Accessibility First DevRel. I focus on ensuring content created, events held and company assets are as accessible as possible, for as many people as possible.
I am afraid so it seems, just stick to writing and commenting on code.
I was hoping sleeping on it would change my mind so I could write to the dev.to team, but actually it has had the opposite effect and I will instead just pick and choose what to write about here after seeing some balanced comments removed (mine was justified, sarcasm does not play well with heated topics).
A very sobering experience that has made me question whether to post about accessibility and disabled rights as if you think racism and sexism are contentious issues try working in this industry! Then trying being someone advocating for disabled rights and not having a disability.....trust me I would be banned within the week.
Stick to the code, I will stick to the meme posts and hopefully we both get to stick around for a while. That is if my itchy trigger finger doesn't release the rebuttal piece I have written, in which case, nice meeting you 🤣
Sarcasm, like most things, does not have the same effect on every conversation, nor on every medium. Sarcasm tends to work very well in communication between people who have a rapport with each other, or on platforms, only in the audience they were intended for.
Since we don't know each other, and the audience here is mixed, and it's in text, it's easy to misinterpret sarcasm for contempt and aggression.
The best advice I can give you: know your audience. There are times that sarcasm isn't going to be read that way, and it's up to you to learn when it's not communicating what you intended.
Accessibility First DevRel. I focus on ensuring content created, events held and company assets are as accessible as possible, for as many people as possible.
As I said, justified that my comment was removed and that sarcasm does not work on a heated discussion. You put it eloquently.
But some of the comments that were removed were innocuous and seemed to disappear simply because they did not agree. That is a zero sum game and does nothing to further discussion on important topics.
The language you used to describe his actions, despite the disclaimer, are so evident of your own bias and prejudice. It just astounds me that we think that is acceptable behaviour just because you are (I assume) a woman and that is where the outrage came from.
Personally I believe that you should be able to express those opinions, but once we start deleting comments that don’t agree then we have to do the same with articles.
Classifying and judging someone based on race and gender seems to be the very thing you rally against and I can applaud that, but if you want to stop racism and sexism you have to see that you have to stop racial Prejudice and Prejudice based on gender of any kind if you want to succeed in stamping out injustice.
You write eloquently, I feel like our goals are more aligned than misaligned but maybe look at more fruitful ways of exposing unconscious bias and inequality than making assumptions about someone you do not know. Lift others up without tearing people down. Without knowing Adam and Sara personally we cannot comment on the motivations of either of them.
I am a man, I am white, I am cis gendered and I am straight. That does not and should not tell you anything about my character, views on the world or my conduct. To imply that it does is prejudiced in and of itself.
Educate people on unconscious bias, I will stand right beside you. Fight for equality, I will lead the charge or follow you to the front lines. Project a generalisation onto any group of people and I will be stood right in front of you, between you and them.
Inclusion starts with understanding and discussion, it starts with treating people as individuals and based on their actions, we will never achieve that if you truly believe that every action performed by white men is linked to privilege...some people are just weak, some people are just a$$holes (maybe you think I am one, but that should be down to my conduct alone that you decide that.)
Privilege exists but it is such a small part of the equation and parading it out as the motivation behind every action only proves to do one thing, it encourages people to not talk to people who are not in their “groups”, it instead makes me want to avoid talking to you, for fear of reprisal. At that point you have lost any chance of persuading me of a different way of thinking.
Finally I want to make the point of why identity politics is doomed to fail...what if Adam was a trans man and had chosen not to share that with the world? Also if he was black but cis-male would you accuse him of “inciting bullying” or would it be acceptable now because you believe he is disadvantaged?
I was raised by my mother as a single parent, all of the data shows that I am disadvantaged by that far more than if I were black or female but raised by two parents. Does that mean I get some privilege points removed?
I hope my point is made without crossing any lines. Who knows maybe we will have a meaningful discussion on this between us one day but right now I am scared to say anything further for fear of reprisal and fear I may already have said too much.
Anyway I took the bait and responded when I shouldn’t, I said I would steer away from this but I just cannot help it, and that should be allowed and OK as otherwise neither of us will come to understand each other.
Unfortunately you simply misunderstand what I'm communicating here, and I'm sure that is likely due both to different experiences and levels of education and introspection on systemic bias.
The answer to the question of whether or not he was Black would have made me call out that his actions incited a large-scale harassment campaign against Sara from a cult-like following? Yes. I just wouldn't have mentioned systemic racism. It's easy to go into hypotheticals of that nature, but the bottom line is that I have never, if ever, seen this type of brazen, unapologetic behavior from prominent Black men in tech towards lighter-skinned women, regardless of their nationality.
I have, however, seen this type of behavior from white men enough times to be fed up enough to write this post.
You have mis-framed this as some sort of analysis of Adam's character. It's not. I have personal opinions about the character he's shown beyond a systemic framing as I've done here, but I don't think it's appropriate to write a public post about it at all, especially given that I frankly don't know him outside of his public persona in tech.
You're saying that you will absolutely sit down and be educated about unconscious bias, but this is the type of toxic behavior that these biases give a pathway to.
My previous response was not bait, and this is not bait. I am responding to you in good faith, and with good faith. I sincerely want this to stop happening to Sara, myself, and other marginalized folks in this space. If you want to see something quite telling - look at the folks who are framing this as character assassination and think it's unfair, and who is grateful I said this.
I've been in tech professionally for 16 years, and as a hobbyist for 21 years. I'm a competitive gamer, and have been since I was in high school. I'm an electrician. I'm a wood worker. I used to be somewhat of a hobby mechanic (1979 Datsun, specifically). I've worked in Biotechnology and mechatronics. I cannot express to you enough the commonness of Adam's behavior here specifically toward women in every single one of these male-dominated industries and communities.
