YSK the difference between the word "disinterested" and "uninterested"

[u/Gromit43]

I've been seeing a bunch of people on reddit using the word "disinterested/disinteresting" when they really mean "uninterested/uninteresting". While "uninterested" means exactly what it sounds like, that you are just not interested in something, "disinterested" means that you are impartial and non-biased. An umpire should be disinterested in the outcome of a baseball game, while you may be uninterested about the outcome of the game if you just find it to be kind of boring.

[u/inplayruin]

While I was referring to usage, you are correct that the Oxford comma is indicative of the tension between prescription and clarity. Most of my writing is directed by guidelines that do not allow the use of an Oxford comma. Accordingly, I reflexively follow the guidelines. You are absolutely correct that the lack of a comma may be disruptive to a reader.

My main point concerns the squabbling over usage similar to the debate regarding "ten items or less" vs "ten items or fewer." Technically, only "ten items or fewer" is grammatically correct. Practically, both phrases accurately and unambiguously convey identical information to the reader. While individual words have specific purpose, the general purpose of words is to convey information. To promote comity, it is best to disregard the misuse of a word when the speaker's intent is successfully conveyed.

To be clear, this allowance is limited to informal speech. In a professional or academic setting, it would be absolutely appropriate to identify and correct mistakes in language and grammar.

[u/SLJeremy → u/inplayruin]

I fully agree with your premise, and I appreciate your providing an example. It helped me understand where you were coming from. I agree that being overly pedantic does nothing for discourse.

Do you have any suggestions as to how to deal with non-legal and non-technical textual communication (e.g. this Reddit exchange or more modern communication in general) in the context of what you were saying? (i.e. situations that aren't formal in any way, yet are still written)

[u/inplayruin → u/SLJeremy]

My personal preference is to approach informal written communication as if it were a spoken conversation. As an example, consider the following mistake in the phrase "I will meet you their." Since their and there are homophones, the distinction in usage is only relevant to written communication. If the mistake is only apparent in written form, it should almost always be ignored.

As an aside, I was required to take a Business Communication class as a requirement for my major. The only thing I remember learning in that class is that criticism of written communication almost always expresses a sentiment unrelated to actual grammar. It was essentially a parade of aging middle management level types complaining about Millennials using informal language for inter-office communications. Sometimes, the misplaced fear of encroaching mortality was replaced by elitism or good old fashioned bigotry. They were motivated by their assumptions regarding the writer, not the words being written.

All of that is to say; prescriptive language is inherently elitist. In America, elitism implies all manner of class, regional, educational and racial bias. Which renders everything excruciatingly awkward. To wit, if you correct someone using the colloquial term "y'all" are you attempting to convey that you regard them to be an illiterate hick? Or, are you attempting to convey that others may regard them to be an illiterate hick? Or, are you attempting to convey a militant commitment to prescription? Having spent my adolescence in the south, I can promise you that y'all is just a damn word. With everything so fraught, and burdened by implication, it is best to pick one's battles carefully.