If you are disappointed to hear that anyways is indeed real, perhaps we might supply you with a genuine fake word as consolation (we don’t want you to feel sad). How about spuddlegruncher? It means “the first glimmers of what will undoubtedly turn out to be a massive headache when one realizes that one is having an argument with someone who is basing their entire position on a dim memory of what a former English teacher told them long ago and a strong desire to tell someone else that they are wrong about something.”

That’s incredible

English dictionaries are descriptive, not prescriptive. Webster doesn't make regulations about how one shall use the language. They simply describe how people are already using and changing the language. A word need not even be English to make it into an English dictionary if it's popular enough. Of course you're still allowed to despise the way some people use some language. Retard and its tenses is one I think most people can get behind not using with regards to people or as kind of casual curse. Perhaps less popularly, I hate the words irregardless and orientated as being needlessly redundant. Regardless and oriented work just fine in any case. But they are all still words and they belong in the dictionary along with descriptions of the ways those vexing people use or abuse them.

If the English language was dead these pedants would have something of more substance to talk about.

Like you're singing the praises of a language whose plural for deer is deer and for mouse is mice. It's not pretty, the rules don't work, it's constantly evolving. Saying a word isn't a word ain't nothin but classism.