5 ms·
This. 1000x. If you've never experience a spittle-inflected rant disrupting a meeting, because some individual felt it their duty and privilege to engage with
by hpcjoe 5y ago
This. 1000x.
If you've never experience a spittle-inflected rant disrupting a meeting, because some individual felt it their duty and privilege to engage with everyone on their particular viewpoint ... you simply don't know how disconcerting this can be. I have. I don't care much about my co-workers political views. I'm always happy to have a beer and discuss things after work (well, virtually these days).
But making people uncomfortable because you feel entitled to push your world view at work, makes you more of a liability to the company than an asset. Which in the case of Basecamp, the owners may have addressed well for all concerned.
- 8note 5y agoI dunno, see people are white, and some people are political. Some people are straight, and some people are political Some people are men, and others are political. Having engagement people who's idwntity is political is valuable when you consider how much of the population is straight white men
- digitaltrees 5y agoI am not sure I follow. Are you saying straight white men’s actions are not labeled political while other people’s actions are discounted as political and thus stifled?
- hnbad 5y agoNo, they're talking about some people's entire existence being political. White/male/straight is the social default. Just consider movies and games: if a character is a woman, non-white, or non-straight, let alone trans, that's considered the director/developers making a political statement. And it only gets worse if they don't at least "behave" like white/male/straight characters. The same is true for workplaces. A woman in an otherwise all-male team is far more likely to be accepted if she masks her femininity and acts like "one of the guys". A Black person will be more accepted if they "act white". Queer folks better just not mention anything related to their sexuality even if it would be normal for straight/cis folks. And if they get any jabs targeted at their identity they better just laugh it off and not "cause a scene" and upset anyone.
- digitaltrees 5y agoIf you invert your statement it is exactly the same discriminatory focus. It would effectively say White/male/straight exist as a dominant cultural force that is inherently political. They can’t exist without imposing their norms on others. This position focuses on race, gender, sexuality as much as any other form of discrimination. Rather than focusing on the differences we could focus on common ground and the value of inclusion. It’s not necessary to focus on differences and vilified existence of white/male/strait people.
- splitstud 5y agoWhat a wonderful demonstration of the kind of toxicity that forced Basecamp management to act as they did.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- tha0xa1 5y agoI dunno, see people are non-white, and some people are political. Some people are LGBTQ+, and some people are political Some people are non-binary/femme, and others are political. Having engagement people who's idwntity is political is valuable when you consider how much of the population is non-white, non-straight, people of color. See, we can both play this game. It doesn't nothing for us. It's literally the core reasoning behind Basecamp's "no politics at work" move.
- busterarm 5y agoI prefer to see people as individuals as opposed to a bloc of political ideologies or defined by their race or gender. Didn't that used to be the point?
- hpcjoe 5y agoYes, it did used to be the point. Content of character.