>>24704492
You conflate elitism with inherent superiority which, while it is a valid prescription, is as unproductive as it is immature
One can very easily concede to the limitations of human knowledge. Just as easily, one can very easily concede to the limitations of linguistic standards. Neither descriptive axioms exclude the possibility of prescriptive frameworks stemming from these axioms
In short, you're acting like a child trying to hold onto "muh sekret klub" built upon generations-old standards. There's nothing wrong with preserving traditions from another time and another place. However, to use that as a self-justifying basis to assume some sort of inherent linguistic superiority (under the guise of upholding standards while forgetting that the purpose of standards is to ensure communication) is itself an attempt to cover your ass
If you want to be an educational elitist, you don't need to hide behind a reason. If you think your reason is a valid basis to be an educational elitist, I've provided an explanation on why that reason is both (1) an a priori judgement and (2) not the singular conclusive stance you make it out to be. A large array of alternative stances exist without needing to rely on your a priori judgement here