I want you to consider that my framing here is entirely about the unwelcomeness that unconscious bias creates for marginalized folks in those majority-homogenous spaces, and using Adam's behavior as a prime example of both the expectations that are placed on the marginalized, and how manipulative and coercive the majority group can be, even when that isn't their conscious intention.
Accessibility First DevRel. I focus on ensuring content created, events held and company assets are as accessible as possible, for as many people as possible.
I really had to have a think on how to respond here as I do want to try and look past the article and just look at our interactions. This is the best I could do though as the language used in your responses doesn't read in a positive way, but I am only human so there is a chance I am still misreading it:
Firstly, I am really trying to believe that you don't have massive biases yourself.
But yet again, some of the sentences here are very presumptuous, I am not sure why you cannot see it.
"Unfortunately you simply misunderstand what I'm communicating here, and I'm sure that is likely due both to different experiences and levels of education and introspection on systemic bias."
Let's start with you believing I misunderstand you, not because of the language you use, but because of differing (by which I can only infer you mean "my lack of" due to your phrasing) education and how much time I spend on introspection?
A little bit of a background on me:
I work in accessibility and inclusion and have for over 5 years now, I advocate for accessibility, I spend my days working on educating people on bias, society and perception.
I have spent 18 months (and still have at least 6 months before launch) building a product all to do with inclusion, my company is called "Inclusivity Hub".
I spend several hours a day examining and being surprised by my biases and correcting them, assuming people can't do X because of a disability and then learning that I am an idiot, yes even now, after years in the industry.
The space I work in overlaps an awful lot with gender issues and race issues, as well as sexuality issues and gender identity issues, mainly because people with disabilities are more likely to be homosexual, they are more likely to be transgender, they are far more likely to face discrimination and bias than someone who is black or female but not disabled ever will (and obviously if you are black, female and disabled...you have an uphill struggle to say the least!).
Oh, and before the pandemic I was on a steering group examining how to get more women into tech.
So I am pretty confident I have a rounded education on the subject and spend a decent amount of time on introspection.
The only thing you have an advantage on is personal experience, and personal experience, whilst valuable, is just that.
Personal experience is where biases come from.
So at this point, I have to ask what your education on the subject is and whether you believe that we are similarly educated on the subject and whether I have spent enough time on introspection to justify us being able to have a conversation as equals and without the condescending tone?
Leading on from that - the personal experience of others is invaluable for me. That way I can understand where the problem is.
But just because I do not have the experience you share doesn't mean I can't listen to that experience, and that of hundreds of others and empathise and act on it. I mean that is the key point, I may not experience it, so I listen to many people's experience to see patterns. Yet again, who is more likely to have bias, one person's view or someone who has listened to many views?
So given all of that, I think the only misunderstanding we have here is in the language you choose and the way we approach inclusion.
I believe in "personal responsibility and identity", you believe in "group identity" (that is my understanding based on our brief conversation so far). You use words like "incite" and then say it is not a personal attack, I still cannot reconcile that due to the meaning of the word. "incite" is a deliberate act. Perhaps some of this is down to semantics, but I would argue that is as much your fault for your choice of words as mine for taking the word at its meaning.
I mean, yet again, look at your choice of words here:
"You're saying that you will absolutely sit down and be educated about unconscious bias, but this is the type of toxic behavior that these biases give a pathway to."
"sit down and be educated" - who says that? I mean seriously, who has the audacity to say that, and how am I meant to take that without believing there is an undertone of "shut up and listen"?
As for biases and looking at our own biases - I will admit that given your article and our interaction I have a bias towards you that I am having to try and be mindful of, I believe you have a disdain for white men and "we are all the same".
I am trying very hard to work against that bias but so far you have given me no evidence to the contrary. I am hoping I am wrong.
You want to educate me (I really am trying to put that down to arrogance not bias, but it does smell of bias I must say), judge me because I am white, judge me because I am male, you believe in group identity....all the things I cannot reconcile with as they are abhorrent behaviours and detrimental to achieving understanding and better relations.
As for the toxic behaviour part - what toxic behaviour have I exhibited. My sarcasm was indeed unprofessional, perhaps even a little bit of an attack, but I am sure you will agree not toxic? I have already said I believed it was not the right way to approach this so I am not sure what other behaviour I could have exhibited that made you use the word "toxic". In fact I have no idea what "this type of behaviour" means in this context? perhaps you could elaborate for me?
My question is would you be happy to sit down and be educated on the dangers of group identity? (if that is how we are now talking to each other)
If so then I am more than happy to sit down and have a discussion so we can educate each other on our differing points of view.
"If you want to see something quite telling - look at the folks who are framing this as character assassination and think it's unfair, and who is grateful I said this."
Some of that will indeed be down to prejudice and bias. Yet again a point we could have a discussion on, but that isn't the entirety of it, there is a lot more to the story. Look deeper.
Why are white people and men outraged by this? Because you are projecting your own narrative onto an entire group. You are attacking them.
Who agrees with you? People in your group?
You are also writing on a site dedicated to an industry that is dominated by a narrative of "white man bad".
All stemming from a narrative pushed by education and Universities and the main stream media, it is an industry filled with highly educated individuals who are exposed to this narrative far more often. We are in an echo chamber of group identity politics, a narrative nobody is willing to challenge for fear of being ousted or attacked.
I am pretty sure if you wrote this same post in a more balanced industry there would be a much different reaction.
