Yeah, that's the type of thing. I had a look at the thrust of your arguments to kateorman and agreed: like you I don't think it's adequate to co-opt a term in common use, for however an admirable reason, and then claim this is a suitable basis for communicating productively with people from the political mainstream, to whom you're not even going to bother explaining how you've altered the meaning of said term.

I think there's a quite natural urge to sit down, define terms, build a framework within which a topic can be explored, and from there proceed to political action. However I don't see the benefit of denying a model is a model.