'Google launches "woke" language function to be more inclusive' -
<https://www.scotsman.com/read-this/google-launches-woke-language-function-to-be-more-inclusive-3667567>
-

"Google is rolling out a new 'inclusive language' function that is
designed to avoid the use of politically incorrect words. ... Among the
words Google objects to is 'landlord' as Google considers this as not
inclusive to all. It suggests the word should be changed to 'property
owner' or 'proprietor' instead. Other more gender-inclusive alternatives
include changing 'mankind' to 'humankind', 'policeman' to 'police
officers', and replacing 'housewife' to 'stay-at-home-spouse'. The tool
also objects to the technical term 'motherboard'...."

"Designed to avoid" here apparently means "chivvying people into
complying with the orthodoxy of the moment".

On Wednesday, April 27, 2022 at 2:09:06 AM UTC-4, Hibou wrote:
> 'Google launches "woke" language function to be more inclusive' -
> <https://www.scotsman.com/read-this/google-launches-woke-language-function-to-be-more-inclusive-3667567>
> -
>
> "Google is rolling out a new 'inclusive language' function that is
> designed to avoid the use of politically incorrect words. ... Among the
> words Google objects to is 'landlord' as Google considers this as not
> inclusive to all. It suggests the word should be changed to 'property
> owner' or 'proprietor' instead. Other more gender-inclusive alternatives
> include changing 'mankind' to 'humankind', 'policeman' to 'police
> officers', and replacing 'housewife' to 'stay-at-home-spouse'. The tool
> also objects to the technical term 'motherboard'...."
>
> "Designed to avoid" here apparently means "chivvying people into
> complying with the orthodoxy of the moment".

Everyone is easily offended by some form of utterance. Maybe the 'offense' is what they're trying to stop.

On Wed, 27 Apr 2022 07:09:02 +0100, Hibou <h.i@b.ou> wrote:

>'Google launches "woke" language function to be more inclusive' -
><https://www.scotsman.com/read-this/google-launches-woke-language-function-to-be-more-inclusive-3667567>
>-
>
>"Google is rolling out a new 'inclusive language' function that is
>designed to avoid the use of politically incorrect words. ... Among the
>words Google objects to is 'landlord' as Google considers this as not
>inclusive to all. It suggests the word should be changed to 'property
>owner' or 'proprietor' instead. Other more gender-inclusive alternatives
>include changing 'mankind' to 'humankind', 'policeman' to 'police
>officers', and replacing 'housewife' to 'stay-at-home-spouse'. The tool
>also objects to the technical term 'motherboard'...."

Ugh! I hate all this "politically correct" stuff.

On Wednesday, April 27, 2022 at 12:11:53 PM UTC-4, Ken Blake wrote:
> On Wed, 27 Apr 2022 07:09:02 +0100, Hibou <h...@b.ou> wrote:
>
> >'Google launches "woke" language function to be more inclusive' -
> ><https://www.scotsman.com/read-this/google-launches-woke-language-function-to-be-more-inclusive-3667567>
> >-
> >
> >"Google is rolling out a new 'inclusive language' function that is
> >designed to avoid the use of politically incorrect words. ... Among the
> >words Google objects to is 'landlord' as Google considers this as not
> >inclusive to all. It suggests the word should be changed to 'property
> >owner' or 'proprietor' instead. Other more gender-inclusive alternatives
> >include changing 'mankind' to 'humankind', 'policeman' to 'police
> >officers', and replacing 'housewife' to 'stay-at-home-spouse'. The tool
> >also objects to the technical term 'motherboard'...."
> Ugh! I hate all this "politically correct" stuff.

But, will you hate it five minutes from now? A week from now? 40 years from now?

* Ken Blake:

> On Wed, 27 Apr 2022 07:09:02 +0100, Hibou <h.i@b.ou> wrote:
>
>>'Google launches "woke" language function to be more inclusive' -
>><https://www.scotsman.com/read-this/google-launches-woke-language-function-to-be-more-inclusive-3667567>
>>-
>>
>>"Google is rolling out a new 'inclusive language' function that is
>>designed to avoid the use of politically incorrect words. ... Among the
>>words Google objects to is 'landlord' as Google considers this as not
>>inclusive to all. It suggests the word should be changed to 'property
>>owner' or 'proprietor' instead. Other more gender-inclusive alternatives
>>include changing 'mankind' to 'humankind', 'policeman' to 'police
>>officers', and replacing 'housewife' to 'stay-at-home-spouse'. The tool
>>also objects to the technical term 'motherboard'...."
>
> Ugh! I hate all this "politically correct" stuff.

