5 ms·

>but it’s a long way down my list of priorities when logging on in the morning. You're missing the point, people who are marginalized don't have the luxury of

by zxzax 6y ago

>but it’s a long way down my list of priorities when logging on in the morning. You're missing the point, people who are marginalized don't have the luxury of putting it down the list of their priorities. That's why they're marginalized. Please don't use rude and emotionally loaded terms like "woke SJW" to label people and dismiss their concerns about the work environment. This is not the way to run an inclusive business, and using those words in that way suggests that you think it's somehow wrong of your employees to desire justice or to care about the experiences of marginalized individuals.

DC1350 6y ago
> people who are marginalized don't have the luxury of putting it down the list of their priorities Yes they do. High income tech worker are not oppressed in any meaningful way. It’s just a coincidence that they look similar to people who have real problems.
- zxzax 6y ago
  I'm very confused as to what you mean. Are you saying it's not possible for people who get paid above a certain threshold to be bullied and harassed at work? I strongly disagree with that.
  - DC1350 6y ago
    I’m saying that their problems aren’t a big deal and they should just shut up
    - zxzax 6y ago
      If people are telling you that they're leaving their job and salary because of those problems, then it probably is a big deal. Also, telling people who have voiced concerns to "just shut up" is not the way to foster healthy communication at work.
      - DC1350 6y ago
        It’s a good thing when people leave for a place that suits them better. I would leave a team that made issues I don’t care about an important part of the job, but that doesn’t mean I think they’re doing anything wrong.
        zxzax 6y ago
        Telling employees there are other places they can go that are less hostile is still not a justification for having a hostile workplace. If everyone thought that way, nobody would ever tackle these problems. It's a mistake to try and equate this with some other technical choice, this is not the same as quitting a team because the boss wants to use C++ and you want to use Java.
    - dang 6y ago
      We've banned this account for repeatedly posting flamewar comments and ignoring our requests to stop. Not cool. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
      - tylerritchie 6y ago
        you might want to take a look at this one, too https://news.ycombinator.com/threads?id=throwaway0xa https://news.ycombinator.com/threads?id=throwaway0xa
        deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
        throwaway0xc 6y ago
        Nice alt btw. You only post about twice a year on this one and you specifically have to call me out because we can't have any Wrongthink here now can we.
melff 6y ago
"woke SJW" is a term for a specific kind of political activist, which can be _very_ harmful to a business. Not wanting to deal with SJWs has nothing to do with dismissing concerns about the work environment and expressing concerns about the work environment does not render someone an SJW. And a business is, as the name implies, about the business. Not about inclusivity.
- zxzax 6y ago
  I strongly disagree. Businesses do not exist in a vacuum. The second you hire one employee, it becomes about inclusivity. That's why every business has to follow the same employment laws. I'm sorry but I'm not interested in continuing this conversation further when you keep using that loaded term to dismiss concerns. In my opinion, that term is only used to shame people who take a stand on issues of justice, as if it's somehow wrong for people to do that publicly because they don't happen to work for your company. I'll be blunt -- if it's harmful to your business when activists on twitter discuss potential HR violations that your company might have committed, then your business has issues and you are not qualified to be running that business in that way. Please, hire a qualified HR professional who knows how to deal with this stuff, and let them handle the hiring and personnel issues, that's what they're there for. In my experience technical founders are notoriously bad at noticing when conflict is growing overboard and they need to expand HR, I know because I made the same mistake!
  - melff 6y ago
    I never claimed that businesses "exist in a vacuum", and no, it isn't about inclusivity as soon as an employee is hired: The sole reason why businesses hire people is because they have some work on their hands they want to get done to make money. Others want these decisions to be about "inclusivity" but from the business perspective it isn't. Employment laws don't exist because business is about inclusivity, they exist because we as society don't want businesses to do what they want to do. Employment laws work against business interests, not in favor of them. Regarding that dismissing concerns line, some concerns are not relevant for some people: If you are a doctor and you wish to save the lifes of your patients and to do that you use some sort of specialized software the interfaces with your medical equipment, concerns about the energy of efficiency of the x86 processor it runs on can be dismissed by "I don't care whether this computer draws 100 or 45 Watts, I need it to save lives". Many business people do the same thing but with their goals: "I don't care about inclusivity, I need employees who work for the business and not against it". And I'll be blunt aswell -- If you allow SJWs to disrupt your workforce with irrelevant junk, and thereby harm your business, then you are not qualified to be running that business. And regard HR professionals, yes they are there to keep the workforce productive, not to be inclusive for political activists. I've read the posts again and I think there is still a misunderstanding regarding the term SJW: I'm not using SJW as a term to dismiss something, as I already stated I use it to describe troublemaker/activist-types not normal-acting people who have concerns. That's a huge difference.
throwaway0xa 6y ago
>You're missing the point, people who are marginalized don't have the luxury of putting it down the list of their priorities. That's why they're marginalized. You have this backwards. Minorities have the luxury of politicizing anything and everything they desire. Conservatives, males, whites, etc. are not afforded that privilege. "Straight white males" are literally the only institutionally marginalized individuals in companies with these cultures.
- zxzax 6y ago
  I don't believe this is true. If it were, I don't think it would be so difficult to get companies to adopt policies against hate speech directed towards any group. This kind of thing hurts everyone, it's not restricted to any minority or majority group. Every inclusivity effort I've seen has made an effort to include and help all races, genders, religions, ages, etc. I know I'm serious about that.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - throwaway0xc 6y ago
    >If it were, I don't think it would be so difficult to get companies to adopt policies against hate speech directed towards any group. In theory no reasonable person would be for hate speech directed at anyone, but in practice, "hates speech" means anything that's outside of the Overton Window. >Every inclusivity effort I've seen has made an effort to include and help all races, genders, religions, ages, etc. I know I'm serious about that. I have never seen an inclusivity effort that's that way. They're almost entirely "intersectionality" and critical race theory based, so straight white males are excluded. They even have "inclusivity" groups where they tell whites and males to not join, or of they do join, to shut up and "be an ally".
jiofih 6y ago
People who get a job at Basecamp are not marginalized. They are incredibly privileged both financially and professionally.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- jiofih 5y ago
  Would love to hear from the downvotes who disagree. How is that incorrect?

