> A fellowship is "a group of people that join together for a common purpose or interest".
You're very explicitly not describing a job or a company here, as most of them exist today. For all the comparisons to the LoTR trilogy, almost none of us here are working on anything that impactful, or anything that important, and neither are our employers. Most of us are going to show up to work tomorrow and work on another endpoint in a CRUD app, not combat an existential threat.
> If you put other things above your fellows and mission, you're a mercenary, not a fellow.
Yeah, man - I am a mercenary. I joined my currently employer because they are paying me money in exchange for the services I provide them.
I can’t comprehend why someone would submit themselves so hard to the American corporate rhetoric.
A workplace is neither a family, nor a fellowship. It should not be the center of your life, and certainly not something to fully submit yourself to.
In that sense, I like the mercenary analogy very much.
Lifestyle business is where you want to be to have band of brothers or fellowship ideology and rhetoric. DHH has always been a proponent of lifestyle business.
In the corporate world fellowship is rarely discussed and for good reason. I don’t believe most people are blinded by corporate rhetoric; some genuinely want to participate in missions and want to find others who think similarly.
Certainly, but in the vast majority of cases where the company tells you you've joined a fellowship, that fellowship is very one-sided, and the company wants your loyalty while giving you none in return.
That's what the GP is cautioning against, and that's overwhelmingly the rule today. If you do find a company that treats its employees like a family and cares about them enough to keep them employed during (the employee's) hardship, that's a valuable thing indeed.
I think my point is that some lifestyle companies (basecamp’s one of the originals) want to be a fellowship because they see the ideological joining together in shared mission and culture as a valuable thing. I think it is valuable to people who want to experience more band of brothers in their work.
Most companies are mercenaries and most companies are okay with that. Also most individuals are mercenaries and are fine with it as well.
Upon more reflection I do think the ability for fellowship to suppress infighting via mission driven self sacrifice is more of a fantasy rather than a practical application in real world companies. That’s the function of pay and org structure in most other orgs.
If you examine any two values that you believe in close enough, you can find a place where they rub against each other. That friction doesn’t mean one is “anti” the other, just that you sometimes need to find a way to compromise.
A claim that pro-activism is anti-fellowship is only true if you are dogmatic and uncompromising about putting your fellowship first. Such a fellowship is otherwise known as a ‘cult’.
Being unable to countenance good faith disagreement is not a persuasive argument against your ideology being a cult.
As an alternative approach, you can cut the gordian knot of being against anti-racism without being in favor of racism by simply noting that the thing is not what it calls itself.
I disagree that activism makes you a "mercenary". If anything, I think of myself at work as a mercenary who is good to his word, and does what he's fucking paid to do, without bringing his personal beliefs into it. If it grates on my conscience, I don't take the contract in the first place.
It's a professional thing to do, dammit.
Activism at the workplace is as far as one can get from either fellowship or a mercenary camp: it's your personal beliefs and values above all else, at all cost. Screw the work, screw the colleagues, screw the company, I need to preach on the company dime, or improve stuff no one has asked me to improve.
... is political. What is that purpose, why is it common, and how does the joining work - these are the fundamental political problems.
> If you put other things above your fellows and mission, you're a mercenary, not a fellow.
Yes. At work, you are a mercenary. Your safety, family, health, concern for the decent treatment of your fellow humans, ought to come before your product. If the direction of the company you work for impinges on human decency, you shouldn't put that aside in favour of some weird 'fellowship' complex.
> It promotes people to stick to their beliefs rather than put them aside. [...] It attracts those who have their own interest and want a platform for their own interests
It's possible to have beliefs that aren't purely self-interested, an idea which seems so foreign to the author as to escape consideration entirely.
It's possible to have beliefs that help you achieve your 'mission' in a way that's compatible with your values. If laying down your belief that racism is harmful and wrong is necessary for you 'mission', then the mission is itself harmful and wrong, and no amount of 'fellowship' is going to change that.
>> Joining together for a common purpose
> ... is political.
I think the author is referring to the mission statement of companies. While some missions statements have political elements, I can see plenty of mission statements that give a common purpose and are not political. Examples: "Accellerate the advent of sustainable transport" -- Tesla, "Build the best CPU" -- Intel (?).
It is well known that a strong mission statement is an important motivation for people to join and continue to work at companies (e.g. Pink's Autonomy, Mastery and Purpose Framework). So to describe a company as a group of people who are joining together for a common purpose is not wrong.
