I agree with you in broad lines but would like to raise one nuance that I find essential to the ongoing debate.
Many now popular constructs in contemporary language have come forth from – at their time – seemingly illogical mutations. By banning all seemingly illogical new ways of saying things, or in other words: only letting new constructs that make more sense pass unopposed, we effectively kill a language. A language that allows for only the most logical and most effective of ways to express ideas has no room for creativity. (I'm referring to creativity with the language, as in playing with the language, e.g. stand up comedy or creative writing; it is perfectly possible to be creative using a dead language, or to write beautiful – syntactically correct – code.)
Considering how evolution seems to work, such a 'pure' language is inevitably where we'll end up if we kill off all seemingly illogical new constructs.
To bring my point back to where I started: There are not two groups, one that cares about precision of speech and one that doesn't. I understand you deliberately simplified your explanation, there are never 'two groups', but I think there's another, more interesting, way to view this difference beyond just stating that there obviously must be a continuum between two extremes. I pose that we all have a certain tolerance level for how incorrect a construct may be with regard to how we value its addition to the language (is it merely a lame bastardization, like "I could care less", or does it have actual merit, like "to upvote") for us to accept or reject that construct.
If we shoot down "I could care less" only because it's unsound – or if you prefer, incorrect or imprecise – we may be smug, but we are definitely being reckless and are doing the language a big disfavor. If, instead, we point at this wart in someone's copy because its (1) unsound and (2) lacks any merit over the correct version, I don't think that's smug, let alone asinine, at all.
Many now popular constructs in contemporary language have come forth from – at their time – seemingly illogical mutations. By banning all seemingly illogical new ways of saying things, or in other words: only letting new constructs that make more sense pass unopposed, we effectively kill a language. A language that allows for only the most logical and most effective of ways to express ideas has no room for creativity. (I'm referring to creativity with the language, as in playing with the language, e.g. stand up comedy or creative writing; it is perfectly possible to be creative using a dead language, or to write beautiful – syntactically correct – code.)
Considering how evolution seems to work, such a 'pure' language is inevitably where we'll end up if we kill off all seemingly illogical new constructs.
To bring my point back to where I started: There are not two groups, one that cares about precision of speech and one that doesn't. I understand you deliberately simplified your explanation, there are never 'two groups', but I think there's another, more interesting, way to view this difference beyond just stating that there obviously must be a continuum between two extremes. I pose that we all have a certain tolerance level for how incorrect a construct may be with regard to how we value its addition to the language (is it merely a lame bastardization, like "I could care less", or does it have actual merit, like "to upvote") for us to accept or reject that construct.
If we shoot down "I could care less" only because it's unsound – or if you prefer, incorrect or imprecise – we may be smug, but we are definitely being reckless and are doing the language a big disfavor. If, instead, we point at this wart in someone's copy because its (1) unsound and (2) lacks any merit over the correct version, I don't think that's smug, let alone asinine, at all.