Do you want to go back to stewardesses, barmaids and women doctors?

It's just a continuation of a trend that has been happening in English
for decades.

--
O'Brien: Nog, did you reroute that damned gyrodyne?
Nog: I'm trying, but the damned thruster array won't take the input.
O'Brien: Try the lateral impulse thrusters. And watch your mouth.
-- DS9, S06E02

In article <1iy9yso0u8wsn.dlg@mid.crommatograph.info>,
Quinn C <lispamateur@crommatograph.info> wrote:
> * Ken Blake:

> > On Wed, 27 Apr 2022 07:09:02 +0100, Hibou <h.i@b.ou> wrote:
> >
> >>'Google launches "woke" language function to be more inclusive' -
> >><https://www.scotsman.com/read-this/google-launches-woke-language-function-to-be-more-inclusive-3667567>
> >>-
> >>
> >>"Google is rolling out a new 'inclusive language' function that is
> >>designed to avoid the use of politically incorrect words. ... Among the
> >> words Google objects to is 'landlord' as Google considers this as not
> >>inclusive to all. It suggests the word should be changed to 'property
> >>owner' or 'proprietor' instead. Other more gender-inclusive
> >>alternatives include changing 'mankind' to 'humankind', 'policeman' to
> >>'police officers', and replacing 'housewife' to 'stay-at-home-spouse'.
> >>The tool also objects to the technical term 'motherboard'...."
> >
> > Ugh! I hate all this "politically correct" stuff.

> Do you want to go back to stewardesses, barmaids and women doctors?

The other week, I was directed to see a male doctor at my GP's surgery.

> It's just a continuation of a trend that has been happening in English
> for decades.

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England
"I'd rather die of exhaustion than die of boredom" Thomas Carlyle

On Wednesday, April 27, 2022 at 1:28:46 PM UTC-4, Quinn C wrote:
> * Ken Blake:
> > On Wed, 27 Apr 2022 07:09:02 +0100, Hibou <h...@b.ou> wrote:
> >
> >>'Google launches "woke" language function to be more inclusive' -
> >><https://www.scotsman.com/read-this/google-launches-woke-language-function-to-be-more-inclusive-3667567>
> >>-
> >>
> >>"Google is rolling out a new 'inclusive language' function that is
> >>designed to avoid the use of politically incorrect words. ... Among the
> >>words Google objects to is 'landlord' as Google considers this as not
> >>inclusive to all. It suggests the word should be changed to 'property
> >>owner' or 'proprietor' instead. Other more gender-inclusive alternatives
> >>include changing 'mankind' to 'humankind', 'policeman' to 'police
> >>officers', and replacing 'housewife' to 'stay-at-home-spouse'. The tool
> >>also objects to the technical term 'motherboard'...."
> >
> > Ugh! I hate all this "politically correct" stuff.
> Do you want to go back to stewardesses, barmaids and women doctors?

Why else are red states there?

On 2022-04-27 11:28, Quinn C wrote:
> * Ken Blake:
>
>> On Wed, 27 Apr 2022 07:09:02 +0100, Hibou <h.i@b.ou> wrote:
>>
>>> 'Google launches "woke" language function to be more inclusive' -
>>> <https://www.scotsman.com/read-this/google-launches-woke-language-function-to-be-more-inclusive-3667567>
>>> -
>>>
>>> "Google is rolling out a new 'inclusive language' function that is
>>> designed to avoid the use of politically incorrect words. ... Among the
>>> words Google objects to is 'landlord' as Google considers this as not
>>> inclusive to all. It suggests the word should be changed to 'property
>>> owner' or 'proprietor' instead. Other more gender-inclusive alternatives
>>> include changing 'mankind' to 'humankind', 'policeman' to 'police
>>> officers', and replacing 'housewife' to 'stay-at-home-spouse'. The tool
>>> also objects to the technical term 'motherboard'...."
>>
>> Ugh! I hate all this "politically correct" stuff.
>
> Do you want to go back to stewardesses, barmaids and women doctors?

Not necessarily, for many of that sort of thing. I am fine with flight
attendant, bartender, server, and doctor. What I don't want is to be
told that 'motherboard' is considered objectionable.

Keep this crap up and I will go back to steward and stewardess.

