[ryanackley]

It feels like you're blaming the author for the lazy thinking of someone who might read his opinion and take it as objective fact.

The 7 times 9 analogy doesn't track it all. 7x9 = 63 is an objective fact by definition. His thoughts on remote work are an opinion by definition. If other people decide that what he says is dogmatic, blame it on their own lack of critical thinking skills.

The meta-point of the article is that we should express are thoughts without qualifiers and embellishments to manipulate other people's perceptions of us.

[cgriswald]

His opinion on remote work is an opinion. The reasons he gives for having that opinion are not presented as opinion, but as fact.

[nipponese]

Is your reasoning for your opinion that he didn’t preface his opinion as “in my opinion”?

His words read the same as any editorial I’ve seen.

[j-bos]

> The meta-point of the article is that we should express are thoughts without qualifiers and embellishments to manipulate other people's perceptions of us.

In my experience this is a common failure point among tech/analytical folks (myself included) which leads to their words and actions being genrally misconstrued and effectively misunderstood by the larger segement of the population which is rarely able or disposed to handling communications without embellishments.

[Ar-Curunir]

“Technical” people are also people, and that doesn’t exclude them from communicating like reasonable adults.

Blaming the rest of the world for an inability to communicate effectively is not orienting the blame correctly.

[saghm]

My point was that they don't at all phrase it as a personal opinion:

> Remote work eliminates a lot of problems with office work: commutes, inefficient use of real estate, and land value distortion. But software development is better when you breathe the same air as the folks you work with. Even with a camera-on policy, video calls are a low-bandwidth medium. You lose ambient awareness of coworkers’ problems, and asking for help is a bigger burden. Pair programming is less fruitful. Attempts to represent ideas spatially get mutilated by online whiteboard and sticky note software. Even conflict gets worse: it’s easy to form an enemy image of somebody at the end of video call, but difficult to keep that image when you share a room with them and sense their pain.

It's hard for me to read that as anything other than literally describing to me what my the experience of working with me remotely is. OP has never worked with me as far as I'm aware, so they have no idea whether it's accurate or not. Charitably, they might not mean what they're saying literally, but I'm making the argument that for topics that are controversial because of how people have been burned by overly prescriptive policies in the past, the burden is on the speaker to avoid voicing opinions in a careless way that relies on the listener to glean that their intent isn't the same as what people have experienced in the past.

My meta-point is that while people are free to express their opinions without spending effort trying to make their intent understood, but by the same token, people are free to react to those opinions with the exact same level of effort spend trying to understand their intent. In my experience, there are a lot of people who complain that they're treated unfairly for expressing their opinions without realizing that what people are actually reacting to is how they express their opinions, not their opinions themselves. I've personally struggled quite a lot over the years in having trouble understanding how other people will interpret my communications, so I have a lot of sympathy for people who also struggle with this, but if someone doesn't seem to even accept the premise that part of the responsibility for being understood lies with the person in expressing their intent clearly, I lose patience quickly. This is especially true when the "opinions" are expressed in a medium where the person communicating has an unbounded amount of time to work on clarifying their intent before the message actually is received by someone else; I don't expect everyone to be able to perfectly articulate things in real-time when talking in person, but when the opinion is expressed via a blog post, they don't have the same constraints in working on how they convey what they're saying. The fact that the blog post seems to be overall taking the stance that it's better not to try to worry about how someone will interpret their intent makes it feel even more likely they might just not understand what people's actual issue with their communications have been in the past.

It genuinely seems like they might not have been able to distinguish between good-faith misunderstandings and bad-faith intentional misinterpretations of what they've said, and that's unfortunate if it's led them to the conclusion that they just don't need to care about what anyone thinks about their opinions rather than that they need to learn how to better communicate to those who are attempting to respond in good faith and ignore the ones who aren't. A lot of people understand that people can disagree with them in good faith in the abstract but fail to actually recognize when that's happening in the present, and quite a lot of what's expressed in this blog post resembles what I've seen from other people who struggle with that.

[mekoka]

Giving a blank check to anything someone says because they disclaimed that they'll be uttering opinions? That sounds kinda naive. Have you never heard someone include facts to support their opinions? Would you disagree that it's fair game to attack opinions presented as facts? The "problematic" paragraph jumps out because the assertive generalizations moot the earlier agreement that the author is sharing their experience. The proclamations are not subjective they're factual. Perhaps re-read that passage yourself while donning your own critical thinking hat.

[ryanackley]

What are we arguing about? Is it the way he expressed his opinion?

Would you agree that whether something is an opinion or fact is itself objective, for most cases at least?

I ask because nobody is questioning whether or not what he states was actually an opinion. They seem to simply be upset with the manner in which he phrased it. He was simply too sure of himself and people found that offensive. Which seems a little ridiculous don't you think?