But understanding each other does not always have to do with the meaning of a word or the positive-negative value that we give these words. Often it is more about a willingness to understand, a willingness to listen.
I think that that is lacking here, in this part of the thread at least.
That is the trouble with rigid ideology, you have to make everything else flexible in order to fit within it. As we used to joke, who are you going to believe, comrade, your lying ears or me?
William Shakespeare was able to say far more with fewer words. Everytime we allow someone to use a word that is not accurate, we contribute to the confusion. I am being more of a stickler here because we (on this forum) do not challenge the use of words as often as we should, probably out of politeness. This thread began because the original post was unclear and several posters voiced clarification.
If I allow someone to call a chicken a duck, then I contributed to the confusion when duck and chicken are used interchangeably. Say what you mean, mean what you say.