Hacker News Reader

Comment by stephsmithio | Hacker News Reader

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."

From my POV, they're taking a difficult stance to rid the workforce of the extreme forms of toxic distraction (which happens across the political spectrum and is pretty recognizable) and for the most part, doing exactly what you articulated: returning to reasonable adult conversations that 99% of people are capable of doing.

View on HN

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?)

- One of our new clients is a controversial group/business/etc, what should we do?

I could keep going for a while...it's difficult to avoid "politics".

These are partly strawman arguments too, especially since they've been careful to state it's not a zero tolerance policy. If you take this on good faith and assume the goal is to reduce dividiness rather than a hard-line ban on everything that anyone could ever construe as political (impossible in any case), it's pretty easy to come to a conclusion for each of your points and any future points you come up with.

> - Talking about unions, or pay equity (Might be illegal to ban either)

Would be illegal, strawman.

> - "Hey Jodie, my partner and I are marching in a Gay pride parade this weekend, wanna come?" (Is that political at Basecamp?)is- this is something they'd have to decide, however it should be framed as "we're going to <political event> this weekend, want to join?". On the other hand, if they're incorporated in a place where being gay and gay marriage is fully legal, I don't think gay pride can be considered political any more than independence day, in which case, of course it would be allowed. Someone responding by saying "ugh, gay people make me sick", OTOH, should be censored under this rule.

> - Some ex-military employees form an informal group to welcome and mentor new employees coming out of the military. (Is that political?)

- not political, however, if someone responds by saying "ugh, I hate the military, you guys are terrible", that would be political and they should be warned to simmer down (I say this as someone who does dislike the military - but I don't think that gives me the right to say nasty things to people who have escaped and are trying to move on).

> - One of our new clients is a controversial group/business/etc, what should we do?

This is a business decision and should be discussed in that context. It probably shouldn't get discussed in the casual slack channel regardless of this rule.

Try examining this post again but in good faith rather than trying to poke petty holes in it - by which I mean, assume that they are trying to reduce division in their company instead of assuming their end goal is censorship.

If course, maybe it will turn out to be a bad thing in the end. But I don't think we'll reach that conclusion by listing minor problems with it.

> Try examining this post again but in good faith rather than trying to poke petty holes in it

Ironically, I think you are not taking tyingq's comments in good faith.

It is fine if you think tyingq's points are straw men, but it does not mean that everyone agrees with you. It doesn't mean that someone with a different POV is being "petty" or not acting in good faith.

I found the discussion between the two of you useful, but I don't think it was helpful for you (all considered) to question tyingq's intentions.

> "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.

The whataboutism is the precisely the issue.

No actual union will encourage or allow union business on company forums, for example. If you want to talk to Jodie about marching in a parade, give her a call or message her offline.

I’ve worked for employers where it is illegal to discuss politics with their systems. Honestly, it made for a great work environment... I don’t need to know or care whether you’re a Baptist minister, a drag queen or both in your spare time. I just need to work with you.

It's not "whataboutism". I was genuinely curious what they meant. "Political" means different things to different people. I'm also curious if it's just the forums. I don't know if they are 100% remote, all the time, etc.

I should have worded that differently.

Work isn't college. Once you get beyond a certain size, by making a public debate and exploration of stuff that isn't work a thing, you're going to go down rabbit holes that probably aren't particularly healthy for the organization. That's where the whataboutism comes in.

My personal preference is for my colleagues to behave in a manner of mutual respect. I get to know my immediate colleagues and folks I work with, but I don't see any value in anything beyond that. The company should treat you with dignity and respect, but I don't care or need to know that some person on the other side of the ocean is a non-binary veteran dealing with whatever.

If a person's conduct is inappropriate, that's an entirely different matter.

> That's where the whataboutism comes in.

I'm not following your use of the word. I think we may have different ideas about what it means.

From Wikipedia:

> Whataboutism, also known as whataboutery, is a variant of the tu quoque logical fallacy that attempts to discredit an opponent's position by charging them with hypocrisy without directly refuting or disproving their argument.[1][2][3]

Where did tyingq say someone else was a hypocrite? They didn't.

I'll read feedback in the form of comments. Indirect feedback by way of the down arrow will have no effect whatsoever on my views. So, if you want to persuade, use your words.

FWIW, I don't see a down arrow; it's a minus sign. (Or a hyphen, but the minus makes more sense to me in this context.)

You do not have enough karma for the ability to downvote, hence the down arrow is disabled for you.

Aha, thanks!

> Some ex-military employees form an informal group to welcome and mentor new employees coming out of the military. (Is that political?)

Veteran here. Yes it is. It's identity politics, especially in hyper liberal areas. I'll express some thoughts I have around this.

Some veterans, especially campaign veterans which are a protected class, will struggle when being introduced to the workforce. When I got out, shortly after a year long stint in Afghanistan and subsequently more combat training, I was given a class called SEPS & TAPS. TAPS is an acronym here, but let me remind you foremost of what "taps" is.

