If it's real innovation, like jQuery imperatoveness to React et Al's declarativeness, sure I'd agree with you. But Tailwind is simply not innovation, it's at best repackaging normal CSS properties that when composed together act just like...regular CSS classes. So there's literally no point in using them.
The only people I know who dislike tailwind are those who either have never used it to make a project because of bias (hello past me) or those who dislike having faster development speed.
Tailwind objectively saves time, yes, objectively.
I am being forced to use it if my employer does, don't I? I find it more interesting that people get upset whenever others mention the downsides of Tailwind.
I guess if the other engineers around you have coalesced around using Tailwind you may need to reasses how you go about presenting your position as you clearly aren't having the impact you feel you should be.
Not all decisions are so easily reversed. We have started rewriting parts out of Tailwind but it was chosen initially because it seemed good. That doesn't mean the engineers today continue to want to use it, and indeed many don't, hence the rewrite.
What a weird definition of force, but okay. It doesn't seem like you're interested in any negative criticism of Tailwind but yes we will have a post mortem.
“High-level languages at best repackage normal machine code instructions that when composed together act just like.. regular machine code. So there's literally no point in using them“
Not having CSS inheritance anywhere already make it much much better. Sure, it is not novel, but it does fix many warts of “normal CSS”.
For example: https://twitter.com/stolinski/status/1613699772111638530