Bullying and opression should be used more interchangeably

So obviously there is a current distinction between bullying and oppression. I don't fully understand why you would want to reduce peoples vernacular. Someone being bullied and someone being oppressed both have negative connotations. I don't think either one is acceptable but I also don't see a problem with specificity. So just to be clear about what we're talking about I'm going to source a 3rd party definition of both words. { https://www. Dictionary. Com/browse/bullying }{ https://www. Dictionary. Com/browse/oppression } In the first definition of oppression we see the point I'm making about specificity. "the exercise of authority or power in a burdensome, Cruel, Or unjust manner. " Take this against the first definition of bully. "a blustering, Quarrelsome, Overbearing person who habitually badgers and intimidates smaller or weaker people. " The key difference in the definitions is the authority. A bully isn't in a position of authority where as an oppressor is. To argue that power is equal to authority is obviously false. Authority is a type of power but in the case of justice we could say it is vested to the authorities. I know it might be a bit redundant but power is to authority as bully is to oppress. So you might just be nodding along like yes I know what these words mean and I'm arguing that they should be used more interchangeably and that's cool. I just want to be on the same page. My reason for not wanting to simplify language is a 1984 style argument. We shouldn't give into forcing any kind of newspeak. Especially if you have some kind of political agenda behind using certain words. Now I'm not for the use of profanity because I believe things that are truly profane have an inherit call to action. Like the F bomb used to be a way of saying I can still kill you with my bow because I have my middle finger. Over the years it has lost its affect but back in the day it was truly profane. I don't think you have any evidence that bully is profane so I don't think you could suggest replacing it with oppression like that. There is also a danger in using oppressed as bully in that children aren't tried as adults. I know that seems out there but let me explain. A bully doesn't have authority to act the way he does he just chooses to. No one authorizes a bully and I would reject calling him the authority just because he is bigger or louder than the person he is bullying. So calling a child an oppressor because he wants to be mean to a kid is excessive. If every bully were considered an oppressor what would you say when you visited Sierra Leon and see child soldiers literally oppressing. Now I'm not against using colorful or figurative language but I don't see any reason to promote this exaggeration over any other figurative language. I also find it strange that you would be for interchangeability if you wanted to marginalize social justice warriors. Wouldn't you just not consider sjw values as oppression and define it as bullying instead? There is no need to interchange words if you believe kids are receiving amends for undeserving trophies. You should make the distinction clear and call them out for virtue signaling. Don't try to change the definitions to make them more interchangeable especially when the definitions would make your point. Last paragraph seems misplaced but I'll go ahead and tell you some of my political background. I'm a huge fan of Locke and I don't believe that egalitarianism and hierarchies are mutually exclusive. If you defend everyone's individual liberty over the ages dynasties will be free to rise and fall much more peacefully.