
Alex – Catch insensitive, inconsiderate writing - zdw
http://alexjs.com
======
justin_vanw
It's a catch-22 that many things that have been perfectly considerate and
inoffensive for quite a long time have been turned into something offensive by
people being overly sensitive and then overly loud.

For example, say some phrase or usage, call it X, exists. X is used widely,
and never with any intention to hurt, marginalize, offend, bother, or in any
way cause any trouble. It's been used righteously with pure intentions and
loving hearts.

Then a person comes along, and for some reason that nobody can really explain,
decides that X is not OK. It is somehow offensive. People don't want to be
offensive, so they stop using X. Then as people stop using X, more people stop
using X. Eventually only people who are actually insensitive keep using X. Now
X is only found mixed in with the rest of the insensitive things insensitive
people say, and it picks up a very offensive connotation.

To me, this is all ridiculous and I think the people who look for potentially
'offensive' things, and try to police language as though enforcing softer
language will inject love and understanding into people's hearts, are harmful
to the world because they distract from things that actually matter to the
quality of people's lives and create an easy to point to absurd narrative for
the people who are actually acting out of hate to point to, which is an easy
way for them to inoculate people into a knee jerk reaction against considering
the larger issues involved.

~~~
pimlottc
It sounds like you're describing the phenomenon of the "Euphemism Treadmill"
[1], the canonical example of which is the previously-acceptable term
"retarded".

1: [http://englishcowpath.blogspot.com/2011/06/euphemism-
treadmi...](http://englishcowpath.blogspot.com/2011/06/euphemism-treadmill-
replacing-r-word.html)

~~~
striking
I believe that you can call the slowing down of progress "retardation" still,
just not where it applies to human beings.

And that's where I feel this project is mistaken. Because it would flag any
use of "retard" even if it were in reference to "flame retarding bromides" or
an innocuous phrase like "the pace of development has slowly retarded" or "the
tempo retards in the last four measures of the piece".

~~~
TazeTSchnitzel
Much like a spell-checker or Word's grammar checker screw this up, yes. I'm
not sure it can be helped much.

~~~
striking
Spell checkers et al. don't check subjective properties like tone or
offensiveness. (And where it gets subjective, they would rather create a false
negative than a false positive.) It works rather well.

~~~
TazeTSchnitzel
> Spell checkers et al. don't check subjective properties like tone or
> offensiveness.

That's true. But grammar checkers screw up rather often for the same reason
things like `alex` would: understanding context as a computer is quite hard.

------
Amorymeltzer
A long, long time ago (early 2000s), there was a plugin/add-on/whatever for MS
outlook, I think, that would analyze what you wrote and assign it a score from
1 to 3 chili peppers. The angriest, hottest stuff could be prevented from
being sent.

It was designed as a way to prevent you from sending an email in haste that
you might later regret. GmailLabs had something similar with their email
goggles function, that could require you to solve math functions before
sending email late at night.*

While those were cutesy examples, this is in the same vein. If you're worried
about the sort of thing chilis/GmailGoggles/Alex would catch, then you're
probably happy to run a check like that. If not, then don't.

*Gmail Goggles, while a cool feature, didn't really work for the mathematical-minded. Turns out trying to multiply 3-digit numbers while drunk is kind of fun.

~~~
TazeTSchnitzel
That sounds really cool. I've sent some unnecessarily angry emails before...
this would be handy to make me cool down.

------
reefoctopus
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poe%27s_law](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poe%27s_law)

~~~
TazeTSchnitzel
I don't see why this would be a parody. If you're going to do that, surely
you'd make some incredibly strict censorship tool, since that's what people
against being considerate usually frame this kind of thing as.

~~~
rmchugh
I don't think that it's fair to describe criticism of this as against being
considerate, it's more like, against imposing some people's ideas of how
people should talk to each other on to unwitting users of some Internet
service. Some people are assholes on the Internet, undoubtedly, and these
people take up WAY too much space, but I don't think that this is a sensible
way of dealing with the problem. Things like downvoting, blocking etc work by
penalising the baddies, not by making everyone confirm to some artificial idea
of what intelligent discourse looks like.

~~~
TazeTSchnitzel
> against imposing some people's ideas of how people should talk to each other
> on to unwitting users of some Internet service

Where is this being imposed? Where does `alex` give any indication of being
mandatory on an Internet service - and even if it was used, why would it be
imposing? This merely _suggests_ ways to be considerate.

