Sarah MeiVerified account

Having a softcore porn reference in the software field is still problematic, whether or not the creator intended it. And it’s hard to imagine that I’m the first one to point it out. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

But maybe I am the first one to point it out. Let’s assume so for now. I got a really interesting range of responses, including: * He didn’t mean it that way (irrelevant to harm caused) * It’s too much of a stretch (basically “works on my machine”)

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.

It’s an interesting statement on where we are as a community. We’ve got a loooooooooong way to go. Ultimately I decided my original tweet wasn’t helping, because it led people towards arguing about the wrong thing. I want us to focus on the impact. That’s why I deleted it.

To be clear, I did NOT delete the thread because I changed my mind. This is still problematic, and it’s still hard to believe I’m the first to point it out.

The tone-policing I got was still irrelevant and out of line. People from marginalized groups who notice exclusionary behavior are allowed to be angry about it. As an industry, we need to get more comfortable with their anger.

If we require all members of marginalized groups to be calm when discussing their oppression, we will never make real progress.

As members of majority groups, we have the responsibility to figure out what they’re trying to tell us with their anger, so we can work on it. It’s hard to do. But it’s important. Sadly I didn’t see any of that last night.

I’m very disappointed. I really thought we were better at this. But oh well - it’s a new day! We can try again.

I’m still angry. Let’s be clear about that. The name is still exclusionary (and as majority group members, you don’t get to argue with that).

Things that are completely irrelevant here include: * whether you personally thought of it * whether it personally bothers you * whether it personally bothers women who are involved in the concept

When someone from a marginalized group tells you something is problematic, and is having a negative impact, you don’t fucking argue that the impact is too small to be relevant. (Which is what all of the above are saying.) You just don’t. Unless you’re an asshole.

Y’all can fight this out amongst yourselves now. I’ve given you a valuable piece of information. The quality of the character of the community will determine what happens now. Based on responses so far, my money is on “nothing.” I’d love to be wrong.