Hacker News Reader

Comment by mark_l_watson | Hacker News Reader

I have a different take on this, different than most comments here: I think that the founders/owners knew what they were doing based on reading their book and lightly following them. I have never been a customer.

I know that I am just guessing, but they might have been making the lifestyle decision that they wanted a smaller and more focused company that was more joyful to manage/run. Also, I have some sympathy for a “no politics” guideline for two reasons: no one should be allowed to say or do anything at work that makes anyone uncomfortable in a personal way; no one should really care much about other peoples’ politics. Life is about so much more than politics. I am judgmental, but I judge people on how well they treat other people and by how much effort they make improving the world (understanding that people have different natural abilities).

View on HN

> no one should be allowed to say or do anything at work that makes anyone uncomfortable in a personal way;

Agreed. But frequently calling that out IS what is deemed "political" by the person who was "just expressing an opinion", and "i just have a different ideology from you"

> ; no one should really care much about other peoples’ politics.

Some people's politics is other people's human rights. Would you want to work with someone who you knew in their heart was racist and thought that people of your race were inherently less capable than their own. (Even if they believed you individually were okay)

But taking the conversation there -- that politics is about racism -- is exactly the kind of extremism we struggle with these days. For the most part, we should be able to co-exist across the political spectrum, but equating politics to something extreme, or having to bring up a false equivalency in conversation, keeps things heated.

Politics isn't about racism.

Politics isn't ONLY about racism.

Politics isn't ONLY about NOT racism.

If you ban politics, you also ban politics about racism.

But if politics was about whether the city should spend a budget surplus on a sidewalk upgrade or a new park bench, then nobody would even think about banning those discussions.

So when you ban politics, you ban politics about racism. Because those are the controversial ones.

And less abstractly, more concretely, about the basecamp situation, the politics that led to this ban were explicitly politics about racism.

Gun control. Abortion. Climate change. Drugs. The death penalty.

Racism isn't the only controversial political topic out there.

I’m trans and disabled, and I’d rather work with someone who thinks people like me shouldn’t exist but keeps their mouth shut about it at work than someone who thinks work is a great place to debate hot-button trans issues. Of course, other marginalized people may feel differently.

Do you think your opinion is the common one in others like you? Or do you think you're an outlier?

I think it’s hard to tell; people like me tend to not be heard a lot in these kinds of conversations. But I feel like there are enough of us that it’s better to exercise caution and specifically carve out opt-in spaces for political discussion if you really want them to exist — marginalized people often have a lot of trauma related to their marginalization and it’s easy to inadvertently hurt people with careless political discussion.

It's a very common opinion amongst Asians, speaking as one who knows many who agree. Work is work.

What if your company built a feature or product that inadvertently discriminated against trans or disabled people? Would you want someone to advocate for those groups? Would that discussion be deemed political?

What's an example of a product that would inadvertently discriminate against trans people?

What does it mean to inadvertently discriminate?

As an example, a lot of websites drop support for IE. If the makeup of IE users affected by it over-indexed on any particular type of race/gender/class/sexual orientation, would you classify that as inadvertent discrimination?

If a first version of a new website/product wasn't built to be perfectly compatible with accessibility standards, are they inadvertently discriminating against those with disabilities?

Are software bugs that may not be equally felt by all users an example of inadvertent discrimination?

Is the only way to not inadvertently discriminate to ensure products are built to be optimized for every single human and use case? Every edge case needs to be solved for before launch?

Not necessarily trans people. But there are plenty of tech products that inadvertently discriminated against Black people because of bad training data. The best known case is Google’s AI recognizing Black people as “gorillas”.

To this day, our home security system sometimes recognizes my big Black stepson as an “animal.”

Facial recognition that was used by law enforcement, mis recognized minorities far more than Whites.

If we're using that example of inadvertent discrimination, I think it's certainly feasible to have non-political discussion around improving it.

What you described sounds like a product flaw. Customers/users won't want to use a product that delivers sub-optimal results. Any internal employee saying "hey, we have an error rate of X% for this Y segment, and they represent Z% of the user base" isn't engaging in controversial political discussion (in my opinion).