~~~
rmchugh
I presume someone has written this in the hope of people using it. If it was
used on a forum I posted on, I'd feel it as an imposition. It may be a
suggestion only, but I'm suggesting it's a bad idea. It'd be like having your
annoying friend who studied too much critical theory looking over your
shoulder every time you want to write something.

~~~
TazeTSchnitzel
> I presume someone has written this in the hope of people using it. If it was
> used on a forum I posted on, I'd feel it as an imposition.

I would assume the use case is for you to choose to use it on your own
writing.

------
striking
At the bottom they note, under the heading "Importance of Equality (in
Technology)", the ‘Brendan Eich Steps Down as Mozilla CEO’ HN comment thread.
This is a hotly debated topic. Really dunno about mentioning that one.

It's not a joke, because Vice covered it, unironically.
[http://motherboard.vice.com/read/meet-alex-the-javascript-
to...](http://motherboard.vice.com/read/meet-alex-the-javascript-tool-to-make-
your-code-less-offensive)

I really don't get it. Really, really, really don't get it. I would be
grateful if someone could explain this to me.

~~~
TazeTSchnitzel
It's a tool that points out where you might have used inconsiderate terms.
That's it.

Why would you want it? Well, it's easy to slip up and use language that's
discriminatory or might cause discomfort. This helps you catch what you might
otherwise miss.

~~~
striking
"Their" instead of "His" is a horrible fix, and causes me discomfort as a
speaker of the English language. More seriously, statements like those should
be massaged into the passive tense as to avoid pronouns (because in technical
texts, you don't need them).

It warns about stuff like "cattlemen" in lieu of "cattle rancher", some really
preposterous stuff. Also, as a native Polak, I had no idea the word "polack"
was offensive. In Polish, it is the most used way to refer to yourself as a
Polish person. I am so confused right now.

A lot of the file [1] is either obvious ("gringo" being an obvious-yet-still-
HN-publishable term) or ridiculous (above).

It doesn't really help anyone as far I can tell.

[1]: [https://github.com/wooorm/retext-
equality/blob/master/lib/pa...](https://github.com/wooorm/retext-
equality/blob/master/lib/patterns.json)

~~~
TazeTSchnitzel
> "Their" instead of "His" is a horrible fix, and causes me discomfort as a
> speaker of the English language.

Some people dislike the singular they, yes. This is strange, because it's a
feature any English speaker will intuitively understand (it's been in English
for centuries). I assume this is due to people being told it's not proper in
school, or something.

> More seriously, statements like those should be massaged into the passive
> tense as to avoid pronouns

That's sometimes an alternative, yes.

> It warns about stuff like "cattlemen" in lieu of "cattle rancher", some
> really preposterous stuff.

Why is it preposterous? Not all ranchers are male.

> Also, as a native Polak, I had no idea the word "polack" was offensive. In
> Polish, it is the most used way to refer to yourself as a Polish person. I
> am so confused right now.

Words sometimes have different connotations in different languages, and it
might depend on who's using it. A Polish person in the US might mind 'polack'
less from a Pole than from someone else, perhaps?

> A lot of the file is [...] obvious

To you, yes. It isn't to everyone. Not everyone has the same cultural
background, upbringing, education, exposure to different people, etc.

~~~
striking
I've never heard "cattlemen" used. Ever.

I don't mind hearing "polack" from anyone.

And those people can learn by hearing that they're wrong. As a sixth grader, I
used the word "colored" in reference to African-Americans, in a historical
sense, on an essay. And I learned from that.

~~~
TazeTSchnitzel
> I've never heard "cattlemen" used. Ever.

I haven't either, but it's probably limited to certain contexts. I'm not sure
how that's relevant.

> I don't mind hearing "polack" from anyone.

Maybe you don't, but it might be a problem for other people.

> And those people can learn by hearing that they're wrong.

They could also use this tool. The difference is this tool would tell you
_before_ you potentially upset someone.

------
aw3c2
The example should really go further.

"The" implies definiteness, use "a" instead;

"all" may be insensitive, use "some" instead;

"master" may be insensitive, use "thing" instead;

"server" may be insensitive, use "provider" instead;

"read-only" may be insensitive, use "possibly unable to write" instead;

"worry" might be triggering, use "think" instead;

~~~
renaudg
Thank you so much. We need all the help we can get to expose & ridicule PCness
like you just did, because it looks like these people really do exist and take
themselves seriously, and there's a whole new generation in US colleges that
starts crying incontrollably when a law professor utters the word "rape", for
example.

This might boil down to a cultural difference, but to this European guy we're
way past "you've got to be kidding me" territory here.

