All Language, Inclusive and Exclusive

Tom over at Disputations has an interesting point:

"I don't care who does the distinguishing," said famed Sixteenth Century nominalist Tweedius Magnus, "as long as I get to do the defining."

"Inclusive language" advocates have the advantage that they invented the debate, and so got to invent the terminology in which the debate is framed.

Thus: "Exclusive language" gets to mean "speech that uses certain words in an inclusive sense." "Inclusive language" means "speech that uses those words only in an exclusive sense."

"Exclusive language" refers to inclusive language. "Inclusive language" refers to exclusive language. It's just one of those things.

My question is: Can humans actively control linguistic evolution themselves or is it something that happens passively, meaning that there is no act of force or strong encouragement? If I declare that wizziput means the act of driving to work and I strongly encourage others to use that term, and let's say others do start using it and encourage others to do it, will wizziput be a commonly accepted term in 100 years? Rather, let's say I simply make up wizziput as my own word and others begin using it just by being around my usage with no active encouragement on my part, and so on and so forth, will wizziput be a commonly accepted term in 100 years any better or worse than if I were to have strongly encouraged or even coerced people to use it?