However, if an individual chose to describe this flaw in more loaded language, it could easily turn political and combative for the team.

> What you described sounds like a product flaw.

It would never have shipped with a product flaw that frequently caused it to classify white people as something insulting.

'Never' is a strong word and doing a lot of work here, and I don't think the counterfactual can be proved one way or another.

I do think your comment here, with an unprovable statement about an immutable characteristic, stated with absolute certainty, would invite toxic political discussions.

Speaking with humility, and honestly trying to improve processes to yield better results, is the type of communication that I advocate for on teams I'm involved with.

There is speaking with humility, then there is just being downright, purposefully naive.

Of course they never would have shipped it if it didn't recognize white faces. And the big isn't in the software, the bug is that the companies producing this stuff don't have a single solitary person of color either working on the product or testing it that would have certainly noticed that it doesn't work on them or said they were an animal, etc.

If the “customers” were law enforcement - who already racially profile on the flimsiest of excuses - that might be seen as a feature not a bug.

If AI/ML says someone “fits the description” what better feature than being able to blame it on the computer? If law enforcement was willing to deal with the flaw, and if tech companies were willing to sell it to them, what’s to stop an unscrupulous company from continuing to sell it if they didn’t get push back?

> As an example, a lot of websites drop support for IE. If the makeup of IE users affected by it over-indexed on any particular type of race/gender/class/sexual orientation, would you classify that as inadvertent discrimination?

It's likely that until recently (maybe), that IE users were more likely to use JAWS and accessibility tools than other groups, especially if they couldn't afford upgrades to newer releases of JAWS or were stuck on enterprise computers.

> If a first version of a new website/product wasn't built to be perfectly compatible with accessibility standards, are they inadvertently discriminating against those with disabilities?

Yes, if the site is inaccessible. That said it's harder to claim that a game designed for a touch screen is inaccessible and discriminates against accessible users who prefer keyboards, perhaps, due to the hardware they use. The game might work better on a touch screen, like Fruit Ninja and might be very hard to replicate without a touch screen.

> Software bugs that may not be equally felt

Maybe. If the bug was a recent introduction of a non-binary gender field and only those with non-binary genders were affected, it could be considered inadvertent discrimination. It can also be considered a bug. Its severity depends on how long the bug remains in the system. If it's pushing a year, that's more likely discrimination in addition to poor QA practices and a likely inability to listen to user feedback.

> Is the only way to not inadvertently discriminate to ensure products are built to be optimized for every single human and use case? Every edge case needs to be solved for before launch?

I think we need to keep in mind that just because something could be discrimination doesn't mean we can't forgive and move on. Mistakes are a fact of life, and nothing's perfect. That doesn't mean we shouldn't try to aim for shipping fewer bugs, it means when we can, we fix the bugs, we listen to users, etc. It's very possible that one user's perfect app will in fact be completely wrong for another user, so pleasing everyone is impossible. It's why ergonomics has been so hard, humans aren't all the same height, etc.

Sometimes you need settings for users to adjust software to suit their preferences, such as font size. And sometimes you make font size part of the game, and it's not adjustable. If allowable under law, being inaccessible can be a choice, or it can be inadvertent. It's true some folks can get really worked up on a topic they care deeply about. It's also true that it's just software, and new software will come along eventually with different features that may please some audiences more. Or less. It all depends. :)

[Edit: Didn't see that you started answering my last question before I wrote this, about the operational implications of trying to eliminate everything that could be considered inadvertent discrimination. Going to just leave this comment as is, as I do think the utilitarian/deontological thinking about product development processes is an interesting quandary in today's climate :) ]

Given this thinking about inadvertent discrimination, and that the word 'discrimination' is very much coded as a 'bad' thing, what should be done about it?

Should any website/product that launches without being perfectly operable for every single user be sanctioned in some way? If not, aren't we supporting inadvertent discrimination? Isn't any allowance of inadvertent discrimination a bad thing?

