Comment by dbattaglia | Hacker News Reader

Comment by dbattaglia | Hacker News Reader

In fall 2008 I moved from Long Island to New Hampshire (for family reasons) and found a job in a small niche B2B shop doing C# Windows apps. On my first day of work, I notice the receptionist desk has a stack of McCain/Palin 2008 bumper stickers. The next couple of months were filled with employees talking non-stop about the election, from their deeply conservative point of view. Being quite progressive left-leaning this was pretty frustrating and distracting to listen to while I tried to just get some work done. They all seemed to believe Obama would send people to their door to take away their guns and assault rifles, and somehow also turn us into the Soviet Union.

The thing is, these weren't bad people. They took a chance on an self-taught programmer / art-school dropout in their late 20s with 1 year of professional experience, and they treated me well. When I moved back to New York (for other dramatic family reasons), the CEO offered for me to stay at their own house. I just didn't agree with their political opinions. I think for most folks working in tech hubs its just the other way around, where they are in a left-leaning bubble and its hard to imagine another POV. Coming from someone who was on the outside, I can say for me it was at best distracting and at worst alienating, and I can see why companies want to put an end to it.

I worked years ago in defense contracting, and remember being treated in a hostile fashion for admitting I was an Obama supporter.

Mostly good people, but super isolating when they would talk politics.

And I should note, that the pattern I noticed then and notice now with my mindlessly, tribally left colleagues who are mirror images of the right wing lemmings in defense: People who are really into politics at work are mediocre at best, borderline incompetent more often. Anecdotal of course, but I honestly don't think basecamp will be impacted badly by this months down the road.

I don't see a single standout amongst the folks leaving. Sorry.

“I don’t see a single standout among the folks leaving” (emphasis mine)

Considering that those folks include one of the Rails core contributors, the Head of Design, and the Head of Marketing, either:

A) you’re mistaken in your read

B) you’re not mistaken, and Basecamp made some massive hiring and staffing flaws including but not limited to who they put in leadership positions

I’m not saying which is which, just pointing out the limited possibilities.

Fair point on Rails core contrib.

I was definitely wrong on that.

LOL I take it you’re not a fan of design or marketing by this response? ;)

(Just having fun btw and not meaning to insult/offend)

Indeed.

I respect designers, but they can go too far (jony I've with the obsession with thinness). Basecamps business isn't at risk from that change.

Marketing: No comment.

What lots of people seem to be missing here is that this wasn't that sort of political discussion at all. It wasn't about Trump/Biden, or even policy issues. It was purely about internal actions of employees and leadership. There's a world of difference between presidential campaign posters behind reception, and discussions about the handling of a list of customers' names. The problem with jumping to blanket "no politics" rules is that it prevents any nuance. https://www.platformer.news/p/-what-really-happened-at-basec...

Pretty sure it was about politics, because some employees felt it was an identity politics issue and the list of funny names would lead directly to holocaust. DEI issues were also directly mentioned in the blog posts.

That's a pretty disingenuous reading of the meaning of the ADL pyramid of hate. All it says is that tolerating one level of discrimination makes the next level easier. So in this example, stereotyping makes it easier to ridicule.

That's the literal interpretation given by DHH in his blog, when describing what happened. Personally I don't see how it is wrong, it literally says "first step to genocide". In any case, discussing whether it leads to genocide or not is clearly about political beliefs.

Yes, and DHH's interpretation is completely uncharitable and naive, and I don't know why you are buying into it.

The ADL's goal is to fight anti-semitism. The Holocaust opened some people's eyes about their anti-semitism and look to a new path. But in others it simply enabled and licensed their own prejudices because it allowed them to think "Well whatever I think/say/do isn't THAT bad."

The ADL's pyramid shows that genocide doesn't happen overnight with the snap of the fingers. Each incremental step is minor and ignorable. But it starts with stereotyping and biased attitudes.

I don't understand what point you are trying to make. Your last sentence seems to indicate that you believe the funny names list was a step towards genocide. Yet at the same time you say DHH's interpretation was uncharitable? You literally say exactly what DHH claims was said.

I don't know what the ADL is, but your belief in their theory is actually a political stance. It's not physics, it is a convoluted complex theory that can not be verified. Believing in it is "being on a side".

You're absolutely right, it is politics. Politics is all there is for discussions of subjects of humans interacting in groups. That's the definition ("Politics is the set of activities that are associated with making decisions in groups, or other forms of power relations between individuals, such as the distribution of resources or status.")

By that bar, no discussion of genocide, systemic discrimination, or individual prejudices can ever occur in any circles.

Well it presumably can't occur at Basecamp, because it could get you fired. People can still discuss it elsewhere, or secretly at Basecamp.

I also didn't take sides for Basecamp, I merely pointed out that the decision was in fact about politics.

You're making the same mistake as DHH, which is at the root of this. Nobody says it "leads directly to genocide". There are literally a list of steps that it needs to go through first. The point of the pyramid is to remind us that we need to stop it as early as possible. Saying that it's one step in the direction of genocide obviously doesn't mean it's going to cause genocide. It just means that when genocide does happen, it starts with the level below, and so on down the pyramid. Somebody doesn't wake up one morning thinking "well, I laughed at somebody's name yesterday, so I'm going to kill their family today", but laughing at a customer's name might normalise laughing at a coworker's name, which in turn might make it more likely that they'll be excluded from something and so on up.

Is it going to cause genocide or not? If it is not going to cause genocide, then to comment on it with respect to genocide doesn't make sense. I'm sorry, I really can not follow your logic.

