For many years, terms related to tertiary prevention, such as deradicalization and disengagement, have been used inconsistently and often excessively, leading to frequent uncertainty about their precise meanings. This inconsistency affects not only public and media discourse, but also practical applications of tertiary prevention. Unfortunately, this issue is rarely addressed, with the lack of standardized definitions often overlooked and the resulting diversity in interpretation sometimes even celebrated. In some instances, the literature suggests that terms like deradicalization or disengagement do not require further clarification. However, in practice, clear definitions are crucial. The terminology used can significantly influence collaboration among all stakeholders, particularly in partnerships between civil society and the state. It’s essential for all parties involved, especially when working with security and law enforcement agencies, to recognize the importance of mutual understanding and respect in the interpretation and use of these terms, as tendencies toward appropriation, securitization, or dominance can emerge.