by zxzax 6y ago

DC1350 6y ago

> people who are marginalized don't have the luxury of putting it down the list of their priorities Yes they do. High income tech worker are not oppressed in any meaningful way. It’s just a coincidence that they look similar to people who have real problems.

zxzax 6y ago
I'm very confused as to what you mean. Are you saying it's not possible for people who get paid above a certain threshold to be bullied and harassed at work? I strongly disagree with that.
- DC1350 6y ago
  I’m saying that their problems aren’t a big deal and they should just shut up
  - zxzax 6y ago
    If people are telling you that they're leaving their job and salary because of those problems, then it probably is a big deal. Also, telling people who have voiced concerns to "just shut up" is not the way to foster healthy communication at work.
    - DC1350 6y ago
      It’s a good thing when people leave for a place that suits them better. I would leave a team that made issues I don’t care about an important part of the job, but that doesn’t mean I think they’re doing anything wrong.
      - zxzax 6y ago
        Telling employees there are other places they can go that are less hostile is still not a justification for having a hostile workplace. If everyone thought that way, nobody would ever tackle these problems. It's a mistake to try and equate this with some other technical choice, this is not the same as quitting a team because the boss wants to use C++ and you want to use Java.
  - dang 6y ago
    We've banned this account for repeatedly posting flamewar comments and ignoring our requests to stop. Not cool. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
    - tylerritchie 6y ago
      you might want to take a look at this one, too https://news.ycombinator.com/threads?id=throwaway0xa https://news.ycombinator.com/threads?id=throwaway0xa
      - deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
      - throwaway0xc 6y ago
        Nice alt btw. You only post about twice a year on this one and you specifically have to call me out because we can't have any Wrongthink here now can we.

