/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.16579964]

Is Merriam-Webster correct to retcon words definitions whenever it suits their interests like this, or should there be more oversight?

[Anonymous No.16579979]

>>16579964
We already had this thread, no more pls

Also use Oxford or nothing at all when it comes to English

[Anonymous No.16579985]

>>16579964
>retcon
maybe you should look up what that means anon
also
>using merriam webster
behave

[Anonymous No.16579994]

>>16579985
a piece of new information that imposes a different interpretation on previously described events

Sounds like I used it correctly unless they decide to change the definition on me.

[Anonymous No.16580034]

>>16579994
if that's the case then any change to any definition could be described as a "retcon"
i guess it depends on whether you think a dictionary should prescribe or describe but language changes all the time. the only reason you know about this change is because it relates to a political event that fox news disagrees with.

[Anonymous No.16580055]

>>16579994
You're not using it correctly. You don't seem to understand what has actually happened and you're fighting against a strawman which you have created yourself.

Why didn't you just use picrel *tink tink tink* excuse me announcement.....

SEXUAL PREFERENCE

[Anonymous No.16580067]

>>16580034
>>16580055
Are these the mid-wits I’ve heard so much about?

[Anonymous No.16580090]

Merriam-Webster or not, saying "sexual preference" has been considered bad manners ever since faggotry stopped being considered an ilness (quite correctly).

[Anonymous No.16580096]

>>16580034
>the only reason you know about this change was because of a political event
Correct. The only reason it was changed was because of said political event. How else was I supposed to know, memorize the entire dictionary you daft cunt?
>>16580067
No. These would be smug retards.

[Anonymous No.16580104]

>>16580090
So you can choose from an infinite number of genders but your sexual preference is decided from birth? Double-think has gotten way out of hand these days.

[Anonymous No.16580108]

>>16580067
>>16580096
midwit or smug retard I'm very much against this feigned outrage bullshit.

[Anonymous No.16580116]

>>16580104
That's not what double-think is. I'm getting angry now.

[Anonymous No.16580124]

>>16580116
Well yeah it is, retard.

[Anonymous No.16580131]

>>16580096
>he hasn't memorised the dictionary
you're not gonna make it anon

[Anonymous No.16580133]

>>16580116
>the acceptance of or mental capacity to accept contrary opinions or beliefs at the same time, especially as a result of political indoctrination.

Literally the verbatim definition.

[Anonymous No.16580139]

>>16580124
jeez anon stop throwing your toys out of your pram just because someone disagrees with you

[Anonymous No.16580151]

>>16580139
>disagreeing with reality
That would be called being retarded, so I’m calling you retarded.

[Anonymous No.16580260]

>>16580090
Waving sodomy in everyone’s faces is bad manners

[Anonymous No.16580272]

>>16579964
language is under attack.

[Anonymous No.16580277]

>>16579964
I thank Dieu everyday I was born French and that we have l'Académie

[Anonymous No.16580492]

>>16580133
That's the definition but that's not what happened here:
>you can choose from an infinite number of genders but your sexual preference is decided from birth
So, shut the fuck up.

[Anonymous No.16580614]

>>16579964
all the major english dictionaries are owned and controlled by jews.

[Anonymous No.16580651]

>>16580277
i too need an unelected committee to tell me how to speak

[Anonymous No.16580659]

>>16580090
Not really. People have preferences when it comes to engaging in sex; there is nothing abhorrent in admitting as such.

Maybe she was erroneous in speaking off-the-cuff and it being misunderstood as her saying what you're attracted to is a "preference", i.e. one prefers to be gay.

Also, "orientation" has its own negative background historically, but nary a tear shed. Manufacturing consent at break-neck speed.

[Anonymous No.16580670]

>you are born a faggot but you learn to be racist
convenient

[Anonymous No.16580679]

>>16580090
What's the difference?

[Anonymous No.16580691]

>>16579964
I don't get it, according to their own definition of preference it could still be innate from birth. Then again, the English language has been largely defined via media so this sort of stuff is inevitable.

[Anonymous No.16580717]

>>16579964
Who decided to do this? Was it one person or a committee?

[Anonymous No.16580768]

>>16580717
(((Committee)))

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !!oI3er5KKetj No.16580780]

>>16579964
Not inherently. Capitalism is.

[Anonymous No.16580785]

>the rules literally change on the fly to vilify anyone who disagrees with the party

Seriously we can’t let these people take control of our nation.