A final point with regards to trying to work out where the support or criticism comes from...with no downvote button we only have the comments, and as most of them were deleted how can we possibly see who said what and what race and gender they are? Or indeed what ratio of people disagreed with you?
As for male dominated industries and minorities enduring the jabs, remarks and other behaviour that is not welcoming - oh I really think we could be on the same ground on a lot of points here, but we are still too far apart on the fundamentals at the moment to make that work productively.
Mainly because I want to dig into more than just the surface crap you hear on social and main stream media, I want to look at genetics, culture etc. I want to look at how minor differences in temperament between men and women (across a standard distribution looking at the mean and the extremes as the extremes are where lessons can be learned) can add up to big problems and inequality. I want to look at how much of women's choice to abandon STEM subjects is driven by society, how much by genetic predisposition (women who are good at maths, on average are better than men who are equally good at maths, at other subject such as English, giving them more options), media influence, parent's opinions or the existing status quo in an industry.
I want to understand "how much of inequality is driven by X, how much by Y....right well X is where we should focus our efforts as we can't change Y easily". I want to ask the hard questions, without a narrative getting forced over it.
This is very dangerous ground to cover for friends, impossibly dangerous ground when we start from a position of opposition rather than understanding.
I will consider your framing, yet again I think that we could have common ground here, but I still cannot see how you believe that this Twitter conversation was the hill to stand your ground on, or that you cannot see how the language you used is not conducive to an inclusive and productive discussion.
Are you at least willing to concede that the fault, perhaps, is not all mine and start talking to me assuming that I may actually be able to hold my own in a conversation on these matters (or if this is just a phrasing issue, consider your phrasing in a way that I cannot misconstrue?)?
I will, in exchange, respond in good faith also and stop assuming you are trying to incite outrage (see what I did there 😋🤣🤣).
Hell, on paper we should be friends, we work in a similar space, we want inclusion and equality....surely we should be able to get to a point where we can tackle some of these issues together?
Firstly, I am really trying to believe that you don't have massive biases yourself.
We all have them. You shouldn't try to believe that. I try to consider those biases before I make decisions, as should everyone.
Let's start with you believing I misunderstand you, not because of the language you use, but because of differing (by which I can only infer you mean "my lack of" due to your phrasing) education and how much time I spend on introspection?
I said different to mean different. It doesn't mean you have done so less. I'm not assuming what you have done, but clearly, we have done so differently, and in different framings, because we are different.
before the pandemic I was on a steering group examining how to get more women into tech.
This is an example of that! Examining getting women into tech versus examining why women are leaving tech. And, as a woman, I have a perspective and framing of understanding why I have felt oppressed and unwelcome in tech (far before becoming vocal on any issue, which started with accessibility), and that's a framing you will never have. That doesn't mean I think I'm better than you, simply that our introspections will always be different, even on things we have in common, like both being white.
As far as misunderstanding me, I'm pointing to this:
we cannot comment on the motivations
You misunderstand that I am speaking to his motivation, while I'm simply saying that the comment was manipulative and passive aggressive. His motivation to do that is not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about the framework of society, and even specifically the development community, that gives him the space to be manipulative and passive aggressive publicly and unapologetically.
I'm sorry if that wasn't clear in my last response, but I am honestly weary from the volume of harassment I've received because of this post. (not this discourse, but just in general).
You use words like "incite" and then say it is not a personal attack, I still cannot reconcile that due to the meaning of the word. "incite" is a deliberate act.
I chose the word incite because it does not speak to motivations. To incite is to spur to action, incite does not speak to initiation nor intention. It only means that Adam caused the harassment pile-on, not that it was his intention was to do so.
"sit down and be educated" - who says that? I mean seriously, who has the audacity to say that, and how am I meant to take that without believing there is an undertone of "shut up and listen"?
There is no undertone there. I misremembered your words (upon looking back you wrote stand, not sit), and that is because I am someone who "sits down and listens" because I believe that accepting I have something to learn from someone else in a situation where someone else is choosing to be vulnerable where I have privilege takes humility. I am also a very visual, relational person, so sometimes my wording comes directly to what I'm seeing. I grew up sitting down and listening to a teacher who is standing, so my writing about learning from one another is reflective of that. A doubled-edged sword, as I believe it's one of the things that makes me perceived as "a great writer", but also, to be misunderstood.
And again, I wasn't suggesting you "sit down and listen", I was trying to express that I was talking about the behavior that makes marginalized folks feel unwelcome and leave spaces where they are marginalized, not making broad generalizations, as you contrasted when you "listen and stand beside".
As for the toxic behaviour part
I was talking about Adam's tweet, not your discourse with me.
Why are white people and men outraged by this?
It's not "white people and men". It's white men. A single white woman said she disagreed, and upon reflection that the behavior from Adam was unwarranted, she agreed in part. She disagreed that Adam's comments were racist and sexist, and I agree, they weren't, as that's not what I'm saying.
Who agrees with you? People in your group?
Lots of white men were not outraged and thanked me for shedding some light into the ways they've seen themselves behave or allow other white men to behave... which is really the goal.
Because you are projecting your own narrative onto an entire group. You are attacking them.
I am not attacking white men. White men feel attacked because of what I've written. There's a difference, and I believe you know that!
You are also writing on a site dedicated to an industry that is dominated by a narrative of "white man bad".
I would argue that "white man bad" narrative is a vocal minority, and the perception that it is the dominate narrative is warped by the natural human inclination to focus on and then notice the worst feedback.
A final point with regards to trying to work out where the support or criticism comes from...with no downvote button we only have the comments, and as most of them were deleted how can we possibly see who said what and what race and gender they are? Or indeed what ratio of people disagreed with you?
