"How People Actually Use Language, Not How They Should"?

"I'm not implying that Merriam-Webster has or should abandon the philosophy that guides its lexicography, but it seems that the way the company has regained its relevance in the post-print era is by having a strong opinions about how people should use English. It may be that in spite of Webster's Third's noble intentions, language may just be too human a thing to be treated in an entirely detached, scientific way. Indeed, I'm not sure I want to live in a society in which citizens can’t call out government leaders when they start subverting language in distressing ways. When Kellyanne Conway described the Trump administration's demonstrably false statements as 'alternative facts,' Merriam-Webster's blogger tartly reminded her that a 'fact is generally understood to refer to something with actual existence, or presented as having objective reality.' True descriptivism, I suppose, would have called Conway's definition an interesting new variant usage. I'm glad they called it what it is—an incorrect and deceitful one."

Rachel Paige King at The Atlantic writes that "[m]aybe it's not the dictionary that has become outmoded today, but descriptivism itself."