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

771–780 of 853 posts

Re: Changes at Basecamp

#771

Post by throwaway0xc »

dragonwriter wrote: post #747
throwaway0xc wrote: post #725

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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 alwa…

> Yes it is, it absolutely is, by definition, logically neutral No, its not. It, by definition , favors the status quo. > If it's across the board "no politics", then no one ideology gets pushed, which is by definition neutrality. No, prohibiting pushing isn’t neutrality, its favoring the current state. > The scope isn't being limited. Yes, the a particular scope is being excluded. > [...] company time. That’s the ex…

>No, its not. It, by definition, favors the status quo.

It, by definition, does not favor the status quo. Staying silent on a topic may be against the status quo, or it may be for it. That by definition makes this neutral.

>No, prohibiting pushing isn’t neutrality, its favoring the current state.

No it's not as explained above. Pushing may be for or against the status quo, and prohibiting pushing by this logic means neutrality. The status quo may be under threat by staying silent, or the status quo may not change by staying silent. That is neutrality.

You're essentially creating a non-falsifiable here by just assuming that "silence = for status quo".

>Yes, the a particular scope is being excluded.

Except nothing is out of scope, just time and place. You still have unlimited scope outside of work.

>That’s the excluded scope.

That's not a scope. You're company is not limiting your scope, you agreed to be there, during business hours, to conduct business.

>Sure, if the conservative position is not the status quo and the progressive one is; your preventing both (and others) from being heard, adversely impacting all that are not the status quo.

Yes, which in the long run means no one side is being heard or pushed over others... True neutrality.

>To the extent your “alternative” is true, its not an alternative, just a specific case of what I initially described.

Exactly, and it proves my point. The net of it all is neutral. QED.

Re: Changes at Basecamp

#772

Post by [deleted] »

jakelazaroff wrote: post #766
throwaway0xc wrote: post #764

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>It's not a straw man, because the rule itself isn't germane to the discussion. It is a straw man because internal company dealings in your example is something that they explicitly allowed to be discussed. >I just picked one in which it’s clear that the “default” state is unfair. Yes, and the reason the Bobs have to sit and eat on the floor is because when they used to eat on the table, they'd kill a baby before eve…

Okay, so let's imagine it's a societal norm that Bobs eat on the floor rather than a company rule. A group of Bobs are agitating for change, so I institute a gag policy on the topic. Neutral?

[deleted]

Re: Changes at Basecamp

#773

Post by eweise »

LightG wrote: post #754
eweise wrote: post #380

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Seems pretty clear to me that they mean general political discussions and not those that relate to the company. Imagine being on a team where there are differing opinions on the Israel/Palestine conflict, and it keeps getting brought up in threads? You think that team is going to gel?

Hmm, my jury is out on all of this, but you raise a good point. I was in exactly that position where I had to work closely with someone who I knew had strongly differing opinions to me on Israel/Palestine. I'm not sure if it was an unspoken agreement or just lucky, but we made damned sure not to bring it up at work ... and we managed to work effectively together. My gut here is that the founders just botched the deli…

Unfortunately, I took their announcement at face value but looks like from this article, that their intent was to eliminate company criticism theverge.com/2021/4/27/22406673/basecamp-political-speech-policy-controversy

Re: Changes at Basecamp

#774

Post by jasonpbecker »

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 glad you enjoyed my post.

Re: Changes at Basecamp

#776

Post by jasonpbecker »

jsiepkes wrote: post #541
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 find the boundaries which the "On Politics At Work" blog sets to be very narrow and centered around what that the author thinks is the most pressing issue. The author names 4 points out of which 3 are about equality on the workfloor and one vague one about "what problems do we solve?". I find it odd that no one even speaks about questions like: "Is this company a net-win for society? Are we perhaps making the world…

For what it's worth, this was hastily written as I was thinking about what was happening at Basecamp. I would agree that it's very important to ask the questions you're asking-- that's why I added the final bullet. It wasn't the set of issues that were top of mind for me in the context of what was happening at BC, but I think they are critical, political questions that companies should ask.

Re: Changes at Basecamp

#777

Post by tomjen3 »

angry_octet wrote: post #733
tomjen3 wrote: post #628

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>The mgmt might also think that the resulting diversity of thought is beneficial. Managment may think many things, but that presuposes that diversity of thought comes from the diversity of skin. I can practically guarantee that if your company hired a diverse mix of races, but they were all of technical background and straight HS to college to work then you would not get the diversity of thought you would get if you…

So you're arguing that diversity of background (age, previous career, class) is more useful diversity than ethnicity/race? In some ways I agree; we're all shaped by adversity and experience. But I don't think you can ignore the incredible lack of people from black or hispanic backgrounds in tech either. The goal of increased diversity in entry level hiring is advanced by the suggested HBCU recruitment drive. Supporti…

You assume that hiring a black person to an all white team, gives much thought diversity. My argument is that it does not, if that person had a middle class background and similar upbringing.

If you hire a former gang-banger who is a wiz with eletronics, then you will have some real diversity.

Re: Changes at Basecamp

#778

Post by [deleted] »

jakelazaroff wrote: post #766
throwaway0xc wrote: post #764

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>It's not a straw man, because the rule itself isn't germane to the discussion. It is a straw man because internal company dealings in your example is something that they explicitly allowed to be discussed. >I just picked one in which it’s clear that the “default” state is unfair. Yes, and the reason the Bobs have to sit and eat on the floor is because when they used to eat on the table, they'd kill a baby before eve…

Okay, so let's imagine it's a societal norm that Bobs eat on the floor rather than a company rule. A group of Bobs are agitating for change, so I institute a gag policy on the topic. Neutral?

[deleted]

Re: Changes at Basecamp

#779

Post by [deleted] »

jakelazaroff wrote: post #766
throwaway0xc wrote: post #764

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>It's not a straw man, because the rule itself isn't germane to the discussion. It is a straw man because internal company dealings in your example is something that they explicitly allowed to be discussed. >I just picked one in which it’s clear that the “default” state is unfair. Yes, and the reason the Bobs have to sit and eat on the floor is because when they used to eat on the table, they'd kill a baby before eve…

Okay, so let's imagine it's a societal norm that Bobs eat on the floor rather than a company rule. A group of Bobs are agitating for change, so I institute a gag policy on the topic. Neutral?

[deleted]

Re: Changes at Basecamp

#780

Post by [deleted] »

jakelazaroff wrote: post #766
throwaway0xc wrote: post #764

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>It's not a straw man, because the rule itself isn't germane to the discussion. It is a straw man because internal company dealings in your example is something that they explicitly allowed to be discussed. >I just picked one in which it’s clear that the “default” state is unfair. Yes, and the reason the Bobs have to sit and eat on the floor is because when they used to eat on the table, they'd kill a baby before eve…

Okay, so let's imagine it's a societal norm that Bobs eat on the floor rather than a company rule. A group of Bobs are agitating for change, so I institute a gag policy on the topic. Neutral?

[deleted]
Post reply on HN