Should there be some sort of utilitarian calculation with it? Or is it strictly a deontological thing? There can be no discrimination, therefore, we must not allow or we should disincentivize product development processes which release versions before they are equally workable for everyone?

I'd also point out that organizations can have incentives align with accessibility and inclusion rather than discrimination, accidental or otherwise.

For example, having a textual version of a video or image makes your page more optimized for basic search engines.

Now, of course, the same incentives could lead to dark patterns, lack of privacy, or even dividing people further, perhaps becoming a platform for divisiveness.

Personally, I think that we can identify and mark certain dark patterns as illegal, outright. We can encourage plugins and browser settings to enhance privacy. The hardest question is how much we need everything to be perfectly accessible and to not cause further discrimination or harm. That last one is difficult. I think ultimately the best answer we have is to classify some bad actors like we would dark patterns. This forum is an example of how rules and community can lead to better civil discourse online, but it's not necessarily as diverse as it could be due to those same rules. I think there will always be an unregulated middle ground where no one takes responsibility until they (a) have to and (b) understand how to, and that's especially true of government services at local and regional levels.

When I can, I try to point out “hey, we need to caption this” or “hey, I’m not sure this is accessible to visually impaired users” or “uh, these gender options suck”. Probably wouldn’t bring up my personal identity unless it was somehow relevant, which it rarely is in these kinds of discussions. I think it would be inappropriate to have a discussion about broader politics (“hey, what do you guys think of the bathroom bill?”) in this context — the thing that personally drives me up the wall is water-cooler conversation about politics like it’s a sport, when it’s unrelated to the product or the company.

What about the risk that, if they are/become your manager or senior manager, then you might "inexplicably" never get the promotion you deserved?

Would you rather have known about that risk early, or after a few years of not getting promoted?

No policy in the world can make up for bad management.

I think you’re right that this is one of the biggest downsides. It’s possible to feel people out by how they react if I point out discrimination in the product, and if that goes badly I might consider leaving the company before discrimination against me becomes a problem. But I would also say that most of the discrimination I’ve experienced is not really overt enough to be a good early warning system. At some point it becomes irrelevant to wonder “am I not getting promoted because I have X marginalization, or is my work actually not great, or does this person just dislike me specifically for no reason”; better, in my experience, to consider it one of life’s mysteries and try to find a new job.

This (among other reasons) is why I quit a previous job.

The head of the department would often use politics as small talk leading up to meetings while waiting for everyone to show up.

There was literally no safe way to engage in the conversation- disagree, and you paint a target on your back today, agree and have a target painted on your back tomorrow when someone else is in charge (not to mention alienating people who might currently be on your team).

Do you insist that your coworkers adhere to gender etiquette rules imposed by the trans community? Bathroom assignments? Etc.?

No, mostly because I’m fairly conflict-averse :)

If my coworkers misgender me and aren’t amenable to correction, or otherwise overtly discriminate against me, I’m much more likely to quit and go elsewhere than to fight it.

"Gender etiquette rules imposed by the trans community" sure is a way to frame basic respect for other human beings' dignity.

I'm a minority who has worked with people like that in the past, and I'll never do it again.

> Would you want to work with someone who you knew in their heart was racist and thought that people of your race were inherently less capable than their own. (Even if they believed you individually were okay)

This sound frighteningly religious. Here you are trying to read people's hearts and refusing to work with them.

It is this Manichean us versus them and not just judging actions but trying to look at a person's heart that has turned up the heat of discourse and is tearing our country apart.

Not at all. It was an imprecise choice of phrasing, I'm not saying you should be trying to guess what their thoughts are. I'm saying if that coworker revealed that information directly.

Personally yes, because I’m an optimist and I believe people can change for the better and one way that could happen is through civil and professional working relationships.

I agree it’s not a comfortable situation and specific circumstances can trump a generalisation, but it’s not impossible that I could tolerate that sort of situation and in fact people do it al, the time. How many of us have worked at places where everyone knew there was one guy who was a misogynist but plenty of women there put up with it?