Obviously we certainly can't speak to the ratio of who agrees and who disagrees, I should have said who feels safe to comment in disagreement, and more specifically who feels safe to write toxic, hateful, personal insults at me. I can tell you that I am an honest person, and every single one of the comments that was deleted for being the former, and every single person I had to hide reply and block on Twitter was a man, and only two of them weren't white.
And let's accept for a moment that maybe the ratio is off because those are the only folks who feel emboldened enough to reply with a personal attacks on me or disagree in a way that can be viewed by our peers as toxic, doesn't that speak directly to what I'm talking about in my post?
I am pretty sure if you wrote this same post in a more balanced industry there would be a much different reaction.
I'd actually go so far as to say if we were in a more balanced industry, no one would feel they could safely write a toxic, manipulative comment that hundreds of thousands of people would see and react to, so I wouldn't have written this post at all.
I still cannot see how you believe that this Twitter conversation was the hill to stand your ground on, or that you cannot see how the language you used is not conducive to an inclusive and productive discussion.
I have witnessed this and experienced it myself. I, as a woman, have been accused of being aggressive for trying to push a product change forward, and when a man who had the same vigor and passion repeated it later he was applauded for his care and persistence for the customer. And I could continue to recount, sincerely, dozens of these instances... and that's ONLY in the workplace. If I expand to my experience on Twitter in a similar position as Sara... we're talking hundreds.
Mentioning the words racism and sexism, calling that Adam caused something... it's reality, though I understand how some folks, like yourself, believe that language is not going to create a productive discussion. But I didn't say anything about Adam's beliefs, or all of white men's beliefs, I'm talking about a pattern of behavior and using Adam's comment as an example.
Sara deleted her post because of the harassment that Adam's comment brought to her. Has Adam deleted his comment? No. Has he apologized? No. Do I expect him to do either of those things? No. My hope is that there is large-scale change, and that everyone else held to the same standards, in spite of how the system gives some folks space to be toxic and others to be intentional and constructive.
Are you at least willing to concede that the fault, perhaps, is not all mine and start talking to me assuming that I may actually be able to hold my own in a conversation on these matters
I hope that you can be willing to concede that not only do I assume you can hold a conversation on these matters, that I'm willing to have one with you because I am doing so! As you can see above, I admit fault where it is mine.
I will, in exchange, respond in good faith also and stop assuming you are trying to incite outrage
I assume you know this isn't constructive, but I want to point out that you had to put in the action word of trying because incite is to cause and to try is to make intentional effort to accomplish. In actuality, I have incited outrage, despite that not being my intention to do so.
Hell, on paper we should be friends, we work in a similar space, we want inclusion and equality
I want more than just equality. I want equity. I don't view you poorly, though. You mention wanting to talk about the science behind some of these inequities, and something you can skim (or read, but it's long so I've no expectation of that 😂 ) that covers my thoughts on James Damore's Manifesto, I'd be happy to take this conversation offline and expand it. I feel like at this point I should also disclaim that like Damore, I am autistic.
surely we should be able to get to a point where we can tackle some of these issues together?
Is that not what we are doing here? I disengage when it feels like a discussion is about winning, and so my still participating is absolutely about learning.
Accessibility First DevRel. I focus on ensuring content created, events held and company assets are as accessible as possible, for as many people as possible.
Now this was both beautifully written and articulate and perhaps this is all stemming from both a "powder keg" article and just a few poorly chosen phrases.
And, given this response, I can put the latter down mainly to having many responses to respond to and lack of time.
Obviously there are points where we are still talking at cross purposes, but I doubt we would ever iron those out over a written comments system, what is important is I believe I have a understanding of your character enough now (and hopefully you of mine).
The only thing I have to add that is important is (once again) my sarcasm was not appropriate while we were still "at odds" with each other:
I will, in exchange, respond in good faith also and stop assuming you are trying to incite outrage
You missed the laughing emojis and tongue out part in your response to this.
But I cannot accuse you of poor choice of words without acknowledging my own poor choice of words. It was meant as a joke (as a lot of the conversation was about the use of the word incite) and I apologise as it still isn't appropriate (yet), I hope at some point my sarcastic sense of humour becomes something you enjoy, rather than adding another hurdle in a good conversation!
I would love to take the conversation offline, particularly on the point you made:
before the pandemic I was on a steering group examining how to get more women into tech.
This is an example of that! Examining getting women into tech versus examining why women are leaving tech.
I agree that this would be a massively productive conversation. Sadly there is no funding for keeping women in tech around where I am, I put that down to how funding works, it is easier to promote an uptick in interest "we increased applications from women by 25%) vs people leaving ("numbers have stayed the same").
Plus where I am we have much much lower proportion of women in tech so getting them in in the first place is the battle being fought around here.
Obviously we still have some big differences in opinion, especially with "equality vs equity" - that in of itself would be a fascinating conversation as I am firmly on "equality, not equity" side of that fence and so would love to see your viewpoints there.
All I will say is, thank you for taking the time to respond to some rather long comments and I do truly mean it when I say I would like to have a further discussion with you.
Choose whatever means of communication you feel comfortable with and let's set a date to "solve all the problems in the world"...I am sure we can do that in about an hour? (sorry...sarcastic humour there once again, I am beginning to think I have a problem!)
Oh and as for
my thoughts on James Damore's Manifesto, I'd be happy to take this conversation offline and expand it.
I will just end this comment by saying, I will read and digest as much as I am able, there will be no skim reading on my part! I hope that will further let me understand you and find some other points we agree (and disagree on) to discuss!
