Not so fast.

There are actually a few etymologies for the term in architecture. It does often imply a deliberate crudeness and a harshness, supposedly an honest response to the character of the materials. To the untrained eye this is close enough to "ugly" that most people don't distinguish. There's also a very strong argument that brutalism represents a turn away from the values of western humanism (typically expressed, historically, in classical architecture) toward a vulgar, bleak conception of modernity. Another aspect is that it tends to be "sublime" rather than "beautiful", which, again, translates to negative vibes for many people.

It's not a term that I'm happy to see being applied now to some essentially cosmetic aspects of web design.

I always find this "language evolves"-argument a bit strange. Maybe I am reactionary, but it is "though" not "tho". More people using it wrong, does not make it right to me. In some cases I will eventually adapt, but not when it is about concept that was invented, explained and named by a person with sources you can cite to prove it.

Unfortunately, language is a social construct and relies entirely on popular consensus of words. Words like "literally" and "inflammable" have grown to take on their opposite meanings. One could argue that "though" is an inefficient way to spell that word and too easily confused with the spelling of "thought".

I share a similar peeve as you with the use of "women" as an adjective. All through grade school and high school, the use of "women" as a noun was pummeled into my head. Now, I routinely see presumably college-educated journalists use it as an adjective ("women scientists", "women engineers", etc.)

That language is a social construct does not imply that everyone must automatically accept any usage someone else proposes as equally valid as any other. Individual people, as well as groups, are free to reject any drift or change in meaning as they see fit.

Indeed, this is by far the usual case. People collectively can, and do, reject almost all proposed novel usages, which are quickly forgotten. We just remember the few cases where things change due to survivorship bias.

What does "accept" mean here, is it a matter of refusing to understand what someone is trying to communicate until they use the lexical conventions you prefer? Words have meaning whether you "accept" them or not.

"People" aren't really a useful measure here because there is slang that achieves popularity out of the subculture that produces it, subcultures composed of people, just the same as it may not propagate, in which case it naturally remains useful to the in-group. To reject slang as valid language until it achieves mainstream acceptance is a) not measurable as there is no line that is crossed, and b) antisocial.

I can't see how to define "accept" except as the opposite of rejection. You can understand what someone is trying to say, but then mock them for saying it "stupidly". You can also just refuse to repeat it. If you accept someone's usage, you probably do neither of these (you might make fun of someone for the heck of it, or not get a chance to use the new term, but you get the idea). Social dynamics, basically. And yes, this metric might produce different answers at different cultural strata.

If you understand what they're saying, you've already "accepted" the meaning/spelling/usage/etc. Turning around and mocking people or refusing to use the term is a separate issue that doesn't necessarily reflect well on that person.

We already have a word for that, though. It's "understand". And while I see what you mean about mockery, refusing to use a term/idiom is everyone's prerogative. I, and probably you as well, simply don't use certain widely accepted phrases because I think they're dumb.

Anyway, I came up with a better definition: accepting a word/usage is believing that it's a good way to express whatever it was.

It means you do not promulgate the usage. I understand perfectly well that some people who say "literally" actually mean "very," even though I do not accept this semantic change in "literally."

I myself will never use "literally" to mean "very," which differentially lowers the chance of this new meaning becoming standardized. Over time, either most people will do the same and the proposed novel usage of "literally" to mean "very" will die out, or else most people will collectively adopt the new meaning.

Empirically, almost all novel usages die out very quickly and are forgotten. Read some slang from the 1920s -- it's already almost incomprehensible to a modern reader.

You are right, but as I described "Brutalism" is a scientific term, not a social construct. There was an inventor, there are sources. The meaning inside its scope is well-defined.

If you would now go ahead and use it to describe a concept of a different scope where it does not apply at all, say web designs, you could do that, but you would expose that you just tried to name something in a sciency way to sound sophisticated without having any idea what the term actually means.

What do you think of these newfangled gentleman planters, like George Washington?

http://www.mountvernon.org/george-washington/biography/

I think there's probably an imaginable application of Brutalism to web design, but I'm not sure it would add much to the discourse. I would absolutely read it as entertainment, though.

As for the term itself, there's always a risk of imprecision when laypeople discuss the concepts used in certified professions.

It's culture, what can you do.

There's a 2004 paper along the lines you mention by Simon Yuill: http://www.lipparosa.org/essays/code_brut.pdf

A side effect of brutalist architecture though is some pretty ugly buildings. And it is a principle of brutalism to forego the aesthetic refinements and ornamentation common to other styles - this can be observed in the websites being called brutalist as well.