Quote Originally Posted by Viking View Post
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.