~~~
TazeTSchnitzel
> there's a whole new generation in US colleges that starts crying
> incontrollably when a law professor utters the word "rape", for example.

Constructing a straw man to prove your point is not conducive to good
argumentation.

People do not "cry uncontrollably" when certain words are mentioned. People
are asking that works containing graphic depictions of things likely to cause
severe distress to very small segments of the population be labelled in some
cases, so that people in those groups can prepare themselves. People are also
asking that others not use extremely offensive language towards those in
minority groups who've had to suffer through it their whole lives.

These are not unreasonable requests. They are a minimum standard of human
decency and consideration.

> This might boil down to a cultural difference, but to this European guy

Neo-reactionaries exist in all cultures, I assure you.

~~~
renaudg
I really, really wish I could admit guilt and tell you that I've indeed had to
construct a strawman because my point required it. Unfortunately, I didn't
because it doesn't. Either you are uninformed about the current levels of
insanity reached in PC circles, or you belong to them and hope that nobody
will notice what you guys are up to.

I will give just 2 examples, and let everyone else be the judge.

[http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/trouble-teaching-
rap...](http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/trouble-teaching-rape-law)
_One teacher I know was recently asked by a student not to use the word
“violate” in class—as in “Does this conduct violate the law?”—because the word
was triggering._

[http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/566202/NUS-jazz-hands-
clapp...](http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/566202/NUS-jazz-hands-clapping-
anxiety-feminists) _The NUS Women 's Campaign tweeted from its official
account: "Some delegates are requesting that we move to jazz hands rather than
clapping, as it's triggering anxiety. Please be mindful!"_

Who needs strawmen when reality is way more entertaining ?

I will re-iterate that people like you, advocating that this behaviour can in
any way or shape be construed as reasonable or a mark of progress, are doing a
disservice to victims of actual traumatic events (more to the point : spitting
in their face) by trying to liken petty little everyday traumas that everyone
goes through (you guys call them "microaggressions") to what a war veteran or
an actual rape victim (I said "rape", not "catcall" btw, notice the
difference?) actually have had to endure.

Anyway, I can't wait to see how "snowflake generation" does in the real world.
Have a nice evening.

~~~
TazeTSchnitzel
> I really, really wish I could admit guilt and tell you that I've indeed had
> to construct a strawman because my point required it. Unfortunately, I
> didn't because it doesn't. Either you are uninformed about the current
> levels of insanity reached in PC circles, or you belong to them and hope
> that nobody will notice what you guys are up to.

> I will give just 2 examples, and let everyone else be the judge.

> [http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/trouble-teaching-
> rap...](http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/trouble-teaching-rap..). One
> teacher I know was recently asked by a student not to use the word “violate”
> in class—as in “Does this conduct violate the law?”—because the word was
> triggering.

One single student had a problem with the word "violate", which isn't entirely
unsurprising. This word is frequently used in relation to acts of physical and
sexual violence. It might seem ridiculous to you that single words can cause
problems for some people, but trauma can be like that. If you've suffered
something traumatic, a word or phrase might remind you of it. Wouldn't that
make you uncomfortable? Is there really anything wrong with asking a professor
to avoid that _specific_ phrase, so you can concentrate better on your work?
It doesn't prevent them talking about the subject. It's just a tiny kindness
they are asking for.

And, in fact, slurs are also single words. Society has learned to stop using
them. Where's the uproar?

So, your example doesn't live up to your statement:

> a whole new generation in US colleges that starts crying incontrollably when
> a law professor utters the word "rape"

Well, this isn't "a whole new generation", it's one student in one school who
has a problem with one word. And there's not a "generation" 'crying
incontrollably'. There's one student who's having trouble with it.

Yes, other students at other schools also sometimes have similar issues. Still
doesn't meet your statement.

Some people have specific needs. What's wrong with accommodating them?

> [http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/566202/NUS-jazz-hands-
> clapp...](http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/566202/NUS-jazz-hands-clapp..).
> The NUS Women's Campaign tweeted from its official account: "Some delegates
> are requesting that we move to jazz hands rather than clapping, as it's
> triggering anxiety. Please be mindful".

Certain people at an event had an issue with loud noise, and politely asked
that others express applause in a quieter fashion.

This doesn't even have anything to do with political correctness.

\----

I still consider the situation you have described to be a straw man. You are
vastly exaggerating the nature, scale and consequences of this supposed
problem.

