in

Wikipedia changes the definition of “definition”

What do you think?

46 Points
Upvote Downvote
Subscribe
Notify of
guest

15 Comments
Most Voted
Newest Oldest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Fleurdamour
Fleurdamour
19 days ago

When you can’t even define “definition” you are deep into Doublespeak.

frenchtoast2000
frenchtoast2000
19 days ago

That’s why my dictionary is from 2000.

piscesmarie
piscesmarie
18 days ago

I need an older one and some encyclopedias before the shut down.

Lee
Lee
18 days ago

A “fluid statement… evolving to meet the needs of society”. Like the definition of “woman”?
History continuing to be altered before our eyes.

piscesmarie
piscesmarie
18 days ago

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….

Lee
Lee
18 days ago
Reply to  piscesmarie

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.

Last edited 18 days ago by lee
thekwon
thekwon
19 days ago

jaw dropping

Iliketrees
Iliketrees
19 days ago

Wow. Logic at its finest.

ripcurrent
ripcurrent
19 days ago

😄

hybridcreature
hybridcreature
18 days ago

this is false. i literally just looked it up. it displays the true meaning of definition.

thekwon
thekwon
18 days ago
Reply to  hybridcreature

I looked it up and see something different also

piscesmarie
piscesmarie
18 days ago
Reply to  thekwon

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.

lgageharleya
lgageharleya
18 days ago
Reply to  hybridcreature

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.

Lee
Lee
17 days ago
Reply to  lgageharleya

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.

Michael Voulgaropoulos
Michael Voulgaropoulos
10 days ago

Terrible