(Of course, there are of course many more factors that influence work-place selection and motivation.)
Can you elaborate where you see this all rooted in politics?
There's a genre of opinion that sounds like "I don't want politics in my videogames/workplace/church/facebook group", which stems from an idea that politics is exclusively a thing that politicians do in government, coupled with a (mistaken) sense that 'being political' is a bad attribute.
In fact, 'being political' is non-normative - per wikipedia:
Politics is the set of activities that are associated with making decisions in groups, or other forms of power relations between individuals, such as the distribution of resources or status.
So, the first answer to your question is a pedantic one: "joining together for a common purpose" is by definition a political act.
The second, more nuanced argument, is that your even if it's not obvious, these mission statements are political:
- "Accelerate the advent of sustainable transport" - says that 1. sustainable transport is good; 2. sustainable transport isn't coming fast enough; 3. it's appropriate for a private company to influence the transport market
- "Build the best CPU" - 1. CPUs are a good thing to spend energy and finite resources on; 2. something about the validity of calling a cpu 'best'
and so on. I agree that having a clear mission which your employees are aligned to is crucial for morale and effectiveness; but the way that mission is chosen, who influences it, the way that it displays beliefs about what is desirable; and how it evolves over time all are all political.
common purpose and are not political. Examples: "Accellerate the advent of sustainable transport" -- Tesla
Tesla is extremely political if you want it to be. Exactly what you choose to mean by the word 'sustainable' has all kinds of political implications. The core argument for going electric and solar over internal combustion and coal power is rooted in the environmental movement and based on a belief in global warming and climate change. That is 'political'
Equally pushing for autonomous driving can be seen as taking stance against all the people that will lose their jobs if self driving cars and trucks become a reality. Clearly taking a stance for Capital and against The Workers. That is 'political'.
Yes, I see this political dimension for Tesla -- on a different topic than racism -- but I give you that point.
However, there _are_ plenty of Mission Statements that are a political, just look at your local craftsman or industrial suppliers: "making plumbing work at your home", "creating the best concrete foundations", "selling the best shoes", etc. those are not "fundamentally" or primarily political missions.
Is that how you characterise the activism at bandcamp, which said "maybe this racist list of 'funny names' is racist, and maybe we shouldn't do that?"
Because, to write off 'how about not being racist' as "saying the right words and dis-empower Gen-X", or "[using] a platform for their own interests" is ...
racist.
And being anti-racist is political activism, and that's good.
> If laying down your belief that racism is harmful and wrong is necessary for you 'mission', then the mission is itself harmful and wrong, and no amount of 'fellowship' is going to change that.
Absolutely! I did not see anyone at Basecamp questioning this.
Agree, maybe I should have been more explicit about the argument I'm trying to make:
- The OP's argument is irrelevant to bandcamp, since the antiracism at bandcamp was actually not directed at the 'mission' at all
- If we instead consider the hypothetical that OP is responding to - that being antiracist is in conflict with your 'mission' - then it was a bad mission anyway, and maybe you should change it so that it no longer conflicts with antiracism.
I talk to like-minded individuals at work all the time, but these are my friends, I know their views, I know what subjects I can safely bring up. I don't want some wokester accusing me of not being in on The Cause because I ditched a BLM All-Hands at lunch time.
The problem is that in the current hyperactive cancel culture, seeking and destroying anyone who said an off-color joke on social media ten years ago, the workplace becomes a minefield, and it has enough complexities as it is.
There is a reason why we don't talk about politics and religion in the office openly. We learned these lessons the hard way.
I’ve never really experienced activism per-se in the workplace. Master/slave in the code base was raised as an issue but that’s about it!
I have, however, worked in an organisation that transitioned from a clear fellowship of everyone working towards a common goal and putting their other concerns on hold to one where you felt your interests were competing.
I ultimately left because of this transition (life is too short!), and it’s interesting that it was the introduction of self-interested, mercenary sales guys and a commercially oriented CEO that triggered it.
Another problem with politics-in-the-workplace is it seems like there is only one accepted political dogma. If people were constantly blasted in the face with my politics they would be very annoyed. But I’m supposed to accept their politics unquestionably.
Totally agree with this article - just do your job and get on the soap box during your own time.
My politics generally align with what you call the 'one accepted political dogma', but I have to admit that workers who overtly signal their activism over actually doing the work they're paid for are supremely annoying. In fact, amongst the silent majority they probably do more harm than good for their cause.
