An open letter to Jason and David(janeyang.org)
janeyang.org
An open letter to Jason and David
https://janeyang.org/2021/04/27/an-open-letter-to-jason-and-david/
108 comments
>Then the January 6, 2021 insurrection occurred and we began seeing more customer support cases asking about whether Basecamp “discriminated” against its customers. Whether it supported “free speech”.
/r/suspiciousquotes
/r/suspiciousquotes
I don't think this is suspicious at all. Jan 6 was followed by a huge ban wave, even more people on the political fringe migrating to the so-called "alt-tech" (a term which is not just coincidentally similar to the "alt-right") and sites that do not really have clear stances or have been resistant to prioritize anti-harassment features and policies (for instance, Basecamp and Substack)
Previous discussion of the post this is responding to: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26944192
Thanks for posting. I saw this happen on twitter, but the comments immediately derailed into the predictable culture war and never really drilled down to the specifics of why Basecamp choose to put this policy into effect. This makes it very clear.
Oh boy
"A time comes when silence is betrayal."
This is classical us vs them rhetoric, and I don't like to be dragged into this trap, especially at a company level.
This is classical us vs them rhetoric, and I don't like to be dragged into this trap, especially at a company level.
It's incredibly self-serving - this rhetoric is intended to legitimize and allow one side's speech and actions while suppressing the other side. Committed activists and partisans first proclaim "your speech is violence" as they seek to censor/deplatform/demonetize anyone who opposes their views. Then they proclaim "your silence is violence", and demand you (or the company you work for) exhibit their political views. Finally, they also proclaim "our violence is speech" as they participate in large-scale rioting and property damage but then try to cast those actions as legitimate "civil disobedience". It's just one big bag of gaslighting, broken logic, and arbitrary redefinition of common language.
Exactly. I find it this ironic it is the same phrase that Bush used, and now the left has taken it over too https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/You_are_either_with_us,_or_a....
Really this whole controversy is asking for their political views to be the only ones discussed at work, what happens when someone from a more conservative background or country voices their views?
IMO really don’t want to talk politics at work it will just lead to problems. Also SJW is not a protected class.
Really this whole controversy is asking for their political views to be the only ones discussed at work, what happens when someone from a more conservative background or country voices their views?
IMO really don’t want to talk politics at work it will just lead to problems. Also SJW is not a protected class.
valiant55(1)
That's not the context of the article, "silencing" is used in the "actively silencing" sense. It's not about a bystander not getting involved.
It is about talking politics at work.
From what I understand.
I strongly agree with Basecamp here.
I strongly agree with Basecamp here.
Discussing what the company's policy on hate speech, diversity and inclusion should be might be politics, but it's not the "spitting on MAGA hats" kind of politics people on twitter seem to think it is. I think it's work relevant.
Gauging from votes, most people in this thread seem to see themselves more as mercenaries with no personal investment in their workplace (or they are not negatively affected by their lacking work culture, uh, privilege) than anything else, and that's fine, but don't assume someone wouldn't find personal fulfillment in making their workplace better.
Gauging from votes, most people in this thread seem to see themselves more as mercenaries with no personal investment in their workplace (or they are not negatively affected by their lacking work culture, uh, privilege) than anything else, and that's fine, but don't assume someone wouldn't find personal fulfillment in making their workplace better.
> don't assume someone wouldn't find personal fulfillment in making their workplace better
That does sound like it, to be honest. Some people seek fulfillment by changing their workplaces after their ideals, other people want to get stuff done.
I find it amazing that they launch new products despite having people who seem to be professional issue-seekers and problem-finders. I've worked along side similar people while working with unions and it was so unbelievably exhausting how slow they were in literally everything.
That does sound like it, to be honest. Some people seek fulfillment by changing their workplaces after their ideals, other people want to get stuff done.
I find it amazing that they launch new products despite having people who seem to be professional issue-seekers and problem-finders. I've worked along side similar people while working with unions and it was so unbelievably exhausting how slow they were in literally everything.
Would you refuse to work with a colleague because he voted for the other side?
This is discrimination and this is obviously illegal, but this is a side effect of talking politics at work.
This is discrimination and this is obviously illegal, but this is a side effect of talking politics at work.
Sorry for the late reply, HN "rate limits" got me.
The short answer is that I pick my workplace based on culture. I have to. I am a very obvious queer looking person, so about half to a third of my interviews go at least slightly sour as soon as they start. It's a good filter in a way.
The job I had while coming out turned out not to be so great, lots of rumors and hot takes and bad jokes about me going around. I don't need that sort of constant negativity in my life.
(Also, I'm not exactly sure how I'd define "the other side", since I'm not in the US. It's more subtle here.)
The short answer is that I pick my workplace based on culture. I have to. I am a very obvious queer looking person, so about half to a third of my interviews go at least slightly sour as soon as they start. It's a good filter in a way.
The job I had while coming out turned out not to be so great, lots of rumors and hot takes and bad jokes about me going around. I don't need that sort of constant negativity in my life.
(Also, I'm not exactly sure how I'd define "the other side", since I'm not in the US. It's more subtle here.)
I don't think this is a good idea but I don't see how it is illegal:
"Alice, pick up the ticket for Bob." "No, Bob voted for X!" Then, sometime later, Alice is fined and/or sent to jail.
"Alice, pick up the ticket for Bob." "No, Bob voted for X!" Then, sometime later, Alice is fined and/or sent to jail.
I mean it looks like its more than that to me. What do you do when politics comes knocking at your door but you've banned political discussion? Reading between the lines it sounds like there might have been planning of the Jan 6th riot on their platform. How do you not discuss politics in that situation?
