You better not be using any offensive words!

[☆Luna☆]

Just to invert the trope. I actually get annoyed when someone tries to be too politically correct. I care far more about a person expressing a genuine thought than expressing a thought which is easy to digest.

 

[Brovo]

Just to invert the trope. I actually get annoyed when someone tries to be too politically correct. I care far more about a person expressing a genuine thought than expressing a thought which is easy to digest.

It's better to be a civic asshole than a polite dehumanizer.

 

[Gwazi Magnum]

*peeks in with a tiny bit of free time* this topic is going well so far... Noone died yet so that is good!

I'm actually awfully surprised about this myself.

That's because my Iron Fist on this community can keep all the Hooligans, Trolls and Debate Starters in line.

 

[Kagayours]

Sorry to bump this thread, but, it occurred to me just now that perhaps the program's attempts to replace gendered pronouns with "it" may have been intended for animals... Like, say you're writing something that refers to some hypothetical animal that you don't know the sex of, I guess it would make more sense to say "it" than to assume that it's a "he", as many would probably do if they were just, say, talking about some wild animal (as opposed to something like a pet that you probably would know the sex of). Same with assuming "she" for animals more often associated with femininity like, say, a ladybug.

I realize it's a minor thing, but, yeah -- makes more sense than using "it" to refer to people. Just an example of the program not having any concept of context, really.

I guess it really makes a lot more sense to refer to the program's suggestions as just that -- suggestions. It doesn't know what exactly you're trying to say, but, if it's correct in assuming that you used a gendered pronoun in a place where a gender-neutral one would be more appropriate, then, yeah, it caught that for you. If not? You're a human and you're smarter than it and you know that there's nothing wrong with the word you chose. I mean, at least it says that any detected words "may" be offensive, not that they necessarily "are", as it would depend on a context that it can't decipher.

Now, could you argue that it's a bit unnecessary to be so anal-retentive about gendered pronouns in the first place? Yeah, you could make a case for that. Still, it's not nearly as absurd and over-the-top as the article made it seem, and, so long as people aren't going on a crusade to correct others about small details like this, I see nothing wrong with people wanting to improve their own political correctness by watching for things like these. *shrugs*

 

[Brovo]

Sorry to bump this thread, but, it occurred to me just now that perhaps the program's attempts to replace gendered pronouns with "it" may have been intended for animals... Like, say you're writing something that refers to some hypothetical animal that you don't know the sex of, I guess it would make more sense to say "it" than to assume that it's a "he", as many would probably do if they were just, say, talking about some wild animal (as opposed to something like a pet that you probably would know the sex of). Same with assuming "she" for animals more often associated with femininity like, say, a ladybug.

Actually, it's generally because gendered pronouns are often seen as offensive by the hyper-charged social justice warrior crowd that programmed this, under the premise that genders are not real. Here, several examples, super cringe worthy ones at that. To them, it's better to simply assume that someone has no gender rather than make the incredibly offensive social faux pas of calling them a he or a she (or a xer or a hon or a han or a hen or et cetera) without them explicitly telling you what their gender is. Because god help you if you think that having a dick* makes you male and having a vagina makes you a female, you cis gendered shit lord.

*Obviously does not somehow disprove the existence of transgendered people. All they have to do is inform me as to their state and preferred pronoun and I'll generally use it, even if it's something comically insane like "xer." Most transgendered people are also incredibly patient and nice people who are willing to deal with my occasional fuck-up in trying to understand who and what they are. I just feel sorry for them that the social justice crowd has hijacked their thing in order to promote the intolerance, progressive stack pyramid. Example of the progressive stack in action.

Seriously, I'd be surprised if social justice warriors remembered that animals exist outside of their headmates thing. Don't look up headmates if you want to remain sane. Just don't.

 

[Kagayours]

Actually, it's generally because gendered pronouns are often seen as offensive by the hyper-charged social justice warrior crowd that programmed this, under the premise that genders are not real. Here, several examples, super cringe worthy ones at that. To them, it's better to simply assume that someone has no gender rather than make the incredibly offensive social faux pas of calling them a he or a she (or a xer or a hon or a han or a hen or et cetera) without them explicitly telling you what their gender is. Because god help you if you think that having a dick* makes you male and having a vagina makes you a female, you cis gendered shit lord.

