6 ms·

Your latter example is also expressly undesirable in the workplace. You are hired to build product, not obsess over the diversity of the employee base, unless

Your latter example is also expressly undesirable in the workplace. You are hired to build product, not obsess over the diversity of the employee base, unless you are hired in a DEI role specifically. Asking the questions you are asking is political. Discussing people’s membership in groups like cis or Native American or whatever else IS an unwanted political act. Those group identities are fundamentally political tools. Treating people as anything other than individuals is a political act. Discrimination happens against an individual. If you see discrimination happen against an individual, and you privately and discretely address it with the appropriate people (could be with those directly involved, with superiors, with HR, whatever seems appropriate in that situation), that is not a political act, it is a moral act of taking care of a coworker.

krainboltgreene 5y ago
> You are hired to build product, not obsess over the diversity of the employee base, unless you are hired in a DEI role specifically. pssst those two things are connected > Discrimination happens against an individual. This is just weirdly wrong? > If you see discrimination happen against an individual, and you privately and discreetly address it with the appropriate people (could be with those directly involved, with superiors, with HR, whatever seems appropriate in that situation), that is not a political act This is an incredibly political act.
- thu2111 5y ago
  It's hard not to escape the conclusion that the goal of Basecamp's new policy is to quietly suppress or ultimately evict people who think like you. There is no connection whatsoever between diversity and building product. Note: you haven't tried to explain your claim there is, just implied it's obvious, probably because you can't. I've seen people try to honestly intellectually defend a connection between employee diversity and product design before, and it's always a joke. You get anecdotes about face recognition not working on black people (reality: the software in question just had trouble with low contrast images and also struggled with white people's faces). And that's about it. I can't recall ever seeing someone actually argue that more women == better product because, well, that's a pretty sexist thing to believe isn't it? It implies men have no empathy, or that there's a universe of product requirements women will only tell to other women, etc. If discrimination is happening against an individual and you work with the management chain to resolve it, that's not a political act, because you aren't attempting to radically remake the entire organisation for everyone (politics), but only address the specific problem that was actually observed.
  - bonaldi 5y ago
    There is an absolute wealth of connection between more diversity and better products: it’s not that a monoculture can’t make products for everyone, it’s that it’s easier for a team that has wider representation to do so: it’s a competitive advantage for them. Want examples beyond hand driers? Apple missed menstrual cycle tracking in the Health app. NASA offered to send 1,000 tampons with the first woman in space - and had to abandon its first all-woman spacewalk for bad planning in kit availability. Google Photos tagged black people as gorillas. (Regardless of the cause, it shipped). SnapChat shipped a yellowface filter. Google Translate delivers highly gendered results when translating from gendered languages into English. Google Home is 70% more likely to recognise male voices because of training set bias. Women are 49% more likely to be injured in car accidents because the seating position for crash testing is designed for men. And - yes! - Pinterest has struggled to reach men as users apparently because of its SEO strategy. Want more examples? Ask any passing woman what app she uses that clearly didn’t think about women. Diverse teams make better products. The stats are out there. Trying to argue this highly political. We wouldn’t even be able to talk about your point at Basecamp. Does that not worry you? Don’t assume they will always agree with your politics just because they’ve done this.
