[throwaway789256]

This dynamic is playing out in thousands of companies and startups across the US. Many people in the US, the woke, have redefined "white supremacy" and "racism" to mean most inequalities and behavior that they don't like:

They do not accept non-racist environments, only anti-racist ones. They do not accept that businesses be politically neutral. Businesses must take political stances internally and publicly. To do anything less, or to remain silent, is to be complicit in what they see as white supremacy and systemic racism. And if you disagree with those people, you will be accused of being racist, as Singer was.

The irony, of course, is that Hansson and Fried built a reputation around righteousness and wokeness, and then it came for them, because they were two white guys with power.

And when they realized what was happening, they executed their cultural pivot very poorly. They came out with a hard ban on a bunch of people who have the talent to work elsewhere.

Coinbase, at least, had the good sense to focus on the positive, their orientation as a mission-focused company. At the same time, Coinbase was making its employees rich with options and headed for an IPO.

The two companies will be paired case studies at HBS someday about how to screw it up and how to do it right.

[comte7092]

Your assertions don’t really stack up with the known facts of the situation.

It seems that there was at the very least one instance of behavior that employees perceived as outwardly racist (the names list) and were seeking to address issues surrounding that behavior.

On the outside, it’s hard to know much more about the details, but it also would appear that employees took issue with other somewhat minor slights that may have amounted to a pattern of behavior, in particular relating to someone with a lot of authority at base camp, who was then given a pass under the guise of political differences.

[throwaway789256]

I think my assertions stack up pretty well with the facts.

The names list hasn't been clearly established as racist. If you have 10 times the European names as you have Asian names, is it racist against Asians, or were there "funny" names in all groups?

The perception of racism is not necessarily racism. That is precisely the point that is being argued. The claim of white supremacy does not mean that an organization is white supremacist. Big claims need big evidence. I haven't seen it.

Minor slights happen. They are inevitable in daily life no matter what your race, gender, sexual orientation or other identity. If you use minor slights to create an uproar in the context of your job, you are a bad employee who should be fired. Tying minor slights to genocide is one way of creating an uproar.

Singer had power and seniority at Basecamp. He once linked to a Breitbart page. While I differ with Breitbart on most issues, I do not see that as prima facie evidence that Singer is white supremacist or racist.

Just because Singer is a white male with authority does not make him, by definition, a white supremacist or a racist.

And if the only cure for that kind of "white supremacy" is replacing all the white males with any power or authority with people of other identities, then I'm opposed to that "cure," because it is a racist and discriminatory cure based on false generalizations about genders and racial groups.

[comte7092]

Your assertion was that these people cannot accept race neutral, they’ll only accept anti racism.

With that framing, the perception of whether the list was racist does matter as it explains their motivation. Because they did perceive the list to be racist, it’s just not the case that they were taking issue with the idea of being race neutral.

Second, you are jumping to wild conclusions about what they were asking for. At no point did anyone say that “all white males with any power or authority” must be replaced. If that were true, it would stand to reason that they’d aim their ire at the entire leadership structure itself rather than on the one individual. Your blanket assertion may have some grounding in your personal experiences, but it is overly broad in this instance.

Finally, while the equivalence between minor slights and genocide has been made, that was not the reason why I brought it up. The reason why I mention minor slights is that, while they may be minor in isolation, when taken in context together they can reveal a pattern of behavior that is hard to explain to those on the outside, and thus is difficult to perceive to us as observers. In this instance it seemed that employees wanted to shave a forum to address this and were shut down.

[throwaway789256]

> With that framing, the perception of whether the list was racist does matter as it explains their motivation.

I don't think we know their true motivation. Anyone can claim to perceive something as racist. We cannot control their sense of offense. The act they claim to be racist may or may not be racist.

But what advocates of critical race theory have found is that, by claiming that something is racist, they can bring pressure on their employers.

That is precisely what happened here. Basecamp is now under tremendous pressure. Plenty of ire has been focused on the co-founders as well as Singer. Singer has quit, though we don't know the facts of the case. Accusations of racism are fatal to one's career, whether or not they have a basis in fact.

Another word for "revealed pattern" is "narrative." Many narratives can be told about the same set of facts. And many of those narratives are deeply subjective, or driven by ideology.

I could take many minor actions by Jane Yang and others at Basecamp and interpret them as a power grab.

To be clear, I know that some people and companies do act in racist ways. Such behavior is illegal and should be punished. But the evidentiary bar to establish that is high. That bar has not yet been met here.

In this case, we have very serious accusations and very little evidence, evidence that can be interpreted in several ways. But Basecamp and Singer have already suffered serious consequences, and the claims have been aired publicly.