[deleted]
It's the same underlying problem. In order to effectively work with other people, you have to be able and willing to lose arguments. The author's strategy of being eternally bitter, and trying to revive the argument whenever you see a good opening, is fundamentally at odds with a happy, inclusive work environment.
I understand why Basecamp have made the decisions they have on this.
As an entrepreneur and small business owner, I would be frankly terrified of hiring a woke SJW who wanted our business and all of our employees to become wholly dedicated to solving their pet causes.
Solving large scale societal injustice would be great, but it’s a long way down my list of priorities when logging on in the morning.
It’s even worse with the ever present threat they would then breach NDAs and bring the raging Twitter mob to the door when they don’t get their own way.
There are a million injustices in the world, but engaging and supporting them should be a personal decision. Keep that stuff away from the office.
As an entrepreneur and small business owner, I would be frankly terrified of hiring a woke SJW who wanted our business and all of our employees to become wholly dedicated to solving their pet causes.
Solving large scale societal injustice would be great, but it’s a long way down my list of priorities when logging on in the morning.
It’s even worse with the ever present threat they would then breach NDAs and bring the raging Twitter mob to the door when they don’t get their own way.
There are a million injustices in the world, but engaging and supporting them should be a personal decision. Keep that stuff away from the office.
>but it’s a long way down my list of priorities when logging on in the morning.
You're missing the point, people who are marginalized don't have the luxury of putting it down the list of their priorities. That's why they're marginalized. Please don't use rude and emotionally loaded terms like "woke SJW" to label people and dismiss their concerns about the work environment. This is not the way to run an inclusive business, and using those words in that way suggests that you think it's somehow wrong of your employees to desire justice or to care about the experiences of marginalized individuals.
You're missing the point, people who are marginalized don't have the luxury of putting it down the list of their priorities. That's why they're marginalized. Please don't use rude and emotionally loaded terms like "woke SJW" to label people and dismiss their concerns about the work environment. This is not the way to run an inclusive business, and using those words in that way suggests that you think it's somehow wrong of your employees to desire justice or to care about the experiences of marginalized individuals.
> people who are marginalized don't have the luxury of putting it down the list of their priorities
Yes they do. High income tech worker are not oppressed in any meaningful way. It’s just a coincidence that they look similar to people who have real problems.
Yes they do. High income tech worker are not oppressed in any meaningful way. It’s just a coincidence that they look similar to people who have real problems.
"woke SJW" is a term for a specific kind of political activist, which can be _very_ harmful to a business.
Not wanting to deal with SJWs has nothing to do with dismissing concerns about the work environment and expressing concerns about the work environment does not render someone an SJW.
And a business is, as the name implies, about the business. Not about inclusivity.
Not wanting to deal with SJWs has nothing to do with dismissing concerns about the work environment and expressing concerns about the work environment does not render someone an SJW.
And a business is, as the name implies, about the business. Not about inclusivity.
I strongly disagree. Businesses do not exist in a vacuum. The second you hire one employee, it becomes about inclusivity. That's why every business has to follow the same employment laws. I'm sorry but I'm not interested in continuing this conversation further when you keep using that loaded term to dismiss concerns. In my opinion, that term is only used to shame people who take a stand on issues of justice, as if it's somehow wrong for people to do that publicly because they don't happen to work for your company.
I'll be blunt -- if it's harmful to your business when activists on twitter discuss potential HR violations that your company might have committed, then your business has issues and you are not qualified to be running that business in that way. Please, hire a qualified HR professional who knows how to deal with this stuff, and let them handle the hiring and personnel issues, that's what they're there for. In my experience technical founders are notoriously bad at noticing when conflict is growing overboard and they need to expand HR, I know because I made the same mistake!
I'll be blunt -- if it's harmful to your business when activists on twitter discuss potential HR violations that your company might have committed, then your business has issues and you are not qualified to be running that business in that way. Please, hire a qualified HR professional who knows how to deal with this stuff, and let them handle the hiring and personnel issues, that's what they're there for. In my experience technical founders are notoriously bad at noticing when conflict is growing overboard and they need to expand HR, I know because I made the same mistake!
I never claimed that businesses "exist in a vacuum", and no, it isn't about inclusivity as soon as an employee is hired: The sole reason why businesses hire people is because they have some work on their hands they want to get done to make money. Others want these decisions to be about "inclusivity" but from the business perspective it isn't.
Employment laws don't exist because business is about inclusivity, they exist because we as society don't want businesses to do what they want to do. Employment laws work against business interests, not in favor of them.
Regarding that dismissing concerns line, some concerns are not relevant for some people: If you are a doctor and you wish to save the lifes of your patients and to do that you use some sort of specialized software the interfaces with your medical equipment, concerns about the energy of efficiency of the x86 processor it runs on can be dismissed by "I don't care whether this computer draws 100 or 45 Watts, I need it to save lives". Many business people do the same thing but with their goals: "I don't care about inclusivity, I need employees who work for the business and not against it".
And I'll be blunt aswell -- If you allow SJWs to disrupt your workforce with irrelevant junk, and thereby harm your business, then you are not qualified to be running that business.
And regard HR professionals, yes they are there to keep the workforce productive, not to be inclusive for political activists.
I've read the posts again and I think there is still a misunderstanding regarding the term SJW: I'm not using SJW as a term to dismiss something, as I already stated I use it to describe troublemaker/activist-types not normal-acting people who have concerns. That's a huge difference.
Employment laws don't exist because business is about inclusivity, they exist because we as society don't want businesses to do what they want to do. Employment laws work against business interests, not in favor of them.