Somebody said it shouldn't be done, because the end result might be genocide. That's a pretty heavy gun to bring out for a list of funny names.

It really shouldn't be that hard. Of course the list doesn't cause genocide. Nobody is saying it does. What somebody did is share the ADL pyramid of hate. They didn't say "this list will cause genocide", they said normalising minor forms of discrimination makes more serious ones more likely. The point of the pyramid analogy is to tell you to stop climbing it. It doesn't say that you will keep escalating, it just says that it makes it easier for people to escalate. DHH overreacted, by claiming that meant they were accusing them of causing genocide. I previously assumed that he was deliberately misinterpreting it, but the fact that you, presumably an intelligent person, fail to see the meaning of it, then maybe he didn't grasp that either. But that's an even stonger argument in favour of being allowed to discuss it and explain the meaning, rather than banning all discussion.

That doesn't make sense. By bringing forth the ADL pyramid, they made the claim that the joke list would be a step towards genocide. They absolutely say that. They did not randomly share that ADL pyramid, they wanted to make the point that the list would lead to genocide.

Otherwise, by your logic, why not just say, "OK, we have the list, let's just all agree not to escalate it to genocide, and we can all carry on with our lives" (which would be ridiculous, because it goes without saying that jokes shouldn't be escalated to genocide)? So it won't lead to genocide, and there is no point in bringing it up.

That would only be logical if genocide was the only bad thing on the pyramid. The pyramid is supposed to be demonstrating that there is an escalating scale of hate. They are all bad! The ones at the top are worse than the ones lower down, but the ones lower down make it easier for the ones higher up to happen.

So now it is "jokes lead to genocide, AND to all sorts of other bad stuff"? Sorry I don't see a way out of that being a political battle. It's absolutely just a belief system. It seems just as likely that displaying a sense of humour could prevent bad things from happening. The difference is that with the ADL pyramid, people feel entitled to control other people's thoughts and actions, and humour does not bring such entitlement.

Personally I would loath having to have such discussions at work. It's OK to consider some jokes to be in bad taste. Point it out and move on. That should be the extent of it. But not calling on some abstract higher moral framework that let's you control your colleagues.

And I am not saying it should be a general rule for companies, either. I just want companies to be allowed to set their own rules.

For all I care, there could be companies with "no jokes" policies, and people who prefer could go to work there. I would prefer the "jokes allowed" companies. I just want there to be choice. Basecamp is a little ray of hope for me, but if people prefer to have political discussions at work, I don't begrudge them for working at companies that allow them.

I think you're right, but I also think that in reality it is very difficult to draw a line between personal political discussions and company policy decisions in the modern world.

Yes it's always boring when someone in the workplace makes bold political statements that no one asked for, but what happens when the company you work for outsources jobs abroad, is making questionable HR decisions, etc. I'm not sure it's right to say that any discussion about anything political is banned when a company policy that affects an employee can be political in nature.

Creating a positive and productive culture is hard. I don't have all the answers, but bans seem like a very blunt instrument.

Yeah I think you are making the important parts. The issues don't sounds like there were long winded debates about left wing and right wing ideologies.

If someone is being racist am I not allowed to bring acknowledge that because it is political?

"I'm not sure it's right to say that any discussion about anything political is banned when a company policy that affects an employee can be political in nature."

Why do you think that's the policy? Did you read the blog posts?

According to DHH's post, political discussion that is related to the business is allowed. Any other political discussion is encouraged but must take place in a dedicated non-work channel. The policy is also not zero-tolerance.

https://world.hey.com/dhh/basecamp-s-new-etiquette-regarding...

> Therefore, we’re asking everyone, including Jason and me, to refrain from using our company Basecamp or HEY to discuss societal politics at work effective immediately.

> This includes everything from sharing political stories in campfire, using message threads to elucidate others on political beliefs that go beyond the topic directly, or performing political advocacy in general.

> ...

> Note that we will continue to engage in politics that directly relate to our business or products.

Not so interested in nitpicking about whether banning is semantically correct - I think you know what I meant.

What's more interesting is the awkward situation they have created, which I'd argue is a false dichotomy - where does "societal politics" end and "politics that directly relate to our business or products" start?

The details do matter, though. By omitting details you create a hypothetical position that is less reasonable and easier for you to criticize. In this particular situation, this type of thing is particularly harmful because it paints the supposed originators of this made up position as something they are not. You could arguably consider it as libel by omission.

I don't even mean to single you out because I've seen this type of thing countless times on here and especially on Twitter over the last week or so.

"What's more interesting is the awkward situation they have created, which I'd argue is a false dichotomy - where does "societal politics" end and "politics that directly relate to our business or products" start?"

That can be tricky, which is why the policy is not zero tolerance and they already anticipate and are OK with people sometimes getting it wrong.

> but what happens when the company you work for outsources jobs abroad, is making questionable HR decisions, etc. I'm not sure it's right to say that any discussion about anything political is banned when a company policy that affects an employee can be political in nature.

Banning labor-related discussions is illegal in the USA, where Basecamp is based (Protected Concerted Activity). There is also the option of unionization to provide a further structure to protect your legal rights to discuss with management issues around pay, HR, and outsourcing.

I remember the same thing in 2000 when my colleague brought "Sore/Loserman" sign mocking (unknowingly) my candidates. I could not help but think less of him. I am not proud of that, but that was it. It's inside our DNA, to live in tribes. At work, it'd be better if we belong to the same tribe. Please, keep your other tribes outside.

consider not labeling any politician as "my candidate"

Reply on news.ycombinator.com