you're free to have another worldview; it doesn't hurt listening to people who have a different worldview though, especially when it's a viewpoint relevant to the topic (i.e. the founder of basecamp speaking on his point of view).
I had a distinct impression from what you wrote that you wish you didn't waste your time listening to his point of view though, which I find a bit sad if true, but you're free to have your worldview after all.
I really think that the speed at which some people reach judgement and conclusions is astonishing. It's all so easy; the world is split into two groups "us" and "them", right? the right thinkers and the wrong thinkers.
Listen, think, don't jump to conclusions, let things simmer, think again, object to concrete things, ask questions, express your point of view, hold your opinions. I can't make all of that in 20m; lucky you if you have that skill.
One of the most interesting parts of the interview (honestly I don't remember if it's before or after your 20m mark), was when Jason mentioned that there were several employees who felt attacked for not speaking up on some political topics at work; "consent by silence", while people just didn't chime in because they just didn't feel like talking about that stuff, yet suddenly they were treated as if they were racists; or others who felt attacked because they didn't use the right words when discussing about these topics. The whole thing easily backfires: imagine all you want is to promote inclusion and non-toxic environment and you end up fuelling the very same problems from the other side.
I'm not sure I can reach you and actually have a conversation about that; I have the feeling you'll dismiss me and just because you think you already know what I mean and what I stand for; perhaps just labeled me like "them", whatever that means.
Jason could have stepped up and actually be a leader to ensure that political discussions don't lead to a toxic work environment. Instead he centered himself, had a knee-jerk reaction to a point of view that really didn't have anything to do with him personally, and then decided to lob a missile at his own company. That's not courage, that's cowardice.
I'm pretty sure there are many ways to deal with such a situation and many ways to get it wrong. I'm not even arguing that what he did was right; given the amount of grief basecamp is getting, it's clearly possible to imagine a world where Jason had handled it better.
I don't understand though what "being a leader" means here, and why you're calling him a coward for trying out something, even if that something was wrong. What should a leader do if not try out things? Courage doesn't mean "do the right thing"; it just means don't be afraid. One can be a courageous asshole and a coward saint.
That said, you clearly have some ideas one how should one handle such a situation, and how to ensure political discussion don't lead to a toxic environment? Clearly justing saying "don't proselytise your political topics at work" is off the table for some reason.
What is exactly at stakes here? Is it about freedom of bring one's whole self at work? Is it about the urgency of solving the real and pressing problem of american society that requires everybody's attention everywhre? Is it a knee jerk reaction to the toxicity of the former presidential mandate that left a deep scar in american society? What are we talking about exactly here? Why can't I just feel free to mind my own business and do my javascript and whatnot at work and talk about politics at the pub?
I had a distinct impression from what you wrote that you wish you didn't waste your time listening to his point of view though, which I find a bit sad if true, but you're free to have your worldview after all.
I really think that the speed at which some people reach judgement and conclusions is astonishing. It's all so easy; the world is split into two groups "us" and "them", right? the right thinkers and the wrong thinkers.
Listen, think, don't jump to conclusions, let things simmer, think again, object to concrete things, ask questions, express your point of view, hold your opinions. I can't make all of that in 20m; lucky you if you have that skill.
One of the most interesting parts of the interview (honestly I don't remember if it's before or after your 20m mark), was when Jason mentioned that there were several employees who felt attacked for not speaking up on some political topics at work; "consent by silence", while people just didn't chime in because they just didn't feel like talking about that stuff, yet suddenly they were treated as if they were racists; or others who felt attacked because they didn't use the right words when discussing about these topics. The whole thing easily backfires: imagine all you want is to promote inclusion and non-toxic environment and you end up fuelling the very same problems from the other side.
I'm not sure I can reach you and actually have a conversation about that; I have the feeling you'll dismiss me and just because you think you already know what I mean and what I stand for; perhaps just labeled me like "them", whatever that means.