And more importantly, why does the incredibly recent addition of Pluto to the list of planets not fall under scientists "try[ing] to exert control over other scientists and members of the general public"? You'd have a point if the planets were set in stone for hundreds of years, but as-is I can't follow your logic why one is okay and the other is not.
We don’t have a problem with armchair scientists correcting people about the 1930s discovery of Pluto and how it was discussed at the time, we have a problem with armchair scientists being aggravating when people want to engage with the idea of Pluto today and refer to it as a planet.
But I have a feeling that the problem you see is just a fairly normal social mechanism: if you use words differently from the majority of people, you will keep getting corrected because:
- some people might be genuinely trying to troll/aggravate you the way you're describing
- BUT: others might genuinely think you've made a mistake and try to correct you, unaware of any discourse
- and finally, other people might just disagree and attempt to discuss
No conspiracy is necessary to meet plenty of people who disagree, and the level of accusations you're throwing around tells me you might not be able to clearly categorize everyone.
Even if the person correcting you isn’t acting like an overexcited 13-year-old jumping up to correct someone about it, you must agree that as a point of discussion — as a matter of good taste and manners — telling someone that Pluto isn’t a planet is just terribly boring by now, and if that is stated as a response to something the person was trying to say, there’s a risk that attention and energy is being diluted from the actual point? Of course it happens earnestly, but there are still all of the other times and ways that it happens.