4 ms·

This dismissal of people as "unhinged", "cultish", and "lack of mental balance" at best unsympathetic and at worst callous. As others have pointed out, it's not

by vore 5y ago

This dismissal of people as "unhinged", "cultish", and "lack of mental balance" at best unsympathetic and at worst callous. As others have pointed out, it's not really possible to compartmentalize yourself from "politics" unless you are represented by the majority and what is and isn't "politically acceptable" at work has always been fluid and changing. The fact that they have chosen these words to describe their frustration does not create "an unnecessarily hostile workplace" if they were already experiencing one (which, if you remember, may have something to do with the "Best Names List", and the fact that DHH spent a long blog post detailing how there were "only" a few Asian names on there was completely downplaying the fact they were still making fun of names from other races!).

moduspol 5y ago
It blows my mind that we're now so far down the list of transgressions that "list of funny sounding names poorly handled by management" is being touted as some egregious sin justifying claims of white supremacy at the company. It was a bad idea and it wasn't handled well. But geesh.
- XorNot 5y ago
  So you just missed that whole section which starts with - unprompted - the Head of Strategy deciding to go on a long rant about their own political views in a company meeting? Like it really doesn't matter what led to that meeting, because I've not seen a version of events where somehow that becomes not a disaster on your "so anyway we announced a policy about you in a blog post where we insulted a whole lot of you recently..." meeting.
  - moduspol 5y ago
    Those things all came after. The only justification for the DE&I committee is this list. The only other evidence of white supremacy is (lol) one guy saying he doesn't think it's there in the company. Usually there'll be at least a claim of someone using the N-word, or employees of different races being treated unfairly. We can't even get that! This list existed, and was not handled well by management, and that's enough to accept that simply claiming the company is not white supremacist is too political. Oh but the guy did share a Breitbart link once, I think, so the whole company was basically a half step away from burning crosses on lawns. Give me a break.
    - XorNot 5y ago
      You don't think senior management choosing to use an all hands where their new "no politics" rule - and then using the opportunity to unprompted then go on about their own politics, might make people reconsider who's "no politics" is about to be protected?
      - moduspol 5y ago
        Undoubtedly. Still a far cry from evidence of white supremacy at the company.
- ryanbrunner 5y ago
  I don't think the existence of the list is really the problem, it was just the spark that lead to all this. Everyone, including DHH and Jason agrees that the list was a bad idea. It was the arguments that sprung out of that, and then the ridiculously heavy handed policy changes that started all of this. The list itself doesn't matter, it's becoming increasingly clear that there were pre-existing tensions and there would have been some other event that kicked this off if the list didn't.
flumpcakes 5y ago
If someone feels like the workplace is hostile then they should speak to HR. Is that not the usual channels for this kind of thing? Of course I'm not sure how HR can help if the base of their discomfort on the fact they work with white colleagues.
- vore 5y ago
  HR's job is to protect the company. If the founders are propagating a culture that employees don't like then HR's job is to side with them.
StanislavPetrov 5y ago
>This dismissal of people as "unhinged", "cultish", and "lack of mental balance" at best unsympathetic and at worst callous. It seems to me all these problems at Basecamp could have been avoided in the first place if these people were dismissed for their unhinged and cultish behavior as soon as they started to exhibit it. If they are suffering some sort of mental trauma the proper place to address that is therapy, not at work.

by vore 5y ago

moduspol 5y ago

It blows my mind that we're now so far down the list of transgressions that "list of funny sounding names poorly handled by management" is being touted as some egregious sin justifying claims of white supremacy at the company. It was a bad idea and it wasn't handled well. But geesh.

XorNot 5y ago
So you just missed that whole section which starts with - unprompted - the Head of Strategy deciding to go on a long rant about their own political views in a company meeting? Like it really doesn't matter what led to that meeting, because I've not seen a version of events where somehow that becomes not a disaster on your "so anyway we announced a policy about you in a blog post where we insulted a whole lot of you recently..." meeting.
- moduspol 5y ago
  Those things all came after. The only justification for the DE&I committee is this list. The only other evidence of white supremacy is (lol) one guy saying he doesn't think it's there in the company. Usually there'll be at least a claim of someone using the N-word, or employees of different races being treated unfairly. We can't even get that! This list existed, and was not handled well by management, and that's enough to accept that simply claiming the company is not white supremacist is too political. Oh but the guy did share a Breitbart link once, I think, so the whole company was basically a half step away from burning crosses on lawns. Give me a break.
  - XorNot 5y ago
    You don't think senior management choosing to use an all hands where their new "no politics" rule - and then using the opportunity to unprompted then go on about their own politics, might make people reconsider who's "no politics" is about to be protected?
    - moduspol 5y ago
      Undoubtedly. Still a far cry from evidence of white supremacy at the company.
ryanbrunner 5y ago
I don't think the existence of the list is really the problem, it was just the spark that lead to all this. Everyone, including DHH and Jason agrees that the list was a bad idea. It was the arguments that sprung out of that, and then the ridiculously heavy handed policy changes that started all of this. The list itself doesn't matter, it's becoming increasingly clear that there were pre-existing tensions and there would have been some other event that kicked this off if the list didn't.

flumpcakes 5y ago

If someone feels like the workplace is hostile then they should speak to HR. Is that not the usual channels for this kind of thing? Of course I'm not sure how HR can help if the base of their discomfort on the fact they work with white colleagues.

vore 5y ago
HR's job is to protect the company. If the founders are propagating a culture that employees don't like then HR's job is to side with them.

StanislavPetrov 5y ago

>This dismissal of people as "unhinged", "cultish", and "lack of mental balance" at best unsympathetic and at worst callous. It seems to me all these problems at Basecamp could have been avoided in the first place if these people were dismissed for their unhinged and cultish behavior as soon as they started to exhibit it. If they are suffering some sort of mental trauma the proper place to address that is therapy, not at work.