> But the terms are not ill-defined I'm asserting that if there is no rough agreement on definitions then you can't have a coherent conversation. You seem to

> But the terms are not ill-defined I'm asserting that if there is no rough agreement on definitions then you can't have a coherent conversation. You seem to be asserting that there is an effort to actively obscure the meaning of these terms, which doesn't negate my assertion. It doesn't matter why there is no agreement (deception, lack of education, laziness, etc.) without the agreement you can't really have a coherent discussion. Your assertion that there are some who are knowingly obfuscating language is worthy of discussion but seems like a different (but related) point. I tend to agree with you regarding muddled language, but I'm not so sure about "those with power and wealth" being the cause.