For me it’s about the actual behaviour. I can’t police what people think or believe, nobody really can in truth, but we can expect basic standards of behaviour.

> Would you want to work with someone who you knew in their heart was racist and thought that people of your race were inherently less capable than their own.

I’m not able to know someone’s heart, so if I reached this conclusion I would abort out due to faulty logic.

Also, I don’t really want to know Karen in accounting’s heart, even if it’s awesome. I’d rather just be professional and not know.

Reading the experience in base camp equating this with genocide, hr complaints, etc it seems people were really convinced of things. But they seem really wrong to me. But they acted on it. Having such certainty is foolish.

I’d rather not try to adjust my workplace based on people’s hearts and would rather risk working with people who secretly, racistly hate me than to try to vet people at this level.

> Would you want to work with someone who you knew in their heart was racist and thought that people of your race were inherently less capable than their own.

In Judaism there’s a tolerance for people that are orthoprax (right behavior) even if in their heart of hearts they are not orthodox (right beliefs).

Despite the increasing percentage of non-believers, America is culturally deeply Protestant and so we don’t allow this sort of thing. But I think we might be better off if we did.

I have heard that regarding judaism referenced at similarly high level frequently over the years. What is a reasonably accessible way one might learn more?

Unfortunately, I can’t think of anything. I grew up not-quite-orthodox (in a stream of Judaism that doesn’t really exist anymore) and that provided a, in retrospect, very interesting slightly outsider vantage point.

>America is culturally deeply Protestant //

Could you highlight some of the characteristics that you consider go along with this.

"Deeply protestant" to me brings to mind the Quaker (a Protestant denomination) Cadbury & Fry chocolate companies. They did things like build municipal buildings, housing, schools. Fry family members addressed prison reform (Elizabeth Fry) and studied and acted to counter poverty and it's causes, for example. They reduced working hours too!

Sure, it was paternalistic, and they grew wealthy from their employees, but it seems they acted benevolently and genuinely tried to make a difference in their communities and for their workers.

https://medium.com/@cafonline/meet-the-philanthropists-sweet... gives a brief view.

What we hear of USA this side of the pond and these sorts of attributes don't seem to mesh.

America is much more informed by evangelical Protestantism, rather than Quakerism and other non-conformists, and deeply influenced by "sola scriptura" (which directly conflicts with Anglican and Methodist theologies). In the US evangelical and non-denominational Christian theologies generally posit that accepting Christ as your personal Savior (and the sole source of salvation) is all that is necessary to be saved (and Christian). Individual affirmation of a series of propositional statements is necessary and sufficient to fulfill your duties as a Christian. (This contrasts quite a bit with Quakerism, which is primarily experiential and focuses on discerning God's will and turning it into action in community). Orthodoxy is the primary measure of Christianity in the US. Any action can be forgiven as long as you say the right words.

Thank you for this... I've struggled for a while to sum up what I think is wrong with the dominant US form of Christianity, and this hits the nail on the head.

> "sola scriptura" (which directly conflicts with Anglican and Methodist theologies) //

This seems like a misconstrual to me. Anglican and Methodist orthodoxy still has prima scripturum, which is only a very nuanced difference to sola scripturum; both in theory reject influences that are incompatible with scripture as the principle authority.

> In the US evangelical and non-denominational Christian theologies generally posit that accepting Christ as your personal Savior (and the sole source of salvation) is all that is necessary to be saved (and Christian). //

This is not what sola sciptura is about. This is absolutely orthodox in all mainstream Christian denominations, that faith alone is necessary for salvation. Either group would consider the NT's exortations such as "what then shall we go on sinning?" (St.Paul) or "faith without works is dead" (James-the-Lesser) as primary teachings.

I'd actually consider that things are the reverse of your suggestion, that [USA/Western] evangelicals have strayed away from the Scriptures as a principle source of inspiration and instead rely on the characters of leaders and on self-help style influences that don't match well with the revelation of Jesus in the NT. Certainly it only takes 1hr of reading NT to find that being financially wealthy is contradictory to Christianity - not impossible to get to heaven and be rich, but er, maybe as hard as getting an obstinate camel through a tiny gate!?! Prosperity gospel, bah!

