What's the point of appealing to Mirrian-Webster? They're the tail, not the dog; nobody goes to one of their dictionaries to determine how a word or phrase is used.

That’s how they are traditionally being used. They are used as the ultimate source of truth. “We don’t agree, let’s see what the dictionary says”. That trick would still work on majority of people I’d think.

But yes, it’s the tail that is wagging the dog which is wagging the tail.

There have been cases where lobbyists and special interest groups got the dictionary definitions altered to suit they client’s needs.

That is absolutely ridiculous.

Not really though. If you go back 2 years, people who were opposed to mandatory vaccinations were generally people who thought their children shouldn't be required to get vaccinated against measles. Vaccine mandates are crucial social policy

> Vaccine mandates are crucial social policy

Maybe the reason USA has so many anti vaccers is because of vaccine mandates? It is much easier to believe that something is evil when you are forced to do it. Also many first world countries doesn't mandate vaccines and people get vaccinated anyway, so it isn't crucial social policy.

Exactly. COVID is so deadly, that people have to be coerced and mandated into taking it, when in the beginning of all of this, most were walking around asymptomatic with it.

No, that’s probably not the reason. The anti-COVID stuff preceded discussion of vaccine mandates. Europe has mandatory childhood vaccinations and not the same level of anti-vaccine sentiment.

Or they are tools for a medical totalitarian dystopia. 2 years ago there were effectively zero exception free vaccine mandates, and only a very few places where they were actually hard to get.

No, it really is. You're ignoring the fact that the definition was changed in order to shame people who are against mandating COVID vaccines.

According to what?

They're wrong.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/descriptive-vs...

No, they are not crucial social policy. You will have to accept that democracy does not mean that everyone has to be of the same opinion as you.

Merriam-Webster's standard in definitions is descriptive rather than prescriptive:

Merriam-Webster is a descriptive dictionary in that it aims to describe and indicate how words are actually used by English speakers and writers. Generally, the descriptive approach to lexicography does not dictate how words should be used or set forth rules of "correctness," unlike the prescriptive approach.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/descriptive-vs...

If Merriam-Webster are defining a word in a specific way, that reflects typical usage of that word, not M-W's "decision". It is literally the voice of the people.

The complaint is that Merriam-Webster is not reflecting typical usage by "the people" here, but rather spin from a concentrated press campaign. John Q. Budweiser down the street isn't using the word differently, but all the right newspapers and pundits are, and all at the same time. To John, that starts to look Orwellian.

In my country people that are already double-jabbed and say they want to wait for the 3rd dose/booster are already called science deniers and anti-vaxxers, so that's that.

"Webster defines [word] as..." has been a running punchline for over 20 years. I think the dignity of the real anti-vaxxers will remain intact.