melff 6y ago

"woke SJW" is a term for a specific kind of political activist, which can be _very_ harmful to a business. Not wanting to deal with SJWs has nothing to do with dismissing concerns about the work environment and expressing concerns about the work environment does not render someone an SJW. And a business is, as the name implies, about the business. Not about inclusivity.

zxzax 6y ago
I strongly disagree. Businesses do not exist in a vacuum. The second you hire one employee, it becomes about inclusivity. That's why every business has to follow the same employment laws. I'm sorry but I'm not interested in continuing this conversation further when you keep using that loaded term to dismiss concerns. In my opinion, that term is only used to shame people who take a stand on issues of justice, as if it's somehow wrong for people to do that publicly because they don't happen to work for your company. I'll be blunt -- if it's harmful to your business when activists on twitter discuss potential HR violations that your company might have committed, then your business has issues and you are not qualified to be running that business in that way. Please, hire a qualified HR professional who knows how to deal with this stuff, and let them handle the hiring and personnel issues, that's what they're there for. In my experience technical founders are notoriously bad at noticing when conflict is growing overboard and they need to expand HR, I know because I made the same mistake!
- melff 6y ago
  I never claimed that businesses "exist in a vacuum", and no, it isn't about inclusivity as soon as an employee is hired: The sole reason why businesses hire people is because they have some work on their hands they want to get done to make money. Others want these decisions to be about "inclusivity" but from the business perspective it isn't. Employment laws don't exist because business is about inclusivity, they exist because we as society don't want businesses to do what they want to do. Employment laws work against business interests, not in favor of them. Regarding that dismissing concerns line, some concerns are not relevant for some people: If you are a doctor and you wish to save the lifes of your patients and to do that you use some sort of specialized software the interfaces with your medical equipment, concerns about the energy of efficiency of the x86 processor it runs on can be dismissed by "I don't care whether this computer draws 100 or 45 Watts, I need it to save lives". Many business people do the same thing but with their goals: "I don't care about inclusivity, I need employees who work for the business and not against it". And I'll be blunt aswell -- If you allow SJWs to disrupt your workforce with irrelevant junk, and thereby harm your business, then you are not qualified to be running that business. And regard HR professionals, yes they are there to keep the workforce productive, not to be inclusive for political activists. I've read the posts again and I think there is still a misunderstanding regarding the term SJW: I'm not using SJW as a term to dismiss something, as I already stated I use it to describe troublemaker/activist-types not normal-acting people who have concerns. That's a huge difference.

throwaway0xa 6y ago

>You're missing the point, people who are marginalized don't have the luxury of putting it down the list of their priorities. That's why they're marginalized. You have this backwards. Minorities have the luxury of politicizing anything and everything they desire. Conservatives, males, whites, etc. are not afforded that privilege. "Straight white males" are literally the only institutionally marginalized individuals in companies with these cultures.

zxzax 6y ago
I don't believe this is true. If it were, I don't think it would be so difficult to get companies to adopt policies against hate speech directed towards any group. This kind of thing hurts everyone, it's not restricted to any minority or majority group. Every inclusivity effort I've seen has made an effort to include and help all races, genders, religions, ages, etc. I know I'm serious about that.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- throwaway0xc 6y ago
  >If it were, I don't think it would be so difficult to get companies to adopt policies against hate speech directed towards any group. In theory no reasonable person would be for hate speech directed at anyone, but in practice, "hates speech" means anything that's outside of the Overton Window. >Every inclusivity effort I've seen has made an effort to include and help all races, genders, religions, ages, etc. I know I'm serious about that. I have never seen an inclusivity effort that's that way. They're almost entirely "intersectionality" and critical race theory based, so straight white males are excluded. They even have "inclusivity" groups where they tell whites and males to not join, or of they do join, to shut up and "be an ally".

jiofih 6y ago

People who get a job at Basecamp are not marginalized. They are incredibly privileged both financially and professionally.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
jiofih 5y ago
Would love to hear from the downvotes who disagree. How is that incorrect?