I see that shortly after a Senator took a SCOTUS nominee to task for using the term “sexual preference”, Webster’s updated the definition to conform to her interpretation. Should they also review their definition of “Orwellian”?
I see that shortly after a Senator took a SCOTUS nominee to task for using the term “sexual preference”, Webster’s updated the definition to conform to her interpretation. Should they also review their definition of “Orwellian”?
Big Brother would be proud of Webster's efficiency. They modified the definition within just a few hours of the Senator's proclamation of disdain. Very impressive!
"Things should be made as simple as possible, but not one bit simpler." ~ Albert Einstein
My understanding is that the offensive connotation entered the public sphere ~30 years ago, so I was thinking they were simply behind-the-times and reacting to new-to-them information.Originally Posted by Alan
Yeah--"sexual preference" could be taken to mean that your orientation was a whim of the moment. Language is constantly changing, and those changes are bound to annoy someone.
But is someone not up to speed on "correct" verbiage a bad person?
"Things should be made as simple as possible, but not one bit simpler." ~ Albert Einstein
The annoyance in this case seems to be on the part of the enforcers of the new terminology. And the annoyance strikes me as somewhat selective, being especially offensive when spoken by someone the takers of offense are predisposed to dislike. When others uttered those words in the recent past, no one felt the need to rebuke them.
A product of flyover schools with a traditional family and unfashionable faith, who seemed imperturbable by insult and accusation. Of course the woke clerisy would need to come up with something, however thin, to remonstrate with her. Clearly, there is a vast gulf between one’s preference and what they “identify as”. Only an unversed heathen could fail to see the difference.
Orientation could be taken to mean it's hard and fast, this is no doubt true for many people, and maybe not true for everyone. So it really is up about "correct" verbiage
No it doesn't make you a bad person. Now do I think ABC has bad POLICY? Oh heck yea, on everything, pretty much. That is the criticism.
Is she a bad person? Maybe, I don't know, I suspect whatever values assuming some do, animate her are so different to any I could relate to or in some cases even find remotely rooted in reality that … this is a woman that doesn't believe in climate change, who will rule on climate change matters including potentially those with conflict of interest, that has 5 kids of her own and two adopted and believes that women should obey their husbands, who might be ruling on whether women should have access to birth control (under the ACA etc.). Uh … what would she know about that?
Trees don't grow on money
Nope. Heck, I still use Old English phrases in daily life.
But when someone explains to me that my words may be problematic, I give it some consideration.
Cwædon þæt he wære wyruld-cyninga,
manna mildust ond mon-ðwærust,
leodum liðost ond lof-geornost.
OMG, you are SO second century!!
Get with it...
But nathelees, whil I have tyme and space,
Er that I ferther in this tale pace,
Me thynketh it acordaunt to resoun
To telle yow al the condicioun
Of ech of hem, so as it semed me,
And whiche they weren and of what degree,
And eek in what array that they were inne;
And at a Knyght than wol I first bigynne.
"Do any human beings ever realize life while they live it--every, every minute?" Emily Webb, Our Town
www.silententry.wordpress.com
I have been listening to an audio book by Bill Bryson called The Mother Tongue He resoundingly shows that the English language is ever in flux. It is quirky what we call things. We want to be understood (one hopes) without giving offense (one hopes).
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote