8 ms·

I feel bad for everyone involved. This story made me realize that working at Basecamp is not something I would want to do in the future, primarily because DHH a

• mk81 5y ago
  I don't wish I cared more about this BS, and I don't.
• threeseed 5y ago
  > Resigning over a random employee refusing to say that "white supremacy exists" is absurd It's not a random employee though. It's someone who is part of the Senior Leadership Team. If you deny that it exists then how can you be trusted to do something if an issue does comes up ?
  • prepend 5y ago
    Refusing to say it isn’t denying it exists. Those are different things. If I’m trying to count to 100 and someone says “Prepend, please say that white supremacy exists.” And I respond “I’m busy counting to 100 and will not comply with your wishes.” That doesn’t mean I’m denying that white supremacy exists. It’s odd you would interpret it that way as it’s illogical.
    • whymauri 5y ago
      But he wasn't counting to 100, he was at a company-wide all-hands specifically about political and social speech with tensions revolving race. You can't just erase the entire context of quote and meeting just to call someone's interpretation of that event 'illogical'.
    • threeseed 5y ago
      You are just arguing semantics. If you do not acknowledge white supremacy exists and needs to be eliminated then you can't expect people to trust you on this issue. And trust is a critical part of being a leader.
      • prepend 5y ago
        I think we disagree on this. I have worked with and for many great leaders who never “acknowledged white supremacy” so it is definitely possible for me, and others to trust such people. I’m not arguing semantics as my point is that there are many things more important than acknowledging white supremacy exists. This may not be true for others as it seems it’s super important for some. But if I’m in the business of counting to 100 (or anything) I can be quite successful without including taking about eliminating white supremacy. Note, I think that systematic racial inequity is bad and must be eliminated. But I don’t think the most effective way to do that is by talking about it all the time. And I think that I can not have any portion of my workday talking about it. This doesn’t mean I am for white supremacy. I think, at it’s most basic, I don’t think silence is the same as endorsement. The world isn’t black and white (no pun intended) and everyone isn’t forced to choose sides. And it’s certainly not important to state one’s position over and over and over.
        • MattRix 5y ago
          There are certain issues (like this one) where silence has historically been used as a form of endorsement. It is certainly not irrational to perceive it as being an endorsement.
          • 5y ago
  • moduspol 5y ago
    The buck stops somewhere. I get that it's super easy to just claim white supremacy is everywhere, but implicitly the claim is that someone put it there and is perpetuating it. At a company of 58 people, you're pointing at a very small group of people as the ones responsible for all of this supposed white supremacy. Unless everyone swallows the Kool-Aid and apologizes for being so racist, someone in leadership will eventually have to say, "Actually, this isn't a white supremacist company." Otherwise you've essentially surrendered your company to the "woke" mob.
    • throw394827 5y ago
      Our CEO had to do this last year. Due to rising costs, the company decided to outsource some production. The end product was just as good in quality and much cheaper, even after shipping and import taxes. A few employees were concerned about outsourcing to that specific country and started to discuss and petition the senior executives. The CEO clamped down hard and said it was a business decision and if anyone didn't like it, they could leave. No politics. In the end, those employees are still here, but the quality of their work has definitely suffered.
    • mumblemumble 5y ago
      Alternatively, you exhibit the kind of people skills that should be a baseline qualification for a senior leader. You don't draw lines in the sand, you don't internally frame this as an them-vs-me thing, you certainly don't try to give your staff condescending mini-lectures about basic topics in social criticism such as how framing works. Brinksmanship isn't going to lead anywhere good, and someone has to take the first step toward de-escalation. While anyone can theoretically be that person, if you're the ostensible adult in the room, then it's your actual job to put aside your sense of honor and be that someone. So you take a deep breath, and get to work: try to be a mediator, understand where these frustrations came from, and figure out what you can do to alleviate them. Alternatively, if you can't feasibly mediate, because it's basically all your employees airing grievances at you, then you screwed your job up long ago, and it's time to cop to that. The longer you put off eating crow, the more crow you're eventually going to have to eat.
      • 5y ago
  • 6AA4FD 5y ago
    That's also not what Singer said. Singer said that he doesn't believe we live in a white supremacist culture. In a statement lower in the article he explicitly says it does exist, and I don't see that as necessarily contradictory with anything else he had said during the meeting in question.
