Is it that psychiatrists in general could maybe use this label, but you know this one is doing it wrong? Otherwise, who is allowed to use the term?

Doesn't it kinda inspire you at least a little to reflect on your understanding of the particular term? Or should we understand that to be faultless here?

In general, the definition we need to have here is that psychosis is always extreme and violent and pretty much matching the cultural trope we have for it? And anything less is incorrect usage? Is that why you disagree in explicit terms?

> Is it that psychiatrists in general could maybe use this label, but you know this one is doing it wrong? Otherwise, who is allowed to use the term?

I specifically take issue with the weak standard used.

> Doesn't it kinda inspire you at least a little to reflect on your understanding of the particular term? Or should we understand that to be faultless here?

Is there a way to read this that isn't insulting? Do I need to reflect on my understanding until it matches yours?

> In general, the definition we need to have here is that psychosis is always extreme and violent and pretty much matching the cultural trope we have for it? And anything less is incorrect usage? Is that why you disagree in explicit terms?

Never said any of that. It's a medical term and carries weight. Core symptoms are hallucinations and delusions. Here, delusions is not "my corporate product is better than your corporate product", it is not a strongly held belief that isn't real. We don't call belief in God psychosis. (some do, but that's beside the point)