It seems like you have a strong personal connection to nihilism and were offended by the book's negative framing of it, so you're redefining the term to align with your worldview. While your distinction between intrinsic and subjective meaning is valid, nihilism, at its core, does reject intrinsic value, purpose, and morality. The empowerment you describe comes from moving beyond nihilism, something existentialists like Nietzsche and Camus explored, not from nihilism itself. Isn't it worth considering that Svetski’s critique isn’t about misunderstanding nihilism but about its potential dangers when it leads to apathy or despair? Instead of redefining the term, why not engage with why others might view it negatively? That could lead to a more nuanced discussion.