Inside the all-hands meeting that led to a third of Basecamp employees quitting
theverge.com
theverge.com
The fact that no one internally was given a heads up about the post shows you how much respect the leadership team has for their employees.
I've been involved in relaying 'big news' more than a few times, and the most common way to address it is to inform people directly affected first (if applicable), then the company at large, then the public. You never do any of those steps simultaneously or out of order.
What...
It sounded like a comedy sketch, until it happened to me. I wasn't at work, I was at home, but the reaction was the same.
He continued: “Very often, if you express a dissenting view, you get called a Nazi. … I have not felt this is open territory for discussion. If we were to try to get into it as a group discussion it would be very painful and divisive.”
Ooof. I predict Singer's next public pronouncements will be about "the evils of cancel culture" and he'll end up on Fox News or OANN.
This really sounded to me as "if I were allowed to tell you my true feelings about all this, a lot of you would be angry," or "oh, if it's open-season on white men, let me tell you I can dish it on the rest of you... lucky for you I'm not allowed to."
If the reporting is accurate, his words were twisted. He said "I strongly disagree we live in a white supremacist culture" (meaning American culture) which another employee changes to "white supremacy doesn’t exist."
Based on what was reported, I don't know why Singer was suspended. I do understand why he resigned, given the reaction of many employees. He's not an avowed white supremacist.
Singer is very wrong, he needs more education, but it seems like many of the employees can't handle the idea of working at a place where someone so wrong works. At a large workplace, there was another worker who I saw coming in to work had a large sign on his bag making clear he was a 9/11 Truther. I saw he also sat at lunchtime with his bag prominently displayed (not at the workplace, in public). It made me really angry but I'd never do anything to threaten his employment or avoid all contact.
That was exactly my point.
Everyone hears what they want to hear for their narrative. Then it becomes a juicy internet drama rather than some mundane thing.
This sounds more like a threat than a promise. A promise he chose to carry out. Why should it be divisive, if you're actually going to listen? Is it because you'd end up saying things like "white supremacy is a myth" and denying the notion of institutional racism?
It sounds a lot to me like the continual "predictions" (threats) from some Republicans that there's going to be a "race war" or other war with liberals, if the left keeps doing what they're doing. They make it sound like it's something inevitable that they're predicting, but in reality they're simply saying what they want to do.
Rather it sounds like a person afraid to share his views for fear they would be misconstrued or met with emotional outbursts.
Employees were claiming Basecamp has a white supremacist culture, an indictment against anybody working there. The idea that you can't reject such preposterous accusations without being "complicit", or without the denial somehow serving as further evidence, is insane.
The onus is on the accuser to provide evidence of their claims. Management agreed that a list of funny names does not count.
Yet the employee continued to make unfalsifiable assertions such as:
"the silence in the background is what racism and white supremacy does...It doesn’t require active malice".
So denying an accusation of white supremacy is evidence of guilt, and remaining silent in the face of such an accusation is also evidence of guilt.
It's impossible to work with such people.
But why? What process led those people to decide it doesn't count? And why would only the management have a voice in that decision?
Claims of white supremacy need to be backed up with proof.
Histrionic breakdowns and screaming at screens doesn't count as proof I'm afraid.
Why should it be divisive, indeed. “America is not a racist country” was just the position expressed by Sen. Tim Scott in a national prime time address, yet it’s enough to force an employee from a company?
And even between "America isn't a racist country" and "the people who talk about implicit biases are the real racists," which is closer to what he actually said (allegedly).
(And if we want to have this discussion, I bet we could do it in a way that wasn't "painful and divisive," because I have no desire to be those things, so I'm not going to predict/threaten it.)
When we are lacking metacognition on the subject, we can be at the point where we don't even know how to ask the right questions. This is because we can't assess how our beliefs and expectations constrain the range of questions we even know to ask. If you've ever chuckled over the hoary old tale of someone asking tech support, "where is the 'any' key?", you know how lack of understanding can lead to wildly incorrect mental models of a subject.
There are decades - nay, centuries - of writing about race relations, racial bias, and systemic discrimination. Before we ask a question, perhaps we'd be well-served to have at least a survey course level of familiarity with the issues, so that we might ask good questions.
Nothing is considered an acceptable response except full submission to one side of the argument. Any alternate response is racist, abandoning the argument is white fragility, and silence is complicity in genocide.
If the employee groups’ request to delete the list of “funny” names was political, then creating and updating that list in the first place must also have been political.
I guess it’s “politics” only when the founders disagree with it.