Occasionally, people are in the unfortunate position where certain small
things cause them problems. They politely ask for people not to do those
things.

This is usually referred to as 'kindness' or 'being considerate'.

> I will re-iterate that people like you, advocating that this behaviour can
> in any way or shape be construed as reasonable or a mark of progress, are
> doing a disservice to victims of actual traumatic events (or more to the
> point : spitting in their face).

Please explain to me how, for example, it is somehow a bad thing to not warn
someone who has survived rape that the book they are about to read contains a
graphic depiction of it?

This is a realistic example. It happens all the time.

> I can't wait to see how "snowflake generation" does in the real world. Have
> a nice evening.

They'll do wonderfully. Because they are creating a world that is just very
slightly more considerate than the one before.

Even if the world doesn't change, they'll do the same as they always have.
People who've suffered trauma have always existed. People who are part of
discriminated-against groups have always existed. They just might have a very
slightly easier time now.

~~~
thinkdevcode
I don't usually reply to HN posts but in this instance I'm deeply troubled by
most of the posts you've made in this thread, but the most unsettling thing
you've said thus far is:

> Because they are creating a world that is just very slightly more
> considerate than the one before.

Who gives you, or anyone else, the right to "create a world" in which I am a
member of and can dictate what I can and cannot say? Why do you get to decide
what is "considerate"?

I see this in our next generation and this trend is most troubling indeed.

~~~
TazeTSchnitzel
> Who gives you, or anyone else, the right to "create a world" in which I am a
> member of and can dictate what I can and cannot say?

"Dictating"? You're not being required not to say words. People are suggesting
it might be inconsiderate. Although I suppose that eventually it might become
culturally unacceptable.

As for 'the right to "create a world"', nobody has a "right" to change
culture, it's simply a thing which happens. Some people attempt to influence
how it changes.

Though another answer might be that _everyone_ has the right: everyone has the
human right to free speech, and speech affects culture.

> I see this in our next generation and this trend is most troubling indeed

Culture shifts are nothing new. People believing they can change culture, and
doing it, is nothing new.

------
iskander
>cripple may be insensitive, use person with a limp instead

Hard to tell if this project is parody or authentic.

~~~
TazeTSchnitzel
Er, authentic, surely? That's a word that people with disabilities may
bitterly detest, as it is frequently used to mock them.

~~~
blacksmith_tb
Of course, though without context for the example, it's hard to understand if
it really is being used as a noun (which seems clearly offensive) or a verb,
which doesn't immediately seem offensive to me, at least (like "We shipped a
crippled version of the product as a trial").

~~~
cosmorocket
Your comment made my NLP parsing project upset and depressed. Hardly I will be
able to make it pass tests until tomorrow now. Thanks.

------
swatthatfly
Clearly not context aware: typing "Wonder Woman and Superman" gives:

"Woman" may be insensitive, use Person, Friend, Pal, Folk, Individual instead
"Superman" may be insensitive, use Titan instead

There is a lot of work done in the area of linguistic analysis and word
disambiguation, and none of it it's trivial. So it will be a big leap moving
from a toy project to something of actual use. Integrating with an existing ML
api for disambiguation could vastly decrease the amount of false positives.
Idilia, BabelNet/BabelFly and LingPipe come to mind.

~~~
renaudg
""Woman" may be insensitive, use Person, Friend, Pal, Folk"

This has got to be a joke. What's wrong with these people ?

~~~
TazeTSchnitzel
What's wrong with it? Obviously it's not correct in all contexts, but if you
can avoid excluding non-women, you should do so.

------
xlm1717
Alex is a bad name, doesn't describe at all what it does. More appropriate
names, in my opinion, are: Ingsoc, Newspeak, or BB.

Orwell's head would be spinning if he saw how the English language ended up
today.

------
pimlottc
> Catch insensitive, inconsiderate writing

I kept trying to figure out what "catch-insensitive" meant until I finally
realized this wasn't a noun phrase...

~~~
justin_vanw
I clicked it thinking it was going to be some kind of exception handling
invariant.

~~~
pimlottc
Yeah, I thought it was going to be some sort of code analysis tool.

------
renaudg
A self-censorship tool to prevent you accidentally "triggering" someone in the
snowflake generation with "inconsiderate" terms, by enforcing what was first
described by George Orwell as
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newspeak](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newspeak)

~~~
TazeTSchnitzel
> A self-censorship tool

Have you considered that self-censorship _is not necessarily always bad_?
You've probably thought some utterly disgusting things about people you love
dearly before, and refused to say them, because you know it would damage your
relationship.