"I'm going to pick up my kid at school this afternoon, because otherwise he has to spend over an hour on the bus. It would be nice if they had more school buses so kids wouldn't have to deal with such long bus rides."
"Excuse me, Becky, but you cannot be discussing local politics in the workplace. That's a fireable offense, you know."
Discouraging people from voting for Trump? Pushing for equal pay across genders? Believing the business should do more to diversify its hiring? Pushing for transgender bathrooms? Being opposed to working on defense contracts?
For some people, these conversations are “obvious facts”, not politics.
What is religion? For some people the Ten Commandments and the need to follow the Lord Jesus Christ are facts. It's the very creator of the universe ordering things! Or the laws in the Quran are undisputed truths for some, not some wishy-washy matter of debate.
How did we ever manage to get past that?
A lot of tribal, identity-based politics is much like religion in this way. For the believers it's simply truth. For outsiders it's just one faith out of many that you should keep private in a secular society.
The response by DHH and Jason wasn't really to ban politics though, it was that only their political stance was acceptable. As a result of the policy, it's not that Basecamp had no opinion on the names list - instead, the outcome was that they did have a stance that it was bad, but not bad enough that you could link it to systemic racism.
"No politics" is a smokescreen. What it means in reality, here or anywhere else its instituted, is that "leadership decides the acceptable position on political issues."
Work is political - saying that people should get on with work without discussing "political topics" prevents them from discussing and solving the issues within their own work.
Yes there is a need to make sure work that directly brings money into the organisation gets done but part of that work is making sure everyone everyone works equally.
"There's no way the ring is getting to Mordor if Gimli is pushing for elf reparations." This suggests we can't deal with more than one thing at once. We can deal with the big bad of our generation (I would argue climate change), while also improving the material condition of disadvantaged people across society.
> improving the material condition of disadvantaged people across society.
The average modern activist in software organizations is well educated, underperforming in terms of actual code contributions and a master at forming committees, work groups and assuming power.
This activist fights for keeping his/her own job while others are doing the work.
Classic leftist/pro-worker policies have been extinct since at least the 1990s.
This is a strawman, unmoored from evidence or reality.
Here's my read, based on your supporting the blog post and your two comments:
You've constructed this fantasy as a defence mechanism. You use the classification of those with earnest beliefs that you find threatening as worse at 'actual code' and obsessed with 'work groups', and on that basis you reject those beliefs without having to introspect.
As collaboration, design, and people skills become more valued as ways to produce better software alongside sheer lines-of-code output, you fear that the power you derive from skills is being diluted.
As the corporate world realises that people who aren't men or who aren't white might matter, need to be taken into account, and might have something to contribute, you fear that maybe some of what you got you didn't deserve quite as much as you thought, and the fear of being seen as privileged makes you want to cling onto your existing power all the more.
This is an opportunity for growth. You can choose whether to create resentful posts on HN, writing off anyone who cares as a leech, or you can engage with those underlying feelings and become a better human, and better at your job.
This is extraordinarily vicious, and yet entirely par for the course, a good example of the basically pro forma denunciation OP is arguing should be verboten in the work place.
It depends on what you refer as political. Saying a certain president is crap and making an open invitation to a protest against him or her is not the same as discussing your views on things that directly affect your work performance.
I understand both sides of this conversation. And can't help but think that politics crossing over to the workplace (where we spend a big chunk of our time) is overall good, since democracy hasn't really taken hold at the office in general.
For how much longer can we expect people to demand society to be progressive and equal at large and still cope with these small quasi-feudal (at worst) fiefdoms we spend 8+ hours a day in?
Still, Twitter and social media in general have not prepared us to have these discussions at all, and I expect that for this notion to thrive, whole new businesses based on activism and equality and work to have to be created. More Mondragóns, fewer Coinbases. A difference here is workplace activism and not persecution of thoughtcrime, MAGA followers and so on. Except when they believe in Jewish space lasers, of course.
Activism is necessarily divisive unless everyone already agrees on a political ideology and the solutions to issues activists focus on. If you are an activist, you might think this is a good thing—it may please you to create an environment hostile to people you don't agree with. But if you're trying to run a company, division is antithetical to your goals.
You know better than I what goes on in Apple, so I’m happy to hear they are committed to supporting and learning from employees with diverse political viewpoints beyond the usual California progressivism, including conservatism. It’s certainly not obvious that’s the case to an outsider.
(If you’ll allow me an irrelevant aside, your snarky sarcasm, point missing, and cleverer-than-thou ironic posturing makes it difficult for me to take you seriously. But perhaps it’s considered polite where you’re from. I’m happy to learn.)