As a woman I would far rather work for a guy who thinks women should stay at home but keeps his opinions to himself and his family and treats me fairly than I would work for a guy who can quote Steinem and Lorde and hooks but throws me under the bus. Have essentially done both. My personal motto has been "Your beliefs are not a problem for me unless you make them my problem." Orthopraxy all the way.

Outcomes are the evidence. I am not interested in your or your company's social media statements. I'm interested in whether people who are underrepresented in the field can succeed at your company and whether you treat people like me fairly. This is obvious self-interest on my part, just like engaging in paid labor in the first place.

"People leave managers, not companies." I think this is the most appropriate cliche to apply to the Basecamp story.

> As a woman I would far rather work for a guy who thinks women should stay at home but keeps his opinions to himself and his family and treats me fairly

Do you actually expect someone with those views to treat you fairly, though? I mean, I'm sure it's not impossible that this guy could leave his opinions at the door and fairly evaluate your performance, and evaluate you for promotion. But I certainly wouldn't expect that to be the case. You claim to have had such a manager once, so I won't deny your experience, but I doubt your experience is typical in that sort of situation.

> Outcomes are the evidence.

Yes! This is something I wish more people would focus on. Outcomes are what matter. That doesn't mean the ends justify the means, but it does mean that we should be taking actions not because they make us feel good (usually only temporarily), but because they are likely to give us the best outcomes.

Regardless, I really don't think most women are going to experience great outcomes with a misogynist boss.

> Would you want to work with someone who you knew in their heart was racist and thought that people of your race were inherently less capable than their own.

Ideally, you wouldn't even know this was the case.

How is that an ideal? What if this person gets promoted and ends up being your boss, and you keep getting passed up again and again for promotion before finally learning the real reason: your boss keeps tearing you down in promotion meetings because he's racist?

Wouldn't you want to know ahead of time? That way you'd know what to expect, and could make plans to switch teams or find a new job.

So you think there should be some sort of survey where you get to judge a persons morality and personal beliefs even if they have no want in sharing them with you - just so you can feel comfortable about there being a CHANCE you might get passed over for something and that the reason for the MIGHT be because they have some sort of bias against you?

When someone says ideally you wouldn't know it's because unless you and I are personally close ideally you wouldn't know any of my personal beliefs / views on morality or politics. They aren't any of your business and I shouldn't want / nor need to explain them to you.

I think eating a lot of red meat is one of the greatest moral problems in our society today from climate change, factory farming, and habitat destruction.

I don’t think I should be haranguing people at work about it.

You’re invited to a work dinner that only has meat on the menu. Do you bring up the lack of a vegetarian option? Or should you shut up and not eat anything (or skip the social event) because colleagues know you’re a vegetarian and you don’t want to be perceived as haranguing people at work about it?

I once had a job where I’d just signed the offer and was invited to their team dinner before my official start date. It was at a restaurant that only served chicken that you were supposed to eat with rubber gloves (I have no idea what that was about). It was uncomfortable to realize that I stood out like a sore thumb even before I’d started just because of a dietary preference. It had never occurred to the managers that a regular-looking man who joins their team might not eat meat.

Well, I was invited, shortly after starting a new job, to a restaurant that I couldn't afford. So I said, I'm sorry I can't go, and that was that. Definitely a very awkward way to start as it was from their point of view a welcoming meal.

I can't quite tell, did you go to the chicken place? Have things improved?

I did go because I hadn’t realized it was a weird chicken place until I got there and was offered the rubber gloves.

I left that job after six months. The four male founders turned out to be old buddies who wanted everyone in their little club to be exactly like them but with a deference to their incredible competence as employers. Maybe I’ve been unlucky, but I have the impression that small business tech jobs mostly suck. (Basecamp has a bit of that vibe, to be honest.)

They weren’t going to pay for you?