    - zimpenfish 5y ago
      Another (potentially fatal!) example: https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2020/08/200812161318.htm https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2020/08/200812161318.h... > Women are more likely than men to suffer adverse side effects of medications because drug dosages have historically been based on clinical trials conducted on men, suggests new research from the University of California, Berkeley, and the University of Chicago.
      - deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
    - caffeine 5y ago
      It's a pretty subtle distinction but I'll try to make it. The examples you give are mostly product examples (i.e. the product lacking features or not correctly addressing its target audience). Therefore I think it would be appropriate to discuss those in the workplace, but NOT as a function of e.g. the gender make-up or racial make-up of the team, but rather as a function of competence in addressing those issues. In particular, imagine a hypothetical scenario where we are building a product, and we receive the feedback that many women find it difficult to use, and we want to fix that by hiring an expert. The goal is to hire someone who understands marketing this type of product to women. Although it's maybe likely the most suitable candidate for this would be a woman, it could also possibly be someone else - and we would be looking for experience/evidence toward competence in that area, regardless of the candidate's gender or other characteristics. To make the conversation apolitical, it would be about specific competencies and lacks of the team or product, NOT about the team itself having "not enough short blue-eyed Turkish women over 50" or some other group. Also, to keep the conversation apolitical, the conversation would not extend to broader social questions outside of the specific product or problem. It would not stray into generalizations about groups. It would not appeal to emotional arguments like "safety."
danielscrubs 5y ago
“Treating people as anything other than individuals is a political act.” - this is such a great line and very easy to forget.
zorpner 5y ago
> Discussing people’s membership in groups like cis or Native American or whatever else IS an unwanted political act. Unwanted by whom?
- bitcharmer 5y ago
  By most people. You know, non-activists. We just want to come to work, do our jobs, hang out with other people passionate about what they do. Just enjoy this time and not engage in political activism. Is this too much to ask?
  - Tallianar 5y ago
    Yes, because that's a privilege that many people don't get. By saying that you are saying that your comfort is more important than the safety and values of other people that don't get your privilege. If you really don't want to interact with these discussions then don't, but don't silence other voices.
    - atonse 5y ago
      But they haven’t actually silenced anyone. They’ve said employees are free to even congregate in personal groups with other employees to discuss politics. Just not on company Basecamp.
    - bitcharmer 5y ago
      Please don't put made up statements in my mouth. That's pretty low. I never said I want to silence anyone. I said I want to come to work and expect work related discussions, nothing else. I'm really tired of this toxic narrative that if I don't want my workplace to be a battleground of political discourse I'm somehow silencing opinions or oppressing minorities.
  - madeofpalk 5y ago
    Tell me you're a white dude without telling me you're a white dude
- 5y ago
madeofpalk 5y ago
> You are hired to build product When making a product, have you ever given your feedback on it? Or are you just a "warm chair" churning out code that was instructed to you?
tomjen3 5y ago
>Treating people as anything other than individuals is a political act. Absolutely, but so is treating them as individuals.