[Anonymous No.16580835]

>>16579964
lmao. As someone who actually has a degree in semiotics and philosophy of language it's hilarious seeing all of these MAGA rubes and e-boy trad larper dilettantes fail to comprehend the basic functionality of language.

Yes, what Merriam-Webster did is perfectly acceptable. If any of you actually had a high level education and interacted with academia in any meaningful way you'd already know this.

[Anonymous No.16580869]

>>16579964
>more oversight
Fucking stupid, you had a good bait thread topic and ruined it.

[Anonymous No.16580944]

>>16579964
Anyone know what happened to the original thread/have an archive link? I can't fucking find it and parts of it were really good. I'm begging you.

[Anonymous No.16580966]

>>16580835
such a relief to hear this. thank you.

[Anonymous No.16580969]

>>16580835
>75 words of pseudo-intellectual drivel and nothing even resembling an argument

[Anonymous No.16580995]

Democrats and liberals are scary with this kind of shit man, republicans its pretty much on the tin what youre gonna get. Honestly dont see this site existing next dem president desu. Unless CIAniggers really convince them to leave it

[Anonymous No.16580997]

>>16580651
l'Académie française preserves the written language from corruption, especially from political reasons, retard
Some idiots tried to pull latinx shit with the French tongue and l'Académie stomped that bullshit out immediately.

[Anonymous No.16581000]

>>16580835
Spoken like a typical undergraduate high on Barthesian fumes who is capable of consuming and regurgitating reigning dogma but incapable of actual critical thought.

[Anonymous No.16581001]

>>16580995
>republicans its pretty much on the tin what youre gonna get
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA

[Anonymous No.16581009]

>>16580835
>actually has a degree in semiotics and philosophy of language
Lol okay bro
You’re also completely missing the point

[Anonymous No.16581013]

>>16580995
Yeh this site is pretty much the single hotbed for anonymous culture and wrong think but most importantly for educating normalfags with minimum censorship

[Anonymous No.16581016]

>>16580835
you will die lined up against a wall with 20 other faggots

[Anonymous No.16581045]

>>16580835
The functionality of language is not to change on an hourly basis to serve a political agenda wtf are you even talking about.
Anyone who thinks, “gee I didn’t know that was an offensive term” is gonna be told that they are out of touch, even though they’re not, because the dictionary can’t even wait 24 hours before jumping to do what the DNC tells them to do to own drumpf
There’s no way that any random poll done yesterday would have told you sexual preference was an offensive term to more than 10% of Americans, tops

[Anonymous No.16581058]

>>16581013
We won’t need a website, we’ll be able talk irl in the reeducation camps

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !!oI3er5KKetj No.16581067]

>>16581016
>Because we don’t understand how language works

Why don’t you go stand up against that wall

[Anonymous No.16581074]

Whats the proof youre born gay. Literally one shred of it

[Anonymous No.16581090]

>>16580835
I'm a nuclear physicist and I can tell from the atoms in your post that you are a fudgepacker.

[Anonymous No.16581095]

>>16580997
Based Frogs

[Anonymous No.16581107]

>>16580131
>HE mesmerized Merriam-Webster of all dictionaries.

[Anonymous No.16581132]

>>16580835
>>16579964
Isnt this kinda like makings something retroactive offensive though? and not through organic means, but really ex post facto sleezy?

[Anonymous No.16581150]

>>16581132
Not him but English is a living language and dictionaries are routinely updated to reflect current usage and meanings. That's all there is to it and if the dictionary reckons that the term is offensive then they are doing their job by noting it.

[Anonymous No.16581153]

>>16581150
The (very obvious) point was that it was done right after some politician said something, specifically to lend more authority to the notion that what she said was offensive. It's not merely about updating to reflect current usage.

[Anonymous No.16581165]

>>16581150
Not really since there’s no precedent of them doing it on 24 hours notice and it’s highly debatable that it’s commonly seen by English speakers to be offensive. It’s literally just based on something a politician said on C-SPAN

[Anonymous No.16581166]

>>16580835
>As someone who actually has a degree in semiotics and philosophy of language

[Anonymous No.16581184]

>>16581150
yah kinda >>16581153 was what i meant. If it was done right after a politician used a word it really indicates its ex post facto rather than reflecting its current usage.

[Anonymous No.16581188]

>>16581153
>>16581165
Is the dictionary wrong?

[Anonymous No.16581192]

>>16580835
This must be bait right? You know you sound like
>To Be Fair, You Have To Have a Very High IQ to Understand ...