That’s not what I mean. When I see coworkers eating red meat on a regular basis, I believe they are committing a grave moral injustice. I do not believe that the work place is the right place to push them on that issue.

I can see why that's not a nice feeling but honestly, if you realize this is pretty much an alternative lifestyle, then it should be completely fine when told: "hey there's a team dinner", to mention the fact that you are meat-free.

What's wrong: if they decide to not care about that. What's right: they accommodate your dietary preferences.

Don't think you should put the burden on other people to consider these kinds of things beforehand.

It's great if they do, but it's not an issue if they don't.

I also eat fish on occasion. It’s extremely rare a restaurant has nothing for me.

Which is the alternative lifestyle, mine or the one where everyone at a company eats chicken with rubber gloves?

Do you consider someone holding an opinion you find offensive to be a human right?

> no one should be allowed to say or do anything at work that makes anyone uncomfortable in a personal way;

I get that you mean very well with this statement. However, given a large and diverse enough group of people working together, it's practically impossible that NO ONE will never feel uncomfortable in different situations or interactions. Be it personally or professionally uncomfortable. Period.

Divide it into smaller groups.

If aiming for comfort 100% of the time is the highest value of a group of productive people, then they simply have the wrong goal to strive towards. And it won't be a very inclusive and accepting group either.

We would not be where we are today if it weren't for the people that put themselves in a very uncomfortable positions to talk about something and possibly offend a bunch of people along the way, or people who haven't backed down even when made uncomfortable and stood for whatever they believed in to make their point clear.

> no one should be allowed to say or do anything at work that makes anyone uncomfortable in a personal way; no one should really care much about other peoples’ politics. Life is about so much more than politics

While this sounds good in principle, there are still lots of people offended by others' personal choices and mere existence, and who do consider these political issues.

Examples:

https://twitter.com/JillWohlner/status/1386767595374850061

> As a gay woman, you tell me I can't have a 'political or societal conversation' and that sounds a lot like I can't talk about my wife at work. Bc being in a gay marriage is a f'ing political statement to people.

https://twitter.com/liatrisbian/status/1386774755286601728

> And as a non-binary person, telling me to not have political or societal conversation at work sends me the message that I should hide who I am and can’t have conversations around pronouns etc.

> In fact, I have been told to not have those political or societal conversations. Worded the exact same way as that basecamp post.

> You know what that lead to? Not daring to say a fucking word while being misgendered all the time.

Yep.

And on the other side of the spectrum, it's extremely uncomfortable to be a Baptist, work with a lot of left wing folks, and then get asked what you did last weekend.

It's not fair to expect everyone to be fully responsible for each others' feelings.

> Life is about so much more than politics.

I see this sentiment a lot, and I definitely understand the impulse especially in the current political climate. "Politics" is just the word we give for how humans interact at scale, to which we all have a vested interest. I'm somewhat surprised by people taking the attitude that the policies and power dynamics that will meaningfully impact their lives, just isn't that important.

Perhaps because in the US we have had a long period of relative internal stability, we get to have this luxury of going, "Let's not care about politics, life is more than that, it's my loved one's and hobbies and watching the sunset." But all the other bits of life that are more important than politics can only exist because of politics, because of the rules and policies and power structures we all agree to live under.

A general shying away from politics means that a smaller and smaller group of people get to decide the rules for everyone, and I just have a hard time believing that that will lead to good outcomes.

All that said, I do think that the workplace isn't a great environment to have those discussions, politics gets heated and it's hard to work with people when you've dredged up a bunch of big fundamental disagreements.

> no one should be allowed to say or do anything at work that makes anyone uncomfortable in a personal way;

This is a nice sentiment but ultimately meaningless. A rule or policy so broad that it could be applied to nearly any interaction, and one that doesn't look at the actions or intents of the person committing an "offense" but just says, "If someone became uncomfortable during an interaction, the other party is at fault." This type of broad unspecified rule just gives the rule-enforcers tremendous latitude to use it as they see fit.

