I chose my wording carefully to illustrate that the conveyance of emotion, even through jarring phrases, is an important part of language. You can absolutely disagree with the rhetorical style, but the point is there's a vast difference between your rebuttal to it and an ML mechanism built into your writing program that dissuades you from writing certain types of prose, or persuades you to use language that an opaque AI decided is less triggering.

We don't have to all be helpful, logical or anodyne all the time, either. Repressing what you want to say is unhealthy and also leads to dishonest debate. We don't need to be coddled and protected from some speech by algorithms. What we need to do is learn to see the rhetorical flaws and rebut them - as you just have (although, as I said, those flaws were there on purpose, as a layer of meta-meaning in sarcastic word choice that would fly over the head of an algorithm).

I got it, and I think my point still stands. Some of the problem here is Poe's Law:

> every parody of extreme views can be mistaken by some readers for a sincere expression of the views being parodied

I could tell you were being sarcastic, but the fact remains your said what you said. Sarcasm is great for tearing bad things down, but useless for building anything to replace it.

I am not a fan of this Clippy shit either, but I can see value in things I don't like. The world needs more nuance, not less. And the world needs people to be willing to explain the nuance, not serve it as an inside joke for those who already get it.

But I just explained it, if not to you then to someone who didn't get it. I'm absolutely willing to delve into the machinery of anything to explain it. I'm not, however, willing to live in a world where everyone is encouraged to tailor their expressions to the lowest common denominator. The truth is that speaking to the LCD is pointless unless you're a populist who needs their vote, or otherwise need to manipulate them somehow. If as someone suggested (who said no one's using it to write Ulysses) the main use of Google Docs is to write promotional garbage for big corporations, then great. The popups can be called "be more anodyne and over-explain for idiots", instead of "inclusivity warning". I would support that.

It's just ironic that you explained it to me, who already got it, because I asked you to clarify it for other people, who didn't ask. It's exactly my point.

I also don't want an anodyne and bland world, but I believe some communication should be that way. In fact, I believe the world would be a better place if the populist messaging were more lower common denominator, and our personal communications more dynamic. Not because it legally has to be, but because it helps preserve the status quo (which I selfishly like).

I think there are other reasons to care about the "lowest common denominator" (which really means, people who don't think like me) besides to manipulate or gain something from them. I believe everyone has value as human beings, and we'll build a better society if everyone understands the conversation.

I don't think these guys are trying to encourage people to be thoughtful, despite what they may claim - it feels more like one tribe using the power of google to try and control another tribe.

Giving these dummies what they want won't defuse anything. Thus far, doing so has not retarded the progress of this sort of language policing, but has led to increasingly insane demands. It's like handing your lunch money over to a bully in the hopes she will stop bullying you.

I think the way to stop outrage culture is to stop incentivising 'outrage' by refusing to indulge these lunatics.

What you wrote is much more emotionally powerful than what I wrote because of your strong language and metaphor (dummies, lunatics, control, insane, bullying). I think many people would prefer that arguments stand on their substance instead of catering to people's lizard brains.