Hacker News Reader

Comment by spacemanmatt | Hacker News Reader

I could hardly disagree more with the premise that activism is anti-fellowship. This seems like a very narrow take on activism.

View on HN

Activism is necessarily divisive unless everyone already agrees on a political ideology and the solutions to issues activists focus on. If you are an activist, you might think this is a good thing—it may please you to create an environment hostile to people you don't agree with. But if you're trying to run a company, division is antithetical to your goals.

If you run a company with problems so deep that people have to turn activist about them, maybe the division didn't start with activists.

That assumes the activists are in the right. You’ve chosen a side. Would you say “the division didn’t start with the activists” if it was conservative activists advocating for modest dress codes or similar? Your position assumes that progressive activists are correct, justified in bringing their politics to work, and that if they have a problem it’s the company’s fault.

But you have to work with people you might disagree with, including conservatives, religious people, and so on. The point of keeping activism out of business is so that people with differing politics can work together. If you can't in good conscience do that, the honorable thing to do is resign, as happened at Basecamp.

Activism for modest dress codes? I'll just excuse myself, here. That is a farce compared to the subject at hand.

I believe you understand why someone would object to the above, but are not willing to universalize it.

I am unwilling to universalize a principle I believe to have only a farcical connection to the one at hand. So you're partly correct about me.

I understand you find it cognitively and rhetorically convenient to focus on an example rather than the point it’s exemplifying. But, if you’re capable of imagining alternative viewpoints, try swapping the example to one more to your taste to help you focus on the argument.

I do not consider it valuable to try to reason about fuzzy matters using only edge cases. It's not a matter of ability, but of value.

I agree it's a low value discussion, but I'm just fascinated that every comment you make exemplifies my point better than I did. The popularity of your style of interaction is precisely why policitcs should be kept out of the workplace.

I'm just fascinated that you would admit to being the kind of founder who sends a third of his company packing over personal policy.

> But if you're trying to run a company, division is antithetical to your goals

Weird because at companies like Apple where I worked diversity in viewpoints was an important part of the fabric of the company.

But then again they don't seem to be doing so well.

You know better than I what goes on in Apple, so I’m happy to hear they are committed to supporting and learning from employees with diverse political viewpoints beyond the usual California progressivism, including conservatism. It’s certainly not obvious that’s the case to an outsider.

(If you’ll allow me an irrelevant aside, your snarky sarcasm, point missing, and cleverer-than-thou ironic posturing makes it difficult for me to take you seriously. But perhaps it’s considered polite where you’re from. I’m happy to learn.)

> I could hardly disagree more with the premise that activism is anti-fellowship.

If you are doing activism, in the workplace, that runs against the beliefs and opinions of (some of the) the people you work with. How could this be anything but anti-fellowship?

I see that many assumptions are made about the value of fellowship and the effects of activism. And this is why I disagree with the premise -- I can't start with those assumptions.

Which beliefs and opinions? What if I'm arguing that our non-white employees are being passed over for promotions, and our women employees are all chronically underpaid compared to the men? How would that be more anti-fellowship than your fellows not being paid equitably?

What if you're arguing that women should stay at home, or that climate change is fake, or immigrants are a blight on society?

It works both ways I'm afraid. And many people will think that those opinions are somehow good for society and that they're being good team players by pushing them.

It does not work both ways when the things I'm arguing for are directly impacting my fellow coworkers, and are the results of direct decisions by the higher ups. It's not a question of society at that point, it's a question of what's good for the company.

OP loves his fellowship analogy, but you can't have a fellowship where the halflings are only getting half-rations and Gandalf refuses to let the Dwarves participate in half of their endeavours.

Came here to say the same.

I disagree strongly with the premise of the article and think it has logical flaws.

Aren't you more of a mercenary if you put personal believes and convictions aside, just to serve your employer as he wants, without asking questions or trying to do the right thing?

Can a fellowship or ("a group of people that join together for a common purpose or interest") really form around an SaaS-/Adtech-/SocialMedia-Startup whose main goal is to make the founders rich?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com