[huimang]

This is a thorough misunderstanding of how dictionaries work. There is no all-powerful movement (composed of people who don’t want to work…?) dictating language changes.

People update usage over time and dictionaries reflect that. It’s extremely common and not just a modern effect.

It’s just a property of human language and it occurs in every language.

[iratewizard]

Your belief stems from a nativity of the power systems and how they operate. Ideological zealots do try to dictate changes all the time. Look at history and understand the reason behind China and the replacement of the four olds. Look at what happened behind the scenes during the replacement of the Russian Tsars. Look at critical theory as a framework for gaining power.

Now understand some simple fundamental realities. Dictionaries have always been expensive and almost never turned a profit in history. They were created as loss leaders for name recognition, passion projects by eccentrics, heavily subsidized by fundraising or (most often) a combination of the three. They are subject to corruption through funding, through people, and through the will of their parent company.

Merriam-Webster should be focusing on language and it's use. Not subtly accusing Kyle Rittenhouse of fake crying during trial. It's corrupted at the personally level at the very least. Not to mention their cozy relationship with Google.

Oxford, like most universities, has had biased hiring policies since my parents were children. Today, it's filled with the out of touch, weak and over-socialized. They have received a mountain of criticism regarding their "woke score" hiring policies, "woke" additions to their dictionary and many other issues.

It's unfortunate that you and others trust such biased sources. Like being "the dictionary" gives it some sort of official authority on the way you can communicate.