I think I can summarize pretty much everything I'm saying with two short points, in the interest of brevity:
What could possibly go wrong?
1. Whether you use a word or not, you can still take a position that expresses the same idea as that word. Example: if a politician says taxes can't go down or stay where they are, you can say they want to raise taxes even though they haven't literally said that.
Sure, you could say that, and it would appear that in this case you would be correct. What I would do, if someone asked, would be to give the politician's exact quote, and then follow it up by saying, "what this means to me is that he's going to raise taxes". As a general rule, instead of picking and choosing when, I like to let the person I'm speaking to make up their own mind even when it is obvious. This is just how I look at these things, and it prevents me from passing along the incorrect interpretation of a message. No matter how intelligent you may be, when you take it upon yourself to interpret someone's words, you are at risk of getting it wrong since it's not always so clear cut. Back to the politician's message. Another person, and you know this happens a lot, could relay to someone else that the politician intends to raise taxes on black people. Well technically it is true, but at the same time it is misleading. This is the same type of nonsense you are pulling with me, except it's missing the true part. This particular point you are making is extremely ironic, but I'll get back to it.
2. Similarly, a decision not to speak up or to be passive is still an expression of priorities, and therefore still a comparison between things. Example: if someone thinks their friend is marrying an awful person but says nothing, you can say they prefer the risk of their friend being unhappy to the risk of ruining their friendship with a difficult conversation, even if they haven't literally said one is worse than the other.
In the first case the politician could say "I never said the word 'raise'!" But they said other words that mean the same thing. And in the second case the person could say "they're both bad, I never compared them!" But they did, because they had to choose whether the action was worth the cost, and decided it wasn't, a decision only possible by comparing the two.
Ok let me just get to why all of this is nonsensical and ironic.
It's obvious I am pro-vaccine, but really think about what I would say to a stranger who asked me if they should get vaccinated.
1. I would tell them that I chose to get vaccinated.
This would of course tell them that I think getting vaccinated is the right thing to do.
2. I would tell them to research the matter.
Of course the research would tell them to get vaccinated.
3. I would tell them to consult their physician.
Obviously their physician would tell them to get vaccinated.
For some strange reason this is not good enough for you and it now means I'm comparing tragedies???
"Whether you use a word or not, you can still take a position that expresses the same
idea as that word."
That's what you said, yet you fail to see that what I'm telling the stranger to do is in fact to get vaccinated without actually saying the words. As I'm sure you know, there are many people out there who just flat out don't like being told what to do. I am not comfortable telling people what they should do with their body, but I can point them in the right direction without being pushy or condescending. I believe with a lot of people this is a more effective way of going about it.
By the way, this whole post of yours comes off as pretentious. We are not children who need a teaching moment.