Fair enough. I'm speaking relatively, and thinking in particular of various atheist forums where people would tell newcomers that they 'didn't know what 'atheism' meant' and similar in incredibly aggressive and/or patronising tones. Meant that if people turned up with a different understanding of how the vocab was used they were immediately alienated.
Rationality's a bit tougher because I think the primary sense is a fairly broad/informal one about truth or outcome maximisation. And so part of the argument is that this site is attempting the same thing as others but is doing better at achieving that thing.
I haven't actually seen someone turn up and talk about philosophical rationalism only to get a reply of the 'that's not what rationalism means, LOL' kind.
Ah yeah, speaking relative to other forums, I can see your point. It appals me sometimes how thick some people self-labeling as "atheist" can be.
Rationality and rationalism suffer the "what do you mean by that?" problem, yes. I think LW could do with more understanding that the local usage is quite explicitly LW's (or EY's) understanding of the word. Not that I consider this a big problem - and I expect the world will label the local variety in some unambiguous manner shortly after EY's rationality book comes out. (I think "Yudkows...
You see, I've seen the word "rationalism" used to mean all five of these things at different times:
Edited to reinstate that proposed solution, since this discussion is presumably finished.