This exchange in and of itself was far more enlightening than the article that spawned it. Although there are good points and eloquent writing from both participants, this discussion made it very clear to me who should have been the one to write an objective article on these topics. Without reiterating points/ details already mentioned. The two comments I have are:
1) I perceived too many assumptions being pulled from the context of the story, which in turn eroded the validity of the points being made by the author.
2)The author in one of the exchanges makes the comment that equity is the prize not equality. This concept sounds great in theory, but is not optimal in the real world. Equality is what we all should be striving for overall, not equity. Equity in simple math terms means 2+2 can add up to whatever it wants to whenever it wants to. Which extended to the basis of this article wouldn't give folks much basis to lodge any criticisms of Tailwind in the first place. (Since we'd want all frameworks and their creators to not only be assumed to be just as good as the other, but indulged as such.) We know this just doesn't happen and it shouldn't. Some frameworks and developers are just preferred flat out over others. (and for good reason) Give the frameworks and developers equality by giving them equal opportunity to prove themselves, but do not hoist equity of these things upon projects or the people that build/use or work with them.
Accessibility First DevRel. I focus on ensuring content created, events held and company assets are as accessible as possible, for as many people as possible.
Im glad you enjoyed the discussion between myself and Cher, I did also!
Who knows, maybe at some point the discussion on equity vs equality can be had, but I doubt either Cher or myself would dare broach that subject on here for a while! Hehe.
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 am afraid so it seems, just stick to writing and commenting on code.
I was hoping sleeping on it would change my mind so I could write to the dev.to team, but actually it has had the opposite effect and I will instead just pick and choose what to write about here after seeing some balanced comments removed (mine was justified, sarcasm does not play well with heated topics).
A very sobering experience that has made me question whether to post about accessibility and disabled rights as if you think racism and sexism are contentious issues try working in this industry! Then trying being someone advocating for disabled rights and not having a disability.....trust me I would be banned within the week.
Stick to the code, I will stick to the meme posts and hopefully we both get to stick around for a while. That is if my itchy trigger finger doesn't release the rebuttal piece I have written, in which case, nice meeting you 🤣
Sarcasm, like most things, does not have the same effect on every conversation, nor on every medium. Sarcasm tends to work very well in communication between people who have a rapport with each other, or on platforms, only in the audience they were intended for.
Since we don't know each other, and the audience here is mixed, and it's in text, it's easy to misinterpret sarcasm for contempt and aggression.
The best advice I can give you: know your audience. There are times that sarcasm isn't going to be read that way, and it's up to you to learn when it's not communicating what you intended.
As I said, justified that my comment was removed and that sarcasm does not work on a heated discussion. You put it eloquently.
But some of the comments that were removed were innocuous and seemed to disappear simply because they did not agree. That is a zero sum game and does nothing to further discussion on important topics.
The language you used to describe his actions, despite the disclaimer, are so evident of your own bias and prejudice. It just astounds me that we think that is acceptable behaviour just because you are (I assume) a woman and that is where the outrage came from.
Personally I believe that you should be able to express those opinions, but once we start deleting comments that don’t agree then we have to do the same with articles.
Classifying and judging someone based on race and gender seems to be the very thing you rally against and I can applaud that, but if you want to stop racism and sexism you have to see that you have to stop racial Prejudice and Prejudice based on gender of any kind if you want to succeed in stamping out injustice.
You write eloquently, I feel like our goals are more aligned than misaligned but maybe look at more fruitful ways of exposing unconscious bias and inequality than making assumptions about someone you do not know. Lift others up without tearing people down. Without knowing Adam and Sara personally we cannot comment on the motivations of either of them.
I am a man, I am white, I am cis gendered and I am straight. That does not and should not tell you anything about my character, views on the world or my conduct. To imply that it does is prejudiced in and of itself.
Educate people on unconscious bias, I will stand right beside you. Fight for equality, I will lead the charge or follow you to the front lines. Project a generalisation onto any group of people and I will be stood right in front of you, between you and them.
Inclusion starts with understanding and discussion, it starts with treating people as individuals and based on their actions, we will never achieve that if you truly believe that every action performed by white men is linked to privilege...some people are just weak, some people are just a$$holes (maybe you think I am one, but that should be down to my conduct alone that you decide that.)
Privilege exists but it is such a small part of the equation and parading it out as the motivation behind every action only proves to do one thing, it encourages people to not talk to people who are not in their “groups”, it instead makes me want to avoid talking to you, for fear of reprisal. At that point you have lost any chance of persuading me of a different way of thinking.
Finally I want to make the point of why identity politics is doomed to fail...what if Adam was a trans man and had chosen not to share that with the world? Also if he was black but cis-male would you accuse him of “inciting bullying” or would it be acceptable now because you believe he is disadvantaged?
I was raised by my mother as a single parent, all of the data shows that I am disadvantaged by that far more than if I were black or female but raised by two parents. Does that mean I get some privilege points removed?
I hope my point is made without crossing any lines. Who knows maybe we will have a meaningful discussion on this between us one day but right now I am scared to say anything further for fear of reprisal and fear I may already have said too much.
Anyway I took the bait and responded when I shouldn’t, I said I would steer away from this but I just cannot help it, and that should be allowed and OK as otherwise neither of us will come to understand each other.
End rant! 😜
Unfortunately you simply misunderstand what I'm communicating here, and I'm sure that is likely due both to different experiences and levels of education and introspection on systemic bias.
