As with most things, the choice is more difficult than either giving up and accepting a new, more lax definition, or "righteously" rejecting it. That process requires an application of judgment. In this case, my judgment says that it's an unnecessary cheapening of a psychological term, and that pointing out its origins might help people understand why.

Simply giving up on definitions means always ceding power.

It's not giving up so much as accepting that there's theater in chastising linguistic drift. Telling strangers they shouldn't use a newer, ironic form of a word is as hopeless as The Very Smart Guy raging at people over "literally" not being literal.

The entire world is participating in shaping English and we have no Académie Française equivalent. Sometimes the changes are unflattering.

That said, I do appreciate your points and see your intention with empathy about this word in particular.

I don't think that the fact that there _is_ theater renders the underlying struggle worthless, though. Words have meanings, and in the case of law, quite serious repercussions - eg. corporate personhood.

It's not so much "you shouldn't use that word in that manner because of some linguistic pedantry" but "you shouldn't use that word because the externalities of doing so have outsized effects on certain people," or for the self-centered and machiavellian, "you make yourself look bad when you use it such."

As you say, it is a matter of empathy. The N-word has been around for a while - it's still not acceptable for certain people to say it[0]. As for why, that's a matter of education, and it begins with pointing it out.

[0]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QO15S3WC9pg