7 ms·

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 Ja

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.

wry_discontent 5y ago
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.
educaysean 5y ago
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.
Breza 5y ago
Plus I doubt anybody will get in trouble for having a lunchtime video chat with a coworker and talking politics.
tshaddox 5y ago
> 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.
mattdeboard 5y ago
I actually do not know what types of discourse they're referring to. Can you specify?
- baggy_trough 5y ago
  Presumably the more toxic and censorious forms of social justice activism.
  - mattdeboard 5y ago
    Not sure I share the frame of reference I get the impression you're assuming we have in common. What do you mean?
  - DiNovi 5y ago
    Ahh, love to ban "censorious" social justice activism.
    - UncleMeat 5y ago
      Yeah. Notice how the free speech absolutists are nowhere to be found here.
      - henryaj 5y ago
        Pretty sure the free speech absolutists would say that private companies can have whatever rules they like on their platform.
        CRConrad 5y ago
        Would, but aren't. Kind of curious in and of itself; usually they not only would but also are.
    - asabjorn 5y ago
      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).
DiNovi 5y ago
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
smoe 5y ago
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.
detaro 5y ago
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".
- xiphias2 5y ago
  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).
  - xpe 5y ago
    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?
  - stonogo 5y ago
    >remote working solves the dating problem if only.
  - detaro 5y ago
    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).
paxys 5y ago
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.
chipgap98 5y ago
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.
- cutemonster 5y ago
  See https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26949792 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26949792 Someone else (and me too) had the same question
tyingq 5y ago
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".
- throwawayboise 5y ago
  > "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.
  - DoctorOW 5y ago
    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.
    - cbnotfromthere 5y ago
      > See that to me is the strawman... > "No thanks" That's where anything that NOT harassment should actually stop. >> "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" So now they are indirectly asked if they are allies or not. Amazing! > > 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. You are LITERALLY describing harassment while, at the same time, claiming this kind of harassment does not exist. Let's see if your claim is falsifiable or not. Let's imagine a few similar scenarios: 1) a Muslim coworker inviting a Trans to a community Iftar at his local mosque. 2) a meat lover inviting a "vegan ally" to his family barbeque. 3) a 62-yo coworker inviting an 18-yo intern to his AA meeting. Hope you get the point.

wry_discontent 5y ago

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.

educaysean 5y ago

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.

Breza 5y ago

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

tshaddox 5y ago

> 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.

mattdeboard 5y ago

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

baggy_trough 5y ago
Presumably the more toxic and censorious forms of social justice activism.
- mattdeboard 5y ago
  Not sure I share the frame of reference I get the impression you're assuming we have in common. What do you mean?
- DiNovi 5y ago
  Ahh, love to ban "censorious" social justice activism.
  - UncleMeat 5y ago
    Yeah. Notice how the free speech absolutists are nowhere to be found here.
    - henryaj 5y ago
      Pretty sure the free speech absolutists would say that private companies can have whatever rules they like on their platform.
      - CRConrad 5y ago
        Would, but aren't. Kind of curious in and of itself; usually they not only would but also are.
  - asabjorn 5y ago
    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).

DiNovi 5y ago

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

smoe 5y ago

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.

detaro 5y ago

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".

xiphias2 5y ago
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).
- xpe 5y ago
  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?
- stonogo 5y ago
  >remote working solves the dating problem if only.
- detaro 5y ago
  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).

paxys 5y ago

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.

chipgap98 5y ago

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.

cutemonster 5y ago
See https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26949792 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26949792 Someone else (and me too) had the same question

tyingq 5y ago

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".

throwawayboise 5y ago
> "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.
- DoctorOW 5y ago
  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.
  - cbnotfromthere 5y ago
    > See that to me is the strawman... > "No thanks" That's where anything that NOT harassment should actually stop. >> "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" So now they are indirectly asked if they are allies or not. Amazing! > > 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. You are LITERALLY describing harassment while, at the same time, claiming this kind of harassment does not exist. Let's see if your claim is falsifiable or not. Let's imagine a few similar scenarios: 1) a Muslim coworker inviting a Trans to a community Iftar at his local mosque. 2) a meat lover inviting a "vegan ally" to his family barbeque. 3) a 62-yo coworker inviting an 18-yo intern to his AA meeting. Hope you get the point.