>>101724
>The "okay" hand symbol corrupted to mean white power is evidence of the potential effectiveness of this tactic.
What you are describing is something else. Your example is not using leftist terminology because the hand-symbol is unrelated to leftism, it is simply Pavlovian conditioning at a large scale. That is a case of diluting a term by intentionally forcing them to mislabel something. Sort of similar to what was done with Ben Garrison but linked to a concept instead of a person. So if you were to force them to label blue cars with green stripes as being a dogwhistle for sexists that you support their cause, it would become a symbol of sexism. So it is not their terminology.
>It's important to use the same terminology
If you are going about diluting a term then actually dilute it by using it incorrectly. Otherwise simply do not speak their language by using it correctly, use completely different terms that are foreign to them if you wish to use a word that they are using. Using the term "racism" correctly when talking to them is counter-productive, even if it is ironic. You either use a term that puts them on the backfoot like "anti-white" (which they get butthurt over because they are forced to explain either why being anti-white is good or why it is not anti-white, this is the cause for their frustration when they hear it) or just use some other word that they do not. I can definitely understand not wanting to use words that have been tainted but don't default to their definitions.
The biggest issue with using their language is that, by accepting their language and terms, you are accepting the terms and conditions that come with them. So if you use the word "racism", regardless of what you are arguing, you are already accepting the premise that racism is bad because of the luggage that comes with it. As a result of which you are forced to either play anti-racist or waste a lot of time trying to remove the luggage from that term, which puts you in the defensive.