This also doesn't force you to censor anything. It points out things that
_might_ be problematic.

> "triggering"

Do you actually know what triggers are? Are you sure that avoiding forcing
people to relive trauma is a bad thing?

(Triggering is not the same as being offended or hurt, by the way.)

> enforcing what was first described by George Orwell as Newspeak

I'd question the word 'enforcing' again. This is, to make an analogy, a spell-
checker, not autocorrect.

Anyway, Newspeak is interesting. Among other things, it supposedly shows how
you can control thought through shaping language. That's not really true,
though. The Sapir-Whorf hypothesis, which states that language determines
thought, is not accepted in its strong form by most linguists. You can't
absolutely control thought through language.

Language probably does shape it a little, though, and certainly using
different, more considerate terms does change how people think about things at
least a little. But is it bad that people speak a little more considerately?
Who is losing out from being kind?

~~~
renaudg
_But is it bad that people speak a little more considerately? Who is losing
out from being kind?_

Likening the backlash against PCness to a fight against "kindness" is one hell
of a strawman :) As belittling the damage to free speech that the strict
observance of PC rules necessarily implies, is one hell of an "anti-strawman".

The PC movement is not asking that people speak "a little more" considerately
(which we can all agree to), it is engaged in a careless witch hunt that has
gone overboard, has ruined careers (google "Pycon joke"), and actively
prevents normal transmission of knowledge in US/UK colleges (again see :
[http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/trouble-teaching-
rap...](http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/trouble-teaching-rape-law) )

The PC movement as it operates now is quite simply, the closest thing western
societies have to an Inquisition today.

~~~
TazeTSchnitzel
> Likening the backlash against PCness to a fight against "kindness" is one
> hell of a strawman

How is it a straw man? Fundamentally asking of people that they use terms
which are less likely to cause offense or harm is out of kindess to the people
who would be offended or harmed.

> As belittling the damage to free speech that the strict observance of PC
> rules necessarily implies, is one hell of an "anti-strawman".

"Damage to free speech"? Can you substantiate that?

Remember that free speech is, quote:

"the right to communicate one's opinions and ideas without fear of government
retaliation or censorship"

The Government is not retaliating against you for using "un-PC" language, nor
censoring you.

> The PC movement is not asking that people speak "a little more"
> considerately (which we can all agree to)

What would you consider 'speaking a little more considerately' to be then, if
not avoiding terms which are inconsiderate to others?

> it is engaged in a careless witch hunt that has gone overboard,

While some comparisons to 'witch hunts' might be appropriate in certain cases,
people aren't being hanged. People aren't going to jail.

> has ruined careers (google "Pycon joke")

The PyCon incident was not because of politically correct language. It was
because of (ostensibly) sexist jokes and Internet call-out culture. Grouping
these into political correctness is only useful if you're trying to discredit
it. Internet outrage has its problems, but this doesn't discredit the idea of
using kinder language.

> and actively prevents normal transmission of knowledge in US/UK colleges

This is overblown. Certain students (often those who have suffered rape
themselves) are asking to be warned when topics that might cause them distress
are brought up. It doesn't prevent them learning: content warnings on TV don't
prevent people from watching the news or documentaries, in fact it helps them
as they can prepare for potentially distressing or dangerous (photosensitive
epilepsy-triggering, say) content.

> The PC movement as it operates now is quite simply, the closest thing
> western societies have to an Inquisition today.

Internet witch hunts are a problem, but they do not discredit politically
correct language, trigger warnings, etc.

~~~
Nadya
_> Internet witch hunts are a problem, but they do not discredit politically
correct language, trigger warnings, etc._

What discredits trigger warnings is studies showing that trigger warnings do
more harm than good.

[https://scientiasalon.wordpress.com/2015/05/28/the-false-
dic...](https://scientiasalon.wordpress.com/2015/05/28/the-false-dichotomy-of-
trigger-warnings/)

 _> How is it a straw man? Fundamentally asking of people that they use terms
which are less likely to cause offense or harm is out of kindess to the people
who would be offended or harmed._

Excuse me, don't you mean straw person?

~~~
TazeTSchnitzel
> What discredits trigger warnings is studies showing that trigger warnings do
> more harm than good.

It's possible trigger warnings might ultimately be unhelpful for PTSD
sufferers. I don't know whether that's the case, as without further research I
can't tell how selective these articles are.

Even if it's not helpful for PTSD sufferers, it might still be useful for
people in different situations.