  • arp242 5y ago
    Essentially, the core disagreement is about what is or isn't white supremacy. There isn't one way to define this, but if you start asking for things like "disavow white supremacy!" in a conversation like this then you're essentially just chucking good faith out the window. The context here matters a lot. I wouldn't have "denounced" white supremacy either. If these are the base conditions under which you're prepared to talk to me then quite frankly, fuck you. There is nothing to gain for me, and you're clearly not prepared to take anything I say in good faith. Okay, I might have in a leadership role to keep the peace as a matter of professionalism, but I'd also have started looking for a new job as this is not a healthy atmosphere. I don't want to work with people who think I'm secretly a white supremacist. The problem is that I've seen many things being labelled as "white supremacy" that seem ... a bit of a stretch. For example people have argued that Alien (the film) is an example of white supremacy as the alien represents a stereotypical black women; "Black women have been portrayed in contemporary white social and political culture as super-fertile and indestructible breeders whose sexual reproduction must be controlled."[1] When I first read that, it took me quite a while to realize this was even referring to the alien itself, rather than some character that got infected. It seems it purely based on the fact that the alien is black. There are many, many examples of this, especially in the last year people have been going way to far in re-analysing everything through the lens of race, often with some very harsh words like "white supremacy". Sometimes this is a good thing, but often I find it's not. Either these are general problems that affect everyone (just black folks more, but that doesn't mean the core problem is racism), or it's outright nonsense like the above. Now, I don't know what argument that person made exactly in support of "White supremacy existing at Basecamp", but if you make such a strong claim – which is essentially calling your leadership/coworkers white supremacists – then you better have some good arguments. I'm skeptical they existed; they're certainly not present in this article beyond wishy-washy "creating a space where people do not feel welcome". And considering that this discussion left people "crying and screaming at the screen" it seems rather easy to make some people feel "not welcome". The entire thing stinks; perhaps the leadership could have handled things a bit better here and there, but if you're not willing to take a somewhat nuanced disagreement in good faith then there's nothing you can do except nod and smile on every sort of nonsense they bring up, and anything else will upset people. [1]: https://theconversation.com/how-hollywoods-alien-and-predator-movies-reinforce-anti-black-racism-127088 https://theconversation.com/how-hollywoods-alien-and-predato...
  • JPKab 5y ago
    White supremacy is so baked into American culture that over 90% of immigrants to the US are non-white. The US is the least racist nation in the world according to Pew surveys. What we have an abundance in the US is people who, if racism disappeared tomorrow, would be out of work and have to find a new career. These same people are the ones who act as if the election, to 2 terms, of a black president translates to the US making no progress on race since the 60's. I grew up in a mostly black county in Virginia. I know what demagoguery looks like, and witnessed it with the GOP for decades. The Democratic party has embraced it, in a big way, since Hillary's loss. It works to win elections, but at the cost of elevating racial reductionism in POC. And the more POC embrace racial reductionism, the more moderate whites will do the same, creating more white supremacists. I've already witnessed colleagues who are moderate getting frustrated in meeting where they are demonized, and next thing you know they are googling and listening/reading conservative authors who mirror their frustration and amplify it. Singer didn't deny that white supremacy "exists". He simply stated, in my opinion correctly, that it's not embedded in American institutions. Because it's not, as evidenced by the fact that we actively import (to an extent unsurpassed by the vast majority of nations in the world) non-white immigrants to the tune of over a million a year. My next door neighbor is an Indian immigrant family. My neighbor across the street is from Vietnam. Both are naturalized citizens, and this ethos is going to try to say that the institution that naturalized them is white supremacist. It's patently absurd and irrational, and appeals to gullible college students and losers who desperately want to externalize blame for their failures.
• dosethree 5y ago
  "Resigning over a random employee refusing to say that "white supremacy exists" is absurd" The founders effectively took everyone's voice away. I think that's a very consistent way to get people to leave - especially people who for whom having a voice is more important than working at basecamp
  • munificent 5y ago
    I don't disagree with you, but I think it's a symptom of a much larger problem in the US that many people feel that their workplace is the only place where they have a voice and that the corporation they work for is their only avenue for political agency. Obviously, you ideally want your job to be politically aligned with you so that your labor doesn't conflict with your beliefs. But today it seems like many feel so disconnected and disenfranchised from any communities outside of work they they put all their eggs in that basket, and that ultimately never goes well.
  • simondotau 5y ago
    > The founders effectively took everyone's voice away Setting aside the merits of all the underlying arguments, the founders were clearly only talking about their "voice" within the context of their employment at basecamp, not their ability to have a voice in all other possible contexts. And thus the following is a non sequitur: > having a voice is more important than working at basecamp Being an employee at basecamp is a necessary prerequisite for having a voice as an employee at basecamp.
    • deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
• deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
• 6AA4FD 5y ago
  I understand your frustration with the polarization of political discourse in the workplace- I imagine it is stressful for all involved. However I think the notion that everything is becoming more and more political, is a little bit misleading. What of your work does not affect society? Do the products and services produced by the firms that employ you not affect it? Do the employees not work for wages necessary for their immediate survival? Do most working people not spend a substantial portion of their daily lives in a fashion dictated by those furnishing those wages? I have trouble imagining how labor could ever lack a political dimension, and the distinction that presents itself to me between the past supposedly 'less politicized' workplaces, is that workers (or at least minoritized workers) were simply less safe to discuss politics and justice in this context that dominates their life and survival.
• bccdee 5y ago
  I doubt most of the people who resigned resigned because of that employee. They probably resigned because DHH decided that, because the discussion had made him uncomfortable, no one should be able to discuss anything "political" at work anymore. That's a very "take your ball and go home" attitude which I wouldn't want in my employer either. And given that this seems to be pretty normal behaviour for him, it was probably the last straw for a lot of employees.