> It's just a continuation of a trend that has been happening in English
> for decades.

Which appears to be going WAY too far these days.

On 27/04/2022 8:25 pm, lar3ryca wrote:
> On 2022-04-27 11:28, Quinn C wrote:
>> * Ken Blake:
>>
>>> On Wed, 27 Apr 2022 07:09:02 +0100, Hibou <h.i@b.ou> wrote:
>>>
>>>> 'Google launches "woke" language function to be more inclusive' -
>>>> <https://www.scotsman.com/read-this/google-launches-woke-language-function-to-be-more-inclusive-3667567>
>>>>
>>>> -
>>>>
>>>> "Google is rolling out a new 'inclusive language' function that is
>>>> designed to avoid the use of politically incorrect words. ... Among the
>>>> words Google objects to is 'landlord' as Google considers this as not
>>>> inclusive to all. It suggests the word should be changed to 'property
>>>> owner' or 'proprietor' instead. Other more gender-inclusive > .

>>>> alternatives
>>>> include changing 'mankind' to 'humankind', 'policeman' to 'police
>>>> officers', and replacing 'housewife' to 'stay-at-home-spouse'. The tool
>>>> also objects to the technical term 'motherboard'...."
>>>
>>> Ugh! I hate all this "politically correct" stuff.
>>
>> Do you want to go back to stewardesses, barmaids and women doctors?
>
> Not necessarily, for many of that sort of thing. I am fine with flight
> attendant, bartender, server, and doctor. What I don't want is to be
> told that 'motherboard' is considered objectionable.

I would be perfectly happy to go back to people being free to say
whatever the hell they like and not be bullied and excoriated by
self-appointed thought police.

--
Richard Heathfield
Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Sig line 4 vacant - apply within

* lar3ryca:

> On 2022-04-27 11:28, Quinn C wrote:
>> * Ken Blake:
>>
>>> On Wed, 27 Apr 2022 07:09:02 +0100, Hibou <h.i@b.ou> wrote:
>>>
>>>> 'Google launches "woke" language function to be more inclusive' -
>>>> <https://www.scotsman.com/read-this/google-launches-woke-language-function-to-be-more-inclusive-3667567>
>>>> -
>>>>
>>>> "Google is rolling out a new 'inclusive language' function that is
>>>> designed to avoid the use of politically incorrect words. ... Among the
>>>> words Google objects to is 'landlord' as Google considers this as not
>>>> inclusive to all. It suggests the word should be changed to 'property
>>>> owner' or 'proprietor' instead. Other more gender-inclusive alternatives
>>>> include changing 'mankind' to 'humankind', 'policeman' to 'police
>>>> officers', and replacing 'housewife' to 'stay-at-home-spouse'. The tool
>>>> also objects to the technical term 'motherboard'...."
>>>
>>> Ugh! I hate all this "politically correct" stuff.
>>
>> Do you want to go back to stewardesses, barmaids and women doctors?
>
> Not necessarily, for many of that sort of thing. I am fine with flight
> attendant, bartender, server, and doctor. What I don't want is to be
> told that 'motherboard' is considered objectionable.
>
> Keep this crap up and I will go back to steward and stewardess.
>
>> It's just a continuation of a trend that has been happening in English
>> for decades.
>
> Which appears to be going WAY too far these days.

Sure, because where the world was when one was 20 is always the exact
right amount. 10 years earlier, it was the dark ages, and 10 years
later, the fall of civilization.

--
Quinn C
My pronouns are they/them
(or other gender-neutral ones)

* Richard Heathfield:

> On 27/04/2022 8:25 pm, lar3ryca wrote:
>> On 2022-04-27 11:28, Quinn C wrote:
>>> * Ken Blake:
>>>
>>>> On Wed, 27 Apr 2022 07:09:02 +0100, Hibou <h.i@b.ou> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> 'Google launches "woke" language function to be more inclusive' -
>>>>> <https://www.scotsman.com/read-this/google-launches-woke-language-function-to-be-more-inclusive-3667567>
>>>>>
>>>>> -
>>>>>
>>>>> "Google is rolling out a new 'inclusive language' function that is
>>>>> designed to avoid the use of politically incorrect words. ... Among the
>>>>> words Google objects to is 'landlord' as Google considers this as not
>>>>> inclusive to all. It suggests the word should be changed to 'property
>>>>> owner' or 'proprietor' instead. Other more gender-inclusive > .
>
>>>>> alternatives
>>>>> include changing 'mankind' to 'humankind', 'policeman' to 'police
>>>>> officers', and replacing 'housewife' to 'stay-at-home-spouse'. The tool
>>>>> also objects to the technical term 'motherboard'...."
>>>>
>>>> Ugh! I hate all this "politically correct" stuff.
>>>
>>> Do you want to go back to stewardesses, barmaids and women doctors?
>>
>> Not necessarily, for many of that sort of thing. I am fine with flight
>> attendant, bartender, server, and doctor. What I don't want is to be
>> told that 'motherboard' is considered objectionable.
>
> I would be perfectly happy to go back to people being free to say
> whatever the hell they like and not be bullied and excoriated by
> self-appointed thought police.

