wrote: post #653
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.

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?

Your opinion is valid regardless of your privilege. When it comes to discussing specific experiences that minorities face, however, you should defer to the experts in the area who have lived their entire lives being in the seat of discrimination. Hope that made sense.

Re: Changes at Basecamp

#724

Post by educaysean »

koonsolo wrote: post #525
peteretep wrote: post #486

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I don't give a fuck Some people would say you have the _privilege_ to not give a fuck

Yes, we live in a privileged society where all people are considered equal. People who practice positive or negative discrimination should get with the program.

Where in the US can I find that society? I'm having trouble being convinced when trying to reconcile this with the waves of anti-asian violence that's been tearing our community apart for the last few weeks.

Is it really difficult to admit that we don't yet live in a perfect society?

Re: Changes at Basecamp

#725

Post by throwaway0xc »

dragonwriter wrote: post #720
throwaway0xc wrote: post #718

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>but “no politics” isn’t a neutral position Yes it is, it absolutely is. You can be a big activist outside of work, no one is saying you can't be. >It's a position to take when you’re OK with the status quo and want people to shut up and just go along, because you’re largely not affected by the things that they are. This boils down to the "you're with me, or you're against me" mentality. You can want work to be neutr…

> Yes it is, it absolutely is. No, its not, it avsolutely is not. > You can be a big activist outside of work, no one is saying you can't be. Limiting the scope of activism always serves to protect the status quo. The fact that the imposed limit is itself limited does not make it neutral.

>No, its not, it avsolutely is not.

Yes it is, it absolutely is, by definition, logically neutral. If it's across the board "no politics", then no one ideology gets pushed, which is by definition neutrality. QED.

>Limiting the scope of activism

The scope isn't being limited, you have unlimited scope, but just no activism on company time.

>always serves to protect the status quo.

Or limiting the scope of activism always serves to protect progressive politics, because you're not allowing conservative voices and ideas to be heard.

>The fact that the imposed limit is itself limited does not make it neutral.

It's not limited to any one side, which de fact makes it neutral. QED.

Re: Changes at Basecamp

#726

Post by educaysean »

stephsmithio wrote: post #74
paxys wrote: post #27

Can there ever be a non-work related conversation between employees that is not a "societal and political discussion"? In the past week I have spoken to coworkers about high housing costs (bunch of us are testing the market right now), property taxes, EV rebates, weed legalization, homeless/drug use problem on the streets. All of this is apparently a fireable offense at Basecamp? People are going to say "obviously st…

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…

We all know? Good thing you're the self-appointed representative for all of "us". Because I have absolutely no idea where to begin drawing that line.

Re: Changes at Basecamp

#727

Post by educaysean »

mdoms wrote: post #476
a4isms wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The expression “employee activists” makes it seem very one-sided. What about old-school companies where everyone played golf. If you were, say, someone who liked hiking and canoeing, you might have been made to feel like you don’t fit in. Is that the same thing as being made to feel uncomfortable about social issues? Or is it somehow different because “playing golf” is normal, but “advocating for social justice” is n…

But this post isn't about playing golf..? None of this is. What?

The point is that "creating strife and division internally and causing other employees to feel uncomfortable" can happen without an employee activist pushing a politically charged agenda.

My personal interpretation: If the primary intent of the policy is to reduce the instaces of exployees feeling ostracized, there are better ways to achieve it than a blanket ban on "political discussion".

Re: Changes at Basecamp

#728

Post by emodendroket »

cgag wrote: post #411
reducesuffering wrote: post #253

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? Because there is only one accepted answer. Anyo…

What the hell is water? People can't even see politics anymore they're so steeped in it.

I think this is perhaps true in a different way than you mean it: politics has such a pervasive effect on people's lives that it is nearly impossible to remain resolutely neutral about everything (and going out of your way to try to do so anyway will come to be seen as its own stance).

Re: Changes at Basecamp

#729

Post by smt88 »

MaysonL wrote: post #672
smt88 wrote: post #655

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One could also argue that they donate to both parties because they want to have influence over whomever wins any election. It may be totally divorced from ideology.

Or because they fear being targeted if they don’t contribute…

Targeted for what?

Re: Changes at Basecamp

#730

Post by DoctorOW »

throwawayboise wrote: post #506
tyingq wrote: post #213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> "Hey Jodie, my partner and I are marching in a Gay pride parade this weekend, wanna come?" (Is that political at Basecamp?) How about Jodie says, "No thanks" "Aw, why not?" "Not really my thing" "What, do you have a problem with gay people?" I mean I see that as likely as any outcome from that conversation starter.

See that to me is the strawman...

"No thanks"

> "Aw, why not?"

> "Not really my thing"

and then the next line would be something like "It's a lot of fun" or "Straight/Cis allies are totally welcome" and if Jodie was like me the response is "I'm sure, but I just don't want to" and that's the end of it.

There is an oft-repeated idea that non-queer people are getting in any way harassed to alter their lifestyle by threat of accusations of homophobia, despite being unfounded.

Post reply on HN