I actually think it is incredibly important to understand these distinctions.

From a historical perspective, absolutely. My point is that it’s not worth attempting to “out message/propagandize” literal billionaires that own the platforms in which we would attempt to do so.

And same here. You and others are insisting that it was “co-opted”.

Rothbard quite literally claims this, this isn’t an opinion lmao.

But if you actually go back to the roots of the movements and even look at how the left uses it, it is one aspect.

Yes and? What is your point even supposed to be? That it’s not an umbrella term that comprehensively covers conceivable form of socialism? I don’t think anyone is arguing that.

We are simply pointing to the historical usage of the word, it’s origins.

But… just because they “won the branding” doesn’t mean that their pseudo-anarchists aren’t libertarians

In the modern, Americanized version of the word sure. But that doesn’t change the fact that historically, and originally, it meant something entirely different.

And I also very much argue it is worth making people look themselves in the mirror to actually understand what they are advocating for with “libertarianism” regardless of if it is “polite anarchy” or not.

Again, not sure who your arguing with here. The problem isn’t that it’s “polite” anarchism (whatever that even means), it’s that they stole and corrupted terms, ideas, etc, the very bastardization itself.