People have always commented on other people's language, and I continue
to be a more likely target of bullying than you, despite what you may
imagine.

--
Quinn C
My pronouns are they/them
(or other gender-neutral ones)

In message <voqi6hpb27egtpg1k3c0d5rbn5j3fccu89@4ax.com> Ken Blake <Ken@invalid.news.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 27 Apr 2022 07:09:02 +0100, Hibou <h.i@b.ou> wrote:

>>'Google launches "woke" language function to be more inclusive' -
>><https://www.scotsman.com/read-this/google-launches-woke-language-function-to-be-more-inclusive-3667567>
>>-
>>
>>"Google is rolling out a new 'inclusive language' function that is
>>designed to avoid the use of politically incorrect words. ... Among the
>>words Google objects to is 'landlord' as Google considers this as not
>>inclusive to all. It suggests the word should be changed to 'property
>>owner' or 'proprietor' instead. Other more gender-inclusive alternatives
>>include changing 'mankind' to 'humankind', 'policeman' to 'police
>>officers', and replacing 'housewife' to 'stay-at-home-spouse'. The tool
>>also objects to the technical term 'motherboard'...."

> Ugh! I hate all this "politically correct" stuff.

You miss the days of people using words like nigger, faggot, wop, spick
kike, wetback, beaner, etc?

I don't.

--
Don't be too sure I'm as crooked as I'm supposed to be. ~ Sam Spade

In message <59dfd613a8charles@candehope.me.uk> charles <charles@candehope.me.uk> wrote:
> In article <1iy9yso0u8wsn.dlg@mid.crommatograph.info>,
> Quinn C <lispamateur@crommatograph.info> wrote:
>> * Ken Blake:

>> > On Wed, 27 Apr 2022 07:09:02 +0100, Hibou <h.i@b.ou> wrote:
>> >
>> >>'Google launches "woke" language function to be more inclusive' -
>> >><https://www.scotsman.com/read-this/google-launches-woke-language-function-to-be-more-inclusive-3667567>
>> >>-
>> >>
>> >>"Google is rolling out a new 'inclusive language' function that is
>> >>designed to avoid the use of politically incorrect words. ... Among the
>> >> words Google objects to is 'landlord' as Google considers this as not
>> >>inclusive to all. It suggests the word should be changed to 'property
>> >>owner' or 'proprietor' instead. Other more gender-inclusive
>> >>alternatives include changing 'mankind' to 'humankind', 'policeman' to
>> >>'police officers', and replacing 'housewife' to 'stay-at-home-spouse'.
>> >>The tool also objects to the technical term 'motherboard'...."
>> >
>> > Ugh! I hate all this "politically correct" stuff.

>> Do you want to go back to stewardesses, barmaids and women doctors?

> The other week, I was directed to see a male doctor at my GP's surgery.

I was recently in the hospital and while almost all the nurses were
women, only about half the doctors were men. That's quite a change since
my childhood when seeing a doctor who was a woman was quite rare. More
surprising to me, my surgeon was also a woman.

Not surprising in the "A *woman* surgeon" but rather in the sense that
believe surgery is still largely dominated bu men.

(surgery in the sense of cutting people open and playing around with the
internals).

>> It's just a continuation of a trend that has been happening in English
>> for decades.

Exactly.

--
Wally: That's my nickname, "Waly" with one el.
Dilbert: Who calls you that?
Wally: Most people, they just don't realize it.

