politics

want to join? login or register in seconds

Submission Info

Posted by: shadow332

Posting time: 52 minutes ago on 10/23/2018 7:12:10 AM

Last edit time: never edited.

Traffic stats

Score

SCP: 10

10 upvotes, 0 downvotes (100% upvoted it)

Share a link

Discuss

politics

46166 subscribers :

~95 user(s) here now :

Pre-Election Day 2018 Discussion Post

This is a subverse designed to encourage adult discussion spanning the entirety of the political spectrum. All are welcome, from Libertarians to Authoritarians, Democrats to Republicans, An Caps to Anarchists, Socialists to Fascists to Communists, Green, Blue, Black, White, Purple with Yellow Polka dots, whatever color, persuasion, or affiliation, this is a place for you to post your thoughts, articles, and engage in discussion meant to foster understanding.

Politics is best when we try to avoid personal attacks, limits on discussion, censorship, trolling, shilling, racism, homophobia, antisemitism, or any other forms of bigotry and malfeasance.

Politics 2017 Christmas Theme sticky

Nov 2016 sticky on new CSS

This subverse belongs to the community of users. Users are invited to post meta-threads about v/politics and I will gladly sticky them. @flyawayhigh

Use the "Report Spam" link to report spam and someone will review the report. J-mods have the ability to remove duplicate noncommercial spam.

v/politics is for all politics.

v/uspolitics is for US politics only.

v/worldpolitics is for international or non-US politics.

v/politicalnews is dedicated to virtually censor-free politics and news

v/news is for news around the world.

v/usnews is for domestic news only.

created by exisredditus a community for 4.3 years

NSFW: No
Authorized: No
Anon: No
Private: No
Type: Default Min CCP to downvote in this sub:0

message the moderators

MODERATORS

Subverse Rules

All Rules

Spam (Voat)

Content violates spam guidelines
Illegal (Voat)

Content contains or links to content that is illegal
Dox (Voat)

Content contains personal information that relates to a Voat users real world or online identity

ABOUT

Hi, it looks like you're new. Welcome to Voat!

Voat is a censorship-free community platform where content is submitted, organized, moderated and voted on (ranked) by the users.

Users can earn a percentage of our ad-revenue share for the content they submit.

Take a tour

Brazilian Jew owns (((Encyclopedia Britannica))) and (((Merriam Webster))). This rabbit hole goes deeper than Wikipedia. (politics)

submitted 52 minutes ago by shadow332

Wikipedia entries for Merriam WebsterPNG anbd for Encyclopedia BritannicaPNG. Entry on Jacqui Safra himselfPNG.

How leftists destroy language by changing definitionsPNG.

I was checking an old dictionary I had from 1966 and while the primary definition is fine (love for one's nation), it did have a secondary definition drawing a parallel with "isolationism" or "jingoism" even though the latter implies military aggression.

His company altered the definition of nationalism in 2017. No evidence of this existing from 2016 or earlier.

the definition of nationalism also includes “exalting one nation above all others and placing primary emphasis on promotion of its culture and interests as opposed to those of other nations or supranational groups.” This exclusionary aspect is not shared by patriotism.

nationalism is now perhaps most frequently associated with white nationalism, and has considerably negative connotations

This is part of a left-wing influence campaign reflected in the speech by Elizabeth McCord in the recent "Madam Secretary" season 5 premiere featuring Hillary Clinton:

Nationalism, the belief system held by those who attacked us, promotes the idea that inclusion and diversity represent weakness, that the only way to succeed is to give blind allegiance to the supremacy of one race over all others. Nothing could be less American. Patriotism, on the other hand, is about building each other up and embracing our diversity as the source of our nation’s strength.

If we look prior to Trump's election, nationalism and patriotism were used synonymously. The (((left))) has introduced a false dichotomy, trying to play on the love of "patriots" and probably trying to associate "nationalist" with similar-sounding "national socialist".

