Webster’s dictionary describes language as it is used, it doesn’t prescribe definitions. Citing a dictionary means nothing in a debate of whether we ought to use a word in a certain context.

> Webster’s dictionary describes language as it is used, it doesn’t prescribe definitions

American English is a high context language. The GP was illustrating the current parlance, which Webster is lacking.

Poaching has always had a certain connotation that you snatched/stole/etc. someone from another employer. Of course, we use "steal" in other contexts where it's perfectly legal/by the rules: steal second base, this thing I bought was a steal, etc. So there's a long history of using this language in English for things that aren't actually illegal or underhanded.

That said, I understand why people object to it and it may be one of those terms it's better to avoid even if it's used playfully.

I thought the US was considered to be a prime example of a low context culture.

E.g. https://www.unitedlanguagegroup.com/blog/communicating-high-...

It means something when somebody does not know the way the language is used.

Every person in this discussion understands how language is used in this context. The discussion is on the merits of whether we ought to use a word in a specific context. Appeals to authority like saying “but everybody uses that word” are completely beside the point.

You’re in 100% agreement with myself and GP if you say that “poaching” is commonly used to mean trying to hire someone from another company. But that has nothing to do with what GP is talking about. They are saying they really wish people wouldn’t use that term, despite it being commonly used.

Understood?

Or maybe you already knew that but really like putting people down on the internet.

>Every person in this discussion understands how language is used in this context.

I am not sure, hence my reference to the dictionary. In my opinion the whole discussion is because people only know one usage and think the other one is a hyperbole. Otherwise you'd been actually arguing about the meanings of words with the dictionary, which looks rather stupid.

Your position seems to be that it’s invalid to even talk about whether a word should be used in a context, if the dictionary says it should. This prevents any discourse around whether we should evolve the language, because an appeal to authority like citing the dictionary would just shut down the debate.

To use an offensive example: This dictionary has a 4th definition for the word “Jew” meaning “to bargain sharply with”: https://www.dictionary.com/browse/jew

If somebody said “Maybe we shouldn’t use “Jew” as a verb to mean this, since it has negative connotations”, would you also cite this dictionary link to say that it’s perfectly fine? (I would charitably assume no.)

The discussion is, to me, very clear. We all know that “Poach” can mean hiring someone from a competitor. But some of us feel that using it in that regard creates the wrong connotation, and although it’s commonly used, and even in the dictionary, maybe we ought to not use it that way.

Do you see why citing the dictionary is counterproductive here?

I am sure you are trolling now. You pick an example from some unknown dictionary, explicitly marked as offensive right there and pretend there is an argument if it's offensive or not. Is not this exactly what you had been accusing me of doing? Anyways, my position is pretty clear - if you disagree and want your own language, I am fine with it, have a day.

If everyone strictly used words based on what is “correct” English, the language would never evolve and we’d still be speaking Chaucer’s English.

True, but being intentional about the connotations of your language is still important.

How do you feel about poached eggs?

The use of the word 'poach' by employers comes from a mentality where they are the lords, the employees are deer on their land, and other companies are peasants trying to get some food, which the lord believes to be his exclusive right.

It dehumanizes the employee by comparing them to an owned animal.

The grandparent was complaining about the word's connotations, explicitly in fact. They weren't saying its denotations were incorrect here.

A word's denotative meaning has little relevance if the connotative meaning is something else. "Literally" is probably the best example of this.