On Wed, 27 Apr 2022 13:28:40 -0400, Quinn C
<lispamateur@crommatograph.info> wrote:

>* Ken Blake:
>
>> On Wed, 27 Apr 2022 07:09:02 +0100, Hibou <h.i@b.ou> wrote:
>>
>>>'Google launches "woke" language function to be more inclusive' -
>>><https://www.scotsman.com/read-this/google-launches-woke-language-function-to-be-more-inclusive-3667567>
>>>-
>>>
>>>"Google is rolling out a new 'inclusive language' function that is
>>>designed to avoid the use of politically incorrect words. ... Among the
>>>words Google objects to is 'landlord' as Google considers this as not
>>>inclusive to all. It suggests the word should be changed to 'property
>>>owner' or 'proprietor' instead. Other more gender-inclusive alternatives
>>>include changing 'mankind' to 'humankind', 'policeman' to 'police
>>>officers', and replacing 'housewife' to 'stay-at-home-spouse'. The tool
>>>also objects to the technical term 'motherboard'...."
>>
>> Ugh! I hate all this "politically correct" stuff.
>
>Do you want to go back to stewardesses, barmaids and women doctors?

No. As far as I'm concerned they should be called stewards,
bartenders, and doctors, regardless of sex.

On Wed, 27 Apr 2022 13:25:12 -0600, lar3ryca <larry@invalid.ca> wrote:

>On 2022-04-27 11:28, Quinn C wrote:
>> * Ken Blake:
>>
>>> On Wed, 27 Apr 2022 07:09:02 +0100, Hibou <h.i@b.ou> wrote:
>>>
>>>> 'Google launches "woke" language function to be more inclusive' -
>>>> <https://www.scotsman.com/read-this/google-launches-woke-language-function-to-be-more-inclusive-3667567>
>>>> -
>>>>
>>>> "Google is rolling out a new 'inclusive language' function that is
>>>> designed to avoid the use of politically incorrect words. ... Among the
>>>> words Google objects to is 'landlord' as Google considers this as not
>>>> inclusive to all. It suggests the word should be changed to 'property
>>>> owner' or 'proprietor' instead. Other more gender-inclusive alternatives
>>>> include changing 'mankind' to 'humankind', 'policeman' to 'police
>>>> officers', and replacing 'housewife' to 'stay-at-home-spouse'. The tool
>>>> also objects to the technical term 'motherboard'...."
>>>
>>> Ugh! I hate all this "politically correct" stuff.
>>
>> Do you want to go back to stewardesses, barmaids and women doctors?
>
>Not necessarily, for many of that sort of thing. I am fine with flight
>attendant, bartender, server, and doctor. What I don't want is to be
>told that 'motherboard' is considered objectionable.

Same for me.

>Keep this crap up and I will go back to steward and stewardess.
>
>> It's just a continuation of a trend that has been happening in English
>> for decades.
>
>Which appears to be going WAY too far these days.

Yes.

On 2022-04-27 16:22, Quinn C wrote:
> * lar3ryca:
>
>> On 2022-04-27 11:28, Quinn C wrote:
>>> * Ken Blake:
>>>
>>>> On Wed, 27 Apr 2022 07:09:02 +0100, Hibou <h.i@b.ou> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> 'Google launches "woke" language function to be more inclusive' -
>>>>> <https://www.scotsman.com/read-this/google-launches-woke-language-function-to-be-more-inclusive-3667567>
>>>>> -
>>>>>
>>>>> "Google is rolling out a new 'inclusive language' function that is
>>>>> designed to avoid the use of politically incorrect words. ... Among the
>>>>> words Google objects to is 'landlord' as Google considers this as not
>>>>> inclusive to all. It suggests the word should be changed to 'property
>>>>> owner' or 'proprietor' instead. Other more gender-inclusive alternatives
>>>>> include changing 'mankind' to 'humankind', 'policeman' to 'police
>>>>> officers', and replacing 'housewife' to 'stay-at-home-spouse'. The tool
>>>>> also objects to the technical term 'motherboard'...."
>>>>
>>>> Ugh! I hate all this "politically correct" stuff.
>>>
>>> Do you want to go back to stewardesses, barmaids and women doctors?
>>
>> Not necessarily, for many of that sort of thing. I am fine with flight
>> attendant, bartender, server, and doctor. What I don't want is to be
>> told that 'motherboard' is considered objectionable.
>>
>> Keep this crap up and I will go back to steward and stewardess.
>>
>>> It's just a continuation of a trend that has been happening in English
>>> for decades.
>>
>> Which appears to be going WAY too far these days.
>
> Sure, because where the world was when one was 20 is always the exact
> right amount. 10 years earlier, it was the dark ages, and 10 years
> later, the fall of civilization.

