>isn't defending a preference one way people relate to certain other people?
I took that quote and that post to refer to the negative implications of treating people differently based on personal preferences.
>If by "other people" you meant all other people--I don't think that's actually true or evidenced here.
Not all encompassing "all", but it happens quite a bit. Many a "flame war" have stemmed from something as trivial as personal preference. The very example we have is a public example, which is good for outlining the issue, not defining it. I understand these people have professional reasons to pick one over another. I understand why one would defend their preference aggressively. But as the article implies, there are ways of doing so without putting down the other person for a difference of opinion. That is the overall lesson.
I took that quote and that post to refer to the negative implications of treating people differently based on personal preferences.
>If by "other people" you meant all other people--I don't think that's actually true or evidenced here.
Not all encompassing "all", but it happens quite a bit. Many a "flame war" have stemmed from something as trivial as personal preference. The very example we have is a public example, which is good for outlining the issue, not defining it. I understand these people have professional reasons to pick one over another. I understand why one would defend their preference aggressively. But as the article implies, there are ways of doing so without putting down the other person for a difference of opinion. That is the overall lesson.