Mob rule of language

If language is entirely decided by users, then [insert random list of words here, which I can't be bothered to do].
Oh no! Wasn't my meaning clear?
Well, wasn't that surprising. Co-operative efforts require co-operation. Language, by its very nature, is a an effort in co-operation. Part of that effort is learning and obeying rules of meaning so that one's meaning is accurately conveyed. If you can't be bothered to learn the rules, find your knowledge lacking, and try to change the rules to suit yourself, it's not acceptable to pretend that actually language belongs to you and you're entitled to change it.

The whole purpose of language is that it is not a personal thing that you're allowed to redefine, but that it is an objective means of communicating. When I say one thing, it means the same to you and me. That's the point! If a lot of people can't be bothered, and some people put the effort into learning to communicate accurately, it's rather sickening if those people's efforts are destroyed by the people who can't be bothered coming up with 'clever' arguments about why words with specific meanings don't have those meanings.

It's rather similar to people making money under a system by putting in time and effort, and then being told that actually it's unjust to make money and all that time and effort is arbitrarily going to be taxed entirely away to pay for lazy people who've spent all their money. Or, to borrow a fable, the ant being told to help the grasshopper.

If you don't know the word and you get it wrong, you're wrong. It's a consequence of not caring enough about communication, and you can't escape responsibility by invoking mob rule. It's the price you pay for devoting your time to other things.