> I judge people on how well they treat other people and by how much effort they make improving the world

I think there's a lot of politically engaged people that believe that through politics they can improve the world much more than through a single individual's actions. There's little I can do personally to improve the access to healthcare for my fellow citizens, but through political action fellow citizens could gain access to that. Many people would consider that an improvement.

That’s an optimistic view of politics. It seems more tribal, more like taking sides, more like sports. Politics these days, particularly in the west, particularly on the internet, has a real “you’re-with-us-or-against-us” component. I think that’s the thing people want to stay away from when they say they don’t want to care about politics.

Political discourse has become very tribal, but that doesn't mean that politics has left its role in society.

Politics sets the rules for what you can buy, what you can sell, what licensing you need, what forms you have to fill out, what taxes you have to pay, what actions lead to you losing your freedom, what actions lead to you losing your property, what actions lead to you losing your life.

Let's not conflate political discourse with politics.

I use the term “policy” for that. I love policy discussions, but I am not interested in politics.

Just a terminology difference I think, so we basically agree.

> Life is about so much more than politics

As someone who isn't from the US, it is very hard to comprehend.

There is a meme about Americans. You meet an American, and ten minutes later they are drilling you about politics. And I understand why US society is like this, I am familiar with US political history.

But it is very, very, very weird at a personal level. Like why do this? You are breaking a person's whole reality down to their politics...it doesn't seem like a good idea, it seems like the opposite of diversity or just accepting someone's humanity.

How recent is that meme? Politics has long been decisive in America, but it seems like only in the past 20 years has it become something people have been become forward and culturally tribal about. Does that impression hold up for non-Americans too?

The standard interpretation is that politics became more divisive in the mid-90s...but, imo, that doesn't hold merit.

Clinton worked with Republicans after he lost Congress. Obama worked with a Republican Congress. And you can go further back and point to someone like McGovern (or Goldwater on the other side) as reactionary/divisive candidates. You had Eisenhower Democrats and the like but there has always been a spectrum in both parties (and that is still the case today i.e. Manchin).

I think two things have changed. One, the media. Politics in the media is different from the practice of politics, the latter largely about compromise. Because of bandwidth of media/politics as entertainment, the fringes of both parties have become more extreme (it has gotten so bad, you wonder whether some politicians know they are actors anymore). Two, diversity. Countries that have diverse populations will always have divisive politics. The US system is the most robust in the world but it is moving towards problem territory (for example, the Democrats seem to have settled on always electing a man and woman for P/VP...this is basically the segregated politics you see in Lebanon or other places with fairly massive political issues, the "our turn to eat" politics is more common to Africa than the developed world).

My impression is heavily coloured by studying American history/politics for a long time. But other people I know just find American politics very weird...it is just very weird, everything is politicised...like Germany pre-Hitler.

> The standard interpretation is that politics became more divisive in the mid-90s

No, its not, at least not as a step-change, which is what you seem to be arguing against.

The common interpretation is that it began to get sharply more divisive over time starting in the mid-1990s, not that the current level of division established itself then.

> for example, the Democrats seem to have settled on always electing a man and woman for P/VP.

2 sequential nominations (2016, 2020) is a pretty weak basis for a conclusion of “always”.

> The common interpretation is that it began to get sharply more divisive over time starting in the mid-1990s, not that the current level of division established itself then.

I didn't say anything about the current level of division, or the quantum. I am not arguing against a step change either. Again, I said that people believe politics became more divisive in the mid-90s. I understand that people need to read things into the statements of others...there is nothing here (you are focusing on the least interesting part of the argument).

And the "always" came after "Democrats seem to have settled on". I did not say anything about what happened in the past, and did not use that evidence. My point was that Democrats have said a system of gender and racial selection will be used in the future. I did not imply that some Democrats have the power to bind every other decision in the future, but that some wanted to use the system in the future.

Simple points of comprehension here.

> I didn’t say anything about the current level of division, or the quantum. I am not arguing against a step change either.

