The notion that language is "what the learned have built out of competence and reflection" is abjectly risible. The evolution of language consists of corruption, confusion, coinages of demotic provenance, and general chaos. The contributions of learned classicists to the modern language are subject to exactly the same inexorable flux.
There is no party that refuses to accept "bastard" semantics; in no language does there exist a fraction of a syllable of legitimate descent. The only recourse open to the pedant and misanthrope is to forgo the use of language altogether, which would in your case constitute a marked improvement in the discourse.
False, if only because it is evident that naive and competent are evident opposites, practically. You can see the competent and the naive use, they cannot be mixed.
By the way: you have completely misunderstood 'is' in the quotation. It was not descriptive language, it was deontic.
And for what your «which would in your case constitute a marked improvement in the discourse»: this is the first time I find myself in front of the shallow disrespect that I expect elsewhere from YCombinator. Happily - look around -, with that attitude, you are the one isolated.
-- those who think that language is what median people use and that naive use has a right to be accepted and create rules, seeing language as a social matter, and
-- those who think that language is what the learned have built out of competence and reflection, calling language an entity rightfully separate from societies.
For both parties «language matters». But they do not speak the same language - the second party refuses to accept bastard semantics, illegitimately born "from the saddle of incompetence". Their conclusions are opposite.