I make those comments not as an attack, but in the hope that they make an impression on a soul or two. Looks like you're the lucky winner.
In Politics and the English Language, George Orwell explains how imprecise language makes critical thought impossible. Granted that incorrect usage of "data" has little potential for thought manipulation. The word data is generally interchangeable with the word information, because they are both composed of individual datum (i.e., a known fact).
Your Merriam-Webster quote reads like it was pulled from a fairly recent edition. My 1993 Webster's has: "data pl of DATUM". That's it. Definitions in newer, and on-line dictionaries are laced with subtle propaganda. I use the word "gender" as a test. If the book equates it to sex, I throw it out. Church sales are a good place to find older versions.
One can argue that the definition has been modified to reflect popular usage. But has it? Or is the reverse closer to the truth? Namely, that the definition was changed in order to nudge people towards accepting that "sex" is like "gender," that is to say, completely arbitrary. It is very useful for those who want to destroy the traditional family to have folks think that way. More obvious examples are the WHO changing the definitions of "vaccine" and "pandemic." Words matter.
Another one that gets me is, "could care less," which, if you think about it, is the reverse of what's meant to be implied. So then, if you could care less, then why don't you?
I make those comments not as an attack, but in the hope that they make an impression on a soul or two. Looks like you're the lucky winner.
In Politics and the English Language, George Orwell explains how imprecise language makes critical thought impossible. Granted that incorrect usage of "data" has little potential for thought manipulation. The word data is generally interchangeable with the word information, because they are both composed of individual datum (i.e., a known fact).
Your Merriam-Webster quote reads like it was pulled from a fairly recent edition. My 1993 Webster's has: "data pl of DATUM". That's it. Definitions in newer, and on-line dictionaries are laced with subtle propaganda. I use the word "gender" as a test. If the book equates it to sex, I throw it out. Church sales are a good place to find older versions.
One can argue that the definition has been modified to reflect popular usage. But has it? Or is the reverse closer to the truth? Namely, that the definition was changed in order to nudge people towards accepting that "sex" is like "gender," that is to say, completely arbitrary. It is very useful for those who want to destroy the traditional family to have folks think that way. More obvious examples are the WHO changing the definitions of "vaccine" and "pandemic." Words matter.
Another one that gets me is, "could care less," which, if you think about it, is the reverse of what's meant to be implied. So then, if you could care less, then why don't you?