>Anybody who claims it's not "unstable" does misdirection of clinging to the technicalities of wording of the specific claim
In the context of aviation "stable" and "unstable" almost always refer to longitudinal static stability. Sure, it's a technicality but this is a term of art even beginner pilots should be quite familiar with.
>while still being the death trap under non-average conditions
Which has precisely nothing to do with stability, but with the plane deciding to fly into the ground.
That's exactly my point. Most of the readers aren't aware of these nuances in technical terminology, so when somebody pops up and claims something that is technically true (as "plane is not unstable") but practically irrelevant (because the plane is dangerous having its own geometry alone and without some additional correction like a correctly implemented MCAS as it should have been but wasn't as the the deceptions were a higher priority because profits) they get a wrong impression that the Boeing 737 MAX and the managers making it are "less dangerous" and "less guilty" than they really are.
In the context of aviation "stable" and "unstable" almost always refer to longitudinal static stability. Sure, it's a technicality but this is a term of art even beginner pilots should be quite familiar with.
>while still being the death trap under non-average conditions
Which has precisely nothing to do with stability, but with the plane deciding to fly into the ground.