*Obviously does not somehow disprove the existence of transgendered people. All they have to do is inform me as to their state and preferred pronoun and I'll generally use it, even if it's something comically insane like "xer." Most transgendered people are also incredibly patient and nice people who are willing to deal with my occasional fuck-up in trying to understand who and what they are. I just feel sorry for them that the social justice crowd has hijacked their thing in order to promote the intolerance, progressive stack pyramid. Example of the progressive stack in action.

Seriously, I'd be surprised if social justice warriors remembered that animals exist outside of their headmates thing. Don't look up headmates if you want to remain sane. Just don't.

I wasn't trying to claim that there aren't extreme social justice warriors who would rather there be no gendered pronouns at all. I'm sure there are.

I was just saying that it's possible that the inclusion of "it" may have been for animals, seeing as how the majority of commenters on this thread seemed to immediately run with the idea that this program perfectly simulates how any real person striving for political correctness would behave, whereas the limitations of the programming stood out a bit more to me. And, given those limitations, it's possible that the intent behind a lot of the flagged words might not have been as extreme as the result.

Additionally, a lot of people mentioned how it just doesn't seem right to refer to people as "it" when, if you're really striving to use gender-neutral pronouns, "they" works just fine. And then I forgot about this thread for like a week and then all of a sudden... animals. Figured the thought was worth sharing.

 

[Gwazi Magnum]

I wasn't trying to claim that there aren't extreme social justice warriors who would rather there be no gendered pronouns at all. I'm sure there are.

I was just saying that it's possible that the inclusion of "it" may have been for animals, seeing as how the majority of commenters on this thread seemed to immediately run with the idea that this program perfectly simulates how any real person striving for political correctness would behave, whereas the limitations of the programming stood out a bit more to me. And, given those limitations, it's possible that the intent behind a lot of the flagged words might not have been as extreme as the result.

Additionally, a lot of people mentioned how it just doesn't seem right to refer to people as "it" when, if you're really striving to use gender-neutral pronouns, "they" works just fine. And then I forgot about this thread for like a week and then all of a sudden... animals. Figured the thought was worth sharing.

It's a good idea. But the translator itself admits to being in regards to Genders.

Introduction

Whether your own or someone else's writing, alex helps you find gender favouring, polarising, race related, religion inconsiderate, or other unequalphrasing.
For example, when We've confirmed his identity is given to alex, it will warn and suggest using their instead of his.

 

[Kagayours]

It's a good idea. But the translator itself admits to being in regards to Genders.

I still think that one could say that it's meant to suggest gender-neutral words in cases where the gender wouldn't be known or on subjects that don't have a gender. For example, "we've confirmed his identity" doesn't give us enough context to confirm that this is someone whose gender is known -- it could be someone hypothetical, in which case, using a gender-neutral pronoun makes sense. It's like referring to a hypothetical nurse as "she", because nurses would more stereotypically be female, when it would be more PC to use "they". So, I can at least understand the reasoning behind wanting to stay gender-neutral, in that case.

BUT, MAYBE YOU'RE RIGHT AND THE PROGRAMMER JUST HATES THE WHOLE CONCEPT OF GENDER -- I dunno, I just like to give this sort of thing the benefit of the doubt. Reasonable levels of PC-ness do exist.

 

[Gwazi Magnum]

I still think that one could say that it's meant to suggest gender-neutral words in cases where the gender wouldn't be known or on subjects that don't have a gender. For example, "we've confirmed his identity" doesn't give us enough context to confirm that this is someone whose gender is known -- it could be someone hypothetical, in which case, using a gender-neutral pronoun makes sense. It's like referring to a hypothetical nurse as "she", because nurses would more stereotypically be female, when it would be more PC to use "they". So, I can at least understand the reasoning behind wanting to stay gender-neutral, in that case.

BUT, MAYBE YOU'RE RIGHT AND THE PROGRAMMER JUST HATES THE WHOLE CONCEPT OF GENDER -- I dunno, I just like to give this sort of thing the benefit of the doubt. Reasonable levels of PC-ness do exist.

