3 ms·

You weren’t already doing that? You guys literally changed a dictionary definition to make a conservative appointee look bad: https://www.foxnews.com/politics/m

by rayiner 9mo ago

You weren’t already doing that? You guys literally changed a dictionary definition to make a conservative appointee look bad: https://www.foxnews.com/politics/merriam-webster-changed-definition-sexual-preference-barrett-hearing https://www.foxnews.com/politics/merriam-webster-changed-def... Trump, a democrat himself, is simply using the multi-front strategy he already knew.

garte 9mo ago
thats a wild take... isnt this exactly the purpose of a dictionary: to reflect the words used in general language usage?
- rayiner 9mo ago
  Right, the definition should reflect general usage. Did the general usage here just coincidentally change days after a Republican appointee used a word in a hearing? That’s a heck of a coincidence! No, what happened was that liberals used their control over putatively neutral institutions like M-W to advance their position in a political dispute.
  - dctoedt 9mo ago
    I'm very curious how you happened to have, seemingly at the ready, a cite to a 5.5-year-old Fox News piece.
    - rayiner 9mo ago
      I have a very good memory for anything I’ve read.