That's the ultimate issue here. Different groups of people want to disambiguate some terms and conflate others, and there is not enough overlap between these groups to reach a common ground. At its core is a struggle for power with the meanings of words representing territory to be won or lost.

Orwell wrote extensively on this topic and left us with some pretty stern warnings which we as a society continue to ignore. And while everyone fights over this stuff we are ruining the planet and risking catastrophic consequences both environmental and political.

I don't use "yeet" as a word, and I find it silly. But nonetheless I'm aware some people do use it, and so it's in my lexicon as a word that I just don't care for.

My point is that we cannot deny new usages. We can disagree with them or choose not to use them, but denying them is just never going to work.

This is not remotely the same as making up a new word like yeet.

I believe language is descriptive, and therefore definitions follow usage. If there exists new usage in common enough use, then the definition follows that use.

And I don't believe the traditional use of a word makes one a bigot by default. I think that there are both bigots and non bigots that use the words traditionally.

But this thread is absolutely stock full of people refusing to acknowledge that there might be multiple correct definitions.

> There's this strange perception that anything new must be good and right. Perhaps OPs language isn't keeping up with the times, or maybe the times are just...incorrect.

This asserts that newness does not equate with correctness. This implicitly recognizes that there are multiple uses.

Other places in this post people absolutely do deny the usage.

> My point is that we cannot deny new usages. We can disagree with them or choose not to use them, but denying them is just never going to work.

Where is someone denying that people use these terms in these new ways? I haven't read all the comments but haven't seen it so far.