This might not be the right place to post this question, as it's a bit meta and ultimately about semantics.
My question came from a discussion about Genghis Khan, wherein one party asserted that he was an "empire builder" and another person asserted that he was a "conqueror".
I understand that the debate also comes down to someone's point of view. One person's occupying force is another's peacekeeping force; someone's freedom fighter is another's terrorist, etc.
But in this case, I think there is a distinction to be made between conquerors and empire builders... I'm just having trouble making it. So, historians of reddit, is there a fundamental difference between an empire builder and a conqueror, or are the two terms two sides of the same coin?
Well you're using entirely arbitrary terms that aren't even defined, so the distinction is pretty meaningless
An empire is necessarily multinational or multiethnic; while it's possible to build an empire through voluntary admission (the US could arguably be considered an empire consisting of the various states, which - at least initially - all voluntarily confederated) or by annexing unclaimed territory, it's rare - especially the latter - and empires are usually built through conquest.
Given that, I think it's fair to say that it's largely down to perspective. Empire builders are the ones we like; conquerors are the ones we don't. Someone who calls themselves an "empire-builder" wants to appear grandiose; someone who calls themselves a conqueror wants to be feared.