Yeah, but then I got a YMMV when I pointed out that the venues you thought most appropriate for “correct grammar” were ones I’d consider were the most appropriate for “grammar pluralism,” so it seems we’d disagree on what languages are appropriate for what contexts, venues, and audiences. (OXFORD COMMA)
But it sounds like you’re judicious, so we’re probably more on the same page than off it. 
I wonder how often Mona Chalabi calls her editor a rich, racist, elitist grammar snob? The Guardian has, after all, a style guide of oppressive grammatical prescriptions. Shudder.
Well, except I think that this has changed quite a bit in the past few decades as various sorts of languages found in different subcultures, such as working class culture, youth culture, hip hop culture (among others), have all become almost disciplines on their own merit. Academics do spend time parsing and understanding how people use language on their own terms, they don’t just codify it out of existence or ignore it. The street corner in some cases has moved into academia and for the better, I think. It’s better to try and understand how people live rather than to impose a structure that might not make sense to them.
I have never thought of it that way, but I believe you are absolutely correct.
Nonetheless, it’s still being used in a figurative rather than literal sense.
Some of these draw on new technologies, so to compare past and present, we’d need to consider sports addiction, novel addiction, etc. Others were just as bad.
I think there are people pushing falsehoods, and silencing truths, but that’s always been true, even if they’re sometimes a bit more successful and sometimes a bit less so.
Apathy tends to be learned helplessness.
Empathy is hopelessly ambiguous, half the time it’s to contast neurotypicals with autistics, half the time it’s to contrast neurotypicals with sociopaths, and so on.
Save it for formal writing, such as journal submissions. For the rest of the world: if you were able to decipher the intended meaning, it was communicated correctly which should be sufficient. Grammatical correction is not necessary and serves at least partially as a social device that may have not been asked for nor appreciated 
It’s in 2nd person. And I believe it’s literally addressing you.
There are two directions I can see going with this: in the Orwellian version, words are figuratively being plucked out of common usage, devaluing theit former meanings until there is literally no way to express the idea and have it be easily understood. (Words like, “free”, “conservative”, “liberal”,“anarchism” come to mind)
The other direction might be called Huxleyian because of the postmodern overabundance of everything-especially ideas! My favorite example is specifically the idea that we live in a computer simulation, because such simulations are so desirable as to become inevitable. In which case everything is literally a metaphor. The idea makes me uncomfortable and I want to violently disagree with it, but I can’t discard it completely.
(Basically the whole trans-humanist canon points toward the kind of rapture where literally anything desirable is not only possible but inevitable.)
We all love the internet and the democracy it brings, but it also means that anyone who gets on line can exert their own force on the language,whether the old farts like it or not.
Wouldn’t she be stringy and tough?
Thanks for your comment, but I stopped reading it after that sentence.
YMMV was just a short way of saying, that’s just in MY opinion.
I can’t watch video, so what is she objecting to. Clear and precise grammar? Murky and imprecise pseudo-grammar? Because there are a lot of pseudo-grammatical rules which bring confusion. “No split verbs.” “No dangling participles.” “No singular they, use he.” etc.
These examples are literally less about grammar than diction.
Diction Snob
Her general message is that grammar pedantry can be detrimental to the cardinal function of language, communication, because it disrupts the conversation without adding any clarity to the statement being corrected.
Her example is the statement ‘There are less people here than I expected’, which is incorrect. ‘Less’ is used to describe a comparatively smaller, continuous quantity. However, people can only be described in discrete quantities. Therefore, the correct version would be ‘There are fewer people here than I expected’.
Pointing this out doesn’t add anything to the conversation nor does it clarify anything already said.
u r so right guardian is newspaper no academic journal so they no need style guide or use “propper” talk as long as u someday understand what i right it no matter how i right it as long as not fancy boffin paper
/s
Dialects in spoken speech are a very old thing, speaking with the “wrong” inflection is still likely to get someone ignored or worse.
We are accustomed to there not being dialects in written speech, (except maybe in fiction where the author is trying to convey a spoken dialect in writing). But that’s just a product of robust editorial control going up the chain from manuscript to first printing. Now that anyone with internet access can publish, we’re seeing the emergence of written dialects. Hard to speak out against it without sounding like a luddite.
Woah there, Silver! Yes, the Guardian is formal writing. But if you really want to correct grammar, I’d ask them if they’re hiring.
She makes some valid points. Prohibitions on starting a sentence with a conjunction or ending one with a preposition, or splitting an infinitive, are silly zombie-rules that serve no useful purpose, and can often lead to stilted prose. When I hear people parrot such “rules” I wonder why anyone would insist on them just because some long-dead authority-who-wasn’t-an-authority argued for them. (I believe she only mentioned one of those; the other two are additional common targets of irksome pedantry.)
Correcting people in informal situations is plain rude, unless there really is confusion of meaning.
Nor do I believe in fighting rearguard battles over what’s correct. English is a language that evolves as its users see fit. Hence, the language has seen many developments like the death of “uninterested” – killed by “disinterested” adopting its meaning while keeping its “proper” one. I don’t see any need to get fussed over it, let alone to tell anyone “well actually, you really meant to say uninterested, because disinterested means impartial, not indifferent.” I can’t remember a situation where the context failed to make clear which meaning was intended (ironically, it’s almost always indifferent). Going with the flow on these things is a great way to avoid stress.
But I don’t buy into the notion expressed by some here and implicit in the video that sloppiness is OK in informal discourse. Sloppiness can lead to misunderstandings, it can lead to derailment by serving as unintentional bait for pedants. So I say we should all be as clear as we can, even if we’re going to play fast-and-loose with the rules, or ignore certain stupid rules.