I happened to dig up one of the editors, a Peter Solokowski, who has a tendency to point out the "wrong usage" of words made by politicians, in particular by TrumpYouTube. He says "I'm not doing anything political, I'm just pointing out definitions". Of course, pointing out particular corrections has no pragmatic effect whatsoever, how impartial and innocent. Note the correction on what "feminism" is.

I find it interesting he makes zero effort to point out the mass amount of twisting of definitions by all the fucking insane reatrd "journalists" of the (((left))). You could write several volumes about that alone.

Safra's girlfriend, Jean Doumanian, is close friends with Woody Allen, and through the production company Sweetland Films, Safra has financed 8 of Allen's films and appeared in 3 of them: Sam in 1980's Stardust Memories, Diction Student in 1987's Radio Days, Shop Owner in 1991's The Ox. For the later films he took a step back but was listed as Executive Producer.

In sum, you can now write off your holy Merriam Webster and Encyclopedia Britannica off as leftist Newspeak garbage. It has been compomised and will lose all credibility as Wikipedia. I would like to see who the entire editorial staff is of these publications. Unfortunately they don't offer that information on their websites.

Think about the little more subtle things like swipe limits and supplying chosen words for users through word selection and autocomplete. This dependency reduces cognition, imagination, and communication.

Start reading laws and see the way actual thinking is constructed, if you can't read the rules you can't argue them.JPG

[Wikipedia entries for Merriam Webster](https://i.imgtc.com/3PPjliw.png) anbd for [Encyclopedia Britannica](https://i.imgtc.com/jwm85K2.png). Entry on [Jacqui Safra himself](https://i.imgtc.com/3Xyyr2N.png).

[How leftists destroy language by changing definitions](https://i.imgtc.com/k689E8w.png).

I was checking an old dictionary I had from 1966 and while the primary definition is fine (love for one's nation), it did have a secondary definition drawing a parallel with "isolationism" or "jingoism" even though the latter implies military aggression.

His company [altered the definition of *nationalism* in 2017.](https://web.archive.org/web/20170814194523/https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/patriotism-vs-nationalism) No evidence of this existing from 2016 or earlier.

>the definition of nationalism also includes “exalting one nation above all others and placing primary emphasis on promotion of its culture and interests as opposed to those of other nations or supranational groups.” This exclusionary aspect is not shared by patriotism.

>nationalism is now perhaps most frequently associated with white nationalism, and has considerably negative connotations

This is part of a left-wing influence campaign reflected in the speech by Elizabeth McCord in the recent "Madam Secretary" season 5 premiere featuring Hillary Clinton:

>Nationalism, the belief system held by those who attacked us, promotes the idea that inclusion and diversity represent weakness, that the only way to succeed is to give blind allegiance to the supremacy of one race over all others. Nothing could be less American. Patriotism, on the other hand, is about building each other up and embracing our diversity as the source of our nation’s strength.

If we look prior to Trump's election, *nationalism* and *patriotism* were used synonymously. The (((left))) has introduced a false dichotomy, trying to play on the love of "patriots" and probably trying to associate "nationalist" with similar-sounding "national socialist".

I happened to dig up one of the editors, a [Peter Solokowski](https://twitter.com/petersokolowski?lang=de), who has a tendency to point out the "wrong usage" of words made by politicians, [in particular by Trump](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rsvKKyVCP_A). He says "I'm not doing anything political, I'm just pointing out definitions". Of course, pointing out particular corrections has no pragmatic effect whatsoever, how impartial and innocent. Note the correction on what "feminism" is. 

I find it interesting he makes zero effort to point out the mass amount of twisting of definitions by all the fucking insane reatrd "journalists" of the (((left))). You could write several volumes about that alone.

Safra's girlfriend, Jean Doumanian, is close friends with Woody Allen, and through the production company Sweetland Films, Safra has financed 8 of Allen's films and appeared in 3 of them: Sam in 1980's Stardust Memories, Diction Student in 1987's Radio Days, Shop Owner in 1991's The Ox. For the later films he took a step back but was listed as Executive Producer.

