The blog post specifically mentioned the work chat channel. Talk about whatever you want in other channels.

If you were in the middle of a meeting to plan a new product launch and suddenly announced "I'm getting married this weekend!" what kind of reaction would you expect? People might be polite but gently remind you that's not really relevant to what's being discussed at the moment and to get back to work. If you kept on trying to turn every discussion about work back to how it relates to your upcoming wedding, they'd eventually get annoyed and write you off as an obnoxious weirdo, and they'd be right.

“ No more societal and political discussions on our company Basecamp account. “

They banned it in all channels, and told their employees to chat on Signal:

“ 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.”

So - it’s not like what you asserted, at all. What you asserted is somewhat reasonable (even if I would want to nitpick at the edge cases) ... but they’re not saying anything close to what you’re saying.

They also didn't ban "chitchat". They banned harassing people about politics, which is entirely reasonable.

The banned talking about politics, and my entire point is that my participation in idle chit-chat, when it indirectly confirms my sexuality, is coded as political and thus off-limits. And that this tends to get weaponized against disadvantaged groups.

I don't doubt that there are people who will try to claim that any mention of a same-sex relationship is political.

Based on everything Jason and DHH have ever said or done, do you think that their intent with this policy is to forbid people from mentioning their same sex partners?

Do you believe that they would take seriously any complaint in that regard?

There is definitely a spectrum of behavior contained in "political discussions". Do think there's not any part of that spectrum that should be discouraged at work? I think they made it pretty clear what area of the spectrum of behavior they're targeting and it's not "casual mentions of same-sex partners".

I have no idea who Jason and DHH are beyond this announcement, so I have no idea which political discussions they intend to prohibit in practice. But clearly there have been some political discussions there that they intend to prohibit now, so it’s not crazy to give same-sex marriage as an example of a prominent divisive highly-charged political topic in the United States. What’s a better example that you think these two people would intend to prohibit?

To me it seems very clear that merely mentioning the fact of a same sex relationship is not a political statement.

If person A mentions they are in a same sex relationship, then person B goes on a rant about how it should be illegal and how dare you bring it up, then to me person B is the one making the discussion political, not person A.

I do see how if person B is the boss, this would be a problem, but I don't think Jason and DHH are that person B.

As an example, here is a Twitter thread about another organization that dealt with an excess of "political discussion"

https://twitter.com/graceisforyou/status/1386739669866455043

That is the sort of thing I imagine Basecamp is trying to prevent.

Theology-driven (in bio) person starts a "justice-orientated" non-profit while admitting in the same sentence that she knew nothing about "Critical Social Justice" or "Critical Theory". //This would be a little bit like starting a web hosting provider while "knowing nothing about DNS, or HTTP"

Gets a lot of criticism on her approach. //Unclear if this is fair or not. We don't know what they did and the criticisms she is describing are very vague.

Decides that because she doesn't understand the critics, it must be that they don't want to actually fix anything, they just wanted control of the organization.

Weaponizes the language that oppressed minorities use to carve out a semblance of agency in a discriminatory world in bad faith. //"Did you just assume my sexuality" is a 4chan-level troll, and as much of a cliche as her pinned tweet equating racism with talking about racism.

I could go on but the key point is this person's story is a Choose Your Own Adventure for Outrage.

If you already agree with her you read this and think "how horrifying, we must do everything possible to prevent this". If you don't, you stop reading the first time she uses the term "Woke" and realize there will be nothing credible that follows other than non-specific vague allegations of boogymen SJWs and cancel culture.

The word woke has been completely appropriated. Not a single "woke" person I know would ever describe themselves as woke anymore. It has been completely appropriated by bad faith actors who use it as a blanket statement for basically everything they disagree with. A bit like US Republicans saying the MLB moving the All-Star game is an example of "cancel culture".

> she knew nothing about "Critical Social Justice" or "Critical Theory". //This would be a little bit like starting a web hosting provider while "knowing nothing about DNS, or HTTP"

Critical Theory != Justice

Critical theory is a niche academic discipline that involves looking at certain issues in a specific way. It has its uses, but it is in no way the end-all, be-all last word on everything. It is not synonymous with every meaning and use of the word justice, and there are certainly many ways to pursue justice without it. It's absolutely nothing at all like running a web-hosting service without knowing about HTTP or DNS.

