…I get the instinct to decide that broad social issues are out-of-scope for your org. For most things, I think simplifying and focusing is wise.

The issue is: If you hire and fire? Then you're a social impact company. You're in the waters.

Fake simplicity makes things harder.

It's like not filing your taxes, because you're not a tax company.

It's deciding not to talk about the leaky roof, because offices aren't really what we're about.

Declaring things out-of-scope is powerful, but if you don't ACTUALLY divest yourself, it just makes things worse

Genuinely reducing scope:
- Our core mission is to be a news aggregator, not a discussion platform, so we're removing the comments feature.

Not genuinely reducing scope:
- Our core mission is to be a news aggregator, not a discussion platform, so you can't report any comments.

and until you fire all people on staff, and stop selling products to members of our society,

you're a social impact company, sorry

Anyway I just find it so funny when these white men tech leaders keep having the big idea of,

"We're an assets company, not a liabilities company. So we've decided to stop *paying* for goods and services, so we can focus on *receiving* them."

Wow, amazing,

(I'm way simplifying stuff with that characterization of moral behavior as a "liability"… but like, read the text, that's how *they* characterize it. To them, racial justice is an extracurricular benefit some employees demand, and it's making payroll way too complicated )

Anyway. From a more grounded, empathetic lens: It makes sense that CEOs like Jason are tired.

It's been a challenging year in so many ways—including a growing demand for executives to do things they were never trained to do.

Everything about Jason's post says "exhaustion", imo.

And so just… as is the way with so many executives… I understand why this is hard. I really do. It's a miserable position.

But please oh please, stop processing those feelings through rule changes and punishments

There are better ways to get rest

Context: https://world.hey.com/jason/changes-at-basecamp-7f32afc5

I'm just so tired of seeing managers get anxious and tired, in ways that I super empathize with, and choose to process that by stomping on my friends until they go away

DHH may be right that dialogue at Basecamp is counterproductive.

But that can mean a few different things.

It's common for an *entirely appropriate* conversation to blow up, if the people involved aren't trained to handle conflict. https://twitter.com/dhh/status/1386773744484552715?s=20

Instead of banning the conversation, I might ask the question:

*Why* is Basecamp an environment where normal and crucial conversations about the goings-on in our world, spin out of control?

What other inclusivity issues might these skill deficits be causing?

Anyway. I get that this is very stressful stuff, and that the conversations aren't going well, and that the leaders don't know what to do.

I wish they would engage that by hiring the right people to help, instead of making a moral stance of their skill deficits.

Just… woof, all the lil dogwhistles DHH reaches for in this post

This is something important to understand imo. DHH has often been an advocate for justice issues, but now that he's stymied, he moves his *values* to match.

This… is how white people often get there

(To make it concrete: It's entirely laughable to summarize the set of relevant political issues for Basecamp as "antitrust, privacy, employee surveillance". How about the fact that you literally hire people of various races and genders? That creates like 6 political issues easy!)

But this is what DHH has decided is relevant politics at Basecamp now, because believing that solves his management problem.

oh well

…I'm hearing from a few sources that this policy change is in direct response to workers criticizing overtly racist behavior within Basecamp. Surprise!

That's the thing about "relevant" politics… the conversations are almost never out-of-the-blue. https://twitter.com/conormuirhead/status/1386890598766891012?s=19

It's a bad idea to ban workers from discussing the issues in the world that are most relevant to them.

But also, when bosses frame it as that like Jason and DHH did, that's usually a rhetorical trick.

Often it's more about allowing specific bigotry at the company to continue

That's a lot of where the strength of my reaction comes from.

There *can* be really healthy boundaries in these conversations, like Kat describes… and that's the reasonable image Basecamp is trying to evoke.

But it's not what they're actually doing. https://twitter.com/zkat__/status/1386860575393673216?s=19

And god I hate when companies smokescreen their bullshit behind a thin veneer of reasonability.

I hate it because it works. And people believe them. And I just want to scream.

(to be clear this is me agreeing with Kat, who totally gets what's going on, and has a good nuanced perspective on what doing this well actually looks like!)

(I feel like I phrased my agreement really awkward and structurally similar to a swipe, and I'd edit it if I could—my intent was to provide a reference for the kind of healthy perspective that Basecamp is trying to imitate, and to criticize Basecamp for their weak imitation! )

Mmmm this explains how the "no committees" rule fits into the story of exhaustion…

Execs were picturing a small inner-circle reading group.

And what they got is a big discussion space and accountability mechanism.

That's not what they signed up for https://twitter.com/Rahsfan/status/1387040932101386246?s=19