Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

How Basecamp Blew Up

platformer.news

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

871–880 of 1001 posts

Re: How Basecamp Blew Up

#871

Post by isr »

username90 wrote: post #665
calvinmorrison wrote: post #395

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Muslims are adherents to a religion. Using "Arab" might be more relevant.

Most Muslims aren't Arabs. As for the issue with Muslims, people actually do hate the religion more than the race. People have no issue with non-Muslim Arabs or northern Africans, they mostly dislike Muslims even white ones.

Hating people for their ethnicity, or hating people for their religion - both seem to come from the same cesspool of ignorance and impotent rage (you're angry about something else, but resign yourself to picking on another group to vent on - much easier)

Why do you feel the need to justify one over the other?

Re: How Basecamp Blew Up

#872

Post by [deleted] »

etchalon wrote: post #109
anon7725 wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It has hints of "reverse racism" and tends to dismiss that racism is an issue...and if it is an issue, racism against white people is the actual and bigger issue. That's closer to the camp of "white supremacist" or at the very least, a common defense used by white supremacist. This is the problem with cultural Marxism / “wokeness”. It’s a sanctified, totalizing ideology that admits zero daylight between “100% agree…

The commenter did none of those things. They simply pointed out that the defense is often used by actual white supremacists.

[deleted]

Re: How Basecamp Blew Up

#873

Post by Rapzid »

etchalon wrote: post #109
anon7725 wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It has hints of "reverse racism" and tends to dismiss that racism is an issue...and if it is an issue, racism against white people is the actual and bigger issue. That's closer to the camp of "white supremacist" or at the very least, a common defense used by white supremacist. This is the problem with cultural Marxism / “wokeness”. It’s a sanctified, totalizing ideology that admits zero daylight between “100% agree…

The commenter did none of those things. They simply pointed out that the defense is often used by actual white supremacists.

"I didn't do it". That's how you know they did it.

The irony of this whole section of the thread in the context of racism...

Re: How Basecamp Blew Up

#874

Post by JPKab »

SantalBlush wrote: post #844
JPKab wrote: post #833

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You have no idea how much software I ship, but like your ideology, you make assertions without data. You act as if the only people who are killed by police are "one of my brothers and sisters". Let's unpack that, shall we? https://mappingpoliceviolence.org/ Roughly 3/4 of people killed by police in the US are not one of your "brothers and sisters" if by "brothers and sisters" you are referring to humans who share you…

From the first website you link: >Black people were 28% of those killed by police in 2020 despite being only 13% of the population. You basically just proved the point you were replying to, that racial inequality exists in policing.

Apparently gender inequality exists in policing as well. Why do police almost exclusively murder males, in your opinion?

I'm asking in good faith, because I think you have insightful comments and I'm curious, even if I disagree with you on a few things.

Re: How Basecamp Blew Up

#875

Post by gustavo-fring »

dang wrote: post #801
gustavo-fring wrote: post #526

I'm Jewish Colombian among other things. I'm a mutt. I can pass as white. Where my dad came from (Scary Gary) you voted Republican because up until about the 1960s, they were the party that cared about immigrants and wanted them to succeed. So, when he moved to a similarly Republican state in the 80s, he remained a Republican. The Republican is not a werewolf boogeyman around here. I made the mistake once of saying t…

We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27045887 .

Why was this moved? I'm interested in what norm this was contrary to.

Re: How Basecamp Blew Up

#876

Post by [deleted] »

SantalBlush wrote: post #844
JPKab wrote: post #833

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You have no idea how much software I ship, but like your ideology, you make assertions without data. You act as if the only people who are killed by police are "one of my brothers and sisters". Let's unpack that, shall we? https://mappingpoliceviolence.org/ Roughly 3/4 of people killed by police in the US are not one of your "brothers and sisters" if by "brothers and sisters" you are referring to humans who share you…

From the first website you link: >Black people were 28% of those killed by police in 2020 despite being only 13% of the population. You basically just proved the point you were replying to, that racial inequality exists in policing.

