I therefore suggest that instead of fighting to revert the changes to the definition society is making, we surprise them by becoming more extreme
Let me make sure I'm following. So first, we agree that by the textbook definition that civil courts aren't "Socialism", right?
And by saying, "become more extreme" I think you're agreeing that currently our popular definition also doesn't include civil courts as socialism, right? You're intentionally taking what you perceive as a more extreme version of the popular definition to make some sort of reductio ad adsertum argument.
So your view doesn't seem to be that either the popular or the textbook definition includes civil courts, but rather we should say its included in the popular definition to make some sort of point?
redefine socialism such that even libertarians qualify
Right, so again you seem to be acknowledging that it isn't the textbook or popular definition but that redefining it that would way accomplish something.
Yep, basically.
I made this point in another thread here... many people consider food stamps to be socialism, even though they don't even closely fit the definition. There are people trying to lower the bar for what is considered socialism so that they can attack it, and there's only so much defense you can play against that kind of tactic. It's a losing battle because all you can do is fend off some of the attacks.
So instead, use the same tactic against them. Label everything as socialism, including the things they support. Use their definition of socialism against them. If they consider food stamps socialism, why not roads? Public education? Litter pickup services?
Maybe in the face of being called a socialist, they'll educate themselves about what socialism really is and start arguing from a position of better information. If not, maybe they'll start arguing about what is 'good' socialism and what is 'too much' socialism.
If we accept that :
... then maybe we should change the definition to be wrong in a way that both uses and simultaneously undermines their arguments. Really I don't think it even requires changing the colloquial definition, it just requires using their definition and showing them what their arguments really mean.
Just a thought anyway.