“Webster’s dictionary has revealed itself to be a propaganda machine,” noted one astute Twitter user.
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“Sexual preference is an offensive and outdated term, it is used by anti-LGBTQ activists to suggest that sexual orientation is a choice — it is not,” Hirono said.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: 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"Sexual preference," a term used by Justice Barrett, is offensive and outdated.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
Barrett used “sexual preference” (not “sexual orientation”) when discussing her views on marriage equality.
— 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.
— 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
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
— 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:
— 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.