I talk to and engage honestly with people. It sounds trite when I write it, but that is really it. People have a particular image of what an anarchist might be, and while I am, at least initially, a lot like what most folks assume an anarchist in N. America looks like (white, male, etc), I am also above the assumed median age of anarchists in N. America, and I can talk about my beliefs and actions without falling in to hyperbole (maybe it is more honest to say without always falling in to hyperbole). That said, I don't try very hard to make people think anarchy isn't about chaos and window breaking.
Engaging with your question on a deeper level Syrphant, I don't try to dissuade people of the idea that anarchy might mean chaos - it likely will, and that is fine. anarchy (a world without the state, capitalism, and other institutions that have traditionally kept us all somewhat in line through their own use of violence and domination) is likely to be a bit hectic. People will still be raped, murders will occur. I am too honest to believe that language will break down entirely, but it might perhaps become less static. I am fine with all this, and I am entirely honest with people I talk to about that fact that I am fine with all of this.
To the window-breaking piece: if someone finds this website, they are probably already familiar with the trope of the anarchist as a window smasher, so I will make the assumption that I don't need to elaborate on where that came from. Often anarchists from the left side of the big tent worry about how to present our politics as more than angry masked up (young, white, male...) hooligans trashing shit. I feel absolutely no need to dispossess people of the idea that property destruction and violent confrontation are part of anarchist praxis. Attack is a relatively central part of my conception of anarchy, and while I am less and less directly involved in those moments of direct and explosive confrontations the more I age, I have absolutely no desire to construct arguments about the beautiful idea that create a false dichotomy between the building and the destroying. If pressed, I would argue that I personally value the destroying side of the equation more heavily than the building side.