I want to agree, but when these are some of the changes... (And advertised on the main page as such).

1. slaves / master may be insensitive, use replica / primary instead
2. he may be insensitive, use they, it instead
3. cripple may be insensitive, use person with a limp instead

I get doubts about it being moderates.

 

[Kagayours]

I want to agree, but when these are some of the changes... (And advertised on the main page as such).

1. slaves / master may be insensitive, use replica / primary instead
2. he may be insensitive, use they, it instead
3. cripple may be insensitive, use person with a limp instead

I get doubts about it being moderates.

Once again, replacing gendered pronouns with gender-neutral ones makes sense in a bunch of contexts. What I'm getting at is that the machine can't decipher when it would be ridiculous to do so, so it just tags it all the time.

As for the others... well, I've never really heard the terms "replica/primary" in that context, so I don't know what to say about that one.

As for replacing "cripple" with "person with a limp"... yeah, that makes sense. I see no problem there.

It still looks like a program that had decent intentions but just comes off as over-the-top because of how imperfect it is. *shrugs*

 

[Gwazi Magnum]

Once again, replacing gendered pronouns with gender-neutral ones makes sense in a bunch of contexts. What I'm getting at is that the machine can't decipher when it would be ridiculous to do so, so it just tags it all the time.

As for the others... well, I've never really heard the terms "replica/primary" in that context, so I don't know what to say about that one.

As for replacing "cripple" with "person with a limp"... yeah, that makes sense. I see no problem there.

It still looks like a program that had decent intentions but just comes off as over-the-top because of how imperfect it is. *shrugs*

#2 in all honesty is just in there because I copied the list top to bottom from the ones I was drawing attention to, #1 and #3.

#1 There's just about zero point in. I could be wrong, but it just seems to wreak from the "Anything that references a negative aspect of history is offensive!" mentality.
#3 Is just outright inaccurate though. Some cripples could have a limp, but a lot of cripples wouldn't such as if it was their arms. On top of which I can get a limp as easily as spraining my ankle, completely different compared to someone whose leg might have been crushed by a boulder or something.

 

[Kagayours]

#1 There's just about zero point in. I could be wrong, but it just seems to wreak from the "Anything that references a negative aspect of history is offensive!" mentality.

Eh, if I'd ever seen any other example of those terms being used then I might have more of an opinion.

#3 Is just outright inaccurate though. Some cripples could have a limp, but a lot of cripples wouldn't such as if it was their arms. On top of which I can get a limp as easily as spraining my ankle, completely different compared to someone whose leg might have been crushed by a boulder or something.

Eh, fair enough. I suppose at that point it just wants to avoid using a potentially insensitive word, even though it might be hard to find a replacement for it.

Regardless, I still think it makes more sense to see the program's suggestions as suggestions -- which automatically makes it 100x better than an actual person trying to correct other people and censor their words.

This isn't someone pointing out someone else's word choice and screaming "I'm offended!" and trying to convince them that they're wrong for using such words -- it's a computer program designed to catch words that might be offensive. Really, this just seems like the sort of thing that people would use if they want to come across as more PC and check for things in their wording that they might not have considered before. So, I still think the reaction of "Omg, we're not allowed to say this anymore?! This PC censoring is out of control!!" to be a bit unwarranted.

I admit that some of what it catches might be a bit unnecessary -- even ignoring the context issue -- but I still don't see any harm in it existing.

 

[Gwazi Magnum]

Regardless, I still think it makes more sense to see the program's suggestions as suggestions -- which automatically makes it 100x better than an actual person trying to correct other people and censor their words.

This isn't someone pointing out someone else's word choice and screaming "I'm offended!" and trying to convince them that they're wrong for using such words -- it's a computer program designed to catch words that might be offensive. Really, this just seems like the sort of thing that people would use if they want to come across as more PC and check for things in their wording that they might not have considered before. So, I still think the reaction of "Omg, we're not allowed to say this anymore?! This PC censoring is out of control!!" to be a bit unwarranted.

I admit that some of what it catches might be a bit unnecessary -- even ignoring the context issue -- but I still don't see any harm in it existing.

