In this post, Scott Alexander makes a good case for correcting people, but he also provides a few guidelines for determining what counts as nitpicking and what counts as rigor. Here are his caveats:
Let someone be a little wrong if their impact is small and they are not in a mood to debate.
Allow oversimplifications, figures of speech, and misnomers for pedagogical and artistic purposes, unless you can explain why an argument hinges on their choice of terms.
If someone dismissively accuses you of nitpicking, instead of explaining why your distinction isn’t relevant, then they’re bullying.
Despite my attempt to summarize his post, it’s worth reading in its entirety.
In this post, Scott Alexander makes a good case for correcting people, but he also provides a few guidelines for determining what counts as nitpicking and what counts as rigor. Here are his caveats:
Let someone be a little wrong if their impact is small and they are not in a mood to debate.
Allow oversimplifications, figures of speech, and misnomers for pedagogical and artistic purposes, unless you can explain why an argument hinges on their choice of terms.
If someone dismissively accuses you of nitpicking, instead of explaining why your distinction isn’t relevant, then they’re bullying.
Despite my attempt to summarize his post, it’s worth reading in its entirety.