8 ms·

Despair over not talking about politics on work channels? Are they absolutely consumed with politics that they can’t focus on actual work tasks? I have worked w

Despair over not talking about politics on work channels? Are they absolutely consumed with politics that they can’t focus on actual work tasks? I have worked with someone who insists on inserting a political topic or headline into every meeting and it’s distracting and exhausting

aspaceman 5y ago
Despair over the controversy of an internal “funny names” list turned into an external PR move.
bytelines 5y ago
'not talking about politics' is a straw man for the actual issue. They have a list of funny names, got called out on it, and didn't like that. "politics" implies "we dont like Amy Klobuchar" or whatever, but it wasn't that. It was about "what do we tolerate", "who do we welcome", "who are we as a company"? They didn't like their employees defining this for them, because it forced them to think things they didn't want to think about.
- Udik 5y ago
  People making such a fuss over a list of funny names? Yes, that's office fun you wouldn't want your customers to know about, which I guess makes it a bit unprofessional. But still it's absolutely innocent fun. Whoever makes it into an existential political issue has lost it, seriously.
  - predaking 5y ago
    > But still it's absolutely innocent fun. Not if you're one of the injured parties.
    - andyxor 5y ago
      Truly these are first world problems
      - avereveard 5y ago
        This is truly becoming an issue in the first world, soon the biggus dickus sketch from The Life of Brian will be censored not to offend Richards across the country
    - rimliu 5y ago
      Funny-names list survivors, let's not offend them with the improper nomenclature.
      - adolph 5y ago
        Yeah, I’m sure I’ve been on a few over time and yet still an inner drive towards pattern matching and spurious associations leads me to moments of light-heartedness tempered by not wanting to cause offense.
        deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
  - bytelines 5y ago
    Making fun of ethnic names isn't 'innocent fun' when your company purports to be diverse, equal, and inclusive. If you don't believe me, well, DHH himself agrees with this: it's a problem when you acknowledge the pyramid of hate, as he does. What's at issue is that he acknowledges all of this, then refuses to recognize any wrongdoing, dresses down employees in public, and claims that "political talk" -- about the company, about whether these practices are correct, about whether this is an inclusive and equal place -- is banned.
    - ikt 5y ago
      > Making fun of ethnic names They're not necessarily ethnic, some people just have funny names: https://theawesomedaily.com/50-funny-names-that-are-so-unfortunate-theyre-actually-genius/ https://theawesomedaily.com/50-funny-names-that-are-so-unfor... https://www.newidea.com.au/funny-names https://www.newidea.com.au/funny-names In your opinion just how genocidal are these articles on the pyramid of hate?
      - bytelines 5y ago
        Your links have nothing to do with what basecamp did?
        Udik 5y ago
        They're lists of funny names, same as what Basecamp did.
        bytelines 5y ago
        What basecamp did "represents a serious, collective, and repeated failure at Basecamp [...] counter to creating an inclusive workplace. Nobody should think that maintaining such a list is okay or sanctioned behavior here."[1] [1] https://world.hey.com/dhh/let-it-all-out-78485e8e https://world.hey.com/dhh/let-it-all-out-78485e8e
        5y ago
- bartread 5y ago
  > They have a list of funny names, got called out on it, and didn't like that. On the contrary, as far as I can tell (i.e., based on information released by founders and employees), they didn't object at all to being called out on it. Everybody at Basecamp, the founders included, thought the list was wrong and inappropriate. What they did object to was the discussion being escalated to genocide and that there appear to have been employees who refused to climb down from that. It does become impossible to have a constructive discussion, particularly about sensitive or controversial matters, when some people involved want to escalate to the most extreme position imaginable. It tends to mute other viewpoints. This used to be well understood on the internet, and is the reason Godwin's Law is explicitly stated (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law#:~:text=Godwin's%20law%2C%20short%20for%20Godwin's,or%20Hitler%20becomes%20more%20likely https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law#:~:text=Godwin'....).
  - iovrthoughtthis 5y ago
    that isn’t really a problem with politics though is it? it feels like a problem with the discussions participants listening and speaking skills. if someone immediately jumps to a negative extreme then its likely they feel quite emotionally distressed about the topic. if you notice someone is emotionally charged about a topic (either yourself or a participant) then we should seek to discover the shadow conversation that is being had. what is the true source of the emotional distress. instead we see it as weakness and press harder. removing politics won’t solve that.
    - bartread 5y ago
      I don't disagree with you, but I can also see how that could become a huge problem in a workplace. It can be pretty frustrating when people debate in this fashion about work-related matters. E.g., nowadays I find it particularly tiresome when people frame technical discussions (such as one database platform or front-end technology versus another) in moral terms. It's incredibly unhelpful. It has the potential to be even more disruptive for non-work matters (though the original "Best names ever" discussion was very much work-related). Still, whilst I'm not especially critical of the position DHH and JF have taken - though initially I found myself back and forth on it - I do of course wonder if a more nuanced resolution that alienated fewer people (I don't mean on twitter and other social media, which is mostly just noise: I mean at Basecamp) could have been found than something that feels like blanket ban, even though it's not really. Perhaps they tried - I don't know.
- henryaj 5y ago
  > They have a list of funny names, got called out on it, and didn't like that Not at all true - they dealt with it extensively internally, agreed it shouldn't have happened, etc. But folks kept analogizing the list of funny name to genocide.
  - roytries 5y ago
    Is this a quote that comes from somewhere? I see multiple people talking about this 'analogizing a list of funny names to genocide'. I think its been properly debunked multiple times in the comments here to say its untrue. Just wondering where it comes from that people keep commenting it so strongly.
PaulRobinson 5y ago
That's not what happened, nor is it why people were upset by the founders' actions.

aspaceman 5y ago

Despair over the controversy of an internal “funny names” list turned into an external PR move.

bytelines 5y ago

'not talking about politics' is a straw man for the actual issue. They have a list of funny names, got called out on it, and didn't like that. "politics" implies "we dont like Amy Klobuchar" or whatever, but it wasn't that. It was about "what do we tolerate", "who do we welcome", "who are we as a company"? They didn't like their employees defining this for them, because it forced them to think things they didn't want to think about.