That assumes the activists are in the right. You’ve chosen a side. Would you say “the division didn’t start with the activists” if it was conservative activists advocating for modest dress codes or similar? Your position assumes that progressive activists are correct, justified in bringing their politics to work, and that if they have a problem it’s the company’s fault.
But you have to work with people you might disagree with, including conservatives, religious people, and so on. The point of keeping activism out of business is so that people with differing politics can work together. If you can't in good conscience do that, the honorable thing to do is resign, as happened at Basecamp.
I understand you find it cognitively and rhetorically convenient to focus on an example rather than the point it’s exemplifying. But, if you’re capable of imagining alternative viewpoints, try swapping the example to one more to your taste to help you focus on the argument.
I agree it's a low value discussion, but I'm just fascinated that every comment you make exemplifies my point better than I did. The popularity of your style of interaction is precisely why policitcs should be kept out of the workplace.
> I could hardly disagree more with the premise that activism is anti-fellowship.
If you are doing activism, in the workplace, that runs against the beliefs and opinions of (some of the) the people you work with. How could this be anything but anti-fellowship?
Which beliefs and opinions? What if I'm arguing that our non-white employees are being passed over for promotions, and our women employees are all chronically underpaid compared to the men? How would that be more anti-fellowship than your fellows not being paid equitably?
What if you're arguing that women should stay at home, or that climate change is fake, or immigrants are a blight on society?
It works both ways I'm afraid. And many people will think that those opinions are somehow good for society and that they're being good team players by pushing them.
It does not work both ways when the things I'm arguing for are directly impacting my fellow coworkers, and are the results of direct decisions by the higher ups. It's not a question of society at that point, it's a question of what's good for the company.
OP loves his fellowship analogy, but you can't have a fellowship where the halflings are only getting half-rations and Gandalf refuses to let the Dwarves participate in half of their endeavours.
I see that many assumptions are made about the value of fellowship and the effects of activism. And this is why I disagree with the premise -- I can't start with those assumptions.
I disagree strongly with the premise of the article and think it has logical flaws.
Aren't you more of a mercenary if you put personal believes and convictions aside, just to serve your employer as he wants, without asking questions or trying to do the right thing?
Can a fellowship or ("a group of people that join together for a common purpose or interest") really form around an SaaS-/Adtech-/SocialMedia-Startup whose main goal is to make the founders rich?
It would have been nice to see a nuanced, thoughtful, insightful look at the various viewpoints that exist within this complex issue. Because many parts of this "activism" are important e.g. how women are treated in IT or what values does a company need to defend in this modern age.
Instead we get an utterly cringeworthy "everyone should just be quiet and follow the wisdom of Lord of the Rings" which adds absolutely nothing to the discourse.
Author here. If you think that I’m telling people to shut up about important issues then you’re wrong. I think activism has its place in a society that needs a lot of social change.
But if you think that activism is a universally appropriate activity no matter the situation, I respectfully disagree. That’s why I wrote this post. I think pushing activism in a place where you want fellowship is disruptive to fellowship.
I’m sorry my writing doesn’t contribute what you want to hear. I write to gain clarity for myself first and foremost, not for others. I also like discussing the topic with others to form a better opinion and like to use what others have to say to shape how I think. Sorry you don’t feel the same way.
The analogy is unfortunately nerdy, but flagging it is over the top.
That sort of behaviour plays into the hands of those who believe that criticism of social activists is shut down by sympathisers rather than countered with civil argument.
I do disagree with Basecamp's policy, but I certainly wouldn't flag someone for arguing in favour of it. But I'm not sure I'd consider the linked post an argument in favour of it either; that implies that it contained an argument, but this seemed to just be a vague hand wave at popular culture, following by a bare assertion. Okay, how about "the Rebels were good, and the Empire was bad; the Rebels were a group organised for a common purpose, and so is a labour union, so the Rebels are like a union, so you should join your local union, because otherwise Palpatine will win"? Is that all we need?
One reason I wouldn't flag an argument I disagreed with is because the comments would be an excellent place to see people discussing, refuting, or affirming the points being made. But with something like this...what's to discuss? Or refute? The entire post would make at least as much sense (which is to say, not much) if you just flipped the conclusion and left the body alone. ("Fellowship means looking after everyone and not sacrificing people for the greater good, mercenaries just go to work, do their job, and go home without caring about right and wrong or thinking what the job is, etc.")
