>is the intentional muddying and stretching of terms for political power. You are basically taking stored power of communication in language and breaking it down for immediate political use.
That's one way to put it, yes. That is a lot of what I'm opposing here. There's a massive gulf, at least in my estimation, between language growing/changing/evolving vs the abuse of rhetoric or other charged language to cultivate what gets communicated and how. I think anyone who looks at this as a good strategy where the validity and "good-ness" of it is only determined by "who? Whom?" Is exceptionally short sighted. I want nothing to do with people who don't value truth.