- Apr 5, 2010
- 80,982
- 32,799
- 2,300
I guess they have Winston Smith working for them.
Merriam-Webster alters definition of sexual "preference" to say it's offensive after Hirono attacked Barrett for using it
The thing is there is no such thing as a memory hole (yet) when it comes to the internet, things are always archived, by multiple parties, so one can see if things were changed, and usually when they were changed.
Someone needs to tell Merriam-Webster that 1984 wasn't a how to manual.
Merriam-Webster alters definition of sexual "preference" to say it's offensive after Hirono attacked Barrett for using it
Check the Wayback Machine and you’ll find that Merriam-Webster’s definition of “preference” said nothing about the term being offensive as of September 28, the last time the page was archived. Today the label “offensive” has been attached, with this note about usage:
It’s … strange that the alleged offensiveness of the term came to M-W’s attention only recently if it’s “widely considered” to be taboo.Usage of Preference
The term preference as used to refer to sexual orientation is widely considered offensive in its implied suggestion that a person can choose who they are sexually or romantically attracted to.
As for when, precisely, the definition was altered, presumably only the editors know. But there is this:
Looks like the page was updated on the very same day that Mazie Hirono went after Barrett for using the term “sexual preference” at her confirmation hearing. Fancy that.
The thing is there is no such thing as a memory hole (yet) when it comes to the internet, things are always archived, by multiple parties, so one can see if things were changed, and usually when they were changed.
Someone needs to tell Merriam-Webster that 1984 wasn't a how to manual.