Regarding that dismissing concerns line, some concerns are not relevant for some people: If you are a doctor and you wish to save the lifes of your patients and to do that you use some sort of specialized software the interfaces with your medical equipment, concerns about the energy of efficiency of the x86 processor it runs on can be dismissed by "I don't care whether this computer draws 100 or 45 Watts, I need it to save lives". Many business people do the same thing but with their goals: "I don't care about inclusivity, I need employees who work for the business and not against it".
And I'll be blunt aswell -- If you allow SJWs to disrupt your workforce with irrelevant junk, and thereby harm your business, then you are not qualified to be running that business.
And regard HR professionals, yes they are there to keep the workforce productive, not to be inclusive for political activists.
I've read the posts again and I think there is still a misunderstanding regarding the term SJW: I'm not using SJW as a term to dismiss something, as I already stated I use it to describe troublemaker/activist-types not normal-acting people who have concerns. That's a huge difference.
>I've read the posts again and I think there is still a misunderstanding regarding the term SJW: I'm not using SJW as a term to dismiss something, as I already stated I use it to describe troublemaker/activist-types not normal-acting people who have concerns. That's a huge difference.
It really doesn't make much of a difference, you're still shaming activists as being "not normal acting" and for not doing activism in a way that explicitly benefits your business. Please don't do this, you're an observant individual, you know this is not the point of activism and it's pointless to look at it that way.
I don't have much more to say to you when you're saying that employment laws don't help business and that activists advocating for workplace fairness are "disrupting with irrelevant junk." This is completely wrong, the point of employment laws is to make sure your workers are treated fairly and are able to continue doing their jobs. When you say "keep the workforce productive" that's exactly what it means. If you're saying this is irrelevant junk, well, that's a really great way to get a bad reputation and to get sued for violating employment laws, which would then harm the business. The point of being inclusive is that you're making an effort to avoid pushing people out who DO want to help the business.
It really doesn't make much of a difference, you're still shaming activists as being "not normal acting" and for not doing activism in a way that explicitly benefits your business. Please don't do this, you're an observant individual, you know this is not the point of activism and it's pointless to look at it that way.
I don't have much more to say to you when you're saying that employment laws don't help business and that activists advocating for workplace fairness are "disrupting with irrelevant junk." This is completely wrong, the point of employment laws is to make sure your workers are treated fairly and are able to continue doing their jobs. When you say "keep the workforce productive" that's exactly what it means. If you're saying this is irrelevant junk, well, that's a really great way to get a bad reputation and to get sued for violating employment laws, which would then harm the business. The point of being inclusive is that you're making an effort to avoid pushing people out who DO want to help the business.
> for not doing activism in a way that explicitly benefits your business.
no, for explicitly damaging a business. politics and drama don't contribute to a productive work environment.
I'm indeed shaming activists who promote violence or similar b/s (ie. punch a nazi, or BLM rioters, ...) for not being normal acting. Would you describe them as normal acting?
> when you're saying that employment laws don't help business
if they would help business, they wouldn't be needed because businesses would implement them as corporate policy on their own.
> that activists advocating for workplace fairness..
Again I'm not talking about people advocating for fairness. SJWs are troublemakes, not advocates. If you don't get the difference compare extreme examples like trigglypuff to your average every-day feminist. This makes indeed a huge difference. If you where in HR and in charge of a hiring decision who do you pick trigglypuff[SJW] or Ms. Average Feminist[not SJW]? See the difference and why it's important?
> the point of employment laws is to make sure your workers are treated fairly and are able to continue doing their jobs.
The fist thing is correct, employment laws are there to protect people from unfair treatment. But think about the second claim. If a lack of employment laws would prevent employees from doing their job, what would employers do to keep the company in business? They would implement an equivalent to said employment laws internally, because they want their employees to keep working.
> When you say "keep the workforce productive" that's exactly what it means.
I don't see how inviting troublemakers helps productivity in any way.
no, for explicitly damaging a business. politics and drama don't contribute to a productive work environment.
I'm indeed shaming activists who promote violence or similar b/s (ie. punch a nazi, or BLM rioters, ...) for not being normal acting. Would you describe them as normal acting?
> when you're saying that employment laws don't help business
if they would help business, they wouldn't be needed because businesses would implement them as corporate policy on their own.
> that activists advocating for workplace fairness..
Again I'm not talking about people advocating for fairness. SJWs are troublemakes, not advocates. If you don't get the difference compare extreme examples like trigglypuff to your average every-day feminist. This makes indeed a huge difference. If you where in HR and in charge of a hiring decision who do you pick trigglypuff[SJW] or Ms. Average Feminist[not SJW]? See the difference and why it's important?
> the point of employment laws is to make sure your workers are treated fairly and are able to continue doing their jobs.
The fist thing is correct, employment laws are there to protect people from unfair treatment. But think about the second claim. If a lack of employment laws would prevent employees from doing their job, what would employers do to keep the company in business? They would implement an equivalent to said employment laws internally, because they want their employees to keep working.
> When you say "keep the workforce productive" that's exactly what it means.
I don't see how inviting troublemakers helps productivity in any way.
>no, for explicitly damaging a business. politics and drama don't contribute to a productive work environment.
I mean, that's the point of inclusivity, marginalized people just want to be able to do their jobs and avoid politics and drama. But it's hard to do that when they're being marginalized.
>if they would help business, they wouldn't be needed because businesses would implement them as corporate policy on their own.
A lot of them do. Small companies don't have resources to come up with extensive policies so that's where the laws become helpful.
>I'm indeed shaming activists who promote violence or similar b/s (ie. punch a nazi, or BLM rioters, ...) for not being normal acting. Would you describe them as normal acting? [...] Again I'm not talking about people advocating for fairness. SJWs are troublemakes, not advocates.
