As recently as last month, Webster’s Dictionary included a definition of “preference” as “orientation” or “sexual preference.” TODAY they changed it and added the word “offensive."
Insane – I just checked through Wayback Machine and it’s real.
(via @ThorSvensonn & @chadfelixg) pic.twitter.com/oOq1SNtCP2
— Steve Krakauer (@SteveKrak) October 14, 2020
The ghost of Noah Webster has been unpersoned by Mintrue.
They have embraced Newspeak where instead of being the arbiter of linguistic truth, they codify the linguistic whims of Leftists.
Two minds on this one…
First of all, the dictionary is a reflection of the popular use of words. If the meaning of a word changes over time, the dictionary should reflect that change.
However, (and I am not an expert here), adding new meaning to a word because of an upset mob is not the way it should work. To date, I have not heard a single individual use the word preference to mean anything even remotely offensive. Or, more accurately, in an offensive manner.
In fact, if anything it is a small percentage of the human race that is offended when someone claims their “orientation” is a preference.
Which means adding that label to the word preference is not a reflection of common usage, it is to appease the mob.
The “otherism” strategy developed by Marxists to destroy America focuses on the systematic destruction of identity leading to the systematic disenfranchisement of Americans from America. It manipulates the issues of the “other”, yet it has nothing to do with the “other”. Rather, it forces a classic dialectical negation along Hegelian lines. This activity presents a clear and present danger that will succeed if not countered. As such, this analysis does not suggest that this is a way to understand the left, it argues that it is the only way to understand it; recognizing that it is 1) Marxist, and 2) dialectically driven.
The dominant cultural narratives of our time can best be summarized by the saying; “Political correctness is the enforcement mechanism of the multicultural narrative that implements Neo-Marxist objectives.” It is through these narratives that the left drives policy.
Narratives that conservative leaders neither control nor understand drive national policy. When Republican leaders shrink from Constitutional principles for fear of being accused of racism, sexism, homophobia, etc., they are subordinating those principles to neo-Marxist narratives designed for that purpose. Though these narratives may have been initially imposed, Republicans will adopt them over time through usage. Subjective awareness of the role one plays in such a process is neither necessary nor require.
Re-Remembering the Mis-Remembered Left:
The Left’s Strategy and Tactics To Transform America©
By Stephen Coughlin and Richard Higgins
Visit the page: https://unconstrainedanalytics.org/report-re-remembering-the-mis-remembered-left-the-lefts-strategy-and-tactics-to-transform-america/
And download the PDF: https://unconstrainedanalytics.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/Unconstrained-Analytics-Left-Strategy-Tactics-280819.pdf
Why? The political rhetoric driving American politics runs along well-trodden paths sustaining a political framework from a by-gone era incapable of coming to terms with the political movements threatening our constitutional system today.
Constrained by this archaic rhetoric, mainstream and conservative players are outmaneuvered in an information battle-space they hardly perceive; responding to current threats in under-inclusive manners.
Cool your jets. The word “preference” does not now have a definition of “offensive”, as Steve Krakauer is saying.
The definition comes after the colon, which is the normal syntax in dictionaries going back decades. There is no colon on #5.
What it’s saying is that #5’s usage is offensive to some people, and to scroll down to see why. If you do that, you find this:
Dangling participles aside, we can discuss whether that particular usage of “preference” should be offensive, but I’ll note that if you look up the word “fag”, the 6th definition (the derogatory term for a male homosexual) carries the exact same “offensive” message.
Neither word’s definitions suddenly include “offensive”, but some of their usages are widely offensive. That’s all it’s saying.
The question is whether the statement has a basis in reality, or is a political declaration inflicted by some axe grinder. I can believe that it’s “considered offensive by a few” or “…by some”, but “widely”? The first I heard about it was in yesterday’s Amy Coney Barrett hearing, when some Dem senator tried to make a stink over ACB using the phrase “sexual preference”.
This is of a piece with their recent rewriting of the definition of racism to comport with critical race theory by adding power to simple antipathy