[Anonymous No.16581198]

>>16581188
Sometimes, it's hardly infallible, it's just some people's attempt to track how words are used.

[Anonymous No.16581199]

>>16581184
I'm not arguing that it isn't possibly political.

[Anonymous No.16581208]

>>16581198
Specifically with the topic of this thread, anon. Is it correctly labelled as offensive, or incorrectly.

*slaps you upside your head*

[Anonymous No.16581211]

>>16580090
Is that the opinion you had a week ago?

[Anonymous No.16581232]

>>16581188
Not really, it reflects this particular dictionary’s step away from a traditional scholarly, considered methodology to something more in line with UrbanDictionary.com

[Anonymous No.16581248]

>>16581208
It's ambiguous, apparently some people feel it's offensive, but they may feel this way simply because someone they don't like said it, which colours their perception. If after this it become more commonly thought to be offensive then they could alter the definition, it's the fact they did it just right after that makes it kind of amusing, like they're trying to retcon it.

[Anonymous No.16581255]

>>16581208
That would turn on the whether a sufficient amount of the population considers it offensive or whether it’s still part of popular vernacular as a polite way of saying “heterosexual, homosexual or bisexual”.
That’s usually research that’s done before editing the entry in the dictionary.
For instance, Joe Biden and his speechwriters didn’t consider it offensive when he said it 4 months ago

[Anonymous No.16581258]

>>16580492
That's exactly what happened... maybe you should learn how to read before getting on the internet

[Anonymous No.16581260]

>>16581199
And it is possible that its not political. but situationally it seems likely that it is. Not to mention every source where I heard the frase "sexual prefrence" has it as a neutral statement of sexual relation. I I get autistic I could maybe see that "preference" might imply choice which may rub against those that think its innate, but even then thats not its explicit meaning as I can prefer mint over cilantro and that is not necessarily a conscious chose either.

I guess a fear is that it becomes retroactively offensive when it never was as a general rule.

[Anonymous No.16581270]

>>16580090
Has it? I'm fairly imbedded in a leftist social environment with trannies and all flavors of sex-havers and preference seems like an okay word to run past them.

[Anonymous No.16581287]

>On Tuesday, Sen. Mazie Hirono slammed Barrett for saying she would not discriminate on the basis of “sexual preference.”
>"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," the Hawaii Democrat said.
These are our elected officials...........

[Anonymous No.16581421]

>>16581232
>Not really
It either is accurate or it is not, it's a dictionary.
>>16581248
It's not a retcon regardless.
>>16581255
Perhaps they had it on the list of updates and it's coincidence that it got fixed this week.
>>16581260
For what it's worth I don't think there's anything wrong with calling a preference a preference, the actual kink of the person is not by choice it's like whatever your favourite ice cream flavour is or whatever but if it's offensive then the dictionary isn't wrong. The preference is not by choice, the act is by choice. That's my understanding of it anyway.

[Anonymous No.16581431]

>>16581421
It is obviously a retcon though, if it weren't then the definition would already have been changed before the politician ever said it.

[Anonymous No.16581440]

>>16581421
>It either is accurate or it is not, it's a dictionary.
You're not a very nuanced thinker are you

[Anonymous No.16581843]

>>16579979
What about Cambridge's ?

[Anonymous No.16581952]

>>16581287
>tfw know someone who chose to be a lesbian and had to stick with it until she learned to like it

[Anonymous No.16581974]

>>16580997
and yet here we are speaking english
enjoy le weekend, anon.

[Anonymous No.16581980]

>>16581843
cambridge is a distant second
OED is the gold standard

[Anonymous No.16581983]

>>16581974
I bet you think Esperanto is a dumb language, fairy.

[Anonymous No.16581986]

I was under the impression that in 2020 the term sexual preference was preferable over sexual orientation since its more trans inclusive.

[Anonymous No.16582052]

>>16580997
Basé. Keeping French pure just like Ciceronian Latin.

[Anonymous No.16582093]

Better to save what you can lads, define, books, historical articles, etc., soon everything will be banned because it is offensive.

[Anonymous No.16582244]

>>16581270
It won't be in a week, and in two weeks it will have always been that way.
Screenshot this post anon.