These comments are exactly why I say the term is emotionally loaded and you should avoid using that term, please don't draw false equivalences to attack stereotypes and claim that everyone who advocates for justice is troublemaking and promoting violence. You might not mean to do that but that's what you're doing when you use those derogatory terms in that way. This is getting really close to flamewar territory again and I don't want to continue this conversation.
I mean, that's the point of inclusivity, marginalized people just want to be able to do their jobs and avoid politics and drama. But it's hard to do that when they're being marginalized.
>if they would help business, they wouldn't be needed because businesses would implement them as corporate policy on their own.
A lot of them do. Small companies don't have resources to come up with extensive policies so that's where the laws become helpful.
>I'm indeed shaming activists who promote violence or similar b/s (ie. punch a nazi, or BLM rioters, ...) for not being normal acting. Would you describe them as normal acting? [...] Again I'm not talking about people advocating for fairness. SJWs are troublemakes, not advocates.
These comments are exactly why I say the term is emotionally loaded and you should avoid using that term, please don't draw false equivalences to attack stereotypes and claim that everyone who advocates for justice is troublemaking and promoting violence. You might not mean to do that but that's what you're doing when you use those derogatory terms in that way. This is getting really close to flamewar territory again and I don't want to continue this conversation.
I've tried to explain the difference between SJWs and non-SJWs like three times now.
I'm not the one drawing flase equivalencies. You keep conflating SJWs with advocates and people who have concerns not me.
> please don't [...] claim that everyone who advocates for justice is troublemaking and promoting violence.
I never did and I don't. Read my comments again I explaind exactly this distinction like three times already.
I'm not the one drawing flase equivalencies. You keep conflating SJWs with advocates and people who have concerns not me.
> please don't [...] claim that everyone who advocates for justice is troublemaking and promoting violence.
I never did and I don't. Read my comments again I explaind exactly this distinction like three times already.
[deleted]
throwaway0xa(1)
If I were worried about a raging Twitter mob I wouldn't announce company policy to my staff by posting a missive on Twitter.
Had it been a purely internal communication, it would have quickly leaked to the press. The press would then distort and misconstrue the info to make Basecamp look as controversial as possible. Better to get in front of that by having a polished public communication.
Also Basecamp is a rather open company. Their employee handbook is on Github: https://github.com/basecamp/handbook
Also Basecamp is a rather open company. Their employee handbook is on Github: https://github.com/basecamp/handbook
They knew they had employees who would attack them for the change either way. Being proactive seems pragmatic. It's also on brand for them, unlike a lot of other companies where it would seem strange for the founders to suddenly post a controversial blog post. Not commenting on the merits of the change, just how they communicated it.
So she admitted that political climate at work contributed to her emotional/medical leave?
Sounds like she would be more fulfilled at a non-profit.
Sounds like she was spinning her wheels doing things that don’t necessarily make the company money, was bound to have conflict with management.
Sounds like she would be more fulfilled at a non-profit.
Sounds like she was spinning her wheels doing things that don’t necessarily make the company money, was bound to have conflict with management.
A tangential (but actually very relevant) question, "reading the room" here, I gather that many folks in tech responding to 'the open letter' referenced here are actually either libertarian, conservative, class-based progressive or just progressive but maybe critical of woke-ness/cancel culture. How do you guys deal with coworkers, friends and family who are (for a lack of a better word) very very woke or MAGA for that matter?
I mean the obv. answer is just not engage or placate. But I've found doing so is intellectually dishonest and the implied feedback given to the activist (left or right) that their opinion is the prevailing opinion. I try to challenge their opinions logically and on their possible emotional biases; but as politics (along with sex and religion) is the third-rail of American polite conversations, I find it hit-or-miss. Would love to hear everybody else's $0.02! (And if you disagree with me if you a wokist or magaist, I'd love to hear your takes too!)
I mean the obv. answer is just not engage or placate. But I've found doing so is intellectually dishonest and the implied feedback given to the activist (left or right) that their opinion is the prevailing opinion. I try to challenge their opinions logically and on their possible emotional biases; but as politics (along with sex and religion) is the third-rail of American polite conversations, I find it hit-or-miss. Would love to hear everybody else's $0.02! (And if you disagree with me if you a wokist or magaist, I'd love to hear your takes too!)
I don't have much experience with the MAGA folks. I know far fewer of them than the wokes. In my experience they are more likely to live and let live, at least outside of their incessant facebook posts, but that could just be my bubble.
Since antiracism has essentially become a religion, I won't bother trying to persuade anyone who is obviously a true believer. You mostly can't convince someone out of their religion, since that's not what got them into the religion.
Others are more on the fence, and still have some semblance of sanity, and for them I try to set an example of someone who stridently cares about many of the issues they bring up, while trying to convince them that the woke approach to societal change is not only ineffective, but has done real harm to both actual flesh and blood people and our ability to talk things out and make sense of the world. I try to point them to resources that set a similar example -- not the outright anti-woke stuff, which will put them right off, but things like these that tread a middle path with elements that disrupt their tidy narrative of us vs them:
https://www.persuasion.community/p/the-painful-path-to-unity
https://philosophybear.substack.com/p/woke-vs-anti-woke-asex...
https://youtu.be/pHGt733yw3g
Since antiracism has essentially become a religion, I won't bother trying to persuade anyone who is obviously a true believer. You mostly can't convince someone out of their religion, since that's not what got them into the religion.
Others are more on the fence, and still have some semblance of sanity, and for them I try to set an example of someone who stridently cares about many of the issues they bring up, while trying to convince them that the woke approach to societal change is not only ineffective, but has done real harm to both actual flesh and blood people and our ability to talk things out and make sense of the world. I try to point them to resources that set a similar example -- not the outright anti-woke stuff, which will put them right off, but things like these that tread a middle path with elements that disrupt their tidy narrative of us vs them:
https://www.persuasion.community/p/the-painful-path-to-unity
https://philosophybear.substack.com/p/woke-vs-anti-woke-asex...
https://youtu.be/pHGt733yw3g
So in my younger days I was way into politics talked about them all the time it was what I was focused on everything was about Fiscal or Monetary policy, the distribution of wealth, esoteric philosophies the whole 9 yards.
Eventually I realized no one around me wanted to talk about it. Did some introspection and realized a lot of these issues are more complex than most people believe and most people didn't want to discuss them.
So now whenever anyone tries to drag me into politics I respond with the most crazy and incoherent position I can think of and play it off for the laughs. Good ones include
1) Nuke the rainforest
2) Invade Canada
3) Elect the Pope as Hegemon of the world
I find people usually laugh and stop talking about politics at that point. If those don't work start saying things like George Bush did 7/11 and Mark Zuckerberg is the Lizard illuminati but there is a secret society that controls the Illuminati as well call then Alluminati.
So that's what I do.
Eventually I realized no one around me wanted to talk about it. Did some introspection and realized a lot of these issues are more complex than most people believe and most people didn't want to discuss them.
So now whenever anyone tries to drag me into politics I respond with the most crazy and incoherent position I can think of and play it off for the laughs. Good ones include
1) Nuke the rainforest
2) Invade Canada
3) Elect the Pope as Hegemon of the world
I find people usually laugh and stop talking about politics at that point. If those don't work start saying things like George Bush did 7/11 and Mark Zuckerberg is the Lizard illuminati but there is a secret society that controls the Illuminati as well call then Alluminati.
So that's what I do.
More responding to the deleted comment about why not understanding you're downvoted… when your comment shows understanding yourself, changing something for the positive and humor.
>Responding to you and the OP. I've found that in life, if you get conflicting strong positive and negative reactions, then you must be expressing or doing something true-to-the-heart! My Sunday school pastor once told me "Jesus care more that you either love or hate him intensely than ever in your walk of faith with him… than you have no feelings for him at all". The worst reception you can hope for in life is a milk-toast approval imho.
>Responding to you and the OP. I've found that in life, if you get conflicting strong positive and negative reactions, then you must be expressing or doing something true-to-the-heart! My Sunday school pastor once told me "Jesus care more that you either love or hate him intensely than ever in your walk of faith with him… than you have no feelings for him at all". The worst reception you can hope for in life is a milk-toast approval imho.
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
For either side (or really with anybody I don't want to talk about politics in general to), I just let them say what they want, but don't really acknowledge what they say other than "ah ok".
I tend to be a non-confrontationalist. There is no point in debating with some people - either because its not the right situation, I don't want to offend them (work/friends), or its clear they are hardliners that won't have a civil debate.
I tend to be a non-confrontationalist. There is no point in debating with some people - either because its not the right situation, I don't want to offend them (work/friends), or its clear they are hardliners that won't have a civil debate.
[deleted]
"Whether I will remain on medical leave after publishing this letter is entirely up to you".
The statement is framed in sarcasm, but if this is really the case, don't leave it up to the employer -- when the workplace gets toxic to you, find the door.
The statement is framed in sarcasm, but if this is really the case, don't leave it up to the employer -- when the workplace gets toxic to you, find the door.
So it seems the overriding tide right now is for workplaces to be more woke-aware? Increase tensions by discussing more politically hot topics at work.
At least that's what I'm getting from the Silicon Valley type folks I follow on twitter. I think it's a mistake, they'll end up eating themselves in the long run. You may be a woke-leader now, but let's see what the next generation thinks of you in a decade.
Why do you want to "out" your coworkers? Force compliant thought control of the people you have to see every-day. Seems like it's destined for huge amounts of resentment. Fearing for employment because of your opinions, yikes.
At least that's what I'm getting from the Silicon Valley type folks I follow on twitter. I think it's a mistake, they'll end up eating themselves in the long run. You may be a woke-leader now, but let's see what the next generation thinks of you in a decade.
Why do you want to "out" your coworkers? Force compliant thought control of the people you have to see every-day. Seems like it's destined for huge amounts of resentment. Fearing for employment because of your opinions, yikes.
Unfortunately the tech world somehow became hostile to rationality and everything is filled with emotion.
I remember having political discussions in the past and I can still have conversations with dissenting people over a certain age; younger people seems to have lost the capacity to discuss.
I think it's a generational issue, it's just that people who have been failed by the education system and by society (in the shape of psychologists' 10 parenting tips, divorces, working parents with 3 jobs, unstable families, being left out of the housing ladder), are reaching the age when they talk politics.
I remember having political discussions in the past and I can still have conversations with dissenting people over a certain age; younger people seems to have lost the capacity to discuss.
I think it's a generational issue, it's just that people who have been failed by the education system and by society (in the shape of psychologists' 10 parenting tips, divorces, working parents with 3 jobs, unstable families, being left out of the housing ladder), are reaching the age when they talk politics.
> younger people seems to have lost the capacity to discuss
I agree with your point about people being failed by society and the education system, but do not agree that this has become an issue with younger people specifically. Anecdotally, I have spoken with younger people and older people who lose control of their emotions when something they hold close and identity with is challenged. Even if the topics are brought up in a civil manner, I've seen people completely lose their cool.
