this discussion made it very clear to me who should have been the one to write an objective article on these topics
I think you're being a bit uncharitable here. No one can be objective. We're all human and fall prey to the same human error, some of the things we're discussing here, and a much more complex neurological basis that we needn't get into here.
I wrote what I did to an audience of folks that choose to read my content on a daily basis. We are responsible for what we are communicating, but whether or not that communication will be understood can only be given so much consideration. I added the edit at the end because it was being misunderstood by a very small percentage of readers after it extended outside the circle of people whom I relate with most.
I indulge in these conversations to help others who misunderstood what I was saying because I have the responsibility to do my best to ensure what I'm writing is being understood by everyone, not only the folks who speak my language.
So while you think I should have done a better job of speaking to the folks who misunderstood me in my article, I respectfully disagree, and further insist that is not humanly possible. I don't know what I don't know, and without being challenged here by folks who misunderstood me or disagreed in general, I'd never have gotten to a point where I was on the same page as those folks.
You certainly have done a great job of engaging and clarifying your position and that has made me appreciative that this wasn't a hit and run piece. While it may not be humanly (or robotically even! 😊) possible to be completely objective, I do think that with enough work, it is possible to see and hear enough of most situations to obtain a decent level objectivity. It takes work and a good amount of wisdom. Perhaps developing guidelines for ourselves to check for those things could serve as a guide before we speak, act or jump to conclusions? Your reply to my comment uses the word "understand" and it's derivatives a good number of times. I wonder if you considered that word with the same weight while dissecting Adam's tweet?
As I thought more on the topics of equity, equality, and working together to understand each other, it occurred to me that perhaps a follow up article, jointly written by you and InHuOfficial might be of great benefit to this community of ours.
our reply to my comment uses the word "understand" and it's derivatives a good number of times. I wonder if you considered that word with the same weight while dissecting Adam's tweet?
I wasn't dissecting Adam's tweet. It was one sentence. What are you suggesting I understand when it comes to that sentence?
Some comments have been hidden by the post's author - find out more
For further actions, you may consider blocking this person and/or reporting abuse
We're a place where coders share, stay up-to-date and grow their careers.
I think you're being a bit uncharitable here. No one can be objective. We're all human and fall prey to the same human error, some of the things we're discussing here, and a much more complex neurological basis that we needn't get into here.
I wrote what I did to an audience of folks that choose to read my content on a daily basis. We are responsible for what we are communicating, but whether or not that communication will be understood can only be given so much consideration. I added the edit at the end because it was being misunderstood by a very small percentage of readers after it extended outside the circle of people whom I relate with most.
I indulge in these conversations to help others who misunderstood what I was saying because I have the responsibility to do my best to ensure what I'm writing is being understood by everyone, not only the folks who speak my language.
So while you think I should have done a better job of speaking to the folks who misunderstood me in my article, I respectfully disagree, and further insist that is not humanly possible. I don't know what I don't know, and without being challenged here by folks who misunderstood me or disagreed in general, I'd never have gotten to a point where I was on the same page as those folks.
You certainly have done a great job of engaging and clarifying your position and that has made me appreciative that this wasn't a hit and run piece. While it may not be humanly (or robotically even! 😊) possible to be completely objective, I do think that with enough work, it is possible to see and hear enough of most situations to obtain a decent level objectivity. It takes work and a good amount of wisdom. Perhaps developing guidelines for ourselves to check for those things could serve as a guide before we speak, act or jump to conclusions? Your reply to my comment uses the word "understand" and it's derivatives a good number of times. I wonder if you considered that word with the same weight while dissecting Adam's tweet?
As I thought more on the topics of equity, equality, and working together to understand each other, it occurred to me that perhaps a follow up article, jointly written by you and InHuOfficial might be of great benefit to this community of ours.
I wasn't dissecting Adam's tweet. It was one sentence. What are you suggesting I understand when it comes to that sentence?