Taps is the bugle song played every night at base. When taps plays you are under military order to stand at attention and salute the flag. Taps is a reminder of those who lost or sacrificed their lives that day. It is a daily reminder that your choices are often dangerous ones much less ones that don't just involve your life. For that minute, you are relegated to appreciating their sacrifices in utter silence.

In my course (SEPS & TAPS) the first power point we received covered a page filled with telemetry data about Marines you didn't want to be. The drunk, the drug user, the domestic abuser, the college drop out, the person with anger problems. I wish I had screenshot this slide because words cannot capture how uphill that battle would seem. When I finally did get out, I realized why all these shocking statistics make sense. I've heard people talk about "hero worship" and I'm from the South where veterans have a decent reputation. Where Southerners probably do give a lot of credence to the military because most of the military is generational servitude from the Midwest and the South, likely due to a perceived lack of opportunity in many areas. Hero worship is little more than lip service to veterans though. The real substantive outcome of me getting out was watching all my friends lives reset, facing a lack of opportunity (again), and more bills, pressures, and externalities like school all while trying to return to being a normal human being. It was immense and for a time my life would fall apart in one way while bounding forward in another. It felt like I was literally Flubber, and it was killing me.

If you've followed my posts on this forum life is okay now. But I can see why veterans may need a group at work where they can be veterans or talk about issues. What I don't agree with is if these groups tried to influence the work force. I wouldn't agree with them sending out lecturing messages about veterans or memorial day, even if they're right. I wouldn't be comfortable with them making statements for the veteran community. I wouldn't be okay if they set hiring parameters on top of what is required by law.

I also understand there are people who hate veterans. Some people at work I actively ensure that I don't bring up being a veteran, that I'm particularly good at marksmanship, that I've been to Afghanistan (or any sub-experiences thereafter). No amount of advocacy that a veterans group can do will change that person's mind. I cannot overcome people who equate military service with fascism, nationalism, or even the train of thought that leads people to believe all or most veterans are conservative. I can't fix a broken mind like that; only personal experiences that challenge the thinkers opinions will, which means likely, one day, some veteran will be on the other end of that. Maybe someone like me who can listen to a dissenting view that feels dehumanizing, but maybe not. That's just the way personal growth goes; thinkers don't really plan on who or how their minds will eventually be changed. I accept that reality as a fact of life. I embrace it to some degree and actively work to avoid it in another.

So, is that group political? Yes, but there are things they can choose to do that are decidedly more political and that is where you'll get disagreeance from me as a member of said group.

Part of the problem is that no, we do not know what they are referring to. Lots of murky lines, lots of people with bad experiences that what for them is essential is considered over lines, worry that it'll be used to silence internal discussion of things the company does, ... (and of course if you impose it on a company used to something different, it's potentially a massive culture shift)

The "you can take it to private channels" can play out either way I guess: it can be a completely valid replacement of using company channels, but it is an additional hurdle if you have no signals to go by who to talk to. And if you actually have a problem with work channels getting out of hand, I feel like it's a gamble to hope it works better in the dark.

If my employer told us we had to move the more social/less technical chat channels outside of company infrastructure, I'm not sure that'd be better overall. And sort of odd to go with each new hire "oh and btw there's this second chat without the bosses, come join".

Blacklist/whitelist, main vs master, is there a bias in promoting women, what are the rules for dating a colleague, is an anti-bias training needed are all topics that are divisive, though some of them are easy to solve (David has strong opinions for naming variables, remote working solves the dating problem and no peer reviews means that less talk needs to be done about promotions).

>remote working solves the dating problem

if only.

May I ask your basis for saying these are the issues at hand at Basecamp? Are you a current or former employee? Heard these things firsthand or secondhand?

Okay, come up with a company policy for those (and if people feel strongly about it you probably want to know rather than have them just bitch in private about it), and if people get obnoxious about it do something about that. Instead of leaving your gay employee wondering if she needs to ask permission to mention getting married because that would be bringing up a "societal or political topic" (or to pick an example from elsewhere in the thread, if someone can mention that they went on a hunting trip on the weekend).

These kind of blanket no politics policies are typically direct responses to obnoxious behavior. I don't think we know the story at Basecamp yet, but when it happened at Coinbase, it was in response to a vocal segment of employees who demanded that the company publicly recite the slogan of a political movement they supported.

> We all know what types of discourse Jason and David are referring to

Do we? For any potential example I could think of, you’re telling anyone who is directly affected by or cares deeply about that example that their concern is not one of the political issues acceptable to discuss, but rather one of those types that we all know can’t be discussed.

If these topics are really that obvious to everyone then they should be written down (because it definitely isn't to me). On the contrary, they are pretty explicit about not allowing ANY discussion "remotely related to politics, advocacy, or society".

Now that I think about it, banning some kinds of political talk (discussing pay disparity, forming a union) is probably illegal.

