View Full Version : Webster’s
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!
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!
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.
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.
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?
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.
ApatheticNoMore
10-19-20, 4:23pm
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
But is someone not up to speed on "correct" verbiage a bad person?
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?
But is someone not up to speed on "correct" verbiage a bad person?
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.
catherine
10-19-20, 5:18pm
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.
dado potato
10-19-20, 11:20pm
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).
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).
That is a great book.
And now, in addition to the traditional borrowing, discarding and coining new terms for new inventions, we see increased organized efforts to create and enforce the use of new terms for political and ideological purposes.
happystuff
10-21-20, 11:07am
I understand that language, words, verbiage changes all the time. What I don't like is when a word that represents something good/positive gets distorted/used/whatever and becomes something negative. For example "swastika" - originally, something religious and positive, turned into a word/symbol of negativity/hatred.
"In Buddhism, the swastika is considered to symbolize the auspicious footprints of the Buddha. It is an iconic symbol for the Buddha in many parts of Asia and homologous with the dharma wheel. The shape symbolizes eternal cycling, a theme found in samsara doctrine of Buddhism."
"In many Western countries, the swastika is now viewed as a symbol of racial supremacism and intimidation because of its association with Nazism."
JaneV2.0
10-21-20, 11:14am
What happened to a common spiritual and artistic symbol has also happened to the "OK" sign, which white supremacists have turned into a symbol of hate. Neither phenomena have much to do with spoken or written language.
Old Kinderhook wouldn’t be pleased with our current political semiotics, on any of the many sides currently contending. He was a practical guy.
What happened to a common spiritual and artistic symbol has also happened to the "OK" sign, which white supremacists have turned into a symbol of hate. Neither phenomena have much to do with spoken or written language.
You know I read about these things from time to time but have yet to experience many of these little signs that some liberals use to identify wrong thinkers. I think some sort of a "How To Spot People We Can Feel Good About Hating" publication for the rest of us not wanting to be identified as a white supremacists would be helpful.
You can start with this:
https://www.npr.org/2019/09/26/764728163/the-ok-hand-gesture-is-now-listed-as-a-symbol-of-hate
So, I use the OK symbol all the time. It's part of the standard hand signals we use when working in high-noise environments and IDLH environments.
Do we have to retrain the whole organization because some 4chan jokesters are playing games with the language?
iris lilies
10-21-20, 8:22pm
You know I read about these things from time to time but have yet to experience many of these little signs that some liberals use to identify wrong thinkers. I think some sort of a "How To Spot People We Can Feel Good About Hating" publication for the rest of us not wanting to be identified as a white supremacists would be helpful.
I know. Here I live in flyover country and in a fairly red state, and I travel to a red county in a rural area often. And yet here is Jane living in the enlightened PNW and she knows all about these symbols of oppression while I don’t.
I guess we’re here in the land of oppression would appreciate such a guide from the world of the enlightened.
I know. Here I live in flyover country and in a fairly red state, and I travel to a red county in a rural area often. And yet here is Jane living in the enlightened PNW and she knows all about these symbols of oppression while I don’t.
I guess we’re here in the land of oppression would appreciate such a guide from the world of the enlightened.
Jane, being the helpful person she is, provided one. Perhaps the reason you're not aware of these symbols is because the 'oppressed' white identity crowd in your area doesn't need to resort to subtle indicators to others and can just be open about their attitudes with others they know share their opinions. After all, if one is fairly confident about others opinions on a topic like this it isn't really necessary to be all subliminal and ask the 'white pride' version of 'are you a friend of dorothy?'
iris lilies
10-21-20, 10:58pm
Jane, being the helpful person she is, provided one. Perhaps the reason you're not aware of these symbols is because the 'oppressed' white identity crowd in your area doesn't need to resort to subtle indicators to others and can just be open about their attitudes with others they know share their opinions. After all, if one is fairly confident about others opinions on a topic like this it isn't really necessary to be all subliminal and ask the 'white pride' version of 'are you a friend of dorothy?'
Well at least I was ahead of Jane in passing knowledge of symbology of gangster signs. We had a training session on that, not that it was important for us to learn gang signs but it was deemed important to train library staff about gang presence, how they define their neighborhoods, some examples of neighborhood ownership markers, How members identify and communicate with each other through symbols and colors and etc.
I know. Here I live in flyover country and in a fairly red state, and I travel to a red county in a rural area often. And yet here is Jane living in the enlightened PNW and she knows all about these symbols of oppression while I don’t.
I guess we’re here in the land of oppression would appreciate such a guide from the world of the enlightened.
It's not a mystery; I'm a voracious reader who lives in the land of Proud Boys (sic).
Well at least I was ahead of Jane in passing knowledge of symbology of gangster signs. We had a training session on that, not that it was important for us to learn gang signs but it was deemed important to train library staff about gang presence, how they define their neighborhoods, some examples of neighborhood ownership markers, How members identify and communicate with each other through symbols and colors and etc.
You've got me there; I wouldn't know a gang sign from ASL--honestly. I should investigate...
I learned a new term today in the battle over who gets to decide what means what and who gets to decide who can say what: “linguistc gentrification”. Someone used the term “bourgie”, and was taken to task as a “privileged” person using a word belonging to the less privileged. I’m not sure how that doesn’t represent a sort of “linguistic segregation”. Personally, I don’t see how it’s possible for even the most diligent censorship to prevent words from jumping fences in ways they don’t approve of.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.