  • joegahona 5y ago
    This was my thought too. The guys at the top just might be arrogant and difficult. My opinion is that Singer wouldn’t say “white supremacy exists” not because he’s a white supremacist, as people keeps interpreting this, but because he didn’t want to be told what to do by an underling. Trump did the same thing in interviews, press conferences, and I think even in a debate.
  • Rapzid 5y ago
    > They probably resigned because DHH decided that, because the discussion had made him uncomfortable That's completely understating the entirety of what happened; the culmination of which seemed to be frivolous HR complaints. Has anyone disputed the details of the fuller context available through David's blogs and other sources? > no one should be able to discuss anything "political" at work anymore Can't they though? Here is what Jason had to say: > 1. No more societal and political discussions on our company Basecamp account...People can take the conversations with willing co-workers to Signal, Whatsapp, or even a personal Basecamp account, but it can't happen where the work happens anymore.
• trentnix 5y ago
  > it also makes me face the reality that I would not want to work with many of the people that resigned I totally get it. Toxic people tend to clump. And they eventually aim their toxicity at each other. You don't want them in the workplace or really, in your life at all. > Resigning over a random employee refusing to say that "white supremacy exists" is absurd. Not only is it absurd, the whole demand to say such a thing was a Kafka trap to begin with. > I realize that my lack of political fervor is a liability. I wish I cared more about these things, I really do, but I don't. It's not a liability, at least not in the long term. The time when being 'woke' is beneficial to advancement will come to an end. Because if the fervor one has for politics is what a company values, then they'll get increasing fervor until the place is too toxic to be productive. Your inability to generate a constant stream of passion for your opinions and hate for contrary opinions is a sign that you are normal. That you are reasonable. And that you are dependable. It's nothing at all to apologize for. There will always be companies that have employees with different political, religious, and social opinions who will find common ground in their desire to build cool shit and provide value. Go find one of those places and be happy.
• stjohnswarts 5y ago
  I think the company will be better off with the 30% gone. They can regroup. Calling it a racist company because some of the head guys are republican that don't see white supremacists every time they see a white person walking down the street is idiocy. Both sides of the fence have turn to zealotry rather than finding common ground. Let the 30% go form their on basecamp rival that is focused on promoting the idea that all white people are racists by their very nature and see how far it goes. Getting politics out of the company sounds good to me. I don't care about your color or your issues, I just want coworkers I can depend on and get along with and don't wear their politics on their sleeves or feel they're owed a special privilege because of their skin color rather than what they bring to the team.
• anm89 5y ago
  He very clearly did not say "white supremecy does not exist". He said it didn't exist at the company. Those two things are very different.
  • drak0n1c 5y ago
    It’s a catch-22. Princeton gave an excuse to be investigated by the federal government when the head admitted that they’re an institution of “white supremacy”
  • SideburnsOfDoom 5y ago
    Singer alternated saying "white supremacy does not exist at BaseCamp" and posting articles off Breitbart into the company chats. Yeeesh.
    • anm89 5y ago
      Yes, the well known unforgivable crime of referencing that a publication you do not like exists. I think this is a pretty good basis for upending someone's career.
      • SideburnsOfDoom 5y ago
        Promoting, not referencing. Whether I "like" it is irrelevant, it has a very specific political viewpoint. Your "explanation" is entirely misdirection.
        • anm89 5y ago
          Yes, the well known unforgivable crime of referencing that a publication with "a very specific political viewpoint" exists. I think this is a pretty good basis for upending someone's career.
          • SideburnsOfDoom 5y ago
            Basecamp certainly seems to think so, but not that particular viewpoint. Funny, that. Again, your "explanation" is not good faith.
• throwawayboise 5y ago
  Most CEOs are egotistic. Most of the ones I have worked for are actually beyond that, they are narcissistic to the point of sociopathy.
  • raarts 5y ago
    There has been research on this topic and it was estimated that 10% of CEO's has psychopathic traits. Plenty of resources online.
• paxys 5y ago
  A key point not being talked about enough is that the employees quit after being offered 6 months salary as severance, no questions asked. Heck a large chunk of the workforce of the best run company in the world would take up that offer. I imagine few of them actually cared too much about this whole saga.
  • ylem 5y ago
    I guess I'm weird. If I were offered 6 months of severance to quit a job at a successful company where I enjoyed the work and my coworkers, why would I take the offer? I've turned down offers that paid over 30% more because I like where I am. I don't think it's so uncommon.
• ksec 5y ago
  >When I talk to my family and non-tech non-coasts non-city friends about the sort of political polarization I encounter at my high-tech Seattle job, they often think I'm messing with them, that I'm being facetious or exaggerating. Finally! I have been pointing this out as being mostly a tech circle thing. But almost every time I get downvoted for it. The question here is, why Tech? What is specific about Tech as an industry, and that is not just in US, it is also spreading in UK, ( or mostly English speaking countries ). I assume it has something to do with Social Media. But then other industry also have access to social media usage as well.