I don't think I did. As far as I can tell, amongst the complaints about rent and sexism, this is the point:
"This debate is an attempt to assuage the guilt we already have and know we have because we’re here doing THIS instead of something truly meaningful."
So I posted that there is at least 1 example where design could have done something truly meaningful, if people had actually accepted the proposition that "design can change the world."
Seriously, you are stuck in a literal read of what is a purely rhetorical statement. She isn't really saying that all design is pointless. She's arguing against the underlying motivation for the debate, and the cognitive dissonance that underlies that, and the moral failings of her industry as a whole. And because you are not in her field and not her audience, you don't realize what she actually means by the all-caps "THIS". She's not talking about design in principle.
"Are we having a debate or a therapy session?"
"Designers will do anything to convince themselves we are not in a service industry. Why are we so desperate to make ourselves feel better? Because we feel GUILTY and we have to reconcile what we do professionally with the world we live in. We WANT to save the world so we repeat our daily affirmations on our way to work…"
"This debate is an attempt to assuage the guilt we already have and know we have because we’re here doing THIS instead of something truly meaningful."
So what is "THIS"? Most designers in today's consumerist culture work on things that are morally empty, have little to do with making the world a better place. So they make themselves feel better by convincing themselves that they are in fact saving the world through design. I have a college friend who studies art and is very counter culture. But because of the limited job market, she works in the marketing department at Avon. I know that inside she hates it.
The internet technology analogy would be how most people who work on ad supported websites, especially those who work on the ad tech itself, in their gut feel wrong about pushing ads on people, but then put a positive spin on it by telling themselves, their coworkers and friends that it enables people who can't afford their content or service to use it for free. Cognitive dissonance. I know this personally as long ago I led teams that worked on the systems that inserted ads in the Disney, ESPN and ABC websites and into their internet and iPad video streams. Not a single person was proud of their job, though it was plain as day everyone tried their best to pretend to be. "daily affirmations"
She calls out the dishonesty of taking advantage of privilege while critiquing the injustice and unfairness of the world:
"…on our way to yoga…"
"We drink fancy coffee and eat free gummy bears and free catered dinners meanwhile the median cost of rent in SF is $4,300 dollars. Is idealism truly that desperate here that we equally applaud free wifi in Africa and a $1,500 smart oven that “smart” preheats your soylent to save you a little extra time for cross-fit and netflix?"
Then she goes in for the kill:
"Change the world? Design can’t even change the design industry. Let’s talk about something meaningful and actionable like why we have six dudes and one lady on stage. We don’t need a debate about design’s place in the world — we need a reckoning."
http://www.edwardtufte.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=0...
is the canonical example of how design could have changed the world.