You presume too much.
Am I to believe that you think 'motherboard' should be relegated to the
status of 'politically unacceptable'?

On 28/04/2022 1:07 am, lar3ryca wrote:

<snip>

> Am I to believe that you think 'motherboard' should be relegated to the
> status of 'politically unacceptable'?

Mislepidopterists like you should be downright ashamed; this kind of
hate speech cannot be allowed to continue.

--
Richard Heathfield
Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Sig line 4 vacant - apply within

on 4/27/2022, Ken Blake supposed :
> On Wed, 27 Apr 2022 13:25:12 -0600, lar3ryca <larry@invalid.ca> wrote:
>
>> On 2022-04-27 11:28, Quinn C wrote:
>>> * Ken Blake:
>>>
>>>> On Wed, 27 Apr 2022 07:09:02 +0100, Hibou <h.i@b.ou> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> 'Google launches "woke" language function to be more inclusive' -
>>>>> <https://www.scotsman.com/read-this/google-launches-woke-language-function-to-be-more-inclusive-3667567>
>>>>> -
>>>>>
>>>>> "Google is rolling out a new 'inclusive language' function that is
>>>>> designed to avoid the use of politically incorrect words. ... Among the
>>>>> words Google objects to is 'landlord' as Google considers this as not
>>>>> inclusive to all. It suggests the word should be changed to 'property
>>>>> owner' or 'proprietor' instead. Other more gender-inclusive alternatives
>>>>> include changing 'mankind' to 'humankind', 'policeman' to 'police
>>>>> officers', and replacing 'housewife' to 'stay-at-home-spouse'. The tool
>>>>> also objects to the technical term 'motherboard'...."
>>>>
>>>> Ugh! I hate all this "politically correct" stuff.
>>>
>>> Do you want to go back to stewardesses, barmaids and women doctors?
>>
>> Not necessarily, for many of that sort of thing. I am fine with flight
>> attendant, bartender, server, and doctor. What I don't want is to be
>> told that 'motherboard' is considered objectionable.
>
> Same for me.
>
>
>> Keep this crap up and I will go back to steward and stewardess.
>>
>>> It's just a continuation of a trend that has been happening in English
>>> for decades.
>>
>> Which appears to be going WAY too far these days.
>
>
> Yes.

Can't teach an old dog new tricks, so stay offa it's lawn?

/dps

--
Trust, but verify.

On Wed, 27 Apr 2022 18:07:40 -0600, lar3ryca <larry@invalid.ca> wrote:

>On 2022-04-27 16:22, Quinn C wrote:
>> * lar3ryca:
>>
>>> On 2022-04-27 11:28, Quinn C wrote:
>>>> * Ken Blake:
>>>>
>>>>> On Wed, 27 Apr 2022 07:09:02 +0100, Hibou <h.i@b.ou> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> 'Google launches "woke" language function to be more inclusive' -
>>>>>> <https://www.scotsman.com/read-this/google-launches-woke-language-function-to-be-more-inclusive-3667567>
>>>>>> -
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Google is rolling out a new 'inclusive language' function that is
>>>>>> designed to avoid the use of politically incorrect words. ... Among the
>>>>>> words Google objects to is 'landlord' as Google considers this as not
>>>>>> inclusive to all. It suggests the word should be changed to 'property
>>>>>> owner' or 'proprietor' instead. Other more gender-inclusive alternatives
>>>>>> include changing 'mankind' to 'humankind', 'policeman' to 'police
>>>>>> officers', and replacing 'housewife' to 'stay-at-home-spouse'. The tool
>>>>>> also objects to the technical term 'motherboard'...."
>>>>>
>>>>> Ugh! I hate all this "politically correct" stuff.
>>>>
>>>> Do you want to go back to stewardesses, barmaids and women doctors?
>>>
>>> Not necessarily, for many of that sort of thing. I am fine with flight
>>> attendant, bartender, server, and doctor. What I don't want is to be
>>> told that 'motherboard' is considered objectionable.
>>>
>>> Keep this crap up and I will go back to steward and stewardess.
>>>
>>>> It's just a continuation of a trend that has been happening in English
>>>> for decades.
>>>
>>> Which appears to be going WAY too far these days.
>>
>> Sure, because where the world was when one was 20 is always the exact
>> right amount. 10 years earlier, it was the dark ages, and 10 years
>> later, the fall of civilization.
>
>You presume too much.
>Am I to believe that you think 'motherboard' should be relegated to the
>status of 'politically unacceptable'?
>

Did I miss the memo? Is that actually something being proposed?