I agree with your point about people being failed by society and the education system, but do not agree that this has become an issue with younger people specifically. Anecdotally, I have spoken with younger people and older people who lose control of their emotions when something they hold close and identity with is challenged. Even if the topics are brought up in a civil manner, I've seen people completely lose their cool.
This is an incredibly detailed way to describe a strawman for the purposes of feeling correct on hacker news.
There's also a tide to make the workforce more geographical diverse, especially and famously (https://basecamp.com/books/remote) at Basecamp. So companies are less likely to be restricted to Silicon Valley type folks unless hires are filtered by politics.
Otherwise to be more geographically diverse implies becoming more ideologically diverse. Asking staff to largely separate politics from work is a rational reaction to that, a kind of social grease. A more diverse workforce needs more grease.
Otherwise to be more geographically diverse implies becoming more ideologically diverse. Asking staff to largely separate politics from work is a rational reaction to that, a kind of social grease. A more diverse workforce needs more grease.
Seeking ideological heterogeneity is the truest and most desirable form of diversity. Kudos to Basecamp for recognizing that they can achieve this via geographical diversity. On the other hand, I've also seen this go the other way. Many larger tech companies like Google effectively enforce a one-size-fits-all set of company policies across all their locations. Effectively, the political culture of their headquarters is forced on all the satellite offices, squashing any potential for ideological diversity that may result from geographical diversity. In the end, I think it comes down to having the right leaders who genuinely value true diversity instead of just skin-deep diversity that is popular today.
There are many vague accusations in this article, but the core issue seems to be this:
> Keen followers will recall that when our Use Restrictions Policy was first officially rolled out, neither hate speech nor harassment were included. One of my colleagues (who comes from a marginalized background) and I (an Asian American woman child of immigrants who had grown up poor) had debated vigorously for their inclusion, with David in writing while Jason gazed from the sidelines, intellectually making our case before ultimately being told: no. We won’t include them yet. Let them stay in the grey area. Let us stay silent.
TL;DR: Basecamp decided not to explicitly include hate speech nor harassment in their use restrictions policy.
It's not clear if there were specific customers using Basecamp to (project manage?) hate speech or harassment, though I suspect any specific cases would be alluded to if they existed.
The author does suggest that they received customer questions asking if Basecamp supported "free speech":
> we began seeing more customer support cases asking about whether Basecamp “discriminated” against its customers. Whether it supported “free speech”. Another Moral Quandaries case came up, one that proved to be the most challenging professional experience of my life — and I’ve worked in refugee camps before!
The author managed to get hate speech and harassment added to the use restrictions policy eventually by sharing their personal experience of harassment:
> Over the course of that 10-day Moral Quandaries case investigation and discussion, it became clear to me that the only way to move you two was to prostrate myself. To violate my own sense of personal privacy and list out in excruciating detail example after example of how I have experienced hate and harassment. So I did, and at the end, hate speech and harassment were added to the list.
I have to say, after reading this rebuttal, I'm inclined to side with Basecamp. The amount of loathing this employee has for their employer is staggering, though it's not clear if the issues being debated actually related to real-world issues or were simply matters of principle. I can now see why Basecamp would take the steps they did.
> Keen followers will recall that when our Use Restrictions Policy was first officially rolled out, neither hate speech nor harassment were included. One of my colleagues (who comes from a marginalized background) and I (an Asian American woman child of immigrants who had grown up poor) had debated vigorously for their inclusion, with David in writing while Jason gazed from the sidelines, intellectually making our case before ultimately being told: no. We won’t include them yet. Let them stay in the grey area. Let us stay silent.
TL;DR: Basecamp decided not to explicitly include hate speech nor harassment in their use restrictions policy.
It's not clear if there were specific customers using Basecamp to (project manage?) hate speech or harassment, though I suspect any specific cases would be alluded to if they existed.
The author does suggest that they received customer questions asking if Basecamp supported "free speech":
> we began seeing more customer support cases asking about whether Basecamp “discriminated” against its customers. Whether it supported “free speech”. Another Moral Quandaries case came up, one that proved to be the most challenging professional experience of my life — and I’ve worked in refugee camps before!
The author managed to get hate speech and harassment added to the use restrictions policy eventually by sharing their personal experience of harassment:
> Over the course of that 10-day Moral Quandaries case investigation and discussion, it became clear to me that the only way to move you two was to prostrate myself. To violate my own sense of personal privacy and list out in excruciating detail example after example of how I have experienced hate and harassment. So I did, and at the end, hate speech and harassment were added to the list.
I have to say, after reading this rebuttal, I'm inclined to side with Basecamp. The amount of loathing this employee has for their employer is staggering, though it's not clear if the issues being debated actually related to real-world issues or were simply matters of principle. I can now see why Basecamp would take the steps they did.
I am glad to see companies not include content restrictions or vague "hate speech" policies that go beyond removing illegal content. These types of content policies at Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, Tik Tok, YouTube, Amazon, Apple, Google, etc. all end up simply silencing moderate and conservative voices, and it has even come down to banning books now (https://www.wsj.com/articles/amazon-wont-sell-books-framing-...). Anything that is less than full commitment to progressive viewpoints is labeled as "hate". And given speech mostly lives on digital platforms these days, these "hate speech" policies erode the right to free speech we are intended to have.
For example - do you think children should not be allowed to consent to life-changing medical procedures without parental consent? Hate speech. Do you think borders should be secured to prevent illegal immigrants? Hate speech. What about requiring voter ID? Hate speech. On the other hand do you think "All Cops Are Bastards" (ACAB)? Allowed. Do you think we should "eat the rich"? Allowed. What about adopting Marxist philosophies, which caused more than 100 million deaths in the 20th Century? Allowed. These examples paint an absurd picture but it's the reality of how digital platforms have been policing speech and shaping our society's opinions artificially, under the guise of these misguided content policies. Just because a US company is doing it, instead of a foreign state, doesn't lessen its impact - these actions amount to propaganda.
As for Basecamp - given their promising letter and stance, I will be taking a look at their products and figuring out how to start using them to show my support for their pragmatism and rational sanity in an otherwise hostile world.
For example - do you think children should not be allowed to consent to life-changing medical procedures without parental consent? Hate speech. Do you think borders should be secured to prevent illegal immigrants? Hate speech. What about requiring voter ID? Hate speech. On the other hand do you think "All Cops Are Bastards" (ACAB)? Allowed. Do you think we should "eat the rich"? Allowed. What about adopting Marxist philosophies, which caused more than 100 million deaths in the 20th Century? Allowed. These examples paint an absurd picture but it's the reality of how digital platforms have been policing speech and shaping our society's opinions artificially, under the guise of these misguided content policies. Just because a US company is doing it, instead of a foreign state, doesn't lessen its impact - these actions amount to propaganda.
As for Basecamp - given their promising letter and stance, I will be taking a look at their products and figuring out how to start using them to show my support for their pragmatism and rational sanity in an otherwise hostile world.
[deleted]
>...Basecamp already represents a diversity of experiences and we want the company’s software and policies to do the same ...
I think this is precisely the issue that guarantees we will forever have these discussions, whether or not a company bans political conversations. The software industry is simply much more left than the general population [1]. But rank and file employees ignore this, and assumes everyone else should hold the standard opinions on Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion. So they pressure their company leaders, but the company leaders are obviously running a business, rinse and repeat.
[1] https://www.businessinsider.com/charts-show-the-political-bi...
I think this is precisely the issue that guarantees we will forever have these discussions, whether or not a company bans political conversations. The software industry is simply much more left than the general population [1]. But rank and file employees ignore this, and assumes everyone else should hold the standard opinions on Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion. So they pressure their company leaders, but the company leaders are obviously running a business, rinse and repeat.
[1] https://www.businessinsider.com/charts-show-the-political-bi...
These charts seem to represent age (and to some degree, income and personal ethics) more than anything. Young people tend to be more progressive.
That could be true (although the case of 'academics' would seem to disprove it), but still wouldn't change the conclusion that at any given point in time, the majority of employees in X industry are liberal.
> Keen followers will recall that when our Use Restrictions Policy was first officially rolled out, neither hate speech nor harassment were included.
That's a huge red flag.
That's a huge red flag.
A red flag indicating what?
From the post she linked:
> Basecamp should be a place where employees can come to work with colleagues of all backgrounds and political convictions without having to deal with heavy political or societal debates unconnected to that work.
I completely agree with this and it’s the kind of environment that I would prefer to work in.
> Basecamp should be a place where employees can come to work with colleagues of all backgrounds and political convictions without having to deal with heavy political or societal debates unconnected to that work.
I completely agree with this and it’s the kind of environment that I would prefer to work in.
[deleted]
> As you know, I am writing this while on medical leave from Basecamp, a condition that was necessary in large part because of the extreme emotional duress I have experienced as an employee at the company.
Author, you aren’t an indentured servant to Basecamp. If you don’t enjoy the environment then take a little personal responsibility and find a place that makes you happy.
Author, you aren’t an indentured servant to Basecamp. If you don’t enjoy the environment then take a little personal responsibility and find a place that makes you happy.
The author doesn't care about that, she wants to bully others into embracing her political/social believes.
Assuming she has skills and isn't a risk to companies, just walking away and offering her valuable skills to some other workplace that shares her believes and makes her happy, would not only reward workplaces that do what she wants, it would be better for herself and her cause.
She isn't a rational activist she's a bully. She doesn't want to take responsibility for herself.
This kind of reminds me of "victim blaming" issue of people advising woman to not walk unarmed and alone at night trough dark, dodgy paths: feminists tend to see this as an idealistic statement ("you, woman, are the bad one for not behaving correctly"). instead of an pragmatic one ("you, woman, should not do X because it is dangerous for you").
Understanding this as the 2nd interpretation and taking the advice would require taking personal responsibility. They don't do that, they think in terms of how the world should be (men should not rape women, therefor I should be able to walk this path without fearing for my safety, if I walk this path it's not my fault if something happens to me) instead of how the world is (men do rape women, therefor I am not able to walk this path safely, it is my responsibility to decide whether or not this is worth the risk to me).
Ps. don't conflate that is people who say this is how to world should be and women should be raped if walk trough the wrong street at the wrong time. That's a different thing.
Assuming she has skills and isn't a risk to companies, just walking away and offering her valuable skills to some other workplace that shares her believes and makes her happy, would not only reward workplaces that do what she wants, it would be better for herself and her cause.
She isn't a rational activist she's a bully. She doesn't want to take responsibility for herself.
This kind of reminds me of "victim blaming" issue of people advising woman to not walk unarmed and alone at night trough dark, dodgy paths: feminists tend to see this as an idealistic statement ("you, woman, are the bad one for not behaving correctly"). instead of an pragmatic one ("you, woman, should not do X because it is dangerous for you").
Understanding this as the 2nd interpretation and taking the advice would require taking personal responsibility. They don't do that, they think in terms of how the world should be (men should not rape women, therefor I should be able to walk this path without fearing for my safety, if I walk this path it's not my fault if something happens to me) instead of how the world is (men do rape women, therefor I am not able to walk this path safely, it is my responsibility to decide whether or not this is worth the risk to me).