The politics was when one Asian employee wouldn’t let the issue die and posted the path to genocide pyramid about how laughing at funny names was just a step on the way to genocide.
Talk about jumping to conclusions.
I don't really understand how or why DHH would construe that as "you're comparing a list of company names to genocide"
The point being made was that this is really bad because it’s a step on the way to genocide.
That’s what DHH said I believe.
And it would be in the context of trying to get the employee fired who made it.
Also the other co-founder is Jewish. So having someone bring up something like that is probably insulting.
https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...
Please don't create accounts to break HN's guidelines with.
I know the stock response is that denying the existence of a problem is worse than admitting it, but if the gravamen of the issue is not whether or not the company is built on the most murderous ideology in history but whether or not the founders will affirm that it is publicly seems an excellent indicator the term 'white supremacy' has been hollowed out and is now just another target in woke language games.
You're taking it to the other extreme. As I understand it, the employee's issue is with Singer's statement “I strongly disagree we live in a white supremacist culture”.
If Singer had just admitted that there is indeed some element of white supremacy, the discussion could have proceed about its extent and how to address it. But by denying it wholesale and trying to quash the discussion, he denied the experience of some of the other attendees, no longer making it comfortable for them to voice their concerns at a company forum.
“I don’t think there is white supremacy....of course there is white supremacy etc.”
What I would have done is get them to define what each means by white supremacy in detail...then debate on the detail.
The chilling statement at the end was: “white supremacy is silence”.
This kind of thing is straight out of the history books. You must say the right things and have said them at the right time or you are against us.
This human behavior is such a copy-paste from other authoritarian regimes in the past such as Mao’s China and the USSR gestapo.
As a friendly piece of advice, this approach is going to get you fired from a few companies. If you're in a management position it could well get your company sued.
When someone comes to you and says they were victimised because of racism or sexism it's a good idea to ask them what happened, and what they'd like to do to put it right. You can then decide whether those are reasonable, and whether or not you are going to do anything.
But it's a terrible idea, once you've asked them what happened, to then say "but why is this racism?" and then to argue with them about whether it is or not.
But you make a good point though regarding HR complaints.
Q: what would you say though if an employee presses you on whether you personally think it’s racism?
Then if you don’t address it you are on the hook.
"I condemn white supremacy" should not have been difficult words to say. It does not require careful phrasing. Particularly right now, so shortly after famously Trump refused to say it in the debate, and then weeks later we had the attack on the capitol.
Not sure how any sane person can claim that isn't denouncing white supremacy but hey don't let facts get in the way of your narrative.
Not sure how any sane person can claim that saying you're willing to do something and actually doing it aren't different things. He said he was willing to do something but then... never did it.
He did it before, and he did it after. Some times more quickly than other, almost always with that rambling I-don't-even-get-the-question-non-answer sort of thing that people do when they are usually making fun of politicians. But here's the problem.
In a debate, in a high-reward scenario, on national television, Chris Wallace asked if he would denounce these groups and his first response was indignation. Arguing with Wallace over whether or not he'd done it in the past. Asking which groups specifically. Telling the Proud Boys to "stand by." The problem with all of that, right or wrong, is that he could have shut everyone up by denouncing white supremacy in all its forms and all fringe groups associated with it. He could have immediately followed up with "and you know what Chris, I've already done this on these occasions" and listed out all the times he actually did it. He could have dunked on Wallace, dunked on Biden, and picked up 25k votes across the country in the process.
But instead he did exactly what you would do if you were trying to avoid actually saying the thing someone was trying to get you to say. He played right into their hands.
When asked to denounce he said sure I will and then immediately jumped to Antifa. As you mentioned that is horrible for a debate and for the sound bites that all of the MSM will of course use but that's not the same as not answering the question at all or saying "no, I will not denounce them". He put them on the same field as Antifa and we know how he feels about them.
You pick and choose items that fit your narrative but don't fit all of the facts. Indignation seems like a pretty natural response for someone who is not a career politician. Also, he told the Proud Boys to "stand down and stand by". Some people might give him the benefit of the doubt that the second part was a slip of the tongue but either way he clearly said to stand down. For some reason you just pick the part that makes him look the worst. Not sure if that's because that's what you heard and just didn't bother to look into it or you are willfully omitting facts.
Also it's pretty unlikely that the Proud Boys are even white supremacists as they were led by a Latino. But again for some reason these facts get omitted. I'll assume you don't have ill intent and are just misinformed.
"So do it!"
"Proud boys, stand by."
And I haven’t heard Biden condemn pedaphilia either...
/s