We're already half way there. Google Docs now utilizes an "assistive writing" AI that displays warnings for words or phrases that are considered "non-inclusive".
This will no longer be true next year, as The American Ornithology Society's Diversity & Inclusion Committee plans to rename all these species with "non-colonized, inclusive" names.
YouTube is slowly transitioning from a UGC video marketplace into a modern version of cable tv. These technical oversights aren't bugs. They're a deliberate effort to shape user behavior and maximize advertising revenue. Old content is a liability and is slowly being deprecated from the system.
Not OP, but that's a solipsistic method of "debate", similar to "your pointing out racism is the real racism". It's a way to delegitimize an opposing view by making the position seem insincere or possibly meaningless (in the semantic satiation sense).
The person using this tactic may cynically thinks its just a game of words, and the other side really doesn't genuinely hold the views they communicated; so they too will "play that game"... or to add another layer of cynicism: they are fully aware of their minimization, but want to reframe such that other readers interpret the original speaker as playing semantic games, and nothing is real.
You'll notice it a lot, once you start looking for it.
Nope! Not using any tactics. I'm sorry you felt so much cynicism in my commentary though, it's good to be aware of how good-faith discussion can be interpreted like you have mine it seems.
Leadership is a science, most people suck at it without training except for the very gifted few. The good news is you can train on it.
Because a norm exists of believing leadership is a "have it or not" vs. a "have it or train it" skill like any other, second order effects like toxic leadership being mistaken for difficult but acceptable genius are common. The whole industry suffers for it.
In the same way a horrible design pattern might work but will make your app a nightmare to maintain, in the soft sciences like leadership understanding these
"architectural differences for similar outcomes" come down to understanding the semantic differences - well what really is "toxic" in a toxic leader. What are the traits of that? Are they repeatable? Doesn't make it any less true to state though as the science is sort of settled on a lot of this.
To mirror some of the snark in this response, once you start looking, you'll see clear leadership style, which can be taught, and their impacts everywhere you look (transformational leader, servant leader, toxic leader, transactional leader). I'm not saying the OP is playing semantic games, but I'm saying the OP doesn't understand how leadership works under the hood and as a science.
We may have crossed lines here - I was criticizing @late2part's[1] reply to your comment which said - in its entirety - "Your comment is toxic and offensive to me." I take no issue with your original comment (I mostly agree with it), but late2part's comment doesn't seem like it was given in good faith; hence my rant.