The examples you used from the 1990s make no sense at all as an argument against a change starting in the 1990s resulting in the current situation, though they make some sense as an argument against a rapid step change in the 1990s. “Misdirected but coherent” was, I thought, the most generous interpretation.

> And the “always” came after “Democrats seem to have settled on”. I did not say anything about what happened in the past, and did not use that evidence.

So what is your argument based on? Pure fantasy?

> My point was that Democrats have said a system of gender and racial selection will be used in the future.

(1) That’s not what you claimed, you said they seemed to have settled on a fixed 1 woman + 1 man ticket for the President and Vice President, not “a system of gender and racial selection will be used in the future”.

(2) The Democrats have not, in fact, said that anything other than the votes of the delegates at the nominating convention, without gender or racial quotas, will be used in the future to select presidential and vice-presidential nominees, and, starting with the 2020 election cycle, changed the rules so that party insiders who might want to impose such a quota-based system would not be able to do so over the votes of the delegates whose votes are set by the primary and caucus system, because superdelegates were banned from first-round voting unless their votes could not effect the outcome. So, insofar as that claim which you did not state was what you intended, it is false.

> but it seems like only in the past 20 years has it become something people have been become forward and culturally tribal about.

It’s been about 20 years since the longest continuous period of partisan realignment (and thus absence of clear association of ideological groups with party labels) ended; since then, US culture has been reverting to the political tribalism that has been the historical norm (possibly toward a situation worse, in terms of daily life, than the historical norm, because historically there has been a much stronger geographic component to the tribal divide.)

The situation during the overlapping realignments triggered by the New Deal Coalition and Johnson’s support for Civil Rights was not a stable equilibrium.

You're never going to make a policy work that's goal is to "not make anyone uncomfortable". Politics aside, if you have an employee who is uncomfortable when it's warmer than 60F sharing an office with another employee who is uncomfortable when it's colder than 70F, bam, your HVAC policy is unworkable.

Back to opinions: There is a very wide range of topics that might be uncomfortable to any one person. You'd need to avoid the union set of all of those topics--which might mean you can say nothing at all!

I mean... yeah. That's been the prevailing culture in all the jobs I've had - when you're talking with your coworkers, your options are work or completely banal small talk ("sure is sunny today!"), unless you're in a small group you know well enough to be sure another topic won't make them uncomfortable.

> I think that the founders/owners knew what they were doing...

> ...they wanted a smaller and more focused company that was more joyful to manage/run.

I agree with you because the six month severance offer was so generous that it can only mean that they wanted a lot of people to take it. Also, if they found that they were losing too many people, then they would start offering people money NOT to take the severance offer. But that didn't happen. So, I have to conclude that the 1/3 headcount cut is intentional.

edit: I didn't realize this happened so fast. Now I think it may have been a misstep.

no one should be allowed to say or do anything at work that makes anyone uncomfortable in a personal way

I agree with this but plot twist: in a world where “silence is violence” you cannot choose to simply opt out.

If that's really their intent why not do a layoff round with a bigger severance package for 10-20 ppl to get back to 30 people, it would be less painful than this PR disaster?

All press is good press?

Purging overly political employees is probably illegal, so they made a policy then offered $ to voluntarily self select themselves out.

What an employer cannot ask at job interview, should not be discussed at the workplace

Eh. They can't ask your marital status, but keeping that secret your whole tenure would be silly. Same for medical history but it would be awkward to never mention a pregnancy that is obviously showing.

The list made people uncomfortable. How would you deal with that?

I'm kind of tired of the sanitization of work thing. Human beings are grimy, sweaty creatures. People make friends, people dislike other people, people speak with candor, people lie, people want to have sex with each other. "No being human at work" is ridiculous IMO. I value and understand the need for a professional environment, but it seems we are playing to the lowest common denominator and trying to create one size fits all rule sets to avoid overtly saying which problem we are trying to solve: that the politics of those people are toxic and they ruin everything they touch. You know what people I'm talking about. Everyone here knows what people I'm talking about. Why don't we just admit what's going on here and make the very specific rules we need to make to finally put a stop to it?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com