How about you leave your pre-modern prescriptive prejudice out of linguistics.
If you want to discriminate against people for how they speak, that's your prerogative, but it has nothing to do with linguistics as practiced.
It seems to me that linguistics should note that, yes, it is used, and it has a very definite meaning, and it has a connotation about the social class and education of the speaker, and is therefore considered socially improper even if it is linguistically proper.
The comment I was responding to was deriving moral law from a "standard form" and shaming those who were grown or educated in an alternative form. In fact not just shaming, but proclaiming the righteousness of discrimination based upon one's dialect.
A linguist or sociologist would describe that some form does get used and discrimination happens because of it. But they would not be prescriptive in either, and especially not the latter.