If you think people are only being inclusive and non-inflammatory to not get fired, I think maybe you simply just don't understand that some people are genuinely caring and empathetic.
It's bizarre to me that strong sapir-wharf seems to be the dominant thought in 2022.
You probably generally care but if you didn't it would be foolish and perhaps costly to not play the game. Your situation re-enforces the need to.
It's a class thing. Which is why it sounds forced when a CEO who doesn't have a preexisting american accent of some sort says it.
As a Texan it sounds jarring and wrong when said by a non-Southerner. A bit like a lily white person suddenly dropping into AAVE. It's just cringe-inducing and I would like people who do it as an affectation (rather than something they grew up saying) to not do it.
I don't think "folx" is going to be one of the recommendations, it isn't synonymous with folks anyway, so the replacement would be rarely make sense unless you were explicitly talking about particular queer or marginalized communities.
This is virtue signaling - a no cost action meant to make you feel like you are helping people without actually helping people.
No, it's simply a hint that your message might be better received if you change your word usage to something which is more current, more inclusive, or less triggering. For example, in the U.S. the word "master" might be triggering, given that black people were enslaved, tortured, and murdered for hundreds of years in this country. I'm OK to avoid it. If you want to use it, you can ignore the squiggle, but none of this has anything to do with "virtue signaling".
Before a few years ago, I seriously doubt that innocuous uses of the word "master" were triggering to anyone beyond a very small group of political activists. It's a common word that is used in many contexts completely unrelated to slavery. Nobody with their head soundly on their shoulders was triggered when they heard phrases like "master chef," "master bedroom" or "master's degree."
There's a difference between avoiding language that actually does have strongly negative or prejudicial associations and actively seeking out reasons to be upset about completely innocuous common phrases. There are words that really do become polluted (like "Führer" in German, which used to be a normal word for "leader," but which now is strongly associated with a certain someone), but there are also words that are completely harmless that people work to try to make an issue out of for ideological reasons (e.g., "whitelist").
There's a certain strain of politics in the US which does actively seek out and attempt to remove "problematic" language. You may agree with that politics. But a lot of people (myself included) don't think that "problematizing" innocuous phrases like "master chef" is actually helping anyone, and rather see it as a form of bullying.
Call me suspicious, but I’m not convinced that the arguments extending the debate to all use of the word master are entirely made in good faith. In fact, it seems a lot like controversy for controversies sake and I can’t help but wonder if some troll isn’t out there fanning the flames.
Maybe you could use friendlier words like "not free" or "hurt"?
If a word like "landlord" can be "triggering" then we can't even discuss actual historical events like slavery or torture, etc (one would at least presume torture to be more triggering than landlord).
Hold up, what's wrong with "brown bag" now?
I told said boss exactly how many times the complainant should be fired but needless to say, their identity was protected and nothing happened. If you believe that can't happen you're not really aware of how these people think. The next step is an admin/site-level setting that allows "uninclusive" language to force-disable sharing. You wait and see.
If this was implicit in your presentation, then I think I can see why you were reported to HR.
But, look, maybe you didn't deserve to be reported. Anyone can report anything to HR.
Obviously, if you're teaching people how to eliminate bias in an interview process then people who believe that absence of pro-female bias is "sexism" will consider it implicitly sexist, regardless of intent. But that's a nonsensical inversion of basic English and morality. People who report others to HR for that would be fired in any competent company (this one wasn't).
I mean, how many times has this happened to anyone, let alone the individual in question?
I don't call Japanese customers Japs even though that used to be a valid English term because it is now widely considered offensive. These are terms that some groups find offensive and more may find offensive in the future. It makes sense to stay ahead of the game and not cause offense if it costs me nothing to do it, and it makes sense for Google to help people who are trying not to offend people do so easily.
This is exactly right.
You need to follow your logic one or two steps farther to understand the incentives at work.
I don't think you have really answered the question about the logical incoherence put to you in another comment [1], which was replying to this comment by you (now flagged, sadly):
> If a bunch of people are saying "this thing hurts me" and your stance is "well you shouldn't be hurt so shut-up". > Yeah, you're an asshole.
Honestly, genuinely: my feelings are hurt by reading your comments here - I find it a bit chilling, it makes me uncomfortable. I'm a free speech advocate, and I perceive (rightly or wrongly) a frightening swing away from free speech values in the last few years, and your comment triggered uncomfortable feelings. Perhaps I'm wrong about this, perhaps my view is biased somehow. We could debate it, and maybe you'd point out something I hadn't considered, and maybe I'd change my view. But until then, the fact is, my feelings are hurt by your comments. And I'm definitely not the only one - there's more than a "bunch" of free speech advocates in the world who find this line of argument chilling.
As a free speech advocate, I believe you should have the right to say what you want, and that my hurt feelings should not prevent you from doing so. But don't you see the logical incoherence in your position? How can you argue that you are not an asshole under your own logic? (To be clear, I am not calling you an asshole, just pointing out that your own logic would seem to conclude that you are an example of one, while also containing the statement that you are not one.)
I'm a free speech absolutist. I'm not saying any word, phrase or idea should be illegal, no matter how repulsive I, or anyone else, find it.
There's no logical inconsistency here.
The notion that personally choosing to use inclusive language is "chilling to free speech" is ludicrous.
Plenty of users are making similar points to yours in thoughtful ways that are within in intended spirit of the site. If you'd please do that instead, or else refrain from posting, we'd appreciate it.
Anyway,
You're twisting words to try to pretend that "woke scolding" exclusively means "asking people to stop one-sidedly hurting others for no real reason".
So I'll ask again in a narrower form that is harder to deliberately misinterpret:
Telling me I'm privileged (especially as a rationale for excluding me from certain groups at work or school) hurts me. It makes me angry and/or sad. What's your response?
I personally dislike the conversation around "privilege" since the word invokes an objective response, instead of the subjective one that's intended.
Worse, the whole concept of privilege is meant to be academic and thoughtful. Instead, it gets used as a weapon to dismiss opinions and belittle a speaker.
If a completely new word had been invented to describe the concept, I doubt the concept would illicit the reaction it does. But given the reactions people do have, I avoid it.
You are saying that a person saying "this hurts me" means that they are actually being harmed. I don't agree.
People frequently lie, usually with a motive.
And if you think words can cause harm, than perhaps you can see that the words "this hurts me" can be used to get what you want, your motive, and that can cause harm.
No, they just don't want to get fired