It was said in the discussion that the use of semantics stifles constructive communication. I find that it often is the exact opposite in that people ask “why did you say that?” and so end up learning something new.
For me, semantics are part of the reason that I use the term “Revivalist” instead of “Reconstructionist” these days. It is part of the reason that I deem Halloween a SECULAR holiday in my home and Samhain a religious one — even though they fall on the same day (my hubby is an eclectic Pagan and celebrates Samhain while I do not).
Semantics are at the core of clarity for me. And clarity is a necessity for someone who writes. If not, then we tend to make the mistakes of false equivalence. When we do that we muddy the waters for people who are new to the various viewpoints. That is something that I do not want to do. I want to help keep things as clear as possible for people who are exploring the rich variety of Pagan and Polytheistic thinking (and yes, those terms are NOT equivalent as Shinto and Hindu beliefs are polytheistic but not Pagan)
I refuse to engage in eclectic thinking for the sake of being “eclectic” and will not draw equivalence based on an incomplete knowledge of the society that would be doing the equating. Somehow, this feels right…..