>If you don't, you stop reading the first time she uses the term "Woke" and realize there will be nothing credible that follows other than non-specific vague allegations of boogymen SJWs and cancel culture.

If you stop reading because of one word and then get mad at assumptions about what you think the rest says, you are not a person who should be taken seriously.

I agree that you shouldn't have to worry about that.

I think people also shouldn't have to worry about losing their job or being pushed aside if they just want to do work and not kneel down with people, or raise their fists, or recite loyalty oaths to certain causes. Some people just want to come to work and do work and go home, and that should be allowed too.

I hope we can find a compromise where neither person needs to worry. I think that is what Basecamp is making an honest attempt at here.

If that’s the goal you want, I hope we agree then that this kind of policy isn’t a good way to achieve it because of the really large potential for collateral damage.

Like sure - you can kill an ant with a hand grenade, but is that the best tool for the job?

This announcement is discussing specific prohibitions based on the content of workplace discussions, not the specific timing or context-appropriateness of the discussion. Obviously there are times and contexts at work where outbursts or abrupt personal discussions are inappropriate regardless of their specific content, but I think it’s very clear that this is not what this announcement is talking about.

Most companies have places where employees interact outside meetings.

And as far as I can tell, Basecamp still does, and people will still interact and make small talk. So, what's the problem?

Note that the policy is not about "in meetings", but for all spaces of the company, and go back to tshaddox's comment about mentioning marriages in small talk.

Not every office is full of robots. People chitchat during meetings.

The same sex couple message doesn't seem political because there are just sharing an experience. It would be political if they continued on about the law was unfair and needs to change.

I don’t think the line is nearly as complicated as most people make it out to be.

Somebody discussing their plans and related challenges may have political notions attached, but the “right and wrong” are not the focal point.

If someone responds with “good, gay marriage is wrong”, you’ve clearly crossed into political debate, and opened the line for personal attacks.

If someone responds with “everyone who’s against this is a Nazi”, you have also done the same.

If, instead, the response is centered around the person’s own experience (“I’m sorry to hear that, I know some family with a similar struggle”) then it’s fine.

It’s not terribly different if you’re discussing being disappointed that your insurance rates went up.

“Sucks that we have to pay $75 more a month” is fine. Adding that “it’s all because of Obamacare” crosses the line.

I don’t see the line being that difficult, it’s just that most people on BOTH sides take these statements as their cue to start engaging in their political debate, usually abandoning all subtlety and nuance while gathering the pitchforks and drawing warlines.

People forget how much diversity of opinion there is, from gay couples against marriage, to Christian supporters of gay marriage, to libertarians who don’t support any state recognized marriage at all.

Same goes for taxes, HUD approved appliances, EPA regulations, etc.

Name a political debate, and I’ll give you people I’ve met or worked with who don’t fit into the media-prescribed boxes.

Most importantly, people have seemingly forgotten that whether you agree or disagree with the cause, it’s entirely possible to just be supportive of your fellow humans for the sake of wanting them to be happy.

I think there's some level of "leave your personal life at home" that isn't completely bad. I don't talk about all of my personal problems at the office.

But the other side of "Work just isn't the place for it" is this: sometimes personal problems affect you so profoundly, that they then affect your work performance. Your colleagues (and management) deserve to know about those things, so they can plan and adjust accordingly (and offer any personal or workplace support that is appropriate).

To use a somewhat silly analogy - we understand that if someone is too sick to work, then they shouldn't come to work. We don't tell people "work just isn't the place for your illness," because we know that some illnesses really make it impossible to do any work. And, that if you don't go home and rest, the ultimate impact to the business will be worse in the long run because you can't recover.

I think some personal problems rise to that level. Getting cut off in traffic and being annoyed? I don't know, maybe not. "The cops just shot 3 more black people like me at traffic stops this weekend and I'm having a really hard time concentrating now" might be a "personal problem" that is highly relevant to bring up at work (and coded as "political," to boot). That kind of thing would understandably rattle you, and it takes time to heal from.

