5 ms·

Why is that every, single article that gets posted on this subject at HN completely ignores the “funny names” list that actually caused this incident. Folks ke

Why is that every, single article that gets posted on this subject at HN completely ignores the “funny names” list that actually caused this incident. Folks keep acting like it was kids screaming BLM on the company message board and it’s kind of infuriatingly disingenuous. It feels almost purposeful that folks are ignoring the specific political grievance that employees had, and they are framing it as activist pressure. I’m genuinely impressed at Basecamps ability to completely control the conversation, and I’m incredibly annoyed that articles posted here about it have completely ignored this argument. It was a specific political act that upset employees - they didn’t “want to just post activism all day instead of working.” That argument is so manufactured it’s painful, and I’m dissapointed a bunch of educated professionals can’t see the manipulation at play. “I just want to work at work. I don’t need activism in my workplace.” is an opinion entirely tangential to the actual events. But it’s what people hear want to talk about I guess. It’s good business sense for an internal team to say “You shouldn’t have a funny names list. If that got out it’d be PR hell for the company. It’s bad business and not related to work.” That’s how these complaints should have been taken.

xupybd 5y ago
Do you have any links to the incident for the uninitiated?
- ryanbrunner 5y ago
  This is a good overview: https://www.theverge.com/2021/4/27/22406673/basecamp-political-speech-policy-controversy https://www.theverge.com/2021/4/27/22406673/basecamp-politic... For DHH's response: https://world.hey.com/dhh/let-it-all-out-78485e8e https://world.hey.com/dhh/let-it-all-out-78485e8e
StavrosK 5y ago
This is probably less about Basecamp and more about the "straw that broke the camel's back" of people being tired of activists being so loud. Semi-unrelatedly, I noticed something interesting: People who try to solve problem X seem to dislike other people who try to solve the same problem in a slightly different way almost as much as they dislike the people who cause X in the first place. I find myself being put off similarly, and it's completely irrational that I'd be put off that someone is against racism as much as I am, but has a different idea of what a solution might look like. Being aware of that is probably a good step towards fixing it, so I wanted to mention it here.
- xupybd 5y ago
  That's a really interesting insight. I hadn't seen that before but it appears very true when reflecting on the current political climate. It's as if not agreeing with a given solution to a problem is the same as not wanting to solve the problem.
  - StavrosK 5y ago
    Yeah, it's especially egregious between pro-nuclear and pro-solar activists, where they fight each other while hydrocarbons keep being burnt. It's insane.
- dools 5y ago
  “People being tired of activists being so loud” == over privileged people being pissed off that under privileged people keeping ruining their privileged experience by pointing out their privilege EDIT: unsurprisingly the word privilege is triggering on HN
  - StavrosK 5y ago
    It's not that the word "privilege" is triggering people, it's that your comment is exactly the sort of dismissal that leads to the sentiment I described. If someone complains you're too loud, saying "you just don't like what you're hearing" will just further alienate you from people who like what you're saying but don't like the volume.
    - dools 5y ago
      "people who like what you're saying but don't like the volume." There is no such thing
      - StavrosK 5y ago
        Well, good luck.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
unityByFreedom 5y ago
Thanks for posting this. The departure of so many employees didn't make sense until I read what you wrote. In light of this, I gather Basecamp didn't want to accept fault for allowing the list to spread. Or maybe there is more to it. At any rate, everyone probably would've been better off with more discussion rather than less, or simply a better decision by the decision makers.
roenxi 5y ago
Basecamp is a ~60 person company. The specifics of what happened aren't really big enough to catch anyone's interest. Honestly, who would actually care if 20 people kept a funny name list? It is beyond trivial. Any firestorm is more people arguing over the role politics has in the workplace. The specifics of what happened are a helpful starting point but, going out on a limb here, probably not material to the people who want to discuss it.
gizmo 5y ago
Because all parties already acknowledge that the "funny names" list is inappropriate. The issue isn't contended. The list is bad and they got rid of it. Now Basecamp leadership wants to move on while many employees want to litigate the issue further. The executives don't want this because they see it as unproductive and as contributing to even more tension. Basecamp is without question in the top 5% of most liberal and progressive companies, but they have no desire to be in the top 0.1%. I think there is plenty to criticize on how basecamp handled the communication, but their demands really aren't unreasonable. Basecamp wants to be pluralistic and have people work together despite their differences, and they want to be progressive and inclusive. But they don't want the equity and inclusion efforts to become a disproportionate time sink and something that distracts from the many other goals they have.
barrkel 5y ago
FWIW, I can see the funny side of a funny names list, and I honestly have a hard time getting worked up over it. It's not professional; it's juvenile, it's what you'd expect from a teenager, but it's not really worth getting worked up over. Junk it, stop it happening again, move on. From my POV.
- WesolyKubeczek 5y ago
  But as you can see from the sixth post here on HN, and all the previous ones that gathered over a freaking thousand of comments, some people just won't let it go. It's bikeshedding taken to the extreme. Nanoracism leading to microaggressions, leading to DHH planning a genocide, for fuck's sake. This is insane, those people throwing such words around without even knowing what the fuck they are talking about. And all of this storm in a teapot seems to be a thing people would spend a weekend mulling over and over and over again instead of going outside or reading a nice book, or solving some, you know, real problems.