Ps. don't conflate that is people who say this is how to world should be and women should be raped if walk trough the wrong street at the wrong time. That's a different thing.
What a confused rant. There might or might not be valid points buried in there, but it’s all too murky.
Regardless of one's personal opinion in this instance, the trend (if it is that) of companies explicitly stating their internal policies on politics in the workplace strikes me as a positive one. Clearly, some people want their work to be more than "just work". In a world where companies are explicit about their policies, those folks can find workplaces which better align with their values. And people who want work just to be work can do the same. After an initial period of adjustment, this seems like it could result in better outcomes for everyone involved.
I disagree. This ideological segregations sounds absolutely terrible and it reminds me of the racial segregation narrative which is being pushed on under the guise of providing "safe spaces".
I would prefer people in society to be able to handle a political discussion without freaking out, calling each other names, involving HR or burning buildings down.
I would prefer people in society to be able to handle a political discussion without freaking out, calling each other names, involving HR or burning buildings down.
> I would prefer people in society to be able to handle a political discussion without freaking out, calling each other names, involving HR or burning buildings down.
Most people can. What we're starting to hear out of Basecamp is that the people who couldn't handle it were DHH and Jason, not the employees: https://twitter.com/conormuirhead/status/1386890595902267394
Most people can. What we're starting to hear out of Basecamp is that the people who couldn't handle it were DHH and Jason, not the employees: https://twitter.com/conormuirhead/status/1386890595902267394
It may be the case that 1) the majority of Basecamp employees don’t want this level of political discussion at work and 2) the majority of Basecamp employees on Twitter do want it. Twitter skews young, Democratic, and more interested in politics compared to the broader population: https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2019/04/24/sizing-up-tw...
If there was any doubt Basecamp made the right call on this, it is long gone.
The political leanings of the author should not surprise anyone.
From https://janeyang.org/resisting/
> Racist capitalism is poison that has weakened every facet of society and been used to “justify” horrific crimes against humanity while destroying our planet. We need massive power and wealth distribution enshrined in national and international policies.
From https://janeyang.org/2021/04/13/im-getting-some-feedback/
> Guess who tends to beta spray? Men. White men, in particular.
From https://janeyang.org/2021/03/18/live-forward/
> If you are white or a man, especially a cis-gendered heterosexual able-bodied white man, do the fucking work. Learn about the characteristics of white supremacy, push through your discomfort, and reflect on how you show up in the spaces you have power. Be ready to apologize when you screw up (we all do!) and then do better. And whatever you do: do not demand that your friends or colleagues or employees or neighbors or acquaintances who belong to historically marginalized groups explain to you all the ways you perpetuate harm and how society got here. Pay an anti-oppression professional for training and coaching; don’t expect us to get you up to speed for free.
I understand why she's unhappy, but I bet most of her coworkers are thankful that Basecamp now discourages such discussions at work. I speak from experience when I say that dogmas (such as politics and religion) are poison for workplace productivity and happiness.
From https://janeyang.org/resisting/
> Racist capitalism is poison that has weakened every facet of society and been used to “justify” horrific crimes against humanity while destroying our planet. We need massive power and wealth distribution enshrined in national and international policies.
From https://janeyang.org/2021/04/13/im-getting-some-feedback/
> Guess who tends to beta spray? Men. White men, in particular.
From https://janeyang.org/2021/03/18/live-forward/
> If you are white or a man, especially a cis-gendered heterosexual able-bodied white man, do the fucking work. Learn about the characteristics of white supremacy, push through your discomfort, and reflect on how you show up in the spaces you have power. Be ready to apologize when you screw up (we all do!) and then do better. And whatever you do: do not demand that your friends or colleagues or employees or neighbors or acquaintances who belong to historically marginalized groups explain to you all the ways you perpetuate harm and how society got here. Pay an anti-oppression professional for training and coaching; don’t expect us to get you up to speed for free.
I understand why she's unhappy, but I bet most of her coworkers are thankful that Basecamp now discourages such discussions at work. I speak from experience when I say that dogmas (such as politics and religion) are poison for workplace productivity and happiness.
Anybody who writes this kind of letter is beyond salvaging as an employee. It's sad, but firing them is best for everyone.
> The whispers of how you had handled a prior company discussion when someone raised the able-ist language in the title of a recently published company book
Anyone happen to know what book?
Anyone happen to know what book?
The title of the book is It Doesn't Have to Be Crazy at Work.[1] At least one person criticized the title because "crazy" is apparently ableist.[2]
1. https://basecamp.com/books/calm
2. https://twitter.com/brianarn/status/976869383225081857
1. https://basecamp.com/books/calm
2. https://twitter.com/brianarn/status/976869383225081857
Just imagine how small your life has to be to object to the word "crazy" because it's "ableist". That kind of person is probably annoying when they're sitting alone and eating a muffin, let alone putting their thoughts on Twitter for the rest of us to be made dumber by.
Dang, this is how crazy it has become. Looks like you can't say any word at all without it being some -ist
Author sounds like a complete nightmare to work with.
I think all parties would be happier to part ways; no need to stay in a toxic relationship like that.
I think all parties would be happier to part ways; no need to stay in a toxic relationship like that.
>What would you say...you do here?
This post proves exactly why you don't bring politics into your workplace.
Even just mentioning banning politics in that letter brought tons of negative PR.
Even just mentioning banning politics in that letter brought tons of negative PR.
I wonder why this post would be flagged on HN, but the post from David and Jason is not.
If you personally have a problem with the boundary between legal and illegal content, it seems that that should be taken up in your individual capacity with the existing democratic political process, not via pressure to your boss/manager/CEO.