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.