Y'all, Twitter is dunking on a Helen Lewis article originally published under the title "There's Too Much Life in our Work Life Balance."
Most of the dunks are witty stuff like "Did a work write this"
But there's a catch and we need to talk about it.
Thread.
The catch: the article isn't about doing more work. It's about acknowledging the work that we currently categorize as "life."
In their effort to meme back at lean in culture, the Twitterati are falling into another harmful trope.
2/
A friend once succinctly observed: "Twitter is not a community." Because communities don't treat relationships as disposable.
On Twitter, people pile on because it's fun, and then wield this (sometimes super shaky) justification that they're sticking up for the little guy.
3/
It's systemic. The CEOs of the web's power centers mostly started out as nerds with delusions of grandeur and poor social skills, whose only social capital was the witty zinger. So that's what social media is built to foreground, and that's what internet culture values.
4/
Internet culture values the witty zinger at the expense, usually, of listening or thoughtful discussion. And in the serotonin-drenched chase for that Twitter High Score, otherwise thoughtful people forget to step back and check their sources.
It doesn't help...
5/
That we have adopted a stigma against Shutting Up.
Yes, Mandela pointed out that neutrality in situations of injustice is tantamount to choosing the side of the oppressor. But I'm pretty sure he didn't mean "The last person to dunk this on Twitter is a rotten egg!"
6/
When we all collectively race to get our zinger out in time, a common outcome I see is this: someone whose career or body of work has CLEARLY advocated for one position gets accused of the OPPOSITE by a drove of strangers who has no idea who they are.
I think this is bad.
7/
This isn't defending the marginalized.
It's not holding someone accountable for a pattern of behavior; it's wrongly accusing someone of a pattern of behavior based on a misinterpretation of one thing they said—or in this case, probably, that an editor said ABOUT what they said.
Because we got sucked into this...
8/
...zinger worship situation by the way the internet's social fabric is woven.
Like I said, it's not that people just suck. This is systemic. And I would love to see us reimagine internet culture and build systems that encourage a different kind of interaction online.
9/9
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Often I see execs/directors approach inclusion the same way they approach other business initiatives, and then they're surprised/frustrated when the initiatives don't produce the PR/retention/product quality outcomes they want.
Let's talk about what's happening.
A thread.
1/
Example:
I worked for a company that poured a lot of effort into inclusive hiring: skills rubric, ads in URM Tech spaces, all that. Fast forward two years, all the URMs they had carefully collected had left and they'd backfilled with almost exclusively CHWDs.
What happened?
2/
Another example:
Slack. Talks a massive game about how inclusive and great they are. Got DMing across Slack channels BUILT AND INTO PROD before anybody pointed out that this is, like, a PERFECT harassment and abuse vector.
The first oft-mentioned plot hole in "asking top people how they did it" is survivorship bias.
I.e., for every person who succeeded by doing X, there are 999 people who failed while ALSO doing X. The secret sauce wasn't X. This is true. There's another thing at play though.
2/
Here it is: the things that people at level n of advancement do to get to level n+1 might be different—and in fact, even the exact opposite—of the things that people at level n-k need to do.
I think about this a fair amount at athletic competitions. When I'm competing...
3/
As teachers, how do we approach the first day of class?
The approach I've found myself trying to emulate, lately, is an immersion one—inspired by a few teachers I've had who approached Lesson 1 with the absolute audacity.
/1
In college I took my first Arabic class. The teacher opened class by saying some stuff to us, presumably in Arabic.
"Ismi Muhammad, w ma ismok?" he asked of someone in class.
Now clearly, that person had no f'n idea what was going on. So the teacher pointed to himself.
/2
"Ismi Muhammad." Then he wrote "muhammad" on the board.
"wa", gestures towards student. "Ma ismok?"
Eventually the student took a guess: "Uh, Bryan?"
"BRYAN!" Teacher drew a map on the board and, above the square that corresponded to Bryan's seat, wrote "Bryan."
/3
This morning I saw @Dixie3Flatline's tweet about how you can dislike a tool without writing a mean blog post.
I remembered a conversation with @KentBeck about critique: art students explicitly learn to critique the work of others. Engineers...don't, and it shows.
What do?
/1
I trained in arts schools for years before becoming an engineer, and it has definitely impacted the way that I handle both giving and receiving critique.
So what constitutes a sophisticated, useful critique?
/2
BEFORE I BEGIN, two things.
1. I'm about to discuss critiquing a PIECE (like code, software, a product, or a book).
This is not about feedback for a PERSON. You can read about that below. Or, if you're light on time, check out the 20 minute talk.
/3
We have a pandemic, a reckoning about police brutality, late-stage capitalism, and more.
And consecutively, I'm supposed to be teaching a class about mobile software development.
I wanna talk for a second about why and how I address tough topics like these in the classroom.
1/
So first, why talk about tough stuff in the classroom?
1. These things affect my students lives and, therefore, ability to learn. Acknowledging the events makes it easier for students to come to me with questions and concerns related to their studies.
2/
2. I look like a tool if I teach 20 min after the Derek Chauvin trial concludes and I act like nothing just happened.
Computer scientists already have a reputation for living in their own little nerd world. I don't wanna feed that beast.
3/