As Highlighted above by others, PC culture has already gotten out of control to the point of saying trying to ban words over being offended.

That being said though, you're right in that it is possible the translator might just be a moderate trying to vouch for sensitivity.
Personally I find that less likely, but it is a possibility. And either way it's not harming anyone by simply being a option available.

Though it should also be noted, it is a spell check and not a person.
The only way for to go "I'm offended" is if you programmed it like a GPS to say something like "You just used an offensive term! Great going you Oppressive Shit Lord!" and then have the "Change" button say "Check my Privilege" or something along those lines. :P

 

[Kagayours]

As Highlighted above by others, PC culture has already gotten out of control to the point of saying trying to ban words over being offended.

And while I agree that trying to ban certain words like that might be overboard, I disagree overall with the massive backlash that PCness gets. I think that the way people tend to get so repulsed over the very concept of political correctness is just a bit... unnecessary?

Don't get me wrong, you'll have extremists that take it too far, but that applies to every ideology ever, so it's hardly a problem with the concept as a whole. At a moderate level, I don't see the harm in it. In fact, I even see the benefits.

But, I think I've said enough on that topic. I'll drop the subject since it's basically already turned into a debate.

Though it should also be noted, it is a spell check and not a person.
The only way for to go "I'm offended" is if you programmed it like a GPS to say something like "You just used an offensive term! Great going you Oppressive Shit Lord!" and then have the "Change" button say "Check my Privilege" or something along those lines. :P

Also, this is exactly what I was trying to say this whole time. The program is merely a spellcheck -- not the same as someone claiming to be offended. And I feel like that's important to consider.

 

[Brovo]

Okay kids, we get it. Gwazi, you have your opinion. Kaga, you have yours. You two have gone around in circles enough now.

I know it's ironic for me of all people to ask y'all to stop, but I've stared into the deep, dark abyss that is attempting to objectively state what any of this shit is. It's a cesspit on the Internet called Tumblr, or 4Chan, depending on which side of the fence your ass falls under. We're each entitled to our own opinions, y'all have stated your opinions, y'all are good now. No more need to nitpick or bring up extremists or whatever.

We good? We good.

 

[Gwazi Magnum]

I'll drop the subject since it's basically already turned into a debate.

Okay kids, we get it. Gwazi, you have your opinion. Kaga, you have yours. You two have gone around in circles enough now.

Just a bit slow there Brovo. :P

 

[Durandal]

Alex Is More Offensive Than Helpful

I got a good laugh out of that..

amazing...

 

[Shadon Xarian]

and the intent isn't bad

The most interesting part about this is nobodies intent is bad. This is basically a war on how far is too far.

The "PC" group seems to say too far is calling a transgender the opposite gender and should be treated the same as being a racist (At least the ones with the biggest voice) while your typical Joe/marry thinks that it's an honest mistake and not that big of a deal.

Allot of people grew up with just about anything being fine/okay. Then suddenly here are these people who wants to limit things so people don't get offended as easily (or strike their PTSD) (In fact, their goal to limit things are so bad that they harshly turn on eachother. They both mostly agree, but the moment there's a slight disagreement, then all alliances are off and a new group is created)

The average Joe/marry sit there like "It's not a big deal DX" While the more extreme side of the Joe's/Marry (I'll call them the oldens since is generally older people with this particular mindset) will be like "Bullshit you have PTSD, you just have a memory you don't like. You don't know PTSD till you go through a war. THEN you can bitch about PTSD"

"hey sexy" is sexual harassment that you can be criminally charged for.

That's nothing. Try being the guy who asked if someone wants to go have Coffee, and then got super bullied online because it was taken as a rape threat... In a bar... In hours where it's universally accepted that if you're still there, then you're looking for sex. What? You think that rape is doing things unwillingly? Nah, simply asking is a rape threat if it's to the wrong person. Welcome to the new age of humanity :D

 

[Gwazi Magnum]

Did you guys ever this list of banned terms/sayings at the University of Wisconsin?

That's nothing. Try being the guy who asked if someone wants to go have Coffee, and then got super bullied online because it was taken as a rape threat... In a bar...

Or in an elevator! :P