I actually do not know what types of discourse they're referring to. Can you specify?

Presumably the more toxic and censorious forms of social justice activism.

Is anyone able to actually articulate an example of a political or societal topic that is supposedly obviously of the type that shouldn’t be discussed at work?

Sure - the USA Government wants to sign a deal to buy your software. But a group of people start a divisive email thread on how the USA Gov is a racist, white supremacist, sexist, imperialist government and the company should boycott them.

Or that Israel wants to sign a deal but a thread is started that we should boycott and divest from the the Zionist murderers of Palestine.

Or the Republican Party wants to sign a deal - where do we start?! Oh boy. Best keep that contract under wraps!

Or a police department wants to sign a deal but a thread launches that is certain that police are racist and doing a deal with them is harmful to PoC, etc. They must be defunded.

Or China wants to sign a deal but <fill in the blank>

Or Planned Parenthood wants to sign a deal but they murder babies.

Or the lol Catholic Church signs a deal lol....

Outside of business deals - “the company must take a position with BLM or else it is supports racism”.

Or “the leadership needs more X”

Or whatever. There’s no end to this and there’s no ends to the examples.

HERE IS WHY THIS IS GOOD POLICY: At some point, there is a good chance a reactionary party will take office. It will be charismatic and leverage done overreach on the left. It will feel empowering for a large group of people to be heard and the media, as they always do eventually, will fall in line with the reactionaries. This will not be good. And suddenly open discussion on “what’s right to do politically” will be awful. We need to stop that from happening. But the longer a small group of far left bullies dictates “née norms” the more good people will stay silent until the day that charismatic leader comes into view. Trump was not that leader and still got 70m votes. Someone that is an actual reactionary and not just a buffoon will come up and will seem like a good idea to a lot of people. And if the norm is that popular political opinion should be infused into everything then good luck.

I appreciate that you provided a lot of examples. For each example, I’m wondering if you think it shouldn’t be discussed because the debate itself isn’t important to the company (e.g. “it doesn’t matter whether the US government is a white supremacist government, we are doing this deal with them either way”), or because the company has taken a stance on the debate (e.g. “the US government is not a white supremacist government, and we are doing this deal with them”).

If your reason is the former, I’m curious how far you would take that. Is there any conceivable case where the company should not do business with some organization or government because of political issues? And if your reason is the latter, then shouldn’t the company try to be upfront (at least internally among employees) where it stands on these issues?

I believe it is up to the share holders and that’s it. If the share holders don’t want to do business with a certain group of people, it is their prerogative. They can vote. Employees can quit.

And yes I don’t think the debate is relevant to a business organization. The elected government decides who business can be and which business can be conducted. If you don’t like it then by all means, petition your representatives. But please do it on your own time.

You can do business with the Catholic Church and Planned Parenthood. If you’re keen to then use your earnings to crush one org or the other.

Ahh, love to ban "censorious" social justice activism.

Discourse can only be had when one is open to listening to individuals different viewpoints and accepting differences. Unlike individualistic ideologies social justice define a person by a constantly expanding set of politically motivated unchosen groups organized as “oppressor” and “oppressed”, and it is actively opposed to discourse as it sees that as a mechanism for the powerful/dominant group to assert power over the less powerful group in a zero sum game.

I think its pretty clear at this point that social justice in the workplace lead to more conflict and resentment than its worth. It also makes excellent people doubt if they were hired due to a quota or because of expertise (or the reverse for other groups).

Yeah. Notice how the free speech absolutists are nowhere to be found here.

Pretty sure the free speech absolutists would say that private companies can have whatever rules they like on their platform.

Would, but aren't. Kind of curious in and of itself; usually they not only would but also are.

Not sure I share the frame of reference I get the impression you're assuming we have in common. What do you mean?

I honestly don't know what types of discussions they are referring to. I obviously know some of what is included, but I certainly don't know what the limits are.

See https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26949792

Someone else (and me too) had the same question

I don’t think it is a straw man. They say “remotely related to politics, advocacy, or society”, I can’t think of many things that are not remotely related to these or quickly can turn into them. So it does seem to be restricted to work and the smallest of small talk. Which is fine to me. Those kind of discussions pre-WFH I had during breaks and after work activities with co workers. So now it is just trough other channels than the main company communication one.

Do we "all know" what they're talking about? it sounds like they don't even know. What they want is not to have to deal with society while making products for society. This will lead to a employee base of purely wealthy white guys, which is clearly what they want

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.

Plus I doubt anybody will get in trouble for having a lunchtime video chat with a coworker and talking politics.

Do we all know? I don't. I have no idea. Is it cool for me to talk about housing markets? About markets in the abstract? About marijuana markets despite it being illegal where I live? About policies in other states that differ from mine, like marijuana policies?

There's no reasonable line, because unless you're stupid as can be, politics isn't some abstract thing that happens over there; it's a thing that happens everyday in your life.

I'm immensely disappointed in DHH for this take.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com