What's the status on electrical cords and sockets. Are there still
"male" plugs and "female" sockets?
--

Tony Cooper - Orlando Florida

I read and post to this group as a form of entertainment.

On 28/04/22 10:07, lar3ryca wrote:
>
> You presume too much. Am I to believe that you think 'motherboard'
> should be relegated to the status of 'politically unacceptable'?

If they want to call it a fatherboard they'll have to change all the
connectors to the opposite polarity.

--
Peter Moylan Newcastle, NSW http://www.pmoylan.org

On 28/04/22 11:27, Tony Cooper wrote:
> On Wed, 27 Apr 2022 18:07:40 -0600, lar3ryca <larry@invalid.ca>
> wrote:

>> Am I to believe that you think 'motherboard' should be relegated to
>> the status of 'politically unacceptable'?
>
> Did I miss the memo? Is that actually something being proposed?
>
> What's the status on electrical cords and sockets. Are there still
> "male" plugs and "female" sockets?

They're working on an intersex version, where each side has a mixture of
protruding metal and recessed parts. This will have the advantage of an
increased risk of electrocution as you make the connection.

--
Peter Moylan Newcastle, NSW http://www.pmoylan.org

On 2022-04-27 19:27, Tony Cooper wrote:
> On Wed, 27 Apr 2022 18:07:40 -0600, lar3ryca <larry@invalid.ca> wrote:
>
>> On 2022-04-27 16:22, Quinn C wrote:
>>> * lar3ryca:
>>>
>>>> On 2022-04-27 11:28, Quinn C wrote:
>>>>> * Ken Blake:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Wed, 27 Apr 2022 07:09:02 +0100, Hibou <h.i@b.ou> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 'Google launches "woke" language function to be more inclusive' -
>>>>>>> <https://www.scotsman.com/read-this/google-launches-woke-language-function-to-be-more-inclusive-3667567>
>>>>>>> -
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Google is rolling out a new 'inclusive language' function that is
>>>>>>> designed to avoid the use of politically incorrect words. ... Among the
>>>>>>> words Google objects to is 'landlord' as Google considers this as not
>>>>>>> inclusive to all. It suggests the word should be changed to 'property
>>>>>>> owner' or 'proprietor' instead. Other more gender-inclusive alternatives
>>>>>>> include changing 'mankind' to 'humankind', 'policeman' to 'police
>>>>>>> officers', and replacing 'housewife' to 'stay-at-home-spouse'. The tool
>>>>>>> also objects to the technical term 'motherboard'...."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Ugh! I hate all this "politically correct" stuff.
>>>>>
>>>>> Do you want to go back to stewardesses, barmaids and women doctors?
>>>>
>>>> Not necessarily, for many of that sort of thing. I am fine with flight
>>>> attendant, bartender, server, and doctor. What I don't want is to be
>>>> told that 'motherboard' is considered objectionable.
>>>>
>>>> Keep this crap up and I will go back to steward and stewardess.
>>>>
>>>>> It's just a continuation of a trend that has been happening in English
>>>>> for decades.
>>>>
>>>> Which appears to be going WAY too far these days.
>>>
>>> Sure, because where the world was when one was 20 is always the exact
>>> right amount. 10 years earlier, it was the dark ages, and 10 years
>>> later, the fall of civilization.
>>
>> You presume too much.
>> Am I to believe that you think 'motherboard' should be relegated to the
>> status of 'politically unacceptable'?
>>
>
> Did I miss the memo? Is that actually something being proposed?

If you can believe the article linked above, yes. When I first read it,
I thought it had to be satire. But the scary thing is that if it's true,
it didn't surprise me.

Years ago I read something purportedly written by a 'militant feminist'.
She said something like 'I was sitting in my living room jilling off to
some porn, when a cuntroach came skittering across the floor'. I figured
that was satire, but not long afterwards, I met someone who, while not
using those particular words, insisted on removing the syllable 'man'
from pretty much everything she said.

> What's the status on electrical cords and sockets. Are there still
> "male" plugs and "female" sockets?

No idea, but I refuse to engage in such stupidity.

