Ok, well I think I see where we part ways, lets see if I can communicate it.

I'd like to preface this discussion with a simple question, "Have you
experienced working a company where you did not fit with the culture?"

I think it is important to consider that question in the context of
discussing culture because it is informs on the downside, or the
negatives associated with a poor fit. From reading your response, and
shanley's post, I do not see that experience in your writing.

Before getting to your specific argument, its important to know if you
agree, or at least acknowledge, that a cultural misfit can be very
impactful on how somone experiences a situation. The sexism of a
'brogrammer' culture, casual racism of a supremicist culture, or even
the passivity of a conformance culture. So let us agree on what we
mean when we say what is 'culture' and what is 'not culture.'

When I say that our company has a 'we have a culture', I mean it to encompass
those "principles we value", the "expectations we put on behavior", and
the "judgments we apply to our interactions". In its simplest form it
defines the kinds of qualities and behaviors we admire in our co-workers
and those qualities and behaviors we dislike. I would further
stipulate that for any group of people who spend time together, the
degree with which those values and judgments align directly
correlates with the 'pleasure' of spending time together.

I think if you can't understand these claims about what I mean when I
talk about culture, then its safe to say we'll not make a lot of
progress :-)

So lets look at your argument.

You use as your first example, Max Levchin discussing the importance
of a consistent culture at PayPal in the early days, and their
decision not to hire someone because they called the game of
basketball 'hoops'. And you agree with Max's claim that a small group
of people that share a very similar culture are more productive. Then
you add this: "But aren't the effects of this kind of fucked up?
Shouldn't we at least acknowledge the fact that not making a job offer
to a guy because he used the word 'hoops' is a little weird?"

What Max says in this is that the general consensus on the existing
team is that sports are a waste of time. I know a number of engineers
who hold that view, they are amazed you can earn 9 figure incomes by
throwing a ball around. Max seems to recognize that if this candidate came in
and talked about "march madness" (the NCAA Tournament) they might be
chided or kidded for their enthusiasm, snarky comments would be made
about going to 'waste their time bouncing a ball while the team gets
the product done' or something equally lame. Max was protecting this
candidate and protecting the team at the same time. People can be very
passionate about sports teams, and not respecting their team, or their
sport, often gets translated into not respecting them. That is
corrosive.

Your second example came from a recent article that was shared on HN
where the folks at Stripe talked about the 'Sunday Test' question.
That isn't a candidate question, that is an interviewer question. The
interviewer asks themselves, "Is this candidate so awesome that if
they felt they needed to be here Sunday to get what they were doing
done, would I want to come in here and help them get it done?"

I don't know if you read it that way, but it is a 'gut check' on the
part of the interviewer to see if they feel the kind of chemistry (or
cultural fit) with this person that would inspire them. Given the
challenge of finding people, and the down side of picking poorly, it's
a way to try to get around how much you might "like" their
presentation to see how you really feel. That level of self awareness
doesn't come naturally to people, so tools like this help.

So I think you answered your question, the effect is not fucked up, the
effect is that the team doesn't get distracted and this possible
future employee doesn't feel alienated. Paypal avoided hiring people
who would feel bad at work, Stripe gave their interviewers a way to
ask themselves "how do you really feel about hiring this person."

And yes, its about culture, but it isn't about lying, its about
honesty and knowing how the current team values things.

You added, "Much of Shanley's post is about this sort of thing. She's
not saying that meetings are great, or flat hierarchies are bad or
that free lunches are bullshit. But she is saying that these things
aren't 100% good. They come with some significant downsides that are
rarely acknowledge inside of the 'everything we do is awesome' startup
bubble."

And this is where I think we read different articles :-) Shanley was
calling out what she perceived to be lies. She didn't call them "often
misinterpreted statements" or "meaning perhaps not what you think they
mean". She said, "This is not a critique of the practices themselves,
which often contribute value to an organization. This is to show a
contrast between the much deeper, systemic cultural problems that are
rampant in our startups and the materialistic trappings that can
disguise them." and then goes on to assert that each sound bite is
code for some rampant abuse of trust or an attempt at deception.

Shanley argument fails the test of truth, which is one way to analyze
her rhetoric. She asserts time and again with the lead "What your
culture might actually be saying is ..." So follow that lead. Now take
any one of her sound bites and say "Ok we stipulate this is the actual
culture." Now does it pass the sniff test? Does it even make sense?

Start with #1: We make sure to hire people who are a cultural fit

Stipulate her assertion: We reject qualified candidates based on
superficial and unimportant reasons.

Now go find a startup where this assertion holds and the startup has
made it through seed funding much less a series A.

#2: Meetings are evil

Stipulate: We avoid projects that require strict coordination across
the company so that we don't have to have meetings.

Find a company that does that.

#3: We have people responsible for making work fun.

Stipulate: A mostly female team exists that gets the mostly male
workforce to stay late.

Etc, etc. They all fall down. Startups don't do those things, they
can't afford to.

There is nothing in her article that supports any of her assertions,
even anecdotes, its all snark as far as I can see, and by now I think
I've read it four or five times. She is either very inexperienced,
very hurt, or both, but I don't think she has surfaced any deep cover
up or deception.