xupybd 5y ago

Do you have any links to the incident for the uninitiated?

ryanbrunner 5y ago
This is a good overview: https://www.theverge.com/2021/4/27/22406673/basecamp-political-speech-policy-controversy https://www.theverge.com/2021/4/27/22406673/basecamp-politic... For DHH's response: https://world.hey.com/dhh/let-it-all-out-78485e8e https://world.hey.com/dhh/let-it-all-out-78485e8e

StavrosK 5y ago

This is probably less about Basecamp and more about the "straw that broke the camel's back" of people being tired of activists being so loud. Semi-unrelatedly, I noticed something interesting: People who try to solve problem X seem to dislike other people who try to solve the same problem in a slightly different way almost as much as they dislike the people who cause X in the first place. I find myself being put off similarly, and it's completely irrational that I'd be put off that someone is against racism as much as I am, but has a different idea of what a solution might look like. Being aware of that is probably a good step towards fixing it, so I wanted to mention it here.

xupybd 5y ago
That's a really interesting insight. I hadn't seen that before but it appears very true when reflecting on the current political climate. It's as if not agreeing with a given solution to a problem is the same as not wanting to solve the problem.
- StavrosK 5y ago
  Yeah, it's especially egregious between pro-nuclear and pro-solar activists, where they fight each other while hydrocarbons keep being burnt. It's insane.
dools 5y ago
“People being tired of activists being so loud” == over privileged people being pissed off that under privileged people keeping ruining their privileged experience by pointing out their privilege EDIT: unsurprisingly the word privilege is triggering on HN
- StavrosK 5y ago
  It's not that the word "privilege" is triggering people, it's that your comment is exactly the sort of dismissal that leads to the sentiment I described. If someone complains you're too loud, saying "you just don't like what you're hearing" will just further alienate you from people who like what you're saying but don't like the volume.
  - dools 5y ago
    "people who like what you're saying but don't like the volume." There is no such thing
    - StavrosK 5y ago
      Well, good luck.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

unityByFreedom 5y ago

Thanks for posting this. The departure of so many employees didn't make sense until I read what you wrote. In light of this, I gather Basecamp didn't want to accept fault for allowing the list to spread. Or maybe there is more to it. At any rate, everyone probably would've been better off with more discussion rather than less, or simply a better decision by the decision makers.

roenxi 5y ago

Basecamp is a ~60 person company. The specifics of what happened aren't really big enough to catch anyone's interest. Honestly, who would actually care if 20 people kept a funny name list? It is beyond trivial. Any firestorm is more people arguing over the role politics has in the workplace. The specifics of what happened are a helpful starting point but, going out on a limb here, probably not material to the people who want to discuss it.

gizmo 5y ago

Because all parties already acknowledge that the "funny names" list is inappropriate. The issue isn't contended. The list is bad and they got rid of it. Now Basecamp leadership wants to move on while many employees want to litigate the issue further. The executives don't want this because they see it as unproductive and as contributing to even more tension. Basecamp is without question in the top 5% of most liberal and progressive companies, but they have no desire to be in the top 0.1%. I think there is plenty to criticize on how basecamp handled the communication, but their demands really aren't unreasonable. Basecamp wants to be pluralistic and have people work together despite their differences, and they want to be progressive and inclusive. But they don't want the equity and inclusion efforts to become a disproportionate time sink and something that distracts from the many other goals they have.

barrkel 5y ago

FWIW, I can see the funny side of a funny names list, and I honestly have a hard time getting worked up over it. It's not professional; it's juvenile, it's what you'd expect from a teenager, but it's not really worth getting worked up over. Junk it, stop it happening again, move on. From my POV.

WesolyKubeczek 5y ago
But as you can see from the sixth post here on HN, and all the previous ones that gathered over a freaking thousand of comments, some people just won't let it go. It's bikeshedding taken to the extreme. Nanoracism leading to microaggressions, leading to DHH planning a genocide, for fuck's sake. This is insane, those people throwing such words around without even knowing what the fuck they are talking about. And all of this storm in a teapot seems to be a thing people would spend a weekend mulling over and over and over again instead of going outside or reading a nice book, or solving some, you know, real problems.