Webster Changes ‘Preference’ Meaning After Dems Attack ACB’s Use of ‘Sexual Preference’
“Webster’s dictionary has revealed itself to be a propaganda machine,” noted one astute Twitter user.
|
Listen to this article
|
To say Hawaii Sen. Mazie Hirono’s “questioning” of Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett during day two of the confirmation hearings left a lot to be desired would be quite the understatement.
Not only did Hirono bizarrely ask Judge Barrett if she had ever sexually assaulted anyone, but the Senator – a Georgetown Law School graduate – appeared to have problems understanding what “the law” actually means and what the role of a legislator is versus the role of a judge.
In addition to that, Hirono played predictable “gotcha” games with Barrett, criticizing her use of the term “sexual preference” from earlier in the hearing in response to a question from Sen. Dianne Feinstein about gay rights:
“Sexual preference is an offensive and outdated term, it is used by anti-LGBTQ activists to suggest that sexual orientation is a choice — it is not,” Hirono said.
The Hawaii Democrat said she was “disappointed” that the circuit court judge declined to weigh in on whether she agreed with the majority in Obergefell v. Hodges, the Supreme Court case that granted same-sex couples the right to marry.
“So even though you didn’t give a direct answer I think your response did speak volumes,” Hirono said. “Not once but twice you used the term ‘sexual preference’ to describe those in the LGBTQ community.”
Watch:
WATCH: Democrat Senator Mazie Hirono attacks Amy Coney Barrett for using the term "sexual preference" pic.twitter.com/o3qh3VTx2g
— The Post Millennial (@TPostMillennial) October 13, 2020
Though Hirono’s remarks on this issue got the most attention Tuesday, Judge Barrett was also criticized over it by New Jersey Sen. Cory Booker as well media figures and left-wing LGBTQ groups, including MSNBC senior producer Kyle Griffin and Lambda Legal:
"Sexual preference," a term used by Justice Barrett, is offensive and outdated. The term implies sexuality is a choice. It is not. News organizations should not repeat Justice Barrett's words without providing that important context.
— Kyle Griffin (@kylegriffin1) October 13, 2020
IMPORTANT:
Barrett used “sexual preference” (not “sexual orientation”) when discussing her views on marriage equality.
This is a dogwhistle. The term “sexual preference” is used by opponents of equality to suggest that being #LGBTQ is a choice.#BlockBarrett #SCOTUSHearing pic.twitter.com/kkftq9l2l5
— Lambda Legal (@LambdaLegal) October 13, 2020
Right on cue, Merriam-Webster dictionary ripped a page right out of the Associated Press’s stylebook, conveniently changing the definition of the word “preference” on the very day Democrats and the media made Amy Coney Barrett’s use of it an “issue”:
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
Twitter users responded accordingly, with some noting the Orwellian nature of Webster’s actions:
The story of this "controversy" went from hypocritical to Orwellian last night: https://t.co/cYUqN51yzl
— John McCormack (@McCormackJohn) October 14, 2020
https://twitter.com/seanmdav/status/1316224087249780741
Remember way back in today when ‘sexual preference’ became an offensive term and the left started rewriting dictionaries and disappearing the term from their own histories?
Yeah, nothing Stalinesque about any of that…
— Jeremy Boreing (@JeremyDBoreing) October 14, 2020
Websters dictionary has revealed itself to be a propaganda machine.
Webster’s Dictionary changes definition of 'preference' to match Democrats' attack on Amy Coney Barrett
me for @TPostMillennial https://t.co/Uq0GJMxoPd
— libby emmons (@libbyemmons) October 14, 2020
So, Webster is no longer a trusted source.
— Pogoka (@RealPogoka) October 14, 2020
Others pointed out the hypocrisy of it all, including the fact that not only have Democrats like Joe Biden and the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg used the term, but that “sexual preference” was apparently okay to use even in the LBGTQ community as recently as two weeks ago:
Must watch @DavidRutz supercut. Stick around for the end… https://t.co/Me292fb7WU
— Brent Scher (@BrentScher) October 14, 2020
In case anyone believes any of the outrage today was in good faith. pic.twitter.com/Y8t2snavzZ
— AG (@AGHamilton29) October 14, 2020
In a perfect world, these people would not be taken seriously. But we’re not in a perfect world and many of the people making such a ridiculous, two-faced fuss about “sexual preference” and who are revising history on the matter are in positions of power – whether as a member of the House or Senate, an influential media figure, or a respected worldwide source for words and what they mean.
Let this serve as a reminder that, win or lose in November, conservatives must continue to fight against radical left-wing propagandists for the soul of this country with every breath. Because losing that battle is not an option.
— Stacey Matthews has also written under the pseudonym “Sister Toldjah” and can be reached via Twitter. —
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Ron Coleman
Comments
The one that grates worst on me is not actually Hirono but ‘Spartacus’ Booker.
Well, never used Webster online dictionary. Always used dictionary.com. Guess I’ll stay with that as they don’t seem to edit their definitions to comply with the latest political and social fads.
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/preference?s=t
Here is the problem with the sexual preference and sexual orientation. Both can be voluntary and are not mutually exclusive. When used to address a person’s preference for the sexual characteristics of a potential partner. Self identified homosexuals also engage in heterosexual engagements. Heterosexuals do the same. Though the person may “prefer” sexual relations with a specific physical gender, the human animal is not restricted to sexual relations with a single sexual gender.
A couple of decades ago, a movement was born to cast homosexuals as being the helpless prisoners of biological drives. This was done to increase sympathy for members of that community. Now, while a “preference” for sexual relations with a specific sexual gender is most likely part of the instinctive make-up of certain, specific human beings, humans, unlike lower animals, are not inexorably bound to it through instinct. There have been whole societies, Ancient Sparta comes to mind, where large segments of the population engaged in both homo and hetero sexual practices. Is a gay man incapable of having sexual relations with a female? No. Is a lesbian incapable of having sexual relations with a male? No. Do such sexual incidents occur? Yes, on a large scale. Then we have the people sho suddenly “discover” that they are homosexually oriented, in their later life as well as those who engage in homosexual”experimentation” in their younger years and then “decide” that they are heterosexual. So, how much is preference and how much is an overwhelming, biological orientation?
The slippery slope in all this redefining the term sexual preference is to open the door to legitimizing virtually any sexual practice which the mind of man can conceive of. Pedophilia, pederasty, zoophilia and a host of other sexual practices become non-preferential and therefor can be claimed to be legitimate expressions of human sexuality.
Webster needs to change its name to “The Newspeak Dictionary”
Genotype, phenotype, indoctrination, corruption, and/or preference? Normalization, tolerance, or rejection? The Progressives and Liberals have an ideological bent to play with straw clowns in bid to avoid the hard problems (e.g. their infamous wicked solution)
Leave a Comment