Live data from Hacker News

How Basecamp Blew Up

platformer.news

921–930 of 1001 posts

Re: How Basecamp Blew Up

#921

I'm among those with mixed feelings. - list of funny names that is kept in some persistent form and circulates the company with full acknowledgment of the head people: Childish and extremely unprofessional, but still a typical mistake rather than a colossal disaster; - politics and racism issue: looks like typical misunderstanding but on a very fragile subjects. Very easy to get into drama scenarios with this mix. Ve…

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.

He did not "refused to acknowledge racism as a concept could exist in companies", he said "We don't live in a white supremacist culture."

Consider the phrase "We live in a democracy culture": You can practically assume that everyone the conversation believes democracy is the correct way to govern, and NOT believing that would be considered very far outside of the overton window. Even as Democrats and Republicans fight over voter ID laws, both sides claim their view is more true to democracy.

So similarly, while racism exists, we do not live in a culture where it is the norm to openly state that "White people are superior." Yes, white nationalism exist and it is a nasty idealogy, but the fact that they have to airbrush their ideology in "ethnostatism" is a sign that openly expressing white supremacy is an unmarketable idea.

This is what I take the phrase "We don't live in a white supremacist culture" to mean. It is a very different claim from "racism doesn't exist". However, I think a more empathetic thing to say would be something along the lines of "White supremacy doesn't define our culture. We live in a nation where this ideology is openly condemned by the vast majority people on the left, center, and right. However, that doesn't mean it is completely absent, especially in our past, whose effects still linger on today."

Re: How Basecamp Blew Up

#922

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you have a counter argument? Do you think such a person should be trusted or do you think this is not how the activism works? If it’s about my comment on trust: You are welcome to trust someone that use these power tactics based upon lies to undermine the moral authority of viewpoint opponents, I just believe there are so many people of better character out there to build a relationship with. Social justice tactic…

I don't have a counter-argument because having one would require accepting your premise. Your hair is a bird.

[deleted]

Re: How Basecamp Blew Up

#923

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you have a counter argument? Do you think such a person should be trusted or do you think this is not how the activism works? If it’s about my comment on trust: You are welcome to trust someone that use these power tactics based upon lies to undermine the moral authority of viewpoint opponents, I just believe there are so many people of better character out there to build a relationship with. Social justice tactic…

I don't have a counter-argument because having one would require accepting your premise. Your hair is a bird.

[deleted]

Re: How Basecamp Blew Up

#924

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you have a counter argument? Do you think such a person should be trusted or do you think this is not how the activism works? If it’s about my comment on trust: You are welcome to trust someone that use these power tactics based upon lies to undermine the moral authority of viewpoint opponents, I just believe there are so many people of better character out there to build a relationship with. Social justice tactic…

I don't have a counter-argument because having one would require accepting your premise. Your hair is a bird.

[deleted]

Re: How Basecamp Blew Up

#925

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you have a counter argument? Do you think such a person should be trusted or do you think this is not how the activism works? If it’s about my comment on trust: You are welcome to trust someone that use these power tactics based upon lies to undermine the moral authority of viewpoint opponents, I just believe there are so many people of better character out there to build a relationship with. Social justice tactic…

I don't have a counter-argument because having one would require accepting your premise. Your hair is a bird.

[deleted]

Re: How Basecamp Blew Up

#927

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But isn't your restriction of my language and how I refer to the people I love pretty much the opposite of "inclusion"? What if my wife would prefer if I referred to her as my "wife" instead of as a generic, faceless "partner"? By insisting that I refer to her as a genderless "partner", you are failing to respect her chosen pronoun.

This is almost certainly for product or marketing materials, and not for you talking about your personal relationships. That is Okta should not talk about building a security tool for you and your wife to use, but instead for you and your partner to use. Because I have no clue who your partner is (or really if you have one) so I shouldn't assume until I have that information. Note that the words in the example are al…

[deleted]

Re: How Basecamp Blew Up

#928

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your assertion was that these people cannot accept race neutral, they’ll only accept anti racism. With that framing, the perception of whether the list was racist does matter as it explains their motivation. Because they did perceive the list to be racist, it’s just not the case that they were taking issue with the idea of being race neutral. Second, you are jumping to wild conclusions about what they were asking for…

> With that framing, the perception of whether the list was racist does matter as it explains their motivation. I don't think we know their true motivation. Anyone can claim to perceive something as racist. We cannot control their sense of offense. The act they claim to be racist may or may not be racist. But what advocates of critical race theory have found is that, by claiming that something is racist, they can bri…

You claim not to know their true motivation, yet your entire argument relies on the assumption that they had malicious intent. You also note that “the act they claim to be racist may or may not be racist” and yet it is clear that you have assumed that it is not throughout your post.

And this is the crux of the issue. Ones entire interpretation of these issues relies on whether or not one believes racism exists as a structural problem or not. Opponents reduce this down to a simple difference of opinion, but if you see that the world treats certain groups differently than others, it is not mere difference of opinion, there are real, tangible consequences that go along with that disagreement.

The thing that you get wrong, that so many people get wrong on all sides of this, is that the issue at hand here isn’t about whether Singer is himself a racist person. When people speak of “white supremacy” refers to a structural system within society that treats people differently on the basis of their race, in a hierarchy that places white people at the top. It’s not a matter of individual intent, but the culmination of ways that people act differently towards each other that nets out to place people in different positions within society.

I think it’s reasonable to disagree on how you go about remedying that situation, but the assertion that “people are treated differently by society as a whole, based on their race” shouldn’t be that controversial of a statement.

Re: How Basecamp Blew Up

#929

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But isn't your restriction of my language and how I refer to the people I love pretty much the opposite of "inclusion"? What if my wife would prefer if I referred to her as my "wife" instead of as a generic, faceless "partner"? By insisting that I refer to her as a genderless "partner", you are failing to respect her chosen pronoun.

This is almost certainly for product or marketing materials, and not for you talking about your personal relationships. That is Okta should not talk about building a security tool for you and your wife to use, but instead for you and your partner to use. Because I have no clue who your partner is (or really if you have one) so I shouldn't assume until I have that information. Note that the words in the example are al…

[deleted]

Re: How Basecamp Blew Up

#930

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But isn't your restriction of my language and how I refer to the people I love pretty much the opposite of "inclusion"? What if my wife would prefer if I referred to her as my "wife" instead of as a generic, faceless "partner"? By insisting that I refer to her as a genderless "partner", you are failing to respect her chosen pronoun.

This is almost certainly for product or marketing materials, and not for you talking about your personal relationships. That is Okta should not talk about building a security tool for you and your wife to use, but instead for you and your partner to use. Because I have no clue who your partner is (or really if you have one) so I shouldn't assume until I have that information. Note that the words in the example are al…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN