2023-03-08 09:47:33
You ask, "Should I be making a new directory for this feature I'm building?" You expect a return value of: "yes" or "no." You had a 50% chance of guessing the "correct" answer...right?
Four hours, 49 messages, 13 participants (4 whom you've never met?) later, you have not a boolean but instead something rather undefined:
"What makes a feature a feature?"
"Isn't everything in React a component?"
"Where do I put functions that aren't hooks?"
"Why are some of the data objects in snake case and others in kebab case?"
"Why did we invent React when it's just PHP and a side of jQuery?"
Bigger, harder, sometimes just unrelated questions around how we define directories writ large have buried your question. At this point you might give up and leave this unanswered thread to disappear into the Slackwork. (I would blame neither you nor myself for the times I may or may not have have allegedly done this.)
If you've not experienced this situation yourself, it almost always starts off with a harmless question.
Harmless questions are often an unintentional open invitation—a bat signal—for every opinion that's ever existed peripherally related to the question. People generally start off trying to answer the question directly and in earnest. Whatabouts, advocacy for the Devil, edge cases, differences in experiences, flock toward the bright light of existentialism that I (only sort of) exaggerated above.
When you find circled by bats[1] as I often do, enter strawman.
A strawman argument is when someone creates a false premise or variation upon the core argument in order to show how the core argument is false. Make argument A, they'll say argument B, which kinda looks like A, is false. Therefore argument A is false.
While incredibly annoying at the family dinner table and in Congressional session alike, building a strawman to be a unified mental model grounds discussions in reality.
In the case of the directory, your strawman could be an ASCII diagram of a folder structure with real examples from your code base. Whatever your question scope, determine what form your strawman is—a diagram, a list of options, pseudocode. Not even correct, perfect, or even particularly good, the strawman's main job is to just exist. I'd strongly suggest doing it quickly and not allowing for too much editing or analysis as you put down the first draft.
The strawman is built to stand in the field and divert the bats away from the light and toward something tangible, adjustable, and most importantly: held in the same form.
The difference between the strawman your cousin builds at Christmas dinner to prove a conspiracy theory and the one you'll build: Your strawman is there to build up an idea rather than to tear it down.
The question vortex happens because each participant responding to that question likely imagines something different in their head than the next person. Each person frames their questions and critiques through their mental model, which may be very well-defined or amorphous depending on how they think (look up "can you visualise an apple").
By doing this exercise, I have found:
The strawman aligns our mental models (mostly, as best as we can), forces us to reconcile the theoretical concern with tangible application, allows us to ask questions with a form of reference. Sometimes the strawman will be closer to its final form than you might think. Other times, the difficulty of crafting the strawman or the wretchedness of the form may help you to move on from the exercise. Regardless of the outcome, the next time you find yourself in a endless engineering musings vortex, ask your team... What are we going to do? Do you want to build a strawman? ∎
[1] If you are here to question whether a strawman and a scarecrow are the same thing, did you notice I didn't ever use the word scarecrow and just subsumed it into strawmen like it was always one thing? Are you wondering how often this trickery happens? Why did they call it a strawman and not a scarecrow? Are you curious why I didn't degender strawman? Are you making up reasons? Why didn't you listen to Admiral Akbar? Because yeah, this is a trap, you sweet little batcrow.
2021-10-12 18:04:22
At work, I like to observe who:
requests v. demands
is direct v. is indirect
responds v. ignores
The data reveals a lot about how people wield power, especially subconsciously.
Requests are often, “when you get a chance, could you please do X? I would like it by Z date.”
Demands are, “you need to do X by Z date.”
But it gets more complicated:
An indirect demand could look like, “we need to do X ASAP.” “We” in a lot of situations is an unspoken substitute for “you.” ASAP is often an ambiguous urgency. power becomes a critical piece of this.
“We” can hold a collaborative tone when power is equal and trust is shared.
As with many things, “we”—a banal pronoun—can become complicated when you look at power.
Going back to the request v. demand, “we need to…ASAP” can be code for “I want you to do this by a time I haven’t disclosed but will drive urgently toward. When done, I’ll take credit.”
