I tend to think that the difference between the nihilist’s meaning and another person’s meaning is that the nihilist’s meaning is unique to him. There is no reason to believe that it applies to anyone else or that it has any merit aside from his own thoughts about it. Others believe that the meaning transcends their thoughts or even their existence.
Who says ideals have to be lofty sky ideals just because they are adopted.
That’s like thinking, because I follow someone, it must be stupid or bad that I follow someone.
Somebody has good ideas which I confirm with my own judgement but I can’t follow them because I’m no sheep, man.
Ressentiment written all over you…
And btw., just because you think it’s stupid or wrong that people are usually fine with adopting ideals, doesn’t make it any less real.
The word nihilist was used by Friedrich Heinrich Jacobi to criticise people whose arguments did not rest on faith, but not any kind of faith.
Jacobi argued that that there is a ‘things-in-itself’, so he believed in constructs, objects of the mind, which exist independent of the thinker. Plato.
And if you did not believe and argue in this way then he would reduce your argumentation to nil. In that way he was like the predecessor of those ‘everything is a social construct’ body snatchers at universities.
Anyway, those self-described nihilists accept that premise and are now attacking all kinds of faiths with the same argumentation as was used against them by Jacobi. But of course they are not sheep, no no… they only accepted the premises of their adversary and are now declaring themselves to be proud of their ‘nihilism’.
Bottomline, it’s a stupid dichotomy, because Jacobi and those nihilists made the argument about faith being based on words. Very biblical of them - ‘first came the word’, the thing-in-itself. One could say, the words are now divine, the origin of everything.
And this is why nihilists are nothing but inverted actual objectivists - they operate under the assumption that the objectivist’s premises about reality are true.
Has it occurred to you yet that the feedback loops that affirm the imago, the consequential, definition of things and identity in you are not synchronized unconsciously in you… in other words your personality type isn’t where “meaning” is ended, but rather you process an aspect of it, during it’s genesis, the final product of which your largely unaware of, but quite accepting of as a stopping point to your “logical conclusions”, because it just sorta works out the exact same fucking way in the end for you as those seeming less clueless fucks you denigrate? Your not aware of it consciously, but you use the product none the less. Your not propelled merely by utilitarian formulas, or hedonistic acceptance… your quite the teleological creature in your anti-teleology
Think about it… in terms of specialized feedback loops in the mind… how can there be several forms of nihilism? You’ve listed several… and related forms of non-nihilism (there isn’t even such thing as nihilism in the brain, no dedicated region… it is a web of effects, largely mislabeled).
I bet you still haven’t gotten why I had to quit your site. You contradict yourself ironically… most ironically, you may be the most ironic person in existence…, which is funny in your context of anti-meaning, anti-teleology. It is impossible for a ironic person to be one dimensional, but dammit, you come real close to it. And you never seem to get it… at times I think your on the cusp of it… almost there… just about… and nothing… more contradiction.
Just get it. Why can’t you get it? Just get it already.
And no, I won’t explain it. You just gotta get it.
How Freudian holdouts like you still view the mind. Note the absence of the Super-Ego. Defunct system, but you still closely align to it, insist language and meaning must follow it’s dictates, as the Imago is divorced from meaning mnemonically, it is something we must do, not as it is.
And yes, despite your objections, your quite Freudian.
Yes, you fucking are. Oh shut up, listen to yourself, you are too, that is exactly how a Freudian would deny it. Oh yeah, I can cross my arms and disregard you too. Look at me “What-evvvvver, huuum hum”.
Freudian.
Now you’re just nitpicking to the extreme and as for purpose or meaning it has everything to do with the word essence.
A cat is a real physical being whereas an idea mental construct isn’t and we can see this slot when ideals are enforced failing miserably when reality intervenes upon their error like existence.
Your question is absurd and redundant really.
Are you going to explain nihilism or not?
You’re just here instigating where you’re not interesting in dialogue, learning, or understanding whatsoever.
There’s nothing to transcend towards. All individuals are unique in terms of their own existence or experiences and this goes with their own thoughts also.
You don’t understand the question because you don’t understand how your mind works.
Oh, really? 
Please explain.
You seem to be incapable of thinking about or analyzing anything. Your thoughts are completely superficial.
Post some pics. That’s what you do best.
This is the more traditional wide spread use of nihilism and its meaning when people think of it as “evil”, as taken from Meriam Webster. This differs greatly from the wikipedia page from the OP
nihilismplay
noun ni·hil·ism \ˈnī-(h)ə-ˌli-zəm, ˈnē-
Popularity: Top 1% of lookups
Simple Definition of nihilism
: the belief that traditional morals, ideas, beliefs, etc., have no worth or value
: the belief that a society’s political and social institutions are so bad that they should be destroyed
Source: Merriam-Webster’s Learner’s Dictionary
Full Definition of nihilism
1
a : a viewpoint that traditional values and beliefs are unfounded and that existence is senseless and useless
b : a doctrine that denies any objective ground of truth and especially of moral truths
2
a : a doctrine or belief that conditions in the social organization are so bad as to make destruction desirable for its own sake independent of any constructive program or possibility
b capitalized : the program of a 19th century Russian party advocating revolutionary reform and using terrorism and assassination
I am accountable for everything that I have ever said or done my entire adult life and have no problem with it either
Lack of accountability has actually got nothing at all to do with nihilism which is why your definition is entirely false
Sure, a nihilist can choose to be accountable for himself. But there is no reason for any other nihilist to be accountable or to be consistently accountable. And it makes no sense for nihilists to whine about the lack of accountability in others.
A nihilist complaining about authoritarian governments is particularly amusing. 
How does one even begin to reply to such gobbledygook?
This coming from somebody that doesn’t take anything seriously.
Yes, I actually do like the writings of Sigmund Freud believe it or not.
So far nobody has been able to properly produce a rebuttal of Freud’s works.
I post pictures and illustrations to make philosophy more interesting, fun, and entertaining unlike the same old boring regurgitating dullards such as yourself.
I would argue accountability is a moral cultural invention.