In sum, you can now write off your holy Merriam Webster and Encyclopedia Britannica off as leftist Newspeak garbage. It has been compomised and will lose all credibility as Wikipedia. I would like to see who the entire editorial staff is of these publications. Unfortunately they don't offer that information on their websites.

Think about the little more subtle things like swipe limits and supplying chosen words for users through word selection and autocomplete. This dependency reduces cognition, imagination, and communication.

[Start reading laws and see the way actual thinking is constructed, if you can't read the rules you can't argue them.](https://i.imgtc.com/hZxb9xT.jpg)

8 comments

want to join the discussion? login or register in seconds.

sort by:

New Bottom Intensity Old

Sort: Top

[–] MaxVonOppenheim 0 points (+0|-0) 7 minutes ago

Good work. Safra family isn't "Brazilian" or "Swiss", that's just what they want you to think. They're extremely wealthy Middle Eastern Jews fucking up South America and other places, and the Safra family is related to the Rothschild, Sassoon, Gubbai, and Kadoorie families, the same families who fucked up China, Africa, and everywhere else and blamed it all on Europeans, and they're all related to the Oppenheim, Oppenheimer, Guggenheum, Warburg, Goldman, Sachs, and Seligman jews, and probably the rest too. It's just one big nasty family.

https://web.archive.org/web/20181023073442/https://www.geni.com/people/Chaia-Klara-Safra/6000000038853116840

http://archive.is/5BDKQ

http://archive.fo/en8In

http://archive.is/8XjEJ

Good work. Safra family isn't "Brazilian" or "Swiss", that's just what they want you to think. They're extremely wealthy Middle Eastern Jews fucking up South America and other places, and the Safra family is related to the Rothschild, Sassoon, Gubbai, and Kadoorie families, the same families who fucked up China, Africa, and everywhere else and blamed it all on Europeans, and they're all related to the Oppenheim, Oppenheimer, Guggenheum, Warburg, Goldman, Sachs, and Seligman jews, and probably the rest too. It's just one big nasty family.

https://web.archive.org/web/20181023073442/https://www.geni.com/people/Chaia-Klara-Safra/6000000038853116840

http://archive.is/5BDKQ

http://archive.fo/en8In

http://archive.is/8XjEJ

link

[–] shadow332 [S] 0 points (+0|-0) 2.2 minutes ago

Excellent work. I didn't even look that far. I should have known. Part of the (((global network))).

Excellent work. I didn't even look that far. I should have known. Part of the (((global network))).

link
parent

[–] derram 0 points (+0|-0) 44 minutes ago

https://archive.fo/TKGHq :

Peter Sokolowski (@PeterSokolowski) | Twitter

This has been an automated message.PNG

https://archive.fo/TKGHq : 

>Peter Sokolowski (@PeterSokolowski) | Twitter

 ---------- 

 [This has been an automated message.](https://vgy.me/POnQyG.png)

link

[–] usernameisnotthis 0 points (+0|-0) 45 minutes ago

good shit here and very well done!

good shit here and very well done!

link

[–] freespeechwarrior 0 points (+0|-0) 50 minutes ago

That became blatantly obvious when I saw the addendum to the word "gender" popping up in the dictionaries.

That became blatantly obvious when I saw the addendum to the word "gender" popping up in the dictionaries.

link

[–] shadow332 [S] 0 points (+0|-0) 37 minutes ago (edited 34 minutes ago)

What I find unsettling is this editor, Solokowski, in particular says "we are not changing the definitions or trying ot influence anything, we are just giving them" as if he is not a part of this circle of controlled propaganda. Granted a dictionary is a mere reflection or snapshot of an entire living language- Language is forever changing, words become obsolete, there are neologisms that catch on and take off, definitions change over time, etc. This is clear. However, many people deem a dictionary, just like a grammar book as a reference, because that's what it's supposed to be. So they believe the appropriate definitions and grammatical usage, i.e. the "standard" is those prescribed in these reference books. He's not saying the power the dictionary has.

