I should never have downloaded The Guardian app

[Ironside]

Not really relevant; it's an observation of how such a phenomenon cuts both ways. This may have non-trivial consequences; such as both exaggeration and underestimation of disprivilege.

Not relevant here.

But I and my 200 000 friends could define 'Nazis' as those who disagree with us; and if some people object to our usage of that term, we can just say "well, we define 'Nazi' that way, so go eat a biscuit". You specifically mentioned 'SJWs' in that post you quote, and they are generally not academics. They also use these terms intentionally outside of their own circles; just as it was used in the article that sparked this topic.

You have to have a term talking about the tendency for the US police to kill black people and get away with it despite all evidence indicating that it was more or less murder, while still having a black president, who ended up accused of not being US born (a peculiar accusation), despite his opponent being not US born (born in at the time in US territory).
Or other such generic disadvantages.

Of course, when that spreads outside academic circles, they'll keep the language.

And considering how often Nazi is thrown around as an insult, I'm not sure I follow you on that. If you want to be picky, in that case, it's the academics who use the word sparingly, while the general population blurs it out.

[Viking]

You have to have a term talking about the tendency for the US police to kill black people and get away with it despite all evidence indicating that it was more or less murder, while still having a black president, who ended up accused of not being US born (a peculiar accusation), despite his opponent being not US born (born in at the time in US territory).
Or other such generic disadvantages.

You do expect the choice of a term to be related to the common or normal meaning of it. The less related it is, the more inappropriate it is to use it outside of an academic context.

Of course, when that spreads outside academic circles, they'll keep the language.

But the concepts they have in mind may not be copied so faithfully. Either way, if people are going to use common words with non-obvious meanings, it's imperative to specify and/or explain these meanings - as long as there is a desire to be understood correctly.

And considering how often Nazi is thrown around as an insult, I'm not sure I follow you on that. If you want to be picky, in that case, it's the academics who use the word sparingly, while the general population blurs it out.

Its usage as an insult is typically relatively arbitrary and sporadic. What I was suggesting was for e.g. a movement to include 'Nazi' in its regular terminology, but with a meaning that is unrelated to the original meaning; and where the usage of the word has obvious rhetorical potential.

[Montmorency]

in its regular terminology, but with a meaning that is unrelated to the original meaning; and where the usage of the word has obvious rhetorical potential.

That is actually perhaps the big problem with SJW-ism (metaphysical or epistemological quarrels aside).

Terms like "appropriation", "privilege", and "racism" with a lot of rhetorical baggage in non-obvious and often unelaborated or equivocal ways.

One might even say that they are the ones practicing "appropriation" of a sort.

It doesn't help that a big chunk of the popular part of the movement uses these terms carelessly or without awareness and purely as put-downs or insults, i.e. without what some call "propositional" content. So, in other words, it becomes very difficult to discuss an issue with them, since there is a lurking need to clarify definitions. Often, the movement will prove so diverse that different members will use the same terms in contradictory ways, or in ways that contradict the core tenets of other sub-sets of the base.

For example: "Cultural racism" is sometimes invoked as opposed to "naturalistic" racism.

I feel it's disingenuous to borrow the connotations of the latter (with reference to its roots in the justifications for prejudice in the 18th and 19th centuries) to discuss cultural influences on behavior, as discussing cultural influence on behavior is what everyone, including SJWs, does anyway. As I mentioned in an earlier post, it seems to conflict with a common SJW predilection for sociologism and emphasis on culture in behavior. Furthermore, the implication seems to be that culture is effective generally in behavior except specifically in economic performance. I have never seen such a thing flatly stated or defended, but that's the implication, and it seems difficult to defend on its face.

Or when "racism" is defined specifically as a relationship from more powerful to less powerful groups, and as specifically systemic. Depending on how this sort of definition is composed, it can actually become impossible to describe an individual as a "racist", since obviously most individuals are not major power brokers in their societies. Clearly, to subscribe to this definition and still call an individual "a racist" is sophism. But "bigot" doesn't have the same "weight", and using new, more precise terms would would obviously have an uphill struggle first within academia, and then throughout the rest of the public consciousness.

Clarity and precision is definitely a huge deficit in SJW-ism. The movement really needs to consolidate its positions before it can be considered seriously. As of now, the only unifying characteristic is a rhetoric of morality and self-righteousness - which makes them indistinguishable from the right-wing, in my point of view.