Sopa de Presunto (MacacoAqui)

Other common responses: * Why are you so disrespectful (tone policing & irrelevant to harm caused) * Why is everybody so offended by everything these days (aka “I need 101-level inclusion handholding”)

What’s most fascinating about the deleted thread for me (and don’t worry, I have screenshots later so you can see why) was that I got hundreds of extremely emotional responses very quickly.

I had no goal with the original tweet, other than to incredulously point out that a concept called “DDD” actually existed in software. All the responses I got, though, were pushback. (Types enumerated above.)

The way I pointed it out was crude. I was a bit angry that it still existed. It’s exclusionary in the same way as the word “craftsmanship,” albeit less obvious. And in this day & age, only people with active intent to exclude use words like that.

That was precisely the sticking point, I think - my assumption that everyone who uses exclusionary language is aware of it.

I guess I’m luckier than I thought to be around thoughtful folks who have dropped “master/slave” from their discussions database replication, & “craftsmanship” from their discussions of quality.

But the key point, which I said over & over last night & nobody seemed to get, is that people who use exclusionary language in tech have the same negative impact, _whether or not they intend to exclude._ It’s the impact that ultimately matters. NOT the intentions.

In my original tweet, I indicated that I thought the creator knew what DDD stood for, and left it anyway. That would constitute intentional exclusion. And people really couldn’t get past that. All they did was argue with me about intent.