Absolutely agree about the use of language. Once the issue is framed it hard to reframe. So taking the initiative with language is vital to shaping the thought, if not of the interlocutor, at least of the witnesses to the discussion. So here are a few humble suggestions:
fascist mind meld; social justice borg; collectivist thought police; socialist barbarian; leftist leech; monolithic diversity; elitist tolerance; self styled aristocrat; purveyor of failure; dispenser of poverty; inventor of faux facts; font of lies; hater of culture; cornucopia of misery; enemy of good (love, joy, truth, etc.); champion of the inane; whine privilege; envy elite; lover of slavery; architect of confusion; never saw an opportunity he didn’t rejoice to blame someone else for taking; and so on. In any discussion it would be important to make the accusation FIRST as any riposte comes off as weaker. So for example if you are pretty sure that white privilege will be thrown your way, circle inside their OODA loop and accuse them of white envy, or of hating whites. Hell, if they don’t like the fact that we broke quite a few eggs (mostly our own) to make Western Civ they can give us back our cars, air conditioners and washing machines and see how they get along without these symbols of phoney oppression. “Check your privilege!” I say, “Kiss my privilege.” Slaps his rump.