No, I agree completely.
When you use a label, you basically activate the connotations and norms of that label.
For example, you call someone an expert because you want to activate the connotations of experts (knowledgeable; specialised; authority) and norms of experts (we should defer to them; we should listen to them)
So the word is basically a tool to get people to behave and think in certain ways.
Many people strive for accuracy and objectivity. Those are words generally indicating that they try to apply terms based on observable criteria which don't change whether they like or don't like the result. That's very different from people using words only as tools to change behavior as it suits them.
I'm of the former type. For example, I might at a stretch describe Brianna Wu as... possibly an expert on living as a transsexual. Okay, to be fair, I struggled to think of her as an expert on anything - but few people are living as transsexuals, so her experience is at least deeper than the average person's.
And I would not describe Milo as an expert on ISIS, because I haven't seen deep and specialised knowledge from him about ISIS.
For someone who uses words just as instruments to change behavior, they would basically call these as they find it useful. They could describe Brianna Wu as having no knowledge of living as a transsexual, and if they know Milo will say something about ISIS they like, they could describe him as an expert academic on ISIS.
Now, people won't swallow any claim - you risk embarassment if you assert something that is obviously and unarguably false in almost everyone's mind, like "this car is blue" when it's a strong red. So you use terms without those clear distinctions that can be fact checked.
So "Brianna Wu has never lived as a transsexual" probably wouldn't fly as it's obviously false in nearly everyone's minds - but it could be said "Brianna Wu has zero understanding of living as a transsexual" if you wanted to attack her trans-legitimacy. What does that mean? Beats me, you but if you want to paint her as a somehow fake transsexual, you can.
So you will find that SJWs overwhelmingly use terms which have no clear definitions or are clearly falsifiable - that limits them. Once you remove falsification, it becomes about volume. And once it's about volume, you can create whatever reality you want.
And a key part is that terms which lack falsifiability still create almost as strong feelings as terms which are falsifiable. So it's 90% of the benefit, with 10% of the risk.
If you say "Bob is a pedophile"... well, not all terms can legitimately be verified easily based on externally observable criteria, and we even need those that aren't. Pedophile is based on feelings. But it's still in the borderline of verifiability if we choose to only apply it when there's clear statements to that effect. So if you say "Bob's a pedophile based on his statements where he describes his attraction to children", that's mostly falsifiable. If you say "Adam defends Bob despite Bob being a pedophile" that's somewhat falsifiable as well - "Defends" is a less clearly defined term, but we can use an inner standard of objectivity for it.
But if you had a poorer basis, you could talk about "Bob's connection with pedophilia", and you could argue for a connection based on e.g. posting on 4chan - there is a forum where there's an incredible number of posts, and occasionally a miniscule number of CP is posted which is immediately removed (I read 4chan occasionally but have still literally never seen CP there) - but it's harder to refute a "connection". And you get 90% of the gain of "Bob is a pedophile" by writing "Bob's connections to pedophilia", and you avoid the risk of people demanding actual clear examples.
If you search for quotes about "truth", you will find a lot of highly esteemed people praising it. This is a key thing to convince me that SJW ideology isn't the norm. But what does loving truth really mean?
I think it actually means loving that there is a description that stands up to critical scrutiny, which people can gather around and check for themselves - that someone who loves truth is someone who loves descriptions that can be verified or falsified. It's hence linked to attempting to divorce your use of labels from your feelings.