Man who threatened Merriam-Webster over gender definitions pleads guilty

A disgruntled man upset about Merriam-Webster dictionary’s update to their definitions of gender pronouns

That’s a lot of words when only one is necessary: terrorist.


Y’all, I’m starting to get the impression that TERFs are just assholes.


mike yard no shit GIF by The Nightly Show


What gave it away?

(insert goatse here)




I’d be equally satisfied if the thesaurus was hurled, tossed, flung or pitched. :wink:


Is that as big and heavy as a Brontosaurus?
Asking for a friend. :grin:


Damn, too bad. He really needs to go to jail, at the very least just so when someone asks, “What are you in for?” he can say, “Threatening a dictionary.”


The AP style guide recommends “Webster’s New World College Dictionary” for some reason :thinking:


That’s published by Harper Collins

The dictionaries alluded to in the “Dueling Dictionaries” article were

Merriam Webster’s Third New International Dictionary, Unabridged which enjoyed a position of prescriptional authority, possibly because it described so much.


The American Heritage Dictionary Of The English Language ironically also published by Harper Collins. Damn this book industry consolidation!

“Webster’s” is a generic term that any upstart can use. I like the OED because it cites things.

1 Like

Life imitates art

(In other news, BB doesn’t want me to post the original URL because it contains the “b” word so I had to use a URL shortener.)

I don’t think it worked

Edited, thanks!

The OED 3rd edition has a 1785 cite that says

1785 F. Grose Classical Dict. Vulgar Tongue B… ,…the most offensive apellation that can be given to an English woman, even more provoking than that of w…re, as may be gathered from the regular Billinsgate [sic ] or St. Giles’s answers, ‘I may be a w…re, but can’t be a b…’

And that sense has cites going back to 1175, so…

The second and first editions might not have been so revelatory.

1 Like

Not to take a strike at my American friends, but it’s especially amusing to me that he would be annoyed about an editor of an American dictionary making up new words and changing definitions.

That’s what the American dictionary is…

If he wants a purer source then he needs to head to the Oxford English and start adding 'u’s to his words like a good boy.


Compared to what? There are many different versions of English, because English speakers live all over the world and have very different cultural contexts. Language evolves and serves our changing communication needs accordingly. The assumption that a particular form of British English (that’s of a particular class of people in a particular part of England), is the only “correct” kind of English is really just some bullshit to make people like King Charles feel okay about living in palaces and taking public monies to do so…

Also, the colonial concept of “purity” can die in a fire.


Go with the times, fam, ‘yeet’ is the word you’re looking for.


Hi Rob, I couldn’t help but notice that the linked abcnews article says:

The U.S. Attorney’s in the District of Massachusetts alleges that Jeremy David Hanson, 34, of Rossmoor, CA,

(And no, my comment isn’t about the spelling of “Massachusetts”. I’ll let someone else handle that one. :wink: )

And a further thought: posting this comment has led me to wonder about this, from the linked article:

Hanson pleaded guilty on Wednesday to one count of interstate communication of threatening communications to commit violence

Is it “interstate” because he lived in one state and Merriam-Webster is in another state? Or is it because the internet is everywhere and is automatically “interstate”? Or something else entirely?

1 Like

… am I doing this right :confused:


America has it right. It’s us Brits who kept on dicking around with the spelling.