[Anonymous No.16582318]

>>16580277
>tfw German speaker
>tfw Duden is the de facto Académie
>tfw Duden is pushing the gender star (i.e. for gendered words, like host/hostess, you now have somsthing like host*ess to leave space for other potential genders)

[Anonymous No.16582346]

>>16579985
>maybe you should look up what that means anon
brainlet

[Anonymous No.16582357]

Literally have never heard of people saying sexual preference is offensive
That's how gays used to describe themselves just a few years ago
Fucking retarded, Trump has made the left lose their minds, they want more than anything to be offended and play the victim

[Anonymous No.16582359]

>>16580090
> has been considered bad manners ever since faggotry stopped being considered an ilness
Sounds like your liberal faggot friends didn't get the memo either. Also preferences are not conscious to begin with, you low iq subhumans

[Anonymous No.16582363]

>>16581986
>impression
Holy shit, you fucking bigot.
Impression implies you have an opinion or feeling about someone or something without knowing for sure. Gee, I don't know, like that because you see someone with boobs that your impression is that they're a girl? Even though they might not identify that way?
This is why I voted Hillary in 2016, to try and stop this bigotry

[Anonymous No.16582367]

>>16581421
>Perhaps they had it on the list of updates and it's coincidence that it got fixed this week.
Delusional

[Anonymous No.16582372]

>>16581986
They're both bad. You shouldn't talk about someone else's sexual ******** at all

[Anonymous No.16582387]

Kek not even Newspeak Official can keep up with the Newspeak

[Anonymous No.16582422]

https://www.nationalreview.com/news/twitter-cites-hacked-materials-policy-to-justify-censorship-of-ny-post-hunter-biden-article/
what the fuck is happening

[Anonymous No.16582425]

>>16582422
Big tech has to increase censorship and surveillance in order to keep up with China

[Anonymous No.16582481]

>>16582422
Why is new york post posting anti-biden stuff?

[Anonymous No.16582508]

>>16580090
What the fuck, i've never even heard of someone being upset about this.

[Anonymous No.16582520]

Each day I thank the heavens for not being born in America or England. There you have "news" and events like these, whereas in my shithole of a country it's "this popstar is pregnant - will the baby be plastic or real?"
I don't think that the apes inventing language 7k years ago cared this much about specific words.

[Anonymous No.16583190]

>>16579964
How in God's good name is ''sexual preference'' offensive? What ISN'T offensive at this point?

[Anonymous No.16583722]

>>16581421
>Perhaps they had it on the list of updates and it's coincidence that it got fixed this week.
This guy is trolling but remember, /lit/, that there are literally millions of people in the USA and Europe who unironically think this way. They are entirely credulous to the powers that be and due to their lifetime of being sheltered and propagandized they will prefer to react violently to an opposing idea rather than critically consider it. This is the price of democracy.

[Anonymous No.16583753]

>>16579985
It's the default dictionary when defining things with Google, shrugging it off isn't going to stop the problem this represents from spreading and getting far worse.

[Anonymous No.16583929]

>>16582481
It's owned by Rupert Murdoch.

[Anonymous No.16583940]

>>16582481
Sells papers, gets clicks.

[Anonymous No.16583964]

>>16582422
The establishment writhes in pain in preparation for another loss to Trump

[Anonymous No.16583983]

>>16582359
>>16582357
>>16582387

[Anonymous No.16584140]

>>16580116
Anger is a common response to having your cognitive dissonance pointed out

[Anonymous No.16584245]

>>16579964
American Heritage > Webster's

[Anonymous No.16584662]

>>16581287
>to suggest that sexual orientation is a choice -- it is not
but how is it not? obviously for some people it may get decided in their genes or something but now nobody can't just decide who they like and who they want to have sex with? i'm seriously confused, i thought this was what sjw always defended

[Anonymous No.16584710]

>>16580997
I can appreciate the utility of what l'Académie provides for la langue française, but are there safeguards from a group of radicals from subsuming the organization? I worry that it's only a matter of time until this happens.

[Anonymous No.16584739]

>>16581287
b-but sexuality is a social construct!
b-but gender is a social construct!
b-but inferior black IQ is a social construct!

[Anonymous No.16584776]

Words change you chudcels

[Anonymous No.16585042]

>>16584739
You're engaging in a form of whitethink that leads to colonialism, the Holocaust and other genocides.

[Anonymous No.16585048]

Keep clutching at those pearls

[Anonymous No.16585077]

If you use a dictionary other than Webster 1828 you are probably a Jew or a Jesuit, maybe both.

[Anonymous No.16585093]

>>16585042
>whitethink
Go outside

[Anonymous No.16585392]

>>16580997
Based as fuck

[Anonymous No.16585467]

>>16584140
That's why sexual preference as a term is offensive, it makes people angery