Webster’s dictionary describes language as it is used, it doesn’t prescribe definitions. Citing a dictionary means nothing in a debate of whether we ought to use a word in a certain context.
American English is a high context language. The GP was illustrating the current parlance, which Webster is lacking.
E.g. https://www.unitedlanguagegroup.com/blog/communicating-high-...
That said, I understand why people object to it and it may be one of those terms it's better to avoid even if it's used playfully.
You’re in 100% agreement with myself and GP if you say that “poaching” is commonly used to mean trying to hire someone from another company. But that has nothing to do with what GP is talking about. They are saying they really wish people wouldn’t use that term, despite it being commonly used.
Understood?
Or maybe you already knew that but really like putting people down on the internet.
I am not sure, hence my reference to the dictionary. In my opinion the whole discussion is because people only know one usage and think the other one is a hyperbole. Otherwise you'd been actually arguing about the meanings of words with the dictionary, which looks rather stupid.
To use an offensive example: This dictionary has a 4th definition for the word “Jew” meaning “to bargain sharply with”: https://www.dictionary.com/browse/jew
If somebody said “Maybe we shouldn’t use “Jew” as a verb to mean this, since it has negative connotations”, would you also cite this dictionary link to say that it’s perfectly fine? (I would charitably assume no.)
The discussion is, to me, very clear. We all know that “Poach” can mean hiring someone from a competitor. But some of us feel that using it in that regard creates the wrong connotation, and although it’s commonly used, and even in the dictionary, maybe we ought to not use it that way.
Do you see why citing the dictionary is counterproductive here?