This whole exchange is tressing.

I am the-moon.

Technically correct (still the best kind of correct). However, the meaning has changed a but due to the word's falling into disuse. Colloquially, it is now used as a mid-point between overwhelmed and underwhelmed, describing a situation as a mundane experience. Not disappointing, too stimulating, or even satisfying; just neutral ("Tell my wife I said 'Hello'").

OMG no. That’s not it! Jesus

Contrabrians

Not coincidental, they both stem from the directional description "right".

In Old English riht meant both straight and not left. That's why "go right ahead" and "go straight ahead" are synonymous even tho that sense has been largely lost.

"Right" then got the sense of proper/correct, likely because right-handedness is more common and thus the right hand was associated with being the "correct" hand. This is why you are "dextrous", from Latin dexter meaning directionally right.

The political "right" as in conservative also comes from the direction right because in the French National Assembly after the 1789 revolution, the conservatives sat on the right while the progressives were seated on the left.

Yeah, I can say all manner of things like bork and twiddledee, but I don't think I can get marblegargler to stick.

Unless a meme picks it up or is in at least the urban dictionary, it doesn't count.

I agree but he is saying the opposite lol

Many words are forgotten, so I disagree with that they exist forever.

GRRK (pronounced with rolled Rs)

Yes that part I get, but I don't get the reply from the Merriam Webster account and why that is funny

Alternatively, he's saying that these are not in fact unprecedented times.

Although it is an American dictionary, so it’s only going to be correct some of the time.

Nope. They document what words are in common use. English is a "form follows usage" kind of language, where popularity of a word makes it correct. That's why "literally" can mean its own antonym and influencers get to make up new meanings for Fetch and Mid.

Less architectural, more suicide note.

Partly right, but they don't decide if a word is "official" (whatever that's supposed to mean). For a word to be a so-called "real" word it only has to be in common use among some group, dictionaries simply document words that have been in common use. Merriam-Webster is an authoritative record of words in use specifically in US English (with some records for other English variants and dialects, I think? ) but they are not a prescriptivist organisation. A word which appears in their dictionary is almost certainly a word that is or was in use in US English but a word that doesn't appear might also be a real word, particularly if it's a relatively new word or meaning.

So with that in mind, arguing that a word is real when it doesn't appear in the dictionary can be valid in some cases, but arguing that a word isn't real when it does appear in a dictionary (like Brian did) is generally not smart.

tl;dr, a dictionary, not the dictionary; not all English; "official" doesn't make sense here; in some (but not this) cases disagreeing is valid.