in Pics
Wikipedia changes the definition of “definition”
predatorpatrol
47 Votes
Enter your account data and we will send you a link to reset your password.
To use social login you have to agree with the storage and handling of your data by this website. Privacy Policy
AcceptHere you'll find all collections you've created before.
😄
That’s why my dictionary is from 2000.
I need an older one and some encyclopedias before the shut down.
jaw dropping
Wow. Logic at its finest.
When you can’t even define “definition” you are deep into Doublespeak.
So change definitions of woman to include men, then eliminate the word woman because the root is womb man and males can’t have real wombs. Make men definition include women.. Confuse children and make it trendy to castrate themselves and chop off breasts causing them more suicidal events and less humans and breeding… Allow people to change birth certificate gender so people will marry the same gender unknowingly then cannot breed or will end up having relationship breakdown etc.. Now a days, to date someone you’ll have to give them a blood test or take a hair sample, because body trannys are everywhere and anyone can Photoshop etc….
Fortunately, they never pass in real life, in the harsh light of day. Even if you see a FTM. I saw one at the gas station and clocked her right away. All of 5’4, greasy, patchy beard, tiny feet and hands, frog voice. A blood sample would certainly not be necessary.
Only the ones in high places (celebrities and politicians, etc) can even come close to “passing”, and that is with extensive help from plastic surgeons and the media retconning their real backstories for years or even decades. Even then, once you know, you know.
A “fluid statement… evolving to meet the needs of society”. Like the definition of “woman”?
History continuing to be altered before our eyes.
this is false. i literally just looked it up. it displays the true meaning of definition.
I looked it up and see something different also
Interesting, maybe too many people complained. Wikipedia is owned by Israel now. They are doing their agenda but can’t go ape s**t crazy in too short of time so maybe they had to switch back. I’ve found a lot of false articles and seen a lot of biased crap there.
Some things like this seem to be convincing hoaxes. Joke? Creating outrage? Or testing the waters…? Sowing confusion? Who knows?
Someone posted a supposed snapshot of a Federal website showing a disturbing posting awhile back – I checked the website and that statement was not there.
Both sides and everyone in between are being played for outrage.
It’s hard to know when it comes to Wikipedia. Articles are edited with such frequency that it can be difficult to verify whether something was indeed changed and changed back.
Terrible