4 ms·

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

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 4y 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 4y 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 4y 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.
    - hunterb123 4y ago
      > This is why it is a hint that asks for an action. If you want or need a PC word checker to not piss off liberals thats's fine (they are the ones getting offended on other's behalf, not the people they are "fighting" for), but most people don't. I see no reason to have this enabled by default. EDIT: @Karawebnetwork, I don't see any Inuits proposing this, just liberals who love censorship, love getting offended on other's behalf and redefining words to make themselves feel like they've done something.
      - Karawebnetwork 4y ago
- haberman 4y ago
  > "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. It is not universal or unimpeachable context, it carries a certain set of assumptions that may or may not be true: - "is considered derogatory" suggests that everyone (or nearly everyone) considers this offensive, when in fact some people still call themselves Eskimo. To suggest that "Eskimo" is always or usually derogatory is therefore non-inclusive of people who use the word to describe themselves. - The theory that Eskimo means "eater of raw meat" has been called into question; an alternative theory is that it derived from the French word esquimaux, meaning one who nets snowshoes. To circulate the arguably more offensive association of the word may itself be reinforcing untrue and possibly offensive connotations of a word that some people prefer. Any attempt to present one particular interpretation of a word as universal truth, or one framing as the true "context", is often overly reductionist and prescriptive, even non-inclusive. Another great example of this: indigenous people in the USA generally prefer the term "Indian" (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kh88fVP2FWQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kh88fVP2FWQ), and yet polite American society will pressure you to say Native American instead. Something tells me that this feature in Docs will not be suggesting that you change "Native American" to "Indian", despite the fact that the people themselves often prefer it.

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 4y 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 4y 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 4y 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.
  - hunterb123 4y ago
    > This is why it is a hint that asks for an action. If you want or need a PC word checker to not piss off liberals thats's fine (they are the ones getting offended on other's behalf, not the people they are "fighting" for), but most people don't. I see no reason to have this enabled by default. EDIT: @Karawebnetwork, I don't see any Inuits proposing this, just liberals who love censorship, love getting offended on other's behalf and redefining words to make themselves feel like they've done something.
    - Karawebnetwork 4y ago
haberman 4y ago
> "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. It is not universal or unimpeachable context, it carries a certain set of assumptions that may or may not be true: - "is considered derogatory" suggests that everyone (or nearly everyone) considers this offensive, when in fact some people still call themselves Eskimo. To suggest that "Eskimo" is always or usually derogatory is therefore non-inclusive of people who use the word to describe themselves. - The theory that Eskimo means "eater of raw meat" has been called into question; an alternative theory is that it derived from the French word esquimaux, meaning one who nets snowshoes. To circulate the arguably more offensive association of the word may itself be reinforcing untrue and possibly offensive connotations of a word that some people prefer. Any attempt to present one particular interpretation of a word as universal truth, or one framing as the true "context", is often overly reductionist and prescriptive, even non-inclusive. Another great example of this: indigenous people in the USA generally prefer the term "Indian" (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kh88fVP2FWQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kh88fVP2FWQ), and yet polite American society will pressure you to say Native American instead. Something tells me that this feature in Docs will not be suggesting that you change "Native American" to "Indian", despite the fact that the people themselves often prefer it.