Having shared definitions also prevents deliberate/strategic misinterpretation.
The existence of a dictionary which claims to be apolitical doesn’t mean that people will have shared definitions. Webster’s dictionary already exists. This doesn’t stop people from having semantic disagreements.
Sure, nothing is ever apolitical. But you can try to make it less so.
How does one make a “less political” dictionary that explicitly and exclusively deals with political concepts?
What do you mean “the standard reasons”?
There’s a risk of EA being subsumed under one or another political party, which would make it less credible to those of different political affiliations. There’s also the risk of turning into the kind of dumpster fire of bad faith arguments that many political forums encounter. There’s also the fact that political issues are relatively less neglected.
The existence of a dictionary which claims to be apolitical doesn’t mean that people will have shared definitions. Webster’s dictionary already exists. This doesn’t stop people from having semantic disagreements.
How does one make a “less political” dictionary that explicitly and exclusively deals with political concepts?
There’s a risk of EA being subsumed under one or another political party, which would make it less credible to those of different political affiliations. There’s also the risk of turning into the kind of dumpster fire of bad faith arguments that many political forums encounter. There’s also the fact that political issues are relatively less neglected.