You misunderstand the criticism of jargon. It's not there's no meaning, or redundancy, or you're using them incorrectly. It's that you're making it unnecessarily difficult to follow, and thus causing any possible errors on your part to be less obvious yet seem more sophisticated.

As a rationalist, your beliefs should be taboo-invariant. If you can only communicate your ideas using rare phrases, you don't really understand your own point; if you deliberately chose not to make it easier to follow, I have no sympathy. Either way, there's no point to spending time considering your arguments.