[deleted]

Re: How Basecamp Blew Up

#877

Post by mpyne »

didgeoridoo wrote: post #374
nemothekid wrote: post #362

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> An equally valid hypothesis is that harmlessly blowing off low-level steam prevents the atrocities higher up in the “pyramid”. On what basis are you making your claim that allowing people to openly make offensive jokes prevents higher level atrocities?

Oh I see, sorry. I’m not making that claim. I’m saying that there is equal evidence (none, as far as I know) for that claim as there is for the claim that certain jokes are somehow the structural foundation of genocide. Neither should be given much credence without evidence. The null hypothesis is that jokes neither promote nor prevent genocide , and I see no reason to reject it.

> jokes are somehow the structural foundation of genocide

Again, the 'pyramid of hate' logic does not claim that jokes necessarily lead to genocide or that jokes are structurally required for genocide.

Just that they can be one of many causes of erosion of the social boundaries that ensure people think of each other as people rather than dehumanizing others. It is only to the extent that jokes become a tool for hateful sappers to undermine your team that they start to become necessarily problematic, but you shouldn't let things get to that point.

Re: How Basecamp Blew Up

#878

Post by mpyne »

BurningFrog wrote: post #353
mpyne wrote: post #289

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Children understand that calling people names isn't the same as violence. This isn't the argument actually being made here, so if that's what DHH thought when he shut the thread down then that might explain part of the outcry. The argument is simply that the behavior everyone claims to decry (e.g. racial violence) starts somewhere , far below violence. "Funny names" turn into off-color jokes. Off-color jokes turn i…

> "The argument is simply that the behavior everyone claims to decry (e.g. racial violence) starts somewhere, far below violence. "Funny names" turn into off-color jokes. Off-color jokes turn into jokes with a darker edge. Then it turns into..." If this is such a common path, why have I never heard of it happening? How common is this chain of events? What are some documented cases?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antisemitism_in_Europe

Re: How Basecamp Blew Up

#879

Post by mpyne »

riquito wrote: post #426
mpyne wrote: post #289

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Children understand that calling people names isn't the same as violence. This isn't the argument actually being made here, so if that's what DHH thought when he shut the thread down then that might explain part of the outcry. The argument is simply that the behavior everyone claims to decry (e.g. racial violence) starts somewhere , far below violence. "Funny names" turn into off-color jokes. Off-color jokes turn i…

> The argument is simply that the behavior everyone claims to decry (e.g. racial violence) starts somewhere, far below violence. "Funny names" turn into off-color jokes. Off-color jokes turn into jokes with a darker edge. Then it turns into "just asking questions", and before too long your organization is acting as much as a group radicalization effort as it is a business. Aren't you (or whoever makes these claims) p…

> as if it was that clear cut

My friend, I truly wish interpersonal interaction were 'clear cut', but that is not how things work. And merely wishing that things worked this way does not make it so.

Re: How Basecamp Blew Up

#880

Post by perl4ever »

FlyingSnake wrote: post #776
ramraj07 wrote: post #724

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You’re missing a crucial bit that changes everything: one of the earliest employees is ostensibly a very, very right leaning person who made super questionable comments unprompted in the townhall, and refused to acknowledge racism as a concept could exist in companies. And one of the founders just couldn’t say anything that would have helped in that moment.

People change their beliefs over time and the current environment of toxic social media makes it easy for people to go to the extremes. I am not defending the racism-denial, but could we give him another chance to explain before we “cancel” him?

>could we give him another chance to explain before we “cancel” him?

If I worked there, I would've quit, or made plans to quit, immediately regardless of which side I was on or the nuances.

People read about this stuff because a civil war is interesting. It's not interesting when you're in it. If I worked for them, I might wait to quit and forgo the severance, because of the politically charged interpretations of people quitting without a job lined up. But I would make the decision to quit immediately, once it was clear 1/3 of the company was leaving.

A similar sort of situation is when you have a struggle over unionizing. I'm in favor of unions in the abstract, I guess. I currently have a union job. But a company that is in a battle over unionizing clearly has a toxic relationship between management and employees that has reached a breaking point. The rational response to to bail out.

Post reply on HN