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.
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.
> 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".
