Do you still not understand the concept of dialects?
Like the dialects you so disdain, it’s just not meant for you. Your feelings of tedium are irrelevant to my entertainment. 
The Big Bang happened about 13 or 14 billion years ago, and since then, our universe has been expanding at unfathomable speeds. Because of fancy astrophysics principles that I confess I don’t understand, the universe’s size 94 billion light years in diameter.
There must be, then, two points in the universe that are 94 billion light years from one another.
Those two points are your analogy and how language actually works.
Git gud.
Snark aside, I do hope you listen to the podcast, and read the blog posts, and pay attention to what working linguists say.
Gah. I wouldn’t call grantspeak and academic/researchspeak correct so much as ritualistic formulas, shibboleths for a particular in-group.
I’m in IT, the less said of us nerds the better.
I believe that some people’s brains are just wired to more easily notice, and be bothered by, errors—and “errors”—of grammar, spelling, usage, etc. And that this is a good thing, because such people are valuable in such areas as computer programming and related fields, where a misspelled word or a misplaced punctuation mark can cause serious trouble.
But of course noticing and being bothered by such things doesn’t mean you always have to point them out, let alone be a dick about them.
No their brains are wired to detect deviations from what they consider “proper”, which is NOT the same as noticing errors.
“Man those Black people use words in an order I don’t approve of” isn’t some sign of analytic genius.
To be fair, it’s hard to communicate when the Kaiser has stolen your word for “twenty.”
It is a good thing in my case since I’m a proofreader of deposition and hearing transcripts for court reporters. I do have to leave errors when it’s what was actually said, and it’s a careful (and occasionally frustrating) balance I must strike between clarifying the draft (punctuation, spelling, reporter error, checking proper names and technical terms, and so forth) and leaving it verbatim even when the speaker is a mess.
So when reading for pleasure, errors do jump out at me, but I do NOT attempt to fix them in places like the Dope, because that’s not my job. Even if it makes me cringe.
I’ve read all three articles. My view is that I can agree with a lot of it (not all) without contradicting any of the things I’ve previously said. So let me elaborate and gently push back a little.
First, a comment on this paragraph:
Here are some of the things we don’t know about Jonny. Jonny might be dyslexic. He might have spent his entire childhood being shamed and belittled by his teachers and classmates because his brain works differently from theirs. He might come from an abusive or otherwise dysfunctional home, where focusing on his English studies comes a distant second to keeping the pieces of his body and spirit together. He might be living on food stamps and lacking the necessary fuel to fire his brain’s higher-level synapses. He might avoid school altogether because his head has been knocked into lockers one too many times.
That explains why some people’s literacy skills might be lacking, and suggests that compassion is a better approach than ridicule. Sure, I can go along with that. It’s not saying that literacy isn’t important (and later on, the writer shows why literacy is indeed important). And it doesn’t contradict the supposition that some mistakes of the kind that I cited earlier (“could of”, “should of”, etc.) are often due to uncaring laziness about language.
But here’s one that goes to the heart of the “elitism” argument that always comes up in these debates:
Judgements about what counts as “right”, “good” and “correct” in writing and grammar always – ALWAYS – align with characteristics of the dialects spoken by privileged, mostly wealthy, mostly white people.
My rebuttal to this is that the real issue isn’t whether this is true or not (sometimes it isn’t) but that it completely misses the point. The major determiner of literacy is not the colour of someone’s skin or how much money they have in the bank; the major determiner of literacy is education. Which is an entirely different matter. If access to education is correlated with being white, wealthy, or some other “privilege”, then you’ve got a much deeper socioeconomic problem than literacy. Which is indeed the case in some places. This is why I’m happy to be living in a country that places a high value on universal access to education and on equity within the education system.
And then they provide a “literacy privilege checklist” ostensibly to show how tough life can be for those without adequate literacy skills. I completely agree. But how and why did the word “privilege” sneak in there? It’s a straightforward list of examples of why at least minimal literacy skills are important in modern life.
The second article seems mainly to be how the writer approaches teaching English literacy skills, avoiding judgments about being “wrong” in favour of discussing the need in more formal contexts for conformance to standard norms. OK, but that seems to say more about teaching style than about the importance of language standards. Not everyone is a good teacher.
The third article is a sort of Q&A whose basic message in a nutshell is “be nice to people, be tolerant of their mistakes, and don’t correct them unless they ask to be corrected”. OK. As I said earlier, I never correct people in real life, and even here on the Dope, it’s usually in fun. When I refer to “morons” for careless use of language, it’s a generic throw-away comment that’s not directed at any specific individual. But I can see, given some of the observations in those articles, that many would nevertheless find this irksome.
A few years ago I started a thread on pretty much this exact topic:
To sum up, a researcher found that an education system that ignores the existence of different dialects of English, and just calls out students for supposedly using “incorrect” English (rather than speaking their native dialect correctly), is harmful to students’ education and results in worse outcomes both for understanding English and other subjects (for those students whose native dialect is African American vernacular English).
On the other hand, education systems that recognize the existence of different dialects of English, and specifically teach recognition and understanding of these kinds of dialects can assist these students and improve outcomes both in English and other subjects.
The key is recognizing the existence of these dialects, and deliberately avoiding any sort of shame or criticism for their usage.
EDIT: Looking back at that thread, @wolfpup participated and ISTM that he was much more thoughtful on that issue than in this thread.
So good I had to share. 
