zlacker

>>bradge+(OP)
This is a great account of "what."

I'm still struggling to understand the "why."

(That's not an implicit criticism of the article, which is extremely appreciated because it's neutral and factual)

I've been away from Ruby for a few years but Shopify always seemed like a huge net positive, sponsoring lots of valuable work on both Ruby and Rails. I never followed Ruby community happenings very closely but I'm not aware of negative feelings towards their community role in the past.

>>JohnBo+PG
The "what" seems to be purely a reaction to this article DHH posted: https://world.hey.com/dhh/as-i-remember-london-e7d38e64

Apparently, the reason is having an incorrect opinion.

>>X0nic+oR
Speaking of incorrect opinions, it's pretty hard not to read this and conclude his "no politics at work" initiative was just him seeing his company was full of liberals he found annoying and this was his scheme to kick them all out.

>>mbac32+C03
This makes no sense. He never said employees couldn't discuss politics outside of work through personal channels.

>>blasph+763
If DHH had genuinely progressive instincts, he would likely have been more even-handed. He could have credibly said: “look, I’m personally left-leaning, but I want work to stay apolitical for everyone’s sanity”

Instead, the intensity of his crackdown, coupled with later statements aligning him with reactionary causes, strongly suggests his “neutrality” was in practice a shield against progressive causes inside Basecamp.

Is it unfair that you can only impose a “no politics” rule without backlash if you’re progressive? Maybe a little. But the asymmetry is baked in: progressives are the ones challenging the status quo, so banning politics almost always protects the status quo and silences the challengers. And in this case, his later positions confirmed that he wasn’t neutral at all, he wasn’t on the side of the people he’d told to leave.

>>mbac32+Jo3
> Is it unfair that you can only impose a “no politics” rule without backlash if you’re progressive? Maybe a little. But the asymmetry is baked in: progressives are the ones challenging the status quo, so banning politics almost always protects the status quo and silences the challengers

"Progressives" (I don't think the label is accurate for the group it describes) are also the ones who believe that "protecting the status quo" entails doing "politics".