If he changes the definitions to reflect that of the sentiment of the left, people will rely on the dictionary and say "this is the correct and proper definition" because it is in the dictionary, regardless if a non-standard usage may be just as popular among the native-speaking population. This in turn will give people, even if they are in the (((minority))), some kind of false veracity in their choice of language. This is the same thing Wikipedia does with its historical "facts".

Writing does not control our speech, it is the other way around as humans rely much more on the spoken word than the written. Most languages in the world don't even have a writing system. The problem is most people don't know this fact, and they think the written word has some superiority or more correctness then the spoken, this may be true in very strict contexts such as law, but in the case of definitions in common language usage, a dictionary holds only a fraction of what is floating around in the actual spoken living language.

He knows this as a lexicographer. It's glaringly obvious that he's playing innocent. He's pulling a 1984, hoping that there is some truth to linguistic determinism.

What I find unsettling is this editor, Solokowski, in particular says "we are not changing the definitions or trying ot influence anything, we are just giving them" as if he is not a part of this circle of controlled propaganda. Granted a dictionary is a mere reflection or snapshot of an entire living language- Language is forever changing, words become obsolete,  there are neologisms that catch on and take off, definitions change over time, etc. This is clear. However, many people deem a dictionary, just like a grammar book as a *reference*, because that's what it's supposed to be. So they believe the appropriate definitions and grammatical usage, i.e. the "standard" is those prescribed in these reference books. He's not saying the power the dictionary has.

If he changes the definitions to reflect that of the sentiment of the left, people will rely on the dictionary and say "this is the correct and proper definition" because it is in the dictionary, regardless if a non-standard usage may be just as popular among the native-speaking population. This in turn will give people, even if they are in the (((minority))), some kind of false veracity in their choice of language. This is the same thing Wikipedia does with its historical "facts". 

Writing does not control our speech, it is the other way around as humans rely much more on the spoken word than the written.  Most languages in the world don't even have a writing system. The problem is most people don't know this fact, and they think the written word has some superiority or more correctness then the spoken, this may be true in very strict contexts such as  law, but in the case of definitions in common language usage, a dictionary holds only a fraction of what is floating around in the actual spoken living language. 

He knows this as a lexicographer. It's glaringly obvious that he's playing innocent. He's pulling a 1984, hoping that there is some truth to linguistic determinism.

link
parent

[–] freespeechwarrior 0 points (+0|-0) 33 minutes ago

Writing does not control our speech, it is the other way around as humans rely much more on the spoken word than the written. Most languages in the world don't even have a writing system. The problem is most people don't know this fact, and they think the written word has some superiority or more correctness then the spoken, this may be true in very strict contexts such as law, but in the case of definitions in common language usage, a dictionary holds only a fraction of what is floating around in the actual spoken living language.

This may have been true 25 years ago, but these days, most people I know spend more time typing than talking, which makes (((control))) of the dictionaries even more dangerous.

>Writing does not control our speech, it is the other way around as humans rely much more on the spoken word than the written. Most languages in the world don't even have a writing system. The problem is most people don't know this fact, and they think the written word has some superiority or more correctness then the spoken, this may be true in very strict contexts such as law, but in the case of definitions in common language usage, a dictionary holds only a fraction of what is floating around in the actual spoken living language. 

This may have been true 25 years ago, but these days, most people I know spend more time typing than talking, which makes (((control))) of the dictionaries even more dangerous.

link
parent

1 reply

Cookies help us deliver our services. By using our services, you agree to our use of cookies.

advertise donate API about faq markdown source code

Use of this site constitutes acceptance of our User Agreement and Privacy Policy.

Login or register

share a link

Menu

Sets

Subverses

politics

MODERATORS

Subverse Rules

ABOUT

Preview

Sort: Top