f@ wrote:" a dictionary definition is not "right", it is simply a definition that is widely accepted as a common understanding."
and this depends, of course, on which dictionary, how thick it is, and the extent that someone uses and understands the variety of words/definitions therein. :-)
fwiw, i sense both Syrphant and f@ points as relevant and both attempting to bring clarity. the latter (perhaps?) attempting to clarify the con-fusion between, say, 'racism,' with 'prejudice,' and 'bigotry' which are all used, commonly enough in my experience, in a synonymous manner. here, i see it has helpful for clarity, not only in terms of conversation, but my own world-navigation.
from here (that is, my view) f@ simply wishes not to read nor hear piles of text and jargon-fogged soliloquies, respectively. this seems understandable and i feel some affinity with this as well.
however, i gotta say this conversation is, for one, completely dependent upon the language we speak which has developed within and for mass society, whether or not we like it. it's simply not completely on our (ie each one of us) terms. every word is 'defined' by yet more words each every bit as ambiguous and open-ended as the other. there seems to be no other choice as long as we speak this language, live its ambiguity, remain faithful to its core perspectives (per its grammatical structure) and enact it in written form...particularly online.
edit: all in all it seems that if one *does* use the dictionary, expands one's vocabulary, one is damned to the labels 'obfuscation' and 'jargon'. if one *doesn't* delve deep then one is confined to an ever inadequate expression of their own sense of the world forever the 'knuckledragger' and 'simpleton.'