I am not opposed to new words being adopted as language canon if they can advance clarity and understanding.

Dictionary.com and others take a decidedly different approach seemingly to prefer codifying misuse, furthering a political or social agenda, virtue signaling, or are just elevating local jargon above the "slang" dictionaries where it belongs.

Some new words make perfect sense of course, like "Zoom," "hybrid learning," and "blended learning." These are relatively new concepts, new activities, and sprung up to clearly describe the world we inhabit and are in common usage across the country.

And then there are the additions that while they clearly should be included, the definitions Dictionary.com chose to use betray their biases.

Two notable examples for 2021:

Critical Race Theory

[ krit-i-kuhl reys-thee-uh-ree, theer-ee ]

noun

a conceptual framework that considers the impact of historical laws and social structures on the present-day perpetuation of racial inequality: first used in legal analyses, and now applied in education, communication studies, and sociology. Abbreviation: CRT

It's a "theory," and yet the definition rests on an assumption that is anything but settled. If I wanted to introduce my own opinion, it would go something like this.

a conceptual framework that rests on a neo-Marxist collectivist worldview that is explicitly racist, condescending and destructive: first used by race hustlers in legal analyses, and now infecting education, communication studies, and sociology. Abbreviation: CRT

However, a truly neutral definition would read more like this:

a conceptual framework that argues that inequality has a racial component and is the result of historical laws and social structures.

There is a similar problem with their definition of the newly added "UBI," or "Universal Basic Income."

UBI

abbreviation

universal basic income: a government program to alleviate poverty through periodic, fixed, direct payments to every citizen.

"To alleviate poverty" is a talking point. My personal one would be different.

a government program to create dependence and consolidate power through periodic, fixed, direct payments to every citizen.

But again, a more objective definition unburdened with a political angle would be:

universal basic income: a government program that would provide periodic, fixed, direct payments to every citizen.

At least they included the word "citizen." I'm not sure all the proposals do.

And there's this crowd favorite.

Supposably?

No. Just no. At best, it's slang. At worst, it's just wrong, a mispronunciation of a real word, "supposedly." We know this, because they have very similar definitions.

There was more slang, too.

Okay, we want to go down that road, or should I say, "drag?" Let's go down that road.

Here are a few words that I've come across in my travels that have not yet made Dictionary.com nor Merriam-Webster.

Yinz

Gumbands

Red Up

Also,

Packie

Tonic (as in soda)

Or a favorite of mine.

Warsh

You don't want to go down that road. Regional dialects and colorful slang enrich the language, but we need a common set of agreed upon words if we're going to be able to communicate effectively without dictionaries becoming an unmanageable mess.

And then there are words that aren't words, or even composed of letters. This one comes from Merriam-Webster.

This is not a word. This is a hieroglyph. It's the kind of thing you look up on the Internet and not a dictionary, but maybe that's the point. In a desperate bid to stay relevant, the gatekeepers of our language will do anything.

Well, not quite anything. There are some words notable for their absence from Dictionary.com and Merriam-Webster despite their widespread use.

QAnon

Proud Boys

Oath Keepers

And yet, both dictionaries include relatively friendly definitions for Black Lives Matter and Antifa, organizations I would consider to be equally radical, including this particularly comical entry from Merriam-Webster.

a person or group actively opposing fascism

an anti-fascist movement

Right.

"Plandemic" makes no appearance either.

Honestly, it would not surprise me if the editors never expose themselves to conservative media or writers and may have truly never come across it,

To close.

"Don't you see that the whole aim of Newspeak is to narrow the range of thought? In the end we shall make thoughtcrime literally impossible, because there will be no words in which to express it."