I don't mind jargon. Jargon is a special set of terms which apply within one particular field or discipline. When physicists discovered "quarks" (small particles) had various properties, they fell back on existing terms to name them, so "charm" and "strange" have a unusual physics-specific meaning now. Likewise, software developers constantly need to create new terms, so you'll hear about "java" which isn't coffee-related, "ant" which has nothing to do with insects, and "terminal" which does not refer to disease nor travel.

These terms help communicate a complex set of ideas easily and clearly.

But what drives me nuts are when people make up new terms which are wrong, unclear and needlessly obscure, when a much simpler term would apply.

The one which has been bugging me lately has been "socialized to", which I've heard repeated endlessly (at different corporations) in the last several months. "The rules need to be socialized to the development team." Translation: "Tell the developers the rules." It's not like you're going to throw a party, invite them, and then drop subtle hints about the data flow, between hors d'ouevres.

Another recent one is "moral equivalent" meaning -- not the practice of identifying good and evil as morally identical (which is what the term means) -- but "roughly similar to", in no moral dimension at all. The usage just means "equivalent", but people are throwing in "moral" beforehand to -- what -- confuse the heck out of their listerners? Sound sophisticated? I have no idea. It just makes them sound confused to me:

"Moral equivalence" is the practice of falsely claiming two unlike moral actions are identical. But people are now trying to use it to mean two equivalent and non-moral things have the same effect.

A good rule of thumb is probably to avoid using terms until you understand what they mean. It will save you from looking stupid to those who actually do know what the terms mean. You'll only impress people who know less than you.

But perhaps that's the whole point?