Does anyone else get annoyed when (often philosophical) words are misused in common speach? Examples: Some anti-consumerist or anti-capitalists say “Materialism is bad,” which is annoying as a dialectical materialist. Materialism is the philosophy of putting matter over mind when studying the world, not liking fancy things. People frequently complain about “cynicism” meaning self-interest, cold-heartedness, or unreasonable skepticism. In reality it’s an ancient philosophy of living naturally and virtuously, rejecting social norms and ideals. I legit heard someone saying Stoicism means seriousness as in taking a sport seriously. It’s a philosophy of living virtuously and avoiding unnecessary psychological pain. These days people only know “op/ps” as opposition not operatives or operations. Finally, I know someone who thinks “dialectics” pretty much just means talking.
(not sure if this is the right comm, but it’s a rant)
This is where I pull out my “we must never stop explaining” card. Correcting people on using a word wrong makes you “annoying” but also teaches them something, and in turn, makes you someone who they can turn to when they are confused by the usage of a term somewhere. I usually try to be incredulous when people use words wrong, feigning ignorance and trying to correct them that way. Works much better than the “umm acktually” that most people imagine when thinking about someone correcting them.
I have managed to teach a few of my lib friends that whenever they use “materialism” they mean “consumerism” at least. And have made a little bit of headway with terms like “authoritarianism” though I will admit that one isn’t too successful.
Also, being very determined to make sure people understand the definitions of words insulates you against the inevitable “But literally 1984!” arguments libs love to make when talking to communists. If you clearly care about words and their meaning, and they don’t, they can’t use one of their biggest easy dismissals of communist arguments.