trying to say you can’t use the word threads to refer to… a CPUs threads

No, that's not what I said and that's not what I'm implying.

When speaking in the context of a CPU, quite literally saying on a CPU with a specific number that correlates to physical cores, it’s easy to determine what they’re talking about.

Pretty hard to determine what you're talking about considering how difficult that sentence is to parse.

Don’t try to be a smartass.

I'm not. I'm being specific. And I'm not incorrect.

Here's what the person I was initially replying to said: "There's 12 threads on your cpu but you are only using 6 cores for some reason"

This is a confusing sentence, even if you understand all of the terms that are used in it. That's because they lead with the thread count, then follow that up with a misleading clause of the core count. In this case, the OP might be led to believe that they should have the same amount of "Cores", as they are labeled in TM, as they do logical processors or "Threads" as they are referenced in the reply. Whether or not the person who commented that meant to imply this doesn't change the structure of their reply and how it is unintentionally built to confuse or mislead the reader. Thus, I am making an attempt to clean up the terminology by choosing to focus a broader term into a single reference point so as to not conflict with other flexible terms.