Why is that every, single article that gets posted on this subject at HN completely ignores the “funny names” list that actually caused this incident.
Folks keep acting like it was kids screaming BLM on the company message board and it’s kind of infuriatingly disingenuous.
It feels almost purposeful that folks are ignoring the specific political grievance that employees had, and they are framing it as activist pressure.
I’m genuinely impressed at Basecamps ability to completely control the conversation, and I’m incredibly annoyed that articles posted here about it have completely ignored this argument.
It was a specific political act that upset employees - they didn’t “want to just post activism all day instead of working.” That argument is so manufactured it’s painful, and I’m dissapointed a bunch of educated professionals can’t see the manipulation at play.
“I just want to work at work. I don’t need activism in my workplace.” is an opinion entirely tangential to the actual events. But it’s what people hear want to talk about I guess.
It’s good business sense for an internal team to say “You shouldn’t have a funny names list. If that got out it’d be PR hell for the company. It’s bad business and not related to work.” That’s how these complaints should have been taken.
This is probably less about Basecamp and more about the "straw that broke the camel's back" of people being tired of activists being so loud.
Semi-unrelatedly, I noticed something interesting: People who try to solve problem X seem to dislike other people who try to solve the same problem in a slightly different way almost as much as they dislike the people who cause X in the first place.
I find myself being put off similarly, and it's completely irrational that I'd be put off that someone is against racism as much as I am, but has a different idea of what a solution might look like. Being aware of that is probably a good step towards fixing it, so I wanted to mention it here.
That's a really interesting insight. I hadn't seen that before but it appears very true when reflecting on the current political climate. It's as if not agreeing with a given solution to a problem is the same as not wanting to solve the problem.
Yeah, it's especially egregious between pro-nuclear and pro-solar activists, where they fight each other while hydrocarbons keep being burnt. It's insane.
Even if it was the straw that broke the camels back, basecamp has effectively shifted the conversation away from “Should the company have a funny names list?” to “Should we be able to talk politics in company spaces?”
I think it shows a lot of PR skill and thought to have shifted the conversation like this.
In my opinion you’re all too eager to argue about politics in the workplace.
“People being tired of activists being so loud” == over privileged people being pissed off that under privileged people keeping ruining their privileged experience by pointing out their privilege
EDIT: unsurprisingly the word privilege is triggering on HN
It's not that the word "privilege" is triggering people, it's that your comment is exactly the sort of dismissal that leads to the sentiment I described.
If someone complains you're too loud, saying "you just don't like what you're hearing" will just further alienate you from people who like what you're saying but don't like the volume.
Because all parties already acknowledge that the "funny names" list is inappropriate. The issue isn't contended. The list is bad and they got rid of it. Now Basecamp leadership wants to move on while many employees want to litigate the issue further. The executives don't want this because they see it as unproductive and as contributing to even more tension.
Basecamp is without question in the top 5% of most liberal and progressive companies, but they have no desire to be in the top 0.1%. I think there is plenty to criticize on how basecamp handled the communication, but their demands really aren't unreasonable. Basecamp wants to be pluralistic and have people work together despite their differences, and they want to be progressive and inclusive. But they don't want the equity and inclusion efforts to become a disproportionate time sink and something that distracts from the many other goals they have.
Basecamp is a ~60 person company. The specifics of what happened aren't really big enough to catch anyone's interest. Honestly, who would actually care if 20 people kept a funny name list? It is beyond trivial.
Any firestorm is more people arguing over the role politics has in the workplace. The specifics of what happened are a helpful starting point but, going out on a limb here, probably not material to the people who want to discuss it.
FWIW, I can see the funny side of a funny names list, and I honestly have a hard time getting worked up over it. It's not professional; it's juvenile, it's what you'd expect from a teenager, but it's not really worth getting worked up over. Junk it, stop it happening again, move on. From my POV.
But as you can see from the sixth post here on HN, and all the previous ones that gathered over a freaking thousand of comments, some people just won't let it go.
It's bikeshedding taken to the extreme. Nanoracism leading to microaggressions, leading to DHH planning a genocide, for fuck's sake. This is insane, those people throwing such words around without even knowing what the fuck they are talking about.
And all of this storm in a teapot seems to be a thing people would spend a weekend mulling over and over and over again instead of going outside or reading a nice book, or solving some, you know, real problems.
