I should have been more clear with the original post. I think the term has kind of come to be used how "wignat" was way back in ye olde tymes. Everybody knows and understands the boilerplate definition, but how it's actually used isn't congruent to that. I'm sure if you asked basically anyone who is throwing it around haphazzardly, they would give the same, if not an incredibly similar, definition to what you just gave. Like, back in the day, I think you could have asked anyone if they wanted dudes who went around and started throwing romans in public or the whole "plastic stalhelm" thing most people would have said "yeah we're not interested in that". Yesterday, we saw a whole bunch of people get called "e-christians" with the rationale that they were demanding groups be explicitly pro-christian, even though the actual objection was very different and if someone making an objection is a Christian, it's an easy thought-terminating cliche for why an actual answer isn't required.