I write all of my posts in HTML. I have searched high and low for a good WYSIWYG editor that supports custom CSS and HTML to no avail. The editor I use does not have spell check in it¹Not that I'm a grammarian, but I've found that much, much more often than not, the suggestions given to me by the grammar checkers of today are tailored to those who are almost entirely unlettered. I.e. the suggestions are almost always wrong., so, even though I proofread all of my posts at least twice prior to publishing, and many, many more times than that during the initial writing of, the last step I always take is to grab the text and drop it into a blank Microsoft Word document and run a spell check on it.

When I did this for my most recent post, I noticed that there was an 'Inclusivity' metric being displayed. Because I do my utmost to keep tethered to reality, my guess is that any number of my posts would trigger that metric. That being said, my most recent post achieved inclusivity nirvana. Hooray! But it got me thinking: What qualifies as inclusive according to Microsoft's software?

I'm not sure why, but what immediately popped into my head was the SNL sketch with Chevy Chase and Richard Pryor in which the former is interviewing the latter for a job and starts using racial slurs in a word association game. The latter responds in kind and it goes from there. That skit is now rightly derided, but of course, for all of the wrong reasons. Unfortunately, in the ensuing decades since that aired, the downward muck-covered slide into the abyss has only accelerated and become ever more foul. But, I digress. I made a tit-for-tat table of the slurs and then attempted to use the words to trigger Microsoft. I don't include the actual words in my table here, because I think just about all of them are offensive and should not be uttered ever.

Because the skit in question dealt exclusively with 'white' and 'black' slurs, the results in the following table apply only to those two domains of words:

'Unique' denotes the number of unique slurs directed at those of who are accounted either 'white' or 'black.' 'Triggered' denotes the number of those unique slurs that prompted Microsoft to flag them as not being 'inclusive,' which means, really, having the potential of being offensive. As already stated, if applied to a human being, just about all of the terms and phrases used in the skit are offensive, and therefore, if they're going to be flagged, flag them all. As is evident from the table, Microsoft's software is decidedly non-inclusive because it excludes offensive words based solely on race, i.e., it is, in this capacity, a software that is used to perpetuate blatant racism in the name of 'inclusion.' If all of this weren't so deadly serious, and if it weren't the case that so many of the masses have been swept up by the unhinged beliefs undergirding all of this, we could laugh. But this is no laughing matter because these people take their racism very seriously and are committed to proselytizing and enforcing their views upon all²Which, let's be frank, has as its end game the confiscation of money and goods by those who have not worked or contributed to society from those who have..

What is not evident from the table is that for the measly two words applied to 'whites' that triggered the inclusion meter, in order to get it to do so, I had to formulate and reformulate my sentences in order for those words to be tagged. Whereas for the words applied to 'blacks,' for all of them save one, zero contortions were necessary. The software is highly sensitive and very, very righteous, and very selectively so.

A deeper problem as I see it is that I don't believe the software should be flagging any of this content. People of sober mind find the entire enterprise offensive, and rightly so because it's akin to handholding³To say nothing of the fact that it is the quintessence and natural end of virtue signaling in a technocracy, for this signaling occurs without any human actors millions of times per day with zero effort.. Children need to have their hands held as they are morally and intellectually trained. Adults are not to be accounted as such if manuduction is still needed on a massive and ubiquitous scale. However, the reality is that just as we see mind-bogglingly rudimentary and platitudinous signs informing us that 'children need fathers,' our population is so intellectually stunted, so morally reprobate, that we do need to be told these things because we're collectively lost without the powers that be telling us what to think and what to do. As Tocqueville prophesied, we have become wholly dependent upon experts all the while proclaiming our 'independence of thought.' Perhaps the most frightening aspect in all of this is that these very people have the power to vote. Considering that we are a democratic republic in which domestic and international affairs of state are in the hands of the people, when a significant majority of them are of this ilk, there can only be rough seas and disasters on the horizon for such a state helmed by such a people.

(All of the above also got an A+ on the inclusivity meter. Yay for me! I'm a good boy. But, as an example as to why I turn off the grammar check, I am being told that in the above 'accounted as such' should be 'accounted for such'. <groan>)