[willis936]

I really despise when the term technocrat is misused. It has a very specific meaning in politics and is nowhere near "broligarch", "plutocrat from the tech industry", or any of the thousand different, legitimate ways to describe what people sometimes mean when they mistakenly say "technocrat". How can a political opinion be taken seriously when this extremely basic level of literacy on the topic is missing?

[thih9]

Not to "well ackchyually" your "well ackchyually", but language evolves. I guess in a few years we'll consider it just another instance of semantic shift, perhaps with a splash of folk etymology[1].

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Folk_etymology

[maleldil]

> but language evolves

Totally, but we can try to resist it. Technocrat is a perfectly fine word, and I'd hate to see it go away permanently from its current meaning.

[willis936]

Yes but I am throwing this one out because technocrat has a very specific meaning that has never experienced a period of irrelevance while it has been in use. Plutocracy has its own word and displacing the concept of technocracy with a worse concept is something I will call out every single time.

[drivingmenuts]

It is difficult to seriously consider the opinion of someone who clearly fails to understand the difference between denotative and connotative meaning.