So they were able to create a scandal without going through the effort of proving anything.

[comte7092]

You claim not to know their true motivation, yet your entire argument relies on the assumption that they had malicious intent. You also note that “the act they claim to be racist may or may not be racist” and yet it is clear that you have assumed that it is not throughout your post.

And this is the crux of the issue. Ones entire interpretation of these issues relies on whether or not one believes racism exists as a structural problem or not. Opponents reduce this down to a simple difference of opinion, but if you see that the world treats certain groups differently than others, it is not mere difference of opinion, there are real, tangible consequences that go along with that disagreement.

The thing that you get wrong, that so many people get wrong on all sides of this, is that the issue at hand here isn’t about whether Singer is himself a racist person. When people speak of “white supremacy” refers to a structural system within society that treats people differently on the basis of their race, in a hierarchy that places white people at the top. It’s not a matter of individual intent, but the culmination of ways that people act differently towards each other that nets out to place people in different positions within society.

I think it’s reasonable to disagree on how you go about remedying that situation, but the assertion that “people are treated differently by society as a whole, based on their race” shouldn’t be that controversial of a statement.

[asabjorn]

> You claim not to know their true motivation, yet your entire argument relies on the assumption that they had malicious intent. You also note that “the act they claim to be racist may or may not be racist” and yet it is clear that you have assumed that it is not throughout your post.

The person(s) that attacked Singer used social justice activist techniques, claim of and demand for denouncing "white supremacy" in order to reduce a viewpoint opponents moral authority, where "white supremacy" uses the social justice unstated redefinition of the colloquial term to mean "policy or habitual behavior that could perpetrate outcomes not in alignment with social justice dogma".

This activist technique is a kafka trap with no good answer. Keeping that in mind its pretty clear where the accuser comes from.

As a side-note: a discussion/debate between viewpoint opponent break down if serious accusation are made without evidence, and a healthy discussion and work environment need to exclude such bad actors. Kudos to basecamp and coinbase for adopting policies that discourage such behavior.

[throwaway789256]

> Ones entire interpretation of these issues relies on whether or not one believes racism exists as a structural problem or not.

I think you are right that that belief shapes how we interpret these issues. By racism as a structural problem, I assume you mean this:

> “people are treated differently by society as a whole, based on their race”

Society is not an actor. It is a collection of people, and the people are actors. Some of them are racist, and some are not.

I do not believe that every situation is permeated with structural racism that must be corrected, but I suspect that people who believe in structural racism tend to find it everywhere and use it to justify the changes they propose.

I don't assume that they had malicious intent. But I do think that they perceive situations through a distorted lens, which often leads to behavior that is harmful to the organizations where they work.

I think that Basecamp and Singer and most organizations and individuals deserve an assumption of innocence.

Racism has to be proven. Accusations must be backed up with evidence. And the burden of evidence is on the accusers. I think critical race theorists start with the assumption that racism is shaping the interaction.

It is not enough to say that structural racism exists and therefore we should believe that it shaped the behavior of people at Basecamp. You have to prove it case by case. Simply claiming structural racism does not justify enormous change.

Statistically, people of different races experience different outcomes in the US on average. But there is a huge standard deviation in those outcomes by race or gender; that is, any given individual may be doing relatively well or poorly relative to the average.

And I think that applying assertions about society and societal ills to individuals, their actions and specific situations is often misguided, because they may deviate wildly from the average.

But that is exactly what critical race theorists tend to do. They treat individuals as representatives of a larger social trend. A male represents the patriarchy. A Caucasian represents white supremacy.

But attacking an individual to remedy a larger statistical discrepancy is in itself a form of injustice. Especially when we diagnose the supposed cause of that discrepancy with vagueness, as a culmination of ways that society acts.

That is not enough to convince me of the claims being made against Singer and Basecamp, or of the rightness of the Basecamp employees in rebellion.

[FooBarBizBazz]

> The irony, of course, is that Hansson and Fried built a reputation around righteousness and wokeness, and then it came for them, because they were two white guys with power.

That's extremely predictable at this point.

[stuaxo]

From the little I know about it, they asked for people to look into inequality issues at work around hiring, then didn't like what was found and said nobody could talk about politics.

Sounds like they talked the talk, but when it came to walking the walk, they walked back and told everyone to be quiet.

[krschacht]

I sincerely appreciate the clarity with which you have made your points and responded to the myriad of replies int his thread. You’ve untangled messy thinking right and left with nuanced statements that cut through confusions.

I would love to talk sometime, if you’re open to it. Send me an email: krschacht at gmail

[SantalBlush]

>They do not accept non-racist environments, only anti-racist ones. They do not accept that businesses be politically neutral.