Le 28/04/2022 à 02:42, Peter Moylan a écrit :
> On 28/04/22 11:27, Tony Cooper wrote:
>>
>> What's the status on electrical cords and sockets.  Are there still
>> "male" plugs and "female" sockets?
>
> They're working on an intersex version, where each side has a mixture of
> protruding metal and recessed parts. This will have the advantage of an
> increased risk of electrocution as you make the connection.

Already in use in France, at least, where, in a socket, the earth pin is
male and the live and neutral female. The plug is, of course, matchingly
hermaphrodite in the other sense. Slightly strange to UK eyes, but works
all right.

<https://www.cdiscount.com/pdt2/0/1/7/1/700x700/art3545411357017/rw/artezo-prise-simple-avec-terre-2p-t-16-a-blanc.jpg>

As to the subject of the thread, I think I'd start with the idea of
freedom of thought and speech, which I suppose most people would sign up
to. I think a corollary is that if one wants to change another's mind,
one should do it openly, by honest argument and persuasion. (Though I'm
tempted to add that freedom of thought may also entail the right to be
left alone and not importuned, unless one's thoughts and consequent
actions are harmful to others.)

Political correctness bypasses honest argument. It says, "You may use
only this approved vocabulary." It begs a number of questions: who has
approved the vocabulary? Are their ideas correct? Are the ideas they are
trying to suppress so harmful that they must be suppressed? And
suppressed by this indirect method?

Who is harmed by the word 'motherboard'?

I am in favour of equality of opportunity, but I think this censoring of
vocabulary stinks. One can argue that Google are simply supplying a
tool, but I understand it will be turned on by default. This suggests
they are setting themselves up as arbiters of what is acceptable, and
smacks of corporate cultural imperialism.

On 28/04/22 15:33, Hibou wrote:
> Le 28/04/2022 à 02:42, Peter Moylan a écrit :
>> On 28/04/22 11:27, Tony Cooper wrote:
>>>
>>> What's the status on electrical cords and sockets. Are there
>>> still "male" plugs and "female" sockets?
>>
>> They're working on an intersex version, where each side has a
>> mixture of protruding metal and recessed parts. This will have the
>> advantage of an increased risk of electrocution as you make the
>> connection.
>
> Already in use in France, at least, where, in a socket, the earth pin
> is male and the live and neutral female. The plug is, of course,
> matchingly hermaphrodite in the other sense. Slightly strange to UK
> eyes, but works all right.
>
> <https://www.cdiscount.com/pdt2/0/1/7/1/700x700/art3545411357017/rw/artezo-prise-simple-avec-terre-2p-t-16-a-blanc.jpg>
>
Yes, that's a sensible design. In any plug design the earth pin should
have some sort of priority. In Australian plugs, that is achieved by
making the earth pin long than the other two pins. I think that's also
true in a few other countries.

A more critical necessary requirement is that the active and neutral
pins should not make contact in the socket until the plug has been
inserted far enough that the gap between plug and socket is less than
the width of a baby's finger.

--
Peter Moylan Newcastle, NSW http://www.pmoylan.org

Le 28/04/2022 à 07:00, Peter Moylan a écrit :
> On 28/04/22 15:33, Hibou wrote:
>>
>> Already in use in France, at least, where, in a socket, the earth pin
>> is male and the live and neutral female. The plug is, of course,
>> matchingly hermaphrodite in the other sense. Slightly strange to UK
>> eyes, but works all right.
>>
>> <https://www.cdiscount.com/pdt2/0/1/7/1/700x700/art3545411357017/rw/artezo-prise-simple-avec-terre-2p-t-16-a-blanc.jpg>
>>
>
> Yes, that's a sensible design. In any plug design the earth pin should
> have some sort of priority. In Australian plugs, that is achieved by
> making the earth pin long than the other two pins. I think that's also
> true in a few other countries.
>
> A more critical necessary requirement is that the active and neutral
> pins should not make contact in the socket until the plug has been
> inserted far enough that the gap between plug and socket is less than
> the width of a baby's finger.

Yes. And an absolute requirement is that anything that might give you a
belt should be a receptacle, not a pin. (I carefully avoid saying here
that anything that might give you a belt should be female.)

It is usual in UK sockets for there to be a shutter covering live and
neutral, which is pushed aside by the longer earth pin. This is intended
to defeat technically minded babies who equip themselves with
paper-clips, nails, screwdrivers, and the like.

<https://electrical.theiet.org/media/2408/figure-2.jpg>