3 ms·

The slippery slope of optional purple squiggly underlines?

by eli 5y ago

marcusverus 5y ago
For the 150 million kids who use Google Classroom[0] (which includes Google Docs), these optional little purple squiggly underlines would wield unquestionable authority, indelibly shaping word choice for millions of uncritical children, subconsciously guiding an entire generation away from words that might facilitate wrongthink. But thankfully the people wielding this power are unelected, unaccountable and far from Capitol Hill. Otherwise it'd be Orwellian authoritarianism, and that'd be awful! [0] https://blog.google/outreach-initiatives/education/classroom-roadmap https://blog.google/outreach-initiatives/education/classroom...
- eli 5y ago
  Still sounds silly to me. The bogus anti-CRT panic is a much more real and direct threat to education. Or Texas’ longstanding ability to effectively veto the textbooks used by schools nationwide. The optional little squiggly underlines are fine.
  - teakettle42 5y ago
    > The optional little squiggly underlines are fine. I wonder if you'd still feel that way if someone you didn't agree with had control over the default squiggly underlines.
    - eli 5y ago
      If, say, Ron DeSantis was in charge of the system and was using it to discourage inclusionary language that would bum me out. But that hypothetical is still several orders of magnitude less serious than the current reality of banning the discussion of disfavored topics in classrooms under penalty of law.
      - teakettle42 5y ago
        We disallow all sorts of age and contextually-inappropriate topics in public classrooms. I fail to see the parallel, or a real concern to be had with the Florida law.
        eli 5y ago
        One is "regulating" speech in schools only indirectly and with a gentle nudge that can be disabled entirely by school districts or simply ignored by teachers and pupils. The other is directly regulating speech in schools by force of law, statewide, and with no ability for local districts or teachers to override or ignore it. Imagine if instead of banning discussions of gender identity, the bill banned the use of those words that Google puts a purple line under. I think we would both agree that's bad? Whether you agree with the outcome or not, the Florida bill is a much more serious threat to speech and education. I think every state has a curriculum and guidelines but we do not, in fact, regularly ban topics from discussion or provide a private right to action for offended parents.
        xdennis 5y ago
        You shouldn't have the free speech to talk about sex with kids in kindergarten or third grade. Public schools should be for everyone. You can talk about that with your own kids, but not in public schools. Kids shouldn't be forced to hear your speech about sex.
        eli 5y ago
        1) Banning speech isn’t ok just because it’s speech you don’t like. 2) That is a gross mischaracterization of the intent and actual effect of the bill.

The slippery slope of optional purple squiggly underlines?

by eli 5y ago

The slippery slope of optional purple squiggly underlines?

For the 150 million kids who use Google Classroom[0] (which includes Google Docs), these optional little purple squiggly underlines would wield unquestionable authority, indelibly shaping word choice for millions of uncritical children, subconsciously guiding an entire generation away from words that might facilitate wrongthink. But thankfully the people wielding this power are unelected, unaccountable and far from Capitol Hill. Otherwise it'd be Orwellian authoritarianism, and that'd be awful! [0] https://blog.google/outreach-initiatives/education/classroom-roadmap https://blog.google/outreach-initiatives/education/classroom...

eli 5y ago
Still sounds silly to me. The bogus anti-CRT panic is a much more real and direct threat to education. Or Texas’ longstanding ability to effectively veto the textbooks used by schools nationwide. The optional little squiggly underlines are fine.
- teakettle42 5y ago
  > The optional little squiggly underlines are fine. I wonder if you'd still feel that way if someone you didn't agree with had control over the default squiggly underlines.
  - eli 5y ago
    If, say, Ron DeSantis was in charge of the system and was using it to discourage inclusionary language that would bum me out. But that hypothetical is still several orders of magnitude less serious than the current reality of banning the discussion of disfavored topics in classrooms under penalty of law.
    - teakettle42 5y ago
      We disallow all sorts of age and contextually-inappropriate topics in public classrooms. I fail to see the parallel, or a real concern to be had with the Florida law.
      - eli 5y ago
        One is "regulating" speech in schools only indirectly and with a gentle nudge that can be disabled entirely by school districts or simply ignored by teachers and pupils. The other is directly regulating speech in schools by force of law, statewide, and with no ability for local districts or teachers to override or ignore it. Imagine if instead of banning discussions of gender identity, the bill banned the use of those words that Google puts a purple line under. I think we would both agree that's bad? Whether you agree with the outcome or not, the Florida bill is a much more serious threat to speech and education. I think every state has a curriculum and guidelines but we do not, in fact, regularly ban topics from discussion or provide a private right to action for offended parents.
        xdennis 5y ago
        You shouldn't have the free speech to talk about sex with kids in kindergarten or third grade. Public schools should be for everyone. You can talk about that with your own kids, but not in public schools. Kids shouldn't be forced to hear your speech about sex.
        eli 5y ago
        1) Banning speech isn’t ok just because it’s speech you don’t like. 2) That is a gross mischaracterization of the intent and actual effect of the bill.