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.
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?