Merriam-Webster dictionary has become a political activist

It's quite telling, and actually scary, how deep the political indoctrination and activism has become when one of the oldest and most reputable dictionaries in the world, Merriam-Webster, established in 1828, starts printing outright and direct lies for the purposes of political activism and social engineering.

In the definition of the word "preference" said dictionary now says:

The term preference as used to refer to sexual orientation is widely considered offensive in its implied suggestion that a person can choose who they are sexually or romantically attracted to.

This was added like a few days ago, and it's a direct and complete lie.

Nobody, and I mean literally nobody, not even the most radical social justice ideologues and activists, considered the expression "sexual preference" as offensive. In fact, people have pointed out numerous examples of that very expression being used by far-left people, activists, politicians and press, just a few weeks ago, without even the hint that the expression is somehow "offensive" or inappropriate, or in any way questionable.

The far-left intelligencia decided a week or two ago that the term is now offensive, as one of the weakest and most ridiculous attacks against Amy Coney Barrett, who is a woman with a long and successful career in the United States justice system, and who was nominated by Trump to fill the vacancy in the Supreme Court. And that's, of course, the problem: Because she was nominated by Trump, the left must do everything they can in order to stop her. They don't care that she's a woman, they don't care what she believes, they don't care what opinions she has. She was nominated by Trump, therefore she must be stopped.

So in some recent speech of hers she used that term, "sexual preference", when talking about how people should be treated equally regardless of their characteristics (such as sexual preference). So what must be the weakest attack in history the far left academics decided that now that expression is "offensive" (even though nobody, literally nobody, not even those academics themselves, thought that the previous day).

Now the Social Justice Gospel has a new rule, and now all leftists must learn this new rule, lest they be considered impure and cast aside. Many people joke about "what's politically incorrect this particular week". Well, this is a literal actual example. Literally the previous day the term was not considered offensive by anybody. Now it "officially" is.

So officially, in fact, that Merriam-Webster hurried to denote that meaning as "offensive", and write a complete lie as a justification.

Sometimes it takes literally decades for a new far-leftist notion to catch and become widespread. In other cases, however, apparently it takes one single day. What was not considered offensive by literally anybody, is now suddenly officially offensive. Because they say it is. No other argument needed.

But it's really scary how deep the infiltration is. It's precisely these things that show it quite clearly. The people at Merriam-Webster, one of the oldest and most reputable (and neutral) companies in the world, have been infiltrated and indoctrinated, and have become yet another political activist for social engineering.

It's scary to think that if Merriam-Webster has been so deeply infiltrated, what other companies you don't even know have likewise. Companies that might have an immense amount of power in society.