[flagged]
I was trying to ask a genuine question about how real conversation happens when neither sides seems to care about the real meaning of words.
That's an issue with people who believe in the "cultural marxist" conspiracy view of liberalism, but in reality most liberals don't want a "fascist, socialist new order" any more than most conservatives want Nazism or most feminists hate men. The premise that the lunatic fringe of any ideology represents the mainstream is one commonly employed to ridicule and dismiss any arguments presented on their behalf.
>In age when words have no meaning (fake news, alt facts, unlimited, gender/sex, etc) how do we communicate?
It's not true that words have no meaning.
Fake news, for instance, has an explicit meaning, despite attempts by the right wing to muddy the waters and imply that it either means nothing, or should only apply to mainstream media. "Alternative facts" was a hamfisted attempt at propaganda on behalf of the Trump administration which has its roots in "post-truth" politics[0] and the premise of the "reality based community"[1], and it was all but entirely ridiculed.
Your inclusion of "gender/sex" here, for instance suggests you don't believe LGBT identity represents a valid definition of the meaning of gender and sex, but it isn't correct, or productive, to view that definition as an erasure or corruption of a term. Simply dismissing other definitions of a term as valid isn't the same as that term no longer having meaning.