Firstly, it's not a position; it's the fact of how communication works and how word usage evolves.
About liking it or not -- well, I don't like it, I care deeply about clarity of communication, and I despise how many debates on subjects like evolution, abortion, and all things political are derailed by (sometimes intentional) muddling of words' definitions.
So certainly, if you can convince everyone to re-adopt the original, more useful definition, then you have won and I salute you. Certainly you have the right to try -- sometimes it's very important to try and wrestle words back from the brink of uselessness.
But if you can't, then you are the odd one out. If everyone says "hacker" and means "someone who does stuff I don't like using computers", when you use the word with another meaning in mind, you are failing to communicate.
And the dictionaries will eventually start putting "archaic" after your definition.
About liking it or not -- well, I don't like it, I care deeply about clarity of communication, and I despise how many debates on subjects like evolution, abortion, and all things political are derailed by (sometimes intentional) muddling of words' definitions.
So certainly, if you can convince everyone to re-adopt the original, more useful definition, then you have won and I salute you. Certainly you have the right to try -- sometimes it's very important to try and wrestle words back from the brink of uselessness.
But if you can't, then you are the odd one out. If everyone says "hacker" and means "someone who does stuff I don't like using computers", when you use the word with another meaning in mind, you are failing to communicate.
And the dictionaries will eventually start putting "archaic" after your definition.