Udik 5y ago
People making such a fuss over a list of funny names? Yes, that's office fun you wouldn't want your customers to know about, which I guess makes it a bit unprofessional. But still it's absolutely innocent fun. Whoever makes it into an existential political issue has lost it, seriously.
- predaking 5y ago
  > But still it's absolutely innocent fun. Not if you're one of the injured parties.
  - andyxor 5y ago
    Truly these are first world problems
    - avereveard 5y ago
      This is truly becoming an issue in the first world, soon the biggus dickus sketch from The Life of Brian will be censored not to offend Richards across the country
  - rimliu 5y ago
    Funny-names list survivors, let's not offend them with the improper nomenclature.
    - adolph 5y ago
      Yeah, I’m sure I’ve been on a few over time and yet still an inner drive towards pattern matching and spurious associations leads me to moments of light-heartedness tempered by not wanting to cause offense.
      - deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
- bytelines 5y ago
  Making fun of ethnic names isn't 'innocent fun' when your company purports to be diverse, equal, and inclusive. If you don't believe me, well, DHH himself agrees with this: it's a problem when you acknowledge the pyramid of hate, as he does. What's at issue is that he acknowledges all of this, then refuses to recognize any wrongdoing, dresses down employees in public, and claims that "political talk" -- about the company, about whether these practices are correct, about whether this is an inclusive and equal place -- is banned.
  - ikt 5y ago
    > Making fun of ethnic names They're not necessarily ethnic, some people just have funny names: https://theawesomedaily.com/50-funny-names-that-are-so-unfortunate-theyre-actually-genius/ https://theawesomedaily.com/50-funny-names-that-are-so-unfor... https://www.newidea.com.au/funny-names https://www.newidea.com.au/funny-names In your opinion just how genocidal are these articles on the pyramid of hate?
    - bytelines 5y ago
      Your links have nothing to do with what basecamp did?
      - Udik 5y ago
        They're lists of funny names, same as what Basecamp did.
        bytelines 5y ago
        What basecamp did "represents a serious, collective, and repeated failure at Basecamp [...] counter to creating an inclusive workplace. Nobody should think that maintaining such a list is okay or sanctioned behavior here."[1] [1] https://world.hey.com/dhh/let-it-all-out-78485e8e https://world.hey.com/dhh/let-it-all-out-78485e8e
        5y ago
bartread 5y ago
> They have a list of funny names, got called out on it, and didn't like that. On the contrary, as far as I can tell (i.e., based on information released by founders and employees), they didn't object at all to being called out on it. Everybody at Basecamp, the founders included, thought the list was wrong and inappropriate. What they did object to was the discussion being escalated to genocide and that there appear to have been employees who refused to climb down from that. It does become impossible to have a constructive discussion, particularly about sensitive or controversial matters, when some people involved want to escalate to the most extreme position imaginable. It tends to mute other viewpoints. This used to be well understood on the internet, and is the reason Godwin's Law is explicitly stated (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law#:~:text=Godwin's%20law%2C%20short%20for%20Godwin's,or%20Hitler%20becomes%20more%20likely https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law#:~:text=Godwin'....).
- iovrthoughtthis 5y ago
  that isn’t really a problem with politics though is it? it feels like a problem with the discussions participants listening and speaking skills. if someone immediately jumps to a negative extreme then its likely they feel quite emotionally distressed about the topic. if you notice someone is emotionally charged about a topic (either yourself or a participant) then we should seek to discover the shadow conversation that is being had. what is the true source of the emotional distress. instead we see it as weakness and press harder. removing politics won’t solve that.
  - bartread 5y ago
    I don't disagree with you, but I can also see how that could become a huge problem in a workplace. It can be pretty frustrating when people debate in this fashion about work-related matters. E.g., nowadays I find it particularly tiresome when people frame technical discussions (such as one database platform or front-end technology versus another) in moral terms. It's incredibly unhelpful. It has the potential to be even more disruptive for non-work matters (though the original "Best names ever" discussion was very much work-related). Still, whilst I'm not especially critical of the position DHH and JF have taken - though initially I found myself back and forth on it - I do of course wonder if a more nuanced resolution that alienated fewer people (I don't mean on twitter and other social media, which is mostly just noise: I mean at Basecamp) could have been found than something that feels like blanket ban, even though it's not really. Perhaps they tried - I don't know.
henryaj 5y ago
> They have a list of funny names, got called out on it, and didn't like that Not at all true - they dealt with it extensively internally, agreed it shouldn't have happened, etc. But folks kept analogizing the list of funny name to genocide.
- roytries 5y ago
  Is this a quote that comes from somewhere? I see multiple people talking about this 'analogizing a list of funny names to genocide'. I think its been properly debunked multiple times in the comments here to say its untrue. Just wondering where it comes from that people keep commenting it so strongly.

PaulRobinson 5y ago

That's not what happened, nor is it why people were upset by the founders' actions.