> Excuse me, don't you mean straw person?

I did think of that. I don't think there's a gender-neutral alternative to
that fallacy's name.

~~~
Nadya
_> It's possible trigger warnings might ultimately be unhelpful for PTSD
sufferers. I don't know whether that's the case, as without further research I
can't tell how selective these articles are._

I'll err to the side of caution and assume they are ultimately harmful to
people and not use them. Which is what you are advocating in other forms of
speech (particularly erring to the side of caution of gender normalization).

 _> I did think of that. I don't think there's a gender-neutral alternative to
that fallacy's name._

Speech is fluid and always changing. If there isn't an alternative, you're
free to create one. As long as it is understood by the person you are
communicating with - language has done its job. This might cause some
confusion or require further explanation, since the term won't be a common
part of peoples' shared vocabulary, but it will get the job done.

The worst that could happen is people don't adopt the word, choose a different
word, or re-purpose the word.

On a tangent, I'd like to tell a short story about a female leader of an all-
female group. She begins speaking to the group with "Okay guys". I think any
reasonable person would accept that the term "guys" has lost its masculinity
over the years and is used as a gender-neutral. What the meaning once was is
not the meaning it holds now. This is common in both words and symbols. To
share an extreme example of both re-purposing and a changed definition, see
Pink Triangle [0]

Ultimately - policing speech is a waste of effort. New words will always come
into existence as euphemisms of the "wrong" words and knowing that speech is
"bad" allows others to use it for power.

An insult is only ever as strong as you let it be.

[0]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pink_triangle](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pink_triangle)

~~~
TazeTSchnitzel
> I'll err to the side of caution and assume they are ultimately harmful to
> people and not use them. Which is what you are advocating in other forms of
> speech

Myself, I'd consider the side of caution to be continuing to use them. Since
they're warning people about something potentially a problem, I'd rather be
careful in case people are relying on them. (That's for places where they're
already used. Your approach might be better for new places.)

> Speech is fluid and always changing. If there isn't an alternative, you're
> free to create one.

Oh sure, I realise that! I could say 'straw person' or maybe 'scarecrow
fallacy'.

> On a tangent, I'd like to tell a short story about a female leader of an
> all-female group. She begins speaking to the group with "Okay guys". I think
> any reasonable person would accept that the term "guys" has lost its
> masculinity over the years and is used as a gender-neutral.

Wiktionary's page on 'guys' is interesting here (see:
[https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/guys](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/guys)) -
it's gender-neutral... _sometimes_. It's not always. It's a weird case.

> Ultimately - policing speech is a waste of effort. New words will always
> come into existence as euphemisms of the "wrong" words and knowing that
> speech is "bad" allows others to use it for power.

I'm not sure this is always true. Insults against gay people being proscribed
doesn't _seem_ to have created new ones, but I may be wrong.

------
windcliff
I hope this is a joke.

~~~
TazeTSchnitzel
Why? What's wrong with being considerate?

~~~
throwaway1967
What's wrong with it is simple: you can't define it.

Define "being considerate". Go ahead, try it. You'd have to list every
person's feelings towards every word uttered next to every other possible
word.

How about, we all learn not to be offended by words? That at least is
scalable, consistent, and defined.

------
whiskypeters
automated enforcement of politically-correct verbiage. awesome!

~~~
abathur
I assume you find the automated "enforcement" of dictionary-correct spelling
to be similarly awesome?

------
DanBC
Cripple does not only mean person with a limp, but is used also about people
who are paraplegic or quadraplegic, or people with leg amputation.

It's very Americo-centric. Using the word "handicapped" or the phrase "person
with physical handicaps" are both likely to disappoint your audience.
Especially since not all disability is physical; your considerate phrasing
ignores learning(UK)/intellectual(US) disabilities as well as mental health
problems.

I'm on mobile at the moment so couldn't look in more detail. It's a nice idea,
but so far it looks severely flawed.

~~~
TazeTSchnitzel
> Cripple does not only mean [...]

Well, the replacements are merely suggestions, right? You may have to adapt
them to fit the specific case. But sure, it might be better to add more
suggestions.

> It's very Americo-centric.

(isn't it Ameri-centric? /nitpick)

That probably reflects its author, it would need expanding. I'd note though
that it's probably best to still cover stuff problematic in America even if
you're not American, given any web content has a potentially international
audience.

> It's a nice idea, but so far it looks severely flawed.

Maybe. I think it could be still useful despite the flaws.

------
PopeOfNope
Automated thought policing. Wonderful.

