I would consider what's going on here is literally the definition of failure to communicate as humans because many here *cannot* agree on terminology

Okay, so you are acknowledging that an agreement on terminology and a shared understanding of it needs to occur for successful communication to happen. In other words, that terms need to be intersubjective if we want to have any chance at communicating at all.

This is exactly the point I was making above.

If you think a shared understanding is vital for successful communication, how do you square that of with your claims that having your own subjective definition of politics is perfectly reasonable and acceptable and there's nothing we can or need to do about it?

Working with your own definitions and not trying to come to a shared one is by your own admission a failure to communicate. So why do you then insist on just claiming a term is completely subjective instead of at least trying to offer a term that can be agreed upon. Why do you insist on communicating in a way that by your own admission is bound to lead to communication breakdown?