The answer to the question of whether or not he was Black would have made me call out that his actions incited a large-scale harassment campaign against Sara from a cult-like following? Yes. I just wouldn't have mentioned systemic racism. It's easy to go into hypotheticals of that nature, but the bottom line is that I have never, if ever, seen this type of brazen, unapologetic behavior from prominent Black men in tech towards lighter-skinned women, regardless of their nationality.
I have, however, seen this type of behavior from white men enough times to be fed up enough to write this post.
You have mis-framed this as some sort of analysis of Adam's character. It's not. I have personal opinions about the character he's shown beyond a systemic framing as I've done here, but I don't think it's appropriate to write a public post about it at all, especially given that I frankly don't know him outside of his public persona in tech.
You're saying that you will absolutely sit down and be educated about unconscious bias, but this is the type of toxic behavior that these biases give a pathway to.
My previous response was not bait, and this is not bait. I am responding to you in good faith, and with good faith. I sincerely want this to stop happening to Sara, myself, and other marginalized folks in this space. If you want to see something quite telling - look at the folks who are framing this as character assassination and think it's unfair, and who is grateful I said this.
I've been in tech professionally for 16 years, and as a hobbyist for 21 years. I'm a competitive gamer, and have been since I was in high school. I'm an electrician. I'm a wood worker. I used to be somewhat of a hobby mechanic (1979 Datsun, specifically). I've worked in Biotechnology and mechatronics. I cannot express to you enough the commonness of Adam's behavior here specifically toward women in every single one of these male-dominated industries and communities.
I want you to consider that my framing here is entirely about the unwelcomeness that unconscious bias creates for marginalized folks in those majority-homogenous spaces, and using Adam's behavior as a prime example of both the expectations that are placed on the marginalized, and how manipulative and coercive the majority group can be, even when that isn't their conscious intention.
I really had to have a think on how to respond here as I do want to try and look past the article and just look at our interactions. This is the best I could do though as the language used in your responses doesn't read in a positive way, but I am only human so there is a chance I am still misreading it:
Firstly, I am really trying to believe that you don't have massive biases yourself.
But yet again, some of the sentences here are very presumptuous, I am not sure why you cannot see it.
Let's start with you believing I misunderstand you, not because of the language you use, but because of differing (by which I can only infer you mean "my lack of" due to your phrasing) education and how much time I spend on introspection?
A little bit of a background on me:
I work in accessibility and inclusion and have for over 5 years now, I advocate for accessibility, I spend my days working on educating people on bias, society and perception.
I have spent 18 months (and still have at least 6 months before launch) building a product all to do with inclusion, my company is called "Inclusivity Hub".
I spend several hours a day examining and being surprised by my biases and correcting them, assuming people can't do X because of a disability and then learning that I am an idiot, yes even now, after years in the industry.
The space I work in overlaps an awful lot with gender issues and race issues, as well as sexuality issues and gender identity issues, mainly because people with disabilities are more likely to be homosexual, they are more likely to be transgender, they are far more likely to face discrimination and bias than someone who is black or female but not disabled ever will (and obviously if you are black, female and disabled...you have an uphill struggle to say the least!).
Oh, and before the pandemic I was on a steering group examining how to get more women into tech.
So I am pretty confident I have a rounded education on the subject and spend a decent amount of time on introspection.
The only thing you have an advantage on is personal experience, and personal experience, whilst valuable, is just that.
Personal experience is where biases come from.
So at this point, I have to ask what your education on the subject is and whether you believe that we are similarly educated on the subject and whether I have spent enough time on introspection to justify us being able to have a conversation as equals and without the condescending tone?
Leading on from that - the personal experience of others is invaluable for me. That way I can understand where the problem is.
But just because I do not have the experience you share doesn't mean I can't listen to that experience, and that of hundreds of others and empathise and act on it. I mean that is the key point, I may not experience it, so I listen to many people's experience to see patterns. Yet again, who is more likely to have bias, one person's view or someone who has listened to many views?
So given all of that, I think the only misunderstanding we have here is in the language you choose and the way we approach inclusion.
I believe in "personal responsibility and identity", you believe in "group identity" (that is my understanding based on our brief conversation so far). You use words like "incite" and then say it is not a personal attack, I still cannot reconcile that due to the meaning of the word. "incite" is a deliberate act. Perhaps some of this is down to semantics, but I would argue that is as much your fault for your choice of words as mine for taking the word at its meaning.
I mean, yet again, look at your choice of words here:
"sit down and be educated" - who says that? I mean seriously, who has the audacity to say that, and how am I meant to take that without believing there is an undertone of "shut up and listen"?
As for biases and looking at our own biases - I will admit that given your article and our interaction I have a bias towards you that I am having to try and be mindful of, I believe you have a disdain for white men and "we are all the same".
I am trying very hard to work against that bias but so far you have given me no evidence to the contrary. I am hoping I am wrong.
You want to educate me (I really am trying to put that down to arrogance not bias, but it does smell of bias I must say), judge me because I am white, judge me because I am male, you believe in group identity....all the things I cannot reconcile with as they are abhorrent behaviours and detrimental to achieving understanding and better relations.
As for the toxic behaviour part - what toxic behaviour have I exhibited. My sarcasm was indeed unprofessional, perhaps even a little bit of an attack, but I am sure you will agree not toxic? I have already said I believed it was not the right way to approach this so I am not sure what other behaviour I could have exhibited that made you use the word "toxic". In fact I have no idea what "this type of behaviour" means in this context? perhaps you could elaborate for me?
My question is would you be happy to sit down and be educated on the dangers of group identity? (if that is how we are now talking to each other)
If so then I am more than happy to sit down and have a discussion so we can educate each other on our differing points of view.
