That's a fair point and I agree in general. However, in this specific case I disagree. To show that I agree, allow me to point out how in my earlier comment I

That's a fair point and I agree in general. However, in this specific case I disagree. To show that I agree, allow me to point out how in my earlier comment I used the word "radical" in a technically incorrect but more useful (in my opinion) way. Technically each kanji has only a single radical and the rest are pseudo-radicals, but for most purposes it's simply more useful to just refer to them all as "radicals". Additionally, I don't know of a more proper term than pseudo-radicals and the distinction isn't very important anymore because radical order dictionaries have essentially become obsolete by technology. I fully acknowledge that excess pedantry can be a roadblock to clear communication. Now I'll explain why I disagree in this specific case: The issue is that "alphabet" is a very specific term like "x86 CPU". While it's not too wrong to go around calling the things inside GPUs and most phones "x86 CPU"s, it's technically incorrect and to those with in-depth knowledge, it's needlessly confusing when there's a perfectly good word that we can use to describe them, "CPU" or in the case of writing systems, "writing system". Although, I do agree that syllabries and alphabets are not too dissimilar, logographic systems and alphabets are quite dissimilar. Perhaps it's simply a matter of who I've talked to, but I've never heard anyone who knew how to use these writing systems refer to them as "alphabet"s, so I felt the need to correct it. I'd be willing to believe that my friends are much more pedantic than the average person. Thus, it is somewhat pedantic but I feel that it's a useful distinction and that an adequate alternative word exists. Additionally due to this being on HN as opposed to a casual conversation, I think using the more correct, more precise, and more useful word when possible is a fair goal to strive towards.