Who's confused?

The recent discussions remind me of one of C. L. Dodgson's characters, who says, if effect, when I use a word, it means exactly what I want it to mean, neither more nor less. And, although a couple of days late, I am reminded of my favorite punch line of Lucy's from one of the Peanuts Sunday strips years ago: "Somewhere there must be a music school where they teach harmony, counterpoint and sarcasm."
Newspaper columnists, whose columns may be read by many, don't necessarily grasp the technical subtleties of the subjects about which they are writing. Those who compile dictionaries, even covering specialized subjects, may also lack such understanding of semantic subtleties. Traditionally, dictionaries are based on common usage and/or academic opinions. Also traditionally, academia defends the status quo and has little use or understanding or even awareness of new movements in any field, especially music.
As long as we can understand each other (although this appears problematical at times), why should we bicker over the precision of definitions? The general public might, at best, be expected, upon its rare exposure to our musics, to notice that it sounds different somehow. We can hardly expect any single term to convey an understandable explanation of why that is so.