There’s no reason to point out that your relative who says everyone in his life is conspiring against him is addicted to meth.

There is no reason to notice when an essay opposing increased mall security was written by someone who’s been convicted of shoplifting dozens of times.

And we must never point out that a person advocating for the political status quo, and against shaking up the established order, has accumulated billions of dollars in private wealth.

Ok so for redefinition to happen, a definition needs to change.

> it's you who believes the author didn't use the correct word, based on reasons that have nothing to do with the article.

>

> Since neither one of us can read the author's mind, it's not a productive avenue of discussion. A text should always be taken at face value. Otherwise, we'll be no longer discussing the text, but each other's imagination.

I'm confused now because you seem to be saying I think the author didn't use the correct word - but I never said that in my text, so you haven't taken my text at face value.