krainboltgreene 5y ago

> You are hired to build product, not obsess over the diversity of the employee base, unless you are hired in a DEI role specifically. pssst those two things are connected > Discrimination happens against an individual. This is just weirdly wrong? > If you see discrimination happen against an individual, and you privately and discreetly address it with the appropriate people (could be with those directly involved, with superiors, with HR, whatever seems appropriate in that situation), that is not a political act This is an incredibly political act.

thu2111 5y ago
It's hard not to escape the conclusion that the goal of Basecamp's new policy is to quietly suppress or ultimately evict people who think like you. There is no connection whatsoever between diversity and building product. Note: you haven't tried to explain your claim there is, just implied it's obvious, probably because you can't. I've seen people try to honestly intellectually defend a connection between employee diversity and product design before, and it's always a joke. You get anecdotes about face recognition not working on black people (reality: the software in question just had trouble with low contrast images and also struggled with white people's faces). And that's about it. I can't recall ever seeing someone actually argue that more women == better product because, well, that's a pretty sexist thing to believe isn't it? It implies men have no empathy, or that there's a universe of product requirements women will only tell to other women, etc. If discrimination is happening against an individual and you work with the management chain to resolve it, that's not a political act, because you aren't attempting to radically remake the entire organisation for everyone (politics), but only address the specific problem that was actually observed.
- bonaldi 5y ago
  There is an absolute wealth of connection between more diversity and better products: it’s not that a monoculture can’t make products for everyone, it’s that it’s easier for a team that has wider representation to do so: it’s a competitive advantage for them. Want examples beyond hand driers? Apple missed menstrual cycle tracking in the Health app. NASA offered to send 1,000 tampons with the first woman in space - and had to abandon its first all-woman spacewalk for bad planning in kit availability. Google Photos tagged black people as gorillas. (Regardless of the cause, it shipped). SnapChat shipped a yellowface filter. Google Translate delivers highly gendered results when translating from gendered languages into English. Google Home is 70% more likely to recognise male voices because of training set bias. Women are 49% more likely to be injured in car accidents because the seating position for crash testing is designed for men. And - yes! - Pinterest has struggled to reach men as users apparently because of its SEO strategy. Want more examples? Ask any passing woman what app she uses that clearly didn’t think about women. Diverse teams make better products. The stats are out there. Trying to argue this highly political. We wouldn’t even be able to talk about your point at Basecamp. Does that not worry you? Don’t assume they will always agree with your politics just because they’ve done this.
  - zimpenfish 5y ago
    Another (potentially fatal!) example: https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2020/08/200812161318.htm https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2020/08/200812161318.h... > Women are more likely than men to suffer adverse side effects of medications because drug dosages have historically been based on clinical trials conducted on men, suggests new research from the University of California, Berkeley, and the University of Chicago.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
  - caffeine 5y ago
    It's a pretty subtle distinction but I'll try to make it. The examples you give are mostly product examples (i.e. the product lacking features or not correctly addressing its target audience). Therefore I think it would be appropriate to discuss those in the workplace, but NOT as a function of e.g. the gender make-up or racial make-up of the team, but rather as a function of competence in addressing those issues. In particular, imagine a hypothetical scenario where we are building a product, and we receive the feedback that many women find it difficult to use, and we want to fix that by hiring an expert. The goal is to hire someone who understands marketing this type of product to women. Although it's maybe likely the most suitable candidate for this would be a woman, it could also possibly be someone else - and we would be looking for experience/evidence toward competence in that area, regardless of the candidate's gender or other characteristics. To make the conversation apolitical, it would be about specific competencies and lacks of the team or product, NOT about the team itself having "not enough short blue-eyed Turkish women over 50" or some other group. Also, to keep the conversation apolitical, the conversation would not extend to broader social questions outside of the specific product or problem. It would not stray into generalizations about groups. It would not appeal to emotional arguments like "safety."

danielscrubs 5y ago

“Treating people as anything other than individuals is a political act.” - this is such a great line and very easy to forget.

zorpner 5y ago

> Discussing people’s membership in groups like cis or Native American or whatever else IS an unwanted political act. Unwanted by whom?

bitcharmer 5y ago
By most people. You know, non-activists. We just want to come to work, do our jobs, hang out with other people passionate about what they do. Just enjoy this time and not engage in political activism. Is this too much to ask?
- Tallianar 5y ago
  Yes, because that's a privilege that many people don't get. By saying that you are saying that your comfort is more important than the safety and values of other people that don't get your privilege. If you really don't want to interact with these discussions then don't, but don't silence other voices.
  - atonse 5y ago
    But they haven’t actually silenced anyone. They’ve said employees are free to even congregate in personal groups with other employees to discuss politics. Just not on company Basecamp.
  - bitcharmer 5y ago
    Please don't put made up statements in my mouth. That's pretty low. I never said I want to silence anyone. I said I want to come to work and expect work related discussions, nothing else. I'm really tired of this toxic narrative that if I don't want my workplace to be a battleground of political discourse I'm somehow silencing opinions or oppressing minorities.
- madeofpalk 5y ago
  Tell me you're a white dude without telling me you're a white dude
5y ago

madeofpalk 5y ago

> You are hired to build product When making a product, have you ever given your feedback on it? Or are you just a "warm chair" churning out code that was instructed to you?

tomjen3 5y ago

>Treating people as anything other than individuals is a political act. Absolutely, but so is treating them as individuals.