Education concerning ideas is something I generally approve of. But where is the boundary between education and evangelism here? I can think of no other academic field where education consists of unsolicited usage guidelines offered to people who have expressed no interest. (Unless grammar pedantry is an academic field - even then it's considered poor form in most contexts.)
As far as I'm concerned the meaning of words drifts over time and is defined by usage. Sure, in explaining that "bastard" means "a child born out of wedlock" someone might be educating me (if I didn't already know) but if they go on to express the view that this should influence my choice to use it they are no longer educating me as such.
In fact (joining up the two sub-threads here) exactly the same applies to the word "feminism". You seemingly want it to be a clear, uncontroversial technical term - at least to the same extent that "democracy" is (which is to say not quite completely, but close enough). In saying that it isn't I am not somehow advocating the state of affairs where it is ambiguous. Instead, I am making an empirical observation concerning usage of the term and what it appears to mean.
Well, OK, I might, but not with the expectation that the telling had any force
I don't see anything wrong with that. Indeed, I see no qualitative difference between expressing preferences and shouting orders in the imperative whilst waving one's finger. In both cases the implicit threat is primarily disapproval since the listener is always free to refuse orders.
no subject
As far as I'm concerned the meaning of words drifts over time and is defined by usage. Sure, in explaining that "bastard" means "a child born out of wedlock" someone might be educating me (if I didn't already know) but if they go on to express the view that this should influence my choice to use it they are no longer educating me as such.
In fact (joining up the two sub-threads here) exactly the same applies to the word "feminism". You seemingly want it to be a clear, uncontroversial technical term - at least to the same extent that "democracy" is (which is to say not quite completely, but close enough). In saying that it isn't I am not somehow advocating the state of affairs where it is ambiguous. Instead, I am making an empirical observation concerning usage of the term and what it appears to mean.
Well, OK, I might, but not with the expectation that the telling had any force
I don't see anything wrong with that. Indeed, I see no qualitative difference between expressing preferences and shouting orders in the imperative whilst waving one's finger. In both cases the implicit threat is primarily disapproval since the listener is always free to refuse orders.