I guess my point is: we're not robots, and it's not possible to really "check it at the door" most of the time. It never really has been.

The Basecamp policy isn't going to stop people from bringing their personal problems to work, overall. But it'll silence black people and gay people from bringing their problems to work, because those are "political" problems to some people.

If something happening in society or your personal life is preventing you from doing your job, you don't have to explain it in the company wide channel. In fact, doing so probably won't help you or the company much. Most companies offer sick days and mental health days, for which you don't need to provide any explanation whatsoever. Many companies also pay for confidential mental health services. If your problem can't be solved with those benefits, disability insurance is also commonplace at companies and typically covers mental illness that would prevent you from doing your work. Companies should offer all of those things if they don't. I would go so far as to say that companies should be legally required to offer all of those things if they don't. But I don't think talking about personal or societal dumpster fires in the company chat will do anything to help the person affected, and will likely cause one person or group's problems to affect the work of the rest of the company without leading to any kind of resolution for anyone.

As a counter-point: one of the things I've found the most helpful during the pandemic was the meetings with my coworkers where we set the agenda aside, and just talked about our struggles.

The resources and tools you mentioned are useful and good, but there's something different about supporting each other directly.

While I wouldn't personally talk to my coworkers about my struggles, because I like to keep work and personal life as separate as possible, I don't think there's anything wrong with doing so privately, on your own time, and not in company-wide channels.

Why do you think your marriage is of such general interest that you bring it up in a company chat channel? Talk about it in person, with people who give a shit.

Oh, c'mon. You think he should never mention his spouse to his coworkers, even in passing? You can't think of any situation in which it would be totally ordinary to say something about "my husband" or "my wife" in a work channel?

Anyway, I need to get off HN, I'm working from home and my wife just told me that lunch is ready.

Neither of those messages should be posted in the workplace.

And I really don't understand why your sexual preferences should be known to/by your coworkers either.

Having recent returned to a corporate work environment I am amazed at how much time is spent focusing on these things instead of, you know, running the business and generating shareholder value.

Because people aren’t robots, and like to get to know the people with whom they spend ~40 hours every week?

But not if that involves gay husbands or racist police or housing policy. (And since housing is Topic #1 in SV that might prove a bit difficult.) Only the weather, who you saw dining together at the yacht club, and ... IDK. You can't even have a good old vim/emacs at Basecamp.

> Only the weather

But be careful of anything touching on long-term trends...

> And I really don't understand why your sexual preferences should be known to/by your coworkers either.

Well, to be fair - when I say “my husband” that doesn’t talk about sexual preferences any more than saying “my wife.”

I don’t see how that’s talking about sex, do you?

In conjunction with knowing your gender, I believe it does, or at least provides a very strong suggestion.

The point is neither should matter, and I would argue, neither should be known, in the workplace.

I mean, anonymous handles and no in-person (or zoom) chat might make that sorta possible, but you can’t get around the problem.

The real issue is that this is only a problem in one direction: nobody complains when someone says “my wife,” and some people definitely complain when someone says “my husband”.

It definitely gets made about sex, and gay sex specifically, by the people making the complaint. They’re the ones making it about sex and not leaving it alone as a conversation about one’s spouse.

Which is why it should all be avoided in the workplace. This is not a debate about the merits of gay or straight sexual orientation.

My coworkers have no need to know if I am in a relationship, have children, etc. If they ask I will (and do) tell them I am not interested in having that conversation and I will never ask them or engage further if they bring their partner/spouse/children up.

I'm there to do a job and leave as quickly as possible upon completing the days work. Everything else, in my opinion, is a distraction hampering that goal.

That's a principled and consistent stand, which I applaud you for maintaining. But I don't think that majority of the working world would take such a hard-line stance against sharing any details of their personal lives.

So - we have to deal with the world we have, which is "many, if not most, workers share some degree of personal information about their lives in the workplace." That's the reality we have to deal with.