"Minimal" Vs. "Lightweight"

Lightweight should mean a decent amount less CPU/Memory usage compared to other desktop environments/programs/what-have-you. For instance, Xfce with the default theme on Slackware uses around 250mb of memory, half of GNOME/Cinnamon (500mb). Lightweight should NOT mean minimal and is what the majority of people should say when discussing modern day software. If a distro is MOSTLY lightweight but has a bulky component such as systemd it should not disqualify it.

"Minimal"

This is an absolute crapfest. Thanks to distros like Arch claiming to "KISS" (a fancy way of saying minimal) people are now believing Gentoo is minimal. Neither of these are true. Minimal should be defined when a piece of software is set to do one purpose, doesn't have many features that could be considered optional, and 90% of the time are terminal-based. Portage is a huge chunk of code and does much, much more than the typical package manager. OpenRC also depends on SysV, 2 extremely large chunks of code compared to Runit or s6. OpenRC is apparently getting to be independent of SysV but it's still a large init system. Gentoo isn't minimal. Nor even is a base install of CRUX or Slackware. How could this be? Mainly GNU. The GNU userland is less than ideal, especially glibc. There's hundreds of technical reasons I could give but for the sake of keeping things simple, it's not. Also Arch isn't minimal for dead obvious reasons

tl;dr Lubuntu is lightweight, Alpine is minimal, Gentoo/Arch aren't defined by either but should mostly be considered lightweight. I don't care what you use, but consider taking my advice as it's most likely the best balance of truth and not offending people we can get.