Perhaps they are the ones working toward a politically neutral, non-racist environment, and it is you who won't accept it.

In truth, I don't believe either they or you could properly identify what a politically neutral environment really looks like, and you're probably all unreliable and serving your own ends.

[JPKab]

No you really don't get it.

At my company that I was formally employed at before moving on to my current startup, we had a minority of employees very aggressively and vocally demanding that the CEO issue an anti-racism statement after the George Floyd murder. A statement was issue condemning what happened and racism. They were not satisfied with this and demanded that the exact words black lives matter be used and also that a donation to the BLM organization be made.

The company sold data analysis software targeted at Excel power users. It didn't have any offices in Minnesota. The idea that the company needed to make these statements was insane. They don't control police forces in Minneapolis they don't control police forces anywhere.

It is literally not their business to comment on these matters.

And something I have repeatedly stated and noticed is that the employees making these demands are mediocre at best. I rarely see talented developers doing this because they're too busy working.

[tshaddox]

I believe there is a lot of ground between "companies ought to issue every statement demanded by any employee" and "companies ought to explicitly prohibit any workplace discussion about anything that can remotely be considered political."

[andrewmd5]

> I rarely see talented developers doing this because they're too busy working.

I love the privilege on display here. You can ignore racial inequality issues because "they are too distracting," meanwhile I have to wake up each morning, read yet another one of my brothers and sisters has been killed by police, and I still have to run my business. Your mediocrity exist in your complacently to the status-quo. On a daily basis we innovate, build, ship, and push tech more than you could ever hope -- and we don't need to ban "political discussions" at work.

If a business chooses to condemn something without backing up that solidarity with meaningful resources and capital, they should be criticized.

[nomdep]

> meanwhile I have to wake up each morning, read yet another one of my brothers and sisters has been killed…

Unless they have the same parents, they are not your brothers and sisters more than OP is. Imagine an us-vs-then based on skin color is extremely racist and should be criticized.

[JPKab]

You have no idea how much software I ship, but like your ideology, you make assertions without data.

You act as if the only people who are killed by police are "one of my brothers and sisters".

Let's unpack that, shall we?

https://mappingpoliceviolence.org/

Roughly 3/4 of people killed by police in the US are not one of your "brothers and sisters" if by "brothers and sisters" you are referring to humans who share your melanin content and location of ancestral origin (of course all humans are descended from African humans, but to suit the purposes of demagogues, we can ignore that and just stop at the arbitrary point in lineage where we can maximize division to reap power).

As you read this, it is extremely likely that you cant name a single one of the non-black people killed by police last year, can you? Of course not. Or even in the last 5 years, can you? There are 3 times as many of these people as the group you are ethnocentrically focused on.

Let's also talk about the "sisters" aspect. Statistically, women killed by police are minimal. The referenced website, run by activists, removed the filter for women, but you can download the data yourself to see that it's a minimal amount.

Based on the logic of this movement created by people who don't understand basic stats, the discrepancy between men and women must mean that police are systemically sexist against men, right? Because only the outcome matters, and all explanations except bigotry must be ignored.

A big difference these days is that when a non-black person is wrongfully shot by police, the complete lack of national media coverage allows the police to get off scot free.

See Daniel Shaver, who was recorded on camera being executed, unarmed in his underwear, begging for his life, by a psycho cop.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uv_eyGw4s3w

Unlike Chauvin, said psycho cop was exonerated and dismissed with a full pension, as if he honorable retired. Where were you and BLM? Nowhere, because it's a bigoted, ethnocentric movement designed to divide rather than unite.

You should ask yourself why you used the phrase "brothers and sisters" about people who share your ethnnicity, and why you don't use it for all humans, like I do. Ask yourself if you've been sucked into the precursor to pure racism, ethnocentrism. Ask yourself if you've allowed yourself to be misinformed by media designed to monetize your confirmation bias, rather than inform you.

[joshuamorton]

> Where were you and BLM?

https://www.12news.com/article/news/local/valley/mesa-rally-...

Please don't lie and spread hateful rhetoric like the idea that BLM is "bigoted" (against whom, the police?). BLM activists actually were involved in a lot of the Daniel Shaver activism. It is a travesty that the cop that killed him wasn't held accountable, but trying to blame the BLM movement for that when then, and now, they're actively trying to make changes to that system, in ways that are helpful to people of all races, makes me think you're being driven by an irrational hate and fear of the BLM movement.

> ethnocentrism

This word doesn't mean what you seem to think it means. "Ethnocentrism" is an antonym of cultural relativism, which I guess could be seen as a sort of supremacy ideology, but not in the way you seem to be using it.

