I'm convinced the vast majority of people use the terms "capitalism" and "socialism" to mean whatever is convenient in the argument they are having.

Capitalism and socialism are about ownership of the means of production.

While most economies are mixed. Nations typically associated with "socialism" like Sweden and Denmark are mostly capitalist. Nations like Bolivia and Venezuela are the ones that are actually mostly socialist.

It's entirely possible to have a highly redistributive capitalist country, with a strong social safety net. It's also entirely possible to have a socialist country with extreme wealth inequality and a terrible social safety net. It just depends on how things are structured.

The other reply certainly supports this view

That also includes self-described supporters of socialism, who almost always mean something closer to social democracy. They tend to point to places like Scandinavia, who are absolutely capitalist. They just have better social safety nets.

They're misusing the term, but at least they're reasonably consistent about it. The opponents of "socialism" tend to point to places like the Soviet Union as proof that "socialism" cannot work. And when supporters point to the success of Scandinavian-type policies, opponents insist it cannot work because it's socialism.

We could have had some kind of honest discussion about which social safety net policies are worth having. Instead we're stuck in arguments about dictionaries.

Socialism is when the government does things I don't like. It's really not more complicated than that. People stating these things are some of the most ignorant in modern humanity. But they also represent like a third of the population in the US as depressing as that is. They are literally why we cannot have nice things.