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”.
"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.
> "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), 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 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.
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.
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.
> 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.
Are you advancing that the Inuit population is majoritarily liberals?
There is more than one country in this word. Not everything is about the American political dichotomy.
Professional editors already do the work that is provided by this feature, they simply use dictionaries and their professional experience instead. Now even the writer is able to see and adapt the text as they write, which results in more natural texts.
This is just what those features are, a replacement for an editor. And like of a human editor that sends back a text with lines under words and comments in the margins you can simply ignore it.
Edit:
As per your edit, I would recommend you leave your house, drive north and ask. I can assure you that people want to use the names of their people and not an arbitrary word that has been pushed on them by strangers.
A way to explain it that I have used before is to compare it with people who call Americans "Burgers".
Sure, most people don't mind it. You chuckle, roll you eyes and continue with your day. But if from now on all official texts no longer had "Americans" in it but "Burgers", you can be sure there would be anger.
Especially if when people said "We were called Americans before and never stopped calling ourselves as such" they were answered with "No one actually cares about this, I have called you Burgers for decades. Don't get mad, that's just how we call you over here."
> As per your edit, I would recommend you leave your house, drive north and ask. I can assure you that people want to use the names of their people and not an arbitrary word that has been pushed on them by strangers.
I'm not applying this social pressure to self censor, maybe the people doing so could drive north and ask. Have you?
> Sure, most people don't mind it. You chuckle, roll you eyes and continue with your day. But if from now on all official texts no longer had "Americans" in it but "Burgers", you can be sure there would be anger.
Your hypothetical is nonsensical. A group decides what to call themselves. Americans themselves would need to decide that in your scenario.
What outside communities call you (yankees, etc.) is separate and cannot be controlled.
In general, I'd suggest not getting offended on other people's behalf or looking for things to be offended about. Words don't hurt you unless you let them.
> I'm not applying this social pressure to self censor
The pressure is on being educated enough to be polite with the people you discourse with.
I do not know how we can meet in the middle ground since you believe that using accurate words to describe people is censor.
Yes, what outside communities call you is outside of your control. However, what you call outside community is within your control.
Since it is within your control and you can choose to use any word you want (as long as you are fine with the repercussions), this is not censor. You can absolutely call anyone by any word you want.
That said, refusing to expand your vocabulary will diminish the range of you thoughts. Keeping with the previous example, calling two different and unassociated tribes by the same name will prevent you from learning about them separately.
> The pressure is on being educated enough to be polite with the people you discourse with.
Oh I'm well aware of the PC rules, I disagree with them. They have nothing to do with being polite or educated.
> I do not know how we can meet in the middle ground since you believe that using accurate words to describe people is censor.
Most of the time the PC words are not accurate at all. They are confusing to everyone involved, by design.
> Since it is within your control and you can choose to use any word you want (as long as you are fine with the repercussions), this is not censor. You can absolutely call anyone by any word you want.
This is why I said self censor, you're bullying people to conform to your silly rules.
> That said, refusing to expand your vocabulary will diminish the range of you thoughts. Keeping with the previous example, calling two different and unassociated tribes by the same name will prevent you from learning about them separately.
Oh I know your PC words and my thoughts are expansive. I just disagree with the entire premise.
I call Inuits as such, if I've ever referenced them? I don't think I've even used the word Eskimo ever before, as it just doesn't come up.
