Defining the 21st century versions of the adjective word "social" and verb word "change"

 

The typical definition of the adjective word "social" is according to merriam-webster.com, "...of or relating to human society, the interaction of the individual and the group, or the welfare of human beings as members of our society..."

However, the 21^st century version, could be defined by what cambridge.org says:  "...relating to society and living together in an organized way..."

My research for this December, 2024 www.thinkingoutloudan.blogspot.com indicated the current foundation sponsored funding for wrongs righted by whatever means, is for a previous time when the wrong done was thought of as brown on white, yet now 'social change' by whatever means is a 'social change' primary emphasis of these university trained foundation managers.

 It should be concerning when the university trained foundation managers of the Rockefeller and even the Pritzker (funded by the Jewish Ukrainian family of the Governor of Illinois), are dissimilar groups funding with grievances for past wrongs to change societal norms about acceptance of atrocities, such as what took place in Israel on Oct.5, 2024, as HAMAS invaded and committed heinous deeds on the innocent civilians, also little children, raping and parading the Jewish women in the streets of Gaza from border located Kibitzes, justifying the taking of more than 200 hostages, some of which have been murdered by their captors, thus now there is an unknown number who are even deemed alive.

 As noted above, my research for the December blogspot post mentioned, as indicated by the verb word "change," there can be no doubt the 21^st century reference in merriam-webster.com "...to make radically different, to alter..." and "...to alter and convert..." per the definition offered by dictionary.com, is currently the funding emphasis of those university trained foundation managers.

 Moreover, it could be said, the most recent 'atrocity-like' shooting of the CEO of UHC in the back, as was alleged done by PA University honors graduate, Luigi Mangione, is from the effect of exposure to the 'philosophy of Social Change' precepts in degree mandated philosophy classes taught by the U of P professors.

 

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/social 

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/social 

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/change 

https://www.dictinary.com/browse/change 

 

 

 

In the 21st century does the meaning of the descriptive noun "enemy" & "within" change?

      Now that the 2024 election is over, when I ask the definition of the descriptive word "enemy" Google responds with "What is full meaning of enemy?"  "1.:one that is antagonistic to another especially: one seeking to injure, overthrow, or confound an opponent. 2: something harmful or deadly..."

      Although the date of Google's online notice re the noun "enemy" is Oct.30, 2024, the fact the date is there, raises a suspicion in my mind.

      Others might call my doubt a conspiracy theory, nonetheless, I notice not all familiar words definition websites have dates, like Cambridge.org.dictionary.us, for instance, bolstering my concern: the "internet" is a renewable political tool that may have receded ONLY for the next four years.

      Oddly, when I query Google about the "full meaning" of the adverb word "within" the Nov.2024 date is affixed to this "full meaning" definition: "1. In or into the interior: inside 2: in one's inner thought, disposition, or character: inwardly.

      However, despite that some familiar websites routinely defining words have the date of Nov. 2024 affixed, for the adverb word "within" one defining website didn't include a date.  And I added the 'dateless' definition website to my list of verifiable research sites.

      Am I suspicious, the answer is yes, because since 2020, even words & meaning have been redefined, which is unacceptable.

      My research of "words and meanings" during the present administration did prove my constitutional right to freedom of speech on the Internet was curtailed, but I point out this:  only you can keep our rights.   

      For this year 2024, at 3 a.m. November 6 there was no doubt, in the blue states, too, voters can cheer, the popular vote for POTUS 47 indicated the will of the people has prevailed. 

     Even despite that some Senate and House races have typically been subject to voter suppression, the yet to be declared House and the currently declared full measure of Senate 1-party control does signify this:  your vote will continue to matter. 

 

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/enemy 

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/enemy 

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/enemy 

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/within 

https://www.collinsdictionary.com/us/dictionary/english/within 

In the 21st century the meaning of the verb word cheat hasn't changed

 

      There is no doubt that in the 21^st century, the definition of this verb "cheat" remains the same, i.e. according to the dictionary.cambridge.org, "to behave in a dishonest way to obtain what you want.

     What is important about this verb word "cheat" is  the fact the definition remains the same in the 21^st century, but the refusal to allow voter ID, when a voter ID is necessary to do anything that allows participation in this modern society, bares the truth.

     The vote is being manipulated to allow the winning of an election by candidates who "cheat."

     According to collinsdictionary.com, "If someone cheats you out of something they get it from you by behaving dishonestly, confirming that winning an election by dishonest means is to "cheat" to get a desired result.

     My research about the meaning of the verb "cheat" allows no deviation from the result, which is to obtain what you want by dishonest means.

      Either for the office of POTUS, or any elected office.

     Any candidate that allows a dishonest win is a cheat, too, and nothing has changed insofar the meaning of cheat, except a candidate that allows it is in an elected office by dishonest means, however, in the 21^st century, my research proves, too, the election corruption has been allowed by both political parties, it hasn't been stopped.

      Yet the means for doing so exists.

    Candidates who cheat by counting absentee ballots after the official day of the election are stymied when election results are given promptly on the same day of the official election day.

    Not allowing the process of government to function can currently be done by a minority party in the Senate—use the filibuster until voter ID is necessary, insist that the counting of absentee ballots takes place during the period of early voting, and no absentee ballots are accepted after the period of early voting.

    Even better, make the official election day the only day allowed for voting and absentee ballots are only allowed when a notary certifies that the person who is voting can't do so by any other means.

     And courtesy of Yahoo's search engine (it wasn't on Google) check out my research for the "history" of the "absentee vote."

 

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/cheat 

https://www.collinsdictionary.com/us/dictionary/english/cheat 

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/cheat 

https://time.com/5892357/voting-by-mail-history/ 

"The meaning of the noun word "Truth"

 

     The noun word "truth" is a simple word, it has one basic definition, and in 2024, this is a word that matters, the direction of our nation depends on defining the word "truth."

   Unequivocally, according to Merriam-webster.com, the word "Truth" is, "...in accordance with fact..," and wikipedia.org indicates that, "...truth is the opposite of a false statement.

    However, dictionary.cambridge.org has other kinds of "truth," for example, there are seven other kinds of truth, such as "God's truth is "...said to emphasize that something is the complete truth..."  And all the other six "truths" are variations of the Merriam-webster.com a basic definition, "...in accordance with fact.

    Moreover, when defining the noun word "truth" clearly, this is a word that has one basic definition.

     As well, "truth" is not a prediction, nor does "truth" change when another statement is issued.

     If a video of a previous statement by a person is shown, then another newer version is not "truth," it's a new statement, until another version is issued, and then all the versions of the same "truth" are newer modified statements, the question then becomes, which statement is the "truth"?

     One could ask if "truth" can change, then is it still "truth"?

    There is no doubt that "truth" doesn't change when expressing the "truth" of an active current issue, but stating the "truth" has nothing to do with expediency, for instance, for members of the government, whether it be state or federal, the "truth" is a statement on an issue, if that statement changes, then the "truth" is not an "explanation for a newer belief, the change then must be tested with a version of the "truth" which is by Merriam-webster.com then "...in accordance with fact..."

     Only you can determine whether a newer statement that changes "truth" is offered by an individual whose past "truth" based actions are verifiable.

      Thus it can be said, "truth" has a test.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/truth

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truth 

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/truth