The purpose of a language term is to convey information. It is not to prejudge whether that information is true or good. It would be impossible for society to judge whether information were true or good without first constructing the means to convey it.
When you say I cannot use the term that best conveys the information I want to present because that term was used pejoratively by someone, the result of your request would be that society loses a little bit more of its power to communicate and thereby process information communally.
It may be your goal to obfuscate a concept so that society cannot judge it, but that would not be my goal. I will continue to use the terms that best convey the information I want to present.
When I say "Socialism," I am talking the concept of a government forcing its constituents to be sociable via measures employed by less than all of its constituents. (Yes, I understand that "force" already includes the idea of some constituents not consenting, but I want to make sure that everyone grasps the concept of "force" being at odds with "consent.")
When I say "National," I am talking about a group of otherwise independent states that have given up specific areas of their sovereignty to a union of states for the purpose of mutual protection.
These are the two concepts I want to convey. They are best conveyed by the language terms "National" and "Socialism." When I put these two terms together, it is for the purpose of demonstrating the deadly relationship between their associated concepts.
Once again, the terms mean nothing. They are placeholders for concepts. The relationship of the concepts to each other, espoused by both Obama and Hitler, is what becomes deadly.
We have a couple of very important concepts to discuss if we want to act intelligently as a nation going forward. To reduce the discussion of these concepts to the level of
semantics enforcement when you cannot provide terms that better convey the concepts is moronic.
