Absolutely we agree. Being able to recognize and intelligently question bad science does not appear to have much overlap with conservatives, at least in America.
The only point I'm making is that it's nonsensical for you to claim to be receiving "Soros bucks" for shilling ultra-processed food as healthy. That's not a stance the Soros foundation takes.
It's true, some people do lack the language skills to understand vague or ambiguous terms, even in context. Ultra-processed is certainly a vague term. "Incoherent" is a trait on the recipient's end rather than a trait of the term though.
The solution is to improve our education system so these people can understand ambiguous language. Not only will this resolve arguments around the colloquial use of "ultra-processed" but it will improve society overall by increasing the communication ability of some of its currently less skilled memebers.
I'm sure the label seems incoherent to you. It must be frustrating seeing others discuss things that you can't make sense of.
The insight I offer, is that for many, a term may be both vague and lack a rigorous scientific definition, while still being meaningful and useful. This is a foundational concept and if you manage to internalize it I suspect that "ultra-processed" will be only one among many things that will begin to appear coherent to you.
The only point I'm making is that it's nonsensical for you to claim to be receiving "Soros bucks" for shilling ultra-processed food as healthy. That's not a stance the Soros foundation takes.