I’m glad you read them, but am flabbergasted that you think you can agree with significant chunks of them without contradicting what you said. For instance, take this passage from the blog:
And compare to your:
What’s “fun” for you isn’t fun for your targets.
If your targets deserve derision, if they’re acting obnoxiously, okay, maybe being douchey to them is in order. But you don’t seem to limit your fun like that.
And this shows that you fundamentally don’t understand how language works. Someone who says, “I could care less,” is no more careless than you’re careless when you use the contraction “it’s” earlier in your post instead of “it is.”
I encourage you to listen to the podcast, to immerse yourself in learning how language actually works, and to move yourself on that graph from the B position to the D position.
I hesitate to point out that there is common ground here. I think? If we remove the disdain.
No one is trying to argue that anything goes in every context as equally appropriate. Speaking and writing in ways that will be heard and read as wrong for the context is to be avoided. I am happy that I understand when to write rein vs reign, loath vs loathe, so on. Yes, word choice and usage, use of one or another grammar convention, is a marker, maybe less of education than of being or not being well read?
Also FWIW I suspect some posters here have been on the other side of it, some posters here likely were very big readers as kids and used words and made allusions that were markers of not belonging to the group they were trying to be part of in school kid days, sometimes trying to use the same slang or references as the group and getting it wrong, with social consequences. It is really the same general concept: language as a marker of in and out group status.
I don’t have “targets” in the context that I’m talking about. This is the practice on the SDMB of interrupting a serious discussion with a one-word correction, the correction being subtly humourous precisely because of its performative pedantry and obvious uselessness. It’s nothing at all like the example you cited, which is genuinely sad and regrettable.
The very few times when I’ve sarcastically attacked something written by another poster, it was genuinely well deserved, as in this example. You won’t find the original that it refers to because it was cornfielded when the poster was banned.
They are if my speculation about how the usage came about is right. It may not be right, but mishearing and careless repetition is precisely the premise of it.
I think being well read has a strong correlation with one’s stylistic preferences in language, though I would consider that to be a form of education, even if not the formal institutional kind. I know that I have a tendency to write more formally than many, even on a message board. It probably comes from reading a lot since childhood, and in later life being immersed in scientific and technical writing.
Nice thread: thanks to the mods for splitting it off. Thanks to everyone for not completely melting down.
As usual, best practice is a matter of weighing competing considerations. On the one hand, we’re here to fight ignorance, and supporting clear communication does so directly and indirectly. Also, bad grammar can be annoying. On the other hand, the corrections themselves can be annoying. Corrections also derail the thread.
I have an imperfect proposal. We’re discussing the practice of inserting tangential comments about grammar and usage. Why not create an omnibus language pedantry thread? The thread would link to posts whose language could be improved. Like so:
MFM: use of the word, “Guys” is wholly inappropriate in a mixed gender forum. Slang usage is unsuited for formal conversation. All technical terms should be defined when used on a general usage message board, etc. etc.
The point is that Discourse automatically creates a note in the originating message when they are replied to in another thread. Click the link icon on the bottom of the message, hit copy, then paste the link in the referring thread.
Where should such an omnibus thread go? I seriously think it belongs in the pit, because that permits posters to counter-attack overly pedantic criticisms. Putting it in IMHO would invite a tidal wave tsunami of trivial corrections by those with insufficient emotional intelligence. Don’t make it this thread though: general conversations about the practice of language pedantry belong here.
99%+ of the posts on this message board contain language imperfections: writing is hard, editing is an vocation. So excessive focus on grammar is problematic, as is insufficient focus. As is typical it’s a matter of calibration.
ETA1: There is still scope for inthread grammatical jokes.
ETA2: Prescriptivism is more intuitive than descriptivism. Wolfpup has presented prescriptive-adjacent arguments and I think LHoD underestimates their effectiveness and utility.
This is not meant as snark. Did you get picked on on the playground? (FWIW I was.)
I do wonder if there is sometimes a “turn about as fair play” bit that contributes to some pedantry: it’s my playground now.
What I object to most is the repeated implication that one’s facility of language is correlated to whether or not one uses expressions that @wolfpup finds problematic. By riffing on “morons” and their inferior language use he is including people like me. I spend hours a day writing as both a career and a hobby. At the end of the day I do not want to have people policing my fucking language.
Not that I can remember. I may not have been the epitome of popularity, but the kids I went to school with were generally pretty well-behaved. I must have projected some sort of academic image, though, because in some grade – may have been as late as junior high – there were a couple of football-player jock types who liked to call me “prof”, but It was pretty good-natured!
Speaking only for myself, I think that’s a misreading of my primary intent. I admit to being more annoyed than most at some of the sillier colloquialisms and idiosyncratic usages, but what I’m mostly doing is trying to account for them. Linguists frequently try to explain them as being actually conformant with standard or unwritten rules of grammar even if the rules they’re conforming to aren’t clear to boneheaded prescriptivists, like Pinker’s fanciful justification of “could care less” which justification I think by now is pretty clearly wrong. Pinker also devotes quite a lot of words to explaining why “Me and Alice are going to the movies” is grammatically correct, and in this case he actually has me convinced, at least convinced of the fact that it’s not conclusively wrong. But what I’m proposing in many of these cases is that certain usages originate as genuine mistakes that then get promulgated and become commonplace.
I think a more careful reading would show that you’re misunderstanding and that you were nowhere in my thoughts when I wrote that. Also, until this point this conversation was becoming downright congenial.