10 ms·

It's simply adding context to words and giving you the option to change it. This is useful for speaking on the international scene. It is impossible to be awar

It's simply adding context to words and giving you the option to change it. This is useful for speaking on the international scene. It is impossible to be aware of all possibly harmful words. Take for example "Eskimo". Many people outside Canada would not know that the people who it is used on prefers to be called Inuit or better yet the names of their own language (Inupiaq or Yupik). But to a Canadian, this would be a glaring mistake as many consider "Eskimo" to be insulting. If I am writing a support text for that demographic and use the wrong word, I will be happy that my text editor adds a little hint that says "Are you sure you want to use this word? It might make people angry." The alternative is to use the dictionary search feature on every single noun. I can think of a lot of such words. This is heavy and slow, so tech comes to the rescue. This feature already exists on a lot of spellchecker.

DoneWithAllThat 5y ago
It’s not “context”. Context implies a universal truth or law of nature level of absolute. This is a highly subjective, fundamentalist, quasi-religious definition of “context”.
- Karawebnetwork 5y ago
  A squiggly line under "Eskimos" that says: "The name Eskimo is considered derogatory because it was given by non-Inuit people and was said to mean 'eater of raw meat." is a historical and sociological context. If you are writing about the uses of the word "Eskimo", you click "skip this word" and the word will remain in your text. If the added context has you believe that using the word in your text might anger the very demographic you are writing a text on, you click "replace word". If you choose to ignore the context and keep using the word at the risk of angering the community you are writing about, you click "never show this again". But at this point, don't complain if people are angry at your text. That's it. I bet you can simply turn off the feature altogether like you can in other software.
  - hunterb123 5y ago
    It's word policing that doesn't take into account context, ie the person that it's being written for or how it's being used. It itself is not adding context, and it should be disabled by default if added at all. If PC nazis want this they can install an extension or enable it. I don't need Google to give me moral lessons or be the arbiter of truth and feelings. Dear Google docs team, just stick to spelling and grammar checking in your word processor, thank you. Maybe next they can add a Clippy with a neckbeard that pops up and says "ackhtually... this is bad, would you like to censor yourself?" It's not about feelings, it's about conditioning self censorship. EDIT: @madeofpalk, spelling is not subjective, grammar is but it's a style guide based on structure. PC rules change on a dime based on feelings and politics. But yes you can be a grammar nazi and a PC nazi. Generally the two overlap because it's a certain type of zealot personality.
    - Karawebnetwork 5y ago
      This is why it is a hint that asks for an action. It also covers active/passive sentences, run-on sentences, etc. In other words, all the features that modern grammar & spellchecker have. Look at this app for example: https://hemingwayapp.com/ https://hemingwayapp.com/ The added colors that are not present in Google Docs are incredibly helpful. The fact that you feel threatened by a tooltip that includes text that is present in most dictionnary is irrational. See for example what Merriam-Webster already has under "Eskimos": "Eskimo is a word that presents challenges for anyone who is concerned about avoiding the use of offensive language. Its offensiveness stems partly from a now-discredited belief that it was originally a pejorative term meaning "eater of raw flesh," but perhaps more significantly from its being a word imposed on aboriginal peoples by outsiders. It has long been considered a word to be avoided in Canada, where the native people refer to themselves as Inuit, a word that means "people" in their language. But not all the native people who are referred to as Eskimos (such as the Yupik people of southwestern Alaska and eastern Siberia) are Inuit. Eskimo has no exact synonym; it has a general meaning that encompasses a number of indigenous peoples, and it continues for now in widespread use in many parts of the English-speaking world." Meanwhile Cambridge Dictionary has "Note: Some of these people consider the term Eskimo offensive, and prefer the word Inuit." Collins has: "These peoples now usually call themselves Inuits or Yupiks, and the term Eskimo could cause offence." This is not new information pushed by Google. This is simply technology making our lives easier.
imgabe 5y ago
It's also worth considering that people outside of Canada will have no idea what the hell you're talking about if you say Inupiaq or Yupik. If people decide to get angry about a perfectly innocuous word that is not intended in any offensive way, that's their problem.
- drusepth 5y ago
  Like all other words, learning new words from context is a great way to expand more peoples' vocabulary.
  - imgabe 5y ago
    Sure if you're referring to people of a specific tribe, and it's important in the context that they're from that particular tribe, then it would make sense. If you're referring generally to people from that part of the world 99.99% of people would understand Eskimo to mean a person from any one of the many Native American tribes in the far northern part of North America. It's not any different than saying "Middle Eastern" or "Asian" or any other indication of geographic origin and it doesn't carry any derogatory connotation. Only the 0.01% of people who go out of their way to look for things to get offended about are going to get offended.
    - atoav 5y ago
      > Only the 0.01% of people who go out of their way to look for things to get offended about are going to get offended. Or the people who are.. constantly reminded of the ignorance around them. Consider that people who are actually called Eskimo by others, might hear this more often than someone who doesn't look the part. Frequency really changes the game here. Everybody who had a little brother will know: someone saying something annoying to you once is easy to shake off, someone who saying the same annoying thing to you constantly, day in and day out can be nervewrecking. Now imagine how much worse it is if the annoying thing comes from whole parts of society and every day. If you talk to people affected by such things (e.g. women by sexist remarks) the main thing that makes the difference is how frequent those things happen and my feeling is that many people can't even imagine. It is nice to see that many people can not relate to this, because they had it easier, but confusing your own perspective with all shared reality is not an advantage.
zarzavat 5y ago
Okay, so show those suggestions to IP addresses geolocated in the relevant communities. But don’t chastise me for writing “Eskimo kiss” on the other side of the planet, thousands of miles away from the nearest Eskimo. North America has no right to police the language of the rest of the world.

