(Or maybe it also shows that being a fully-remote company can have downsides, such as coworkers not socialising enough and therefore not trusting each other? Who knows. DHH certainly has championed the "remote work for everyone" approach countless times.)
I’d bet remote work was a strong contributor. People don’t form the same humanizing attachments remotely as they do in person, in my experience.
Did you read that comment about Basecamp employees "crying and screaming at their screens" after the Zoom meeting? That just sounds so much like people who are both venting their spleens and at the same time have no connection to their workplace.
At the risk of armchair quarterbacking, the whole thing looks like a broken culture, and I get the impression nobody knew just how broken it was until now. Nor do I think any one person or action is to blame. I’d bet that it’s been festering for years.
It’s a fascinating case study, though, and I’m glad we have a view into it.
edit: "here" is okta, not basecamp
Yup. Pro tip: If you're at a SV-influenced company and you find yourself talking about your personal life, don't say "husband," "wife," "boyfriend," or "girlfriend;" say "partner." That signals that you're an Ally rather than an Enemy.
You'll notice other weird speech patterns too. Pay attention to them; they're meaningful.
This isn't any woke thing - its just a "don't reveal information that isn't necessary."
You earn the details of my life by being my friend, not through a contractual relationship.
"More inclusive: Spouses/partners <> Less inclusive: Wives, husbands, boyfriends, girlfriends"
What if my wife would prefer if I referred to her as my "wife" instead of as a generic, faceless "partner"? By insisting that I refer to her as a genderless "partner", you are failing to respect her chosen pronoun.
Because I have no clue who your partner is (or really if you have one) so I shouldn't assume until I have that information. Note that the words in the example are all plural, presumably referring to multiple other peoples' partners.
"Co-founder + CEO of @okta, proud husband + father, addicted to exercise."
Similar verbiage on their company site as well haha
> 1. A person who enjoys exploring the details of programmable systems and how to stretch their capabilities, as opposed to most users, who prefer to learn only the minimum necessary.
How am I supposed to talk about my husband doing the housekeeping?
"My Man Spouse is doing the domestic science"
Are all gendered words banned?
What the hell happened to us?!
wtf
I think there's a very fine balance to strike where you want programs to reach the people who benefit -- and certainly leaders and co-workers who need to be more inclusive -- without making those you're trying to help feel uncomfortable by having it so front and center that those who'd like to sit out can't. It's a tough balance, and I've seen companies both go too far and not far enough.
All this is to say I can imagine a situation where OP's environment really is making them more uncomfortable than what many (most?) URM's experience in the work place. Can't say for sure without knowing specifics, of course. It just isn't always a case of "more is better."
It might be forgivable if the studies showed that this hyper focus on race at work actually reduced racism, but it doesn’t. It’s just pure evil.
The situation the person is in isn't great and leaving sounds worth doing but I didn't think that was what the response was about though I can see how the implication to not run away could be interpreted in a different way
That’s the society you’re trying to build.
ETA: people are logging their disagreement in downvotes but I haven’t seen a counter argument to this at any point in this thread, I’m ok with the dv, just interested in hearing the opposing view.
2021: Uh...guys...?
Comparing "you are now in a situation where you may have an opportunity to empathise with difficulties others have had" to "you are trying to build a society where more fortunate people are harmed in the name of sameness" doesn't resonate at all.
Somehow it only comes out when the person preaching it feels extreme pity for the person in need of "empathy" and most importantly the preacher is the only one who really understands how to give that empathy, no one else is able to reach their level of enlightenment. Of course this creates a problem when two such preachers are in the same room...
Additionally, most of the time the pitied person doesn't want your pity or empathy they just want to live their life and are usually pretty happy until you come along and start telling them they need empathy and how bad their life really is.
ETA: I’ve looked over your comments, aside from one that appears to be sarcastic everything you say has a response to it. I added my own comment to one of them as well. I think resigning ourselves to Twitter-like flame wars without actually talking things out isn’t very hn like at all.
Edit: I read your edit. It appears that in your mind, comments that disagree with you resemble a Twitter flame war, and comments agreeing with you are well articulated and thoughtful. In reality, your comments are just as negative and one-sided as the others you disparage.
Just the opposite, I welcome disagreement. I just don’t like being attacked without knowing why.
I kid but obviously a downvote is a negative response to something I wrote, but without the responsibility of actually backing up why they’re having that negative response. I’m kinda lost as to why we’re even having this discussion, you appear upset that I wanted to hear why people were downvoting me. Why does that upset you?
Yes, it absolutely is the climate here. it’s awful. tribalism, division, distrust and eagerness to demonize anyone who doesn’t tow your line.
we’re doomed
If I were at a company of ~58 people, and ~20 of them were forming a DE&I committee to evaluate the company's vendor relationships, speakers, etc., I'd be tempted to join just to get the potential target off of my back. They're not going to fire 1/3 of the workforce, after all.
You don't have to leave it anonymous; I think most people know what Google is.
/s
It happened randomly and completely out of the blue: one software engineer mentioned he didn't believe in the gender gap and he was promptly replied 1000 words essays by other leaders in the company shutting him down, to show that "we don't tolerate certain behaviour".
Guidelines were created to avoid future political discussions in the workplace. No-one left because of it (immediately) and we sadly didn't become famous. The engineer who brought that up quit a few months after.
After that, half of the employees hated thinking there were people thinking something different from them in the company, the other half was afraid to talk in public.
Again, I don't think there was a particular situation in the company: just a naive person who likes to talk frankly and people who get offended and are quick to attack in order to defend the "safe space" for the people who share their beliefs.