Thanks for posting this. The departure of so many employees didn't make sense until I read what you wrote. In light of this, I gather Basecamp didn't want to accept fault for allowing the list to spread. Or maybe there is more to it. At any rate, everyone probably would've been better off with more discussion rather than less, or simply a better decision by the decision makers.
It’s pretty amazing that a list of funny names has become national news. There will always be some set of names that certain cultures (even hyper liberal woke ones) will consider funny. Pointing that out and poking fun doesn’t seem necessarily immoral. For the most part we can’t control what we consider funny.
E.g. I’m sure most woke people who consider themselves allies in the struggle against oppression would consider a name like “Donald Drumpf” funny. That’s just a property of the specific values of that culture. Does it suck for guys named “Donald drumpf”? Sure, but punishing any specific individual for pointing out his name is funny does not negate the fact that the entire culture itself finds it funny. Better for drumpf to know than not know. He could always move or change his name. Less than ideal but wherever you go some name will be considered funny.
you know when the women's movement started in the USA centered around both prohibition and union protection against black lung disease they did not see it as anti-fellowship but fellowship with all of humanity.
Strange analogy. The Fellowship, after banding together to fight the greatest evil of all time, disbanded a third of the way into the mission to allow the founders to continue the mission alone; while other members went off to overthrow a despot and a shadow ruler or hang out with Ents.
Basecamp, meanwhile, is building good project management tools and privacy focused email ... for lots of money ... while saying don't even TALK about society evils such as deeply entrench racism.
But, sure, let's call the activists "mercenaries".
Some years ago I had manager that replied to a staff member ”you are paid to work, not to think or speak”. Yep, the company went bust. People need to be cared for, if they want to talk about Pluto and politics, let them and listen. This all goes back to a passive vs active operations. The pandemic created too much active work, online meetings.
Some years ago I had manager that replied to a staff member ”you are paid to work, not to think or speak”. Yep, the company went on to become a billion dollar mega-success and everyone lived happily ever after.
These conclusion forming anecdotes in the small from a single moment in time between don't provide a strong base for causal arguments.
I thought it was more a case of the orcs, who are supposed to serve the greater power Sauron, leaving, because they wanted everyone to stop calling their rations 'stinking man-flesh' and so-on, but were told to just 'get back to work, you filth'.
Obviously, we can't know the exact particulars of how every argument went down at Basecamp, and we have to intuit an awful lot from fairly limited blog posts by Jason, DHH, and tweets from (mostly ex)-employees.
But it feels like there's a pretty clear pattern that this wasn't a case of a few politically motivated employees being a distraction and disrupting an otherwise harmonious environment.
A third of the company joined the DEI initiative that was disbanded. On twitter, anonymous interviews, and any other source that I've seen, not one Basecamper has come out in support of Jason and David, and employees seem universally aligned against their actions.
If anything, I'd say the likeliest source of "anti-fellowship" here is Jason and DHH. They are in charge, so they are able to do that, but "fellowship" isn't a good term to describe getting in line behind the bosses' decisions regardless of your personal opinion.
"On twitter, anonymous interviews, and any other source that I've seen, not one Basecamper has come out in support of Jason and David, and employees seem universally aligned against their actions." Why would they in this cancel culture poison of today - so they can be vilified for not agreeing with some extreme leftist position? More than likely there's a silent majority that DOES align with their action, and that should be OK.
I can't help but feel that you've already decided your stance on this, and evidence is sort of irrelevant. 19 people resigned, and 20+ people thought that this was an important issue based on their participation in the DEI committee. 2 people are advocating on the other side. Why would the default assumption be that the remaining ~35 people side with Jason and DHH on this matter?
It does seem like it may have been a case of some politically motivated employees being disruptive. The part that is just irredeemable is:
> I thought about it through COVID-19, as HEY launched in the midst of a civil rights uprising and we toiled over the customer support cases of people who could afford to pay $99/year for personal email.
This sounds like the person is complaining that their supposedly privileged customers distracted her from activism. If she has a problem working for "people who could afford to pay $99/year for personal email" then she should probably find a different job where she will serve a demographic that is more palatable to her.
You're very explicitly not describing a job or a company here, as most of them exist today. For all the comparisons to the LoTR trilogy, almost none of us here are working on anything that impactful, or anything that important, and neither are our employers. Most of us are going to show up to work tomorrow and work on another endpoint in a CRUD app, not combat an existential threat.
> If you put other things above your fellows and mission, you're a mercenary, not a fellow.
Yeah, man - I am a mercenary. I joined my currently employer because they are paying me money in exchange for the services I provide them.