I've known about Chomsky's theory for a while, but this mockery of Chomsky's theory seriously concerns me, not because of getting an official title, but because so many people seem to believe that if they reformat or twist the words you use to express ideas, then they can actually change the ideas you believe in. The notion of recognizing the many to many relationship between words and ideas is utterly ignored, and the notion of coming to terms with what people really mean is ignored too.
A time, energy, and attention game gets played where misinterpretations are taken for granted. If it takes too much mental work to get how words can mean something else from what's expected, then the alternate interpretation is dismissed... but then maybe Chomsky was getting at that all along when considering how computers can't compute forever, so they should default to what's most obvious.
I guess this drives me nuts as a driver since I constantly have to be on my toes when talking to different passengers who use the same words to mean totally different things even in basic context when discussing simple content. Customer service takes a ton of flexibility to read the sentiment of the passenger. You have to look at body language and facial expression and listen to tone of voice... but even that isn't everything. What you really have to do is listen to the tempo and meter of how people speak. It's in the articulation. It's in the emphasis. It's not just the raw volume and pitch. It's how the specific syllables of words are pronounced relative to each other instead of taking certain bits absolutely for granted.
Maybe Chomsky's theory was inevitably going to get mocked for trying to reduce words down to the syntax they're placed in and not realizing the need to make language evolve to more nuanced syntaxes, moods, and parts of speech.