DoneWithAllThat 5y ago

It’s not “context”. Context implies a universal truth or law of nature level of absolute. This is a highly subjective, fundamentalist, quasi-religious definition of “context”.

Karawebnetwork 5y ago
A squiggly line under "Eskimos" that says: "The name Eskimo is considered derogatory because it was given by non-Inuit people and was said to mean 'eater of raw meat." is a historical and sociological context. If you are writing about the uses of the word "Eskimo", you click "skip this word" and the word will remain in your text. If the added context has you believe that using the word in your text might anger the very demographic you are writing a text on, you click "replace word". If you choose to ignore the context and keep using the word at the risk of angering the community you are writing about, you click "never show this again". But at this point, don't complain if people are angry at your text. That's it. I bet you can simply turn off the feature altogether like you can in other software.
- hunterb123 5y ago
  It's word policing that doesn't take into account context, ie the person that it's being written for or how it's being used. It itself is not adding context, and it should be disabled by default if added at all. If PC nazis want this they can install an extension or enable it. I don't need Google to give me moral lessons or be the arbiter of truth and feelings. Dear Google docs team, just stick to spelling and grammar checking in your word processor, thank you. Maybe next they can add a Clippy with a neckbeard that pops up and says "ackhtually... this is bad, would you like to censor yourself?" It's not about feelings, it's about conditioning self censorship. EDIT: @madeofpalk, spelling is not subjective, grammar is but it's a style guide based on structure. PC rules change on a dime based on feelings and politics. But yes you can be a grammar nazi and a PC nazi. Generally the two overlap because it's a certain type of zealot personality.
  - Karawebnetwork 5y ago
    This is why it is a hint that asks for an action. It also covers active/passive sentences, run-on sentences, etc. In other words, all the features that modern grammar & spellchecker have. Look at this app for example: https://hemingwayapp.com/ https://hemingwayapp.com/ The added colors that are not present in Google Docs are incredibly helpful. The fact that you feel threatened by a tooltip that includes text that is present in most dictionnary is irrational. See for example what Merriam-Webster already has under "Eskimos": "Eskimo is a word that presents challenges for anyone who is concerned about avoiding the use of offensive language. Its offensiveness stems partly from a now-discredited belief that it was originally a pejorative term meaning "eater of raw flesh," but perhaps more significantly from its being a word imposed on aboriginal peoples by outsiders. It has long been considered a word to be avoided in Canada, where the native people refer to themselves as Inuit, a word that means "people" in their language. But not all the native people who are referred to as Eskimos (such as the Yupik people of southwestern Alaska and eastern Siberia) are Inuit. Eskimo has no exact synonym; it has a general meaning that encompasses a number of indigenous peoples, and it continues for now in widespread use in many parts of the English-speaking world." Meanwhile Cambridge Dictionary has "Note: Some of these people consider the term Eskimo offensive, and prefer the word Inuit." Collins has: "These peoples now usually call themselves Inuits or Yupiks, and the term Eskimo could cause offence." This is not new information pushed by Google. This is simply technology making our lives easier.

imgabe 5y ago

It's also worth considering that people outside of Canada will have no idea what the hell you're talking about if you say Inupiaq or Yupik. If people decide to get angry about a perfectly innocuous word that is not intended in any offensive way, that's their problem.

drusepth 5y ago
Like all other words, learning new words from context is a great way to expand more peoples' vocabulary.
- imgabe 5y ago
  Sure if you're referring to people of a specific tribe, and it's important in the context that they're from that particular tribe, then it would make sense. If you're referring generally to people from that part of the world 99.99% of people would understand Eskimo to mean a person from any one of the many Native American tribes in the far northern part of North America. It's not any different than saying "Middle Eastern" or "Asian" or any other indication of geographic origin and it doesn't carry any derogatory connotation. Only the 0.01% of people who go out of their way to look for things to get offended about are going to get offended.
  - atoav 5y ago
    > Only the 0.01% of people who go out of their way to look for things to get offended about are going to get offended. Or the people who are.. constantly reminded of the ignorance around them. Consider that people who are actually called Eskimo by others, might hear this more often than someone who doesn't look the part. Frequency really changes the game here. Everybody who had a little brother will know: someone saying something annoying to you once is easy to shake off, someone who saying the same annoying thing to you constantly, day in and day out can be nervewrecking. Now imagine how much worse it is if the annoying thing comes from whole parts of society and every day. If you talk to people affected by such things (e.g. women by sexist remarks) the main thing that makes the difference is how frequent those things happen and my feeling is that many people can't even imagine. It is nice to see that many people can not relate to this, because they had it easier, but confusing your own perspective with all shared reality is not an advantage.

zarzavat 5y ago

Okay, so show those suggestions to IP addresses geolocated in the relevant communities. But don’t chastise me for writing “Eskimo kiss” on the other side of the planet, thousands of miles away from the nearest Eskimo. North America has no right to police the language of the rest of the world.