There is often a passive understanding between both parties that “we” means “you” and “ASAP” means “I will move the deadline (up) as it suits me.”
Situations like this are anxiety-ridden, especially for many of us neurodivergent folks.
Now, this is when ignoring comes into play.
As a highly anxious, high producing person, I often ask a lot of upfront questions (trauma is a strong journalist) to avoid the ambiguity that the above situation creates.
Often I notice those questions just… go unanswered. now here you might respond “assume positive intent.”
And I would respond that “I don’t assume any intent, but observe all impact.” It’s always possible someone isn’t intentionally ignoring me; an ADHD person like me knows that especially well.
But the impact remains: not getting clarity leads to massive anxiety and ambiguity.
The ignoring is often a passive and subconscious wielding of power in at least two ways.
Failure to just know are an issue of the helper’s “lack of expertise or initiative” not of the helped’s poor and lacking communication.
The person with less power is far more likely to be blamed for dropping the ball, and here, the former collective “we” becomes “they.”
Does this sound Machiavellian? It is, and also, I think that more often than not, corporatism and capitalism encourage/require us to be Machiavellian without even acknowledging it. In many ways, this is worse because we aren't even aware of or intending to commit a lot of this harm. We are even less able to control our harm here. It's not intentional on our part, but it is intentional design by the system.
The system always favours the ones with the most power and is designed to passively and subversely support that group. The person/people with less power is/are far more likely to be blamed for dropping the ball, and here, the former collective “we” becomes “they.”
On the flip side “annoying” helpers like me will insist on getting answers and keep a paper trail (trauma the journalist!) and we are seen as “difficult, unaccommodating, needs a lot of direction.”
The game is often manipulated to be lose-lose for the less powerful.
Now, when I say I observe this it doesn’t mean I isolate and document each interaction. I understand we live in a pandemic and many of our actions are banal and unpredictable.
I get it. I’m here too. However… what I do mean is that I observe these binaries from the first paragraph as patterns, especially at scale of dozens of interactions. Patterns of power, even if passive and subconscious, often tell me a lot. They show me ways and means to protect myself at work.
This entire power dynamic is one of the most harmful and yet quiet ways that white supremacy culture thrives in the workplace.
It’s a way that many mediocre majoritised people thrive with little effort while exceptional minoritised people barely survive with a lot of effort.
This power dynamic, like white supremacy, goes unnoticed because it is baked into the architecture of the organisation, the politics of the workers, and ultimately, what it takes to survive.
I hope this thread opens up more awareness to it, and conscious actions to resist.
For questions, please reach out on Twitter! I can't promise to answer all your questions, but I'll try my best!
For corrections (typos, factual inaccuracies), please file a GitHub issue.
2021-09-04 01:50:33
If you drive and have had to parallel park, you might have encountered a situation where you could have parked somewhere if that Prius just had pulled up a bit or split the difference better.
If you're even-tempered, you drove around the block and found another spot. If you're easy to temper, you might have cursed under your breath—or maybe, just maybe—you were having a real one and even left a note.
Cursed as a deeply analytical person, whenever I encounter a bad park job, my first question is, "why would they have parked that way?" I try to ask it without as much snark as possible (I have my days, still).
It's very easy for us to assume that that person actively chose to park like an a-hole and decided to ruin a few other people's day for shits and giggles.
Most of the time we'll never know. Equally likely to assume stranger sociopathy, we can write a more likely story, too: They didn't choose to park that way. Relatably: Intent does not erase impact, even in parking. So yeah, they probably didn't actively seek to ruin your life in this minor way, but instead, did it unaware, thinking about the global pandemic, in a rush, or even equally likely, they inherited that spot.
Parallel parking is one of the most brilliant examples of feedback loops. We have some general guidelines (at least here in the U.S., let me tell you about my time in Cairo and how parking works there), but for the most part, you park around other people and other things (fire hydrants, trash cans, driveways, unofficial cones that busybodies leave that mean nothing but I still weirdly abide by). So, in a perfect universe where all our cars are the same lengths and driveways are spaced out equidistantly, we could make more assumptions.
But given the chaos that is humankind, parallel parking is a complete mess. It's highly likely that the conditions you see before you are not the ones the a-hole parker had.
Yet when we're rushing to get our own spot, we're so quick to project pristine conditions for others—hypocritically while we're experiencing the very chaotic impact of parallel parking ourselves!
Inheriting a chaotic system and expecting pristine conditions prior sounds deeply familiar to how many of us navigate inheriting code bases. It is easy to come into a codebase with all of our own context and assumptions as to how it should be in a pristine environment.
Just the other day, I caught myself asking, "why the fork balls would you have done it that convoluted way?" Several hours later, I had refactored an entire flow. And then a day later, when a few things broke, I understood why the previous engineer had done it the convoluted way they did.
Said another way, they parked their car behind a big truck and when I got there, all I saw was a big gap.
I wrongly made an assumption about the conditions and context under which the previous engineer made that decision. It wasn't until I went to park in the same spot that I realised the reasoning.
I stopped to reflect on how I can train myself out of this habit:
Assume no intent and observe all impact. We're often told to assume positive intent because we want to believe in the "good in all people." I have a lot of thoughts on this binary thinking (saved for another day, though you can watch my talk if you're curious). But here, I think we'd be better off to not assume anything. Speculation is fine, as long as we recognise the only way to know for sure is to ask the previous engineer (and that's not always possible).
Leave things better than you found them—when possible. In the parking situation, you can do your best to not worsen the situation for people downstream. Try to neutralise the ill-effects of the unideal park job. The code equivalent is to document. I made sure to document against why I made the decision I did above (redoing, in part, the previous engineer's work. Leaving notes for the future engineer lets them know why I parked like an a-hole, so to speak.
Even more proactively, if you find yourself writing code that is unexpected (which yes, requires a great deal of self-awareness and experience), document it. I am of the school of thought it's better to overdocument than underdocument.
The worst thing that happens with overdocumentation is the (usually arrogant) engineer reads the comments and thinks it's unnecessary (insert cries of "self-documenting code"). The worst thing with underdocumentation is you take down an entire system—I know what I'm picking, but you do you, foo.
Approach with curiosity over critique. It was a really humbling moment for me to realise that I had assumed the previous engineer chose to code like an a-hole, because I generally try to approach with curiousity over critique. But we all have better and worse days. I catch myself regularly telling myself, curiosity, not critique.
When I'm confused by a code decision, I force myself to answer, why would they do it that way? I make a little list. The list is different each time, but one item that is ever present is: There is a lot of ways to do this, and this might have been the best way they knew how.
Like in the parking situation, we rarely have enough information or context to critique effectively. We make a lot of assumptions in critique, but in curiosity, we can ask, we can speculate but ultimately never assume anything. Curiosity is expansive, critique is reductive.
Also, if you feel in a position to critique, it's a gamble. You're allowing yourself to show your ass if you're wrong. Curiosity always allows room for evolving information, missing context, and knowledge you didn't have. After two years in a pandemic, I would hope we'd all see how quickly things can evolve and change on a global scale.
I hope the next time you encounter a shitty park job or a strange function or even a weird situation in your life that makes no sense, you can count to ten, speculate a few reasons why they might have done it that way, and invite curiosity and context into your life.
For questions, please reach out on Twitter! I can't promise to answer all your questions, but I'll try my best!
For corrections (typos, factual inaccuracies), please file a GitHub issue.
2021-03-24 08:34:35
Hyperaware of how annoying it is when you want a recipe and have to read a 20-paragraph story about someone's great gran (and feeling bad you don't care), I have provided a skip link if you don't care about my back story to this post.
My partner and I were watching TV and he said, "Oh, the closed captions are off. Do you want me to turn them on?" It was the moment that I realised:
Whenever I encounter a new course and it's video only without a transript OR closed captioning, I am overwhelmed with sadness. No matter how engaging, funny, well-produced the video is, I will not be able to retain it unless I cannot read along.
If I want to sing along to a song, I have to pull up the lyrics.
If I want to listen to an audio book, I have to coordinate make sure I have the book too, so I can visually read along.
If I want to listen to a podcast, I have to follow along the transcript.
If this sounds cumbersome, it is. I usually choose to go straight to reading at least 95% of the time and skip the other half.
I read fast and I retain what I read. This is my comfort zone and my learning style. But many other people are the opposite. It should be okay that we each learn differently and need different things to succeed.
Unfortunately, so many of our tutorials (and media in general) only comes in one form. When our teachings are only provided in one media, in one language, in one form, it is inherently inaccessible to some subset of our students.
I imagine most of us teach to provide opportunities and access. Creating access requires us to provide more than one way to take in our content. I've broken down each base medium with some of its benefits, tips, and opportunities to make your content more accessible.
alt text or longdesc (for longer explanations).Record an audio file of you reading the written content.
I first saw this idea on Lindsey Kopacz' blog, a11y with Lindsey. People can hear pronunciation and personality, learn the language auditorily, and perhaps enjoy it while doing something else (people who don't rely on screen readers don't often think to use them to have things read for them). Come up with a strategy for whether or not you'll read through code snippets and if so, how.
Visualise written content into a more dynamic way.
Many people, some neurodivergent folks especially, benefit from information being distilled into diagrams, comics, or less word-dense formats. Visuals can also benefit people who might not read/understand the language you wrote it in. They can also be an effective lead-in to your long-form from visually-driven avenues like Pinterest or Instagram.
Build in a way for people to translate your posts.
Many people have generously offered to translate my writing into languages cooler than English and I always want to take them up on it. I don't currently have a great mechanism on my site to share them. Don't be like me. Build in a language feature!
(While people can rely on automated translations services, there is something much better about having a human interpret your post into another language. I also love the community building feels. Google Translate is mostly just rude to me.)
Closed captioning allows people to follow along and read your video (if they're not able to listen due to a disability or situational context).
Ideally, closed captioning should be a togglable feature of your video player. However, in platforms where this is not yet possible (i.e., TikTok, Instagram, etc), please use a captioning app to add open captions. (I like MixCaptions for iOS.)
Open captions are burned onto the media and cannot be turned off. While they are not ideal, they are better than no captions.
Transcripts allows people who prefer reading/not able to watch a video to read/skim all the content. Transcripts are also more translatable and searchable and lightweight. If someone can't load your massive video due to a slow connection, they can still benefit.
Videos, tutorials and talks, can be converted into engaging long-form written content beyond just a transcript. Something Ethan Marcotte does that I really admire (well, perhaps second to his impressive meme database) is that he translates his talks into webpages (see The World-Wide Work).
Note that I didn't break out audio into its own separate category. Much of the principles above apply for audio (such as transcripts, preventing audio play, etc).
While repos, pens, and snippets can supplant both written and video content, they sometimes go out into the wild in their own. I provided some ways to help guide people within the snippets.
Through these tips, I hope I've expanded the way you think about your content. You might be thinking, "gosh, this is a lot of work." It is!
How I think about it is: We don't have to do it all at once. Release your tutorial in the first format you feel most comfortable in. Then, build in time to extend it into a second, or third format. Perhaps you can pair/trade with a friend who enjoys a format you hate! The goal should not be to stop, but instead to keep imagining new and inventive ways to make our content as acccessible to as many people as possible, especially those who are usually given the biggest barriers to entry.
2021-03-18 20:56:13
I recognise that my
precode needs a lot of work, so the code samples are difficult to read and ugly right now. I plan to update that code. Apologies in the meantime; hopefully the message is still understandable!
Animations help to breathe life into interactive experiences. Animations, especially when overused and abused, can make people very ill. Through this article, I hope to provide you an approach and guidance to discussing how you/your company use animation thoughtfully and responsibly.
I experience benign paroxysmal positional vertigo (BPPV), which is a fancy way of saying, the room can start spinning if I turn my head the wrong way. Another side effect is if a website scrolljacks or has too much animation, I can become dizzy and have to lay down often for the rest of the day. BPPV is one of many vestibular disorders that impact millions of people.
As you can imagine, this can be a problem when you're a frontend engineer and are animating lots of things.
A core accessibility approach of mine is to let the user determine what's best for them and to enable as many user settings as I can. Most operating systems allow us to reduce the motion and have for a very long time.
The setting has been exposed now to most modern browsers using a media feature called prefers-reduced-motion. prefers-reduced-motion media query acts as any other media query with two possible options:
no-preference (the default): the user has not indicated to "Reduce motion" in their OS and will be served all animations and animations designated explicitly as prefers-reduced-motion: no-preference. [I want to make a critical note here that this is operating on a no-consent model. Ew. The user hasn't necessarily opted into animations. They just haven't checked "Reduce motion." That could be because they like and can tolerate animations, or, it's equally possible the user doesn't know about this setting. So, I want us to make sure we're not assuming that these users necessarily want animations.]reduce: the user has "Reduce motion" checked in their operating system's Accessibility settings and will be served whatever is in the media query for prefers-reduced-motion: reduce.What this means is that if we can use prefers-reduced-motion to customise our animations based on user settings.
We will have two parts to our code:
prefers-reduced-motion media query.In CSS, it could look something like this:
/*
Part 1: Animation
Here is where we would put our full animation.
*/
.wordArtRotation {
animation: rotation 2s infinite linear;
}
/*
Part 2: Media query
Here is where we would put our partial or no animation.
*/
@media (prefers-reduced-motion: reduce) {
.wordArtRotation {
animation: none;
}
}When I collaborate with a designer/animator on an animation, I first ask, "Is this animation critical to understanding the content?"
More often than not, the answer is "no." (It might take some finessing of the conversation, so remember to emphasise that being critical isn't the same thing as being important or nice or aesthetic.) When conceived well, animations should be an enhancement to an explanation.
If the animation isn't critical, then my default code is to include animation: none for all of my animations. In CSS, it could look something like this:
@media (prefers-reduced-motion: reduce) {
.wordArtRotation,
.rainbowWave,
.textFadeIn {
animation: none;
}
}Another way it could look is to reverse our thought process. Instead of defaulting to adding animations universally, we can instead only add them for people who have designated no-preference.
The code could look something like this:
/*
Part 1: Animation
Here is where we would put our full animation.
*/
.wordArtRotation {
animation: none;
}
/*
Part 2: Media query
Here is where we would put our partial or no animation.
*/
@media (prefers-reduced-motion: no-preference) {
.wordArtRotation {
animation: rotation 2s infinite linear;
}
}The difference between the first code block and the second one comes down to browser support. The support for prefers-reduced-motion is fairly strong, but still has some gaps (see Can I Use: Prefers reduced motion). Defaulting to this latter approach will mean that all users will default to no animation, including users whose browsers won't recognise the media query.
The difference is not just in code, but in mindset shift. I won't tell you which one is right for you/your org, but I think this type of differentiation is important for your design system, for example. I find that sharing the technical approach with the designer gets them thinking about how they intend for their animations to exist in different environments (and getting them to cater their animations to user preferences).
To turn these individual conversations into a systemic one, you could include animation principles with guidance around how your design system would like animations to be not only coded, but conceived. Providing this context in your documentation will help to guide better animator/designer-developer collaboration.
Framer Motion sets a good tone for accessibilty in documentation with their Guide to Accessibility.
Since we've all agreed that our animations aren't critical to perceiving our page (winky face), we can take that one step further and only serve our users CSS if they are cool with prefers-reduced-motion: no-preference.
Here's what you might include in your HTML file in the <head> tag:
<link
rel="stylesheet"
href="animations.css"
media="(prefers-reduced-motion: no-preference)"
/>Code snippet from Web.dev: prefers-reduced-motion
What this requires is we've placed all our animations into one CSS file. If our user has indicated "Reduce motion" (and thus, the media query prefers-reduced-motion: reduce is true), then the user isn't even served our stylesheet at all. Separating our CSS animations into its own stylesheet can be a very daunting task on a large codebase, so this could require some heavy refactoring. But if CSS animations is a large part of your codebase, it might also mean huge performance savings!
I love this option because it is putting accessibility and performance on the same team—as they should be!
If the animation is critical to understanding, then I ask what other ways we intend to serve up that information, because without alternates, we're excluding anyone who won't be able to see the animation (whether due to physical disability, data/technical restrictions, situational, etc).
Sometimes this conversation between the person who conceived the animation and the person implementing it doesn't happen. That is a damn shame, because I find that's where we needlessly animate things that add exactly zero value to the conversation.
I also ranked these questions in level of spiciness for no other reason than my entertainment to cater your communication to the context of your conversation.
Most of the time, I'm negotiating a way to get information to be served in more ways. Changing the answer from "yes, this animation is critical to understanding" to "no, this animation is not critical but an enhancement." Remember, accessibility means giving the users as many, diversified options as possible, not determining which option works best for them.
Auto-playing anything is cruel to both users who experience vestibular disorders and neurodivergent users for whom autoplay can cause major focus issues.
CSS-tricks covers this well with Reduced motion picture technique: take two.
Now while I am very pro-CSS animations (and think they can handle most standard animations), I recognise that CSS can't handle all types of animations, for example, react-spring animations. I'm not yet an expert in these areas. Instead of taking weeks to learn this all to regurgigate it back to you right now, I wanted to share some existing articles that already do a great job of distilling down this information.
Vanilla JS: window.matchMedia demo from web.dev
React: useReduceMotion Hook by infiniteluke
Commentary on prefers-reduced-motion with authors covered that I did not. (Note there will be some introductory overlap)
A List Apart: Accessibility for vestibular disorders
Provides guidance to designing for vestibular disorders with tactical tips
A11y with Lindsey: Reducing motion to improve accessibility
Code snippets with brief rundown on adding a toggle to your page and using localStorage to preserve user setting
Josh Comeau: Accessible Animations in React
React Code snippets
For questions, please reach out on Twitter! I can't promise to answer all your questions, but I'll try my best!
For corrections (typos, factual inaccuracies), please file a GitHub issue.
2021-01-03 02:55:02
This week, I saw a lot of judgment over people joining Facebook's team. In case you missed it, Facebook subverts democracy, mistreats its human moderators, and if those aren't enough, there is an entire Wikipedia page dedicated to the harm it conducts.
A lot of the judgment I saw was for Black women, specifically Kristy Tillman, whom I admire very much. A lot of the judgment I saw was by white men and women. I don't know Kristy personally, and I imagine many of these people don't either. So why do they feel the authority to judge a stranger's major life decision?
I imagine many people felt disappointed by seeing an idol or hero do something they didn't morally agree with. I imagine some pedestals fell. I think this is a danger of hero worship. We expect our heroes to be better than us in all ways and in a sense, we dehumanise them in the process. We don't allow them to be complete humans. We expect a monolith not a person.
Power also comes into play here: We're far more forgiving of majoritised heroes than we are minoritised ones. I see this even within our own communities. We expect better from each other and don't allow each other the richness of being 100 percent flawed. The power becomes further something to examine as to who is criticising whom: A white man criticising a Black woman needs to be understood as a power differential.
I imagine that a large career decision like this isn't one that she took lightly. I imagine she considered Facebook's past and present. I imagine I lack all the context that only Kristy has to have made this decision, one that is her right to make. Only she has enough context to judge this decision.
Seeing this judgment of Kristy and others made me think about the nature of judgment and morality. Who are these people to judge her? What authority do they have on her life? Are they themselves living morally perfect lives (spoiler: a cursory look at their histories would show that they are not morally perfectly beings according to my moral system!)? Are their moral standards hers? Where do they draw the line for partaking in capitalism? Is it just Facebook? Would they work at Palantir? Would they work at PayPal? GitHub? Stripe? Shopify? Which kind of harm are we okay with? What do they think being loud about her decision on the internet accomplishes?
It wouldn't be right if I didn't assess the way that I fall into this trap too. I'm definitely guilty of judging people I don't know for their decisions. Every time I see someone unmasked or at a large gathering on IG or getting on a plane I usually mutter something unkind. I feel a moderate amount of judgment for all the Amazon packages in my mailroom. I am not proud of the judgment I have for others.
If I'm honest with myself, whenever I judge someone for something, it's more often than not a judgment of myself. We often judge others the harshest when they do something that we ourselves feel insecure about. Sometimes it's jealousy because we'd like to do that "problematic" thing (but don't out of shame) and other times it's us feeling shame for doing that thing too.
The thing is: None of us are entirely moral beings. The premise, moral absolution, or the idea that all actions are morally good or bad, is a bit ridiculous to maintain. Whose moral system are we using to judge people? If we're just as flawed, what authority do we have to judge others? Do we have enough context to be effective judges? What is considered good and bad and for whom? (If you're curious about my feelings about the good-bad binary, may I suggest my talk, Our Banal Binary?)?
I don't know about you, but I do a lot of shit that I'm sure someone judges me for:
I feel some guilt over all these things, which might be banal to some and offensive to others. I'm sure I do a bunch of things I don't even realise are "problematic" yet. The saying, "there is no ethical consumption under capitalism" exists for a reason. I see many people quoting it, but I still see people trying to parse out what is ethical consumption for each other. I know I've done it.
Judgment isn't particularly helpful because we're all forced to partake in a bunch of really shitty systems that then inform other systems. How do we extract ourselves from society for long enough to justify ...living? What mental gymnastics do we have to do to justify some decisions over others, when the reality is that most of tech is contributing to majorly problematic systems?
The reality is that while we build something better, we still have to live and hopefully derive some joy in the process. How would I like to proceed, then, is what I have to ask myself?
Moving forward, when I catch myself judging others, I'm going to do the following:
Amplify groups that are building something outside of this disableist, anti-trans, anti-queer, anti-Black system. Shift my resources from soul-sucking, pro-capitalist, pro-colonist global resources to smaller, community-focused ones. Recognise the limitation within this given the power that some organisations have, but still continue to push myself and my communities to do better.
What value do I feel this has compromised? How would I like to behave to honour my own value? Would I join Facebook's team? How would I like to operate?
If I feel the need to interrogate someone else's decisions: Do I have enough mutual trust with this person to ask them more about their decision? Am I willing to offend them in the process? What is the impact I want to have in having this conversation?
Judgment implies that I have enough information to form a decision about a situation. But we are often missing so much critical context about other people's lives and are working off of incomplete information. Instead, I can use this opportunity to learn more:
What information could I be missing? What biases are at play? Why do I feel so strongly about this? Where might I be able to direct this energy more productively instead?
The oppressive systems we live under mean that sometimes we have to make really difficult decisions that sometimes seem in direct conflict with our own identities and our own liberation. Some of us might be more impacted by the disableism, others of us by the racism, and others by the anti-transness—some of us by all three.
The systems force us to fight against each other for finite resources. Meanwhile, the ruling elite are hoarding most of the world's wealth. By nature of our identities, we will protect and care more about our own causes and fight for them. The moral conflict we often enter and grapple with is by design. The system's most harmful perpetrators are able to do this without losing any sleep guilt-free since the system was made for their success at our collective exploitation. The longer we fight with each other about who will win the Oppression Olympics, the less time we all spend collectively fighting them.
I think with lines like "there is no ethical consumption under capitalism," it can be easy to become nihilistic and give up altogether. I think that we have to both accept that we can only do so much and that we can also always do more.
Only I have all the context of my own life to recognise where these blurry lines lie and assess them as they shift. Morality is a currency we love to spend for others. The key, I think, is in focusing what I can do better, not what they can do better.
I have 30 plus years of trauma, memories, education that all inform where my own morality lies. With each passing year, I learn something that shifts my north star a little bit. I hope that I will continue to make adjustments as I learn to do better and to be better. My moral compass won't be rigid, and instead will be fluid and evolve as I continue to learn how to dismantle oppressive systems and extract internalised disableism, racism, and genderism from my own mind.
Colonisation and capitalism (and before that, mercantilism) have hundreds of years on us. Activists who are far more effective, knowledgable, and practised than myself have come and gone and not been able to dismantle these oppressive systems. I won't use that as an excuse to quit, but I will use it as a humbling reminder that living a pristinely moral life is nearly impossible so long as these systems dominate.
I will continue to work to reduce the harm of the most vulnerable people and of the planet and its sentient inhabitants. I forgive myself and you for doing what we need to do to survive in these difficult systems—I forgive us for the jobs we take, the products we buy, the media we consume—and hope you will forgive us too.