> Based on the logic of this movement created by people who don't understand basic stats, the discrepancy between men and women must mean that police are systemically sexist against men, right? Because only the outcome matters, and all explanations except bigotry must be ignored.

Certainly there are ways that society fails men, yes. It frames them as more violent and dangerous, and because of this I would indeed expect that (and the stats back up) that men are killed, by police disproportionately compared to women, basically no matter how you measure.

[banannaise]

> See Daniel Shaver, who was recorded on camera being executed, unarmed in his underwear, begging for his life, by a psycho cop.

Literally the only substantial voice that stood up and went to bat for Daniel Shaver was BLM. You're right, police violence is far from isolated to Black people. Most BLM activists would agree that stopping police violence has multi-racial benefits!

[tha0xa3]

>Literally the only substantial voice that stood up and went to bat for Daniel Shaver was BLM.

I don't believe this is true. Can you like anything on BlackLivesMatter.com that touches on Daniel Shaver's death?

[SantalBlush]

From the first website you link:

>Black people were 28% of those killed by police in 2020 despite being only 13% of the population.

You basically just proved the point you were replying to, that racial inequality exists in policing.

[vtail]

This is a very naive view. Black people are responsible for higher share of murders, for example, than their share of population. We should look at the frequency of interactions with the police, not at the population shares.

[JPKab]

Apparently gender inequality exists in policing as well. Why do police almost exclusively murder males, in your opinion?

I'm asking in good faith, because I think you have insightful comments and I'm curious, even if I disagree with you on a few things.

[andrewmd5]

See, all you have to do is push people who claim to want an apolitical workspace just a little to get their real views to surface.

Enjoy your sad, weird life https://andrew.im/

[tha0xa3]

>See, all you have to do is push people who claim to want an apolitical workspace just a little to get their real views to surface.

What "real views"? He laid out a fairly neutral and convincing case for apolitical workspaces.

I can't tell if your posts are parody or not.

[majani]

Maybe address the fair points raised rather than demonizing the other side?

[JPKab]

I read your blog. You and I share a common life experience: Spending part of your childhood homeless.

Have a nice day.

[throwaway789256]

What do you want businesses to do? Should they all commit meaningful resources and capital to social justice?

What about climate change? Should they also commit meaningful capital and resources to that?

How should they balance those with other priorities, like their fiduciary duty to their shareholders?

[TheSisko]

> A statement was issue condemning what happened and racism. They were not satisfied with this and demanded that the exact words black lives matter be used and also that a donation to the BLM organization be made.

It's weird that hold this case up as an example of unreasonable behavior on the employees part when in actuality their requests are extremely normal and reasonable.

[remram]

Giving money yourself is one thing, or asking about a company match even. Asking that your company or anybody give their money towards any cause you care about is unreasonable.

In the absence of any specific connection to your business, there are plenty of worthy causes (race inequalities, but also gender inequalities, world hunger, ...) and you can't demand that your company (or any company) actively contribute to all of them lest they be called out for being anti-X.

[nicbou]

What is the playbook for a situation like this?

[TheSisko]

Using the words "black lives matter" and making a donation to a BLM affiliated group.

It's basic, morally right, and easily completed during a single lunch break. There's absolutely no reason to overthink this.

[JPKab]

This ignores the fact that BLM affiliated groups are far more than race focused, and wrap in huge chunks of neo Marxist and post modernist ideology, such as calling for dissolution of nuclear families as the core social unit.

BLM and their cohorts were never elected to be representatives of black Americans. The default assumption of upper middle class whites who grew up in segregated suburbs is that they must be representative and most black Americans share their very radical views. I can assure you they do not and opinion polls show this.

I spent a few years in foster care and the best family I was in was a black family in Virginia where the head of household was a police officer and his wife was a public defender in a neighboring county. They and most of their church congregation absolutely despise black lives matter the organization, not the message obviously.

The organization gave itself that name to deliberately overload a moral message with their off-putting, alien, and radical ideology.

Your comment is proof that this strategy worked because if I disagree with any single element of the organization and therefore don't donate, according to your comment I am no longer morally correct and must not think that black lives matter. It's a simplistic and moralistic take evidence by your absolute moral certainty.

[vxNsr]

The fact that you start here by assuming the OP has a nefarious plan simply bec you disagree with him politically is the entire issue. You’re willing to believe him when he says what he believes but you won’t believe for the part that you find distasteful. That’s some major mental gymnastics.

[SantalBlush]

Please show me where I'm assuming a nefarious plan. Putting words in my mouth or thoughts into my my head is doing the very thing that you pretend to condemn here.

[nicbou]

The last sentence would be my guess