Some of that will indeed be down to prejudice and bias. Yet again a point we could have a discussion on, but that isn't the entirety of it, there is a lot more to the story. Look deeper.
Why are white people and men outraged by this? Because you are projecting your own narrative onto an entire group. You are attacking them.
Who agrees with you? People in your group?
You are also writing on a site dedicated to an industry that is dominated by a narrative of "white man bad".
All stemming from a narrative pushed by education and Universities and the main stream media, it is an industry filled with highly educated individuals who are exposed to this narrative far more often. We are in an echo chamber of group identity politics, a narrative nobody is willing to challenge for fear of being ousted or attacked.
I am pretty sure if you wrote this same post in a more balanced industry there would be a much different reaction.
A final point with regards to trying to work out where the support or criticism comes from...with no downvote button we only have the comments, and as most of them were deleted how can we possibly see who said what and what race and gender they are? Or indeed what ratio of people disagreed with you?
As for male dominated industries and minorities enduring the jabs, remarks and other behaviour that is not welcoming - oh I really think we could be on the same ground on a lot of points here, but we are still too far apart on the fundamentals at the moment to make that work productively.
Mainly because I want to dig into more than just the surface crap you hear on social and main stream media, I want to look at genetics, culture etc. I want to look at how minor differences in temperament between men and women (across a standard distribution looking at the mean and the extremes as the extremes are where lessons can be learned) can add up to big problems and inequality. I want to look at how much of women's choice to abandon STEM subjects is driven by society, how much by genetic predisposition (women who are good at maths, on average are better than men who are equally good at maths, at other subject such as English, giving them more options), media influence, parent's opinions or the existing status quo in an industry.
I want to understand "how much of inequality is driven by X, how much by Y....right well X is where we should focus our efforts as we can't change Y easily". I want to ask the hard questions, without a narrative getting forced over it.
This is very dangerous ground to cover for friends, impossibly dangerous ground when we start from a position of opposition rather than understanding.
I will consider your framing, yet again I think that we could have common ground here, but I still cannot see how you believe that this Twitter conversation was the hill to stand your ground on, or that you cannot see how the language you used is not conducive to an inclusive and productive discussion.
Are you at least willing to concede that the fault, perhaps, is not all mine and start talking to me assuming that I may actually be able to hold my own in a conversation on these matters (or if this is just a phrasing issue, consider your phrasing in a way that I cannot misconstrue?)?
I will, in exchange, respond in good faith also and stop assuming you are trying to incite outrage (see what I did there 😋🤣🤣).
Hell, on paper we should be friends, we work in a similar space, we want inclusion and equality....surely we should be able to get to a point where we can tackle some of these issues together?
We all have them. You shouldn't try to believe that. I try to consider those biases before I make decisions, as should everyone.
I said different to mean different. It doesn't mean you have done so less. I'm not assuming what you have done, but clearly, we have done so differently, and in different framings, because we are different.
This is an example of that! Examining getting women into tech versus examining why women are leaving tech. And, as a woman, I have a perspective and framing of understanding why I have felt oppressed and unwelcome in tech (far before becoming vocal on any issue, which started with accessibility), and that's a framing you will never have. That doesn't mean I think I'm better than you, simply that our introspections will always be different, even on things we have in common, like both being white.
As far as misunderstanding me, I'm pointing to this:
You misunderstand that I am speaking to his motivation, while I'm simply saying that the comment was manipulative and passive aggressive. His motivation to do that is not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about the framework of society, and even specifically the development community, that gives him the space to be manipulative and passive aggressive publicly and unapologetically.
I'm sorry if that wasn't clear in my last response, but I am honestly weary from the volume of harassment I've received because of this post. (not this discourse, but just in general).
I chose the word incite because it does not speak to motivations. To incite is to spur to action, incite does not speak to initiation nor intention. It only means that Adam caused the harassment pile-on, not that it was his intention was to do so.
There is no undertone there. I misremembered your words (upon looking back you wrote stand, not sit), and that is because I am someone who "sits down and listens" because I believe that accepting I have something to learn from someone else in a situation where someone else is choosing to be vulnerable where I have privilege takes humility. I am also a very visual, relational person, so sometimes my wording comes directly to what I'm seeing. I grew up sitting down and listening to a teacher who is standing, so my writing about learning from one another is reflective of that. A doubled-edged sword, as I believe it's one of the things that makes me perceived as "a great writer", but also, to be misunderstood.
And again, I wasn't suggesting you "sit down and listen", I was trying to express that I was talking about the behavior that makes marginalized folks feel unwelcome and leave spaces where they are marginalized, not making broad generalizations, as you contrasted when you "listen and stand beside".
I was talking about Adam's tweet, not your discourse with me.
It's not "white people and men". It's white men. A single white woman said she disagreed, and upon reflection that the behavior from Adam was unwarranted, she agreed in part. She disagreed that Adam's comments were racist and sexist, and I agree, they weren't, as that's not what I'm saying.
Lots of white men were not outraged and thanked me for shedding some light into the ways they've seen themselves behave or allow other white men to behave... which is really the goal.
I am not attacking white men. White men feel attacked because of what I've written. There's a difference, and I believe you know that!
I would argue that "white man bad" narrative is a vocal minority, and the perception that it is the dominate narrative is warped by the natural human inclination to focus on and then notice the worst feedback.
Obviously we certainly can't speak to the ratio of who agrees and who disagrees, I should have said who feels safe to comment in disagreement, and more specifically who feels safe to write toxic, hateful, personal insults at me. I can tell you that I am an honest person, and every single one of the comments that was deleted for being the former, and every single person I had to hide reply and block on Twitter was a man, and only two of them weren't white.
