I mean, it seems like that's the cultural push-and-pull depicted here: Some people don't like it and make that known. If their opinion ends up prevailing and papers containing silliness end up being rejected by the major journals of their field, doctoral comittees etc., eventually the silliness may be driven out and gatekept.
We fans of harmless humour would lament as much as the guy in the OP laments now. We would presumably attempt to encourage silliness, as the guy in the OP does now.
Consensus swinging one way naturally doesn't magically mean we now have to change our opinions to fit the consensus. Right now, language evolves in our favour, and we will attempt to support and leverage that evolution because it suits us.