I disagree, plenty of people have stated quite the opposite - that there exists one definition only and the other definitions are incorrect.

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.

You disagree that a neologism is different from changing the definition of an existing word? Please elaborate on how those two things are not distinguishable.

No, I disagree that people understand there are two definitions in common use. The parent said that no one disagrees that people use the word in that way. I'd argue that several people in this thread have done so implicitly or explicitly by saying something to the effect of, "man means X and only X".

Actually, the comment does not talk about that. It just says:

> 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.

I'm responding specifically to: "No one here is unaware that people use these terms in new ways. Likewise they are not denying the usage."

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

I was using the word "deny" in the same way that you did here. You indicate it is not the same thing as "disagree with"

> 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.