And let's accept for a moment that maybe the ratio is off because those are the only folks who feel emboldened enough to reply with a personal attacks on me or disagree in a way that can be viewed by our peers as toxic, doesn't that speak directly to what I'm talking about in my post?
I'd actually go so far as to say if we were in a more balanced industry, no one would feel they could safely write a toxic, manipulative comment that hundreds of thousands of people would see and react to, so I wouldn't have written this post at all.
I have witnessed this and experienced it myself. I, as a woman, have been accused of being aggressive for trying to push a product change forward, and when a man who had the same vigor and passion repeated it later he was applauded for his care and persistence for the customer. And I could continue to recount, sincerely, dozens of these instances... and that's ONLY in the workplace. If I expand to my experience on Twitter in a similar position as Sara... we're talking hundreds.
Mentioning the words racism and sexism, calling that Adam caused something... it's reality, though I understand how some folks, like yourself, believe that language is not going to create a productive discussion. But I didn't say anything about Adam's beliefs, or all of white men's beliefs, I'm talking about a pattern of behavior and using Adam's comment as an example.
Sara deleted her post because of the harassment that Adam's comment brought to her. Has Adam deleted his comment? No. Has he apologized? No. Do I expect him to do either of those things? No. My hope is that there is large-scale change, and that everyone else held to the same standards, in spite of how the system gives some folks space to be toxic and others to be intentional and constructive.
I hope that you can be willing to concede that not only do I assume you can hold a conversation on these matters, that I'm willing to have one with you because I am doing so! As you can see above, I admit fault where it is mine.
I assume you know this isn't constructive, but I want to point out that you had to put in the action word of trying because incite is to cause and to try is to make intentional effort to accomplish. In actuality, I have incited outrage, despite that not being my intention to do so.
I want more than just equality. I want equity. I don't view you poorly, though. You mention wanting to talk about the science behind some of these inequities, and something you can skim (or read, but it's long so I've no expectation of that 😂 ) that covers my thoughts on James Damore's Manifesto, I'd be happy to take this conversation offline and expand it. I feel like at this point I should also disclaim that like Damore, I am autistic.
Is that not what we are doing here? I disengage when it feels like a discussion is about winning, and so my still participating is absolutely about learning.
Now this was both beautifully written and articulate and perhaps this is all stemming from both a "powder keg" article and just a few poorly chosen phrases.
And, given this response, I can put the latter down mainly to having many responses to respond to and lack of time.
Obviously there are points where we are still talking at cross purposes, but I doubt we would ever iron those out over a written comments system, what is important is I believe I have a understanding of your character enough now (and hopefully you of mine).
The only thing I have to add that is important is (once again) my sarcasm was not appropriate while we were still "at odds" with each other:
You missed the laughing emojis and tongue out part in your response to this.
But I cannot accuse you of poor choice of words without acknowledging my own poor choice of words. It was meant as a joke (as a lot of the conversation was about the use of the word incite) and I apologise as it still isn't appropriate (yet), I hope at some point my sarcastic sense of humour becomes something you enjoy, rather than adding another hurdle in a good conversation!
I would love to take the conversation offline, particularly on the point you made:
I agree that this would be a massively productive conversation. Sadly there is no funding for keeping women in tech around where I am, I put that down to how funding works, it is easier to promote an uptick in interest "we increased applications from women by 25%) vs people leaving ("numbers have stayed the same").
Plus where I am we have much much lower proportion of women in tech so getting them in in the first place is the battle being fought around here.
Obviously we still have some big differences in opinion, especially with "equality vs equity" - that in of itself would be a fascinating conversation as I am firmly on "equality, not equity" side of that fence and so would love to see your viewpoints there.
All I will say is, thank you for taking the time to respond to some rather long comments and I do truly mean it when I say I would like to have a further discussion with you.
Choose whatever means of communication you feel comfortable with and let's set a date to "solve all the problems in the world"...I am sure we can do that in about an hour? (sorry...sarcastic humour there once again, I am beginning to think I have a problem!)
Oh and as for
I will just end this comment by saying, I will read and digest as much as I am able, there will be no skim reading on my part! I hope that will further let me understand you and find some other points we agree (and disagree on) to discuss!
This exchange in and of itself was far more enlightening than the article that spawned it. Although there are good points and eloquent writing from both participants, this discussion made it very clear to me who should have been the one to write an objective article on these topics. Without reiterating points/ details already mentioned. The two comments I have are:
1) I perceived too many assumptions being pulled from the context of the story, which in turn eroded the validity of the points being made by the author.
2)The author in one of the exchanges makes the comment that equity is the prize not equality. This concept sounds great in theory, but is not optimal in the real world. Equality is what we all should be striving for overall, not equity. Equity in simple math terms means 2+2 can add up to whatever it wants to whenever it wants to. Which extended to the basis of this article wouldn't give folks much basis to lodge any criticisms of Tailwind in the first place. (Since we'd want all frameworks and their creators to not only be assumed to be just as good as the other, but indulged as such.) We know this just doesn't happen and it shouldn't. Some frameworks and developers are just preferred flat out over others. (and for good reason) Give the frameworks and developers equality by giving them equal opportunity to prove themselves, but do not hoist equity of these things upon projects or the people that build/use or work with them.
Im glad you enjoyed the discussion between myself and Cher, I did also!
Who knows, maybe at some point the discussion on equity vs equality can be had, but I doubt either Cher or myself would dare broach that subject on here for a while! Hehe.
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?