If you're on the right, and you're describing your opponents or their ideas:
1) Use BIGOT/BIGOTRY, not RACIST/RACISM
2) Use CONSPIRACY THEORY/THEORIST, not HOAX/HOAXER
3) Use PROGRESSIVE PRIVILEGE, not DOUBLE STANDARD/HYPOCRISY
They've redefined racism to mean prejudice+power.
You can take the time to fight them on that.
Or you can just frame their intolerance as BIGOTRY
1) they haven't redefined
2) sounds terrible
3) has terrible connotations
Racism is just one form of bigotry
By opposing BIGOTRY you are opposing intolerance generally
Does anyone think intolerance is good?
Apologies to @Cernovich, as the latter works with his branding.
1) It's more accurate
2) It's more of a pejorative
3) It defangs an effective piece of progressive rhetoric
Pejorative - CONSPIRACY THEORIST has insane negative connotations (think AJ/Infowars/Truthers), it's sticky, nasty rhetoric
Defanging - The left hasn't redefined "conspiracy theory"; it can be turned back on them
Accusations of DOUBLE STANDARDS and HYPOCRISY are:
1) mundane - no one is perfectly consistent in their views
2) isolated - one instance of hypocrisy doesn't prove a narrative
3) whiny - they just are, it's loser-talk
1) novel - the left is used to owning the word "privilege," it catches attention
2) systematic - instances of hypocrisy feed into a broader narrative
3) high ground maneuver - you are positioned against inequality generally